The Routledge Handbook of Content and Language Integrated Learning [1 ed.] 9781003173151

Citation preview

i

THE ROUTLEDGE HANDBOOK OF CONTENT AND LANGUAGE INTEGRATED LEARNING

Content and language integrated learning (CLIL) is an increasingly popular educational approach given its dual focus on enabling learners to acquire subject-​m atter through an additional language, while learning this second language in tandem with content. This Handbook provides a comprehensive overview of recent CLIL developments, illustrating how CLIL has been uniquely conceptualised and practised across educational and geographical contexts. Divided into six sections, covering language and language teaching, core topics and issues, contexts and learners, CLIL in practice, CLIL around the world, and a final section looking forward to future research directions, every chapter provides a balanced discussion of the benefits, challenges and implications of this approach. Representing the same diversity and intercultural understanding that CLIL features, the chapters are authored by established as well as early-​career academics based around the world. The Routledge Handbook of Content and Language Integrated Learning is the essential guide to CLIL for advanced students and researchers of applied linguistics, education and TESOL. Darío Luis Banegas is Lecturer in Language Education at the University of Edinburgh. He is involved in teacher associations in Latin America and Europe. He is a fellow of the Higher Education Academy and an associate fellow with the University of Warwick. His main research and teaching interests are CLIL, action research, social justice, and initial language teacher education. He has edited volumes with Bloomsbury, Multilingual Matters, and Palgrave on different aspects of language education. Sandra Zappa-​Hollman is Associate Professor in the Faculty of Education at the University of British Columbia, Canada, and Director of Academic English at UBC’s Vantage College. Her research examines processes of language and literacy socialisation of multilingual English language post-​secondary students, including the perspectives of faculty members working with diverse student populations. Her work also aims to shed light on questions and issues concerning curricular and pedagogical approaches that support culturally and linguistically responsive teaching.

ii

Consulting Editor: Graham Hall Routledge Handbooks in Applied Linguistics Routledge Handbooks in Applied Linguistics provide comprehensive overviews of the key topics in applied linguistics. All entries for the handbooks are specially commissioned and written by leading scholars in the field. Clear, accessible and carefully edited, Routledge Handbooks in Applied Linguistics are the ideal resource for both advanced undergraduates and postgraduate students. The Routledge Handbook of the Psychology of Language Learning and Teaching Edited by Tammy Gregersen and Sarah Mercer The Routledge Handbook of Language Testing Second Edition Edited by Glenn Fulcher and Luke Harding The Routledge Handbook of Corpus Linguistics Second Edition Edited by Anne O’Keeffe and Michael J. McCarthy The Routledge Handbook of Materials Development for Language Teaching Edited by Julie Norton and Heather Buchanan The Routledge Handbook of Corpora and English Language Teaching and Learning Edited by Reka R. Jablonkai and Eniko Csomay The Routledge Handbook of Language and the Global South Edited by Sinfree Makoni, Anna Kaiper-​Marquez, and Lorato Mokwena The Routledge Handbook of Discourse Analysis Second Edition Edited by Michael Handford and James Paul Gee The Routledge Handbook of Content and Language Integrated Learning Edited by Darío Luis Banegas and Sandra Zappa-​Hollman The Routledge Handbook of Applied Linguistics Volume 1 Language learning and language education, Second Edition Edited by Li Wei, Zhu Hua, and James Simpson The Routledge Handbook of Applied Linguistics Volume 2 Applied linguistics in action, Second Edition Edited by Li Wei, Zhu Hua, and James Simpson For a full list of titles in this series, please visit www.routle​d ge.com/​ser​ies/​R HAL

iii

THE ROUTLEDGE HANDBOOK OF CONTENT AND LANGUAGE INTEGRATED LEARNING

Edited by Darío Luis Banegas and Sandra Zappa-​Hollman

iv

Designed cover image: @ Getty Images | akiyoko First published 2024 by Routledge 4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2024 selection and editorial matter, Darío Luis Banegas and Sandra Zappa-​Hollman; individual chapters, the contributors The right of Darío Luis Banegas and Sandra Zappa-​Hollman to be identified as the authors of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-​in-​Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN: 978-​1-​032-​0 0195-​1 (hbk) ISBN: 978-​1-​032-​0 0196-​8 (pbk) ISBN: 978-​1-​0 03-​17315-​1 (ebk) DOI: 10.4324/​9781003173151 Typeset in Bembo by Newgen Publishing UK Access the Support Material: www.routle​d ge.com/​978103​2 001​951

v

CONTENTS

List of figures  List of tables  List of contributors  Acknowledgments 

ix x xi xxii

Introduction  Darío Luis Banegas and Sandra Zappa-​Hollman PART I

Language and language teaching in CLIL 

1

9

1 CLIL and linguistics  Ana Llinares

11

2 Translanguaging in CLIL  Pat Moore

28

3 CLIL and language teaching approaches  Raul Albuquerque Paraná, Sávio Siqueira, and Julia Landau

43

4 CLIL and English for specific purposes  Gabriela Tavella and María Soledad Loutayf

57

5 CLIL and English-​medium instruction  Joyce Kling and Slobodanka Dimova

69

6 Epistemological and methodological trends in CLIL research  José Goris

84

v

Contents PART II

Core topics and issues 

97

7 CLIL and educational policy  Yolanda Ruiz de Zarobe

99

8 L2 proficiency and development in CLIL  Christiane Dalton-​Puffer and Silvia Bauer-​Marschallinger

112

9 Cognitive development in CLIL  Alberto Fernández-​Costales

127

10 Intercultural citizenship as CLIL in foreign language education  Melina Porto

141

11 CLIL and professional development  Limin Yuan and Yuen Yi Lo

160

12 Collaboration between CLIL teachers  Josephine Moate

177

PART III

Contexts and learners 

193

13 CLIL with heritage languages  Joanna McPake

195

14 CLIL with languages other than English  Kim Bower

210

15 Doing CLIL with primary learners: From principles to practice  Fabiana Fazzi and Marcella Menegale

225

16 CLIL with secondary school learners  Veronico N. Tarrayo and Philippe Jose S. Hernandez

238

PART IV

CLIL in practice 

253

17 Teachers’ perceptions, beliefs, and attitudes on CLIL  Jermaine S. McDougald

255

vi

Contents

18 The learner’s perspective on CLIL: Attitudes, motivations, and perceptions  Xabier San Isidro and María Luisa Pérez Cañado

268

19 Instructional scaffolding in CLIL: An overview of theory and research  284 Karina Rose Mahan 20 Classroom interaction in CLIL  Dongying Li

299

21 CLIL challenges in designing learning experiences  Liz Dale and Tessa Mearns

313

22 CLIL materials: From theory to practice  Laura Karabassova and Nurziya Oralbayeva

328

23 Corrective feedback in CLIL  Ruth Milla and María del Pilar García Mayo

341

24 Assessment in CLIL  Takanori Sato

355

PART V

CLIL around the world 

371

25 CLIL in various forms around the world  Liss Kerstin Sylvén and Keiko Tsuchiya

373

26 CLIL in the Nordic countries  Sotiria Varis and Anssi Roiha

387

27 CLIL in the Netherlands: Three decades of innovation and development  Tessa Mearns, Evelyn van Kampen, and Wilfried Admiraal

403

28 CLIL in Italy  Jacqueline Aiello and Emilia Di Martino

419

29 CLIL in Ecuador  Juanita Argudo-Serrano, Tammy Fajardo-​Dack, and Mónica Abad-Célleri

433

30 CLIL in Colombia  Kathleen A. Corrales and Paige M. Poole

446

vii

Contents

31 The CLIL experience in Cameroon  Innocent Mbouya Fassé and Alain Flaubert Takam

461

32 Current practice and research of CLIL in Japan  Chantal Hemmi

475

33 CLIL in Taiwan  Wenhsien Yang

489

PART VI

Looking forward 

505

34 CLIL: Critical perspectives  Bong-​gi Sohn

507

35 CLIL: Future directions  Tom Morton

521

36 Coda: Carpe diem  Do Coyle

536

Index 

542

viii

ix

FIGURES

1.1 1.2 1.3 2.1 5.1 5.2 10.1 10.2 10.3 12.1 24.1

Network system for the analysis of definitions in CLIL  Interactional layer for the analysis of speech functions in CLIL  SFL theory, research variables, and pedagogical applications  Ting’s CLC quadrant  EMI framework  CLIL dimensions in EMI contexts  Collaborative mural  Civic engagement  Collaborative mural and civic action  Continuum of collaboration approaches based on proximity  Blank table to elicit students’ knowledge of the difference between EFL and ELF  25.1 The CLIL continuum  27.1 Overview of Dutch education system, including bilingual streams; figures as of October 2021 

ix

16 17 24 37 71 76 150 153 154 180 363 381 404

x

TABLES

1.1 Example of a CLIL student’s development of the period study genre  10.1 Forms of civic engagement  14.1 Summary of developing strands in bilingual education in Australia and the UK  15.1 Example of experience-​based task progression following the CLIL Matrix  15.2 Example of task progression in relation to the stages of child development  15.3 Example of story-​based task progression following the CLIL Matrix  18.1 Studies canvassed on student perspectives  24.1 Claims in an AUA and relevant questions  24.2 Assessment instruments and tasks used by empirical studies  24.3 Scaffolding techniques for helping students demonstrate content knowledge  24.4 Task characteristics of a frequently used task in my class  24.5 Three assessment approaches  26.1 Search terms used in literature search  26.2 Inclusion and exclusion criteria  30.1 Summary of levels of Colombian educational system  30.2 Summary of implementation articles  31.1 Distribution of classes in Cameroon’s secondary general educational subsystems  31.2 Components of the SBEP in Cameroon 

x

18 146 213 229 230 231 271 357 359 362 366 367 388 389 447 450 463 466

xi

CONTRIBUTORS

Mónica Abad-Célleri has a bachelor’s degree in English teaching from Universidad del Azuay and a master’s degree in English language and applied linguistics from Universidad de Cuenca, both in Ecuador. She has a PhD in Education from Universidad Nacional de la Plata, Argentina. She is also a professor in the teacher-​training programme at Universidad de Cuenca. Her research areas of interest are CLIL for pre-​service teachers and pronunciation and identity. Wilfried Admiraal is Full Professor of Technology-​Enhanced Teaching and Learning at the Centre for the Study of Professions of Oslo Metropolitan University, Oslo, Norway. His research interest combines the areas of teaching, technology, and social psychology in secondary and higher education, covering topics such as learner and teacher engagement, teacher–​learner relationships and learner sense of belonging. More information on projects and publications on his personal homepage: https://​sites.goo​g le.com/​site/​w ilfr ​ieda​d mir​a al/​. Jacqueline Aiello is an Assistant Professor at the University of Salerno. She earned her doctorate from New York University. She is the author of Negotiating Englishes and English-​ speaking Identities (Routledge, 2018), for which she was awarded the 2019 AIA Junior Book Prize, and of The Discursive Construction of the Modern Political Self (Routledge, 2022). Raul Albuquerque Paraná is a pedagogic coordinator and educational consultant with Edify Education. He also serves as a guest professor in various postgraduate programmes in Brazil and collaborates with the Máster Interuniversitario en Enseñanza Bilingüe y Aprendizaje Integrado de Contenidos y Lenguas Extranjeras and the Online Masters in English Studies from the University of Jaén, Spain. He holds an MA from the University of Jyväskylä, Finland, and a BA from the Federal University of Bahia, Brazil. He focuses on CLIL-​based education and is particularly interested in stakeholder perspectives, especially as they relate to CLIL conceptualisation, curriculum development, and equity. Juanita Argudo-Serrano has a bachelor’s degree in English teaching from Universidad del Azuay and a master’s degree in English language and applied linguistics from Universidad de Cuenca, both in Ecuador. She holds a doctorate in education from Universidad Nacional

xi

List of contributors

de la Plata, Argentina. She is a professor in the teacher-​training programme at Universidad de Cuenca. Her research areas of interest are in-​service and pre-​service teachers’ development and language evaluation. Darío Luis Banegas is Lecturer in Language Education at the University of Edinburgh. He is involved in teacher associations in Latin America and Europe. He is a fellow of the Higher Education Academy and an associate fellow with the University of Warwick. His main research and teaching interests are CLIL, action research, social justice, and initial language teacher education. He has edited volumes with Bloomsbury, Multilingual Matters, and Palgrave on different aspects of language education. Silvia Bauer-​Marschallinger is Lecturer in English language teaching at the KPH Vienna/​ Krems and the University of Vienna, training pre-​service primary and secondary teachers. Previously, she was a research fellow at the University of Vienna, where she was working on her PhD project, which addressed the issue of content and language integration in secondary history CLIL settings. Originally a teacher of English and history, her research interests include CLIL, language-​aware history didactics, as well as language teaching and learning at primary and secondary level. Kim Bower holds a Chair in Innovation in Languages Education at Sheffield Hallam University and is President of the Association for Language Learning. She is a Principal Fellow of the Higher Education Academy and received a National Teaching Fellowship for her leadership of curriculum innovation in language and teacher education. An experienced researcher in these fields, Kim leads an international network for CLIL in Anglophone countries. Her research focuses on bilingual education and motivation. Recent publications include Curriculum Integrated Language Teaching: CLIL in Practice (Cambridge University Press, 2020). Kathleen A. Corrales is an assistant professor, researcher, and the Academic Coordinator of the Instituto de Idiomas at the Universidad del Norte, Colombia. She is an interdisciplinary scholar whose interests lie in the intersection of language teaching and learning, CLIL, internationalisation, development of international and intercultural competences, and global business communication. She has participated in research projects and has published articles and chapters in these areas. Do Coyle is Chair in Language(s) Education and Classroom Pedagogies at the University of Edinburgh. She has worked tirelessly in the field of plurilingual education with governments and professional agencies but especially with CLIL teachers and learners across the world to co-​construct critical plurilingual pedagogies that inspire principled, dynamic, and inclusive practices. Do’s more recent work with the Graz Group has developed a Pluriliteracies approach to Teaching for Deeper Learning (PTDL) that explores ways of developing pluriliteracies across languages and cultures for all learners. Do heads the Scottish Alliance –​a forum reconceptualising innovative ‘learning spaces’ that promote inclusive learning design where physical, social, and cognitive spaces meet. Liz Dale is a senior lecturer and teacher educator for secondary and vocational education English and CLIL teachers. She is based in the Department of English at the Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences. Her recent research interests, carried out at the AUAS Centre xii

List of contributors

for Applied Research in Education, include the pedagogical and collaborative practices of language teachers in CLIL contexts and enhancing students in vocational education’s use of their full plurilingual repertoire in their studies and future profession. Liz is the author of several teaching handbooks for CLIL. She is also a CLIL consultant and regularly chairs audit panels for the accreditation of bilingual schools in the Netherlands. Christiane Dalton-​Puffer is Professor of English Linguistics at the University of Vienna and one of the leading researchers internationally on content and language integrated learning. She is the author of Discourse in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) Classrooms (Benjamins, 2007), has edited books and journal issues on CLIL research, and has authored numerous articles in international journals. Her current research focuses on how teachers and students use language to express subject content and work towards curricular learning goals of specialist subjects. Emilia Di Martino (Università Suor Orsola Benincasa) qualified for full professorship in English Language and Translation in 2019 and for Educational Linguistics in 2022. She is interested in a wide variety of topics, focusing on the nexus between identity, language, and power. Among her publications are Celebrity Accents and Public Identity construction (Routledge, 2019) and Indexing ‘Chav’ on Social Media (Palgrave Macmillan, 2022). Slobodanka Dimova is an associate professor at the University of Copenhagen. Her research interests include language testing, English-​medium instruction (EMI), and L2 speaking production. Her work appears in TESOL Quarterly, Language Testing, English for Specific Purposes, Journal of English-​Medium Instruction, and World Englishes. Tammy Fajardo-​Dack has a bachelor’s degree in English teaching from Universidad del Azuay and a master’s degree in English language and applied linguistics from Universidad de Cuenca, both in Ecuador. She is a PhD in Language and Literacies Education from the University of Toronto. She is also a professor in the teacher-​training programme at Universidad de Cuenca. Her research areas of interest are CLIL for pre-​service teachers, teacher research in university education, communities of practice as a space for teacher professional development, and social theories of learning. Innocent Mbouya Fassé is Associate Professor at the University of Douala. He is an applied sociolinguist and language educator whose scientific areas of interest include individual and societal bi-​multilingualism issues, bi-​multilingual education, foreign language education, including general pedagogic and didactic issues. He currently heads the Science of Education laboratory of ENSET Douala and the Translation Unit of the University of Douala. His research societies affiliations include RAIFFET, ACETELACH, and WAACLALS. He totals to his credit a dozen scientific articles, one book co-​authored, scores of master’s degrees dissertations supervised, and close to ten PhD candidates he is (co-​)supervising. He is also an international academic mobility consultant. Fabiana Fazzi is a postdoctoral researcher at the Department of Linguistics and Comparative Cultural Studies at Ca’ Foscari University of Venice (Italy) and Adjunct Professor of English language and teaching in early years at the University of Bologna (Italy). Her main areas of interest include content and language integrated learning (CLIL), language learning beyond the classroom, multiliteracy and multimodal skills in the language classroom, teaching and xiii

List of contributors

learning global issues in the language classroom, and teacher professional development. Her publications include several articles on CLIL in and beyond the classroom and on primary and secondary teachers’ perceptions of content and language integration and pedagogical translanguaging in bilingual schools worldwide. Alberto Fernández-​Costales is Associate Professor in TESOL at the University of Oviedo (Spain). Among others, his research interests include content and language integrated learning, English-​medium instruction, language attitudes, language teaching methodology, and didactic audiovisual translation. He serves as an associate editor of two international journals: Perspectives: Studies in Translation Theory and Practice, published by Taylor and Francis, and Porta Linguarum, published by the University of Granada. María del Pilar García Mayo is Full Professor of English Language and Linguistics at the University of the Basque Country. She has published widely on the L2/​L3 acquisition of English morphosyntax and the study of conversational interaction in English as a foreign language. She has been an invited speaker to universities in Europe, Asia, and North America and is an honorary consultant for the Shanghai Center for Research in English Language Education. Professor García Mayo is the director of the research group Language and Speech and the MA programme Language Acquisition in Multilingual Settings. She is the editor of Language Teaching Research and belongs to the editorial board of numerous journals, including Language Teaching for Young Learners. José Goris studied educational sciences and English language and literature. She has been involved in teaching English as a Foreign Language at secondary schools and language institutes in the Netherlands. In 2019 she obtained a doctorate from Radboud University Nijmegen, Netherlands, for her study of divergent approaches to CLIL implementation and effects on target language learning in various European countries. Her research interests include sociolinguistic perspectives on the teaching of English as an international language, and good practice in content-​based language teaching. At present she conducts research into CLIL learner profiles and the effects of CLIL education in later life. Chantal Hemmi is Professor at the Center for Language Education and Research (CLER) at Sophia University. She worked for the British Council, Tokyo for 18 years, first as a teacher, trainer, and as Academic Director. She took the post at Sophia University in 2013 where she has been involved in the development of EAP, CLIL, and EMI courses at CLER. Her recent research interests are in critical thinking in CLIL classrooms. She is presently creating CLIL projects for the social inclusion of the unique international presence of children who lived abroad and are now living in Japan. Philippe Jose S. Hernandez is an English language teacher in the University of Santo Tomas (UST), Manila, the Philippines, where he supervises pre-​service teachers at the College of Education and the university’s laboratory high school. His research interests include English language teachers’ research experiences and pre-​service training. As a university administrator, he leads UST’s Communications Bureau as its Director. Laura Karabassova gained her MA in Educational Leadership at the University of Warwick and PhD at Nazarbayev University Graduate School of Education. Her research spans both secondary school and higher education levels in Kazakhstan with a focus on trilingualism xiv

List of contributors

and content and language integrated learning. Laura has extensive experience in the implementation of trilingual education in Kazakhstan as she has worked as a trilingual education specialist, ministry task force member, in-​service teacher professional development programme administrator, CLIL trainer, researcher and university leader. Laura has published papers, books, and book chapters on issues related to trilingual education policy and practice. Joyce Kling is a Senior Lecturer at Lund University. She publishes in the areas of English-​ medium instruction, teacher cognition, the international classroom, and language testing. Her work appears in TESOL Quarterly, Journal of English-​Medium Instruction, as well as several edited volumes and monographs. Julia Landau holds an MA in Language and Culture from the Federal University of Bahia (UFBA) and is a bilingual programme coordinator at the elementary school level. She focuses on CLIL-​based education, the role of first language in second language acquisition, translingual practices, and critical perspectives in language education. Dongying Li is currently Assistant Professor in the School of Foreign Languages and Cultures in Nanjing Normal University. Her research interests include second language writing and second language pedagogy. Ana Llinares is Full Professor in the English department at the Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Spain. She teaches second language acquisition and content and language integrated learning (CLIL), both at undergraduate and postgraduate levels. She coordinates the UAM-​ CLIL research group (www.uam-​clil.org) and has published widely on CLIL at primary and secondary school levels, mainly applying systemic functional linguistic models. She has co-​ authored the book The Roles of Language in CLIL (Cambridge University Press, 2012) and has co-​edited the volume Applied Linguistics Perspectives on CLIL ( John Benjamins 2017). She has recently co-​edited the special issue Systemic Functional Linguistics: A Social-​semiotic Approach to Content and Language Integrated Learning in Bilingual/​Multilingual Education in the International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. Yuen Yi Lo is Associate Professor at the Faculty of Education, University of Hong Kong. Her research interests include bilingual education, medium of instruction policy, professional development of teachers in content and language integrated learning (CLIL) and issues related to CLIL assessment. She has recently published Professional Development of CLIL Teachers (Springer, 2020). María Soledad Loutayf is a teacher of English (Universidad Nacional de Tucuman, Argentina) and a sworn public translator (Universidad Católica de Salta, UCASal, Argentina). She holds a master’s in Applied Linguistics from Universidad de Jaén, Spain, 2010, and a master’s degree in Teaching English from the University of Warwick, UK (Hornby Scholar). She is a Fulbright scholar who participated in the Distinguished Fulbright Award for Teachers programme in 2012, USA. She is a member of research groups at UCASal, Universidad Nacional de Salta (UNSa), and Universidad Nacional de la Plata. She is an associate professor at UCASal and lecturer at UNSa. Her areas of research include: English for specific/​academic purposes, intercultural education, digital literacy, 21st-​century skills, and criticality. She has participated in seminars and conferences in Argentina and abroad. xv

List of contributors

Karina Rose Mahan (PhD) is an Associate Professor of Teaching English as a Second Language at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU). Her current areas of research are CLIL, second language acquisition, scaffolding, observation, and mixed methods. She is currently leader of the research group Multidisciplinary Educational Research, based at NTNU. Jermaine S. McDougald is Director of ELT Business Development at the International Center of Foreign Languages & Cultures, Universidad de La Sabana (Bogotá, Colombia), and is currently, the Liaison Officer and Co-​Founder for TESOL Colombia. His research interest includes CLIL, teacher development, and bilingual and international education. He is a member of the research group LALETUS –​Language Learning and Teaching, Universidad de La Sabana. Joanna McPake is Reader in Education at the University of Strathclyde. Her research focuses on the learning and teaching of heritage languages. Tessa Mearns began her CLIL career as a modern languages teacher in the UK, before moving into bilingual secondary education in the Netherlands. She is now a lecturer and teacher educator in the World Teachers Programme (WTP) at ICLON Leiden University Graduate School of Teaching. The WTP is a specialised bilingual track of the pre-​service secondary Teaching Master aimed at nurturing linguistically and culturally aware teaching for bilingual and international education. Tessa’s research and teaching interests include learner perspectives in bilingual education, subject-​specific approaches to CLIL, teacher professional development, and equity, diversity, and inclusion in (teacher) education. She regularly chairs audit panels for the accreditation of bilingual schools, and is actively involved in organising CLIL events in the Netherlands and internationally. Marcella Menegale works as a researcher in Educational Linguistics at the Department of Linguistics and Comparative Cultural Studies at Ca’ Foscari University of Venice (Italy), where she teaches courses in foreign/​second language learning and teaching. She directs the Laboratory of Foreign language teaching. Her main areas of interest are plurilingualism, content and language integrated learning, intercomprehension among related languages, and learner and teacher autonomy, topics on which she has published two monographs, several papers and book chapters. Her current projects include investigations on language teacher wellbeing and on multiliteracy-​based approaches to language learning and teaching. Ruth Milla is Assistant Professor at the Faculty of Education of Bilbao (University of the Basque Country), where she teaches undergraduate courses on foreign language and CLIL teaching and participates in innovative educational projects. She belongs to the research group Language and Speech and the results from her investigations have been presented at international conferences and published in prestigious journals such as System, IJES, ISLA, and VIAL and publishing houses such as Cambridge University Press and Multilingual Matters. Her research interests are oral and written corrective feedback, focus on form in foreign language classrooms, CLIL, teachers’ and learners’ beliefs, and teacher training. Josephine Moate is Senior Lecturer in Bilingual and Multilingual Pedagogy and Docent in the Language of Education based at the Department of Teacher Education, University

xvi

List of contributors

of Jyväskylä, Finland. Before moving to Finland Josephine qualified as a subject teacher of English and Religious Education and over her 25 years in Finland Josephine has taught in primary schools, high school and community colleges, adult and tertiary education. Josephine’s research interests and publications address pre-​and in-​service teacher development, the role of language and culture in education, theorisations and modes of education. Josephine coordinates the JULIET programme, a programme specialised in foreign language education and CLIL/​bilingual education for younger learners. Pat Moore has been in English language teaching since the mid-​1980s and in the Department of Languages and Translation at the Universidad Pablo de Olavide (Seville) since the early 2000s. Both her teaching and research revolve around bilingual education, from primary to tertiary levels, in the foreign language classroom and/​or in CLIL, with pre-​and in-​ service (foreign) language and content teachers and students. Her publications include articles, chapters, and co-​edited collections in a range of international journals and books. As a researcher she has participated in numerous Spanish and international projects and has presented the findings of her research in conferences all over the world. Tom Morton is Beatriz Galindo Distinguished Research Fellow at the Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Spain, where he is a member of the UAM-​CLIL Research Group. His research focuses mainly on classroom discourse and teacher knowledge and identity in CLIL, EMI, and TESOL. He is co-​author of The Roles of Language in CLIL (Cambridge University Press, 2012), Applied Linguistics Perspectives on CLIL ( John Benjamins, 2017) and Social Interaction and English Language Teacher Identity (Edinburgh University Press, 2018), and has published widely on CLIL and TESOL topics in leading applied linguistics and language education journals. He has participated in many funded research projects and is currently principal investigator on a project which investigates university EMI lecturers’ knowledge-​ building practices. Nurziya Oralbayeva gained her master’s in multilingual education at Nazarbayev University Graduate School of Education. Her research interests include language policy, language planning, bi-​/​multilingualism, content and language integrated learning, communicative language teaching, and robot-​a ssisted language learning. Currently, she is involved in a research project entitled CoWriting Kazakh: Learning a New Script with a Robot, investigating the innovative ways of teaching the new Latin-​based Kazakh alphabet to young children using social humanoid robots, tablets, and traditional teaching approaches. Nurziya is particularly drawn to explore the effects of technological tools on early literacy development in bi-​/​multilinguals. María Luisa Pérez Cañado is Full Professor at the Department of English Philology of the University of Jaén, Spain, where she is also Rector’s Delegate for European Universities and Language Policy. Her work has appeared in more than 120 scholarly journals and edited volumes and she is also author or editor of 15 books on the interface of second language acquisition and second language teaching. She is currently coordinating the first intercollegiate MA degree on bilingual education and CLIL in Spain, as well as four European, national, and regional projects on attention to diversity in CLIL. She has also been granted the Ben Massey Award for the quality of her scholarly contributions regarding issues that make a difference in higher education.

xvii

List of contributors

Paige M. Poole is the Learning Director at Pangea Chat. Prior to her work at Pangea Chat, she was an English as a Foreign Language professor and programme coordinator for 11 years. She has led national and local-​scale English language projects with the Ministerio de Educación Nacional in Colombia and with the Secretaría de Educación Distrital de Barranquilla. She holds an MA in TESOL Studies from the University of Leeds and has published on CLIL, materials design, global simulation, teacher development, and project-​ based learning. She is also interested in research related to intercultural and international competence development and international virtual exchanges. Melina Porto holds an MA ELT (Essex University), a PhD in Sciences of Education (Universidad Nacional de La Plata, UNLP, Argentina), and a postdoctoral degree in Humanities and Social Sciences (Universidad de Buenos Aires, Argentina). She is a researcher at the National Research Council and Professor at UNLP (Argentina). She is Honorary Research Fellow at the University of East Anglia. Her research interests include intercultural language education, intercultural citizenship, pedagogies of discomfort, the arts in language education, service learning, and ethics. Anssi Roiha works as a university lecturer in foreign language pedagogy at the Department of Teacher Education at the University of Turku, Finland where he trains pre-​service teachers. His main research interests include CLIL, differentiation, and intercultural education. Yolanda Ruiz de Zarobe is Full Professor of Applied Linguistics at the University of the Basque Country. Her research interests are in the acquisition of English as a third language, multilingualism, and content and language integrated learning. Her work has appeared in books, edited books and international journals. Her book Content and Foreign Language Integrated Learning: Contributions to Multilingualism in European Contexts (Peter Lang, 2011), co-​edited with Juan Sierra and Francisco Gallardo del Puerto, received the Spanish Society for Applied Linguistics award for senior researchers. She is a member of the editorial board of several journals such as the International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, Journal of Immersion and Content-​Based Language Education, and International Journal of Literacy, Culture and Language Education. Xabier San Isidro has an academic and professional background in policymaking and multilingualism, and has worked for a number of universities in Europe, the UK, and Central Asia. With an international PhD and the doctorate extraordinary award in Arts and Humanities from the University of the Basque Country, he now holds the post of Education Officer at the Directorate General of Bilingualism and Quality in Teaching for the Government of Madrid, which he combines with teaching, as an Invited Professor, at the intercollegiate MA degree on bilingual education and CLIL for the University of Jaén. Besides being an external assessor for Erasmus+​, he has taken part in various EU-​funded research projects. He is also the author of numerous scientific and pedagogic publications. Takanori Sato is Associate Professor at the Center for Language Education and Research at Sophia University, Japan. He received his PhD in linguistics from the University of Melbourne in 2014 and has eight years of experience as a second language teacher and teacher educator in higher education in Japan. His research interests include second language assessment and English as a lingua franca. His recent research has examined the assessment of students’ subject knowledge and critical thinking skills in CLIL. In particular, his main xviii

List of contributors

interests lie in conceptualising this knowledge and these skills from the perspectives of subject and critical thinking specialists. His work has appeared in Applied Linguistics, Language Testing, Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, Papers in Language Testing and Assessment, and Language Testing in Asia. Sávio Siqueira is Associate Professor at Bahia Federal University, Salvador, Brazil. He is a permanent professor at UFBA’s Graduate Programme in Language and Culture and the Graduate Programme in Letters (Federal University of Tocantins, Brazil) where he supervises both MA and PhD candidates. He has conducted postdoctoral studies on critical language pedagogy at the University of Hawai’i at Manoa, Honolulu, HI, USA, and collaborates with the MA in Multilingualism, Linguistics, and Education from Goldsmiths University of London, UK, and the Máster Interuniversitario en Enseñanza Bilingüe y Aprendizaje Integrado de Contenidos y Lenguas Extranjeras from the University of Jaén, Spain. He is the leader of the nationally accredited research group ELFBrasil-​U FBA. Bong-​g i Sohn is an instructor at the University of Winnipeg, Canada. Her research focuses on language, education, and migration, exploring international student mobilisation in higher education as well as multilingual/​m inority family language policy and practices. In her doctoral study, she elaborated how current scholarship on global chains of care and so-​called feminised multilingual development explains the ways in which immigrant wives selectively move on to become bilingual workers in service of the host country’s preparation for its global future. In her current work, focusing on the lived experience of international/​ multilingual students, she is advocating a critical discipline-​ specific content language integrated learning for plurilingual students and teachers. Liss Kerstin Sylvén is Professor of Language Education at the University of Gothenburg. With a PhD in English linguistics, her research interests include various perspectives of computer assisted language learning, content and language integrated learning, second language vocabulary acquisition, motivation, individual differences, and extramural English. Apart from publishing in a variety of journals, Liss has co-​authored Extramural English in Teaching and Learning: From Theory to Practice (with Pia Sundqvist, Palgrave Macmillan, 2016), and edited the volume Investigating Content and Language Integrated Learning: Insights from Swedish High Schools (Multilingual Matters, 2019). Alain Flaubert Takam received his PhD in Linguistics from Dalhousie University, Canada. After teaching French and Linguistics in several Canadian universities, he moved to Alberta, Canada, where he is Associate Professor of French and Linguistics. In addition to teaching, Dr Takam has contributed to several academic journals as author, reviewer, and/​or editor. Such journals include Revue SudLangues, World Englishes, English Today, Canadian Journal of Native Studies, Journal of Education and Learning, International Journal of Evaluation of Research in Education, Language Policy Journal, The Canadian Modern Language Review, and International Journal of Applied Linguistics. His research focuses on language planning and applied linguistics, contact linguistics, and socio-​pragmatics. Veronico N. Tarrayo is Associate Professor at the Department of English, Faculty of Arts and Letters of the University of Santo Tomas (UST), Manila, the Philippines. He is also a research associate at the UST Research Center for Social Sciences and Education. At present, he is a member of the international advisory board of the Asian Journal of English Language xix

List of contributors

Studies, and the editorial board of the International Journal of TESOL Studies and Professional and Academic English, the journal of the IATEFL English for Specific Purposes Special Interest Group. Among his research interests are stylistics, English language teaching (ELT), gender perspective in ELT, and teacher beliefs/​ideologies. Gabriela Tavella holds an MA in Professional Development for Language Education, Leeds Metropolitan University, UK and a Postgraduate Diploma in Education, University of East Anglia, UK. She is an ESP lecturer, director of a research team at Facultad de Lenguas (FADEL), Universidad Nacional del Comahue, and member of a research team at Facultad de Humanidades y Ciencias de la Educación, Universidad Nacional de La Plata. She is also Professor at the master’s programme from FADEL, UNCo, as well as coordinator of professional development sessions, and a regular presenter at national and international conferences. Formerly she was Vice-​President of Federación Argentina de Asociaciones de Profesores de Inglés. She is a reviewer for academic journals and member of the Argentinian Journal of Applied Linguistics editorial board. Her research interests are intercultural citizenship, CLIL, ESP, language methodology, and individual differences in language learning. She has published research articles, reflective pieces, and book chapters. Keiko Tsuchiya is Associate Professor at the Graduate School of Urban Social and Cultural Studies, Yokohama City University. Her research interest includes multimodal analysis of team interactions in healthcare settings and language education in Japanese contexts, i.e., English as a lingua franca and content and language integrated learning. She has recently edited the two volumes Content and Language Integrated Learning in Spanish and Japanese Contexts (with María Dolores Pérez-​Murillo, Palgrave, 2019) and English as a Lingua Franca in Japan: Towards Multilingual Practices (with Mayu Konakahara, Palgrave, 2020). Evelyn van Kampen obtained her PhD focusing on CLIL pedagogies from the Leiden University Graduate School of Teaching. She is currently a lecturer in the European Studies programme at The Hague University of Applied Sciences. Evelyn’s research and teaching interests include exploring how theoretical insights related to (CLIL) pedagogies are and can best be applied in various bilingual and international educational settings. Sotiria Varis is a postdoctoral grant researcher in the Faculty of Education at University of Jyväskylä, Finland. Her research interests involve professional identity and emotions in the fields of CLIL, language teacher education, doctoral training, and higher education. Wenhsien Yang received his doctorate in Teaching English as a Foreign Language from the University of Exeter, the UK. He currently is Full Professor of the Department of Applied English and the Dean of the International College at National Kaohsiung University of Hospitality and Tourism, Taiwan. His main teaching and research interests include English for specific purposes, content and language integrated learning, English as a medium of instruction, and bilingual education. Limin Yuan is currently a PhD student at the University of Glasgow. Her research interests include content and language integrated learning, intercultural communication, and English language education. She has presented her research at international conferences including AERA, ISLS, and EAC.

xx

List of contributors

Sandra Zappa-​Hollman is Associate Professor in the Faculty of Education at the University of British Columbia, Canada, and Director of Academic English at UBC’s Vantage College. Her research examines processes of language and literacy socialisation of multilingual English language post-​secondary students, including the perspectives of faculty members working with diverse student populations. Her work also aims to shed light on questions and issues concerning curricular and pedagogical approaches that support culturally and linguistically responsive teaching.

xxi

xxi

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We would like to thank the following colleagues for providing feedback on the chapters: John Airey, James Anderson, Phil Ball, Russell Cross, Emma Dafouz, Rick de Graaff, Cristina Escobar Urmeneta, Inmaculada Fortanet Gomez, Marie-​Theres Gruber, Emily He, Wen-​Hsien Hsu, Makoto Ikeda, Hoe Kyeung Kim, Harry Kuchah, Angel Lin, Ana Llinares, Yuen-​Yi Lo, Lucilla Lopriore, Magdalena Madany, Katja Mäntylä, Maria Angeles Martin del Pozo, Tessa Mearns, Oliver Meyer, Tom Morton, Eva Olsson, Ana Otto, Niina Raud, Kyle Read Talbot, and Anne-​Marie Truscott de Mejia. Special thanks to Serikbolsyn Tastanbek for taking care of preparing the chapters for final submission to the publisher. We would also like to express our gratitude to Louisa Semlyen and Talitha Duncan-​Todd from Routledge for their trust and support, and to Graham Hall for his initial recommendation and feedback.

xxii

1

newgenprepdf

INTRODUCTION Darío Luis Banegas and Sandra Zappa-​Hollman

Why CLIL? As bilingual education continues to expand across socio-​political settings and levels of formal education, there is a continuous demand for educational approaches that respond to the challenge of educating plurilingual citizens. We approach bilingual education as a broad term that includes different approaches and initiatives which combine curriculum content and additional language (L2) learning; hence, content and language integrated learning (CLIL) can be seen as an approach within the broader framework of bilingual education. Other approaches usually placed within bilingual education can be content-​based instruction (CBI), English-​medium instruction (EMI) and even English for academic and specific purposes (EAP-​ESP), which are addressed in this volume to different degrees. At this point we must acknowledge that these approaches overlap, particularly CBI and CLIL, and sometimes they are employed in the literature and practice as almost synonyms. In this volume, and this very Introduction, our intention is not to embark on a distinction between them (which would lead to a book in its own right!) but to concentrate on CLIL, its origins and contours. Since its inception in the 1990s in the European Union, CLIL has become a popular educational or language teaching approach given its dual focus on enabling learners to acquire subject-​m atter in an additional language, while learning this L2 (second language) in tandem with content (Coyle et al., 2010). Despite the plethora of conceptual articles (e.g., Darvin et al., 2020), empirical studies (e.g., Bulté et al., 2021), or practice-​d riven accounts of CLIL (e.g., Garzón-​Díaz, 2021) which attest to the strengthening of CLIL as a robust, research-​informed approach, there is a need for publications that take stock of the CLIL literature on core issues and settings. Hence, this volume puts forward literature review-​based chapters that help appraise CLIL developments and update readers’ understanding of CLIL undergirding principles and key constructs.

Handbook overview As editors, we have made every effort to offer a representative handbook. The chapters represent a wide range of socio-​educational contexts, revealing some of the discrepancies DOI: 10.4324/9781003173151-1

1

Darío Luis Banegas and Sandra Zappa-Hollman

in the ways in which CLIL is conceptualised and implemented. We recognise that some of the views on CLIL carved in the chapters may be at odds with current and dominant theorisations. Yet, we wish to depict the inevitable (and natural) diversity that unfolds when an approach, in this case CLIL, spreads across settings. This handbook is divided into six parts. Each part seeks to review different areas of scholarship that have developed since the emergence of CLIL in the educational arena. Part I, Language and language teaching in CLIL, discusses the main undergirding principles and perspectives that inform and/​or are associated to CLIL. We recognise that this overview has a clear interest in the language element of the CLIL equation, which reveals (1) our own language teaching background, and (2) the need for CLIL research programmes that canvass the nuances of content learning through an additional language. Regarding this niche, in the past few years, a growing number of empirical studies have paid attention to this issue and have therefore examined CLIL teaching and learning in different school subjects such as history (e.g., Oattes et al., 2022), mathematics (e.g., Martí Arnándiz et al., 2022), physical education (e.g., Salvador-​García, 2022), and science (e.g., Fernández-​Sanjurjo et al., 2019) among others. Part II, Core topics and issues, comprises reviews of key parameters such as learners’ language and cognitive development and teachers’ professional development. These parameters reflect, to a large extent, the influence that the 4Cs (content, communication, cognition, and culture) framework (Coyle et al., 2010; Coyle & Meyer, 2021) has had on CLIL research and practice. Part III, Contexts and learners, takes a special interest in CLIL with (1) language other than English, and (2) different levels of education with the exception of higher education, which tends to be more associated with English-​medium instruction (EMI). Part IV, CLIL in practice, presents an overview of practice-​d riven perceptions, resources, and strategies. Part V, CLIL around the world, provides regional and national reviews of CLIL research. Last, Part VI, Looking forward, is an invitation to take stock and extend the CLIL conversation through provocations.

Part I: Language and language teaching in CLIL This part consists of six chapters. As noted above, the chapters cover a range of themes and overview CLIL as a continuum and describe its connections to other areas such as linguistics, language education, and research methods. Part I opens with a chapter which discusses the role of linguistics, particularly how CLIL pedagogy can hinge on systemic functional linguistics (Halliday, 1978; Halliday & Matthiesen, 2014), given their convergence in understanding and teaching language as a meaning-​m aking system. This is critical and, from our perspective, a much-​needed partnership as the CLIL agenda is moving forward with a special interest in deeper learning (Coyle & Meyer, 2021) that entails a plurilingual approach to content and language integration. Continuing with a linguistic orientation, Chapter 2 focuses on the notion of translanguaging, unpacking its conceptual origins and subsequent reconceptualisations and applications to pedagogy. Taking a historical perspective, the chapter traces how the notion of translanguaging as a bilingual pedagogical approach branched out to be also as a type of bilingual behaviour that transcends educational spaces, reflecting how multilingual beings understand and make use of their plurilingual linguistic repertoires. Centring the discussion on translanguaging in relation to CLIL, the chapter invites us to reconsider the role of the L1 in CLIL classrooms and argues in favour of flexible, dynamic pedagogies that draw from translingual theory to engage in translingual practice. Alongside advocating for the adoption of a translingual perspective, the chapter includes suggestions 2

Introduction

for implementing translingual pedagogies, and points to the need for CLIL research that assesses how translanguaging mediates content and language learning. Chapter 3 interrogates the conceptual and pedagogical connections between CLIL and additional language teaching approaches such as communicative language teaching. This chapter may particularly resonate with language educators interested in understanding how CLIL is positioned within the plethora of approaches and methods developed for additional (second and/​or foreign) language teaching since second language acquisition emerged as a field within linguistics. Due to cross-​fertilisation and shared territories (e.g., higher education) between CLIL and English for specific purposes (ESP) and EMI, two chapters examine these connections. Chapter 4 compares and contrasts CLIL and ESP, paying particular attention to differences and commonalities in terms of origin, teaching practices, and resources. Chapter 5 taps into another area in which there are overlaps. In this chapter, CLIL is discussed in relation to EMI. The authors propose that EMI should be considered the educational context of higher education whereas CLIL be regarded as the pedagogical approach which operationalises such a context given the inherent language support it purports to provide. Last, Chapter 6 takes a broader lens as it reviews CLIL in terms of the epistemological and methodological approaches that have guided CLIL research. The author particularly reviews the methodological decisions and results behind cross-​sectional studies, longitudinal studies, and case studies.

Part II: Core topics and issues The opening chapter in this section (Chapter 7) delves into the links between educational policy that mandates the teaching of multiple languages and the kinds of decisions, directions and recommendations for CLIL implementation and research. The topic is approached from a European perspective, where CLIL has its original roots, drawing on analyses of a range of policy documents at the central, regional, and local levels. The importance of (re-​)aligning regulations with the contextual realities of school settings where policies come into practice is underscored. The chapter also makes a call for capitalising on the synergetic potential that can result from enhanced links between policy development, curricular and pedagogical implementations, and research on CLIL, noting that the current misalignment between these not only hinders our accurate understanding of challenges and benefits, but also limits the potential informative value of research for improving policy and practice. The relationship between second language proficiency development and CLIL is examined in Chapter 8 through a review of recent literature on this topic. Despite CLIL’s demonstrated value to enhance L2 proficiency development, the authors warn against uncritical portrayals of CLIL as a panacea of approaches, and instead request that CLIL’s effectiveness be considered in relation to key variables such as the educational setting (e.g., primary vs. secondary), students’ second/​foreign language proficiency levels, and the nature of the pedagogical design of CLIL implementations. Cognitive processing is involved in learning and thus cognition has been identified as one of the keystones of CLIL, together with communication, context, and culture. Chapter 9 (as well as Chapter 16, in relation to secondary school learners) examines how cognition has been researched in CLIL contexts, offering some frameworks that have been helpful to conceptualise and operationalise cognitive processes involved in learning, and zooming into the role that classroom discourse plays in supporting cognitive engagement and development. That said, based on a critical review of the literature, the chapter concludes that despite its acknowledged important role, researching cognitive engagement and development in CLIL 3

Darío Luis Banegas and Sandra Zappa-Hollman

from a cognitive science perspective is likely to yield new insights. In turn, Chapter 10 brings up the potential of CLIL pedagogy to contribute to learners’ intercultural citizenship development. The author argues that CLIL’s potential to foster intercultural citizenship has not yet been fully or even meaningfully realised. As such, drawing on examples from her own research and practice, the author makes a strong case for the adoption of a pluriliteracies approach to CLIL that also draws on intercultural citizenship theory. A common theme across several chapters in this volume is the identification of the need for additional as well as enhanced forms of professional development to support teachers’ conceptualisation and implementation of CLIL pedagogy. Chapter 11 offers a discussion of the kinds of knowledge CLIL teachers require to engage in meaningful, effective integration of language and content. It goes on to propose ways in which sustainable professional development for CLIL teachers can (or should) be provided not just for novice teachers but also for those whose beliefs and practices may be deeply rooted in theories and values that are at odds with CLIL approaches. The role of collaboration in CLIL professional development, teaching practice, and development of materials is examined in Chapter 12. This chapter underscores the key role collaboration plays in realising rewarding CLIL implementation. The author outlines different models of collaborative teaching that have been proposed in literature examining CLIL implementations across educational levels. The importance of the situated nature of CLIL is highlighted as a key element to factor in when striving for collaboration, and a frequency-​formality matrix is proposed as a heuristic to shed light on the nature of the collaborations available in each context, which can in turn help identify possibilities and adjust expectations.

Part III: Contexts and learners This section includes four chapters. The first two, Chapters 13 and 14, examine CLIL in relation to less often researched linguistic contexts. More specifically, Chapter 13 looks at how CLIL has been implemented to contribute to the maintenance of heritage languages (HLs), while Chapter 14 reports on the limited yet important research carried out in Anglophone contexts where CLIL has been successfully implemented to contribute to the maintenance of languages other than English (LOTEs). Chapter 13 invites us to reconsider the image of CLIL as an umbrella and instead draw on the image of a kaleidoscope to more accurately represent the relationship between the heterogeneity CLIL implementations as the approach is adopted for a wider spectrum of languages, including HLs. Drawing of data from the UK and Australia, Chapter 14 touches on the role of official language policies (or the lack thereof ) in promoting bilingual/​additive language education via CLIL, and refers to additional reasons that impact the update of CLIL approaches for LOTE. As such, the chapter also brings up collaboration between teachers as well as professional development as key factors impacting the ability and quality of implementation of CLIL with languages other than English. The education settings of primary schools and primary school learners is the focus of Chapter 15, while Chapter 16 focuses on secondary school learners. Based on reviews of recent studies, both chapters address benefits as well as challenges concerning implementations of CLIL across these education levels. Chapter 15 also includes a number of strategies and suggestions for activities to support CLIL implementation, and advocates for the use of multimodality as key to engage learners. Chapter 16 reviews research on CLIL in secondary schools published in the past decade, thus serving as an updated literature review on this topic. In particular, this chapter reports on studies that have focused on CLIL’s impact on 4

Introduction

secondary school students’ linguistic, cognitive, and affective development. While CLIL has also been widely implemented in tertiary settings, reference to characteristics of implementation, issues, and suggestions are addressed throughout many of the chapters included in this volume.

Part IV:  CLIL in practice This part puts teaching in focus. The eight chapters which comprise this section may allow us to delineate the complex trajectory of CLIL implementation that includes teachers’ and learners’ perceptions, teaching and assessment strategies, and pedagogical resources. Chapter 17 provides a critical account of research studies which have examined teachers’ perceptions of CLIL in different settings. In turn, Chapter 18 reviews learners’ perspectives on CLIL with special emphasis on their motivations, attitudes, and perceptions, which are also compared to other stakeholders such as teachers and parents. These two chapters exhibit that it is of vital importance to document teachers’ and learners’ views as a way to evaluate the different models which are used for CLIL operationalisation. Part IV continues with four chapters that discuss CLIL practice from interconnected concepts. Chapter 19 reviews how instructional scaffolding has been understood and employed in CLIL to promote autonomy. The review shows that empirical studies on CLIL have mushroomed particularly since 2012 with the publication of Llinares et al.’s (2012) volume on the roles of language in CLIL. The role of interaction in CLIL is the focus of Chapter 20. In this review, interaction is discussed from three perspectives: cognitive-​ interactionist, socio-​cultural theory, and critical. As the author notes, ‘they are not mutually exclusive but complement one another in instructional settings, altogether enriching our understanding of classroom interaction in CLIL’ (p. 307). The next two chapters in Part IV concentrate on planning and delivery. Chapter 21 summarises the challenges that novice teachers may find when designing CLIL lessons and how these are addressed in teaching handbooks. The authors draw on core parameters such as content, communication, cognition, culture, and collaboration to organise their review and suggestions. In line with a focus on lesson development, Chapter 22 provides a summary of frameworks and principles which can support teacher-​m ade materials. The chapter also synthesises studies on CLIL materials design as well as implementation. The last two chapters discuss feedback and assessment. These two are central components of the teaching and learning processes as they provide information about performance. Chapter 23 reviews studies on oral and written corrective feedback in CLIL contexts highlighting the effect of such feedback on learners’ noticing and development. In turn, Chapter 24 looks at studies on assessment in CLIL and puts forward three approaches to CLIL assessment depending on how content and language are tackled. In the author’s words, these approaches are separate, weakly integrated, and strongly integrated. These approaches illustrate the range of CLIL models and decisions made by institutions and teachers.

Part V:  CLIL around the world This section includes nine chapters which seek to paint a holistic picture of how CLIL has been conceived and implemented in some regions/​countries. In this regard, the volume boasts chapters from every continent. Introducing this section deserves a bit of background and backstage to how a volume may evolve. When we conceived this section, we approached authors who would review CLIL in Cameroon, Colombia, Ecuador, Italy, Japan, the 5

Darío Luis Banegas and Sandra Zappa-Hollman

Netherlands, and Taiwan. We selected these countries to ensure representation of a diversity of contexts and experiences with CLIL. We asked the authors to start the chapter by providing an overview of the educational system in which CLIL is inserted before reviewing CLIL research, affordances, and challenges. Each chapter was differently shaped because the authors had to do justice to their national circumstances and history with CLIL. Chapters 25 and 26 were originally intended to be part of other sections (Parts I and II respectively). However, as the authors submitted their revised versions, we noticed that the themes of models (Chapter 25) and curriculum development (Chapter 26) were illustrated through an appraisal of CLIL in different countries. This approach showed that macro-​level decisions can be cogently discussed by examining policy and studies with a broad scope. Hence, the chapters were finally moved to Part V. The chapters show the different history of CLIL in different geographical contexts. For example, the Nordic countries (Chapter 26), Netherlands (Chapter 27), and Italy (Chapter 28) boast the longest relationship with CLIL given their geopolitical location and consequent alignment with European policies and initiatives to promote plurilingualism. These countries show a tendency to adopt CLIL models that are content-​d riven, i.e., teaching a school subject through an additional language. The other countries included in the volume have witnessed the adoption of CLIL in relation to bilingual education policies and show that, to different degrees, CLIL implementation is still relatively new or not nationally widespread. These countries also show that CLIL has found fertile ground in English language teaching and therefore policy, schools, and/​ teachers use CLIL as a language teaching approach together with communicative approaches. What all the countries share is the need to have clear curriculum guidelines and CLIL teacher education programmes or initiatives which can guarantee quality provision and sustainability.

Part VI: Looking forward This last section comprises three chapters which act as provocations to help readers take stock of CLIL and consider new avenues of exploration at the levels of research, practice, and policy. Written from a perspective that conflates critical theory and critical pedagogy, Chapter 34 is an invitation to interrogate some of the claims made in relation to CLIL benefits. Two specific claims are addressed: CLIL as a means to perpetuate (1) elitism and (2) imperialism in relation to learning English. Hence, the chapter can be disruptive, which is a much-​ needed condition to maintain epistemological vigilance, i.e., the disposition to (and practice of ) evaluate the methodological and ideological forces that shape knowledge construction (Martí, 2020). Chapter 35 is an assessment of CLIL research and practice and suggests future directions in CLIL, such as careful attention to content learning, academic literacies, assessment, and equity. These future avenues not only attend to the need to support teaching and learning but also to support teachers and learners in their development and deployment of various tools and strategies to engage in meaning making. Chapter 36 is a coda that serves the purpose of extending the CLIL discourse by inviting readers to reflect on two ‘learning provocations’ as the author of the coda, Professor Do Coyle, calls them. These provocations on professional learning and the internationalisation of higher education may become a compass that directs efforts to make learning equitable and transformative by promoting teachers and learners as agents of change.

6

Introduction

Conclusion In this introductory chapter we have summarised the ethos and structure of this volume, which we started to imagine in 2020. We would like to thank Routledge and the reviewers of our initial proposal for believing in our ability to steer this volume. We would also like to thank you for engaging with CLIL research and practice through the chapters included in this title.

References Bulté, B., Surmont, J., & Martens, L. (2021). The impact of CLIL on the L2 French and L1 Dutch proficiency of Flemish secondary school pupils. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 25(9), 3151–​3170. http://​doi/​org/​10.1080/​13670 ​050.2021.2018​400 Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge University Press. Coyle, D., & Meyer, O. (2021). Beyond CLIL: Pluriliteracies teaching for deeper learning. Cambridge University Press. Darvin, R., Lo, Y.Y., & Lin, A.M.Y. (2020). Examining CLIL through a critical lens. English Teaching & Learning, 44, 103–​108. https://​doi.org/​10.1007/​s42​321-​020-​0 0062-​2 Fernández-​Sanjurjo, J., Fernández-​Costales, A., & Arias Blanco, J. M. (2019). Analysing students’ content-​learning in science in CLIL vs. non-​CLIL programmes: Empirical evidence from Spain. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 22(6), 661–​674. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​ 13670​050.2017.1294​142 Garzón-​Díaz, E. (2021). Translanguaging in science lessons: Exploring the language of science in L2 low achievers in a public school setting in Colombia. In C. Hemmi & D. L. Banegas (Eds.), International perspectives on CLIL (pp. 85–​106). Palgrave. Halliday, M.A.K. (1978). Language as a social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. Edward Arnold. Halliday, M.A.K., & Matthiesen, C.M.I.M. (2014). Halliday’s introduction to functional grammar (4th ed.). Routledge. Llinares, A., Morton, T., & Whittaker, R. (2012). The roles of language in CLIL (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. Martí, E. (2020). The need for epistemological vigilance. Integrative Psychological and Behavorial Science, 54, 677–​685. https://​doi.org/​10.1007/​s12​124- ​020- ​09533- ​4 Martí Arnándiz, O., Moliner, L., & Alegre, F. (2022). When CLIL is for all: Improving learner motivation through peer-​tutoring in Mathematics. System, 106, 102773. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.sys​ tem.2022.102​773 Oattes, H., Wilschut, A., Oostdam, R., Fukkink, R., & de Graaff, R. (2022). Practical solution or missed opportunity? The impact of language of instruction on Dutch history teachers’ application of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK). Teaching and Teacher Education, 115, 103721. https://​doi. org/​10.1016/​j.tate.2022.103​721 Salvador-​García, C., Chiva-​Bartoll, O., & Capella-​Peris, C. (2022). Bilingual physical education: The effects of CLIL on physical activity levels. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 25(1), 156–​165. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​13670 ​050.2019.1639​131

7

8

9

PART I

Language and language teaching in CLIL

10

11

1 CLIL AND LINGUISTICS Ana Llinares

Introduction Everybody has an implicit knowledge of what language is and how it works. Linguistics is the field that provides models that help us systematise language as well as challenge conventional wisdom about languages and how they work (see Bauer & Trudgill, 1998). Prospective language teachers are trained in linguistic models and frameworks that help them understand and make explicit what a language is (its forms, its components, its meanings) as well as how it is used (its function, its appropriateness). In addition to the what and the how, language teachers are also trained in the what for, in other words, in how linguistics can be applied to understand how languages are best learnt and taught, with the purpose of improving language education. This is where linguistics becomes applied linguistics, the application of linguistics to solve a societal problem, in this case, language learning and teaching (whether it is an L1, L2, or LX). In the case of content and language integrated learning (CLIL) programmes, where a second/​foreign/​additional language and other subject areas are taught in an integrated fashion, the understanding of what language is, how it can be used and what it is used for acquires a different dimension. Here, it is interesting to refer again to Bauer and Trudgill’s work (1998) and their notion of language myths. These authors argue that some notions that non-​linguists have about language are so pervasive that they become part of our culture, of our myths about language. These authors argue that linguistics has not succeeded in reaching the general public and, I would argue, this also applies to non-​language educational specialists. One of the challenges for CLIL content specialists, who are expected to pay attention to language in their content classes, is that they often share this type of myths about language. CLIL content specialists’ knowledge and perception of the language through which they teach content is often the one they acquired and developed in their own experience as language learners themselves. In other words, language competence is often perceived in terms of the forms (grammar, pronunciation), meanings (vocabulary) and functions of that particular language (thus, the what and the how). The misconception appears with the what for. Understandably, CLIL content teachers often reject the generated expectation that they are supposed to be language teachers as well as content teachers (e.g., Skinnari & Bovellan, DOI: 10.4324/9781003173151-3

11

Ana Llinares

2016). This is due to the fact that, very often, CLIL content teachers view language as a vehicle for content teaching, assuming it will be learnt ‘naturally’ without requiring any special attention, and, therefore, do not consider that their instruction should have explicit language aims (e.g., Hüttner et al., 2013; Skinnari & Bovellan, 2016). Another reason could be related to the aforementioned content teachers’ perception of language as forms to be learnt separately, not as something which is inextricably linked to the content that they teach, and thus, they do not think it is their job to teach it. In this chapter, I will argue for the role of systemic functional linguistics (SFL) in both research and pedagogy in CLIL, a theoretical model which is particularly relevant for content teachers in hard-​CLIL programmes but also for language teachers in soft-​CLIL lessons. Examples of studies applying different systemic-​f unctional linguistic models and approaches to CLIL will be provided and their implications for research and pedagogy will be discussed. Prior to that, the next section will address the different perspectives of applying formal or functional linguistics.

Formal versus functional linguistics While acknowledging that it may be too simplistic to classify linguistic theories into formal and functional linguistics, it is commonly agreed that linguistic models can be mainly classified into one of these two paradigms. Formal linguistic theories have as the main objective to define the different language components and their interconnections in a system governed by rules and formal operations without taking into account the function of linguistic elements and the situational contexts in which they are used. In contrast, functional linguistic theories conceptualise language as an instrument for communication and language forms cannot be detached from their function in communicative contexts. One of these communicative contexts can be the school, and more specifically (as it is the focus of this chapter and the whole handbook) school programmes where different subjects are taught in an additional language. Perhaps the two most relevant theories representing formal and functional linguistics are generative linguistics and systemic functional linguistics (SFL), respectively. Generative linguistics, developed by Noam Chomsky, is concerned with descriptions of the grammatical structure of a language through the construction of syntactic constituents, hierarchically organised, which are combined through a system of rules and abstract principles. In turn, SFL, developed by Michael Halliday, describes language using both a horizontal and a vertical dimension. The horizontal dimension, in line with formal and other functional approaches, focuses on the structure of the language, where some constituents combine to form other constituents: morphemes are part of words, words combine to create groups, these form part of clauses, etc. The vertical dimension is specifically related to the SFL perception of language as a system of choices, and these choices depend on the meanings and functions that speakers want to convey. In SFL, language forms cannot be separated from their use, thus, competence cannot be separated from performance. That is, SFL sees language as a meaning-​m aking resource that allows humans to do things; and in the classroom context, language is perceived as a resource that allows teachers and students to create meanings and learn. In the next sections, I will specifically refer to research studies carried out on CLIL using applications of formal and functional linguistics to show the different research and pedagogical insights obtained from the application of different linguistic approaches.

12

CLIL and linguistics

Applied linguistics and CLIL research In a recent study, Morton and Llinares (2017) identified four main areas of CLIL research within the field of applied linguistics: second language acquisition, systemic functional linguistics, discourse analysis, and sociolinguistics (see also Llinares, 2015a, b). If we understand applied linguistics as a field concerned with the study of language to address real social problems (educational problems, in the case of CLIL), it is understandable that the field applies the linguistic frameworks that are most suitable for understanding and dealing with these issues in the specific social context under study (CLIL, in this case); and that it will not only draw on linguistics, as it represents a broad interdisciplinary field that focuses on language in relation to other fields, such as sociology (e.g., identity and CLIL) or psychology (e.g., motivation or anxiety in CLIL). Some studies even classify CLIL itself as a specific field within applied linguistics, in the area of foreign language learning and teaching, in line with other research applications such as corpus linguistics or cross-​linguistic studies (see, for example, Ringbom, 2012). If we focus more narrowly on the study of language in CLIL, there is a different focus in studies using formal approaches to language learning in CLIL compared to those using functional approaches. In the case of formal approaches, we can divide studies into three main groups: (1) those focusing on formal features of the language comparing the performance in that particular feature by CLIL and non-​CLIL learners; (2) those that compare CLIL students’ performance in a particular language feature before and after explicit or implicit instruction; and (3) those that attempt to balance language correctness and content learning in CLIL and other similar bilingual education programmes. Particularly in its inception, researchers were especially interested in observing if CLIL students were at an advantage in L2 competence compared to students studying a second language as a subject (CLIL versus non-​CLIL learners). Some studies have focused on vocabulary (e.g., Agustín-​Llach & Canga Alonso, 2016), other studies have analysed students’ grammar performance (e.g., García Mayo & Villarreal, 2011) and others have paid attention to students’ pragmatic performance (e.g., Nashaat-​Sobhy, 2017). Results from these studies report advantages for CLIL students in some areas of the language but not in others. Of course, comparing findings from different studies needs to be interpreted with caution and in relation to contextual variables, hours of exposure, etc. In addition, sometimes it is not clear whether the positive results for CLIL students can be related to the CLIL approach, to more hours of exposure to the L2, or to other variables. Moving back to our focus on linguistic models in CLIL research, some studies comparing CLIL and non-​CLIL students’ performance have adopted a generative linguistics approach. One example is García Mayo and Villarreal’s (2011) study, which found no difference in CLIL and non-​CLIL students’ use of suppletive and affixal tense and agreement morphemes. The second group of studies have compared CLIL students’ performance before or after explicit/​implicit instruction. One example is Gómez Lacabex and Gallardo del Puerto’s (2020) recent study, which revealed gains in phonological awareness for those CLIL students that had received implicit or explicit instruction. Another example is Pena and Pladevall-​ Ballester’s (2020) study, where CLIL primary school students showed improvement in their L2 fluency and complexity after explicit instruction. These studies could be contextualised within what Lyster (2007) has called proactive approaches in balancing content and language in bilingual education programmes where content is taught in a second language. These proactive approaches are based on awareness and practice activities specifically designed to teach specific language forms. 13

Ana Llinares

The third group of studies focusing on language forms in CLIL are those which are classified within Lyster’s (2007) reactive approaches, which take place in response to students’ language production in classroom interaction. Recent studies have compared the effect of corrective feedback on students’ language production comparing CLIL and immersion contexts (e.g., Llinares & Lyster, 2014) or comparing CLIL in different geographical and cultural contexts (e.g., Nguyen, 2018). The first study showed similarities in the proportions of corrective feedback types used by teachers but differences in the levels of uptake and repair following different types of feedback across contexts. In her study comparing CLIL primary schools in Vietnam and Spain, Nguyen (2018) showed that Spanish teachers used less corrective feedback on form than their Vietnamese counterparts. While all these studies have provided useful insights regarding students’ general language development in CLIL programmes, they have not addressed academic language proficiency and development, which is necessary for the understanding of how content and language can be taught and learnt in integration.

Systemic functional linguistics If we pay attention to the heart of the acronym CLIL, in its most literal interpretation, particularly addressing the I of integration, it is fundamental to identify and apply linguistic models that consider language forms (lexicogrammar) as inextricably linked to meanings, functions, and context. It is equally important that these linguistic models are useful both for research and pedagogy, and both in content-​led programmes, where an additional language is used as the medium of instruction for the teaching of content (hard or content-​d riven CLIL), as well as in content-​based language classrooms (soft or language-​d riven CLIL), where language is taught with a meaning/​content-​oriented approach (see Ball et al., 2015 on the distinction between hard and soft CLIL). The relevance of SFL for CLIL research and pedagogy is not surprising if we take into account that SFL was first developed by Michael Halliday as an alternative view of language that challenged structural perspectives and proposed to view language as a system of choices, with the context of education as one of the main areas of application. Because of its focus on the use of language in context and the tools it provides to reveal and explain how texts are constructed, it is a theory of enormous value for language educators (see Nicholas & Starks, 2014). The applicability of SFL to education in general, and to CLIL in particular, requires the understanding of key notions within the model. Llinares (2015a) identified four main areas of application of SFL to CLIL research and pedagogy: genre and register; the three metafunctions of language; the notion of classroom registers; and speech function analysis. The next sections will address the application of these models as well as the paradigmatic dimension of language, in relation to existing CLIL research.

Syntagmatic and paradigmatic dimensions Every linguistic element has a paradigmatic relation with other items that can replace them, as well as with other elements it can be combined with in the same structure. While the syntagmatic dimension adopts the view of language as structure, as in formal linguistics, where smaller units combine to form larger units, the paradigmatic dimension focuses on language as a system of choices. In other words, the syntagmatic dimension focuses on what goes with what, while the paradigmatic dimension addresses what goes

14

CLIL and linguistics

instead of what (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2014). It is precisely the paradigmatic dimension that is particularly relevant for CLIL, as it is semantic choices, rather than linguistic structure, that shape lexicogrammatical choices (see McCabe, 2021). The paradigmatic dimension, with the generation of system networks, has been conceptually and methodologically key in current research on content and language integration in CLIL, and has been applied in the analysis of content and language integration as product, measuring students’ expression of academic content in written and spoken texts, as well as on content and language integration as process, focusing on the co-​construction of content knowledge through the L2 in classroom interaction (see Llinares, 2015b). Regarding the focus on integration as product, in two recent studies on CLIL students’ definitions in history and biology, the focus on the meanings expressed through definitions helped reflect on the quality of CLIL students’ definitions in terms of the necessary components of this academic function before focusing on the lexicogrammar required to express these functions (Llinares & Nashaat-​S obhy, 2021; Nashaat-​S obhy & Llinares, 2020). With the help of UAM CorpusTool (O’Donnell, 2008), a system of layers was created for the analysis of types and semantic components of definitions, in order to assess students’ performance in their expression of academic content (Figure 1.1). Using semantics as the point of departure is fundamental in CLIL research and pedagogy as the understanding of the lexicogrammatical resources that students need to master to succeed in CLIL classrooms needs to be identified in relation to the meanings that they are required to express in different academic disciplines. Regarding the focus on integration as process, SFL oriented models such as Eggins and Slade’s (1997) analysis of speech functions in casual conversation have inspired CLIL research on the advantages of classroom interaction for the teacher–​student or student–​student co-​ construction of knowledge. From an SFL perspective, and following Eggins and Slade (1997), conversation is an organised level of language, inseparable from its social dimension, where interactional patterns can be described in a systematic model of language with different layers of meanings. In this model, speakers interact with each other through the choice of different speech functions (demanding, supporting, challenging, etc.). Two recent studies have applied Eggins and Slade’s (1997) model of speech functions in casual conversation to explore knowledge construction in CLIL classroom interaction. Pastrana et al. (2018) adapted Eggins and Slade’s model (1997) for the analysis of students’ co-construction of knowledge in L2 group discussions (Figure 1.2). The analysis showed how, in spite of discussing content in an L2, CLIL students were able to elaborate on each other’s responses, sometimes challenging their peers’ ideas but often willing to discuss and offer reasons and arguments to support their opinions in case of disagreement. In contrast, the analysis of parallel data with students discussing the same content in the L1 reflected a more disconnected dialogue, in spite of discussing content in their mother tongue. A second study focused on speech functions in role plays and student-​researcher interviews in CLIL history classrooms (Llinares & Morton, 2017b). The analysis of CLIL students’ use of speech functions across activities (role plays and interviews) revealed more space for students to challenge and confront each other’s ideas and, consequently, more opportunities for practising evaluative language in role plays compared to interviews. Both studies show the application of the paradigmatic aspect of SFL, a model that relies on a system of semantic choices to understand how interaction contributes to the co-​ construction of meaning in different types of activities where language is used for the (co-​) construction of knowledge.

15

newgenrtpdf

term Identified or carrier

class Tigers are mammals which are... qualit Tigers are dangerous (INTENSIVE) possess Tigers have stripes

component

COMPONENTTYPE

identifier_or_attribute_

IDENTIFIER_OR_ATTRIBUTETYPE

temporal manner CIRCUMS- cause/consequence/purpose circums TYPE concession Tigers live in the desert accomp place rep The industrial revolution is when this and that happened... (IN SFL??)

specifying_features

entity The kings were the Catholic Kings (INTENSIVE)

classif

and can be classified into three types (ELABORATION in SFL)

16

explic definition-odf1

explaining terms that come up in the definition: synonyms, ... Their stripes are like... (ELABORATION in SFL) exemplif

DEFINITIONTYPE

for example, ... (ELABORATION in SFL) expan

EXPANTYPE

xxx. There were the Catholic Kings circumstance

CIRCUMSTANCE_TYPE

(ENHANCEMENT in SFL) clarification Including evaluations (ELABORATION in SFL) extension formal definition-type

DEFINITIONTYPE-TYPE

includes class semi-formal does not include class

Figure 1.1  Network system for the analysis of definitions in CLIL Source: Llinares & Nashaat-​Sobhy, 2021; Nashaat-​Sobhy & Llinares, 2020.

accompaniment

Adding something new (EXTENSION in SFL)

cause/consequence It introduced a new form of life time location

Ana Llinares

SPECIFYING_FEATURESTYPE

CLIL and linguistics

Figure 1.2  Interactional layer for the analysis of speech functions in CLIL Source: Pastrana et al., 2018.

Context, genre, and register Context is a key element in the architecture of SFL theory. Halliday incorporated Malinowski’s notions of context of culture and context of situation. The context of culture refers to the meanings and assumptions that communities of people share. In Martin’s (1992) adaptation of the concept of context in SFL, the notion of genre is linked to the context of culture. Thus, for example, secondary school history is characterised by different genres or text types compared to chemistry at tertiary level. The context of situation involves the immediate environment in which communication takes place, which has an effect on register variables (the field or topic at hand, the tenor or relationship among the participants and the mode or channel of communication). It has to be acknowledged that the SFL notions of genre and register have had a clear impact on the role of language across the curriculum (Martin & Rose, 2008). The notion of genre is key in CLIL research and pedagogy as in order for students to succeed in the expression of academic knowledge in the L2 it is important to identify the structure of the texts that characterise different disciplinary cultures. Martin and Rose (2008) define genre as a goal-​oriented social process containing different stages. Llinares et al. (2012) argue that being familiar with the functions and structure of different texts in a school subject will provide CLIL students with the ability of understanding and producing the genres of school. This is even more necessary when these texts have to be processed in the L2. As argued in Llinares et al. (2012), ‘[l]‌a nguage is not simply a means of transport for ideas, carrying the knowledge of a subject, but, in fact, it constructs, structures and even restricts knowledge through discipline-​specific texts’ (p. 111). In the description of the most common genres that students encounter in CLIL subjects, Llinares et al. (2012) incorporate the description of genres of science (procedures, recounts, reports, explanations), geography (reports, explanations), history (period studies, recounts, accounts, explanations, arguments), including examples of students’ texts. Students’ expression of academic content may match the requirements of the specific genre and the register features expected for that genre, in spite of the difficulties with the grammar. The example in Table 1.1 shows that the stages of the historical period study genre that this grade 8 student is writing about are present, as period studies require the identification of the period and the description of it, and register features such as the use of past tense (in most of the cases) and existential ‘there’ to present new information are also used. One could argue that ‘the language’ used by this student is

17

Ana Llinares Table 1.1  Example of a CLIL student’s development of the period study genre Text 4.21 Period identification Description Generalisation Specific information

In Feudal Europe

there were differents social groups. Were the lord, noblenment and knights, clergymen, peasants, etc. The rural life was very hard, because there was a lot of work, Peasants worked in agriculture, they lived in small wood houses in villages near forest. Forest were very important because there, peasants take wood and food.

Source: Adapted from Llinares et al., 2012, p. 134.

quite appropriate in terms of genre and register in spite of the grammar errors displayed in the text (e.g., subject missing in ‘Were the lord’, lack of number agreement in ‘Forest were’). Another study that highlights the role of genres in CLIL is Lorenzo’s (2013) solid proposal of a CLIL history curriculum based on genres. A step further in terms of actual implementation and teacher development is Morton’s (2010) exemplification of aspects of genre-​based pedagogy, showing how teachers’ knowledge of genre could be used in CLIL classroom contexts. Finally, there are studies that show the effect of the actual implementation of genre-​based pedagogy on CLIL students’ academic literacy in classroom interaction (e.g., Lo & Jeong, 2018) and applying Reading to Learn Pedagogy to CLIL (e.g., Whittaker & García Parejo, 2018).

The three metafunctions At the core of SFL, there is Halliday and Matthiessen’s (2014) distinction of the three metafunctions of language (ideational, interpersonal, and textual). The ideational metafunction refers to the use of language to represent the world, the interpersonal metafunction is related to the function of language to interact with other speakers, and the textual metafunction is related to the use of language to create coherent and cohesive spoken and written texts. Each of the three metafunctions relates to each of the three register variables (presented above). The ideational metafunction (how language is used to make sense of experience) is related to the field (the topic or activity at hand), the interpersonal metafunction is shaped by the relationships between participants (the tenor) and the textual function (the way texts are organised) is related to the mode and the role that language plays in a particular text. Each of the three metafunctions is relevant for CLIL research in the following way. In CLIL contexts, language is used by teachers and students to express academic content but also more everyday experiences both related to the academic content and to social communication in the classroom (ideational metafunction). Precisely, the level of formality of the texts and interactions in the class require different interpersonal resources and, thus, different language resources to enact them (interpersonal metafunction). Finally, the texts produced by the students need to be coherent, and achieving that in an academic context and in a second language presents a double challenge that needs to be taken care of (textual

18

CLIL and linguistics

metafunction). For CLIL teaching and learning to be effective, it is important to evaluate students’ performance in each of the three metafunctions. A number of studies in CLIL settings have focused on the ideational metafunction, and more specifically on the types of processes, circumstances, and logical relations that are required in specific genres (shaped by the context of culture) and registers (shaped by the context of the situation). In order to identify the lexis or the clause complexes that CLIL students need to master (whether time, cause–​effect sequences, etc.), it is necessary to focus on the requirements of the specific genres and registers. A number of studies have focused on students’ ideational choices in different modes (spoken and written) and across disciplines (biology, history, and geography) (Llinares & Navarro, 2021; Llinares & Whittaker, 2010; Whittaker & Llinares, 2009). These studies have shown that different disciplines require different meanings and CLIL students showed mastery of the lexis required to express those meanings (Whittaker & Llinares, 2009). However, compared to students studying the same content in the L1, CLIL students showed more difficulties expressing circumstances in phrases (Llinares & Whittaker, 2010). They often used clause complexes, creating a more spoken-​like and less academic register. For example, in response to a question on the causes of the Black Death in Feudal Europe, the students studying in the L1 (Spanish) used expressions such as Por el hacinamiento (in English, Due to overcrowding), using grammatical metaphor, while a corresponding expression used by CLIL students was Because the people are not clean. In a more recent study Llinares and Navarro (2021) identified the different clause complexes elicited through different cognitive discourse functions, such as evaluate, describe, explore, and compare (see Dalton-​Puffer, 2013), showing some limitations in the variety of resources used by students to express clausal relations to express different cognitive discourse functions. The results obtained in these three studies indicate that different subjects, genres, and cognitive discourse functions trigger different lexis (e.g., process types) and clausal relations. These findings underscore how important it is for teachers to be aware of such requirements across disciplines, as well as to be able to identify them to better be able to scaffold student learning. The studies also showed some limitations in the resources to express logical relations through circumstances and clause complexes, hinting towards the importance of teaching some of these forms either implicitly or explicitly, in relation to content. Regarding the textual function, students need to be able to distinguish between the characteristics of spoken and written modes and be able to use adequate resources to link ideas in a text. In their longitudinal study of CLIL students’ history texts and their development throughout the four years of secondary education, Whittaker, Llinares, and McCabe (2011) studied textual coherence in CLIL students’ history texts and the results indicated improvement in the managing of textual resources. More studies are needed on the expression of the textual metafunction in CLIL, clearly underexplored in comparison to the other two metafunctions. Many studies in CLIL have focused on the interpersonal metafunction, and the way language is used to establish relations between interlocutors (e.g., Llinares, 2015b on the role of the interpersonal function of language in CLIL). Interpersonal meanings are realised through speech roles or functions, and through resources that provide subjective comments and stance (e.g., through the use of appraisal). In the interpersonal metafunction language becomes more ‘action’ than ‘representation’. Llinares et al. (2012) identified four main roles of interpersonal language in the CLIL classes studied: (1) the expression of evaluation and attitude towards on the academic content, (2) the expression of personal experience in relation or not

19

Ana Llinares

to the academic content, (3) the interpersonal language for operating in classroom activities, and (4) the language for socialising. The majority of the existing studies on the interpersonal function in CLIL have focused on the first of these roles, the expression of attitude and evaluation towards academic content, and particularly addressing two main areas: speech functions and appraisal. The previous section includes examples of studies focusing on speech functions (e.g., Llinares & Morton, 2017b; Pastrana et al., 2018). In this section I will provide an overview of studies focusing on appraisal in CLIL settings. One important issue that has been raised in CLIL research is whether students can perform higher-​order thinking skills in the L2 which require going beyond the presentation of knowledge as facts. This becomes particularly relevant from secondary school onwards, when students are expected to go beyond descriptions and explanations, towards interpretation and argumentation (e.g., interpreting historical events or arguing about the implications of natural disasters). In order to be able to interpret and produce effective argumentations, it is necessary to identify the meanings and lexicogrammatical resources that are necessary for that purpose. Appraisal theory, developed by Martin and White (2005), has proven helpful for this. Appraisal theory provides a framework to analyse three types of interpersonal meanings: attitude, engagement, and graduation. Attitude is related to emotions (affect) and evaluation of people’s behaviour ( judgement) and things and events (appreciation). Engagement has to do with the presentation of different views on the information provided, with greater or lesser involvement by the speaker/​w riter (e.g., I think the situation is difficult). Finally, graduation refers to the ways in which appraisal meanings are intensified, softened, etc. (e.g., I think the situation is very difficult). Recent longitudinal studies have examined the use of appraisal resources of CLIL students’ written and spoken texts (McCabe & Whittaker, 2017; Morton & Llinares, 2017). Following the same students over time, results indicated students’ general improvement in their use of appraisal resources over time. Yet this improvement was also contingent on the quality of the task prompt eliciting interpersonal meanings. An additional finding was that students whose texts were rated higher by their teachers presented a wider range of lexicogrammatical resources to express appraisal meanings. Other studies have focused on cross-​sectional data comparing geographical contexts (Llinares & Nikula, 2016), tasks (Llinares & Dalton-​Puffer, 2015) and CLIL groups (Llinares & Evnitskaya, 2021). The first study indicates how some more student-​ centred methodologies may trigger more evaluative approaches to content and thus enhance students’ use of appraisal more than other more traditional classroom interaction approaches. The second study indicates how the practice of certain tasks such as role-​plays trigger more evaluative meanings (and, thus, appraisal resources) than other (even also student-​centred) classroom tasks. Finally, through the analysis of appraisal, the third study identified potential differences in the opportunities offered to different groups of CLIL students to engage in higher order thinking discourse in the L2. Some of the studies presented above on the interpersonal function have related the use of speech functions or appraisal to another SFL concept, that of classroom registers. The framework based on Christie’s (2005) distinction between instructional register (the part of the lesson dedicated to content) and regulative register (the part of the lesson dedicated to classroom management or task organisation), as well as the part of the lesson dedicated to social talk (Llinares & Evnitskaya, 2021), provided the opportunity of identifying what speech functions or appraisal resources are enhanced in different classroom registers, with the corresponding opportunities for students to practice and use the language resources to express those meanings.

20

CLIL and linguistics

SFL and related models in CLIL research and pedagogy Research on CLIL, as on any other field, can provide more interesting insights when combined with compatible models and approaches that can contribute to carry out the analysis using different perspectives. Combining SFL with other models in CLIL research can help address different kinds of questions, as well as contribute to the robustness of the study design and outcomes. This includes the notion of the SLA task-​based learning model in combination with the study of appraisal (Llinares & Dalton-​Puffer, 2015) or the combination of discursive pragmatics and, more specifically, the IRF pattern (initiation-​response-​follow-​ up) and appraisal (Llinares & Nikula, 2016). There are two other frameworks that have been recently combined with SFL in CLIL research: one is Dalton-​Puffer’s (2013) model of cognitive discourse functions (CDFs) and the second one is the semantic dimension in Legitimation Code Theory (LCT) (Maton, 2020).

SFL and CDFs Dalton-​Puffer’s (2013) model of cognitive discourse functions (CDFs) was designed as a construct that would incorporate the different ways in which knowledge and thought are made available in CLIL classrooms. In her model, Dalton-​ Puffer identifies seven CDFs: define, describe, report, explain, argue, explore, and classify (later formulated as categorise in Evnitskaya & Dalton-​Puffer, 2020). The notion of genre in SFL may, at first sight, be considered similar to the notion of CDF, yet there are some important differences that make both models complementary for CLIL research and pedagogy. While genres are represented in bigger units where different stages can be identified, CDFs can be expressed in smaller units (which may correspond to a sentence or a paragraph). The fact that students in CLIL classrooms are usually expected to express knowledge in smaller texts makes the CDF model a practical framework for eliciting and analysing students’ academic production as well as for the identification of the lexicogrammatical features that are necessary to succeed in the expression of those CDFs. The CDF model is also useful for working with CLIL content teachers on the language required to express different functions by focusing on the types of prompts that are closer to the ones they use more often in their classes. A second difference is that the CDF model was designed intersubjectively, while genres are specific for different subjects and disciplines. The intersubjective nature of CDFs is useful for interdisciplinary teacher development, which is becoming more and more relevant in education nowadays. The combination of SFL and CDFs has raised enormous interest in CLIL research as illustrated in a recent special issue on CLIL and SFL where three of the papers included focused on the CDFs define (Nashaat-​Sobhy & Llinares, 2020), evaluate (Whittaker & McCabe, 2020), and categorise (Evnitskaya & Dalton-​Puffer, 2020). All three articles used SFL for the description of the language features that characterise definitions, evaluations, and categorisations, with a focus on lexicogrammar as a network of systems to operationalise the language components of different CDFs. This characterisation is a first step to raise CLIL teachers’ (particularly content specialists) awareness of the role of language in different CDFs. Nashaat-​Sobhy and Llinares (2020) compared CLIL students’ historical definitions across languages (English L2 and Spanish L1), educational levels (primary and secondary education), and fields (topics within history). The results yielded no differences across languages (students’ definitions in the L1 were not better or worse than those in the L2) but there were differences regarding the field being defined. Whittaker and McCabe (2020) applied the appraisal model of evaluative language to analyse how evaluation is 21

Ana Llinares

expressed in CLIL students’ written texts across educational levels (as in the study on definitions) and, in this case also, across disciplines (natural science, social science, and the arts/​a rt). The findings provided specific ways in which teachers can explicitly focus students’ attention on the language of evaluation to enhance the development of cognitive discourse competence. Finally, Evnitskaya and Dalton-​Puffer (2020) analysed the function of categorise (encompassing classifications and comparisons), this time focusing on students’ spoken production. Again, they apply SFL tools in combination with other models to examine particular grammatical and lexical choices (lexis, circumstances, and markers of logical relations) which students employ to realise the CDFs of classify and compare across subjects (history and science) and languages. The results revealed subject-​ specific differences in how categorise was used. In all these studies, then, SFL has proved a useful model to explore CLIL students’ use of academic language to express content across subjects, modes, languages, and educational levels.

SFL and LCT As a sociological model developed for the analysis and enhancement of knowledge-​building practices, LCT can play an important role in CLIL research. The LCT conceptual framework is organised into a series of dimensions: autonomy, semantics, specialisation, and temporality. The dimension of semantics is particularly relevant for CLIL research. Semantic structures take the form of semantic codes, and these codes are identified in terms of density and gravity. Semantic gravity (SG) refers to the degree of contextualisation of meanings (the more contextualised meanings are, the stronger their semantic gravity). Semantic density (SD) refers to the amount of meaning in an expression (the more packed a meaning is, the stronger its semantic density). The focus on knowledge building and semantic waves has been recently applied to CLIL research in studies that show LCT and SFL as useful complementary theories for CLIL and education in general. Lo, Lin, and Liu (2020) combined SFL and the concept of semantic waves to analyse classroom discourse data in CLIL classrooms in which students were learning science in English (L2). Their analysis shows how SFL and LCT are useful models both for the understanding of the role of classroom interaction in unpacking and repacking concepts as well as for CLIL teacher development, as they identify effective strategies for unpacking and repacking field-​specific terms. In another study, this time combining LCT, SFL and the CDF model, Llinares and Nashaat-​Sobhy (2021) analysed how the CDF definition was co-​constructed orally between the students and a researcher in oral interviews responding to a science prompt. They argue that a higher contextualisation and weakening of semantic density (SG+​/​SD−) can be useful as a scaffolding technique to allow teachers to identify to what extent students understand the scientific concepts, while moving back to the academic register lowering the gravity and turning to more dense meanings (SG−/​SD+​) is a necessary step to guarantee that students’ oral (and written) production meets teachers’ expectations.

SFL as a catalyst for CLIL research and pedagogy: interdisciplinarity and equity As argued above, SFL provides a ‘perfect match’ for research and pedagogy on content and language integrated learning (Llinares & McCabe, 2020). While formal linguistics may be useful for a focus on language form and, thus, for ‘balancing’ the content and language focus in content classes, SFL, with its focus on meanings and functions provides a framework for 22

CLIL and linguistics

approaching ‘integration’ (rather than balance) of content and language. The paradigmatic view of language as a system of choices provides the framework for analysing students’ language resources to express the different meanings required in the context of situation. O’Donnell’s (2008) UAM CorpusTool provides a tool to allow for this type of analysis (see Figures 1.1 and 1.2), as it offers both a solid conceptual and methodological model for the analysis of language and the expression of academic content. The dimensions of genre and register are particularly useful for researching the textual requirements in different disciplines or subject areas and have practical implications through genre pedagogy, where CLIL content teachers can work on the language resources that characterise the texts in their disciplines. Whittaker and García Parejo (2018) illustrate with practical examples how it is possible for SFL researchers to work with teachers in adapting literacy pedagogy to the types of texts they use in their classes and subjects. They also illustrate students’ literacy improvement, particularly for those students with more difficulties. The analysis of the three metafunctions (ideational, interpersonal, and textual) allows CLIL researchers and teachers to identify those lexicogrammatical resources that are necessary to describe and represent the world, to establish interpersonal relations and to create coherent texts. In particular, the application of appraisal theory has helped to identify possible issues of (in)equity when streaming CLIL students in different groups (with different degrees of exposure), involving different opportunities for developing higher-​ order thinking skills, with clear implications for these students’ content and language development (Llinares & Evnitskaya, 2021). The analysis of appraisal has also shown that students with a lower competence in the L2 have more difficulties to express evaluative meanings in their expression of content (e.g., Morton & Llinares, 2017), as well as the different opportunities for expressing evaluative meanings in classroom interaction across tasks and educational contexts in different countries (Llinares & Dalton-​P uffer, 2015; Llinares & Nikula, 2016). The existing research combining CDFs and SFL has provided evidence of the different roles of variables such as the field, type of prompt, educational level, mode (spoken and written), and language (L1 and L2). While differences have been observed in students’ expressions of CDFs depending on the field or topic, type of prompt, mode (spoken or written), and educational level, no difference has been observed in students’ production in the L2 (their language of instruction) and the L1 (their native language) (e.g., Llinares & Nashaat-​Sobhy, 2021; Nashaat-​Sobhy & Llinares, 2020; Whittaker & McCabe, 2020). In addition, studies combining SFL and LCT have shown that while SFL provides a framework for language description, LCT and the concept of semantic waves allows for an interpretation of how meanings are unpacked and repacked in classroom interaction. While genre and register theory are perfect models for CLIL teachers and students to focus on specific disciplines, the CDF and LCT models allow for analysis and pedagogical applications across disciplines. The application of these models, then, can offer relevant contributions for interdisciplinary work and for content and language integrated assessment. Subsequent to their analysis of CLIL students’ expression of definitions, Llinares and Nashaat-​Sobhy (2021) report on the results of a content and language teacher development seminar. In this seminar, teachers used comparative judgement to assess holistically and individually students’ responses to different CDFs using the perspective of their own discipline. The ranking obtained from this assessment was then used as a point of departure for the discussion among teachers of different disciplines, including language teachers, and also researchers. This seminar helped content and language teachers to work interdisciplinarily. 23

Ana Llinares

Figure 1.3  SFL theory, research variables, and pedagogical applications

Concluding remarks This chapter has provided an overview of the role of linguistics in CLIL research and pedagogy. If we consider CLIL a methodological approach where language and content are explored in an integrated manner, then, it is logical to apply linguistic models that see language as inseparable from content, both for research and pedagogical purposes. Figure 1.3 illustrates some SFL and related models that have been applied in CLIL research (which have been illustrated with studies in the sections above), the research variables that this theory (and other related models) has been able to investigate, and some pedagogical applications derived from them. The world’s present and future challenges, including educational challenges, cannot be addressed individually and from one single perspective. Both CLIL, as an educational model that integrates different disciplines, and SFL, as a linguistic theory that understands language as inseparable from meanings, functions, context, and content, can be catalysts for innovative research and pedagogy. In a world in which students need to be prepared to work collaboratively and use multiple perspectives around local and global issues, teachers (both content and language) have the responsibility of generating those types of learning scenarios. In order to achieve this purpose, it is paramount to build communities of practice where teams of CLIL (content and language) teachers and CLIL researchers can work together.

Further reading Llinares, A., & Morton, T. (Eds.). (2017). Applied linguistics perspectives on CLIL (Vol. 47). John Benjamins. This edited volume includes a whole section with four chapters on CLIL research applying systemic functional linguistics. Llinares, A., Morton, T. & Whittaker, R. (2012). The roles of language in CLIL. Cambridge University Press The application of systemic functional linguistics to CLIL is illustrated with practical examples and activities.

24

CLIL and linguistics McCabe, A. (2021). A functional linguistic perspective on developing language. Routledge. A key book for the understanding of the application of systemic functional linguistics to language development.

References Agustín-​Llach, M. P., & Canga Alonso, A. (2016). Vocabulary growth in young CLIL and traditional EFL learners: Evidence from research and implications for education. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 26(2), 211–​227. Ball, P., Kelly, K., & Clegg, J. (2015). Putting CLIL into practice. Oxford University Press. Bauer, L., & Trudgill, P. (Eds.). (1998). Language myths. Penguin UK. Christie, F. (2005). Classroom discourse analysis: A functional perspective. Continuum. Dalton-​Puffer, C. (2013). A construct of cognitive discourse functions for conceptualising content-​ language integration in CLIL and multilingual education. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 216–​253. Eggins, S., & Slade, D. (1997). Analysing casual conversation. Cassell. Evnitskaya, N., & Dalton-​Puffer, C. (2020). Cognitive discourse functions in CLIL classrooms: Eliciting and analysing students’ oral categorizations in science and history. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​13670 ​050.2020.1804​824 Garcia Mayo, M., & Villarreal, I. (2011). The development of suppletive and affixal tense and agreement morphemes in the L3 English of Basque-​Spanish bilinguals. Second Language Research, 27(1), 129–​149. Gómez Lacabex, E., & Gallardo del Puerto, F. (2020). Explicit phonetic instruction vs. implicit attention to native exposure: Phonological awareness of English schwa in CLIL. IRAL –​International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 58(4), 419–​4 42. Halliday, M.A.K., & Matthiessen, C.I.M. (2014). Halliday’s introduction to functional grammar (4th ed.). Routledge. Hüttner, J., Dalton-​Puffer, C., & Smit, U. (2013). The power of beliefs: Lay theories and their influence on the implementation of CLIL programmes. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16, 267–​284. Llinares, A. (2015a). Integration in CLIL: A proposal to inform research and successful pedagogy. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28(1), 58–​73. Llinares, A. (2015b). The interpersonal function of language in CLIL secondary education: Analysis of a spoken and written corpus (INTER-​CLIL). European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 3(2), 343–​347. Llinares, A., & Dalton-​Puffer, C. (2015). The role of different tasks in CLIL students’ use of evaluative language. System, 54, 69–​79. Llinares, A., & Evnitskaya, N. (2021). Classroom interaction in CLIL programs: Offering opportunities or fostering inequalities? TESOL Quarterly, 55(2), 366–​397. Llinares, A., & Lyster, R. (2014). The influence of context on patterns of corrective feedback and learner uptake: A comparison of CLIL and immersion classrooms. The Language Learning Journal, 42(2), 181–​194. Llinares, A., & McCabe, A. (2020). Systemic functional linguistics: The perfect match for content and language integrated learning. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. https://​doi. org/​10.1080/​13670​050.2019.1635​985 Llinares, A., & Morton, T. (Eds.). (2017a). Applied linguistics perspectives on CLIL (Vol. 47). John Benjamins. Llinares, A., & Morton, T. (2017b). Speech function analysis to explore CLIL students’ spoken language for knowledge construction. In A. Llinares & T. Morton (Eds.), Applied linguistics perspectives on CLIL (pp. 125–​144). John Benjamins. Llinares, A., Morton, T., & Whittaker, R. (2012). The roles of language in CLIL. Cambridge University Press. Llinares, A., & Nashaat-​Sobhy, N. (2021). What is an ecosystem? Defining science in primary school CLIL contexts. Language Teaching for Young Learners, 3(2), 337–​362. Llinares, A., & Navarro, A. (2021). Language resources for the expression of content in CLIL: Students’ use of clause complexes. In A. Graziano (Ed.), Pedagogical and technological innovations in (and through) content and language integrated learning (pp. 58–​79). Cambridge Scholars.

25

Ana Llinares Llinares, A., & Nikula, T. (2016). Teacher and student evaluative language in CLIL across contexts: Integrating SFL and pragmatic approaches. In T. Nikula, E. Dafouz, P. Moore, & U. Smit (Eds.), Conceptualising integration in CLIL and multilingual education (pp. 189–​210). Multilingual Matters. Llinares, A., & Whittaker, R. (2010). Writing and speaking in the history class: Data from CLIL and first language contexts. In C. Dalton-​Puffer, T. Nikula, & U. Smit (Eds.), Language use and language learning in CLIL classrooms (pp. 125–​144). John Benjamins. Lo, Y.Y., & Jeong, H. (2018). Impact of genre-​based pedagogy on students’ academic literacy development in content and language integrated learning (CLIL). Linguistics and Education, 47, 36–​46. Lo, Y. Y., Lin, A. M., & Liu, Y. (2020). Exploring content and language co-​construction in CLIL with semantic waves. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​ 13670​050.2020.1810​203 Lorenzo, F. (2013). Genre-​based curricula: Multilingual academic literacy in content and Language integrated learning. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16(3), 375–​388. Lyster, R. (2007). Learning and teaching languages through content: A counterbalanced approach. John Benjamins. Martin, J.R. (1992). Genre and literacy-​modeling context in educational linguistics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 13, 141–​172. Martin, J.R., & Rose, D. (2008). Genre relations: Mapping culture. Equinox. Martin, J.R., & White, P.R.R. (2005). The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. Palgrave Macmillan. Maton, K. (2020). Semantic waves: Context, complexity and academic discourse. In J.R. Martin, K. Maton & Y.J. Doran (Eds.), Accessing academic discourse: Systemic functional linguistics and Legitimation Code Theory (pp. 59–​85). Routledge. McCabe, A. (2021). A functional linguistic perspective on developing language. Routledge. McCabe, E.A.H., & Whittaker, R. (2017). Genre and appraisal in CLIL history texts: Developing the voice of the historian. In A. Llinares & T. Morton (Eds.), Applied linguistics perspectives on CLIL (pp. 105–​124). John Benjamins. Morton, T. (2010). Using a genre-​based approach to integrating content and language in CLIL: The example of secondary history. In C. Dalton-​Puffer, T. Nikula & U. Smit (Eds.), Language use in content-​and-​language integrated learning (CLIL) (pp. 81–​104). John Benjamins. Morton, T., & Llinares, A. (2017). Content and language integrated learning (CLIL): Type of programme or pedagogical model? In A. Llinares & T. Morton (Eds.), Applied linguistics perspectives on CLIL (pp. 1–​16). John Benjamins. Nashaat-​Sobhy, N. (2017). Investigating pragmatics in CLIL through students’ requests. In A. Llinares & T. Morton (Eds.), Applied linguistics perspectives on CLIL (pp. 67–​88). John Benjamins. Nashaat-​Sobhy, N. & Llinares, A. (2020). CLIL students’ definitions of historical terms, International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​13670 ​050.2020.1798​868 Nguyen, T.T. (2018). Interactional corrective feedback: A comparison between primary CLIL in Spain and primary CLIL in Vietnam. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Universidad Autonoma de Madrid. Nicholas, H., & Starks, D. (2014). Language education and applied linguistics: Bridging the two fields. Routledge. O’Donnell, M. (2008). Demonstration of the UAM CorpusTool for text and image annotation. Proceedings of the ACL-​ 08:HLT Demo Session Companion Volume, 13–​ 16. Association for Computational Linguistics, Columbus, OH, United States. www.acl​web.org/​a nthol​ogy/​P08-​ 4004/​. Pastrana, A., Llinares, A., & Pascual, I. (2018). Students’ language use for co-​construction of knowledge in CLIL group-​work activities: A comparison with L1 Settings. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 21(1), 49–​70. Pena, C.A., & Pladevall-​Ballester, E. (2020). Effects of focus on form on primary CLIL students’ foreign language performance in task-​based oral interaction. Journal of Immersion and Content-​Based Language Education, 8(1), 53–​79. Ringbom, H. (2012). Review of recent applied linguistics research in Finland and Sweden, with specific reference to foreign language learning and teaching. Language Teaching, 45(4), 490–​514. Skinnari, K., & Bovellan, E. (2016). CLIL teachers’ beliefs about integration and about their professional roles: Perspectives from a European context. In T. Nikula, E. Dafouz, P. Moore, & U.

26

CLIL and linguistics Smit (Eds.), Conceptualising integration in CLIL and multilingual education (pp. 145–​167). Multilingual Matters. Whittaker, R., & García Parejo, I. (2018). Teacher Learning for European Literacy Education (TeL4ELE): Genre-​ based pedagogy in five European countries. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6(1), 31–​57. Whittaker, R., & Llinares, A. (2009). CLIL in social science classrooms: Analysis of spoken and written productions. In Y. Ruiz de Zarobe & R.M. Jiménez Catalán (Eds.) Content and language integrated learning: Evidence from research in Europe (pp. 215–​234). Multilingual Matters. Whittaker, R., Llinares, A., & McCabe, A. (2011). Written discourse development in CLIL at secondary school. Language Teaching Research, 5, 343–​362. Whittaker, R., & McCabe, A. (2020). Expressing evaluation across disciplines in primary and secondary CLIL writing: A longitudinal study. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​13670 ​050.2020.1798​869

27

28

2 TRANSLANGUAGING IN CLIL Pat Moore

Introduction The term translanguaging was coined in the 1990s to describe the planned alternation of languages in bilingual classrooms –​for example Welsh input and English output or vice versa, to ensure the development of both languages (Williams, 1994). As we shall see, as translanguaging research has developed, it has bifurcated. In its original incarnation, translanguaging is understood as a bilingual pedagogical approach, yet it has been reconceptualised to account for some of the typical features of bi-​/​multilingual (i.e., not monolingual) behaviour (e.g., borrowing and transfer). Both are arguably relevant here. CLIL is described as ‘bilingual education’, yet people do not often talk of target languages (plural) in CLIL. Nevertheless, perhaps CLIL could/​should pay more attention to the L1. Even if a classroom were purportedly ‘English only’, the teacher could not prevent students from thinking in their L1 and so it will always be present. Adopting a translanguaging approach implies factoring the L1 in, not only as a potential aid to content and target language (TL) acquisition, but as an integral part of the process. In this chapter we will first outline the origins of the term translanguaging. We will acknowledge the expansion of the term to account for bilingual behaviour, but our primary goal is to examine how it has entered educational discourse and practice, particularly in CLIL contexts. As we shall see, translanguaging tallies with the reassessment of the roles of L1 in foreign language (FL) contexts and a reconceptualisation of what it means to be bilingual. We will provide an overview of L1 and translanguaging research in CLIL and we will discuss some of the ways that CLIL practitioners can incorporate translanguaging in their classroom praxis.

Translanguaging Trans… Li (2011) proposed multiple interpretations of ‘trans-​ ’: transcending, going beyond; transdisciplinary, going between, and transformation; Prada and Nikula (2018), add a fourth, transgression, highlighting the disruptive nature of the challenges translanguaging poses to established hierarchies and praxis. 28

DOI: 10.4324/9781003173151-4

Translanguaging in CLIL

…Languaging The idea of gerundising ‘language’ in order to denote an action rather than an object has a certain logic to it and so it is not surprising to find that the term languaging appears to have emerged in multiple independent sites. It has been ascribed to Maturana and Varela (1984; in García & Li, 2014) and to Becker (1988; in Li, 2011) and it is frequently associated with Swain (e.g., 2006) although as she observes (p. 96), it was already in use as early as 1979, in an article by Lado. Actually, it goes back much further. Nelson (1952, p. 130) quotes a Tudor text (from 1582) decrying the excessive amount of time spent on the classics to the detriment of the vernacular: ‘And doth not our languaging hold us bak 4 years…’ As noted above, the term translanguaging first emerged in an educational context. It was developed by Williams (1994) to describe the planned alternation of Welsh and English, in a declaredly bilingual classroom, thus ensuring the parallel development of both. In fact, the implications of this approach go beyond the purely linguistic and can enhance cognitive development and content-​learning. As Baker (2000, pp. 104–​105) observed: It is possible in a monolingual context, for students to answer questions or write an essay without fully understanding the subject. Whole sentences or paragraphs can be copied or adapted from a textbook without really understanding them. This is less easy in a bilingual situation. To read and discuss a topic in one language, and then to write about it in another, means that the subject matter has to be properly ‘digested’ and reconstructed.

Translanguaging as bilingual behaviour Although rooted in classrooms, translanguaging has branched out beyond education. In 2002, while presenting his research to a Welsh local government committee, Williams gave the example of a child taking a telephone message in one language and passing it on in another, suggesting that translanguaging is ‘a natural skill for any bilingual’ (p. 29). Over the next few years, the term gained traction, particularly once it was taken up by North American researchers such as García (2009, 2012), who extended the notion of the planned alternation of two (named) languages to embrace a more flexible, more multilingual approach. Subsequently, Welsh colleagues Lewis et al. (2012) distinguished between pedagogic classroom and universal translanguaging, where universal refers to mundane bi-​and multilingual behaviour in wider society, ‘with cognitive, contextual and cultural aspects’ (p. 650). We should emphasise that this was not happening in isolation. To illustrate, note the parallel emergence of (potentially competing) terms coming out of critical poststructuralist sociolinguistics, emphasising the dynamism and fluidity of language practices: Blommaert’s supervernaculars: ‘new forms of semiotic codes emerging in the context of technology-​d riven globalization processes’ (2012, p. 1); Otsuji and Pennycook’s metrolingualism: ‘creative linguistic practices across borders of culture, history and politics’ (2010, p. 240); Jørgensen et al.’s polylanguaging: ‘the way in which speakers use features associated with different “languages” –​even when they know very little of these “languages” ’ (2011, p. 23). These ideas are ontological (about being), not epistemological (about knowing), and therefore more concerned with how bi-​/​multilinguals behave than how they learn (which is where classroom translanguaging comes in). This also chimes with a general tendency to re-​appraise the idea of what Hamers and Blanc (1989) call bilinguality –​being bilingual (as distinct from societal bilingualism). Early 29

Pat Moore

research into bilinguals often denigrated them. Saer (1923), in Wales, explored the effect of bilingualism on intelligence and identified ‘a marked superiority in the monoglots over the bilinguists’ (p. 29). Haugen, in the US (1949, p. 271), considered bilinguals ‘the carriers of interlingual contagion’. Over the past half century, however, traditional deficit approaches have been reversed. Grosjean’s (1989) assertion that the bilingual is not two monolinguals in one helped to fuel significant research into bilingual acquisition, cognition, and processing (e.g., Bialystok, 2001; Grosjean & Li, 2012). Research into bilingual behaviour has moved on from an early obsession with trying to establish rules for code-​switching (e.g., Sankoff & Poplack, 1981) to explore contact linguistics (e.g., Myers-​Scotton, 2002; Winford, 2002), specific features such as borrowing and transfer (e.g., Marian & Kaushanskaya, 2007), and bi-​, tri-​, and multi-​lingual identity (e.g., Cenoz & Jessner, 2000; Pavlenko & Blackledge, 2004). (Space precludes our going into greater detail, but remember that this shift in perception was crucial.)

Paving the way for translanguaging in FL (and CLIL) classrooms In tandem, and paving the way for translanguaging in FL classrooms, applied linguists have been deconstructing the monolingual legacies of the so-​called Natural Approach (Krashen & Terrell, 1983) (aka Direct Method) in foreign/​second language teaching, which –​in theory at least –​barred the L1 from the FL classroom. Concern with L1s has engendered a significant amount of research and debate within the FL community. Caldwell and Butzkamm (2009), Hall and Cook (2012), and Littlewood and Yu (2011) provide a good overview of the state-​of-​play in the first decade of the century. More recent publications, looking at the question specifically through a translanguaging lens include Moore (2018) and Stathopoulou (2016) in European contexts, and Turnbull (2019) and Wang (2019) in Asia. To summarise, the L1 is no longer persona non grata in FL classrooms. Concurrently, the whole concept of language learning/​acquisition has expanded. On the eve of the 21st century, Firth and Wagner (1997, p. 296) called second language acquisition (SLA) to task: ‘Language is not only a cognitive phenomenon, the product of an individual’s brain, it is also fundamentally a social phenomenon, acquired and used interactively, in a variety of contexts, for myriad practical purposes.’ Their article is commonly heralded as the dawn of the socio-​cultural turn in applied linguistics that saw the emergence of more contextualised, ecolinguistic approaches. We are now in the midst of a multilingual turn (May, 2013): the idea that bi-​/​multilinguality be posited as the goal of FL education, alongside the positioning of FL learners as emergent bilinguals (Moore, 2018; Moore & Turnbull, 2022; Douglas Fir Group, 2017; Turnbull, 2018). In turn, chaos and complexity theories (e.g., Larsen-​Freeman, 1997) involving the rejection of linearity in language acquisition, the notion of dynamic systems, adaptability and transformation, and organic language in a socio-​cultural ecology in constant flux also tie in with translanguaging. Banda (2018, p. 198) acknowledges ‘the often-​a ssumed “chaos” in translanguaged discourse’. This conflates with another trend in sociolinguistics that proposes moving away from the notion of bounded, named languages towards the idea of linguistic repertoires. In this view, bilinguals have one linguistic repertoire from which they select features strategically to communicate effectively. That is, translanguaging takes as its starting point the language practices of bilingual people as the norm, and not the language of monolinguals, as described by traditional usage books and grammars. García, 2012, p. 1, italics in original 30

Translanguaging in CLIL

This is one of the key differences between the earlier bilingual model of code-​switching and (strong) translanguaging (see further below). While code-​switching is based on the existence of discrete codes, translanguaging rejects them. With translation and calques, transfer (and interference), loanwords and borrowings, coinages, and hybrid forms, we move beyond named languages (French, English, etc.) to integrated language (linguistic repertoires). Nonetheless, this idea is potentially problematic in the context of CLIL and FL research because, as Nikula and Moore (2019, p. 239) observe: ‘It is difficult to analyse instances of speakers moulding verbal repertoires without resorting to codification (L1, L2, etc.).’ We began this chapter by recognising that prototypical CLIL is on a cline –​somewhere between dual monolingualism and fully integrated bilingualism. We have seen how translanguaging –​both as behaviour and as pedagogical strategy/​approach –​is part of a general trend encompassing a more dynamic, flexible, and fluid understanding of bi-​and multilingual language practices (both learning and behaviour). We conclude this section with a translanguaging cline: from Williams original, classroom-​based model based on the alternation of named languages to what García and Kleyn (2016, p. 19) label a strong translanguaging model, rejecting ‘the boundaries of artificial named languages’ in favour of linguistic repertoires.

Translanguaging in CLIL Let us move to the question of translanguaging in CLIL. Nikula and Moore (2019) suggested we could consider translanguaging in CLIL classrooms from the perspective of teacher disposition: a strong disposition reflecting proactive, planned alternation of L1(s) and TL, and a weaker disposition accepting unplanned emergent L1 use as and when, reframing it as resource rather than recourse (p. 245). In this section we will outline a progression from a weak to strong translanguaging potential for CLIL. We will first review a selection of CLIL studies focusing on L1, moving along the cline from studies that were positioned as code-​ switching (e.g., Gierlinger, 2015), to alternation (e.g., Kontio & Sylvén, 2015) or simply L1 use (e.g., Lin, 2015), and progressively moving towards studies adopting a translanguaging lens (e.g., Karabassova & San Isidro, 2020; Lin & He, 2017; Moore & Nikula, 2016; Nikula & Moore, 2019). We will begin by looking at research into teacher perspectives and then move on to attested classroom discourse. In the final sections we will explore the potential for planned translanguaging in CLIL with a selection of studies focusing on explicitly bilingual praxis.

L1s in CLIL classroom discourse The question of L1 use was not high on the agenda in nascent CLIL research but has assumed increasing importance in the last decade or so. In fact, given the explosion of interest in L1s (and other languages) in CLIL, Moore and López Stoelting (2021) suggest that CLIL might be going through its own multilingual turn. Lin (2015, p. 74) proposed that since CLIL is a ‘young discipline’ it might be able to distance itself from traditional monolingual assumptions and be ‘more flexible and balanced’ regarding roles for the L1. Research consistently finds both teachers and learners using L1s in CLIL classrooms, sometimes despite official policy (e.g., Karabassova & San Isidro, 2020; Lin & He, 2017). Doiz and Lasagabaster (2017) suggest that policy should be understood as functioning on two levels: institutional policy may decree TL exclusivity, but the teacher charged with enacting said policy in the classroom may be permissive regarding L1 use. 31

Pat Moore

Let us begin with a strand of enquiry into CLIL teacher perspectives on L1 use in the classroom, encompassing both teacher and learner behaviour. Méndez García and Pavón (2012) conducted semi-​structured interviews with content and language teachers and language assistants (N =​12) in three Andalusian schools, two primary and one secondary, where the TL is French. Lasagabaster (2013) gathered information from a focus group (N =​35) of (mostly secondary) in-​service teachers in Colombia. These first two are situated in bilingual scenarios, but there are other more multilingually oriented studies. Doiz and Lasagabaster (2017) conducted discussion groups (N =​24) equally divided between CLIL content teachers and management teams at three secondary schools in the Basque country, where the L1s were Basque and Spanish. Karabassova and San Isidro (2020), who also conducted follow-​up observations, interviewed content teachers (N =​11) working in English, Kazakh, and Russian at flagship state secondary schools in Kazakhstan. The findings of this body of work suggest that, in general, the teachers expressed varying degrees of unease regarding the use of anything other than the TL. Of course, we can assume they were once FL students themselves, and likely in classrooms where the L1 was furtive or frowned upon. In line with Lortie’s (1975) ‘apprenticeship of observation’, they may well feel guilty about L1 use (Creese & Blackledge, 2010). Teachers tend to lean heavily on the belief that maximal exposure to the TL is essential, although as Lin (2015, p. 78) observed they might be forgetting that maximal exposure should ideally go hand in hand with comprehensible input and ‘The potential role of L1 in helping to make the L2 input comprehensible should not be neglected’. Nonetheless, research also shows the teachers recognise that they do use the L1 to support content learning. To check comprehension and to repair if necessary; for disambiguation (Mendez García & Pavón, 2012); sometimes as a last resort (Lasagabaster, 2013); often as a time-​saving device (Doiz & Lasagabaster, 2017); and sometimes as a temporary fix en route to the idealised TL-​exclusive scenario (Karabassova & San Isidro, 2020). The teachers in Lasagabaster’s study recognised the contribution of the L1 to get students talking, as well as for affective factors, and for swift resolution of disciplinary issues. They also identified a potential for cross-​linguistic comparison, something that both the respondents in the subsequent study (Doiz & Lasagabaster, 2017) and in Mendez García and Pavón (2012) also mentioned. Both Mendez García and Pavón (2012) and Lasagabaster (2013) recognise that bilinguals naturally and intuitively use both of their languages. There was also widespread agreement on the need for students to learn content-​related language in both TL and L1(s). Kiely (2011), in a primary context, argues this last point very pragmatically: ideally, he reminds us, learners need to be able to discuss what they are learning with friends and/​or family members. Additionally, if they were to study the same subject later on in their L1, they would need the language. As research in FL classrooms has repeatedly demonstrated, teachers tend to underestimate their use of learners’ home languages (Hall & Cook, 2012, p. 285). We therefore need to examine what is actually happening in the classroom. To this end, we briefly review a selection of classroom-​based research. In these studies, researchers were not interested so much in whether, but rather on how/​when/​why the L1 was used in CLIL classrooms. While not all studies reviewed explicitly posited as focusing on translanguaging per se, they are included here given their focus on bilingualism in CLIL classrooms. In a study focusing on teacher behaviour, Gierlinger (2015) observed (and recorded) classes with five different groups and then conducted follow-​up interviews. The participating teachers were all German L1 speakers tasked with teaching through English as a TL, which ‘added a considerable cognitive and affective burden to their already hard stretched teaching reality’ (p. 367). Gierlinger noted that rather than rejecting L1 use, they ‘embraced’ 32

Translanguaging in CLIL

it as a valuable scaffolding device to support both their own output (teaching) and thence their students’ learning. Gierlinger thus concludes that principled L1 use offers significant potential for enrichment in the CLIL classroom. Kontio and Sylvén (2015) gathered data in upper-​secondary vocational CLIL in Sweden, with students studying auto-​mechanics. (As they note, vocational CLIL is poorly represented in research.) Applying a sociolinguistic-​ethnomethodology, they compared student-​initiated and teacher-​impelled language alternation between Swedish and English in EFL and CLIL classes. Unsurprisingly, they found that the FL classes, focused on language, were more TL monolingual. In the CLIL classes, where students work in groups on hands-​on tasks, languaging was directed towards getting things done and alternation (both ways) was more frequent and much more playful, although the TL terminology was not neglected in the process. Moore and Nikula (2016) analysed short extracts of CLIL classroom discourse from Austria, Finland, and Spain. They adopted a data-​d riven approach, rejecting preordained categories and settling on a distinction between translanguaging episodes as salient, when the speaker was orienting to language as a tool of learning, and unmarked, when speakers were ‘simply’ orienting to the ongoing exchange, which they later paraphrased as learning and behaving bilingually (Nikula & Moore, 2019, p. 242). In this subsequent publication, however, when they looked at longer extracts, they recognised that the distinction was, in fact, potentially simplistic and that ecological factors were also in play as, for example, speakers aligned (or not) with medium of instruction norms. In a trilingual (Swiss German, standard German, and English) context, Bieri (2018) explored translanguaging in CLIL and non-​CLIL biology classes in Switzerland. In both contexts she found both German varieties but what was particularly interesting was that in the non-​CLIL classes she also found English, and French being used to clarify the etymology of Latinate terms and in both CLIL and non-​CLIL classes she identified translanguaging involving Latin and Greek-​derived scientific terminology (e.g., dendro, derm). All of this despite both of the teachers involved advocating TL-​only classrooms (English in CLIL, standard German in non-​CLIL). All the above-​described studies reported episodes of translanguaging to support L1 and TL content-​learning, enacted both by students and teachers. Such translingual practices among students are conceptualised by Kontio and Sylvén (2015), Moore and Nikula (2016), and Karabassova and San Isidro (2020) as a form of peer scaffolding. Moore and Nikula (2019, p. 244) illustrate this via an extract of a student-​led presentation where the student emulates her teacher using L1 to summarise key points as she progresses. Some of the L1 use took place for classroom management purposes (e.g., in Gierlinger, 2015) and for cross-​ linguistic comparison (Bieri, 2018; Moore & Nikula, 2016). The studies also revealed that teachers sometimes translanguage to fill gaps in their own discourse, but instead of this having negative connotations (as feared by the teachers in Karabassova & San Isidro, 2020) it can lead to fruitful co-​learning experiences (Gierlinger, 2015; Moore & Nikula, 2016). This classroom data also includes examples of (emergent) bilingual behaviour, such as when learners produce creative coinages like smauling (Kontio & Sylvén, 2015, p. 280) or protestantist (Moore & Nikula, 2016, p. 225) (see below for further discussion) and smatter TL output with L1 discourse markers (Bieri, 2018; Moore & Nikula, 2016) as they orient to the ongoing flow of the classroom exchange. And since translanguaging is a typical feature of off-​topic (Kontio & Sylvén, 2015) and off-​record (Moore & Nikula, 2016) exchanges, researchers also found instances of students translanguaging in parallel to the official TL discourse. 33

Pat Moore

The findings of the studies reviewed show that although teachers may declare in favour of TL-​only classrooms, in practice the L1 is present and is serving multiple roles. Thus far we have been discussing what could be understood as incidental L1 use in CLIL; the next section focuses on planned translanguaging in bilingual classrooms.

Planned (classroom/​pedagogic) translanguaging Williams’ original model of translanguaging was conceived of in a bilingual context, involving the deliberate alternation between English and Welsh in the classroom context; in other words, planned translanguaging, also known as classroom translanguaging (Lewis et al., 2012) and pedagogic translanguaging (Cenoz & Gorter, 2021). As noted previously, prototypical CLIL envisages common L1(s) shared between students and teachers in tandem with a TL. Such a scenario makes the planned alternation of languages feasible. In this section we discuss some of the ways that CLIL practitioners can plan for translanguaging to aid bilingual learning in their classrooms.

Translanguaging at word level Given the general agreement (noted above) on the need for CLIL learners to know content-​ specific terminologies in both L1 and TL, a good place to start might be with lexis. Lasagabaster (2013, p. 14) suggests ‘vocabulary might be better learnt by providing first-​ language equivalents rather than by providing second-​language definitions or paraphrases’. One way to do this is by using what Creese and Blackledge (2010, p. 111) call ‘bilingual label quests’: providing the L1 term to elicit the TL equivalent. This in turn will open doors to potentially useful possibilities for cross-​language comparison, discussion of etymologies, and so forth. This depends, of course, on learners already knowing the L1 term, which will not always be the case. When presenting new language, teachers rely on a variety of multimodal tools, the use of visuals, images, gestures, sounds, etc., going beyond the words. And we should here acknowledge that several researchers have argued for the extension of the notion of translanguaging to transsemiotising with the aim of ‘further broaden[ing] the focus to analyse language as entangled with many other semiotics (e.g., visuals, gestures, bodily movement) in meaning making’ (Lin, 2019, p. 5; see also García & Li, 2014; Pennycook, 2017). This is an idea which would likely resonate with many teachers since it is very intuitive.

Translanguaging at text level Moving on from isolated words/​expressions, translanguaging can also be planned at text level. There is a growing body of research which suggests that encouraging students to employ their full repertoires in the process of composing (academic) texts can both improve the quality of the final product and heighten metalinguistic awareness (see Adamson & Coulson, 2015; Canagarajah, 2011; and/​or Turnbull 2019 regarding how this can be enacted). Students’ translanguaging behaviour –​as evidenced, for example, by their writing –​can also inform the teacher of their developmental levels. For example, longitudinal research has identified an evolution in CLIL students’ use of bilingual strategies to resolve gaps when writing: from borrowing, to foreignisation, to translation (Agustín-​Llach, 2009). What translanguaging adds to the discussion is that instead of these features being regarded as errors (as in Agustín-​ Llach, 2009), they can be perceived as indicators of emergent bilinguality: the learners becoming users (Moore & López Stoelting, 2021). 34

Translanguaging in CLIL

When teachers pay attention to this L1-​infused language, it could help them provide more nuanced support. Moore and López Stoelting (2021, pp. 13–​14) found repeated use of ‘privacity’ and ‘informated’ among texts by a group of Spanish L1 students writing about social networking. These are classic examples of foreignisation, also known as coinages (Agustín-​ Llach, 2009), inventions (Dewaele, 1998), and heteroglossic terms (Creese & Blackledge, 2010), a mélange of ‘named’ languages. Their emergence demonstrates that L2 users have internalised elements of TL morphology, with which they are creatively moulding language to their communicative will. The CEFR considers foreignisation a compensatory strategy and envisages it emerging at B1 (CoE, 2018, p. 60), although it can be playful and creative too. When there is psychotypological proximity (Kellerman, 1979) between the L1 and the TL, this offers significant potential for positive transfer. This is certainly the case when English is the TL and the L1 is Latinate or Germanic, but Creese and Blackledge (2010) document it occurring with spoken Gujarati/​English, and Li (2011) discusses inventions in a spoken Putonghua Chinese/​English context, so it is not restricted to outwardly similar languages. Translation also offers a potentially interesting means of bringing translanguaging into the classroom. Since translation between L1 and TL will be happening in learners’ minds anyway (Thierry & Wu, 2007), teachers can usefully exploit it as a pedagogic strategy. When the Direct Method supplanted the Grammar-​Translation Method, it arguably threw the (translation) baby out with the (grammar) bathwater. The focus on mediation in the extended version of the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) (CoE, 2018), could make a significant contribution. The descriptors for mediation activities include several devoted to translation. Stathopoulou (2016, p. 759), in turn, glosses mediation as ‘a translanguaging activity which involves relaying of information from one language to another’. The revised CEFR (CoE, 2018, p. 92) clarifies that ‘language’ in this case can also be understood as ‘different languages, varieties or modalities of the same language, different registers of the same variety’. In a CLIL context, Canepari (2020) distinguishes between intralinguistic, intersemiotic, and interlinguistic translation. The first two, she notes, are typical in CLIL teacher discourses as they use language modifications, images, and gesture to make complex content accessible for learners (echoing the point made regarding transemiotising above). Yet all three, she argues, can serve to bolster content and language learning. Students can be asked to re-​ elaborate input in different genres/​registers, for example using fieldwork notes to produce a report (intralinguistic); in different forms, for example producing an infographic using information from a video (intersemiotic); and different languages, for example from the TL to the L1 (interlinguistic). Canepari (2020) presents a set of materials incorporating all three translation types, which was experimentally implemented with upper secondary students in CLIL biology classes, and which proved popular with both teachers, who welcomed the sanctioning of L1 use in CLIL classes, and students, who reported lower anxiety levels and increased engagement. Along the same lines, Gaballo (2022), proposes a ‘synergetic interaction’ model for collaborative translation in tertiary CLIL. She also envisages a transition from intralingual to interlingual and, in line with Baker’s claim (2000, pp. 104–​105) cited above regarding the cognitive implications of having to process a text in one language in order to reproduce it in another, argues that this re-​elaboration offers significant potential for learning –​both of content and language. Gallagher and Colohan (2017) discuss an interlingual translation activity implemented in a secondary CLIL geography class which they call ‘twisted dictation’, which involved the teacher dictating sentences in the TL and an experimental group 35

Pat Moore

translating them into the L1 (Italian). The sentences combined target content lexis (e.g., vegetation, humid) with TL structures which had been identified as problematic for the students (adverbials of frequency and place), thus merging content and language. Something that all these researchers agreed upon was the positive effects on motivation among students, who appreciated translation as a real-​world skill. In the words of one of the Italian students, ‘It was my first job as an interpreter’ (Gallagher & Colohan, 2017, p. 491).

Pedagogic translanguaging sequences Proposals for more complex, structured pedagogic translanguaging CLIL models are also beginning to emerge. For example, Lin (2015, p. 85) proposes the Multimodalities Entextualisation Cycle (MEC) as a heuristic for ‘shunting between different kinds of textual and multimodal mediation of academic content/​experience’ in a three-​stage process involving both L1 and TL. The first stage involves engaging the students in the topic by means of multimodal input such as video, visuals, or hands-​on discovery and using everyday language to ensure students get the gist. In the second stage students work with a text in academic TL, first reading it then taking notes or making graphic organisers in order to re-​present the text and unpack the academic language. In the third stage, students entextualise the information back into academic language in a different genre. Wu and Lin (2019) report on the implementation of the MEC in a CLIL Biology class in Hong Kong providing a thoughtful and detailed discussion of the ‘the entangling and co-​existence of multiple meaning-​m aking resources’ (p. 264) as the class unfolded. Another model for a pedagogic translanguaging sequence comes from Ting (2020). Ting argues for the importance of disciplinary literacy, both receptive and productive, in upper secondary and tertiary levels. She notes that the development of disciplinary literacy represents a significant challenge even in L1 education: ‘we must ensure that the use of a foreign language to teach content at these upper levels does not transform what is already difficult into the impossible’ (p. 38). Ting combines Cummins’ (1980) BICS/​CALP distinction (BICS =​basic interpersonal communicative skills and CALP =​cognitive academic language proficiency) with Vygotsky’s (1986) cline of scientific knowledge, which ranges from spontaneous (acquired through everyday experiences) to scientific (from formal education). She modified Cummins’ (1984) quadrant framework into a concept-​language-​complexity (CLC) quadrant as shown in Figure 2.1. As Ting notes, FL approaches typically envisage the task as progression from A (BICS and tangibility) to D (CALP and abstraction) but since EMI/​CLIL is premised on texts which are already in D, the process needs to be reversed. The abstract CALP needs to be rendered into more tangible BICS so that it can be processed and learnt (receptive), but simultaneously a route back to CALP needs to be mapped so that students are equipped to produce disciplinary literate texts. Ting’s approach is organised in various steps. As a first stage she proposes giving students a text in L1/​CALP and asking them, in pairs or groups, to decode it via TL/​BICS. She suggests, for example, giving students chunks of text in TL/​BICS which contain the same information as the original source text and asking them to translate the chunks into L1/​ CALP (thereby also strengthening L1/​CALP, which, as she notes, is a ‘FL’ too). In the next stage students read two summaries of the original text, one in TL/​BICS and one in TL/​ CALP and identify the register of each, thereby sensitising them to variation. She proposes these two stages as a means of introducing the content to students in both L1 and TL, giving them ample and repeated opportunities to process it and preparing them for extension 36

Translanguaging in CLIL

Academic language CALP

D

B

Scientific knowledge Abstract concepts

Spontaneous knowledge Tangible concepts A

C

Social language BICS

Figure 2.1  Ting’s CLC quadrant Source: Ting, 2020, p. 44.

activities whereby they can deepen their understanding of the concepts at hand (B and C), apply them to real-​world situations (A) and prepare them to produce a text (back to D). Space restrictions preclude our going into more detail here but see Ting (2020, 2022) for illustrative examples of the kinds of translanguaging activities which could be employed. We began this section by recognising that teacher disposition is paramount. If CLIL is to be operationalised as bilingual, teachers need to cast off the monolingual legacies of traditional FL teaching and explore the potential for approaches which recognise roles for the L1. This section has presented and discussed some of the strategies –​bilingual label quests, translation, re-​elaboration, twisted dictation, entextualisation, etc. –​available to teachers who would like to foster planned pedagogic translanguaging in prototypical CLIL classrooms, where shared L1s make alternation feasible. That said, perhaps we should also acknowledge that this prototypical model might not hold sway in the CLIL classrooms of the future. CLIL, originally a European initiative, was promoted as a means of increasing multilingualism within the EU (via the community’s ‘big’ languages –​English, French, German, etc.). But, as a result of increased migration, multilingualism and linguistic diversity in the community is increasing. According to the EU website Multilingual Classroom,1 it is now estimated that around 10% of the schoolchildren in Europe are learning in a language other than that commonly spoken at home. The linguistically homogeneous classroom with its shared L1(s) may be in decline. The CLIL classroom of the future might need to combine target FL instruction with community second language instruction and perhaps we need to look to scenarios involving minority, migrant, and postcolonial languages alongside target majority languages (e.g., Banda, 2018, in South Africa; Creese & Blackledge, 2010, in the UK; García & Kleyn, 2016 in the US; Lin & He, 2017 in Hong Kong). In these contexts, rather than pedagogic translanguaging, research is moving towards what is known as Translanguaging Pedagogy, equated with social justice (García & Li, 2014, p. 3) since it represents a means to ensure that all learners are included in the process. The notion of ‘label quests’ acknowledged above can easily be extended. Bonacina (2013) describes a French teacher in a multilingual classroom using realia to elicit historietas (Spanish), comics/​cartoons (English), and manga ( Japanese) before introducing the TL bandes dessinées. David et al. (2022) describe ‘multilingual word walls’ constructed by teachers to 37

Pat Moore

ensure that key terminology was covered in all of the students’ L1s. The teachers involved reported advantages to translanguaging pedagogy ‘fostering student engagement, scaffolding student learning through peer collaboration, and increasing their own knowledge about students’ linguistic repertoires’ (p. 9), and for the students the experience can be ‘identity affirming’ (Lin & He, 2017, p. 234–​235).

Conclusions This chapter has discussed the emergence of translanguaging, initially as a pedagogic approach designed to ensure bilingual development in bilingual classrooms (i.e., attention to both languages) and subsequently as a feature of typical bilingual (i.e., not monolingual) behaviour. We have suggested that both are relevant to CLIL since CLIL classrooms have the potential to foster bilingual learning and, concurrently, the development of bilinguals. In reviewing CLIL research we progressed from a concern with teacher perspectives to their classroom praxis, and we saw that the L1 is ubiquitous in CLIL classrooms. If CLIL is to live up to its label of bilingual education, it makes sense for teachers to look for ways they can meaningfully and purposefully integrate the L1 and move towards flexible, dynamic translanguaging pedagogies and praxis. We have provided a selection of pedagogic translanguaging techniques which could be implemented in prototypical CLIL classrooms, and we briefly touched on the idea of translanguaging pedagogy, evolving in more multilingual scenarios. Like CLIL, translanguaging might be best understood as an umbrella concept, covering a wealth of possibility, an approach/​m indset rather than a methodology. Whether it be through pedagogic translanguaging or translanguaging pedagogy, the idea of applying translanguaging in classrooms is currently receiving a significant amount of attention and so we should be reassured that CLIL is actively involved in the discussion. Nonetheless, we need to remember that translanguaging is still a relatively young idea and is evolving. There has been an explosion of interest in the research community but very little discussion thus far in the general public. It is possible that folklinguistics and parentocracy (i.e., non-​specialist opinions) will react differently to the idea of welcoming the L1 in TL classrooms and there could be a backlash similar to that seen in the US when bilingual teaching was first mooted (e.g., see Johnson, 1999). There are also avenues which will need to be further explored. As seen above, much of the research conducted thus far into translanguaging in CLIL classrooms has been descriptive and has focused on processes, but we also need to look at outcomes to assess how translanguaging impacts content and language learning, possibly with control and experimental groups. In order to do so, however, we need to remember that adopting a flexible and dynamic approach to language practices requires reconceptualisation of the whole assessment process. Researchers outside CLIL are beginning to discuss this (e.g., Ascenzi-​ Moreno, 2018; Gandara & Randall, 2019; Stathopoulou, 2016) but this discussion has yet to permeate CLIL. This is definitely a growth area, and it will be interesting to see how it develops.

Note 1 https://​ec.eur​opa.eu/​educat​ion/​polic​ies/​mult​i lin​g ual​ism/​multi​l ing​ual-​classr​ooms​_​en

38

Translanguaging in CLIL

Further reading Titles such as Garcia and Li (2014) or Bradley et al. (2020) provide useful introductions from more theoretical and research-​based perspectives. Others, such as Garcia and Kleyn (2016) explore the question from a North American perspective –​through a second (rather than foreign) language lens. At the moment, to my knowledge, there are no books specifically devoted to discussing translanguaging in CLIL (although I suspect there are several in the pipeline). The titles below focus on classroom praxis in a wide range of contexts. Cenoz, J. & Gorter, D. (2021). Pedagogical translanguaging. Cambridge University Press. While not focusing specifically on CLIL scenarios, this (open source) book provides a useful overview of pedagogic translanguaging in multilingual environments. www.cambri​d ge.org/​core/​eleme​ nts/​peda​gogi​cal-​t ran​slan​g uag​i ng/​67802​C1E5​A E4A​418A ​E3B8​E2DE​F BAD​30A Li, W. & Lin, A.M.Y. (Eds.). (2019). Translanguaging classroom discourse: Pushing limits, breaking boundaries. Classroom Discourse, 10(3–​4), 209–​215. DOI: 10.1080/​19463014.2019.1635032. This special issue of Classroom Discourse (Vol. 10, no. 3–​4) features work by experts across a range of geographical contexts and settings from Sweden to South Africa. It includes articles addressing several of the questions raised in this chapter (pedagogic translanguaging; translanguaging pedagogy; transemiotising). Mazak, C.M. & Carroll, K.S. (Eds.) (2016). Translanguaging in higher education: Beyond monolingual ideologies. De Gruyter. The explosion of EMI in higher education means that the question of language policy and praxis is in vogue. This volume contains a series of case studies conducted at universities across the globe.

References Adamson, J., & Coulson, D. (2015). Translanguaging in English academic writing preparation. International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 10(1), 24–​37. Agustín-​Llach, M.P. (2009). The role of Spanish L1 in the vocabulary use of CLIL and non-​CLIL EFL learners. In Y. Ruiz de Zarobe & R. M. Jiménez Catalán (Eds.), Content and language integrated learning: Evidence from research in Europe (pp. 122–​129). Multilingual Matters. Ascenzi-​Moreno, L. (2018). Translanguaging and responsive assessment adaptations. Language Arts, 95(6), 355–​369. Baker, C. (2000). The care and education of young bilinguals. Multilingual Matters. Banda, F. (2018). Translanguaging and English-​A frican language mother tongues as linguistic dispensation in teaching and learning in a black township school in Cape Town, Current Issues in Language Planning, 19(2), 198–​217. Bialystok, E. (2001) Bilingualism in development. Cambridge University Press. Bieri, A.S. (2018) Translanguaging practices in CLIL and non-​CLIL biology lessons in Switzerland. EuroAmerican Journal of Applied Linguistics and Languages, 5(2), 91–​109. Blommaert, J. (2012). Supervernaculars and their dialects. Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1–​14. Bonacina, F. (2013). Multilingual label quests: A practice for the ‘asymmetrical’ multilingual classroom. Linguistics and Education, 24(2), 142–​164. Bradley, J., Moore, E., & Simpson, J. (2020) Translanguaging as transformation: The collaborative construction of new linguistic realities. Multilingual Matters. Caldwell, J.A., & Butzkamm, W. (2009). The bilingual reform: A paradigm shift in foreign language teaching. Narr Dr. Gunter. Canagarajah, S. (2011). Codemeshing in academic writing: identifying teachable strategies of translanguaging. Modern Language Journal, 95(3), 401–​417. Canepari, M. (2020). The usefulness of different forms of translation in a CLIL environment. International Journal of English Linguistics, 10(2), 1–​25. Cenoz, J. & Gorter, D. (2021). Pedagogical translanguaging. Cambridge University Press. Cenoz, J. & Jessner, U. (Eds.) (2000). English in Europe: The acquisition of a third language. Multilingual Matters. Council of Europe (CoE). (2018). CEFR companion volume with new descriptors.

39

Pat Moore Creese, A., & Blackledge, A. (2010). Translanguaging in the bilingual classroom: A pedagogy for learning and teaching? Modern Language Journal, 94(1), 103–​115. Cummins, J. (1980) The cross-​lingual dimensions of language proficiency: Implications for bilingual education and the optimal age issue. TESOL Quarterly, 14(2), 175–​187. https://​doi.org/​10.2307/​ 3586​312 Cummins, J. (1984). Bilingualism and special education: Issues in assessment and pedagogy. Multilingual Matters. Cummins, J. (2008). Teaching for transfer: Challenging the two solitudes assumption in bilingual education. In J. Cummins & N.H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education (2nd ed.), Volume 5. Bilingual Education (pp. 65–​75). Springer. David, S.S., Shepard-​Carey, L., Swearingen, A.J., Hemsath, D.J., & Heo, S. (2022). Entry points and trajectories: Teachers learning and doing translanguaging pedagogy. TESOL Journal, 13(1). https://​ doi.org/​10.1002/​tesj.603 Dewaele, J. M. (1998). Lexical inventions: French interlanguage as L2 versus L3. Applied Linguistics, 19(4), 471–​490. Doiz, A., & Lasagabaster, D. (2017). Management teams and teaching staff: Do they share the same beliefs about obligatory CLIL programmes and the use of the L1? Language and Education, 31(2), 93–​109. Douglas Fir Group. (2017). A transdisciplinary framework for SLA in a multilingual world. Modern Language Journal, 16, 19–​27. Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (1997). On discourse, communication, and (some) fundamental concepts in SLA research. The Modern Language Journal, 81(3), 285–​300. Gaballo, V. (2022). Translation in CLIL: Mission impossible? Translation and Translanguaging in Multilingual Contexts. Gallagher, F., & Colohan, G. (2017). T(w)o and fro: Using the L1 as a language teaching tool in the CLIL classroom. Language Learning Journal, 45(4), 485–​495. Gandara, F., & Randall, J. (2019). Assessing mathematics proficiency of multilingual students: The case for translanguaging in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Comparative Education Review, 63(1), 58–​78. García, O. (2009). Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global perspective. Wiley-​Blackwell. García, O. (2012). Theorizing translanguaging for educators. In C. Celic, & K. Seltzer (Eds.), Translanguaging: A CUNY-​N YSIEB guide for educators (pp. 1–​6). CUNY-​N YSIEB. Garcia, O., & Kleyn, T. (Eds). (2016). Translanguaging with multilingual students: Learning from classroom moments. Routledge. García, O., & Li, W. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism and education. Palgrave Macmillan. Gierlinger, E. (2015) ‘You can speak German, sir’: On the complexity of teachers’ L1 use in CLIL. Language and Education, 29(4), 347–​368. Grosjean, F. (1989). Neurolinguists, beware! The bilingual is not two monolinguals in one person. Brain and Language, 36, 3–​15. Grosjean, F. & Li, P. (2012). The psycholinguistics of bilingualism. Wiley. Hall, G., & Cook, G. (2012). Own-​language use in language teaching and learning. Language Teaching, 45(3), 271–​308. Hamers, J.F., & Blanc, H.A. (1989). Bilinguality and bilingualism. Cambridge University Press. Haugen, E. (1949). The problems of bilingualism. Lingua, 2, 271–​290. Johnson, C.P. (1999). The California backlash against bilingual education: Valeria G. v. Wilson proposition 227. University of San Francisco Law Review, 34, 169–​196. Jørgensen, J.N., Karrebæk, M.S., Madsen, L.M., & Møller, J.S. (2011). Polylanguaging in superdiversity. Diversities, 13(2), 23–​38. Karabassova, L., & San Isidro, X. (2020). Towards translanguaging in CLIL: A study on teachers’ perceptions and practices in Kazakhstan. International Journal of Multilingualism. https://​doi.org/​ 10.1080/​14790​718.2020.1828​426 Kellerman, E. (1979). Transfer and non-​transfer: Where we are now. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 2(1), 37–​57. Kiely, R. (2011). The role of L1 in the CLIL classroom. In S. Ioannu-​Giorgou & P. Pavlou (Eds.), Guidelines for CLIL implementation in primary and pre-​primary education (pp. 55–​65). European Commission. Kontio, J., & Sylvén, L.K. (2015). Language alternation and language norm in vocational content and language integrated learning. The Language Learning Journal, 43(3), 271–​285.

40

Translanguaging in CLIL Krashen, S.D., & Terrel, D.T. (1983). The Natural Approach: Language acquisition in the classroom. Pergamon Books. Larsen-​ Freeman, D. (1997). Chaos/​ complexity science and second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 18(2), 141–​165. Lasagabaster, D. (2013). The use of the L1 in CLIL classes: The teachers’ perspective. Latin American Journal of Content and Language Integrated Learning, 6(2), 1–​21. Lewis, G., Jones, B., & Baker, C. (2012). Translanguaging: Origins and development from school to street and beyond. Educational Research and Evaluation, 18(7), 641–​654. Li, W. (2011). Moment analysis and translanguaging space: Discursive construction of identities by multilingual Chinese youth in Britain. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(5), 1222–​1235. Lin, A.M.Y. (2015). Conceptualising the potential role of L1 in CLIL. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28(1), 74–​89. Lin, A. M. Y. (2019). Theories of trans/​languaging and trans-​semiotizing: Implications for content-​based education classrooms. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 22(1), 5–​16. Lin, A.M.Y., & He, P. (2017) Translanguaging as dynamic activity flows in CLIL classrooms. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 16(4), 228–​244. Littlewood, W., & Yu, B. (2011). First language and target language in the foreign language classroom. Language Teaching, 41(1), 64–​77. Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. University of Chicago Press. Marian, V., & Kaushanskaya, M. (2007). Cross-​l inguistic transfer and borrowing in bilinguals. Applied Psycholinguistics, 28(2), 369–​390. May, S. (Ed.). (2013). The multilingual turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL, and bilingual education. Routledge. Méndez García, M.C., & Pavón, V. (2012). Investigating the coexistence of the mother tongue and the foreign language through teacher collaboration in CLIL contexts. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 15(5), 573–​592. Moore, P. (2018). Becoming bilingual in the EFL classroom. ELT Journal, 72(2), 131–​140. Moore, P., & López Stoelting, S. (2021). My favorite subject is lengua because the teacher es un crack: Translanguaging in CLIL student writing. CLIL Journal of Innovation and Research in Plurilingual and Pluricultural Education, 4(1), 7–​18. Moore, P., & Nikula, T. (2016). Translanguaging in CLIL classrooms. In T. Nikula, E. Dafouz, P. Moore, & U. Smit (Eds.), Conceptualising integration in CLIL and multilingual education (pp. 211–​234). Multilingual Matters. Moore, P., & Turnbull, B. (2022). Emergent bilingualism in foreign language education. In H. Mohebbi & C. Coombe (Eds.), Research questions in language education and applied linguistics: A reference guide (pp. 195–​199). Springer. Myers-​ Scotton, C. (2002). Contact linguistics: Bilingual encounters and grammatical outcomes. Oxford University Press. Nelson, W. (1952). The teaching of English in Tudor grammar schools. Studies in Philology, 49(2), 119–​143. Nikula, T., & Moore, P. (2019). Exploring translanguaging in CLIL. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 22(2), 237–​249. Otsuji, E., & Pennycook, A. (2010). Metrolingualism: Fixity, fluidity and language in flux. International Journal of Multilingualism, 7(3), 240–​254. Pavlenko, A., & Blackledge, A. (2004). Negotiation of identities in multilingual contexts. De Gruyter. Pennycook, A. (2017). Translanguaging and semiotic assemblages. International Journal of Multilingualism, 14(3), 269–​282. Prada, J., & Nikula, T. (2018). On the transgressive nature of translanguaging pedagogies. EuroAmerican Journal of Applied Linguistics and Languages, 5(2), 1–​7. Saer, D.J. (1923). The effect of bilingualism on intelligence. British Journal of Psychology, 14(1), 25–​38. Sankoff, D., & Poplack, S. (1981). A formal grammar for code-​switching. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 14(1), 3–​45. Sen, A. 1980. Description as choice. Oxford Economic Papers, 32. Stathopoulou, M. (2016). From ‘languaging’ to ‘translanguaging’: Reconsidering foreign language teaching and testing through a multilingual lens. Selected Papers of the 21st International Symposium on Theoretical and Applied Linguistics, 759–​774.

41

Pat Moore Swain, M. (2006). Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced second language proficiency. In H. Byrnes (Ed.), Advanced language learning: The contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky (pp. 95–​108). Bloomsbury. Thierry, G., & Wu, Y.J. (2007). Brain potentials reveal unconscious translation during foreign-​ language comprehension. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104(30), 12530–​12535. Ting, Y.L.T. (2020). The symbiotic energy of [complex content] +​[foreign language]: Translanguaging towards disciplinary literacy. In L. Khayapina (Ed.), Examining CLIL theories and practices (pp. 37–​ 61). IGI Global. Ting, Y.L.T. (2022). Tertiary level STEM and EMI: Where EFL and content meet to potentiate each other. ELT Journal. https://​acade​m ic.oup.com/​eltj/​adva ​nce-​a rti​cle-​abstr​act/​doi/​10.1093/​elt/​ccab​ 093/​6523​109 Turnbull, B. (2018). Reframing foreign language learning as bilingual education: Epistemological changes towards the emergent bilingual. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21(8), 1041–​1048. Turnbull, B. (2019). Translanguaging in the planning of academic and creative writing: A case of adult Japanese EFL learners, 42(2), 1041–​1048. Bilingual Research Journal. DOI:10.1080/​ 15235882.2019.1589603 Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Wang, D. (2019). Multilingualism and translanguaging in Chinese language classrooms. Palgrave. Williams, C. (1994). Arfarniad o ddulliau dysgu ac addysgu yng nghyd-​destun addysg uwchradd ddwyieithog [An evaluation of teaching and learning methods in the context of bilingual secondary education]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Wales. Williams, C. (2002). Extending bilingualism in the education system. www.assemb​lywa​les.org/​3c91c​7af0​ 0023​d820​0 005​9500​0 000​0 00.pdf Winford, D. (2010). The handbook of language contact. Wiley. Wu, Y.A., & Lin, A.M.Y. (2019). Translanguaging and trans-​semiotising in a CLIL biology class in Hong Kong: Whole-​body sense-​m aking in the flow of knowledge co-​m aking. Classroom Discourse, 10(3–​4), 252–​273.

42

43

3 CLIL AND LANGUAGE TEACHING APPROACHES Raul Albuquerque Paraná, Sávio Siqueira, and Julia Landau

Introduction In the light of global societal and educational transformation processes, and in the context of the European integration post-​Schengen treaty and EU bloc, the educational approach known as content language integrated learning (CLIL) was created in 1994. Commonly conceptualised as a ‘dual-​focused educational approach in which an additional language is used for the learning and teaching of both content and language’ (Coyle et al., 2010, p. 1, italics in original), CLIL may have begun as a European phenomenon; however, it was subsequently adopted across geographically diverse contexts. Such a geographically extensive involvement in CLIL endeavours attests to its relevance as a global educational force regarded ‘as a modern form of educational delivery designed to even better equip the learner with knowledge and skills suitable for the global age’ (Mehisto et al., 2008, p. 11). In great part, CLIL’s appeal across such a range of contexts resulted from its innovative form of conceptualising the relationship between language and content (teaching and learning). Despite being ‘inspired by important methodological principles established by research on foreign language teaching’ (Eurydice, 2006, p. 8), it bears important differences from other (language) education approaches and methods by proposing teaching through a target language (TL) –​rather than in an additional language (AL) (Marsh, 2008). Going beyond this, CLIL underscores the key role of language in learning and education. Even from its abovementioned definition and objectives, the prominent role language plays in CLIL education is clear. However, within CLIL literature, one can trace evolving thoughts throughout the years on what roles language plays in teaching and learning, as well as on how best to incorporate it and assess it. It is precisely this evolving conceptualisation of language in CLIL that makes the tracing of and connection to influential language teaching approaches so relevant. Departing from Llinares et al.’s (2012) claim that a necessary eye needs to turn toward understanding the role(s), characteristics, and potential of the language component in the CLIL classroom, and building on existing scholarship relating language teaching approaches and linguistics to current CLIL issues, this chapter situates CLIL in relation to prominent trends in the field of language education. In doing so, we seek to elucidate and drive forward an agenda of CLIL as a pedagogic phenomenon by clearly stating its views of language and DOI: 10.4324/9781003173151-5

43

Raul Albuquerque Paraná, Sávio Siqueira, and Julia Landau

(language) learning. In fact, recognising CLIL as a great potential pedagogic phenomenon (Coyle, 2018), we position it as an educational modality separate from but informed by influential approaches to language teaching. Our contention is that CLIL arises against a post-​ method backdrop, where it continues to develop both in prevalence and related research. We also highlight the importance of second language (SL) and foreign language (FL) teaching approaches to reinforce the idea that effective CLIL implementations require proper integration of language and content as a more appropriate goal, ‘[transcending] such an understanding that conceptualises language and curricular content as separate reified entities and instead think[ing] of them as one process’ (Dalton-​Puffer, 2011, p. 196). We argue that viewing language as inherent to content and vice versa does not preclude individual attention to and explicit analysis of each component for certain purposes. Finally, recognising the importance of academic rigour beyond language goals, we identify a pluriliteracies framework as a potential area of focus for CLIL educators and scholars as the approach grows in popularity while also cautioning against a sole focus on theories from the tradition of linguistics.

A brief historical overview of FL teaching approaches In this section, we provide a brief history of additional language teaching, examining literature on it to later explore how CLIL fits in this timeline. Before we move into explaining the basic premises of different language teaching approaches that were proposed over the years, we refer to the technical terminology adopted here. Namely, we employ approach, a set of correlative assumptions dealing with the nature of language, learning, and teaching, as well as method, an overall plan for systematic presentation of language based upon a selected approach (Anthony, 1963; Brown, 2001). An approach is axiomatic: it describes the nature of the subject to be taught; it deals with assumptions and beliefs about language and language learning. A method, on the other hand, is procedural: it refers to ‘the level at which theory is put into practice and at which choices are made about the particular skills to be taught, the content to be taught, and the order in which the content will be presented’ (Richards & Rodgers, 2001, p. 19). With that in mind, ‘within one approach, there can be many methods’ (Anthony, 1963, p. 67). For centuries, language teaching took place devoid of practically any theoretical foundations of language or language learning to rely upon. Foreign language (FL) teaching in the Western world after the 16th century, as Brown (2001) would assert, was synonymous with the learning of Latin or Classical Greek through the so-​called Classical Method that later came to be known as the Grammar Translation Method. At the time, with the displacement of Latin and Classical Greek as languages of communication, the goal of foreign language study was to ‘learn a language in order to read its literature or to benefit from the mental discipline and intellectual development that result from [this process]’ (Richards & Rodgers, 2001, p. 5). The assumption was that learning takes place through memorisation, contrastive analysis, and manipulation of linguistic structures. Subsequently, theorisation of the natural way children learn their first language (L1) gave birth to the so-​called Direct Method, whose fundamental premise was that second language (L2) learning occurs very much in the same way as L1 learning. Based on this premise, L2 learning should involve a great deal of oral interaction; spontaneous use of the target (second) language (TL); avoidance of translation between L1 and TL; inductive grammar teaching; vocabulary taught through demonstrations, objects, and pictures; listening exercises; emphasis on correct pronunciation; and so forth. Despite being quite popular, the Direct Method seemingly failed to recognise key differences between L1 learning and 44

CLIL and language teaching approaches

classroom-​based L2 learning, also lacking a strong foundation in applied linguistics theory, which led linguists to keep searching for the best approach to language teaching (Richard & Rodgers, 2001). The 1940s brought about a new phase that ‘was ripe for a teaching revolution’ (Brown, 2001, p. 22), and the Audiolingual Method (ALM) was proposed. World War II had broken out and the US was thrust into a massive and long conflict that pressed for the need to have soldiers proficient in the languages of both their allies and their enemies. Funded by the US military, the plan was to create and offer intensive language courses whose focus was mainly on aural/​oral skills. Firmly grounded in structural linguistics and psychological behaviourism, the ALM (or as it also came to be called, the Army Method) became well-​ known for the great deal of oral activity, repetitive pronunciation and pattern drills, conversation practice, mimicry, memorisation of set phrases, use of tapes, language labs, and visual aids, enjoying many years of popularity, evolving into new versions in different FL contexts. However, in the 1960s, with Noam Chomsky’s refutation of behaviourist accounts of language learning and proposition of his generative theory of language, ALM’s popularity began to decline. The 1970s thus saw the emergence of a number of so-​called ‘designer methods’ such as Community Language Learning, Suggestopedia, Silent Way, and Total Physical Response (TPR).1 Concurrent to several of these alternative methods, which seemed to have no solid roots in scientific theory, was that researchers’ ‘knowledge of how people learn languages inside and outside the classroom mushroomed’ (Brown, 2001, p. 24) as second language acquisition (SLA) studies emerged as a stronger field within linguistics. A turning point for language teaching approaches came with the Natural Approach based on Krashen’s (1982) theories of SLA. Of its main tenets, there is meaning as the essence of language –​and as such, vocabulary over grammar; the importance of operating with students’ affective filter; the distinction between learning as a conscious process versus acquisition as a subconscious process; and the notion of delayed production as a natural stage of language acquisition. Relevant learning proposals factored prominently as well, stipulating the selection of communicative activities and topics derived from learner needs, and activities allowing comprehensible input (i +​1), involving ‘things in the here-​a nd-​now’ (Brown, 2001; Krashen & Terrel, 1983). In the meantime, Communicative Language Teaching (CLT), an approach which had been burgeoning since the 1960s took centre stage. At the core of CLT is its view of language as a system for the expression of meaning, having interaction and communication as its primary functions. Different from the Natural Approach, which was more firmly grounded in SLA theory, CLT feeds on a theory of language as communication whose principal goal is to develop what Hymes (1972) had defined as communicative competence. This concept was proposed to ‘contrast a communicative view of language and Chomsky’s theory of competence’ (Richards & Rodgers, 2001, p. 159). Canale and Swain (1980) further refined communicative competence, breaking it down initially into three competencies: grammatical competence (i.e., words and rules), sociolinguistic competence (i.e., appropriateness), and strategic competence, which encompasses appropriate use of communication strategies, to which Canale (1983) later added one more, discourse competence, to refer to the cohesive and transitional devices needed to maintain the flow of communication. Not only did this development help operationalise the concept in the field of education but, according to McCabe (2021, p. 156), the emergence of the framework ‘led to a focus in language teaching/​learning on sociolinguistics and pragmatics’, which had not yet been, generally speaking, a focus in L2 classrooms. 45

Raul Albuquerque Paraná, Sávio Siqueira, and Julia Landau

As Richards and Rodgers (2001) note, learning happens when there is real communication occurring for purposes of executing meaningful tasks. Therefore, within a theory of CLT, teachers should help students move from pre-​communicative tasks to communicative ones. Pre-​communicative tasks can be structural, as in the presentation of a dialogue and study of function through guided discovery, or quasi-​communicative, as in dialogue practice or question-​a nd-​a nswer practice. Communicative activities, on the other hand, can be functional, such as following instructions or completing an information gap, or social interactional, such as debates, conversations, or role plays. Although it could be argued that CLIL fits under the CLT umbrella, with some considering it ‘the ultimate communicative methodology’ (Graddol, 2006, p. 86), as will be contended, CLIL goes much beyond CLT in its theoretical basis and allows for a wider diversity of procedures, being perhaps better conceptualised as an example of a post-​method pedagogical approach free from the method-​based restrictions and limitations (Kumaravadivelu, 1994, 2001). In post-​method pedagogy, the term pedagogy refers ‘not only [to] issues pertaining to classroom strategies, instructional materials, curricular objectives, and evaluation measures, but also [to] a wide range of historical, political, and sociocultural experiences that directly or indirectly influence L2 education’ (Kumaravadivelu, 2001, p. 538). The post-​method condition is grounded in a three-​d imensional system made up of pedagogic parameters interacting with each other in a synergic relationship: particularity (sensitivity to a particular group of teachers teaching a particular group of students pursuing a particular set of goals within a particular institutional context embedded in a particular socio-​cultural environment), practicality (a characteristic going beyond everyday practice of classroom teaching, enforcing the relationship between theory and practice, thus enabling teachers to practice what they theorise and theorise from their practice), and possibility (engagement in a pedagogy that empowers teachers and learners to develop forms of knowledge and social practices that dialogue with the experiences they bring to the pedagogical setting). With these axes, the post-​method context enables practitioners to produce location-​specific, classroom-​oriented innovative practices (Kumaravadivelu, 2001). While the CLT era was still thriving and the post-​method era was dawning in FL/​SL contexts, CLIL was taking its first steps as a conducive approach to attain multilingual policies in Europe (Hemmi & Banegas, 2021), reflecting the moment when the world was turning closer attention to multilingualism and its social, political, cultural, and educational implications. In fact, as a result of such a growing focus, bilingual education efforts in general had already been developing in parallel to that FL/​SL scenario. With that picture in mind, we specifically highlight the experiences involving immersion programmes in Canada, dating as far back as the 1960s and 1970s. Despite a variety of possible immersion models –​such as early or late, total or partial, dual, double, among others –​ some core linguistic principles underlie educational practice across contexts as immersion is based on two key premises. First, L2 learning is similar to L1 learning. As such, people learn an L2 when they are motivated to communicate and experience language in its natural form (Lambert, 1984). Second, language learning can take place in any context in which people are communicating with others, whether that be a language classroom or a non-​language one (Genesee, 1976). Translated into classroom practices, that often means enforcing TL-​ only practices, focusing on creating opportunities for acquisition, and teaching language inductively, among other practices akin to the Direct Method. Similar to Immersion in its core principles, but also drawing on CLT’s principles of meaningful information exchange, Content-Based Instruction (CBI) was proposed by Donna 46

CLIL and language teaching approaches

Brinton, Marguerite Snow, and Marjorie Wesche in 1989. Seen as an approach to both FL teaching and bilingual education, CBI is grounded in the principles that (1) people learn language best as a means of acquiring relevant information and (2) the approach has the potential to better meet the demands of L2 learners who need language to access content in schools due to systematic descriptions of language forms and functions and a focus on comprehensible input. In that context, language is sheltered, purposeful and discourse-​based, and its use draws on integrated-​skills work. Some intensive debate (see, e.g., Cenoz et al., 2014; Dalton-​Puffer et al., 2014) suggests that terms such as immersion and content-​based instruction (CBI) might be used to refer to language learning approaches akin to CLIL, leading scholars to affirm these terms ‘should best be considered lexical variants’ (Dalton-​Puffer et al., 2014, p. 214). This view is supported by analysis highlighting key aspects common across the three terms. At their core, these approaches share some aims, such as multilingualism and enrichment. Common influences like the cognitivist principles of the monitor model (Krashen, 1985) and the output hypothesis (Swain, 1995) bring similarities into relief as well, as does a belief in language-​aware/​ language-​supportive practices, which has received growing attention in immersion, CBI, and CLIL literature over time. Importantly, certain impossibility in verifying if on-​the-​ ground practices are indeed fundamentally different across contexts also contributes to the alignment of these terms. We understand CLIL as potentially different from immersion and CBI programmes in aspects such as goals, student profiles, target language, and balance between content and language, among others (see Cenoz et al., 2014). However, given that in pragmatic terms nomenclature (immersion, CBI, CLIL) is the stakeholders’ decision (Morton & Llinares, 2017), for the purposes of this chapter, the term CLIL hereinafter will be used to refer to any type of pedagogical approach integrating the teaching and learning of content and second/​foreign languages. This includes models that are more language-​d riven, as in CBI, or content-​d riven, as in immersion (Met, 1998). Bearing in mind that CLIL has interfaces with different language teaching approaches, we agree with Hemmi and Banegas (2021) when they argue that language-​driven CLIL, in which the lessons are in the hands primarily of language teachers, presents an opportunity for important contextualisation of language within curricular topics (citing Cenoz, 2013). In this way, students may revise content learnt in their L1 and acquire new content while learning English or any other TL.2 At the same time, in other contexts where CLIL is content-​driven, it could be argued to have the pedagogical potential to foster awareness of the diverse roles language plays in general education. After all, as Moate (2010, p. 39) argues, ‘looking at the role of language in subject pedagogies may support the effective negotiation of content and language interests and concerns in CLIL’. We are to explore this relationship between CLIL and (language) learning, as well as CLIL and language itself in the sections to come.

Perspectives of (language) learning in CLIL As regards a view of (language) learning, scholarly work on CBI, immersion, or CLIL has often stressed varying principles composing a theory of (language) learning. However, as studies on the meaning of integration have flourished, and as efforts have been made to focus on similarities rather than differences between the foregoing, a clearer basis has been put forward which could likely serve as reference for educators across CLIL contexts. Cognitivist theories, from the work of Stephen Krashen and Merrill Swain to those more recent, have helped solidify this frame of reference, with references often made in 47

Raul Albuquerque Paraná, Sávio Siqueira, and Julia Landau

literature to the importance of comprehensible input or pushed output for language learning. Furthermore, according to Coyle et al. (2010), and drawing on Bloom’s taxonomy (1956), for any learning to take place, learners must be cognitively engaged. Consequently, they are to develop metacognitive skills such as learning to learn, as well as engaging in higher-​ order thinking and problem-​solving skills. Although other approaches to FL teaching, such as the Natural Approach, had a basis in cognitive linguistics, CLIL has gone beyond in also establishing parameters stemming from cognitive psychology and general learning theory, such as that inspired by Bloom’s work. In this sense, CLIL has drawn more heavily on general educational theory than most FL/​SL teaching approaches, as it has also incorporated into its theory the work of scholars from the tradition of socio-​cultural theory (SCT), such as Lev Vygotsky, Jerome Bruner, David Wood, among others. For instance, CLIL’s theory of learning emphasises the importance of scaffolding within the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) as key to learning, as well as the importance of social interaction and mediational processes –​which, as is well-​k nown, are vastly mediated by language itself. Ties to SCT have become particularly stronger within the past decade, when more work has been done to unfold the meaning of integration (see Moate, 2010; Nikula et al., 2016). In its conceptualisation, CLIL foregrounds the idea of integration. When Dalton-​Puffer et al. (2014) argue this focus could be used to distinguish CLIL from other approaches, Coyle (2018) invites us to unravel the complexity of integrated learning. According to Llinares (2015, p. 69), ‘integration in CLIL involves one whole where content and language are interconnected as two sides of one coin’. To that purpose, Moate (2010) contends that the key to integration lies in the primacy of language as a tool mediating both content and language learning, as well as mediating the very relationship between these goals –​an idea clearly aligned with a SCT tradition which speaks as much about a theory of learning as it does a theory of language. This is further supported by several other authors, such as Díaz Pérez et al. (2018), who contend that in CLIL, language is understood as an integral element of learning. In this context in which the primary role of language in education is acknowledged, while it becomes more challenging to separate a theory of learning from a theory of language, an urgency to further examine the connections between learning and language arises. Within this perspective, the role of discourse in the learning process becomes more prominent (Dalton-​Puffer, 2011; Gajo, 2007). With it also comes the need to understand the relationship between subject content and language functions, as well as the need to examine how language and content interact in classroom activities. The points discussed above are in line with Nikula et al. (2016), who argue that acknowledging the primacy of language in education has implications on three interconnected and simultaneous levels feeding into each other: that of curriculum and pedagogy planning, where decisions have to be made about what will be integrated and how, with special attention being given to the role of language in learning; that of participants’ perspectives, where specific attention should be given to the role of language in accessing, communicating and shaping perceptions, beliefs, and identities; and finally, the level of classroom practices, within which attention should be paid to the ways in which language effectively mediates learning and relationships. In any of these three levels, four orientations to integration could be identified or promoted, as described by Leung and Morton (2016). In the first orientation, language is seen as a tool for participation in content tasks and disciplinary thinking and there is not much focus on purposefully working on language functions to support content learning. In the second orientation, although there is an acknowledgement that language communicates some content (meaning), language worked on is not necessarily related to subject-​specific 48

CLIL and language teaching approaches

content. Therefore, there is a stronger focus on language teaching regardless of specific content from traditional subjects. In the third orientation, the focus is on choice, creativity, and contingency through the promotion of an invisible pedagogy in which there is neither a previous selection of linguistic elements to be worked on nor a framing of subjects. Last but not least, in the fourth orientation, there is an explicit focus on the development of subject literacies. Although all four orientations integrate language and content to some extent, we understand that individually none of them fully captures the complexity of the role(s) language plays in learning. What’s more, they do not all make integration very visible. In the first orientation, for instance, there does not seem to be enough consideration given to the role of language in mediating content learning, thus giving content much more visibility than language. In the second one, on the other hand, there seems to be little regard to the role of meaning in language, thus giving content perhaps too little visibility. We think, therefore, that we should be aiming more often at the fourth orientation, which focuses on the development of subject literacies, forming part of a pluriliteracy classroom landscape (Coyle & Meyer, 2021). That is because there is a very visible language pedagogy and a strong disciplinary orientation in it, thus undoubtedly integrating language and content in very noticeable ways. At the same time, a pluriliteracies-​oriented practice clearly acknowledges the roles of language in knowledge building and communication while also preparing learners to navigate the textually designed worlds of different academic disciplines. However, it would not be unreasonable to argue that in quality CLIL education, stakeholders should make use of all four orientations at different times depending on curricular goals and learners’ needs to fully acknowledge the complex role of language in education. The most important thing, we contend, is that stakeholders working with CLIL do not forget the primacy of language as a mediational tool in education. By focusing on the role of language as a mediational tool for learning/​development in a context of integration, CLIL’s connection to SCT (see, e.g., Lantolf, 2000; Vygotsky, 1978; Wertsch, 1985) becomes ever more evident. From the onset, CLIL had drawn on theoretical underpinnings of SCT, such as placing students at the centre of the learning cycle (Díaz Pérez et al., 2018; Lasagabaster, 2011) or recognising the social nature of learning and thus promoting interaction (Moate, 2010). However, with the more recent work that has explored issues of integration, as connections between CLIL and SCT become more apparent, scholars have started arguing that CLIL practitioners should go from looking at input, pushed output, and language competencies to looking at affordances, languaging, and resources respectively (Llinares, 2015; Moate, 2010, 2011), thus moving away from cognitivism towards an even closer relationship with SCT –​which we risk saying might be a first in the history of language teaching methods and approaches. In line with a SCT perspective, another aspect relevant to CLIL’s theory of (language) learning and thus its relationship to FL teaching is the concept of translanguaging, defined by García and Li (2014, p. 2) as an approach to the use of language, bilingualism and the education of bilinguals that considers the language practices of bilinguals not as two autonomous languages, but as one linguistic repertoire with features that have been societally constructed as belonging to separate languages. As San Isidro and Coyle (2020) remind us, students in a CLIL classroom often resort to their whole linguistic repertoire to make meaning, drawing attention not only to the subject of 49

Raul Albuquerque Paraná, Sávio Siqueira, and Julia Landau

pluriliteracies, as briefly discussed above, but also to the fluid use of all language resources in translingual practices in the classroom. In García and Li’s (2014) definition, we find the space for what Lin (2015, p. 75) points to as an approach that is ‘more flexible and balanced about the potential role of L1 in the CLIL classroom’. Much in this vein, we observe increased attention in scholarship to translanguaging as both an unplanned linguistic practice as well as an intentional pedagogical practice in the CLIL context (Cenoz & Gorter, 2021) which could favour learning. Nikula and Moore (2019) have examined the diverse roles translanguaging plays, and the prevalence of bilingual practices based on classroom research. Lin (2015), although focusing on the issue through an L1 lens rather than translanguaging per se, argues for ‘systematic planning and resources […] to try out different kinds of combinations of different L1 and L2 everyday resources’ (p. 86). We join these authors in affirming the richness and importance of linguistic resources as seen through translanguaging and the notion of linguistic repertoire. Interestingly, the role of a learner’s whole linguistic repertoire in learning could set CLIL apart from approaches to FL learning. According to Lin (2015), monolingual immersion ideologies still prevail in many parts of the world –​perhaps influenced by TL-​only practices perpetuated by several popular approaches as previously discussed. Despite more recent calls for judicious L1 use in FL/​SL classrooms (e.g., Swain et al., 2011), a number of popular approaches such as ALM or the Natural Approach are often based on firmly upheld beliefs of the need to promote target-​language-​only practices in language learning –​a phenomenon Lin (2015, p. 75) calls ‘multilingualism through parallel monolingualisms’. In that sense, Lin (2015) claims CLIL has the potential to distinguish itself from traditionally monolingual educational models by becoming more flexible and balanced about the role of a learner’s whole language repertoire in linguistic development and content learning, as long as its use is both systematic and functional. This difference, however, seems to be more aspirational than factual, and can likely not be used to distinguish CLIL practice from that of other approaches on the ground at present. We consider this language space fundamental in the construction of pedagogically sound, affectively based and culturally sensitive classroom practice. By highlighting integration and pluriliteracies, SCT, use of whole-​language repertoire and translanguaging, we explored in this section important defining aspects of CLIL in relation to (language) learning.

Perspectives of language in CLIL As previously mentioned, CLIL as an approach offers flexibility in regard to the balance between language and content, being at times more content-​or language-​d riven –​or, one could say, more or less language visible. In each societal context and within the programmatic goals of each school, this emphasis may be different, tailored to each situation. Despite these specificities, and despite the challenges alluded to in the previous section in separating a theory of learning from a theory of language, CLIL as a pedagogical approach does have unifying principles conceptualising language in the classroom. These naturally have an effect on what teaching and learning opportunities should look like; therefore, connections will be made between theories of language and their implications for practitioners and scholars. From the outset, it has been clear that language plays a twofold role in CLIL classrooms: it is both a tool and an end in itself. In other words, much as in CLT, language is used in communication to help develop communicative competence (Coyle et al., 2010). Going beyond CLT, however, in CLIL contexts language is not only seen as a means of meaning-​m aking, but of knowledge construction as well (Evnitskaya & Morton, 2011). Thus, language 50

CLIL and language teaching approaches

learning is seen as aiding content learning, and vice versa. Considering that reality, Mohan and van Naerssen (1997) propose key principles about language in CLIL, among which three deserve particular recognition. First, discourse should be seen as a means to both express and create meaning; therefore, there should arguably be a strong focus on discourse study, as well as many functional and social interactional activities. Second, language is as much about meaning as it is about form; hence there being room for shifting focus on both in the classroom, allowing for more controlled activities when corrections of errors of form should be made, as well as freer activities when corrections of fact are expected. Finally, acquiring knowledge means acquiring language and meaning; thus, content and language should not be divorced but truly integrated. A balanced integration between language and content is certainly the hallmark attributed to CLIL in its potential optimal version. However, such a design has not always been adopted in all contexts, and, despite claims that content should come first (Morton, 2013), once localised, CLIL in many contexts has commonly assumed a language-​d riven profile, providing this latter aspect an even more important role within the whole architecture of the educational approach. With the body of work on CLIL expanding, a growing number of scholars (see, e.g., Coffin, 2017; Llinares & McCabe, 2020) have been pushing for systemic functional linguistics (SFL) to be one of CLIL’s more prominent theoretical underpinnings. From SFL’s point of view, language and content are always integrated (see Halliday, 1993). Language is the primary semiotic resource in constructing and understanding content, so the key to understanding the issue when we talk about integrating content and language learning is ‘to differentiate between using discipline-​specific language to teach content on the one hand, and teaching discipline-​specific language to talk about content on the other’ (Lin, 2016, p. 144, italics in original). In the process of doing both, language should be used as it otherwise would in other real-​world contexts, including different learning contexts. What’s more, language work and research should be carried out preferably based on corpora –​both oral and written data. Finally, teachers should encourage genre study, going beyond word-​or sentence-​level language analysis to work on function and discourse. Language awareness, or the deep understanding of how language is used to achieve specific goals in communication, how people best learn languages and how they communicate in real-​life situations (Marsh, 2008), represents another significant aspect of a CLIL approach. In his elaborations, Marsh (2008) emphasises the language awareness abilities key to teaching and learning within this perspective. According to the author, it is through language awareness that ‘language itself becomes meaningful for the student both in terms of its structure, and how it is used in real-​life contexts’ (p. 236). Thus, language awareness is heavily influenced by ‘the need to go beyond achieving only utilitarian skills when learning languages’ (p. 237). For Marsh (2008, p. 233), CLIL should be taken as an amalgam of both language learning and subject learning, and its successful application is to involve utilising and developing a broad range of language awareness capacities. Within this line of thought, he adds that ‘although much of the work on language awareness has been on developing language teachers and language teaching, […] the field is so broad that it will apply to the use of language in settings such as found in CLIL’ (Marsh, 2012, p. 63). This correlation that Marsh (2008, 2012) makes between CLIL and FL pedagogy is extremely pertinent as every professional involved in educational processes, whether coming from a language teaching or content teaching background, should resort to principles and practices inherent to different FL methods and approaches in order to promote linguistic awareness. These practices, in turn, are naturally expanded to provide students 51

Raul Albuquerque Paraná, Sávio Siqueira, and Julia Landau

with possibilities of learning not only content related to different subjects, but especially expanding their repertoire in a given named language. Despite the fact that English or the other target language(s) will be used in a contemporary global context of multimodality and multiliteracy, thus moving beyond traditional language learning goals, in many contexts, these goals are still predominantly utilitarian. More recently, English as a lingua franca (ELF) studies (Duboc & Siqueira, 2020) are challenging ELT practices concerning language learning and teaching, supporting a decolonial agenda towards the deconstruction and rethinking of enrooted orientations like native-​ speakerism and norm monocentrism, among others, privileging, for instance, both natural and pedagogic translanguaging as a legitimate classroom practice. Likewise, CLIL, for its innovative and eclectic nature, holds the potential to accommodate such critical perspectives both theoretically and empirically. In other words, such interfaces with language teaching approaches, which feed on developments related to fields such as ELF, World Englishes, and the like could surely enhance CLIL contexts in which learning how to learn through the AL will lead to change in attitudes towards it, and ultimately achieve the desired integration between language and content. As Pérez Cañado (2021) would assert, current pedagogic and research practice needs to be rethought in light of CLIL and ELF, since their commonalities can be fruitfully capitalised upon by incorporating their principles simultaneously in the classroom.

Conclusion In this chapter, we have focused on language teaching approaches in order to better understand this facet of the context in which CLIL arises. We emphasise that we consider CLIL as an approach to be neither a progression of FL/​SL teaching nor an alternative to current language teaching approaches. Rather, we value the vast contributions of this field to the current CLIL context and draw relevant connections aiding in the expansion and maturation of this pedagogy. We conclude that within the FL teaching arc, CLIL arises against a post-​method backdrop primarily informed by CLT. However, we understand it goes beyond CLT and other approaches due not only to having a sound, yet evolving theory of language, but also a sound theory of (language) learning stemming from both the tradition of linguistics and psychology of education. While studies on integration have helped move forward an agenda of establishing CLIL as a pedagogic phenomenon by helping set clearer principles and influences, CLIL has not yet reached such a status. In perceiving CLIL’s adoption as a primarily linguistic phenomenon still, in line with Meyer et al. (2015), we do encourage its expansion to a pluriliteracies framework as a way to visibly foster and develop individual learners’ ability to ‘language’ subject-​specific concepts and knowledge, thus acknowledging the primacy of language in CLIL so learners are able ‘to think about and analyse texts critically, master sophisticated language and convey appropriate content and recognise how meanings are made within a wide range of texts and discourse communities’ (Crane, 2002 as cited in Meyer et al., 2015, p. 43). In this way, we believe that the CLIL approach, informed by current ELT discussions and strengthened through the pluriliteracies framework, deserves important attention not only linguistically but also pedagogically. At the same time, we stress the perceived need to continue establishing a clearer basis in SCT, translanguaging theory and SFL as theories of learning and language. Lastly, we caution against using mostly theories from the tradition of the field of linguistics to inform CLIL practice and research. Although tempting, especially given the recognition of the primacy of language in CLIL, 52

CLIL and language teaching approaches

such a choice could limit the scope of said approach as much work has been done and is yet to be explored on subject-​specific pedagogies and general learning theory. As evidenced in the many contexts where CLIL has been adopted and/​or adapted, there is a whole universe of opportunities to be explored, and the features covered here can only begin to contribute to educators’ taking the approach to its full potential.

Notes 1 For a deeper understanding of these methods and approaches, see Brown (2001) and Larsen-​Freeman (2003). 2 We recognise the different localised models that have flourished within the CLIL continuum around the globe and understand that the emphasis given here in CLIL as mainly a language approach may not represent, let us say, European CLIL experiences usually taken as norm.

Further reading Fortanet-​Gómez, I. (2013). CLIL in higher education: Towards a multilingual language policy. Multilingual Matters. The book focuses on aspects of multilingualism and multilingual education at the tertiary level, approaching several important issues, including what type of language and language functions CLIL is to incorporate in higher education, the roles of language as medium of instruction, the dominance of English, and the types of discourses teachers and students engage in in such a context. Lin, A.M.Y. (2016). Language across the curriculum and CLIL in English as an additional language (EAL) contexts: Theory and practice. Springer. Designed for teachers, teacher educators, advanced students and researchers, the volume focuses on the integration of subject-​a rea content and language skills for English language learners. Based on sound research work and on practical experience with teachers and courses, the book shows that while language across the curriculum (LAC) and CLIL constitute rapidly growing areas of both research and practice in different parts of the world, the explorations of different approaches for the integration of content and language learning, are an attempt to, among other issues, contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of CLIL. Nikula, T., Dafouz, E., Moore, P., & Smit, U. (Eds.). (2016). Conceptualising integration in CLIL and multilingual education. Multilingual Matters. The volume establishes a key comprehension of the integration of language and content in CLIL and multilingual education. It explores issues related to integration in CLIL experiences using intersecting perspectives on integration covering different aspects in areas like curriculum and pedagogic planning, participant perceptions and classroom practices.

References Anthony, E.M. (1963). Approach, method and technique. English Language Teaching, 17, 63–​67. Bloom, B.S. (Ed.). (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. Longman. Brinton, D.M., Snow, M.A., & Wesche, M.B. (1989). Content-​ based second language instruction. Newbury House. Brown, H.D. (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language teaching (2nd ed.). Pearson. Canale, M. (1983). From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy. In J.C. Richard & R.W. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication (pp. 2–​14). Longman. Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1–​47. Cenoz, J. (2013). Discussion: Towards an educational perspective of CLIL language policy and pedagogical practice. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16(3), 389–​394. https://​ doi.org/​10.1080/​13670​050.2013.777​392

53

Raul Albuquerque Paraná, Sávio Siqueira, and Julia Landau Cenoz, J., Genesee, F., & Gorter, D. (2014). Critical analysis of CLIL: Taking stock and looking forward. Applied Linguistics, 35(3), 243–​262. DOI:10.1093/​applin/​a mt011 Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2021). Pedagogical translanguaging. Cambridge University Press. Coffin, C. (2017). Introduction to part II: Systemic functional linguistics: A theory for integrating content language learning (CLL). In A. Llinares & T. Morton (Eds.), Applied linguistics perspectives on CLIL (pp. 1–​18). John Benjamins. Coyle, D. (2018). The place of CLIL in (bilingual) education. Theory Into Practice, 57, 166–​176. Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge University Press. Coyle, D., & Meyer O. (2021). Beyond CLIL: Pluriliteracies teaching for deeper learning. Cambridge University Press. Crane, C. (2002). Genre analysis: A step toward understanding the different stages of advanced language instruction. Conference presentation. ACTFL/​A ATG Conference, Salt Lake City, UT, USA. 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/​S02671​9051​1000​092 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/​app​l in/​a mu​010 Díaz Pérez, W., Fields, D.L., & Marsh, D. (2018). Innovations and challenges: Conceptualizing CLIL practice. Theory Into Practice, 57(3), 177–​184. https://​d oi.org/​10.1080/​0 0405​ 841.2018.1484​0 37 Duboc, A.P.M., & Siqueira, S. (2020). ELF feito no Brasil: Expanding theoretical notions, reframing educational policies. Status Quaestionis: Language, Text, Culture, 19, 297–​331. https://​doi.org/​ 10.13133/​2239-​1983/​17135 Eurydice. (2006). Content and language integrated learning (CLIL) at school in Europe. https://​op.eur​opa.eu/​ en/​publ ​icat ​ion- ​det ​a il/​-​/​publ ​icat ​ion/​756eb​d aa-​f694- ​4 4e4- ​8409-​21eef ​02c9​b9b Evnitskaya, N., & Morton, T. (2011). Knowledge construction, meaning-​m aking and interaction in CLIL science classroom communities of practice. Language and Education, 25(2), 109–​127. https://​ doi.org/​10.1080/​09500​782.2010.547​199 Gajo, L. (2007). Linguistic knowledge and subject knowledge: How does bilingualism contribute to subject development? International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(5), 563–​581. https://​doi.org/​10.2167/ ​beb​460.0 García, O., & Li, W. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism and education. Palgrave Pivot. Genesee, F. (1976). The role of intelligence in second language learning. Language learning, 26(2), 267–​ 280. https://​doi.org/​10.1111/​j.1467-​1770.1976.tb00​277.x Graddol, D. (2006). English next: Why global English may mean the end of ‘English as a foreign language’. British Council. Halliday, M.A.K. (1993). Towards a language-​based theory of learning. Linguistics and Education, 5(2), 93–​116. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​0898-​5898(93)90026-​7 Hemmi, C., & Banegas, D.L. (2021). CLIL: An overview. In C. Hemmi & D.L. Banegas (Eds.), International perspectives on CLIL (pp. 1–​20). Palgrave Macmillan. Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In J.B. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics (pp. 269–​293). Penguin. Krashen, S.D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Pergamon Press. Krashen, S.D. (1985). The input hypothesis. Longman. Krashen, S.D., & Terrel, D.T. (1983). The Natural Approach: Language acquisition in the classroom. Pergamon Books. Kumaravadivelu, B. (1994). The postmethod condition: Emerging strategies for second/​foreign language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 28(1), 27–​47. https://​doi.org/​10.2307/​3587​197 Kumaravadivelu, B. (2001). Toward a postmethod pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly, 35(4), 537–​560. https://​doi.org/​10.2307/​3588​427 Lambert, W.E. (1984). An overview of issues in immersion education. In Studies on immersion education: A collection for United States educators (pp. 8–​30). California State Department of Education. Lantolf, J.P. (2000). Introducing sociocultural theory. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 1–​26). Oxford University Press. Larsen-​Freeman, F. (2003). Teaching language: From grammar to grammaring. Heinle & Heinle.

54

CLIL and language teaching approaches Lasagabaster, D. (2011). English achievement and student motivation in CLIL and EFL settings. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 5(1), 3–​18. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​17501​229.2010.519​030 Leung, C., & Morton, T. (2016). Conclusion: Language competence, learning and pedagogy in CLIL: Deepening and broadening integration. In T. Nikula, E. Dafouz, P. Moore & U. Smit (Eds.), Conceptualising integration in CLIL and multilingual education (pp. 235–​248). Multilingual Matters. Lin, A.M.Y. (2015). Conceptualising the potential role of L1 in CLIL. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28(1), 74–​89. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​07908​318.2014.1000​926 Lin, A.M.Y. (2016). Language across the curriculum and CLIL in English as an additional language (EAL) contexts: Theory and practice. Springer. Llinares, A. (2015). Integration in CLIL: A proposal to inform research and successful pedagogy. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28(1), 58–​73. https://​d oi.org/​10.1080/​0 7908​ 318.2014.1000​9 25 Llinares, A., & McCabe, A. (2020). Systemic functional linguistics: The perfect match for content and language integrated learning. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 1–​6. https://​ doi.org/​10.1080/​13670​050.2019.1635​985 Llinares, A., Morton, T., & Whittaker, R. (2012). The roles of language in CLIL. Cambridge University Press. Marsh, D. (2008). Language awareness and CLIL. In J. Cenoz & N.H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education. Volume 6: Knowledge about language (pp. 233–​246). Springer. Marsh, D. (2012). Content and language integrated learning (CLIL): A development trajectory. Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Córdoba. McCabe, A. (2021). A functional linguistic perspective on developing language. Routledge. Mehisto, P., Marsh, D., & Frigols, M. J. (2008). Uncovering CLIL: Content and language integrated learning in bilingual and multilingual education. Macmillan Publishers Limited. Met, M. (1998). Curriculum decision-​ m aking in content-​ based language teaching. In J. Cenoz & F. Genesee (Eds.), Beyond bilingualism: Multilingualism and multilingual education (pp. 35–​63). Multilingual Matters. 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-​m aking. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28(1), 41–​57. DOI:10.1080/​ 07908318.2014.1000924. Moate, J. (2010). The integrated nature of CLIL. International CLIL Research Journal, 1(3), 30–​37. Moate, J. (2011). Reconceptualising the role of talk in CLIL. Apples-​Journal of Applied Language Studies, 5(2), 17–​35. Mohan, B., & van Naerssen, M. (1997). Understanding cause-​effect: Learning through language. Forum, 35(4), 22–​29. Morton, T. (2013). Critically evaluating materials for CLIL: Practitioners’ practices and perspectives. In J. Gray (Ed.), Critical perspectives on language teaching materials (pp. 111–​136). Palgrave. Morton, T., & Llinares, A. (2017). Content language integrated learning: Type of programme or pedagogical model? In A. Llinares & T. Morton (Eds.), Applied linguistics perspectives on CLIL (pp. 1–​18). John Benjamins. 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–​25). Multilingual Matters. Nikula, T., & Moore, P. (2019). Exploring translanguaging in CLIL. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 22(2), 237–​249. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​13670 ​050.2016.1254​151 Pérez Cañado, M.L. (2021). CLIL and ELF: Friends or foes? In M.L. Pérez Cañado (Ed.), Content and language integrated learning in multilingual settings: New insights from the Spanish context (pp. 31–​51). Springer Nature Switzerland. Richards, J.C., & Rodgers, T. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge University Press. San Isidro, X., & Coyle, D. (2020). An approach to CLIL lesson planning in multilingual settings. In X. San Isidro, D. Coyle, & S. Kerimkulova (Eds.), CLIL classroom practices in multilingual education in Kazakhstan: Guidelines and examples (pp. 8–​21). Nazarbayev University.

55

Raul Albuquerque Paraná, Sávio Siqueira, and Julia Landau Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principles and practice in applied linguistics (pp. 125–​144). Oxford University Press. Swain, M., Kirkpatrick, A., & Cummins, J. (2011). How to have a guilt-​free life using Cantonese in the English class. Research Centre into Language Education and Acquisition in Multilingual Societies, Institute of Education. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Harvard University Press. Wertsch, J. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Harvard University Press.

56

57

4 CLIL AND ENGLISH FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES Gabriela Tavella and María Soledad Loutayf

Introduction English for specific purposes (ESP) and content and language integrated learning (CLIL) started at distinct socio-​h istorical moments with different initial purposes for the teaching of an additional language in specific disciplinary contexts. Whereas CLIL aims at teaching and learning subject content and an additional language simultaneously (Ball et al., 2016; Coyle et al., 2010; Dalton-​Puffer, 2016), ESP aims at teaching and learning English to meet specific learners’ communicative needs in a particular domain (Hutchinson & Waters, 1987; Işık-​Taş & Kenny, 2020; Paltridge & Starfield, 2013; Robinson, 1991). Although their aims were initially dissimilar, the borders between CLIL and ESP seem fuzzy as both are concerned with the teaching of an additional language (foreign, heritage, or community language) and/​ through specific content areas. This chapter will discuss essential ESP concepts in and how ESP relates to CLIL principles and practice, identifying points of intersection between them in terms of origins, contexts, agents, key features and methodology, and materials selection and design.

Definitions Dudley-​Evans and St. John (1998) stated that ESP implies the design of pedagogical materials that aim at meeting the needs of an identifiable group of adult learners of English within a specific discipline and context. They highlight the importance of researching a specific language variety to be used in particular situations and making use of the ‘underlying methodology and activities of the disciplines it serves’ (Dudley-​Evans & St. John, 1998, p. 4). Usually, ESP is divided into two sub-​branches: English for occupational purposes (EOP), which includes English for professional purposes and English for vocational purposes, and English for academic purposes (EAP), which comprises English for academic science and technology, English for academic medical purposes, and English for academic legal purposes (Dudley-​Evans & St. John, 1998). Regardless of the sub-​branches, recent developments in the field stress that ESP courses ‘focus on the language, skills, and genres appropriate to the

DOI: 10.4324/9781003173151-6

57

Gabriela Tavella and María Soledad Loutayf

specific activities the learners need to carry out in English’ (Paltridge & Starfield, 2013, p. 2) in a specific discourse community (Blok et al., 2020). In turn, Coyle et al. (2010, p. 1) describe CLIL as a ‘dual focused educational approach in which an additional language [any] is used for the learning and teaching of both content and language’. CLIL developments have proved useful to fit varied needs and contexts, offering a pedagogical framework in which the emphasis may lie either on content or language, or on both. CLIL has been envisaged as a continuum, whereas content-​d riven CLIL is related to ‘all forms of education in which subjects are learnt through L2 or two languages simultaneously’ (Ball et al., 2016, p. 1), and language-​d riven CLIL emphasises language learning through school content (Brinton et al., 2003; Hemmi & Banegas, 2021b; Met, 1998). Both definitions of ESP and CLIL allow us to unveil some possible merging points between them. On the one hand, ESP focuses on students’ linguistic needs using genres specific to the target discipline; it ‘places emphasis on providing learners with sufficient language skills to master content knowledge’ (Yang, 2016, p. 45) specifying language learning objectives (Airey, 2016). On the other hand, CLIL’s dual focus considers content and language learning aims in tandem, i.e., subject-​related content is taught together with an additional language. However, if CLIL is viewed as a continuum with two ends (language-​d riven and content-​d riven), it can be said that language-​d riven CLIL may equate ESP since both direct their attention to the teaching of an additional language through subject-​related content. To further expand the scope of ESP and CLIL, reference to their origins, contexts, agents, key features, and methodology together with materials selection, design, or adaptation are discussed below.

Origins ESP origins can be traced back to the early 1960s when it emerged as a branch of English language leaching (ELT) in response to a need to communicate in specific situations (Swales, 1985). In its beginnings, ESP stood for English for special purposes, its first manifestations being audio-​lingual courses especially designed for the Army in the Second World War (Almagro & Vallejo, 2002) and courses designed for adults who needed ‘to communicate across languages in areas such as commerce and technology’ (Paltridge & Starfield, 2013, p. 2). In the second half of the 20th century, more varied specific needs were demanded and ESP turned to stand for English for specific purposes. Market forces and academics’ awareness of the importance of meeting students’ needs in the 1990s turned ESP into one of the most prominent ELT areas worldwide (Anthony, 1997). Originally, the focus of ESP tended to be on lexis and materials. This meant that general English (GE) or teaching English for no obvious reason (TENOR) were adapted by only replacing general vocabulary by subject-​specific lexicon. Thus, ESP meant the substitution of general terms for more specific ones, which, in fact, just implied a change of register (Almagro & Vallejo, 2002). New perspectives and a deeper concept of ESP arose with the development of linguistics and discourse analysis. As regards CLIL, it ‘arose from curriculum innovations in Finland in the mid-​1990s and it has been adopted in many European countries, mostly in connection with English’ (Graddol, 2006, p. 86) to teach language and content in bilingual educational contexts. Although CLIL emerged as a European solution for a particular European context and need (Martín del Pozo, 2017), it has spread worldwide at great speed in the past decade, reaching South American and Asian contexts (Hemmi & Banegas, 2021a). 58

CLIL and English for specific purposes

Contexts As mentioned above, ESP started in the 1960s mainly in informal education as an ELT branch to answer communicative needs of adults to learn English for occupational purposes and professional domains. The growth of ESP as an established field can partly be attributed to the importance it gained in formal academic settings, which currently seem to be its most influential branch (Anthony, 2018; Brown, 2016; Charles & Pecorari, 2016; Ding & Bruce, 2017). Within the ESP field, EAP has different implications in Europe or Latin America. For example, in Europe, mainly in the UK, Germany, Sweden, and Finland, EAP aims at teaching English to international/​national students who are starting an undergraduate or postgraduate degree. Thus, the four skills (reading, listening, speaking, and writing) are taught with special emphasis on writing, for students have already developed proficient English skills (Kırkgöz & Dikilitaş, 2018b; Paltridge & Starfield, 2013). In contrast, in some university settings of Latin American countries (e.g., Argentina, Costa Rica, Mexico, Paraguay, and Bolivia), EAP focuses on the teaching of essential reading comprehension skills in English. In view of this, students with limited communication skills in English can have access to updated bibliographies published in English in their different disciplines (Bottiglieri et al., 2017; Dominguez et al., 2018; Gómez, 2016; Hawkes & de Lozano, 2011; López & Puebla, 2011; Porto et al., 2021). In terms of educational contexts, there are CLIL experiences with primary and secondary school students (Hemmi & Banegas, 2021a), and there has also been a growing interest in higher education. In higher education, CLIL is the preferred approach for internationalisation of degrees since both language skills and content knowledge are taught in tandem, which has emerged as an alternative to ESP, ‘complementing its scant subject matter’ (Yang, 2020, p. 69) (for a discussion of CLIL and English-​medium instruction or EMI please see Dafouz, 2017, 2021). This could be an important juncture between CLIL and ESP because ‘since 2000 many ESP university courses have been based on the Content Language Integrated Learning approach’ (Negro Alousque, 2016, p. 192) complementing ESP teaching practices. It is worth highlighting that ESP moves closer to CLIL to meet university students’ expectations of learning content in their additional language classes (Li & Pey, 2015; Yang, 2020). Thus, it is agreed that both have gained international impact in higher education, emphasising the teaching of language and professional skills (Yang, 2016, 2020). Framed within the internationalisation of higher education, EMI, CLIL, and ESP find themselves at a crossroads. EMI is described as ‘the teaching and learning of an academic subject (i.e., economic, chemistry, aeronautical engineering, etc.) using English as the language of instruction, and usually without an explicit focus on language learning or specific language aims’ (Dafouz, 2017, p. 170). As has been discussed, ESP or CLIL may use English as a medium of instruction to internationalise education. It becomes evident that EMI gets closer to content-​d riven CLIL. Consequently, the importance of collaborative work between the ESP and/​or the CLIL teacher with disciplinary specialists should be stressed. Above all, the use of a diverse linguistic repertoire present in the classroom shall be seen as a learning resource as promoted by researchers of multilingual and translingual practices (Dafouz, 2021).

Agents Language teachers, content teachers, and students are the main agents involved in ESP and CLIL. ESP students are usually members of disciplinary or professional fields with varied 59

Gabriela Tavella and María Soledad Loutayf

levels of English proficiency who aim at communicating within a given discourse community in the short term. ESP students are the experts in the specific field of study or area of work, whereas ESP teachers tend to be language experts that use content knowledge to teach the target language. As Belcher (2009b, p. 3) highlights, ‘ESP specialists accept responsibility for finding out what their learners will likely need (and want) to be able to read, write, speak, and comprehend as listeners to achieve their goals’. Consequently, teachers are expected to purposefully design pedagogical materials and class activities to meet the needs of that identifiable group of adult language learners in a specific discipline and context (Dudley-​Evans & St. John, 1998). The teaching of ESP emphasises the preference for language specialists to deliver ESP lessons. The fact that ESP lessons deal with disciplinary content results in a dilemma that ESP has long questioned. Who is better prepared to teach ESP courses: content area specialists with proficient skills in the target language or language teachers with some content area knowledge? This issue has been discussed by several ESP authors (Belcher, 2009b; Harding, 2007; Kaewpet, 2011; Kaur, 2007; Khamis et al., 2014; Wu & Badger, 2009) referring to the need to train ESP teachers to deal with disciplinary content, the need to collaborate with subject specialists, or neither of them and concentrate solely on linguistic and professional skills. It is important to highlight that these authors mention several challenges (students’ and teachers’ lack of confidence, inability to answer content-​specific questions, students’ interest, etc.) that ESP teachers face when dealing with subject area contents and subject-​k nowledgeable students. As for how much disciplinary content ESP teachers must have, there are two opposing views in the literature. On the one hand, subject-​specific-​ driven approaches expect ESP educators to have some knowledge of the discipline of the learners on the grounds of relevance and familiarity (Belcher, 2009b; Kaur, 2007; Khamis et al., 2014; Wu & Badger, 2009).On the other hand, other specialists argue that subject-​a rea knowledge is not a requirement since ESP teachers have their own professional expertise to offer (Harding, 2007; Kaewpet, 2011). It is argued that ‘the role of the ESP teacher should not be to teach content but to provide the means to be able to cope with content’ (Master, 1998, p. 14). Although it is generally agreed that having subject-​a rea knowledge is not a prerequisite for ESP teachers, it is definitely an asset that would positively affect their practice. Consequently, practitioners are advised to gain expertise in a discipline (Belcher, 2006) and develop strategies to acquire subject-​a rea knowledge (Hüttner et al., 2009; Khamis et al., 2014; Norton, 2018; Wu & Badger, 2009). Subject specialists should be included among the important agents to be consulted. Considering that ESP professionals are expected to focus their training on helping students develop linguistic strategies and professional skills within a specific discourse community (Hüttner et al., 2009; Khamis et al., 2014; Wu & Badger, 2009), language teachers become researchers of those discourse communities by analysing a specific language variety and genres that shall be used in the students’ aimed communicative situation. Selinker (1988) considered subject-​specialists as disciplinary informants for the rhetorical/​g rammatical analysis of texts specific to the students’ fields. Thus, consultations with subject-​specialists, discourse and corpus analysis, micro-​ethnographic studies, and course auditing on specific topics are some of the means used to select and design class materials ( Johns, 2013). In contrast, CLIL students are (very) young or adult learners who attend a CLIL course or a disciplinary subject in an additional language within an institutional framework as part of the curricula. Thus, they attend CLIL courses to acquire the specific content together with an additional language. In view of these students, CLIL lessons can either 60

CLIL and English for specific purposes

be taught by a language teacher or by a subject teacher, depending on whether it is a language lesson or a content area lesson (Dale & Tanner, 2012). Therefore, who is the most suitable teacher for CLIL lessons: subject specialists proficient in English or English teachers with content area knowledge? It becomes evident that being CLIL dual-​focused, it is advisable that CLIL teachers address both language and content in their lessons. As stated by Hemmi and Banegas (2021b), ‘the role of the teacher is in the mediation of content through language to encourage student learning through interactions’ (p.3). This results in the imperative need of close cross-​c urricular collaboration between discipline specialists and language teachers as a means of catering for both content and language in CLIL practices (Lo, 2020). It can be concluded that ESP tends to be delivered by a language teacher, and CLIL can be taught either by a language or a content area teacher. However, collaborative work between field-​specific specialists and language teachers seems to be the obvious answer for CLIL and ESP (Krupchenko & Kuznetsov, 2017). As highlighted by Yang (2020, p. 71), ‘there have been urgent calls for collaboration between ESP and CLIL practitioners and for a balanced weighing of the content and language teaching’. For example, a response to such calls for collaboration can be channelled through co-​teaching (Kırkgöz & Dikilitaş, 2018a), the adoption of an integrated language and subject matter interdisciplinary approach (Gavrilova & Trostina, 2014), or the ESP teacher supporting content lecturers’ development of disciplinary literacies (Woźniak, 2017) so that they can help their students raise language awareness.

Key features and methodology It is important to highlight ESP key characteristics in order to compare and contrast them with CLIL. First, needs analysis (NA) is the cornerstone for the design of ESP courses and materials (Anthony, 1997; Dudley-​Evans & St. John, 1998). NA is an ongoing process that should be carried out at the different stages of the learning process. NA involves studying students’ lacks, wants, and needs together with constraints and opportunities of the teaching situation. In addition, developments in NA not only consider learners’ needs but also different stakeholders’ and/​or employers’ needs and wants, which some authors have critically examined (Basturkmen, 2014; Belcher, 2009a; Benesch, 2001; Jasso-​Aguilar, 2005; Starfield, 2013). These analyses illuminate the decision on what to teach alluding to students’ individual needs, language requirements, and disciplinary professional or academic content (Basturkmen, 2010; Belcher, 2009b; Dudley-​Evans & St. John, 1998; Paltridge & Starfield, 2013). Furthermore, NA has shifted from being a language-​centred approach, focused on what to do with the foreign language in the target situation, to a learning-​centred approach, focused on what learners need to learn (Hutchinson & Waters, 1987; Negro Alousque, 2016). NA has evolved from being mainly intuitive in its beginnings to be a complex and sophisticated method of data collection (West, 1994) that establishes ‘the how and what of a course’ (Hyland, 2006, p. 73). As there is no single method to develop NA, extensive literature in the field outlines varied methods that may suit any practitioner and context (Dudley-​ Evans & St. John, 1998; Hutchinson & Waters, 1987; Javid & Mohseni, 2020; Jordan, 1997, 2009; Munby, 1978; Nimasari, 2018; Paltridge & Starfield, 2013; Sönmez, 2019; Todea & Demarcsek, 2017; West, 1994). In relation to course and curriculum design, ESP courses are generally tailor-​m ade and therefore adapted to specific contexts. In order to inform course design, three questions are suggested to be considered: what to teach (target environment, discipline, discourse 61

Gabriela Tavella and María Soledad Loutayf

community), to whom (learning environment, students’ profiles, professional profile), and how (objectives and approach, resources, communicative functions) (Cortese, 1985). This shows that ESP teaching is mainly concerned with external goals since the learner studies the language to pursue academic, professional, or occupational goals. These external aims depict an instrumental view of language because students want to achieve tangible relevant objectives that require specific linguistic and communicative competences. Recent research has provided language practitioners with information about the specific language (linguistic content, language skills, etc.) and the communicative needs required to successfully communicate in the target scenario ( Johns, 2013). As we discuss below, the literature has also put forward a few pedagogical approaches for ESP. Genre-​based approaches appear to be a salient research topic in ESP and substantial to course design and methodology (Basturkmen, 2006). As stated by Paltridge (2013, p. 349), ‘genre analysis has moved beyond the structural and linguistic examinations of texts and aims at understanding social and contextual features of genres’. Consequently, the development of genre awareness enables practitioners ‘to autonomously analyse any ESP genre with a view to teaching it to learners who themselves are not necessarily familiar with the conventions of their future discourse communities’ (Hüttner et al., 2012, p. 165). Together with genre studies, corpora, corpus-​a nalytic tools, and corpus evidence have been increasingly used and researched in the past two decades (Coxhead, 2000, 2016; Cheng, 2010; Hewings, 2012) to inform language teaching, to add reliability of language used in context, and to aid ESP practitioners who might not be in contact with the disciplines of their students (Nesi, 2013). Turning to CLIL, it is an educational approach where non-​language content is combined with language learning (Airey, 2016). It is important to highlight that CLIL states learning aims on both language and content using the additional language as the medium of instruction. CLIL moves like a pendulum from being content-​d riven, in which the emphasis is on non-​language content, to being language-​d riven, which gives special attention to the teaching of an additional language through subject content. Thus, depending on the chosen model, CLIL developments in the past decade fit varied needs and contexts offering a pedagogical framework in a continuum that goes from content-​ d riven to language-​ d riven programmes (Brinton et al., 2003; Met, 1998). It can be concluded that if CLIL is considered a continuum, language-​d riven CLIL is situated closer to ESP. Likewise, ESP makes use of some aspects of CLIL pedagogy. ESP focuses on students’ linguistic needs using texts specific to the target discipline that emphasise the teaching of sufficient language skills to help learners deal with content knowledge (Airey, 2016; Yang, 2016). In contrast, CLIL’s dual focus, considers both content and language learning aims. Thus, disciplinary content, subject-​m atter content, specific content, or subject-​a rea knowledge are common connecting focuses of attention in ESP and CLIL. Jendrych and Wisniewska (2010) and Yang (2016) agree on their similarities because the emphasis is on teaching language and professional skills. While ESP uses content area knowledge to teach a foreign language in specific domains or disciplines, CLIL focuses on both the teaching of language and content. However, Tarnopolsky (2013) argues that CLIL has a broader scope and refers to the beneficial effect of CLIL in the teaching of ESP as it involves meaningful language processing. Finally, to address course design in both CLIL and ESP, the teacher’s role is essential to provide appropriate scaffolding ‘to facilitate cognitive challenge within a student’s zone of proximal development and to gradually withdraw support as learning progresses’ (Tzoannopoulou, 2015, p. 152).

62

CLIL and English for specific purposes

Materials selection and design Materials selection, design, and/​or adaptation has been an area of great concern in ESP and CLIL. Several ESP authors (Basturkmen, 2010; Dudley-​Evans & St. John, 1998; Flowerdew & Peacock, 2001; Jordan, 2009) have referred to this topic, stating that it involves continuous decision-​m aking on the part of the practitioner. Basturkmen and Bocanegra-​Valle (2018, p. 26) confirm that ‘there are scarce studies on how teachers develop materials’, but highlight the importance of searching for appropriate authentic texts (genre studies) that promote real-​world tasks. ESP activities are authentic in purpose and are based on students’ specialism that derives directly from students’ target needs (Basturkmen, 2010; Robinson, 1991). Authentic updated materials demonstrate real language in use that leads to course relevance, which is key in ESP. Thus, ESP materials and courses are expected to be tailor-​m ade and adapted to students’ aims in specific discourse communities because they should show a clear connection between what students learn in class and their purposes for learning the language (Yang, 2020). There is a wide array of high-​quality materials published by international publishing companies in the market; however, the usefulness of published commercial materials for ESP is questioned since they discourage teachers from producing their own materials and/​ or adapting existing ones (Anthony, 1997; Brunton, 2009; Yang, 2020). In addition, these materials tend not to be related to the local or specific context since they are designed with a general international audience in mind (Banegas, 2012; Bell & Gower, 2011; Tomlinson, 2012; Yang, 2020). Furthermore, ‘it would make little sense to seek needs assessment data as input for ESP courses if those who develop and teach them were then to choose generic, ready-​m ade commercial materials unresponsive to the specific target needs so carefully identified’ (Belcher, 2009b, p. 7). Conversely, some researchers refer to the practicality of published materials and concur that teacher-​designed materials should be the last resort when there are no possibilities of providing students with published materials either because they are not available or they do not meet students’ needs (Basturkmen, 2010; Hutchinson & Waters, 1987; Jordan, 2009). On the subject of materials selection and/​or design, CLIL seems to follow a similar direction to ESP. CLIL is rooted in contexts where there is ‘an explicit desire to move away from the shackles of product-​based education and the teacher-​led practices that tend to characterize it’ (Ball, 2018, p. 223). Furthermore, the creation of a framework to produce quality CLIL-​m aterials is reported as a need. In response to this gap, Mehisto (2012) has developed the following set of principles: learning intentions, learning skills and learner autonomy, formative assessment, safe learning environment, cooperative learning, authentic language and authentic language use, critical thinking, scaffolding language acquisition, meaningful learning. These principles can easily fit into a ‘process-​led paradigm of education’ and ‘belong to the canon of more progressive educational paradigms’ (Ball, 2018, pp. 223–​ 224). Consequently, CLIL-​oriented teaching practices have been directed towards teacher-​ designed materials or adaptation of ‘materials already produced for the L1 curriculum’ (Ball, 2018, p. 224). Moreover, the design of context-​sensitive materials based on context-​sensitive teaching practices enhances students’ involvement and motivation (Fernández & Tavella, 2016). Thus, CLIL prefers the use of teacher-​produced materials based on a principled practice over mass produced textbooks. Although there is a preference for teacher-​designed materials, there are examples where ESP materials are adapted for the teaching of CLIL. An example of an integrated ESP and language-​d riven CLIL version is reported in an action

63

Gabriela Tavella and María Soledad Loutayf

research project carried out in Taiwan where a tailor-​m ade CLIL textbook was designed based on its original ESP one (Yang, 2020). In conclusion, CLIL and ESP materials are connected to disciplinary content and students’ communicative needs in specific domains. Consequently, teaching materials should display real-​life tasks to be consistent with what ESP and CLIL promote. In line with this, the teaching situation and the target students’ characteristics and needs ( Jordan, 2009) are to be aligned to the choice of teaching materials and their corresponding methodology and approach.

Conclusion This chapter has developed key issues in ESP highlighting its connections to CLIL and possible overlapping areas. It is certain that CLIL and ESP imply the teaching of an additional language and/​through disciplinary content with the aim of developing students’ professional/​ academic and communication skills. As argued, although ESP and CLIL arose at different socio-​h istorical moments, both have gradually spread worldwide reaching an international impact with fruitful results. CLIL is part of the institutional curriculum at all levels, and ESP is mainly taught in informal contexts in varied work environments and in formal contexts at higher levels of education; thus, they coexist at university level. As regards the role of ESP and CLIL practitioners, ESP is usually delivered by a language teacher, and CLIL either by a language or a content area teacher. However, both encourage collaborative practices that aim at sharing expertise between field-​specific specialists and language teachers. This interdisciplinary approach should be encouraged since ESP and CLIL professionals resort to specific discipline methodology. In relation to key features and methodology, CLIL and ESP are closely connected because both are goal-​d irected and student-​centred, emphasising learners’ needs for communication in specific domains (Yang, 2020). Considering that both appeal to disciplinary relevance; content-​based approaches promote successful, meaningful, and authentic practices to teach language and/​through content. In ESP, NA provides indispensable data that guides the whole teaching-​learning process by making linguistic contents salient and present in course design, materials, and tasks. As for CLIL, attention has been guided towards disciplinary literacy and methodology to make language needs visible (Martín del Pozo, 2017; Woźniak, 2017). NA, corpus-​based, and genre-​based studies are useful to provide context-​ specific language relevant for the students and aid the design of materials and tasks (Martín del Pozo, 2017). ESP and CLIL professionals are stimulated to design their own materials targeted at their own teaching context based on a principled background for the design of quality materials. Consequently, teachers are encouraged to meet contextual demands and affordances that would enrich teaching methodologies as well as tasks and materials design (Banegas & del Pozo Beamud, 2022).

Implications The 21st century is characterised by the increased mobility and internationalisation of academic and professional contexts together with the rapid development of ICT that demand the development of intercultural competences and critical perspectives that should be approached as transversal topics in CLIL and ESP. Thus, apart from the teaching of language and/​ through content, intercultural competence should be emphasised and evidenced in materials selection and design so that intercultural education is practically applied. In addition, this 64

CLIL and English for specific purposes

chapter has been short to discuss critical pedagogy in ESP and CLIL, which aims at reducing inequality and unfair power relations that either the knowledge or lack of knowledge of English in specialised disciplines may evoke. Thus, ESP and CLIL teaching practices could be an empowering way of challenging societies and promoting equality among language users in specific domains (Belcher, 2006; Benesch, 2001; Starfield, 2013). More research is needed on how to implement LSP and CLIL in varied and different contexts worldwide so as to further contribute to decentring ELT practices and the development of social justice. Finally, collaboration between ESP and CLIL teachers and conjoint professional development are imperative. This issue could present a new scenario that might change the course of research trends in these areas. Furthermore, their compatibility should also be put into practice and researched from a theoretical and practical point of view.

Further reading Hemmi, C., & Banegas, D. (Eds.) (2021). International perspectives on CLIL. Palgrave Macmillan. This book gives an overview of CLIL developments as well as actual examples of CLIL research carried out in varied international contexts. It is worth mentioning that each chapter presents future lines of research and engagement priorities if readers are further interested in researching about CLIL issues. Kováčikov, E. (2020). English for specific purposes in higher education through content and language integrated learning. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. The aim of this work is to find out the possible contributions of CLIL to ESP. It complements theory with actual research in the context of ESP classes at the University of Agriculture in Nitra, Slovakia. Mede, E., Dikilitas, K., & Atay, D. (2020). Pedagogic and instructional perspectives in language education: The context of higher education. Peter Lang. This book focuses on teacher education discussing topics related to tertiary pedagogies, professional development, instructional innovative practices, and technology with topics related to the teaching of CLIL and ESP using EMI.

References Airey, J. (2016). EAP, EMI or CLIL? In K. Hyland & P. Shaw (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of English for academic purposes (pp. 95–​107). Routledge. Almagro, A., & Vallejo, M. (2002). A case study of collaboration among the ESP practitioners, the content teacher, and the students. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses, 15, 7–​21. Anthony, L. (1997). English for specific purposes: What does it mean? Why is it different? On-​CUE Journal, 5(3), 9–​10. Anthony, L. (2018). Introducing English for specific purposes. Routledge. Ball, P. (2018). Innovations and challenges in CLIL materials design. Theory into Practice, 57(3), 222–​231. Ball, P., Kelly, K., & Clegg, J. (2016). Putting CLIL into practice. Oxford University Press. Banegas, D.L. (2012). CLIL teacher development: Challenges and experiences. Latin American Journal of Content and Language Integrated Learning, 5(1), 46–​56. https://​doi.org/​10.5294/​lac​l il.2012.5.1.4 Banegas, D., & del Pozo Beamud, M. (2022). Content and language integrated learning: A duoethnographic study about CLIL pre-​service teacher education in Argentina and Spain. RELC Journal, 53(1), 151–​164. https://​doi.org/​10.1177/​0 0336​8822​0930​4 42 Basturkmen, H. (2006). Ideas and options in English for specific purposes. Routledge. Basturkmen, H. (2010). Developing courses in English for specific purposes. Routledge. Basturkmen, H. (2014). LSP teacher education: Review of literature and suggestions for the research agenda. Ibérica: Revista De La Asociación Europea De Lenguas Para Fines Específicos (AELFE), 28, 17–​34. Basturkmen, H., & Bocanegra-​Valle, A. (2018). Materials design processes, beliefs and practices of experienced ESP teachers in university settings in Spain. In Y. Kırkgöz & K. Dikilitaş (Eds.), Key issues in English for specific purposes in higher education (pp. 13–​27). Springer.

65

Gabriela Tavella and María Soledad Loutayf Belcher, D. (2006). English for specific purposes: Teaching to perceived needs and imagined futures in worlds of work, study, and everyday life. TESOL Quarterly, 40, 133–​156. Belcher, D. (2009a). English for specific purposes in theory and practice. University of Michigan Press. Belcher, D. (2009b). What ESP is and can be: An introduction. English for Specific Purposes in Theory and Practice, 1(20), 1–​20. Bell, J., & Gower, R. (2011). Writing material courses for the world: A great compromise. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), Materials development in language teaching (pp. 135–​150). Cambridge University Press. Benesch, S. (2001). Critical English for academic purposes: Theory, politics and practice. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Blok, S., Lockwood, R.B., & Frendo, E. (2020). The 6 principles for exemplary teaching of English learners: Academic and other specific purposes. TESOL Press. Bottiglieri, L.N., Irrazabal Paz, M.F., & Loutayf, M.S. (2017). El lugar y los contenidos de inglés en las carreras de grado en la UNSA reflejan políticas educativas, ¿hacia dónde vamos?. In Actas de VII Jornadas de Enseñanza de Inglés en las Carreras de Ingeniería (EICI), 13. Brinton, D., Snow, M., & Wesche, M. (2003). Content-​based second language instruction (2nd ed.). University of Michigan Press. Brown, J. D. (2016). Introducing needs analysis and English for specific purposes. Routledge. Brunton, M. (2009). An account of ESP: With possible future directions. English for Specific Purposes, 3(24), 1–​15. Charles, M., & Pecorari, D. (2016). Introducing English for academic purposes. Routledge. Cheng, W. (2010). What can a corpus tell us about language teaching. In A. O’Keeffe & M. McCarthy (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of corpus linguistics (pp. 319–​332). Routledge. Cortese, G. (1985). An experiment in minimal teacher-​t raining for ESP. The ESP Journal, 4(2), 77–​92. Coxhead, A. (2000). A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly, 34(2), 213–​238. Coxhead, A. (2016). Reflecting on Coxhead (2000), “A New Academic Word List”. TESOL Quarterly, 50(1), 181–​185. Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge University Press. Dafouz, E. (2017). English-​medium instruction in multilingual university settings: An opportunity for developing language awareness. In P. Garrett & J. M. Cots (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of language awareness (pp. 170–​185). Routledge. Dafouz, E. (2021). Crossing disciplinary boundaries: English-​medium education (EME) meets English for specific purposes (ESP). Ibérica: Revista de la Asociación Europea de Lenguas para Fines Específicos (AELFE), 41, 13–​38. Dale, L., & Tanner, R. (2012). CLIL activities: A resource for subject and language teachers. Cambridge University Press. Dalton-​Puffer, C. (2016). Cognitive discourse functions: Specifying an integrative interdisciplinary construct. In T. Nikula, E. Dafouz, P. Moore, & U. Smit (Eds.), Conceptualising integration in CLIL and multilingual education (pp. 29–​54). Multilingual Matters. Ding, A., & Bruce, I. (2017). The English for academic purposes practitioner: Operating on the edge of academia. Palgrave Macmillan. Dominguez, M.B., Rivarola, M., Aguirre Céliz, C., & Ardissone, G. (2018). La formación en el idioma inglés de estudiantes de ingeniería. Antecedentes en la investigación. In II Jornadas sobre las Prácticas Docentes en la Universidad Pública (La Plata, 2018). Dudley-​Evans, T., & St. John, M. (1998). Developments in English for specific purposes: A multidisciplinary approach. Cambridge University Press. Fernández, C., & Tavella, G. (2016). Material design in a context-​sensitive practice. In V. Abate Daga (Eds.), Políticas lingüísticas y lenguas extranjeras en el nivel superior (pp. 222–​228). Universidad Nacional del Litoral. www.unl.edu.ar/​idio​m as/​w p-​cont​ent/​uplo​ads/​sites/​19/​2019/​02/​Jorna​d as2​ 016-​e -​book ​_ ​I V-​J LE.pdf Flowerdew, J., & Peacock, M. (2001). Research perspectives on English for academic purposes. Ernst Klett Sprachen. Gavrilova, E., & Trostina, K. (2014). Teaching English for professional purposes (EPP) vs content and language integrated learning (CLIL): The case of Plekhanov Russian University of Economics (PRUE). European Scientific Journal, 2, 7–​17. Gómez, L.P. (2016). La comprensión lectora del inglés como lengua extranjera. Revista Educación y Pensamiento, 22(22).

66

CLIL and English for specific purposes Graddol, D. (2006). English next. British Council. Harding, K. (2007). English for specific purposes. Oxford University Press. Hawkes, V., & de Lozano, S.R. (2011, June 16–​17). ¿Hacia dónde va la Educación en la Argentina y en América Latina? Construyendo una nueva agenda. Conference presentation. Hemmi, C., & Banegas, D.L. (Eds.). (2021a). International perspectives on CLIL. Palgrave Macmillan. Hemmi, C., & Banegas, D.L. (2021b). CLIL: An overview. In C. Hemmi & D.L. Banegas (Eds.), International perspectives on CLIL (pp. 1–​20). Palgrave Macmillan. Hewings, M. (2012). Using corpora in research, teaching, and materials design for ESP: An evaluation. Taiwan International ESP Journal, 4(1), 1–​24. Hutchinson, T., & Waters, A. (1987). English for specific purposes. Cambridge University Press. Hüttner, J., Smit, U., & Mehlmauer-​Larcher, B. (2009). ESP teacher education at the interface of theory and practice: Introducing a model of mediated corpus-​based genre analysis. System, 37(1), 99–​109. Hüttner, J.I., Mehlmauer-​Larcher, B., & Reichl, S. (Eds.). (2012). Theory and practice in EFL teacher education: Bridging the gap. Multilingual Matters. Hyland, K. (2006). English for academic purposes. Routledge. Işık-​Taş, E.E., & Kenny, N. (2020). Current practices, challenges, and innovations in English for specific purposes instruction and research. In N. Kenny, E. Işık-​Taş, & H. Jian (Eds.), English for specific purposes: Instruction and research (pp. 1–​8). Palgrave Macmillan. Jasso-​A guilar, R. (2005). Sources, methods and triangulation in needs analysis: A critical perspective in a case study of Waikiki hotel maids. In M. Long (Ed.), Second language needs analysis (pp. 127–​ 158). Cambridge University Press. Javid, M., & Mohseni, A. (2020). English for law enforcement purposes: ESP needs analysis of border guarding officers. Iranian Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(4), 89–​111. Jendrych, E., & Wisniewska, H. (2010). ESP: How to design challenging tasks for adult. learners. In Pixel Conference “ICT for language learning” (3rd ed.). https://​con ​fere​nce.pixel-​onl ​i ne.net/​conf​ eren​ces/​ICT​4LL2​010/​com ​mon/​downl​oad/​Proc​eedi​ngs_​pdf/​CLI​L 01-​Jendr ​ych,Wis​n iew​ska.pdf Johns, A.M. (2013). The history of English for specific purposes research. In B. Paltridge & S. Starfield (Eds.), The handbook of English for specific purposes (pp. 5–​30). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Jordan, R. (1997). What’s in a name? English for Specific Purposes, 16(1), 71–​74. Jordan, R.R. (2009). English for academic purposes: A guide and resource book for teachers. Cambridge University Press. Kaewpet, C. (2011). Learning needs of Thai civil engineering students. The Asian ESP Journal, 7, 79–​105. Kaur, S. (2007). ESP course design: Matching learner needs to aims. ESP World, 1(14), 6. www.esp-​ world.info/​A rti​cles​_​14/​DESIGN​ING%20ESP%20COUR​SES.htm Khamis, N.Y.H., Hussin, S., & Nor, N.F.M. (2014). Competencies of English for academic purposes educators at engineering universities: A conceptual framework. World Applied Sciences Journal, 30(30), 62–​69. Kiely, R. (2009). CLIL: The question of assessment. University of Bristol. Kırkgöz, Y., & Dikilitaş, K. (Eds.). (2018a). Key issues in English for specific purposes in higher education (Vol. 11). Springer. Kırkgöz, Y., & Dikilitaş, K. (2018b). Recent developments in ESP/​E AP/​E MI contexts. In Y. Kırkgöz & K. Dikilitaş (Eds.), Key issues in English for specific purposes in higher education (pp. 1–​10). Springer. Krupchenko, A., & Kuznetsov, A. (2017). Professional linguodidactics as the cutting-​edge advanced approach to foreign language teaching in TVET: ESP vs. CLIL. 11th Conference: International Technology, Education and Development Valencia, 2863–​2868. Li, L.K., & Pey, K.C. (2015). ESP at tertiary level: Traditional ESP or integrated ESP? dspace.unimap.edu. my/​bitstream/​handle/​123456789/​34587/​GENERAL%20PAPER_ ​3.pdf ?sequence=​1 Lo, Y. (2020). Professional development of CLIL teachers. Springer. López, M.E., & Puebla, M.M. (2011). Fundamentación teórico-​pedagógica de los Cursos de ‘Inglés para Propósitos Específicos’ centrados en la lectocomprensión de textos académico-​científicos relativos a disciplinas de formación humanística. Revista Alternativas. Serie Espacio Pedagógico, 46–​59. Martín del Pozo, M.A. (2017). CLIL and ESP: Synergies and mutual inspiration. International Journal of Language Studies, 11(4), 29– ​48. Master, P. (1998). Responses to English for specific purposes. San José State University. Mehisto, P. (2012). Criteria for producing CLIL learning material. Encuentro, 21, 15–​33.

67

Gabriela Tavella and María Soledad Loutayf Met, M. (1998). Content-​based language. Beyond bilingualism: Multilingualism and Multilingual Education, 110, 35. Munby, J. (1978). Communicative syllabus design. Cambridge University Press. Negro Alousque, I. (2016). Developments in ESP: From register analysis to a genre-​based and CLIL-​ based approach. Revista de Lenguas para Fines Específicos, 22(1), 190–​212. Nesi, H. (2013). ESP and corpus studies. In B. Paltridge & S. Starfield (Eds.), The handbook of English for specific purposes (pp. 407–​426). John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Nimasari, E.P. (2018). An ESP needs analysis: Addressing the needs of English for informatics engineering. JEES ( Journal of English Educators Society), 3(1), 23–​40. Norton, J. (2018). Lesson study in higher education: A collaborative vehicle for professional learning and practice development of teachers of English for specific purposes. In Y. Kırkgöz & K. Dikilitaş (Eds.), Key issues in English for specific purposes in higher education (pp. 95–​110). Springer. Paltridge, B. (2013). Genre and English for specific purposes. In B. Paltridge & S. Starfield (Eds.), The handbook of English for specific purposes (pp. 347–​366). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Paltridge, B., & Starfield, S. (Eds.). (2013). The handbook of English for specific purposes. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Porto, M., López-​Barrios, M., & Banegas, D.L. (2021). Research on English language teaching and learning in Argentina (2014–​2018). Language Teaching, 1–​33. Robinson, P.C. (1991). ESP today: A practitioner’s guide. Prentice Hall. Selinker, L. (1988). Using research methods in LSP: Two approaches to applied discourse analysis. In M.L. Tickoo (Ed.), ESP: State of the art (pp. 33–​52). SEAMEO Regional Language Centre. Sönmez, H. (2019). An examination of needs analysis research in the language education process. International Journal of Education and Literacy Studies, 7(1), 8–​17. Starfield, S. (2013). Critical perspectives on ESP. In B. Paltridge & S. Starfield (Eds.), The handbook of English for specific purposes (pp. 461–​479). John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Swales, J.M. (1985). Episodes in ESP. Pergamum Press. Tarnopolsky, O. (2013). Content-​based instruction, CLIL, and immersion in teaching ESP at tertiary schools in non-​English-​speaking countries. Journal of ELT and Applied Linguistics ( JELTAL), 1(1), 1–​11. Todea, L., & Demarcsek, R. (2017). Needs analysis for language course design: A case study for engineering and business students. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 200(1), 12–​64. IOP Publishing. Tomlinson, B. (2012). Materials development for language learning and teaching. Language Teaching, 45(2), 143–​179. Tzoannopoulou, M. (2015). Rethinking ESP: Integrating content and language in the university classroom. Procedia-​Social and Behavioral Sciences, 173, 149–​153. West, R. (1994). Needs analysis in teaching. Language Teaching, 27, 1–​19. Woźniak, M. (2017). ESP in CLIL degree programmes. ESP Today, 5(2), 244–​265. Wu, H., & Badger, R. G. (2009). In a strange and uncharted land: ESP teachers’ strategies for dealing with unpredicted problems in subject knowledge during class. English for Specific Purposes, 28(1), 19–​32. Yang, W. (2016). ESP vs. CLIL: A coin of two sides or a continuum of two extremes? ESP Today, 4(1), 43–​68. Yang, W. (2020). The development, adoption and evaluation of the integration of an ESP and CLIL textbook: Perspectives from the CLIL learners. ESP Today, 8(1), 68–​89.

68

69

5 CLIL AND ENGLISH-​M EDIUM INSTRUCTION Joyce Kling and Slobodanka Dimova

Introduction Scan the course selection at any higher education institution (HEI) from around the world, and you will most likely find options for courses and degree programmes offered in English. While not without controversy (Wilkinson & Gabriëls, 2021), English taught courses have become ubiquitous in tertiary education around the world. In a race to compete for international rankings and recruit a diverse range of researchers, to fund research centres, to develop international projects, and to attract both domestic and mobile students, HEIs are running programmes in English (Seeber et al., 2016). Implementation of English-​medium instruction (EMI) has been linked with initiatives focused on not only increased mobility, but also internationalisation-​at-​home, which allows for HEIs primarily catering to domestic students to address internationalisation of the curriculum and learning goals (Bowles & Murphy, 2020). Additionally, online education, which has grown exponentially in recent years, has followed suit, with a reported 80% of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOC) in English in 2018 (Agudo, 2019). The increasing use of English as the medium of instruction, as well as its expanded roles at various HEIs, has promoted researchers and practitioners to adopt different terminology, theoretical frameworks, and instructional approaches (Dimova & Kling, 2020). The terms EMI and content and language integrated learning (CLIL)1 are commonly, but inconsistently, referenced in research and publications about the use of English for content instruction and learning in higher education. To be able to engage in meaningful comparisons across studies using EMI and CLIL, scholars have disambiguated these two terms by discussing their overlap and highlighting their respective distinctive features (e.g., Airey, 2016; Brown & Bradford, 2017; Dafouz & Smit, 2020; Macaro, 2018; Pecorari & Malmström, 2018; Pecorari, 2020). However, extended discussion remains a necessity to address more specific grounds for discrimination and choices in implementation of EMI-​or CLIL-​based instruction, specifically for higher education programmes offered through the English language in non-​English-​dominant settings. In the literature, EMI and CLIL are often presented as two points of a continuum, where focus on English language learning is at one end, (e.g., English for specific purposes [ESP], English for academic purposes [EAP]) and content learning is at the other (EMI), while DOI: 10.4324/9781003173151-7

69

Joyce Kling and Slobodanka Dimova

CLIL is a middle point combining the two (Airey, 2016). However, an alternative conceptualisation could be that EMI represents the educational context while CLIL a pedagogical approach applied in the context, used to strengthen students’ development of English language proficiency. In this chapter, we discuss EMI and CLIL from the standpoint of educational policy and strategy for addressing identified learning needs and desires in higher education. We begin with some background and a conceptual framework of the global phenomenon that EMI has become. Additionally, we expand on differentiation of the EMI construct based on needs and goals in different contexts and disciplines. We consider the contextual distinctions to place CLIL for English support at the tertiary level within the EMI framework, outline the fundamental CLIL dimensions, and reconsider broad statements perpetuated in the literature regarding the popular view of a normative EMI pedagogy. Lastly, we discuss future directions in CLIL research for EAP support and development and practices in EMI contexts.

CLIL in the contextual variation of EMI Before diving into CLIL for English support for EMI, we provide historical and contextual background information to define the construct and outline a conceptual framework that depicts elements that result in differentiation across settings. Description of the main elements of the conceptual framework allows for an improved understanding of how and why CLIL implementation (as an aspect of EMI support) varies across contexts. To begin, we look to Europe where implementation of the Bologna Treaty in 2000 increased mobility of students and researchers, as well as advances in technology, which ultimately led to an unanticipated expansive development of English taught programmes, i.e., EMI (Wächter & Maiworm, 2014). Beyond the European borders, globalisation became the buzzword in higher education and expanded our conceptions of internationalisation to include what Altbach and Knight (2007) describe as expanded policies and practices by HEIs designed in response to a desired internationalised academic environment. Thus, the first decade of the 21st century witnessed unprecedented increases in EMI implementation in HEIs in Europe (Wächter & Maiworm, 2014), Asia (Brown & Bradford, 2018; Fenton-​Smith et al., 2017), and South America (Corrales et al., 2016). From an administrative standpoint, EMI appeared to be a straightforward option for tertiary education for HEIs seeking to expand learning opportunities and promote globalised educational agendas. Offering programmes in English was intended as an equaliser, in that HEIs could attract and retain academics and students from around the world who were not necessarily proficient in the local/​national language (Kling, 2019). English as the academic lingua franca was envisaged to provide opportunities that had previously been restricted. For example, in Europe, open educational borders offered greater exchange opportunities, so EMI was often implemented across a range of disciplines under the same administrative protocols as traditional, local/​national language instruction in non-​English-​dominant settings, with limited focus language preparedness or proficiency for English second language (L2) academic staff and students. However, since the turn of the century, increasing research in this emergent field provides evidence of a shift from focused discussion of internationalisation and mobility to one of teaching methodologies and approaches. Researchers have documented contextual variation in the goals and expectations of EMI, ranging from mere transmission of disciplinary content (i.e., often depicted as teacher-​fronted instruction focused on explicit content related intended learning outcomes [ILO] but no specific English language competence development ILOs), to expectations of language proficiency 70

CLIL and English-medium instruction

enhancement and improvement (i.e., identified ILOs, in terms of both disciplinary language and intercultural communicative competence [ICC] for a global marketplace) (Carroll, 2015; Molino et al., 2022; TAEC EMI Handbook, 2019). This contextual variation can be visualised in a conceptual framework of EMI (see Figure 5.1) that is built on the identified elements from the literature and the relationships that exist between them. Reports from around the world present three distinct contexts that lend themselves to considerations related to approaches to teaching and learning in EMI, represented in the outer circle in Figure 5.1: (1) traditionally non-​English-​medium universities in non-​ English-​dominant settings that have implemented EMI, (2) British and North American university branch campuses in non-​ English-​ dominant contexts, and (3) universities in English-​dominant settings (Dimova & Kling, 2020). Universities in non-​English-​dominant settings is now a documented trend in Europe, Asia, and Central and South America. In this context, English is introduced as an additional language of instruction to the local or national language(s) for a broad range of purposes. Although there are similarities between these HEIs, national and local language policies and practices and levels of language proficiency associated with EMI vary due to local educational traditions and context, as well as stakeholder needs. Findings from the project Transnational Alignment of English Competences of Academic Staff (TAEC) –​a large five-​country (Croatia, Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands, and Spain) EMI project funded by the European Union’s (EU) Erasmus+​programme –​offer an opportunity to view and compare implementation and activities across European borders, as opposed to from the institutional or national level. The purpose of TAEC was to develop a common scheme for EMI quality assurance and support to adapt local EMI training and certification and language assessment instruments of EMI lecturers for transnational uses. The TAEC results suggest that EMI is embedded within the departmental, institutional, national, and international policies, be they implicit or explicit, in a particular context (represented by policies within context, see Figure 5.1). Therefore, EMI is multidimensional, and its purpose and goals differ depending on the contexts, disciplines, and stakeholders involved (Molino et al., 2022).

Pedagogy

Language

curricular goals student population teaching reform identities CLIL

lecturers: certification students: admission student/lecturer support (ESP, EAP, CLIL) post-entry tests

ICC

multilingual/multicultural students multilingual/multicultural lecturers educational culture

Figure 5.1  EMI framework Source: Adapted from Dimova, 2021.

71

Policies Policies departmental -institutional institutional -national national international -international

Context

English-dominant branch campuses non-English-dominant

Joyce Kling and Slobodanka Dimova

Situated at the centre of Figure 5.1 are the distinct but interlinked dimensions of language, pedagogy, and ICC that have remained at the core of discussions related to the challenges and opportunities of internationalisation of higher education and implementation of EMI (Carroll, 2015; Lauridsen & Lillemose, 2015). These intersecting EMI dimensions (i.e., individual circles) in the conceptual framework are governed by policies and embedded in a particular context. The language dimension in the research includes attention to language use and proficiency of English L2 content lecturers and students, as well as explicit support initiative implementation (e.g., L2 content teacher language training or certification and L2 student support via ESP, EAP, or CLIL). The pedagogy dimension is related to curricular goals, student populations, educational teacher reforms (local and national), L2 content teacher identity, and implementation of CLIL support within content instruction. Lastly, the ICC dimension in EMI research focuses on the target populations (both academic lecturers and students) and ramifications of educational culture(s) on teaching and learning (Molino et al., 2022). These three dimensions are influenced by policies related to language use (e.g., parallel, English-​only, multilingual), internationalisation (e.g., student/​lecturer recruitment, international curricula), and by the educational values, ideologies, and traditions in the specific context. Given these EMI framework dimensions, it should be expected that even if two HEIs come from the same broad context (e.g., non-​English-​dominant), they may have different language policies influenced by the local values. For example, in terms of policy for instruction, some HEI contexts value multilingualism and promote policies of parallel language use (University of Copenhagen, 2007) where both the local language(s) and English are used as medium of instruction in the classroom and administrative communication outside the classroom. The purpose of EMI in these contexts is recruitment of international students and lecturers and retention of local students. Here, development of English language proficiency is not an explicit goal of EMI, although an implicit expectation, especially in relation to academic literacy and disciplinary genres, may be present. Therefore, only lower proficiency students may be enrolled in EAP courses, or CLIL may be implemented only in selected courses. Examples of such EMI contexts can be found in the University of Copenhagen, and the University of Iceland (Arnbjörnsdóttir, 2020; Dimova & Kling, 2020). In other EMI contexts, the development of domestic students’ English proficiency is an explicit goal (Macaro, 2018). In these contexts, pedagogies that support integration of language and content are promoted, and, in some cases, collaboration between content and language teachers is established. An example of such an HEI context is the University of Lleida, where EMI was implemented to enhance student English proficiency, and, in effect, replace the existing ESP courses with what is now defined as CLIL-​supported EMI courses across university curricula (Arnó-​Macià & Mancho-​Barés, 2015). Without a doubt, the initial assignment of English as the language of instruction sets the stage for how teachers and students approach EMI. This first conceptualisation is apparent at universities in non-​English-​dominant settings, where institutional language policies may require a change of language of instruction from the local or institutional language (typically the teachers’ and the students’ L1) to English with few changes related to new curricular demands or to the student population. In this situation, the teacher essentially proceeds using materials and methodologies similar in nature to those used in the L1. With only language of instruction as a variable change, the students remain a homogenous group who have studied in the educational system in question, understand the educational culture, and typically share the local language. Course requirements and ILOs, beyond institutional strategic goals, tend to remain unchanged, and teaching proceeds with limited alteration or innovation. An 72

CLIL and English-medium instruction

example of this is evident in EMI graduate-​level courses for pre-​service Danish upper secondary school teachers at the Department of Mathematics at the University of Copenhagen. With the exception of the occasional exchange student, the students in the course are Danish L1 speakers. In these courses, the language of instruction shifts to English, but there is little to no alteration of the curricular goals or approach or international ILOs. In terms of teaching approach, we see little if any discussion at branch campus universities and universities in English-​dominant contexts. No alternative strategic decision from the norm needs to be instituted, as the language of instruction at branch campuses and English-​dominant universities is established by default, and content teachers at these institutions proceed with instruction with limited change to their pedagogic approach(es). Yet, while language of instruction does not necessarily change in these contexts, the student population may be quite diverse and in some instances to greater numbers of L2 English students than L1. This situation is clearly apparent at an institution such as London School of Economics in an English-​dominant context, where, in the academic year 2018–​2019, international students comprised 68% of student enrolment, of whom approximately 30% came from Asia and 25% from Europe (Higher Education Statistics Agency, n.d.). Similarly, the US branch campus Carnegie Mellon University Qatar enrolled an extremely diverse student body in 2021–​2022, with 439 students representing 53 nations, comprised of more than 60% international students (Carnegie Mellon University Qatar, 2021). The second conceptualisation of EMI requires a shift in language of instruction with the addition of a direct change in teaching approach, again with little or no change in terms of the student population. Here, implementation of EMI policies gives rise to hidden or secondary goals for educational administration. EMI is seen as an opportunity to motivate local content teachers to embrace internationalisation at home and enhance internationally focused curricula and/​or a decisive move from teacher-​f ronted, expository, one-​way communication to a more interactive, discussion-​based, participatory instructional style. With limited pedagogic teacher training at HEIs available to early-​career academics (Kling et al., 2022), focused attention to approaches to teaching and learning that can support disciplinary content acquisition for these purposes may require teachers to re-​evaluate pedagogic methods, not to mention specific ILOs, including directed L2 language support. In this regard, EMI teacher training courses are providing competence development for teaching in an L2 to academic staff who previously may have not had opportunities to investigate or experiment with pedagogical diversity in their L1. As a result, this trend in in-​service EMI training has resulted in both enhanced diversification and innovation by those teaching when in their L2 (del Campo, 2020), as well as when teaching in their L1 (Martinez & Fernandes, 2020) through language increased focus of content instruction. The third EMI aspect includes a change in the student population. Increased student and academic staff mobility results in the need for instruction in a common language. The use of English as this common academic medium with a diverse group of people creates the need for teachers to reconsider their approach to how they present information and interact with students. Across all contexts described, when EMI content teachers engage with a new type of student cohort, in what can be considered a multilingual, multicultural classroom (MLMC), teacher–​student and student–​student interactions take on new dimensions. By nature, in the MLMC classroom, the stakeholders no longer share one L1, nor in many cases ethnic or regional backgrounds. These differences may translate into diverse understanding and interpretation of teaching and learning processes and practices in higher education (Lauridsen & Lillemose, 2015). This requires teachers to alter the manner(s) in which they communicate 73

Joyce Kling and Slobodanka Dimova

with the students, in speech and in writing, to accommodate for the diversity of the student cohort. Across all EMI contexts, diversity due to the range of variables described above results in the need for enhanced and explicit focused attention to language proficiency and intercultural communicative competence (ICC) (TAEC EMI Handbook, 2019). Regardless of the context, while the institutional policies may shift to address particular strategic goals, e.g., the use of EMI as a tool for internationalisation, the core educational values of the context remain. In situations where EMI courses are taught by visiting lecturers or international staff, the challenges related to understanding local culture are magnified. Teachers and students alike, regardless of English L2 proficiency, must learn to negotiate the local educational rules, regulations, and traditions. This tension can increase if the teacher does not speak the local language and must utilise English as a lingua franca for all aspects of teaching and course administration. Additionally, teaching traditions across disciplines, institutions, and even organisational units play a marked role in pedagogical choices and approaches for EMI. There are no simple answers as to best practice for teaching EMI courses since traditions are sensitive to local culture and personal experience. However, the addition of variables such as the language proficiency and the intercultural competence of all the stakeholders (see Figure 5.1) has resulted in the promotion of student-​centred approaches that allow for increased interaction and greater possibility for focused language awareness. As EMI spreads globally, increased awareness of how academic staff and students communicate through L2 English in the EMI classroom has motivated research and development related to the adequacy of different types of linguistic training and support. Across a range of applied linguistics platforms, discussions focus on the need for EMI lecturer certification (Dimova, 2020a; Dimova & Kling, 2018), student admission requirements (Dimova, 2020b), foundation courses in EAP, ESP, and, of course, CLIL. In the following section, we pick up on CLIL and discuss various manifestations of L2 language support to enhance content learning in relation to EMI.

CLIL as pedagogical support for EMI –​models and approaches As the term suggests, CLIL denotes a pedagogical approach where a foreign language (FL) and a non-​language subject are taught in a complementary manner. Although a similar pedagogical approach, content-​based instruction (CBI), has existed in North America since the 1980s (Genesee, 1987; Met, 1998), CLIL was introduced in Europe in the 1990s as part of the European political integration agenda with a goal of enhancing FL learning through other subjects without burdening the curriculum with extra teaching hours (European Commission, 2003; Marsh, 2002). Despite the fact that the European Commission’s agenda has been to promote learning of various FLs, the CLIL approach has been generally adopted for development of English language proficiency, especially in Southern Europe (Dalton-​ Puffer & Smit, 2013). As is apparent from the expansive focus in this volume alone, CLIL cannot be boiled down to one simple construct. Hüttner and Smit (2014) argue that CLIL cannot be viewed monolithically, and that the most compelling conceptualisation of CLIL would be a variety of local pedagogical activities to address the global status of English in academia and other international contexts. However, at its core, it is clear that CLIL builds on theories of language acquisition and its implementation and application are linked to specific teaching methodologies. As Brown and Bradford (2017, p. 331) state, CLIL is ‘an approach to education that integrates language and content learning; planning for, fostering, and assessing both, though the focus may shift from one to the other’. 74

CLIL and English-medium instruction

Initially, CLIL was implemented in elementary and secondary education with the intention to introduce bilingual education for homogenous student groups. CLIL became a consideration in tertiary education when research results from a broad range of geographical and educational non-​English-​dominant contexts started showing notable challenges related to language proficiency and disciplinary content achievement among EMI students. Students struggled with L2 content comprehension, as well as written and oral communication, because of their limited English language proficiency. Under the auspices of CLIL, students can receive language support in their content courses. A distinction has been made between soft and hard CLIL approaches based on the degree to which content is part of the learning goals. In soft, or weak, CLIL settings, language learning outcomes are in the focus, while content contextualises language use and is not evaluated (Dalton-​Puffer, 2017). Soft CLIL courses are generally taught by language teachers who may or may not share the students’ L1(s) or disciplinary background. In hard CLIL settings, content teachers, who are typically themselves bilingual speakers, are trained in CLIL pedagogies and may include language learning as one of the ILOs; however, the course remains mainly content-​d riven. The traditional distinction between soft and hard CLIL for EMI at the tertiary level lacks the same relevance as in the lower educational levels. Instead, Räsänen (2008) proposes a scale for CLIL in the higher education context, where she distinguishes among non-​CLIL, pre-​ CLIL, partial CLIL, adjunct CLIL, and CLIL instruction as different steps in FL-​mediated higher education. According to this categorisation, non-​CLIL refers to instruction in an L2 that does not include any language learning objectives, whereas pre-​CLIL includes language for specific purpose courses. The difference between partial CLIL and adjunct CLIL is in the level of collaboration between content and language teachers. Partial CLIL is taught by content teachers, where the focus is on content, but language learning is an expected, though implicit, learning goal. While limited collaboration between content and language teachers is found in partial CLIL, joint planning and course coordination is expected in adjunct CLIL courses (Lawrence et al., 2017).

CLIL dimensions Räsänen’s model (2008) builds on three main dimensions of CLIL that have been identified in research, namely learning objectives (focus on language, content, or both), level of integration of language instruction with content instruction (partially to fully integrated), and level of collaboration between content and language teachers. In the EMI context, two additional dimensions further contribute to the description of the CLIL modalities: type of response and continuity. As presented in Figure 5.2, each of these five dimensions play out along separate but interdependent continua. We describe these dimensions and offer examples of CLIL interventions related to EMI courses.

Type of response In the EMI context, CLIL could be implemented as a response to an institutional policy that promotes English language development or as a reaction to language-​related EMI student challenges. An instance of CLIL implementation as a response to institutional policy is the curricular changes in some universities driven by a desire to target discipline-​specific language development of students that requires phasing out of ESP courses and to promote English language learning through disciplinary content (Arnó-​Macià & Mancho-​Barés, 75

Joyce Kling and Slobodanka Dimova

Type of response Response to policy

Reaction to need Learning objective

Single focus (content/language)

Dual focus (content/language) Integration

Non-integrated (complementary)

Fully integrated Collaboration

No collaboration

Joint planning and team teaching Continuity

One time/stand alone

Continuous

Figure 5.2  CLIL dimensions in EMI contexts

2015; Räisänen & Fortanet-​Gómez, 2008). In other university settings, driven by alternative language policies, CLIL is introduced on an ad hoc basis, whenever a need for language support arises. In such cases, CLIL can be offered just once or as continued support for a course or an educational programme.

Learning objectives Regardless of whether implemented as a response to policy or an emerging need, the primary purpose of CLIL in EMI is typically to enhance content learning. This CLIL dimension has been most widely investigated at all educational levels, and it usually serves as a starting point for an appropriate selection of a CLIL modality for the local educational needs. Airey (2011) argues for EMI intended learning objectives that move beyond disciplinary content knowledge and include focused, explicit inclusion of communicative practices that support the development and application of disciplinary literacy competence

Integration CLIL interventions can be complementary, partially integrated, or fully integrated. In complementary CLIL instruction, language and content are disjointed even though they are intended to complement each other. In other words, language courses are standalone and run parallel with content courses. Their purpose is to develop relevant language skills that 76

CLIL and English-medium instruction

are necessary for content learning in a specific discipline. Complementary CLIL instruction is similar in nature to discipline-​specific EAP and ESP models and draws on global aspects of communicative and academic language for EMI content areas. Partially integrated CLIL modality refers to language instruction associated with a specific content course. This type of course is offered because a need for language support has emerged or has been established/​ observed over a certain period of time. An example of partially integrated CLIL is when students enrolled in a specific content course obtain additional training in how to read academic articles in the field. Fully integrated CLIL modality, as its name suggests, involves instruction governed by language and content learning goals integrated in the same teaching module, course, or programme.

Collaboration In most CLIL modalities, some level of collaboration between language and content teachers is evident. Minimal collaboration occurs in complementary CLIL instruction, where language teachers familiarise themselves with the discipline and the students’ needs through observation of and discussions with content teachers. More collaboration is expected in partial-​CLIL modalities, where language and content teachers develop concrete plans about how to address students’ needs and fulfil the learning objectives. Fully integrated CLIL instruction can involve dynamic collaboration between teachers as part of joint planning, team-​teaching, and assessment (Brown & Bradford, 2018; Räsänen, 2008). In certain cases, this type of CLIL may also lack any collaboration if content teachers are trained, or simply required, to address both their students’ language and content needs. As mentioned earlier, current discussions about CLIL in EMI emphasise the need for enhanced cooperation between content teachers and language teachers and increased team-​ teaching (Dimova & Kling, 2020). Such collaboration is essential due to content teachers’ lack of training to recognise and address their students’ linguistic needs, and due to findings that content teachers tend not to consider themselves language teachers (Block & Moncada-​ Comas, 2022). Through reflective practice and a focus on pedagogy for development of disciplinary literacy, content teachers can join forces with language teachers to integrate elements of academic, discipline-​specific literacy in the curriculum. Collaboration provides content teachers the opportunity to distance themselves from their disciplinary discourses and gain a new perspective on their pedagogic approach. This type of collaboration offers an opportunity to revisit tacit knowledge and beliefs, as it pushes content teachers to consider explicitly how they address disciplinary content in the classroom (Airey, 2016). When introduced to EMI, content teachers may express anxiety about teaching in English especially if students’ language development is also at stake (del Campo, 2020). Collaboration between language teachers and content teachers is evident in CLIL modalities that cover the range of CLIL instructional models. These collaborations assist language teachers in understanding the appropriate disciplinary genres and help content teachers in becoming cognisant of students’ linguistic challenges and the available resources and tools for student support (Airey, 2011).

Continuity When CLIL is introduced as a response to an institutional policy, it is continuously offered as part of the EMI programme, be it complementary or fully integrated across different disciplinary subjects. In EMI contexts, where CLIL is not part of long-​term curricular planning, it 77

Joyce Kling and Slobodanka Dimova

is introduced as an educational intervention in order to address concrete language needs that have been identified. In such cases, CLIL may be offered as a one-​t ime intervention that lasts until students’ needs are met. It may also be offered at a certain point in the semester, when it is expected that students need language support.

Examples of CLIL instructional models In the following, we present three examples of CLIL models from the University of Copenhagen that span the spectrum described. The first is a complementary CLIL initiative that was initiated in response to increased perceived challenges during an initial EMI implementation phase in 2009. As a reaction to an observed drop in grades and decreased student enrolment in the graduate programmes on Human Nutrition, Clinical Nutrition, and Gastroenterology and Health, content teachers requested language skills support. After consultation with the content teachers, a pre-​sessional orientation CLIL course devised with specific language learning objects was delivered by language teachers that comprised tailor-​m ade English language training for both the content teachers and incoming graduate students. The content teachers participated in a one-​d ay workshop developed from a needs analysis survey. The workshop focused on two elements: (1) awareness-​raising activities related to teaching disciplinary literacy and the implementation of EMI, and (2) linguistic pedagogy for teaching in an L2, i.e., the use of specific language competencies that guide the learner and facilitate the transfer of information. In turn, the student CLIL course comprised a two-​ day workshop. This workshop introduced tools and strategies to address the challenges of learning through an L2 in an EMI context, as well as focused awareness-​raising activities related to the students’ own strengths and weaknesses in English for the natural sciences. The teacher and student workshops were related to the academic discipline, but this standalone, complementary intervention was not an element of the EMI course. While this model did not include collaboration or team teaching, the content teachers received explicit training and were introduced to CLIL support options for addressing the linguistic elements of their EMI courses (Swerts & Westbrook, 2013). The second example represents a partially integrated model of CLIL. At the request of the EMI content teacher of a graduate course in Resource Economics, a language teacher integrated a tailor-​m ade, discipline-​specific academic writing element into the course plan. Over the course of the semester, the language teacher collaborated with the content teacher and taught plenary class sessions and individual writing feedback sessions for students. All language instruction was guided by the content course requirements and was added to the regular teaching schedule and the course ILOs (Larsen & Jensen, 2020). This type of language support resembles what Greere and Räsänen (2008) labelled ‘adjunct- ​CLIL’: the language support was integrated in subject studies based on joint planning between language and content specialists, but it did not involve team-​teaching. Although there was no explicit evaluation of language development in the final assessment, the English L2 content teacher gained insights into disciplinary genre specific elements required of his students when writing in English. The third example is of the fully integrated CLIL modality. Discipline-​specific training material was designed to support English language skills in an introductory research methods course for undergraduate medical students. Working in collaboration, the content teacher and the language teacher developed a two-​part workshop focused on critical reading skills and disciplinary genre awareness for students as they transitioned from pedagogically supported reading sources (textbooks) to internationally peer-​ reviewed medical research journals 78

CLIL and English-medium instruction

(Kling et al., 2017). After team-​teaching this workshop several times, the L2 content teacher was able to take on the language focused instruction independently. Thus, this type of collaboration served to develop the linguistic competences of not only the students but also the content teacher. There are pros and cons to each of these CLIL instructional models. Standalone, one-​t ime complementary CLIL training can be designed and delivered to a broad range of students for broad disciplinary needs. Such courses tend to be more focused on disciplinary genre and not linked to one specific course or lecturer. Research suggests that language support could be optimised if the general language and literacy skills are contextualised and embedded in the disciplinary field (Larsen, 2013). This type of instruction heightens learner awareness of the challenges of learning in the EMI classroom and can provide them with tools to address these challenges. At the other end of the spectrum, CLIL interventions that are integrated into EMI course instruction through either collaborative team-​teaching or by the content teacher independently have the advantage of being tailor-​m ade to scaffold learning processes in the L2 in the content classroom. Unfortunately, as these instructional sessions are isolated to individual courses and teachers, instruction is limited to a number of students and to isolated skills areas identified to meet specific ILOs.

Conclusion This chapter offers a wide perspective of CLIL in the EMI contexts of tertiary education by taking into account local contextual variables, such as policies, stakeholders, and educational traditions. This wider perspective was adopted in order to disambiguate the relationship between the two terms, CLIL and EMI, and argue for a reconceptualisation where EMI represents the educational context and CLIL a pedagogical approach. To begin with, we provided a conceptual framework of EMI that addressed the need to view intertwined elements of EMI from a contextual perspective and not as an independent pedagogy. While social constructionist epistemologies of language and education run through current discussions of best practice for teaching in these EMI settings, no definitive standard EMI pedagogy exists that provides a single approach for the EMI classroom. Research suggests that the pedagogical approaches vary and depend on curricular goals, student population, institutional reforms, and lecturers’ professional identities. Student-​centred teaching has been recommended as an appropriate teaching approach in EMI because it allows for student involvement and active learning. However, this teaching approach cannot be characterised as being an exclusive type of EMI pedagogy because it is applied also in other educational settings and because it is not always a viable or an appropriate approach. Additionally, we discussed the need to reconsider whether EMI implementation always requires curricular and pedagogical changes. CLIL implementation as an institutional strategy through policy tends to be a part of an educational reform that requires curricular and pedagogical transitions because EMI teachers need training and the curriculum and pedagogy need adjustment in order to reflect the learning outcomes associated with language education. For an example of how this has been implemented at the University of Lleida, refer to Arnó-​Macià and Mancho-​Barés’ (2015) work. However, in settings where CLIL is introduced as a reaction to identified language needs, complementary or semi-​integrated CLIL interventions can be implemented with support from language professionals. Given that these interventions may be temporary, curricular or pedagogical revisions in the specific disciplinary programme may be unnecessary. 79

Joyce Kling and Slobodanka Dimova

The discussions about EMI content teachers’ training led us to reconsider whether EMI content teachers must be trained in FL acquisition theories in order to function in the multilingual EMI classroom. In instances where HEIs require content teachers to independently integrate CLIL instruction in their EMI courses, a common recommendation is to involve content teachers in applied linguistics (Macaro, 2018). However, these content teachers will need to buy into the concept. Unfortunately, at the tertiary level, EMI research has repeatedly suggested that content teachers do not perceive language teaching as part of their professional identity (Airey, 2012; Block & Moncada-​Comas, 2022) even though in some cases they do support students with the disciplinary genre awareness (Kling, 2016). Therefore, though not without its challenges (Airey, 2016), enhanced collaboration between content and language teachers to optimise learning has been strongly recommended (Wallace et al., 2020). Lastly, we offered an expanded view of the dimensions of CLIL in regard to EMI. Given the different CLIL dimensions in tertiary education (type of response, learning objectives, collaboration, integration, and continuation), various CLIL modalities emerge from the local learning needs and available resources. Therefore, assumptions about CLIL uniformity and context transferability can easily be rejected. Additionally, the multifaceted nature of EMI, including the need for, for example, advanced language proficiency, academic cultural proficiency, and disciplinary literacy in both the L1 and L2, as well as intercultural competence, cannot replace focused language EAP or ESP instruction. Limited language proficiency can impede intercultural communication and academic acculturation in EMI and lead to isolation and creation of hierarchical placement in groups (Méndez García & Pérez Cañado, 2005). In view of the contextual variability of EMI and the multidimensionality of CLIL, future research should focus on identifying the interplay between the local EMI contextual variables and the selection of CLIL modalities. In order to understand comparability of CLIL models across context, a need arises to qualify and operationalise the term CLIL by describing the levels of dimensional representation. Although CLIL research focuses broadly on teacher training and students’ learning, assessment methods that integrate language and content are rarely a focal research area. The effects of teacher training and student learning are largely based on self-​reported statements and beliefs, whereas validation and implementation of tasks and assessment criteria that integrate language and content remain obscure. In terms of practical applications, both programme developers and institutional leaders can be made aware of the role of contextual factors (EMI framework) in the selection of appropriate language and content learning support in their EMI contexts. Although practices in peer institutions can be informative, it cannot be assumed that these practices are transferable and attainable in the local context. CLIL is not intended to represent a rigid, monolithic model, so programme developers and institutional leaders are recommended to consider the local variables and resources in adopting/​developing their local model if they want to establish programme sustainability and impact.

Note 1 In the wider framework of CLIL research, CLIL does not by definition imply that English is the target language of instruction. In this chapter, however, CLIL is discussed only with reference to English, given the chapter’s focus on EMI and the interchangeable references to CLIL and EMI in research regarding the instructional uses of English in English-​non dominant higher education contexts.

80

CLIL and English-medium instruction

Further reading Dafouz, E., & Smit, U. (2020). ROAD-​M APPING: English medium education in the internationalized university. Palgrave Macmillan. This monograph proposes a research framework, ROAD-​M APPING, which could be applied in the analysis of the diverse contexts in which English is institutionalised as an additional language for educational purposes at tertiary level. To account for the various research agendas, pedagogical approaches and of different types of education across contexts, the authors propose the term English-​Medium Education in Multilingual University Settings (EMEMUS) for short. Dimova, S., & Kling, J. (Eds.). (2020). Integrating content and language in multilingual universities. Springer. This edited volume includes 11 chapters that synthesise contextual information, research findings, and practical applications discussed by leading researchers in integrating content and language researchers in EMI settings. It covers a varied collection of geographically, culturally, and educationally different contexts in order to represent the existing cross-​contextual variation. Lasagabaster, D., & Doiz, A. (Eds.). (2021). Language use in English-​ medium instruction at university: International perspectives of teacher practice. Routledge. This edited volume comprises ten chapters that discuss teacher perceptions and beliefs about teaching and learning in EMI contexts around the world. The chapters emphasise EMI teachers’ reflective experiences related to language support, with a focus on the opportunities and challenges the various context offer.

References Agudo, R.R. (2019). MOOCs’ overwhelming dependence on English limits their impact (opinion). Inside Higher Ed. www.ins​ideh​ighe​red.com/​d igi​t al-​learn​i ng/​v iews/​2019/​01/​09/​moocs-​overw​ helm ​i ng-​dep​ende​nce-​engl ​ish-​l im ​its-​their-​i mp​act-​opin​ion Airey, J. (2011). The disciplinary literacy discussion matrix: A heuristic tool for initiating collaboration in higher education. In M. Gustafsson, (Ed.), Collaborating for content and language integrated learning, Special issue: Across the Disciplines, 8(3). https://​wac.colost​ate.edu/​atd/​spec​ial/​clil/​ Airey, J. (2012). I don’t teach language. The linguistic attitudes of physics lecturers in Sweden. AILA Review, 25(25), 64–​79. https://​doi.org/​10.1075/​a ila.25.05air Airey, J. (2016). EAP, EMI or CLIL? In K. Hyland & P. Shaw (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of English for academic purposes (pp. 95–​107). Routledge. https://​doi/​10.4324/​978131​5657​455.ch06 Altbach, P.G., & Knight, J. (2007). The internationalization of higher education: Motivations and realities. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3–​4), 290–​305. https://​doi.org/​10.1177/​ 10283​1530​7303​542 Arnbjörnsdóttir, B. (2020). Transitioning EAL students from EFL classes to EMI programs at the University of Iceland. In S. Dimova & J. Kling (Eds.), Integrating content and language in multilingual universities (pp. 97–​113). Springer. https://​doi.org/​10.1007/​978-​3 - ​030- ​46947- ​4 _ ​6 Arnó-​Macià, E., & Mancho-​Barés, G. (2015). The role of content and language in content and language integrated learning (CLIL) at university: Challenges and implications for ESP. English for Specific Purposes, 37, 63–​73. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.esp.2014.06.007 Block, D., & Moncada-​Comas, B. (2022). English-​medium instruction in higher education and the ELT gaze: STEM lecturers’ self-​positioning as NOT English language teachers. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 25(2), 401– ​417. http://​doi.org/​10.1080/​13670​ 050.2019.1689​917 Bowles, H., & Murphy, A.C. (2020). English-​medium instruction and the internationalization of universities. Palgrave Macmillan. Brown, H., & Bradford, A. (2017). EMI, CLIL, & CBI: Differing approaches and goals. In P. Clements, A. Krause & H. Brown (Eds.), Transformation in language education (pp. 328–​334). JALT. https://​jalt-​ publi​cati​ons.org/​sites/​defa​u lt/​fi les/​pdf-​a rti​cle/​jalt2​016-​pcp- ​042.pdf Brown, H., & Bradford, A. (2018). Teaching subject content through English CLIL and EMI courses in the Japanese university. In P. Wadden & C. C. Hale (Eds.), Teaching English at Japanese universities: A new handbook (pp. 103–​108). Routledge.

81

Joyce Kling and Slobodanka Dimova Carnegie Mellon University Qatar. (2021, September 27). Most diverse student population in Carnegie Mellon Qatar campus history. www.qatar.cmu.edu/​news/​most-​d ive​r se-​stud​ent-​pop​u lat​ion-​i n-​carne​ gie-​mel ​lon-​qatar-​cam​pus-​h ist​ory/​ Carroll, J. (2015). Tools for teaching in an educationally mobile world. Routledge. Corrales, K.A., Rey Paba, L.A., & Santiago Escamilla, N. (2016). Is EMI enough? Perceptions from university professors and students. Latin American Journal of Content and Language Integrated Learning, 9(2), 318–​344. https://​doi:10.5294/​lac​l il.2016.9.2.4 Dafouz, E., & Smit, U. (2020). ROAD-​M APPING English medium education in the internationalised university. Springer. https://​doi.org/​10.1007/​978-​3 - ​030-​23463- ​8 Dalton-​Puffer, C. (2017). Same but different: Content and language integrated learning and content-​ based instruction. In M.A. Snow & D.M. Brinton (Eds.), The content-​based classroom: New perspectives on integrating language and content (2nd ed., pp. 151–​164). University of Michigan Press. Dalton-​Puffer, C., & Smit, U. (2013). Content and language integrated learning: A research agenda. Language Teaching, 46, 545–​559. https://​doi.org/​10.1017/​S02614​4 481​3000​256 del Campo, C. (2020). English medium instruction through the lens of a content teacher: Challenges, adjustments, and opportunities. In S. Dimova & J. Kling (Eds.), Integrating content and language in multilingual universities (pp. 167–​177). Springer. Dimova, S. (2020a). English language requirements for enrolment in EMI programs in higher education: A European case. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 47, 100896. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​ j.jeap.2020.100​896 Dimova, S. (2020b). Language assessment of EMI content teachers: What norms. In M. Kuteeva, K. Kauf hold, & N. Hynninen (Eds.), Language perceptions and practices in multilingual universities (pp. 351–​378). Palgrave Macmillan. https://​doi.org/​10.1007/​978-​3 - ​030-​38755- ​6 _​14 Dimova, S. (2021). Certifying lecturers’ English language skills for teaching in English-​medium instruction programs in higher education. ASp, 79, 29–​47. https://​doi.org/​10.4000/​a sp.7056 Dimova, S., & Kling, J. (2018). Assessing English-​medium instruction lecturer language proficiency across disciplines. TESOL Quarterly, 52(3), 634–​656. https://​doi.org/​10.1002/​tesq.454 Dimova, S., & Kling, J. (Eds.). (2020). Integrating content and language in higher education. Springer. European Commission. (2003). Promoting language learning and linguistic diversity: An action plan 2004–​ 2006. https://​op.eur​opa.eu/​en/​publ ​icat ​ion- ​det​a il/​-​/​publ ​icat ​ion/​b3225​824-​b016- ​42fa- ​83f6- ​43d9f​ d2ac​96d Fenton-​Smith, B., Humphreys, P., & Walkinshaw, I. (Eds.), (2017). English medium instruction in higher education in Asia-​Pacific: From policy to pedagogy. Springer. Genesee, F. (1987). Learning through two languages: Studies of immersion and bilingual education (Vol. 163). Newbury House. Greere, A., & Räsänen, A. (2008). Report on the LANQUA subproject on content and language integrated learning: Redefining CLIL –​towards multilingual competence. www. lanqua.eu/​fi les/​Year1Report_​ CLIL_ ​ForUpload_​WithoutAppendices _​0.pdf Higher Education Statistics Agency. (n.d.). Where do HE students come from? www.hesa.ac.uk/​d ata-​a nd-​ analy​sis/​stude​nts/​where-​f rom Hüttner, J., & Smit, U. (2014). CLIL (content and language integrated learning): The bigger picture. A response to: A. Bruton. 2013. CLIL: Some of the reasons why… and why not. System 41 (2013): 587–​597. System, 44, 160–​167. doi:10.1016/​j.system.2014.03.001 Kling, J. (2016). Content teachers engaged in English medium instruction in Denmark. In J. Crandall & M.A. Christison (Eds.), Global research on teacher education and professional development in TESOL (pp. 225–​239). Routledge Kling, J. (2019). English as a medium of instruction. International Research Foundation (TIRF) Language Education in Review Series (LEiR). www.tir ​fonl ​i ne.org/​w p-​cont​ent/​uplo​ads/​2021/​10/​TIR ​F_​ LE​i R_ ​E​M I_ ​F​i nal​Vers​ion.pdf Kling, J., Dimova, S., & Molino, A. (2022). EMI teacher cognition: Exploring lecturers’ experiences across Europe. In M.A. Christison, J. Crandall, & D. Christian (Eds.), Research on integrating language and content in diverse contexts (pp. 147–​163). Routledge. Kling, J., Larsen, S., & Thomsen, S. F. (2017). The need for focused literacy training in the medical school curriculum: A cross-​sectional study of undergraduate students. Education Research International. Larsen, S. (2013). Re-​contextualising academic writing in English: Case studies of international students in Denmark. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Copenhagen.

82

CLIL and English-medium instruction Larsen, S., & Jensen, F. (2020). Acknowledging the role of language in English medium instruction: Experiences from a pilot project intervention at University of Copenhagen. In S. Dimova & J. Kling (Eds.), Integrating content and language in multilingual universities (pp. 153–​166). Routledge. Lasagabaster, D., & Doiz, A. (Eds.). (2021). Language use in English-​ medium instruction at university: International perspectives of teacher practice. Routledge. Lauridsen, K.M., & Lillemose, M.K. (Eds.). (2015). Opportunities and challenges of the multilingual and multicultural learning space: Final document of the IntlUni Erasmus Academic Network project 2012–​15. Lawrence, C., Inbar-​ L orie, O., & Weinberg, L. (2017). A handbook for English-​ medium instruction in institutions of higher education in Israel. TEMPUS Programme. Project number 543683-​T EMPUS-​1-​2013-​1-​I L-​T EMPUS-​J PCR. Macaro, E. (2018). English medium instruction. Oxford University Press. Marsh, D. (2002). CLIL/​EMILE: The European dimension. The European Union. Martinez, R., & Fernandes, K. (2020). Development of a teacher training course for English medium instruction for higher education professors in Brazil. In M. del Mar Sánchez-​Pérez (Ed.), Teacher training for English-​medium instruction in higher education (pp. 125–​152). IGI Global. Méndez García, M.C., & Pérez Cañado, M.L. (2005). Language and power: Raising awareness of the role of language in multicultural teams. Language and Intercultural Communication, 5(1), 86–​104. http://​doi:10.1080/​147084​7050​8668​885 Met, M. (1998). Curriculum decision-​m aking in content-​based language teaching. In J. Cenoz & F. Genesee (Eds.), Beyond bilingualism: Multilingualism and multicultural education. Multilingual Matters. Molino, A., Dimova, S., Kling, J., & Larsen, S. (2022). The evolution of EMI research in European higher education. Routledge. Pecorari, D. (2020). English medium instruction: Disintegrating language and content? In S. Dimova & J. Kling (Eds.), Integrating content and language in multilingual universities (pp. 15–​36). Springer. Pecorari, D., & Malmström, H. (2018). At the crossroads of TESOL and English medium instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 52(3), 497–​515. https://​doi.org/​10.1002/​tesq.470 Räsänen, A. (2008). Tuning ESP/​E AP for mobility, employability and expertise: A pedagogical process of change in focus, insight, and practice. In I. Fortanet-​Gómes, & C.A. Räisänen (Eds.), ESP in European higher education: Integrating language and content (pp. 247–​266). John Benjamins. Räisänen, C., & Fortanet-​Gómez, I. (2008). The state of ESP teaching and learning in Western European higher education after Bologna. In I. Fortanet-​Gómes, & C.A. Räisänen (Eds.), ESP in European higher education: Integrating language and content (pp. 11–​51). John Benjamins. Seeber, M., Cattaneo, M., Huisman, J., & Paleari, S. (2016). Why do higher education institutions internationalize? An investigation of the multilevel determinants of internationalization rationales. Higher Education, 72(5), 685–​702. https://​doi.org/​10.1007/​s10​734-​015-​9971-​x Swerts, S., & Westbrook, P. (2013). Preparing students and lecturers for English medium instruction at the University of Copenhagen. Sprog forum, 56, 71–​78. TAEC EMI Handbook. (2019). TAEC Erasmus+​project (2017–​2020). www.e-​pages.dk/​ku/​1454/​ University of Copenhagen. (2007). Destination 2012: Strategi for Københavns Universitet 2012. [Destination 2012: Strategy for University of Copenhagen 2012]. www.e-​pages.dk/​ku/​235/​ Wächter, B., & Maiworm, F. (Eds.). (2014). English-​taught programmes in European higher education: The state of play in 2014. Lemmens Medien GmbH. Wallace, A., Spiliotopoulos, V., & Ilieva, R. (2020). CLIL collaboration in higher education: A critical perspective. English Teaching & Learning, 44, 127–​148. https://​doi.org/​10.1007/​s42​321- ​020- ​0 0052- ​4 Wilkinson, R., & Gabriëls, R. (Eds.). (2021). The Englishization of higher education in Europe. Amsterdam University Press.

83

84

6 EPISTEMOLOGICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL TRENDS IN CLIL RESEARCH José Goris

Introduction The CLIL concept was first presented at the Finnish University of Jyväskylä by David Marsh, who proposed CLIL ‘as a generic umbrella term which would encompass any activity in which a foreign language is used as a tool in the learning of a non-​language subject in which both language and the subject have a joint curricular role’ (Marsh, 2002, p. 58). Since its inception, CLIL research has interrogated aspects of teaching and learning, such as effective L2-​medium teaching methodology, effects on learners’ linguistic competences and content learning, and the place of this innovative educational approach in mainstream schoolings (e.g., Coyle, 2018; Dalton-​Puffer, 2008; Llinares et al., 2012). The present chapter sets out to discuss what research methodologies have typically been applied to examine such topics. The review starts with studies comparing language performance of learners in CLIL classes to that of their mainstream peers, along with learner variables that have been shown to affect L2 learning. The next part reflects on how results of content learning through an L2 have been assessed, and what cognitive benefits may be ascribed to the CLIL approach. The final sections reflect on studies with a focus on CLIL methodology, which have been carried out with the aim to add knowledge to the field of didactics.

Second language learning in CLIL versus mainstream classes Language learning results in CLIL classes when compared to mainstream L2 teaching have been a frequent focus of cross-​sectional studies, comparing the performance of groups of students at or over a certain time. Studies of this type have generally been conducted by teaching professionals in school environments, comparing conditions on quantitative measures, sometimes in mixed designs including qualitative data (e.g., Paschalidou, 2019; San Isidro & Lasagabaster, 2019; Segura et al., 2021). A variety of standardised and globally used L2 tests have been used to obtain data, in addition to instruments adapted or developed and validated in a specific school context. Stakeholders’ concerns about detrimental side-​effects on the L1 have been the object of several studies. For example, in Finland, Merisuo-​Storm (2007) conducted a mixed-​methods study to investigate CLIL effects on the development of primary school children’s L1 literacy 84

DOI: 10.4324/9781003173151-8

Epistemological and methodological trends in CLIL research

skills. Learner results for reading, spelling, and creative writing were monitored for six years by means of language tests. To measure learner affect towards foreign language learning, surveys containing three sections of 12 items had to be completed on four-​point Smiley Bears Likert scales, suitable for young children. Two different approaches were applied for the analysis of the data. Quantitative analyses of reading and spelling were carried out by t-​tests in the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS); for creative writing qualitatively oriented measures were applied. Pupils were asked to write –​in their L1 –​a story about someone’s journey to a place that is very different from where he or she lived and invent interesting and amusing events. Assessment was based on qualitative criteria suggested in relevant literature, relating to individuality, eventfulness, story structure, rich and colourful language, and fluency of narration. By applying mixed methods, individual differences in performance could be analysed in this small-​scale study. Studies with larger populations have been carried out to gather quantitative data on L2 learning, as the Spanish study by Nieto Moreno De Diezmas (2018) shows. The focus of the investigation was on acquiring knowledge on CLIL effects regarding listening skills, comparing various age groups. A population of 2,790 CLIL and 17,070 non-​CLIL nine–​ ten-​year-​olds in the fourth grade of primary school, and 2,680 CLIL and 17,638 non-​CLIL 13–​14-​year-​olds in the second year of secondary school took part in this cross-​sectional study. Testing instruments were developed by the Evaluation Office of Castilla-​La Mancha, of sufficient internal consistency and reliability for each age group and connected to the objectives and contents included in the curricular decrees in force for the educational levels of the participants. Tests for both groups were structured around a video and involved six tasks connected to a set of oral comprehension subskills. The analysis was performed with the aid of SPSS: the obvious statistical measure for data analysis of two conditions is the t-​test for independent samples, a parametric test to analyse if significant differences between the groups exist. The Kolmogorov-​Smirnov Test was applied to establish a similar distribution pattern of the samples, which justifies the use of a parametric test. Independent sample t-​tests were run to compare the scores of the two conditions. The conclusion mentioned learners’ age as an explanatory factor for differences between primary and secondary groups, along with contextual differences between the respective CLIL programmes.

Correlations in cross-​sectional studies Cross-​sectional studies in CLIL tend to calculate degrees of correlation to examine how two variables behave in relation to each other, and whether this is different for a CLIL group than for a regular group. CLIL studies of this type typically refer to literature about the role of learner affect in the language learning process, notably motivation and willingness to use the L2 in communication. To acquire affective data, surveys with Likert scales of four or five are default instruments, for which models and questionnaires are often underpinned by motivational theories such as Gardner and Lambert (1972), Gardner (1985, 2010), or Dörnyei and Skehan (2003) –​and adapted for use in a particular setting. There is a debate among academics about how Likert data had best be analysed (e.g., Streef kerk, 2020). However, discussing the central question whether a parametric test is justified is beyond the scope of this chapter. In the studies reviewed below, calculating t-​values for comparison of two groups appears to be the preferred method. Student motivation as an incentive for language learning has been a recurrent theme in classroom studies. Lasagabaster (2011) showed correlations between motivation and English proficiency in a cross-​sectional study of 191 students at secondary level, comparing two 85

José Goris

conditions: CLIL and regular English as a foreign language (EFL) classes. To collect data, English tests were used for speaking, writing, grammar, and listening, instruments that had been developed in previous research with both CLIL and EFL classes in the Basque Country. For grammar and listening skills the standardised Oxford Placement Test was the preferred instrument. For the written test students were asked to write a letter to an English family, while the speaking test was based on the frog story (Mayer, 1969), a traditional L2 testing instrument in which students are asked to describe what is going on in a series of 24 pictures. The frog story is used in many different contexts all over the world, with different languages and students of various ages, and is a recurrent instrument in Spanish educational studies to measure learner variables. By adding the results of the four tests, overall competence in English was calculated. As is often the case in classroom research, different evaluation scales were used for the diverse test results, which is why the use of Z-​scores suits the analysis best. They were calculated for the minimum and maximum scores, mean score and standard deviation; t-​values indicated significance (p < 0.01) for the CLIL groups. To test L2 motivation, a questionnaire of 13 items was presented on a five-​point Likert scale. As the presence of the English language in society at large is limited in Spain, items made no reference to English native speakers or the global English community to measure identification with target language users –​a common notion in L2 research –​but focused on comparable effects within the foreign language classroom. Factor analysis reduced the data to three factors with significant and substantial correlation, labelled interest and instrumental orientation, attitudes towards learning English in class, and effort, with a reliability of α =​0.907, 0.816, and 0.784 respectively. The analysis of t-​values indicated CLIL students to be significantly more motivated than their EFL counterparts (p < 0.01). Pearson’s coefficients showed correlations –​with a significance between p < 0.05 and < 0.01 –​between the three motivational constructs and the separate EFL skills as well as overall language competence. Menezes and Juan-​Garau (2015) focused on learner attitudes in two conditions and applied instruments designed to measure student willingness to communicate (WTC), a construct which is believed to facilitate language learning, defined by MacIntyre et al. (1998, p. 547) as ‘the readiness to enter into discourse at a particular time with a specific person or persons, using an L2’. The literature suggests that learners who are more willing to communicate in an L2 obtain higher grades and achieve more proficiency. The authors investigated the relationship between learning context and participants’ WTC, and its contribution to L2 achievement. Data were collected by two instruments, with adaptations of earlier versions: the Willingness To Communicate Scale (WTCS) and the WTC-​Meter. The WTCS contained ten statements relating to students’ general willingness to communicate in English in class, which were rated on a five-​point Likert scale. The WTC-​Meter represented a visual simulation of a thermometer with two numeric scales, ranging between zero and ten in which CLIL students had to register their willingness to speak English in social science lessons, the non-​CLIL students in their regular English classes. For the first data collection the instruments were presented to both CLIL and non-​CLIL participants in an EFL class, while there was a second data collection for the CLIL participants in the content lesson. The between-​subject analyses, which compared the WTCS and WTC-​meters of the two conditions in EFL lessons by means of a t-​test for independent groups, revealed significance in favour of the CLIL class. The within-​subject analysis, comparing the WTC-​ meter of CLIL students in two different contexts, viz. content lesson and EFL class, was performed by a t-​test for related samples and showed no significant difference. Finally, a Pearson correlation analysis showed a significant relationship with linguistic achievement for the CLIL students’ WTC, in content as well as EFL lessons. 86

Epistemological and methodological trends in CLIL research

Longitudinal research of CLIL effects on learning outcomes The previous section has highlighted links between variables in favour of CLIL learners; however, the cross-​sectional design is not sufficient to uncover causal effects. Many researchers expressed the need for robust longitudinal regression models, to obtain insight into the effects of CLIL on learning outcomes. A systematic review of longitudinal studies into CLIL effects on learner EFL proficiency was conducted by Goris et al. (2019). The review discusses studies conducted in mainstream primary and secondary education throughout Europe in the previous 20 years with a pre-​test–​post-​test control-​g roup design, and investigates several linguistic skills in quantitative paradigms, with numbers of participants ranging between less than a hundred to over a thousand. An early study that examined linguistic effects in CLIL classrooms in a robust way was conducted in the Netherlands (Admiraal et al., 2006). Participants were learners aged 12 at the start of secondary school, coinciding with the start of CLIL. The longitudinal part tested receptive vocabulary growth through the use of the English as a Foreign Language Vocabulary Test for estimation of the receptive word knowledge of EFL learners. This is a Yes/​No test developed in several versions by Meara (1992), based on word frequencies in written English texts and consisting of two different kinds of items: real words and pseudo-​words. A multilevel repeated measure design was used for the analysis, taking the hierarchical structure of the data into account when answering the research questions. Student characteristics were introduced as covariates: gender, entry level, language background, and motivation. The model of Restricted Iterative Generalised Least Squares was applied to reduce bias in multilevel as a result of the relatively low number of participating schools. The analysis of longitudinal effects showed the initial vocabulary score of the CLIL group to be significantly higher than that of the control group, but there was no such difference regarding score development: the CLIL group maintained the advantage, but did not acquire English words faster than the control group. The growth curve was not linear, but logarithmic, which the authors mention as a noticeable finding. In a later investigation, also conducted in the Netherlands, Verspoor et al. (2015) speculated if the vocabulary test used in the study by Admiraal et al. (2006) was in some way responsible for the absence of exponential growth of CLIL learners, and used an additional test, a short writing task, to trace the development of a broader range of linguistic skills. Analyses of variance on proficiency levels were conducted at each measurement, as well as a one-​way ANOVA followed by a post-​hoc analysis to compare groups in the different conditions on four factors: scholastic aptitude (as determined by an assessment test in the final year of primary school), initial proficiency (the first test scores), out-​of-​school contact, and motivation in combination with aptitude. A univariate analysis with these four factors as covariates (ANCOVA) was run, with final proficiency scores as the dependent variable and condition as between-​subject factor. Regarding condition –​the school programme –​some additional remarks must be made. Whereas the 2006 study distinguished two conditions –​CLIL and regular classrooms –​the 2015 study introduced an additional control condition. This may have been based on the emerging insight that learners in regular groups of schools with a CLIL stream have lesser linguistic and academic skills, less EFL proficiency and motivation than their –​selected –​CLIL peers, which renders groups non-​equivalent and leads to bias in research findings. This view was expressed before by Bruton (2011), who called same-​school control groups ‘the remnants from the (selected) CLIL groups’ (p. 529) in his criticism on the benefits of CLIL. Verspoor et al. (2015) introduced two types of control conditions, both at pre-​university level: one of same-​school mainstream classes –​indicated as regulars –​and 87

José Goris

one of a more prestigious school type in the Netherlands, the classical Gymnasium, whose academically talented learners represent a more compatible match, indicated as controls. Data analyses made clear that the difference in linguistic progress between CLIL and non-​CLIL Gymnasium learners, controls, was not significant, whereas between CLIL and same-​school regulars, it was.

Covariates in longitudinal designs As research studies are generally conducted within a given educational context, designs are hardly ever fully randomised, which makes it difficult to interpret differences in L2 learning results in mainstream classes when compared to those in CLIL classes. The problem of bias in CLIL research was identified by critics, mainly Bruton (2011, 2013) and Paran (2013). They discussed selection criteria for admittance to CLIL, diverging initial proficiency levels of treatment and comparison groups and the absence of pre-​tests as factors causing bias. Researchers increasingly engaged with these issues by providing details of methodical weighting of data to represent the target population. For example, Rumlich’s study (2017) is longitudinal and quasi-​experimental, with non-​randomised allocation of participants to CLIL and control groups. The first collection of data took place at the end of Year 6, after the future CLIL learners had been selected and prepared, before the start of CLIL in Year 7. Participants were 993 students spread over 43 classes in 13 schools, belonging to three subgroups: CLIL and non-​CLIL from the same school, and regulars, the neutral control groups from schools without CLIL. The study measured EFL proficiency by means of a C-​test, an integrative testing instrument that measures not only vocabulary but overall language competence. The interpretation of the results took a number of a priori differences into account, which the author found to be neglected in the studies available at the time, rendering their statistical analyses basic (p. 120). For this purpose, a longitudinal model of language proficiency development was devised to examine students’ general EFL proficiency and the contribution of CLIL after two years, taking a variety of contributing variables into account: EFL self-​concept, EFL interest, spare-​t ime English, verbal cognitive abilities, biological sex, age, and L1. Analyses by means of ANOVAs in accordance with the equation models showed better initial EFL proficiency for the CLIL groups, partly as a result of preparatory lessons and partly because of selection effects. Repeated measures showed the development of each group. Concerns about CLIL effects on content learning were included in the study of Dallinger et al. (2016), who investigated not only EFL skills development of 1,806 German CLIL and non-​CLIL eighth-​g raders but also history, a popular CLIL subject in Germany. The study discussed a wide range of co-​variables that were controlled for: student prior achievement, cognitive abilities, motivation, gender, socio-​economic status, demographics, besides quality of instruction and teacher characteristics. As in Rumlich (2017), the research followed an experimental design with CLIL and two types of non-​CLIL as control groups, participating in two test rounds. To measure EFL proficiency, a C-​test and an additional listening comprehension test were used, both validated models describing relevant EFL competences. For content subjects no generally agreed models are in use; historical knowledge tests were developed by authors of the study who are trained history teachers. Students were asked for important dates, names, technical terms, identification of correct historical relationships, and explanations of historical events. Test reliabilities were satisfactory to good. All score analyses were conducted by means of M-​plus 7.11, a statistical modelling programme. Selection effects were controlled for in multilevel regression analyses, testing CLIL effects by controlling for 88

Epistemological and methodological trends in CLIL research

differences in student characteristics between and within classrooms, quality of instruction and teacher characteristics. For all continuous variables, Z-​standardised scores were used. The longitudinal pre-​test–​post-​test effects showed significantly greater increases for CLIL learners’ English listening comprehension, but not for general English skills. After controlling systematic differences by multilevel regression analyses, the CLIL effects on English skills were largely diminished or rendered insignificant. Regarding the content subject, history, controlling for prior achievement was sufficient to reduce insignificant differences: previous results were considered to be the strongest predictor of future learning for L2 as well as content. In Spain, Pérez-​Cañado (2018) investigated CLIL effects on EFL proficiency to determine the degree to which variance in test outcomes is an effect of CLIL. Participants were 1,033 CLIL and 991 EFL students aged between 11 and 16, attending 53 public, private, and charter schools of a broad educational range –​from primary school to compulsory secondary education to baccalaureate. Schools were spread across Andalusia, Extremadura, and the Canary Islands, regions with the least tradition in bilingual education, so that participants were all equally unacquainted with target language learning. Students were matched in terms of socio-​economic status by completing an initial questionnaire on personal data and information on their parents’ age and educational level. In an initial testing round, data relating to intelligence, motivation, and EFL skills were acquired by means of questionnaires, which guaranteed the homogeneity and comparability of the sample. For language skills, tests were specifically designed and validated for the study, made up of use of English, vocabulary, reading, writing, and speaking. Assessment took place for grammatical accuracy, lexical range, fluency and interaction, pronunciation, and task fulfilment. Statistical significance of the differences between the experimental (CLIL) and control groups (mainstream EFL) was calculated by means of a one-​way repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) and paired samples t-​tests, while a similar analysis was performed for post-​tests and delayed post-​tests. The results mention the effect sizes of significant findings by means of Cohen’s d, ranging between medium and considerable.

Subject matter achievement Whereas language learning has been analysed by validated measures, standardised testing instruments to investigate the effects of CLIL teaching on learner content knowledge are generally context dependent. Typically, marks for content subjects on school reports, tests and exams appear as parameters for comparing CLIL and non-​CLIL learning results, irrespective of the language of assessment which may be L1 or L2. Findings resulting from this type of design do not always support CLIL. In German secondary schools, Piesche et al. (2016) found that CLIL curricula need to invest more time to achieve learning outcomes for history comparable to those in mainstream classes. Support for CLIL was also absent in a small-​scale Belgian study carried out in Flanders (Ouazizi, 2016), where at first sight, teaching mathematics in an L2 was found to lead to better test results. However, the author attributed the better performance of 15–​16-​year-​old secondary school students in CLIL classes mainly to repetition, as the contents had already been studied before in the mainstream language of schooling –​a CLIL practice in some areas. In a large-​scale study in Spain, Fernández-​Sanjurjo et al. (2019) compared the knowledge of natural science of CLIL and non-​CLIL primary school learners with similar curricula by means of a school test. Subject knowledge was assessed in the L1 at the end of primary school, when pupils learning through L1, Spanish, were compared with those learning through L2, English. 89

José Goris

In a longitudinal mixed-​method study, Xanthou (2011) investigated the effects of CLIL on subject matter achievement and L2 with 77 11-​year-​olds in Cyprus. For triangulation purposes, the author employed both a quantitative and a qualitative methodology, with a leading role for the former and a supplementary role for the latter. Two experiments were carried out in two primary schools, each involving two groups of sixth grade learners. One of the groups was taught three 80-​m inute science lessons through the medium of the target L2, English, while the second group was taught the same content through the medium of L1, Greek. An experimental pre-​test–​post-​test design provided quantitative data for the impact of the CLIL programme on content knowledge and L2 vocabulary development. The vocabulary test required participants to give the equivalents of 100 lexical items presented in their L1 to 100 lexical items given in the L2, while the subject matter tests included items in both L1 and L2. For the qualitative part, three CLIL lessons were videotaped, to observe the learners’ response to the shared learning of content and vocabulary. Data were analysed on criteria of how L2 was acquired in meaningful settings, how pupils were given opportunities to interact with the teacher, how they were helped to use prior knowledge for the construction of new knowledge and how the teacher promoted both the social and the academic side of the L2. Research has also engaged with aspects of cognitive neuroscience in the CLIL process. Van de Craen et al. (2007) reported findings of neuro-​cognitive research into brain activity of bilinguals as a structural reason for CLIL to lead to better subject matter knowledge than traditional learning, and mention enhanced cognitive development, brain stimulation, and a greater brain activity as promotive to both language and content learning, even content that was not part of the CLIL syllabus. In classroom studies, Lazaruk (2007) found linguistic, academic, and cognitive benefits besides enhanced metalinguistic awareness in Canadian immersion classes with French as a target language. Surmont et al. (2016) described such awareness as the ability to compare the structures of various languages, which promotes the notion of underlying linguistic principles. The study involved 107 pupils in their first year at secondary school in Flanders, the Dutch-​speaking part of Belgium, with French as the CLIL target language. The researchers developed three versions of a new mathematical test, the Mathematical Assessment Test-​Help (MATH) –​each version with the same kind of e­ xercises –​and presented them in the L1 of the pupils on three different points in time. ANOVAs were conducted to analyse the scores of CLIL and non-​CLIL groups, and the between-​g roup results of the three separate testing times. On these data, Greenhouse–​ Geisser and Huynh–​Feldt corrections were used to elicit a more accurate and conservative significance value. Paired samples t-​tests were conducted in order to analyse the within-​ group results separately for the CLIL and the non-​CLIL group. The discussion proposes the transference of metacognitive linguistic skills to the application of rules and symbols in studying maths.

Teaching practice in CLIL contexts The issue of how content learning should be integrated with language learning has become a major concern of classroom studies. Effective CLIL teaching, assessed on the degree to which student language development and proficiency were facilitated, was examined in the Netherlands by de Graaff et al. (2007). Data were obtained by observing and videotaping nine lessons from three Dutch CLIL schools for secondary education, which were consequently analysed by means of an observation instrument. This was based on five principles of

90

Epistemological and methodological trends in CLIL research

second language pedagogy: exposure to input, content-​oriented processing, form-​oriented processing, (pushed) output, and strategic language use. Each principle was operationalised by a number of indicators, pertaining roughly to how a text is presented, how correct meaning identifications are identified and stimulated, how correct language examples are provided and problematic forms are corrected, how student communication is stimulated, and what scaffolding strategies are used. The tool was reported to help content teachers to perform language teaching tasks, at the same time expanding their teaching repertoire in a CLIL context. Van Kampen et al. (2018) used questionnaires to investigate the range and nature of self-​reported pedagogical practices at Dutch secondary schools. The participants were 218 CLIL teachers of different subject disciplines (e.g., English, mathematics, science, social sciences) and 79 teachers in non-​CLIL classes. The first part asked the participants for background information; the second part contained 42 items on a five-​point Likert scale, asking how often a particular pedagogical approach was used in the lessons; for CLIL teachers only the bilingual lessons. The concept of pedagogies was divided into four clusters (literacies, language, scaffolding, and input) which the authors had identified in their literature review, describing the specific momentum of each factor in CLIL education. Descriptive statistics, qualitative content analysis and multivariate analyses of covariance (MANCOVA) were used to answer the question what the CLIL teachers saw as the main characteristics of their pedagogical practice and how they differed from regular teachers. A second aim was to find out to what extent differences in self-​reported pedagogies related to subject disciplines. The most frequently reported difference between teaching in CLIL classes and regular classes related to the factor language: teachers reported more focus on communication in their CLIL classes, encouraging students to interact in the target language. Scaffolding was mentioned as being used more frequently in CLIL than in regular classes. A significant multivariate effect was found for subject discipline, while the univariate analysis produced significant F-​values for all four factors. The Scheffé test was applied, a post-​hoc test available in SPSS for significant F-​values. This test is used to highlight all contrasts that may be of interest, not just pair-​w ise differences. Thus, teachers from the different subject disciplines were contrasted on their pedagogies: for example, English teachers, who scored significantly higher than teachers from other disciplines for the literacies and languages approach; teachers of creative and physical subjects, who scored significantly lower for scaffolding than teachers of social science and mathematics and science, while English and social science teachers scored significantly higher for input than teachers of the other disciplines. On the concept of scaffolding, Mahan (2022) has also found differences between disciplines and suggested a framework to identify and classify scaffolding practice of three Norwegian teachers, concentrating on comprehension and task solving strategies. Over a timespan of one month, 12 lessons from a CLIL classroom with three CLIL subjects –​science, geography, and social science –​were video-​recorded. The video data were transcribed, and a coding manual (PLATO: Protocol for Language Arts Teaching Observation) was used to identify teacher strategies. Three factors captured comprehension scaffolding strategies: connections to prior knowledge, supportive materials, and academic language. Three other factors captured task-​solving strategies: uptake of student responses, strategy use and instruction, and modelling and use of models. Data analyses show that teachers scaffold differently in the natural and social sciences; the science and geography classrooms used more visual aids, whereas the social science teachers promoted student talk.

91

José Goris

Classroom discourse analysis Several studies have concentrated on how the language of instruction is used in classroom interaction. Llinares et al. (2012) describe theoretical guidelines for the use of language as a mediator in classroom talk based on a joint concept of socio-​cultural theory of learning, which highlights the importance of dialogue with teachers and learners in the construction of knowledge, and systemic functional linguistics (SFL), with its focus on the purposes of language use through texts and contexts. The authors investigated how spoken language is organised effectively in the classroom, drawing on a number of extracts gathered in a corpus of CLIL classroom data from four European countries, and analysed them by using the framework developed by Mortimer and Scott (2003), who distinguished (1) focus: the content and its purpose, (2) approach: how the content is communicated, and (3) action: a close-​ up view of patterns of interaction and the specific interventions carried out by the teacher. Teacher–​learner interaction was evaluated by using the initiation-​response-​feedback (IRF) pattern or triadic dialogue, made up of the teacher’s initiation, the student’s response, and the teacher’s feedback, including repair (correction of misunderstanding), and scaffolding (helping learners by breaking up a difficult task into smaller bits). Dalton-​Puffer (2013) identified seven cognitive discourse functions (CDFs) –​classify, define, describe, evaluate, explain, explore, report –​to express acts of thinking about content topics. The construct was explored further by Lin and He (2017), who developed the Content and Language Mapping (CLM) approach, based on thematic patterns to scaffold language learning when teaching complex content topics. A sociolinguistic viewpoint was addressed by Barwell (2020), who investigated the effects of broader social structures on target language use in linguistically diverse classes in Canada, a country with two official languages, English and French. Data were collected by means of observations, audio-​ recordings, interviews, and students’ work. Based on a comparison of socialisation practices in diverse mathematical classes, the author distinguishes between language neutral and language positive classrooms. In the former, language diversity was implicitly present, while in the latter this was recognised explicitly.

Case study designs Lastly, two investigations with different case study methods will be discussed, since case studies have also been employed in CLIL research. In Austria, Smit and Finker (2018) introduced an ethnographically informed collective of four case studies to investigate teachers’ and students’ views of mandatory CLIL in four technical colleges by means of an observational protocol. The schools consented to having four to 12 consecutive CLIL lessons –​theory classes as well as laboratory lessons in which practical knowledge was acquired –​in upper secondary classes observed and analysed, leading to four case studies. Each lesson was video-​recorded through two cameras, one focusing on the teacher and the blackboard, the other on the students. While recording, one of the researchers took notes following an observation sheet on chronology, topics covered and language choice –​either the L2 target language English, or the L1, German, as a fall-​back option. The recorded CLIL lessons in combination with the notes shed light on the main classroom practices that were observed, illustrating the main principles, and making them comparable. In addition, semi-​structured interviews were undertaken with all teachers and a number of self-​selected students. Data analysis was not based on lesson transcripts but combined the videotaped observations and semi-​structured interviews, in a ‘stimulated recall method’. The teaching 92

Epistemological and methodological trends in CLIL research

process was analysed on five categories: (1) episodes: clearly distinguishable lesson phases, (2) time frame: the length of the recording, (3) materials: the resources used, (4) interaction: the kind of cooperation between teacher and student, and (5) choice of language. The analysis revealed remarkable differences between the theory lessons and laboratory sessions, relating to student initiatives to use the L2. Such initiatives were overwhelmingly present in the lab sessions, more so than in theory classes, suggesting an interesting potential for learners to develop as L2 users in practical work. In Finland, Roiha (2019) used narratives and interviews in a qualitative case study to investigate the role of CLIL education in the lives of individuals. Pupils from a former CLIL class –​26 adults who attended the same CLIL school in the 1990s –​reported in retrospect on their perceptions of the significance of CLIL for their English language learning, self-​concept, attitudes, and course of life. In addition, individual semi-​structured in-​depth interviews, with aspects of biographical narratives were conducted in Finnish, the participants’ native language. All interviews were audio-​recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were analysed by means of qualitative methods, with thematic content analysis as the main method to identify patterns and common themes from the recordings. To obtain a multifaceted and thorough understanding of each of the interviews, narrative analyses were used, capturing each individual’s life choices and paths contributing to the scope of the research focus. This concentrated on participants’ perceptions of the role of CLIL in their lives, more specifically its influence on L2 self-​concept, more specifically each person’s confidence as an English language user.

Conclusion This chapter has explored designs and findings of field studies and classroom research into learning and teaching strategies in CLIL education in various quarters of Europe. Both large-​scale experiments and studies with a moderate number of participants have contributed to an understanding of how the innovative approach has affected language needs and remodelled learning and teaching practice, and led to insights of CLIL didactics and pedagogy. To provide a basis for classroom research, qualitative studies of focus groups, ethnography and literature have been undertaken in order to explore ideas and formulate theories –​including features of context-​dependency. The studies discussed in this review have all contributed to what we know about CLIL implementation. As we have seen, scholars have often used more than one type of data collection, in order to obtain robust answers to their research questions. The combination of quantitative, qualitative, triangulation, and case study designs has provided well-​rounded insights into the profile of the CLIL learner, from a cognitive perspective as well as in terms of motives and affective involvement in a CLIL environment. In addition to learner-​centred approaches, research questions with a focus on teacher practice and didactics have been a driving force behind observational classroom studies. They have shed light on the nature of classroom discourse, and provided a basis for theoretical guidelines for subject teachers on how to access content and transfer knowledge to classroom learners in an L2. In a study on future research priorities in the field of multilingualism and language education, Duarte et al. (2020) identified the features of multilingual didactics. The authors suggest that to improve the ways in which schools cater for language education in diverse settings research is needed on the potential of multilingualism and the effectiveness of literacy support in home languages. The target language in CLIL teaching is almost always a foreign language, which learners predominantly encounter in the school context. As Chaplier and 93

José Goris

O’Connell (2015, p. 75) point out, ‘if [this] knowledge is formed in a language devoid of any cultural grounding, like international English for mass communication, there are serious risks for this thought to be over-​simplified, even distorted beyond recognition’. Future research will have to address matters of content learning into more detail. What instruments are needed to assess CLIL learners’ subject knowledge in depth? And what assessment gaps need to be bridged, not only on a national scale in relation to the switch from secondary to higher education, but also across countries, to make English-​taught programmes more inclusive? In the first decades of its inception, the CLIL approach has proved to be a welcome innovation in the field of language learning. The challenge for the next stage is investigating CLIL as a fully fledged educational concept for the 21st century. As a final thought of this chapter a useful suggestion for future CLIL classroom research could be to group research questions around theoretical orientations, e.g., notion of collaboration, notion of language, notion of sociology.

Further reading Byrnes, H. (Ed.). (2006). Advanced language learning: The contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky. The MPG Books Group. In this volume research into second language acquisition is linked to systemic functional linguistics and socio-​cultural theory. The contributors draw primarily on the work of Halliday, Vygotsky, and Bakhtin, as well as empirical data from the language classroom. The authors suggest practical applications towards advanced literacy and linguistic competence –​to be explored for CLIL practice. Huber, M. & Fröhlich, D. (Eds.). (2020). Analyzing group interactions: A guidebook for qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods. Routledge. The volume gives an overview of the use of different methods for the analyses of group interactions. In particular, the chapters on video-​based content analysis, discourse analysis and grounded theory will be helpful in providing frameworks for qualitative CLIL studies. Humble, S. (2020). Quantitative analysis of questionnaires: Techniques to explore structures and relationships. Routledge. The book is introduced as ‘the ideal introductory textbook for any student looking to begin and or improve statistical learning as well as interpretation’. It is written in a user-​friendly style and provides examples from a range of settings –​where traditional textbooks often leave off.

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/​138036​1050​0392​160 Barwell, R. (2020). Learning mathematics in a second language: Language positive and language neutral classrooms. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 51(2), 150–​178. Bruton, A. (2011). Is CLIL so beneficial, or just selective? Re-​evaluating some of the research. System, 39, 523–​532. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.sys​tem.2011.08.002 Bruton, A. (2013). CLIL: Some of the reasons why ... and why not. System, 41, 587–​597.https://​doi. org/​10.1016/​j.sys​tem.2013.07.001 Chaplier, C., & O’Connell, A. (2015). Prolegomena to the epistemology of languages for non-​ specialists: the example of CLIL. Journal of Language and Cultural Education, 3(1) 69–​77. https://​doi. org/​10.1515/​jol​ace-​2015-​0 006 Coyle, D. (2018). The place of CLIL in (bilingual) education. Theory Into Practice, 57(3), 166–​176. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​0 0405​841.2018.1459​096 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.

94

Epistemological and methodological trends in CLIL research 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. (2013). A construct of cognitive discourse functions for conceptualising content-​ language integration in CLIL and multilingual education. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 216–​253. https://​doi.org/​10.1515/​eujal-​2013-​0 011 de Graaff, R., Koopman, G., & Westhoff, G. J. (2007). An observation tool for effective L2 pedagogy in content and language integrated learning (CLIL). International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(5), 603– ​624. Dörnyei, Z., & Skehan, P. (2003). Individual differences in second language learning. In C. Doughty & M. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 589–​630). Blackwell Publishing Ltd. https://​doi.org/​10.1002/​978047​0756​492.ch18 Duarte, J., García-​Jimenez, E., McMonagle, S., Hansen, A., Gross, B., Szelei, N., & Pinho, A. (2020). Research priorities in the field of multilingualism and language education: A cross-​ national examination. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​01434​ 632.2020.1792​475 Fernández-​Sanjurjo, J., Fernández-​Costales, A., & Arias Blanco, J. M. (2019). Analysing students’ content-​learning in science in CLIL vs. non-​CLIL programmes: Empirical evidence from Spain. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 22(6), 661–​674. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​ 13670​050.2017.1294​142 Gardner, R.C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The role of attitudes and motivation. Edward Arnold. Gardner, R.C. (2010). Motivation and second language acquisition: The socio-​educational model. Peter Lang. Gardner, R.C., & Lambert, W.E. (1972). Attitudes and motivation in second language learning. Rowley, Newbury House. Goris, J., Denessen, E., & Verhoeven, L. (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/​14749​0411​9872​426 Lasagabaster, D. (2011). English achievement and student motivation in CLIL and EFL settings. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 5(1), 3–​18. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​17501​229.2010.519​030 Lazaruk, W. (2007). Linguistic, academic, and cognitive benefits of French immersion. Canadian Modern Language Review, 63(5), 605–​627. https://​doi.org/​10.3138/​cmlr.63.5.605 Lin, A.M., & He, P. (2017). Translanguaging as dynamic activity flows in CLIL classrooms. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 16(4), 228–​244. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​15348​458.2017.1328​283 Llinares, A., Morton, T., & Whittaker, R. (2012). The roles of language in CLIL. Cambridge University Press. MacIntyre, P.D., Clément, R., Dörnyei, Z., & Noels, K.A. (1998). Conceptualizing willingness to communicate in a L2: A situational model of L2 confidence and affiliation. Modern Language Journal, 82, 545–​562. https://​doi.org/​10.1111/​j.1540-​4781.1998.tb05​543.x Mahan, K.R. (2022). The comprehending teacher: Scaffolding in content and language integrated learning (CLIL). The Language Learning Journal, 50(1), 74–​88. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​09571​ 736.2019.1705​879 Marsh, D. (Ed.). (2002). CLIL/​EMILE: The European dimension –​actions, trends and foresight potential. UNICOM, Continuing Education Centre. Mayer, M. (1969). Frog, where are you? Dial Press. Meara, P.M. (1992). EFL vocabulary test. Centre for Applied Language Studies. Menezes, E., & Juan-​Garau, M. (2015). English learners’ willingness to communicate and achievement in CLIL and formal instruction contexts. In M. Juan-​Garau & J. Salazar-​Noguera (Eds.), Content-​ based language learning in multilingual educational environments (pp. 221–​236). Springer International Publishing. Merisuo-​Storm, T. (2007). Pupils’ attitudes towards foreign-​language learning and the development of literacy skills in bilingual education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(2), 226–​235. https://​doi. org/​10.1016/​j.tate.2006.04.024 Mortimer, E.F., & Scott, P. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Open University Press. Nieto Moreno De Diezmas, E. (2018). The acquisition of L2 listening comprehension skills in primary and secondary education settings: A comparison between CLIL andnon-​CLIL student performance. Revista de Lingüística Teórica y Aplicada Concepción (Chile), 56(2), 13–​34.

95

José Goris Ouazizi, K. (2016). The effects of CLIL education on the subject matter (mathematics) and the target language (English). LACLIL Journal, 9(1), 110–​137. https://​doi.org/​10.5294/​lac​l il.2016.9.1.5 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/​appli​rev-​2013-​0 014 Paschalidou, G. (2019). Investigating the impact of content and language integrated learning (CLIL) on EFL oral production: A preliminary research on fluency and quantity. Research Papers in Language Teaching and Learning, 10(1), 410–​426. 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. Piesche, N., Jonkmann, K., Fiege, C., & Kebler, J. (2016). CLIL for all? A randomised controlled field experiment with sixth-​g rade students on the effects of content and language integrated science learning. Learning and Instruction, 44, 108–​116. Roiha, A. (2019). The role of CLIL education in individuals’ life courses: Retrospective narratives of pupils from a former CLIL class. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Jyväskylä. Rumlich, D. (2017). CLIL theory and empirical reality: Two sides of the same coin? Journal of Immersion and Content-​Based Language Education, 5(1), 110–​134. San Isidro, X., & Lasagabaster, D. (2019). The impact of CLIL on pluriliteracy development and content learning in a rural multilingual setting: A longitudinal study. Language Teaching Research, 23(5), 584– ​602. https://​doi.org/​10.1177/​13621​6881​7754​103 Segura, M., Roquet, H., & Pérez-​Vidal, C. (2021). The effects of a CLIL programme on linguistic progress at two different points in time. Journal of Language and Education, 7(1), 171–​189. https://​doi. org/​10.17323/​jle.2021.10981 Smit, U., & Finker, T. (2018). CLIL in Austrian technical colleges (HTL): An analysis of classroom practices based on systematic video-​lesson observations. In M. Dannerer & P. Mauser (Eds.), Formen der Mehrsprachigkeit in sekundären und tertiären Bildungskontexten. Verwendung, Rolle und Wahrnehmung von Sprachen und Varietäten (pp. 229–​246). Stauffenburg Verlag. Streef kerk, R. (2020). Qualitative vs. quantitative research. Scribbr. www.scri​bbr.com/​meth​odol​ogy/​qual​ itat ​ive- ​quant ​itat ​ive-​resea ​rch/​ Surmont, J., Struys, E., Van Den Noort, M., & Van De Craen, P. (2016). The effects of CLIL on mathematical content learning: A longitudinal study. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 6(2), 319–​337. https://​doi.org/​10.14746/​ssllt.2016.6.2.7 Van de Craen, P., Ceuleers, E., & Mondt, K. (2007). Cognitive development and bilingualism in primary schools: Teaching maths in a CLIL environment. In D. Marsh & D. Wolff (Eds.), Diverse contexts, converging goals: CLIL in Europe (pp. 185–​200). Peter Lang. Van Kampen, E., Admiraal, W., & Berry, A. (2018). Content and language integrated learning in the Netherlands: Teachers’ self-​reported pedagogical practices. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21(2), 222–​236. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​13670 ​050.2016.1154​0 04 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 Xanthou, M. (2011). The impact of CLIL on L2 vocabulary development and content knowledge. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 10(4), 116–​126.

96

97

PART II

Core topics and issues

98

99

7 CLIL AND EDUCATIONAL POLICY Yolanda Ruiz de Zarobe

Introduction The interest for multilingualism and foreign language learning led to the emergence of CLIL a few decades ago,1 with the promotion of a wide range of programmes not only in Europe but also in other international contexts. As has often been attested, in the case of Europe there has been a regard for multilingualism with the idea that all European Union (EU) citizens should speak two additional languages apart from their native language, which has been called the mother tongue +​two objective. This has meant that from the Action Plan for language learning and diversity launched in 2003 by the European Commission to the 2017 edition of Key Data on Teaching Languages at School in Europe, also by the European Commission, CLIL has been boosted as one of the most innovative methods to improve the quality of language learning and teaching. What is more, one of the aims of the EU has been to encourage a multilingual European society as a whole in order to safeguard linguistic diversity for cultural and social as well as economic reasons. In this chapter, we address some of the current issues related to language policy and CLIL, with the aim of better understanding the situation in the field of language policy today. We will first present an overview of the relationship between multilingualism, language policies, and CLIL, which provide some of the policy foundations of the approach. After this, we detail some specific features related to the connection between language policies and practice. In the final part, we map out some of the assets and pitfalls of the approach, anticipating some of the generalisations that emerge and highlighting the issues that still need to be accounted for in the future. Before we continue, two remarks should be made. First, the description provided here will mainly concentrate on CLIL in the European scenario. We partly do so because CLIL has its origins in the multilingual context of the EU,2 and partly because it would be difficult to address specific contextual language policy issues worldwide. However, some of the topics discussed in this chapter may apply to other geographical contexts, despite having different socio-​political implications. Second, we understand that the field of language policy is multidimensional. If we follow the definition provided by Johnson (2013), that ‘a language policy is a policy mechanism that impacts the structure, function, use, or acquisition of language’ (p. 9, italics in original), we appreciate how this field may cover a wide array of topics related DOI: 10.4324/9781003173151-10

99

Yolanda Ruiz de Zarobe

to language management, stakeholders’ beliefs or language practices (Hüttner et al., 2013; Shohamy, 2006; Spolsky, 2004) and it may apply at different generalisation levels. However, for the sake of our discussion, we will mainly follow a top-​down approach, that is, we will analyse how high-​level political management decisions, directions, or recommendations for language learning at EU level relate to the actual practices and research on CLIL.

Multilingualism, language policies, and CLIL The connection between multilingualism, language policies, and CLIL is straightforward when we review the resolutions, recommendations, and opinions of all the official institutions across contexts. If we focus on Europe, in the successive surveys that the European Commission has carried out, it can be appreciated how multilingualism and foreign language learning are fundamental in the view of the Council of the EU.3 In addition to the surveys, there are a succession of meetings where resolutions or recommendations are put forward promoting multilingualism as the new status quo. One of the first ones, the Lisbon European Council of 23 and 24 March 2000 addressed the new social model of the EU with the need for the inclusion of foreign languages. In 2002, the Barcelona European Summit of Heads of State endorsed language learning and language diversity in Europe. Later on, the Council conclusions of 19 May 2006 on the European Indicator of Language Competence claimed that foreign language knowledge is a contributing factor for the EU economy and mobility, as well as for the understanding of EU citizens. That same year, the Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 on Key Competences for Lifelong Learning, ascertained that foreign languages should become one of the key competences for communication. The Resolution of the Council of 16 November 2007 on a European Agenda for Culture established multilingualism as one of the main areas to promote cultural heritage and access to culture. It further viewed multilingualism as a crucial element of European integration. In 2021, the European Parliament presented their Fact Sheets on the European Union on Language Policy, based on the motto ‘United in diversity’. In order to encourage intercultural dialogue, the EU aimed to support foreign language learning and mobility through programmes devoted to education and vocational training. As mentioned in the Fact Sheets, in the Social Summit that took place in Gothenburg on 17 November 2017, the Commission embarked on the implementation of a ‘European Education Area’ where by 2025, ‘in addition to one’s mother tongue, speaking two other languages has become the norm’ (European Parliament, 2021). To achieve this aim, two centres for research on languages work in cooperation with the EU: the European Centre for Modern Languages of the Council of Europe (ECML), which encourages innovation in language teaching and learning, and the European Research Centre on Multilingualism and Language Learning (Mercator), which is mainly focused on regional and minority languages in Europe. Regarding CLIL specifically, one of the first pieces of legislation in Europe that addressed this topic was the Council Resolution of 31 March 1995 on improving and diversifying language learning and teaching within the education systems of the EU. In order to improve language skills, and due to curriculum limitations, the 1995 Resolution of the Council sought to introduce innovative pedagogical approaches in schools and universities with ‘the teaching of classes in a foreign language for disciplines other than languages, providing bilingual teaching’ (Council of Europe, 1995, p. 3) and also by ‘encouraging the exchange with Member States of higher education students working as language assistants in schools, endeavouring to give priority to prospective language teachers or those called upon to 100

CLIL and educational policy

teach their subjects in a language other than their own’ (p. 4). In a similar vein, the White Paper on Education and Training (Teaching and Learning –​Towards the Learning Society) also in 1995 focused on the importance of new methodological perspectives to help EU citizens to become multilingual. If we fast-​forward a decade or so, the Commission’s Action Plan for promoting language learning and linguistic diversity of 2004–​2006 further aimed to provide a response to the European Commission for the need to improve language learning, which called for measures to ameliorate the mastery of at least two foreign languages early in life. It specifically mentions CLIL as an approach which ‘has a major contribution to make to the Union’s language learning goals’ (Action Plan 2004–​2006, p. 19). One of the most often quoted reports in the literature is the Eurydice Report of 2006, published by the Eurydice European Unit with the financial support of the European Commission, which showcases the relevance of the approach, presenting the latest developments as well as its benefits and pitfalls. This report is fully devoted to CLIL as an innovative methodological approach with a twofold aim: to develop proficiency in both the curricular subject and in the language in which the subject is taught. This report deals with several topics related to CLIL. First of all, the position of the approach in the education system, the status of the languages concerned, CLIL provision and the levels of education in Europe. Second, it tackles some issues related to organisation and evaluation, such as admission criteria, subjects taught through CLIL, official teaching time, and evaluation and certification. After presenting some projects on CLIL and information about teachers’ qualifications and training, the report discusses various obstacles that inhibit CLIL implementation and some debate topics, which range from the predominance of English to the need for teacher training programmes. Two years later, in the Council conclusions of 22 May 2008 on multilingualism in the Official Journal of the European Union, the Council of the EU considered linguistic and cultural diversity to be the hallmark of European citizens, emphasising the need for European institutions to remember their longstanding commitment to the promotion of language learning and linguistic diversity. They further affirm that ‘proficiency in the first language may facilitate the learning of other languages, while early language learning, bilingual education and Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) are effective means of improving language learning provision’ (Council of Europe, 2008, p. 15). From then on, the different recommendations by various official institutions and stakeholder groups have continued to stress the importance of multilingualism and CLIL. Two of the latest reports are the 2017 edition of Key Data on Teaching Languages at School in Europe and the Council Recommendation of 22 May 2018 on Key Competences for Lifelong Learning. The Eurydice report on Key Data on Teaching Languages at School in Europe published in 2017 covers a very wide range of subjects in relation to the teaching and learning of foreign languages. These are addressed in five chapters: Context, Organisation, Participation, Teachers, and Teaching Processes. In the chapter devoted to organisation, a whole section is dedicated to CLIL. Quite interestingly, in this report the term CLIL is used as a general term to designate different types of CLIL and bilingual programmes. In fact, two CLIL types are differentiated depending on the status of the languages used to teach non-​language subjects. In CLIL type A, non-​language subjects are taught through a language designated as a foreign language. CLIL type A contexts are further subdivided into Case 1, when all non-​language subjects are taught through the foreign language, and Case 2, when non-​language subjects are taught through the foreign language and others are taught through the main language of schooling in the country. In CLIL type B, some non-​language subjects are taught through a regional and/​or minority language, or through a non-​territorial language or a state language 101

Yolanda Ruiz de Zarobe

(in countries with more than one state language) and a second language, which may be any other language. In CLIL type B schools, the non-​language subjects are always taught through two languages and, in a few schools, in addition to these two languages, a third is used to teach non-​language. These three languages include a minority and/​or regional language, a state language, and a foreign language. As can be appreciated, these new reports offer a much more fine-​g rained description of what the term CLIL encompasses, with target languages including foreign languages, regional or minority languages, and other state languages, an issue that caused some debate over the years, especially when trying to compare CLIL with immersion or content-​based instruction (CBI), a model applied mainly in North America (Cenoz et al., 2014; Dalton-​ Puffer et al., 2014; Nikula, 2017; Pérez Cañado, 2016; Ruiz de Zarobe & Cenoz, 2015). All these models involve learning and teaching through an L2, but attempts were made to compare them according to different criteria such as the prototypical teacher (native vs. non-​ native) or the target language, claiming that in CLIL, the language of instruction is usually English or another foreign language, while in immersion settings it is usually the second language or the minority language of a bilingual society (see Cenoz, 2015, for a description of the essential and accidental properties of CBI and CLIL). The 2017 Eurydice report also points out that only a few countries, namely Austria, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, and Malta, have introduced CLIL provision in all schools at some stage of a child’s education, although almost all countries have some kind of CLIL provision in their schools. Based on this, it can be said that CLIL programmes exist in most education systems with greater or lesser intensity. The second report mentioned above, the Council Recommendation of 22 May 2018 on Key Competences for Lifelong Learning focuses on the key competences which all individuals need for personal fulfilment, employability, or social inclusion. These competences include a combination of knowledge, skills, and attitudes. The Reference Framework sets out eight key competences: literacy competence; multilingual competence; mathematical competence and competence in science, technology and engineering; digital competence; personal, social and learning to learn competence; citizenship competence; entrepreneurship competence; and cultural awareness and expression competence. In this context, multilingual competence relates to the ability to use different languages, both in their oral and written form, effectively for communication. It also includes developing mother tongue competences and proficiency in the rest of the languages. In sum, all these reports, resolutions, and pieces of legislation aim to lay the foundation for the provision of foreign language learning programmes in multilingual Europe, identifying the main elements that can support the learning process. In the next section, we will see how those educational policies apply in practice.

From educational policies to practice As we have seen above, the importance given to multilingualism in various educational policies emphasises the EU’s commitment to the promotion of additional language learning and linguistic diversity. This stance has encouraged educational changes committed to safeguarding this linguistic diversity and fostering language learning for reasons of cultural identity, transnational mobility, and social cohesion. This can prove to be both an asset and a challenge for institutional authorities. In this respect, we appreciate that there is a discrepancy between EU policies and beliefs, and the implementation of CLIL nationwide. It is often the case that educational and language policies fall back on individual countries, regions, or 102

CLIL and educational policy

local communities within those countries, with limited guidance by EU agencies. And that may be a sensible resolution to adopt. There are many contextual factors related to issues as diverse as policy framework, teacher education, age of implementation, or extramural exposure to foreign languages across countries (Sylvén, 2013). What is more, with such a variety of parameters that may influence CLIL –​scale of the CLIL programme, environmental parameters, population segments, age groups, monolingual-​multilingual settings, types of teachers involved, learner assessment, type and amount of target language usage, language taught, degree and depth of content, first language/​second language balance, involvement of subject specialists, and the extent to which CLIL is present in the curriculum (Pérez Cañado, 2016) –​it may be better to describe specific circumstances in connection to the diversity of CLIL programme formats. As Cenoz et al. (2014, p. 258) further suggest, ‘rather than insisting on the uniqueness of CLIL, efforts might be better spent establishing a taxonomy of different common forms of CLIL/​CBI so as to circumscribe the diverse contexts in which CLIL is found’. Furthermore, there may also be some discrepancy between policy statements by institutional authorities and what actually takes place in practice in that given context. Apart from contextual differences, the introduction of changes to policy and school practices also varies across and within countries. As the Eurydice Report on Key Data on Teaching Languages at School in Europe 2017 puts forward, quite frequently there are no official central recommendations in most countries with CLIL provision on questions such as, for instance, admission criteria. In countries where recommendations do exist, such as France, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Liechtenstein, or Serbia, these mainly relate to language skills, and sometimes knowledge of curriculum subjects. Furthermore, in those countries where central recommendations prevail, the situation changes depending on the level of education. To illustrate this, in Liechtenstein and Serbia these recommendations only relate to secondary education. However, the lack of central recommendations on several implementation criteria related to CLIL does not forestall schools from adopting their own measures. This is the case in the Netherlands, Switzerland, or, for instance, some Autonomous Communities in Spain. As can be appreciated, it is difficult to reach general consensus on many aspects related to CLIL implementation, with EU states responding in different ways to promote the approach and with concrete language policies of countries differing to a certain extent. This is even more difficult if we take into consideration the status of the target languages in CLIL provision, which depends very often on the linguistic heritage of that country. It is often the case that those countries with more than one official state language or with minority languages try to implement CLIL programmes for the sake of bi-​/​multilingualism. This is the case in Spain with its official regional languages such as Basque, Catalan, or Galician (Lasagabaster & Ruiz de Zarobe, 2010). In other countries like Portugal, the Netherlands, or Norway, CLIL mainly focuses on foreign languages, even if these countries also have some officially recognised regional or minority languages. So far, we have described a series of policy recommendations and reports issued by EU agencies and how they vaguely relate to concrete national educational policies. Official regulatory frameworks change transnationally, but we also appreciate how more policy implementation initiatives mushroom at different national or regional levels. However, the connection between educational policy and practice is not always straightforward. In terms of practice, many grassroots actions in the form of small-​scale projects by teachers, schools, and stakeholders, frequently in response to their needs, concerns, interests, and resources, have really ignited the interest for the approach and have often served as the backcloth for much research, spurring other initiatives as effective means of improving language learning 103

Yolanda Ruiz de Zarobe

provision. This has provided opportunities and challenges that have affected CLIL in recent decades in very different ways. We will look at some of these in the next section.

Benefits and obstacles of CLIL: policy and research One of the main features of CLIL is that students learn subjects in the curriculum such as natural sciences or geography in an additional language, which allows them more contact with the target language within the same curriculum. A key objective of this teaching methodology is to ameliorate students’ proficiency in a target language and use the language as a communication vehicle rather than as an aim in itself. That is one of the reasons why it has become one of the preferred methodological approaches on the continent and in many other parts of the world. The possibility of improving foreign language skills capacitates citizens to function in our multilingual and multicultural world, improve job opportunities, and study and/​or work abroad. It is clear that if we want to take advantage of these benefits and become more competitive globally, speaking several languages is not only a right but also a necessity. CLIL attracts vast interest as a proactive response, at least in Europe,4 to the linguistic and cultural demands of our diverse society, by developing the right skills, including intercultural and multilingual competence. One of the assets of the approach stems from the opportunity it provides to improve intercultural knowledge and awareness, as well as communication skills. As mentioned above, the Council Recommendation of 22 May 2018 on Key Competences for Lifelong Learning includes cultural awareness and expression competence as one of the eight key competences set out by the Reference Framework. This competence involves understanding and respecting the ideas communicated in different languages and cultures, and requires being engaged in developing and expressing ideas in society, which entails knowledge of their cultures, including their languages. The well-​k nown 4Cs Framework (Coyle, 2007) is used in many different contexts to raise awareness of the four components of CLIL: content, cognition, communication, and culture (Coyle, 2007) and to support teachers in lesson planning (Coyle et al., 2010). Culture is precisely one of the components of Coyle’s framework at two different levels: a societal (macro) and an academic cultural (micro) level. The macro level relates to culture with its societal values in different contexts. It also requires an intercultural understanding which affects the other three Cs. The micro level is based on the culture of each discipline or a theme within each discipline that needs to be conceptualised. More recently (see, for instance, Coyle & Meyer, 2021; Meyer et al., 2015), the Graz Group has moved towards a pluriliteracies approach, with the aim of developing a new understanding of the interrelation of the elements of CLIL. If the 4Cs Framework is based on the principle that strengthening a learner’s conceptual understanding requires cultural, linguistic, and cognitive processes, the pluriliteracies approach analyses the progression of learners as they become increasingly skilled at communicating across languages and cultures. In order to do so, they need to use the appropriate style and genre typical of the subject, developing subject literacies across languages (pluriliteracies). In their approach they focus on the progression along knowledge pathways in order to increase deeper learning of subject disciplines. By doing so, the model challenges the dichotomy between language and content, so common in CLIL discussions: ‘We have argued that connecting content and language learning is not enough for deep learning. Rather the two constructs demand an alternative means for development which we believe lies in the conceptualisation of pluriliteracies’ (Meyer et al., 2015, p. 53). This view of CLIL provides a coherent framework for competence-​based education

104

CLIL and educational policy

and pluriliteracies (Ball, 2016). The inclusion of key competences in CLIL settings was also put forward by the British Council in March 2014 in Como (Italy) with the support of EU stakeholders. The document that came out of the policy workshop, CLIL Policy and Practice: Competence-​based Education for Employability, Mobility and Growth (British Council, 2014), aimed to promote the inclusion of a key-​competence-​based approach in CLIL. In different recommendations and official papers of the European Commission, in addition to intercultural awareness, cognition and motivation are mentioned as key assets of the approach. ‘CLIL also improves cognitional development, cultural awareness and motivation to learn languages without any significant detriment to content learning in the subjects where it is used’ (European Commission, 2014, p. 29). The cognitive advantages of learning through additional languages5 have already been accounted for in the literature (Clegg, 2014; Elorza & Muñoa, 2008; Mehisto & Marsh, 2011; Nieto Moreno de Diezmas, 2016). CLIL may help to strengthen cognitive development, improving the learners’ ability to process input. Furthermore, CLIL is thought to prepare students for higher level thinking (Coyle et al., 2010) and increase metalinguistic awareness (Ruiz de Zarobe & Smala, 2020). These cognitive benefits may also positively affect content learning (Ouazizi, 2016; Surmont et al., 2016, but see Piesche et al., 2016, for contrasting results on processing information). Lastly, it needs to be remembered here that in CLIL provision, literacy skills and development usually take place in the first language, which can be cognitively positive, and those literacy and cognitive skills will transfer to the additional languages if they have been firmly set in the L1 (Cummins, 2000, 2001). Out of all of the individual factors that have been claimed to be positively affected by CLIL, motivation is probably the one that has most often been included as an asset: ‘Within CLIL, language is used as a medium for learning content, and the content is used in turn as a resource for learning languages. Students can put the language they are learning into practice instantaneously –​a powerful motivation factor’ (European Commission, n.d., p. 2). Much of the research in the field (Amengual-​Pizarro & Prieto-​A rra, 2015; Doiz et al., 2014; Lasagabaster & Doiz, 2017; Merisuo-​Storm, 2007; Pérez-​Cañado, 2021; Sylvén & Thompson, 2015) demonstrates how motivation is an important factor in CLIL settings and, in general terms, CLIL students seem to be more motivated to learn the target language than students in more traditional settings (non-​CLIL students). Motivational variables also positively affect language achievement (Navarro & García Jiménez, 2018; Pfenninger, 2016) and have a close relationship with strategy use (Gutiérrez & Ruiz de Zarobe, 2019) in CLIL settings. After having reviewed some of the assets of CLIL frequently mentioned in the EU reports, let us now focus on some of its liabilities. Some of these obstacles have provoked debate on CLIL throughout the EU and are still very much alive (Pérez Cañado, 2017). Concerns about CLIL provision are often related to teacher qualifications and education. As regards language qualifications, teachers are normally required to have level B2 (independent user with vantage) or C1 (proficient user with effective operational proficiency), according to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (Council of Europe, 2018b). Teacher (and learner, for that matter) language ability is crucial in CLIL programmes. Teachers applying CLIL need to have a high command of the foreign language in order to teach a non-​language subject through the target language, which involves both subject-​specific requirements and pedagogical skills. In 15 European education systems, teachers are required to have additional qualifications, certificates, or experience to teach in CLIL type provision. They are usually required to have an academic degree in the target language, together with the degree in the subject they teach. For instance, in some Autonomous

105

Yolanda Ruiz de Zarobe

Communities of Spain, teachers must undertake training courses in CLIL methodology. In other countries, notably France, CLIL teachers need to take an oral examination to demonstrate their ability in teaching through the target language (European Commission et al., 2017). Policy developments in language education must contemplate these issues because quality teaching is essential for successful learning. Apart from linguistic requirements, teacher pedagogy is crucial, and high-​quality teacher training programmes are necessary. Exchange programmes cross-​nationally offer a good opportunity to engage in pedagogical, linguistic, and cultural activities and have been supported by official bodies for some years. As an example, in the Flemish Community of Belgium, French teachers may participate in a two-​week training course in France, and German teachers in a one-​week training course in Germany (European Commission et al., 2017). A second concern also tangible across countries is the imperative involvement of school communities and stakeholder groups in devising a policy model that considers the best mechanisms for the effective implementation of CLIL provision. The introduction of changes to policy and school practices requires modifications or renovations, which may affect curriculum decision-​m aking and should involve the whole school community, school administrations, and local, regional, or national authorities. This type of intensified cooperation can work at all levels, but schools have an essential role to play in allowing all learners to acquire the necessary competences to communicate in several languages and reflect on the form of language education they need to implement. The opportunity to reach all learners positively has also been envisaged by EU policies. But is this model truly inclusive? According to some scholars (Bruton, 2011, 2013; Paran, 2013), CLIL can be an elitist approach. For instance, Paran (2013) discusses several factors which relate to the success of CLIL (although they do not guarantee it either). These factors pertain to a selective implementation of the approach at both the individual and the school level: ‘this might be applied to the cases of CLIL success, where the policy is implemented selectively, with a well-​educated teaching staff, and concurrent high-​quality language support within educational contexts in which there are external opportunities for exposure’ (p. 334). Other researchers provide counterarguments disproving the elitist claim of CLIL (Hüttner & Smit, 2014; Pérez Cañado, 2021). The results of Pérez Cañado’s (2021) comprehensive study on the current state of CLIL characterisation and implementation in monolingual contexts in Spain show, as the author claims, that CLIL programmes seem to be cancelling out differences in rural-​urban setting, socioeconomic status, and type of school, especially in the long term […] Bilingual education programmes thus appear to be causing differences ascribed to sociocultural and socioeconomic standing to be leveling out. Pérez Cañado, 2021, p. 24 Other studies, notably in the Madrid region of Spain, call for caution at some of the inequities of CLIL provision related to the ethnic background and language choice practices (Relaño Pastor, 2015) or to the reputational value given to the tracks of bilingual programmes in the community (Llinares & Evnitskaya, 2021). Thus, we witness once again how the implementation of CLIL programmes has its benefits and pitfalls as a methodology that articulates a large number of different combinations in a variety of social and educational contexts.

106

CLIL and educational policy

Conclusion and implications The motto of the EU educational policy ‘United in diversity’ summarises the mission statement of the entity as regards languages: multilingualism as part of European integration and diversity must be the backcloth that guides the development of language policies and practices in our society. In our discussion we have analysed how language policies apply at different levels of engagement. Drawing on institutional documents and recommendations for language learning, we have seen how CLIL is promoted as a timely solution to the needs of our diverse society. The implementation of CLIL programmes have been materialised at various levels and in different ways, but they continue to grow exponentially with national, regional, and local strategies undertaken to build new curricula and pedagogical arrangements. All those involved in education, moving from policymakers to practitioners and researchers, need to be involved in the formation of these new arrangements. But in order to accomplish this, we must take advantage of the synergies that exist among the different actors, which entail an imperative need for the decompartmentalisation of language policy, practice, and research. High-​level policies need to be aligned with regulations at central, regional, and local levels, which must further connect with the practices undertaken in school communities. Furthermore, progression and results in the classroom need to be analysed and evaluated to verify how they may impact and affect new regulations in terms of, for example, curricular guidelines or materials. A better alignment between policy, practice, and research is a desirable way to foresee how the different actors involved can feed into each other. Language policy influences the implementation of the curriculum and the assessment aims put in place to measure the achievements of that implementation. At the same time, the results of assessment can influence changes in language policy and so a new cycle starts. Gorter & Cenoz, 2017, p. 233 The interrelationship of curriculum, pedagogy and assessment plays a pivotal role in learning (Pellegrino, 2017). Another desired implication of the alignment between language policy and practice is the possibility it provides of applying those educational guidelines and initiatives that have proved to be successful across contexts, something similar to what Paran (2013, p. 332) calls ‘policy borrowing or educational transfer’, where specific policies successful in one context may be borrowed or transferred to other contexts. In order to do so, we need a systematic attempt to gather data and a review both of research in the classroom and of the policies implemented by government agencies across regions or countries. Language policy is a cornerstone for the implementation of CLIL in our globalised world. The other side of the coin is offered by the surging interest in CLIL, which has encouraged advances in research, and which can drive instructional planning and practice. We continue to observe a wide spectrum of responses to CLIL implementation, which will surely affect language policy and practice in the years to come. Until then, the future of CLIL remains open to new ideas, innovations, and developments.

Notes 1 The term CLIL was coined in the 1990s in Europe, though it has also been used in much research recently undertaken in different geographical contexts (Australia, South America, or Asia). See also Section IV of this handbook.

107

Yolanda Ruiz de Zarobe 2 We acknowledge the fact that teaching subject matter through an additional language is not new. For instance, some bilingual communities and European educational institutions, apart from content-​ based instruction programmes in North America, have had a long tradition of teaching content through an additional language in their curricula. However, the inception of CLIL as a methodological approach (and the acronym itself ) was instigated as part of a European effort for multilingual policies. Some authors (e.g., Dearden, 2014) believe that a conceptual separation should be made between CLIL with its origins in Europe and other models such as English-​medium instruction (EMI), which has no specific contextual origin. Furthermore, while CLIL has a clear objective of integrating both content and language, EMI does not necessarily share that objective. Dearden’s report, English as a Medium of Instruction: A Growing Global Phenomenon, published in 2014, provides information on EMI programmes in 55 countries worldwide. 3 There is some discrepancy as to which term, plurilingualism or multilingualism, to use. Although it is often stated that plurilingualism focuses on the individual and multilingualism on the societal contact of languages, thus differentiating the individual and society, plurilingualism is in fact often used as an equivalent to multilingualism. For instance, the Council of Europe uses the term plurilingualism to refer to the multiple language competences of individuals, but some EU official documents use multilingualism to describe both individual competences and societal situations. This is the position that will be followed in this chapter. 4 In their comparison of language policies and students’ perceptions of CLIL in Spain and Japan, Tsuchiya and Pérez Murillo (2015) claim that while CLIL in Spain is proactive, following the multilingual education policy of the EU, Japan seems to be reactive, providing human resources with English proficiency for economic reasons. 5 A discussion about the cognitive advantages of bilingualism falls beyond the scope of this chapter. However, those benefits apply not only to those citizens who were raised bilingually, but also to people who learn a second language, even later in life (Craik et al., 2010).

Further reading Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (Ed.). (2016). Content and language integrated learning: Language policy and pedagogic practice. Routledge. This book explores some of the research undertaken on CLIL. It offers an overview of several European contexts, describing experiences that could be extrapolated to many other communities worldwide. Contributions focus on issues related to language policy, moving from high-​level policymaking to grassroots actions. Spolsky, B. (Ed.) (2012). The Cambridge handbook of language policy. Cambridge University Press. This is the first handbook to deal with language policy as a whole and is a complete ‘state-​of-​the-​field’ survey, covering language practices, beliefs about language varieties, and methods and agencies for language management. Toffefson, J.W. & Pérez-​M ilans, M. (Eds.) (2018). The Oxford handbook of language policy and planning. Oxford University Press. This handbook offers a state-​of-​the-​a rt account of research in language policy and planning. The handbook examines the ways in which scholarship in language policy and planning has understood the changing relationship between language policy and planning and political-​economic conditions, and how this changing relationship has shaped knowledge production in the field.

Acknowledgements This article is the result of an extensive review of the literature for the research projects: PID2021122689NB-I00 (Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation) and IT1426-22 (Department of Education, Basque Government).

108

CLIL and educational policy

References Action Plan 2004–​2006 (2005). Promoting language learning and linguistic diversity: Action plan 2004–​06. European Commission, Directorate-​General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture Publications Office. Amengual-​Pizarro, M., & Prieto-​A rra, J.I. (2015). Exploring affective factors in L3 learning: CLIL vs non-​CLIL. In M. Juan-​Garau & J. Salazar-​Noguera (Eds.), Content-​based learning in multilingual educational environments (pp. 197–​220). Springer. Ball, P. (2016). Using language(s) to develop subject competences in CLIL-​based practice. Pulso, 39, 15–​34. British Council. (2014). CLIL policy and practice: Competence-​based education for employability, mobility and growth. www.bri​t ish​coun​cil.org/​sites/​bri​t ish​coun​cil.uk2/​fi les/​clil_ ​re​comm​enda​t ion​s _ ​au​g ust ​_​ 14_​pdf.pdf Bruton, A. (2011). Is CLIL so beneficial, or just selective? Re-​evaluating some of the Research. System, 39, 523–​532. http://​d x.doi.org/​10.1016/​j.sys​tem.2011.08.002 Bruton, A. (2013). CLIL: Some of the reasons why… and why not. System, 41, 587–​597. http://​d x.doi. org/​10.1016/​j.sys​tem.2013.07.001 Cenoz, J. (2015). Content-​based instruction and content and language integrated learning: The same or different? Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28(1), 8–​24. http://​d x.doi.org/​10.1080/​07908​ 318.2014.1000​922 Cenoz, J., Genesee, F., & Gorter, D. (2014). Critical analysis of CLIL: Taking stock and looking forward. Applied Linguistics, 35(3), 243–​262. http://​d x.doi.org/​10.1093/​app​l in/​a mt​011 Clegg, J. (2014). The role of CLIL in developing language and cognitive skills in the Curriculum. In Borg, S. (Ed.), CLIL policy and practice: Competence-​based education for employability, mobility and growth (pp. 83–​94). British Council. Council of Europe. (1995). Council Resolution of 31 March 1995 on improving and diversifying language learning and teaching within the education systems of the European Union. https://​op.eur​opa.eu/​en/​publ​ icat ​ion- ​det​a il/​-​/​publ ​icat ​ion/​2f401​f44-​a faa- ​424c-​a85e-​cbf8e​e3cb​251 Council of Europe. (2002). Presidency conclusions. Barcelona European Council 15–​16 March 2002. https://​ec.eur​opa.eu/​i nv​est-​i n-​resea​rch/​pdf/​down ​load ​_​en/​bar​celo​na_​e​u rop​ean_​coun​cil.pdf Council of Europe. (2006). Recommendation of the European Parliament and the Council of 18 December 2006 on key competences for lifelong learning. https://​eur-​lex.eur​opa.eu/​L ex​UriS​erv/​L ex​UriS​erv. do?uri=​OJ:L:2006:394:0010:0018:en:PDF Council of Europe. (2007). Resolution of the Council of 16 November 2007 on a European agenda for culture. https://​eur-​lex.eur​opa.eu/​legal-​cont​ent/​EN/​T XT/​?uri=​celex%3A320​07G1​129%2801%29 Council of Europe. (2008). Council conclusions of 22 May 2008 on multilingualism. https://​eur-​lex.eur​opa. eu/​legal-​cont​ent/​EN/​T XT/​PDF/​?uri=​CELEX:5200​8XG0​606(03)&-​f rom=​EN Council of Europe. (2018a). Council recommendation of 22 May 2018 on key competences for lifelong learning. https://​eur-​lex.eur​opa.eu/​legal-​cont​ent/​EN/​T XT/​PDF/​?uri=​CELEX:320​18H0​ 604(01)&from=​EN Council of Europe. (2018b). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Companion volume with new descriptors. Strasbourg. Coyle, D. (2007). Content and language integrated learning: Towards a connected research agenda for CLIL pedagogies. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(5), 543–​562. http://​ dx.doi.org/​10.2167/ ​beb​459.0 Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge University Press. Coyle, D., & Meyer, O. (2021). Beyond CLIL: Pluriliteracies teaching for deeper learning. Cambridge University Press. Craik, F.I., Bialystok, E., & Freedman, M. (2010). Delaying the onset of Alzheimer disease: Bilingualism as a form of cognitive reserve. Neurology, 75(19), 1726–​1729. http://​d x.doi.org /​ 10.1212/​W NL.0b013e3181fc2a1c Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Multilingual Matters. Cummins, J. (2001). Bilingual children’s mother tongue: Why is it important for education? Sprog forum, 7(19), 15–​20.

109

Yolanda Ruiz de Zarobe 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. http://​d x.doi.org/​10.1093/​app​l in/​a mu​010 Dearden, J. (2014). English as a medium of instruction: A growing global phenomenon. British Council. Doiz, A., Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. M. (2014). CLIL and motivation: The effect of individual and contextual variables. Language Learning Journal, 42, 209–​224. http://​d x.doi.org/​10.1080/​09571​ 736.2014.889​508 Elorza, I., & Muñoa, I. (2008). Promoting the minority language through integrated plurilingual language planning: The case of the ikastolas. Language Culture and Curriculum, 21(1), 85–​101. http://​ dx.doi.org/​10.2167/​lcc​345.0 European Commission. (1995). White paper on education and training: Teaching and learning –​towards the learning society. https://​op.eur​opa.eu/​en/​publ ​icat​ion-​det​a il/​-​/​publ ​icat​ion/​d0a8a​a7a-​5311- ​4eee-​ 904c-​98fa5​4110​8d8/​langu​a ge-​en European Commission. (2003). Promoting language learning and linguistic diversity 2004–​2006. https://​ op.eur​opa.eu/​en/​publ ​icat ​ion- ​det​a il/​-​/​publ ​icat ​ion/​b3225​824-​b016- ​42fa- ​83f6- ​43d9f​d 2ac​96d European Commission. (2008). Languages and Europe: Language learning. http://​eur​opa.eu/​langua​ges/​ en/​chap​ter/​14. European Commission. (2014). Improving the effectiveness of language learning: CLIL and computer assisted language learning. https://​ec.eur​opa.eu/​educat ​ion/​cont​ent/​i mprov ​i ng-​effect ​iven​ess-​langu​a ge-​learn​ ing-​clil-​a nd-​compu​ter-​a ssis​ted-​langu​a ge-​lear​n ing​_​en European Commission. (n.d). European language policy and CLIL. A selection of EU–​funded projects. http://​w ww.edu.xunta.gal/​cent ​ros/​cpicr ​uce/​sys​tem/​fi les/​clilb​roch ​_​en.pdf European Commission, EACEA, & Eurydice. (2017). Key data on teaching languages at school in Europe –​ 2017 edition. Eurydice report. Publications Office of the European Union. European Parliament. (2000). Lisbon European Council 23 and 24 March 2020. Pesidency conclusions. www.europ​a rl.eur​opa.eu/​summ ​its/​l is1​_​en.htm European Parliament. (2021). Fact sheets on the European Union on language policy. www.europ​a rl.eur​opa. eu/​f ac​t she​ets/​en/​sheet/​142/​langu​a ge-​pol​icy Eurydice. (2006). Content and language integrated learning at school in Europe. Eurydice European Unit. www.ind ​i re.it/​luca​bas/​l kmw_​f​i le/​euryd ​ice/​CLIL ​_ ​EN.pdf Gorter, D., & Cenoz, J. (2017). Language education policy and multilingual assessment. Language and Education, 31(3), 231–​248. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​09500​782.2016.1261​892 Gutiérrez, A., & Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (2019). Training CLIL students to be strategic readers: Is motivation important? In A. Jiménez-​Munoz & A.C. Lahuerta Martínez (Eds.), Empirical studies in multilingualism (pp. 47–​71). Peter Lang. Hüttner, J., Dalton-​Puffer, C., & Smit, U. (2013). The power of beliefs: Lay theories and their influence on the implementation of CLIL programmes. International Journal of Bilingualism and Bilingual Education, 16(3), 267–​284. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​13670 ​050.2013.777​385 Hüttner, J., & Smit, U. (2014). CLIL (content and language integrated learning): The bigger picture. A response to: A. Bruton. 2013. CLIL: Some of the reasons why… and why not. System 41 (2013): 587–​597. System, 44, 160–​167. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.sys​tem.2014.03.001 Johnson, D.C. (2013). Language policy. Palgrave Macmillan. Lasagabaster, D., & Doiz, A. (2017).  A longitudinal study on the impact of CLIL on affective factors. Applied Linguistics, 38(5), 688–712. Lasagabaster, D., & Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (Eds.). (2010). CLIL in Spain: Implementation, results and teacher training. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Llinares, A., & Evnitskaya, N. (2021). Classroom interaction in CLIL programs: Offering opportunities or fostering inequalities? TESOL Quarterly, 55(2), 366–​397. https://​doi.org/​10.1002/​tesq.607 Mehisto, P. & Marsh, D. (2011). Approaching the economic, cognitive and health benefits of bilingualism: Fuel for CLIL. In Y. Ruiz de Zarobe, J. Sierra & F. Gallardo del Puerto (Eds.), Content and language integrated learning: Contributions to multilingualism in European contexts (pp. 21–​48). Peter Lang. Merisuo-​Storm, T. (2007). Pupils’ attitudes towards foreign-​language learning and the development of literacy skills in bilingual education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 226–​235. Meyer, O., Coyle, C., Halbach, A., Schuck, K., & Ting, T. (2015). A pluriliteracies approach to content and language integrated learning –​mapping learner progressions in knowledge construction and meaning-​m aking. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28(1), 41–​57. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​ 07908​318.2014.1000​924

110

CLIL and educational policy Navarro, M., & García Jiménez, E. (2018). Are CLIL students more motivated? An analysis of affective factors and their relation to language attainment. Porta Linguarum, 29, 71–​90. http://​hdl.han​d le. net/​10481/​54023 Nieto Moreno de Diezmas, E. (2016). The impact of CLIL on the acquisition of the learning to learn competence in secondary school education in the bilingual programmes of Castilla-​La Mancha. Porta Linguarum, 2, 21–​34. Nikula, T. (2017). CLIL: A European approach to bilingual education. In N. Van Deusen-​Scholl & S. May (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education (2nd and foreign language ed., pp. 111–​124). Springer. Ouazizi, K. (2016). The effects of CLIL education on the subject matter (mathematics) and the target language (English). Latin American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning, 9(1), 110–​137. http://​d x.doi.org/​10.5294/​lac​l il.2016.9.1.5 Paran, A. (2013). Content and language integrated learning: Panacea or policy borrowing myth? Applied Linguistics Review, 4(2), 317–​342. http://​d x.doi.org/​10.1515/​appli​rev-​2013-​0 014 Pellegrino, J.W. (2017). The two disciplines problem –​‘It’s like déjà vu all over again!’ Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 24(3), 359–​368. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​09695​ 94X.2017.1326​876 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. http://​ dx.doi.org/​10.5565/​rev/​jtl3.667 Pérez Cañado, M.L. (2017). Stopping the ‘pendulum effect’ in CLIL research: Finding the balance between Pollyanna and Scrooge. Applied Linguistics Review, 8(1), 79–​99. http://​d x.doi.org/​10.1515/​ appli​rev-​2016-​2001. Pérez Cañado, M.L. (Ed.). (2021). Content and language integrated learning in monolingual settings: New insights from the Spanish context. Springer. Pfenninger, S. (2016). All good things come in threes: Early English learning, CLIL and motivation in Switzerland. Cahiers de l’ILSL, 48, 119–​147. Piesche, N., Jonkmann, K., Fiege, Ch., & KeBler, J-​U. (2016). CLIL for all? A randomised controlled field experiment with sixth grade students on the effects of content and language integrated science learning. Learning and Instruction, 44, 108–​116. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.learn​i nst​r uc.2016.04.001 Relaño Pastor, A.M. (2015). The commodification of English in ‘Madrid, comunidad bilingüe’: Insights from the CLIL classroom. Language Policy, 14(2), 131–​152. https://​doi.org/​ 10.1007/​s10​993-​014-​9338-​7 Ruiz de Zarobe, Y., & Cenoz, J. (2015). Way forward in the twenty first century in content-​based instruction: moving towards integration. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28(1), 90–​96. http://​ dx.doi.org/​10.1080/​07908​318.2014.1000​927 Ruiz de Zarobe, Y., & Smala, S. (2020). Metacognitive awareness in language learning strategies and strategy instruction in CLIL settings. Journal for the Psychology of Language Learning, 2(2), 20–​35. Shohamy, E. (2006). Language policy: Hidden agendas and new approaches. Routledge. Spolsky, B. (2004). Language policy. Cambridge University Press. Surmont, J., Struys, E., Van Den Noort, M., & Van De Craen, P. (2016). The effects of CLIL on mathematical content learning: A longitudinal study. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 6(2), 319–​337. https://​doi.org/​10.14746/​ssllt.2016.6.2.7 Sylvén, L.K. (2013). CLIL in Sweden –​why does it not work? A metaperspective on CLIL across contexts in Europe. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16(3), 301–​320. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​13670 ​050.2013.777​387 Sylvén, L.K., & Thompson, A.S. (2015). Language learning motivation and CLIL: Is there a connection? Journal of Immersion and Content-​Based Language Education, 3(1), 28–​50. https://​doi.org/​ 10.1075/​jicb.3.1.02syl Tsuchiya, K., & Pérez Murillo, M.D. (2015). Comparing the language policies and the students’ perceptions of CLIL in tertiary education in Spain and Japan. Latin American Journal of Content and Language Integrated Learning, 8(1), 25–​35. https://​doi.org/​10.5294/​lac​l il.2014.8.1.3eI​SSN 2322-​9721

111

112

8 L2 PROFICIENCY AND DEVELOPMENT IN CLIL Christiane Dalton-​Puffer and Silvia Bauer-​Marschallinger

Introduction The main reason for the introduction of CLIL in Europe was to counteract shortcomings of traditional approaches to language teaching (see white paper of the European Commission, 1995; Pérez-​Vidal, 2009) and so, unsurprisingly, research checking on its effectiveness has played an important role from the start. Early studies on the impact of CLIL on foreign language proficiency tended to report positive effects, as noted by Goris et al. (2019) or Olsson (2015). However, some of these results have been problematised (e.g., Bruton, 2011) because of methodological flaws in their statistical procedures, or absence of pre-​tests (e.g., Fernández-​ Sanjurjo et al., 2019; Graham et al., 2018; San Isidro & Lasagabaster, 2019). Another critique is that participation in CLIL programmes is often voluntary and that they seem to attract more linguistically proficient, gifted, and/​or more motivated students coming from higher socio-​economic backgrounds (i.e., the so-​called ‘selection bias’) (Bruton, 2011; Graham et al., 2018; Möller, 2017; Van Mensel, Hiligsmann et al., 2020). The resulting creaming effect has led to the connotation of CLIL education as an elitist programme (Rumlich, 2020) that benefits only high-​achievers (e.g., Bruton, 2011; Fung & Yip, 2014; Paran, 2013). More recent outcome-​oriented CLIL studies have examined the selection bias (e.g., Dallinger et al., 2018; Martínez-​Agudo, 2019; Pérez Cañado, 2020) and have become more methodologically sophisticated (Goris, Chapter 6, this volume; Granados et al., 2021; Pérez Cañado, 2020). With growing global interest, CLIL research has also become more geographically widespread, resulting in a wider range of CLIL contexts investigated. This new generation of studies tend to report more differentiated and more mixed results than earlier ones, casting doubt on the automatic effectiveness of CLIL (e.g., see literature reviews by Goris et al., 2019; Graham et al., 2018). At the same time, CLIL practice has also undergone considerable changes as in many contexts and across educational levels CLIL has become obligatory, thereby changing the parameters and requirements for successful CLIL provision (Madrid & Pérez Cañado, 2018; Rumlich, 2020) and ultimately making CLIL more inclusive. In fact, a recent study by Granados et al. (2021) shows that under the conditions of the inclusive Andalusian CLIL programme, secondary-​level students from lower socio-​ economic backgrounds will experience advantages not only in terms of English but also in terms of their L1 (Spanish) and history learning. 112

DOI: 10.4324/9781003173151-11

L2 proficiency and development in CLIL

At the outset of this review on language proficiency and development in CLIL we need to defuse potentially overstretched expectations with regard to the degree of generalisability of the research results we report. The label CLIL describes a type of educational programme. Consequently, a wide range of pedagogies will be found in actual CLIL classrooms across the numerous contexts where CLIL is practised. Since classroom pedagogy has a strong influence on how language is used, it will be a strong determinant on what aspects of language can be acquired or learned, as the actual pedagogical decisions are down to local as well as subject-​ specific traditions and individual teacher choices. Additionally, a wide range of contingent factors will impact on language learning outcomes: structure of programme and amount of exposure, teacher language competence, students’ language proficiency at the onset of the CLIL programme, cognitive maturity, academic ability, motivation, and also amount of extramural exposure to the CLIL language. The reader will encounter them as intervening variables in the studies reported on below. While the relationship between the notions of language proficiency and language competence is by no means straightforward (see Llurda, 2000), virtually all the studies we are reporting on work on the understanding that there exists some underlying reservoir of knowledge that finds expression in learners’ reactions to test items or tasks. It is assumed to be measurable and quantifiable and therefore comparable to that of other learners. In that sense, it would probably be fair to say that most studies see language competence as a context-​independent concept. At the same time, this abstract measurable competence is operationalised in strikingly different ways in different studies. This is not trivial, as there is no absolute certainty that each operationalisation reflects the assumed underlying competence with the same degree of completeness or reliability. Some studies use pre-​existing, often commercially available, language tests (e.g., Cambridge KET, IELTS, Oxford Placement Test) or national scholastic assessment instruments. Some studies select specific aspects of such tests, depending on specific research questions but often also on doability. Sometimes, researchers develop their own test batteries, which can be ecologically more valid if test-​t asks echo learners’ classroom experiences and are developed in consultation with participants’ teachers. Overall, there seems to be agreement that ‘no single skill can give a balanced view of general proficiency’ (Verspoor et al., 2015, p. 14) so that at least two skills or aspects thereof are commonly combined in studies on the language development of CLIL students. To take account of the impact of CLIL on second language development on the basis of recent research an integrative literature review was conducted, with the review period being set between January 2015 and March 2021, starting at a time when empirical studies in reaction to earlier criticism began to appear in larger numbers. An integrative literature review is a method of secondary research that summarises past empirical research systematically and comprehensively, often focused on practice-​related issues in order to enable evidence-​based practice (e.g., Whittemore & Knafl, 2005). Unlike a meta-​a nalysis, an integrative literature review can include studies with different methodologies, e.g., quantitative and qualitative studies, providing more flexibility (Whittemore & Knafl, 2005), which is needed to capture the complexities of the CLIL research scene. First, relevant studies examining linguistic attainment in primary and secondary CLIL contexts were selected based on their abstracts and keywords, using scientific data bases as sources. The selected titles were fed into an online literature management program which both authors could access (Citavi 6.8). In this program, studies were evaluated in terms of relevance to the research objective (i.e., data reduction, see Whittemore & Knafl, 2005) and then further categorised, compared, and examined using the tools provided by Citavi (e.g., knowledge items, annotation, or research log). Reflecting the current status of CLIL practice and CLIL research, this 113

Christiane Dalton-Puffer and Silvia Bauer-Marschallinger

review mostly features contexts where the foreign language used is English; yet a few studies investigating other CLIL languages such as French, Dutch, or German were also included. Moreover, although CLIL research is increasingly diversifying in terms of geographical context, research from some countries, especially Spain, but also the Netherlands or Germany, dominates our corpus due to the greater number of publications originating from there. Our review will be structured in the following way: First, studies investigating vocabulary and grammar will be reviewed, before moving on to studies focusing on the four skills, split into receptive (listening, reading) and productive skills (speaking, writing). Some studies cover several skills and systems, each of which are then discussed in the respective sections.

The two systems: vocabulary and grammar Of the two language systems, vocabulary and grammar, the former has received considerably more attention than the latter. As vocabulary tends to be the only linguistic aspect that receives explicit attention in CLIL classrooms (Hüttner et al., 2013; O Ceallaigh et al., 2017) while other aspects are assumed to evolve solely through exposure and meaningful engagement with content (Skinnari & Bovellan, 2016), it is not surprising that vocabulary growth has often been the object of outcome-​focused studies. Starting with receptive vocabulary, the majority of studies report a positive effect of CLIL. For example, a positive and statistically significant impact on vocabulary size was reported in Agustín Llach and Canga Alonso (2016), Bayram et al. (2019), Castro-​García (2017), Canga Alonso (2015a), Iglesias Diéguez and Martínez-​Adrián (2017), and Sylvén and Ohlander (2019), who all used the Vocabulary Levels Test (VLT) (Schmitt et al., 2001), partly among other tests. However, some studies (e.g., Canga Alonso, 2015b; Iglesias Diéguez & Martínez-​ Adrián, 2017) have pointed out that the CLIL groups’ advantage decreases or even disappears when compared with groups who experienced similar amounts of exposure via EFL lessons (and are therefore older). Also comparing the vocabulary size of CLIL primary and non-​ CLIL secondary learners, Fernández Fontecha (2014, 2015) found that the secondary mainstream learners were ahead of their CLIL primary peers. Here, motivation was found to be a predictor for vocabulary size in the primary group in Fernández Fontecha (2015) and in the secondary cohort in Fernández Fontecha (2014). Similarly, in Arribas’ (2016) study, higher VLT results in the CLIL group were not statistically significant; yet motivation correlated positively with vocabulary size. Zooming in on the question of whether hours of exposure or programme type play a bigger role, Castellano-​R isco et al. (2020) compared secondary EFL learners with 1,200 hours of exposure with three different CLIL groups, namely early CLIL learners (~3,000 hours), standard CLIL learners (~2,400 hours), and late CLIL learners (~2,000 hours), who were all 14 to 15 years old. Again using the VLT (2k and academic), Castellano-​R isco et al. (2020) found that differences in exposure did not lead to statistically significant differences between CLIL groups; yet all CLIL groups outperformed their EFL-​only peers to a statistically significant degree. For this reason, Castellano-​R isco et al. (2020) conclude that instructional setting (CLIL versus non-​ CLIL) plays a bigger role than actual hours of exposure. Digging deeper into the differences of how vocabulary is acquired, Castellano-​ Risco (2018) compared the vocabulary sizes (Yes/​No questionnaire; Meara, 2010) and self-​ reported vocabulary learning strategies of CLIL and non-​CLIL secondary learners. The results suggest that the CLIL cohort indeed presents a significantly larger vocabulary and that they use vocabulary learning strategies differently. Looking into whether the vocabulary of CLIL learners in trilingual programmes develop differently in different CLIL languages in a 114

L2 proficiency and development in CLIL

Flemish context, Baten et al. (2020) found that both French and English vocabulary grow at similar, impressive rates within the same cohort, yet at different levels with results in English exceeding French. Along with Arribas (2016), Gierlinger and Wagner (2016) is one of the few studies that report a neutral effect on receptive vocabulary. They compared non-​CLIL and experimental CLIL cohorts in a non-​selective, mixed-​ability context and found that differences between groups were not significant. Analysing young learners’ vocabulary sizes, Agustín Llach (2015, p. 557) also reported neutral results, arguing that ‘the young age of the learners may impose certain cognitive constraints on expression and metalinguistic awareness that might override hours of instruction and the beneficial communicative nature of the CLIL approach’. This corresponds to a later study by Agustín Llach and Canga Alonso (2016), where differences between CLIL and non-​CLIL learners only started to become statistically significant in the final year tested (sixth grade primary). Turning to productive vocabulary, the picture seems quite mixed. A number of studies suggest a positive, but oftentimes small impact of CLIL (Agustín Llach, 2016; Bayram et al., 2019; Heras & Lasagabaster, 2015; Jiménez Catalán & Agustín Llach, 2017; Navarro Gil, 2019). As has been observed for receptive vocabulary, age and cognitive maturity seem to play a bigger role than educational programme. For example, Agustín Llach and Jiménez Catalán (2018) found that the lexical profiles of adult EFL learners at CEFR level A2 were denser, more diverse, and more accurate than those of a CLIL group at primary level (also at A2). Comparing two cohorts at the same (young) age, Agustín Llach (2016) found only a small, statistically insignificant advantage of CLIL learners. Qualitatively, however, the CLIL learners’ written productions contained increasingly fewer borrowings from L1, more lexical creations typical for more proficient learners, as well as more infrequent vocabulary. Again, Agustín Llach (2016, p. 92) hypothesises that the young age of these learners ‘might be blocking further CLIL and exposure time advantages’. This hypothesis seems to hold in a later study by Jiménez Catalán and Agustín Llach (2017) where older, eighth-​g rade CLIL learners scored better in a lexical availability task than their non-​CLIL peers both at Grade 8 and 10. With regard to academic vocabulary, the results are somewhat mixed too. In a study by Olsson and Sylvén (2019), the CLIL groups did not increase their use of academic vocabulary in their essays more than their non-​CLIL peers. Findings of an earlier study by Olsson and Sylvén (2015) suggest that learners who spend more time with English in informal, extramural contexts, which is often the case for CLIL learners, did not have a stronger progression in their academic vocabulary use. Olsson (2015) could further show that the CLIL effect is not statistically significant if one controls for initial differences. In her study, academic vocabulary use was higher in the CLIL cohort even before starting the programme; yet then the CLIL group’s progress did not outpace that of their non-​CLIL peers, hinting towards a ceiling effect. Considering the use of subject-​specific vocabulary as well, results do not paint an overly positive picture either. For example, Tragant et al.’s (2016) study at primary level suggests that an EFL project yielded better lexical outcomes than a CLIL project with the same cohort. Moreover, the learners reported to struggle with subject-​specific vocabulary taught in the CLIL science project. As for lexicogrammatical aspects, fewer studies have been conducted, but again it seems that age and cognitive maturity trumps type of instruction. For instance, when matched for hours of instruction, the experimental group did not outperform the older control group in studies by Juan-​Garau et al. (2015) or Artieda et al. (2017). Comparing groups at the same age, the CLIL group in the study by Artieda et al. (2017) scored significantly better than the 115

Christiane Dalton-Puffer and Silvia Bauer-Marschallinger

same-​aged EFL learners in terms of lexical richness and productive use of grammar and lexis, but again not in the grammaticality judgement test (GJT) and the multiple-​choice grammar tests. Yet, comparing the trajectories of learners at the same age, who also presented the same initial levels in cloze and fill-​the-​g ap tense and aspect tests, Juan-​Garau et al. (2015) showed that the CLIL group’s performance improved more considerably than their mainstream peers’ (control group), who only started to improve at a statistically significant degree after the second year of instruction. Lorenzo et al. (2019) took a longitudinal perspective as well, quantitatively analysing the written productions of secondary CLIL history learners over the course of three years. Concerning syntax, they report a statistically significant increase of complexity and density, co-​occurring with increasing length of paragraphs and more abstract lexis. However, no statistically significant changes could be reported for other dimensions in focus, e.g., cohesion or lexical diversity. Looking at the phraseological competence of Belgian CLIL and non-​CLIL learners both in terms of range and accuracy, Bulon’s (2020) findings suggest that the CLIL learners produced significantly more and more varied phrasemes. In terms of accuracy, non-​CLIL learners made significantly more phraseological errors, e.g., when using prepositions and articles. Möller (2017) analysed the passive constructions in written learner productions, comparing learners who opted for CLIL (CLIL+​), learners who deliberately did not choose CLIL (CLIL–​), and those for whom CLIL was not available but where the school type is considered selective, attracting high-​achieving students (CLIL0). Möller (2017) found that the non-​CLIL groups, including the CLIL0 but especially the CLIL–​group, avoided passive structures more frequently and used less varied structures than their CLIL+​counterparts. Moreover, CLIL+​essays contained only few errors regarding the use of passive and were somewhat comparable with native-​speaker essays in the LOCNESS corpus. Thus, it seems that it is not just the selectivity of the programme that plays a role, but potentially also the type of instruction and educational setting. Comparing rural and urban CLIL settings in terms of lexicogrammar, Alejo and Piquer-​Píriz (2016) also found that the social milieu as an indicator of socio-​economic status accounts for most of the variance in linguistic attainment outcomes. Taking a different angle, Segura et al. (2021) conducted a longitudinal study about the efficacy of a CLIL programme by testing reading, writing, and lexicogrammatical skills and cross-​sectional progress of CLIL learners in 2017 aged eight, 11, and 14, in comparison to the results of learners at the onset of the programme in 2005. Interestingly, gains for grammatical knowledge, as measured via error correction tests and GJT were higher in 2005. However, entry levels were significantly higher in 2017 than in 2005, whereas final levels did not show statistically significant differences (with the 2017 values being higher), which points towards a certain ceiling effect according to Segura et al. (2021), matching the findings by Olsson (2015).

Receptive skills Listening Looking back at Canadian immersion research, which tended to report native-​like listening comprehension skills of bilingual learners (e.g., Genesee, 1983), it seemed only logical to expect something similar from CLIL learners, but the outcomes reported below are less than straightforward. 116

L2 proficiency and development in CLIL

In studies of global language competence, listening results tend to concur with those of the other competence dimensions, which show a clear advantage of CLIL students over EFL-​ only controls. However, these differences do not always reach statistical significance (Pérez-​ Vidal & Roquet, 2015). Despite this fact, it came as a surprise when Pladevall-​Ballester and Vallbona’s (2016) longitudinal study of 287 primary learners’ receptive skills revealed that the EFL-​only control group significantly outperformed the CLIL group on the listening tests over the two final primary years (Grades 5 and 6). The authors conclude that ‘EFL-​ only exposure is more effective in the development of young learners’ listening skills in the short-​term’ (p. 47). Analogous results are reported by Nieto Moreno de Diezmas (2018) who analysed the English listening performance of a whole Spanish province’s Grade 4 and grade 8 cohorts (with around 40,000 participants in all). Concurring with Pladevall-​Ballester and Vallbona (2016), Nieto Moreno de Diezmas (2018) observes that CLIL programmes at secondary level appear to promote listening skills more effectively and suggests a cumulative effect of long-​term CLIL as an explanation. An additional reason proposed by Nieto Moreno de Diezmas (2018) is the fact that in this context, primary CLIL is taught by language specialists rather than content teachers, which implies a relatively small difference between CLIL and regular EFL lessons in terms of teaching practices. This explanation is underscored by the fact that secondary CLIL learners, whose CLIL lessons are taught by content specialists, are particularly good at the more complex, top-​down listening subskills, such as grasping semantic relations, which might be connected to interaction with cognitively more demanding subject content. Importantly, Nieto Moreno de Diezmas’ (2018) study is the only one to explicitly consider these subskills. Listening remains the least researched of the four skills.

Reading An overview by Pladevall-​Ballester (2016) of pre-​2015 studies from Spain and the Netherlands observed clear CLIL advantages in reading scores, whereas the post-​2015 studies surveyed for this chapter show a less uniform picture. At primary education level, Plavedall-​Ballester and Vallbona (2016) tested 138 CLIL and 149 EFL-​only students, where CLIL meant one extra weekly hour of exposure to English. The study extended over the two academic years when participants attended Grades 5 and 6. Over that timespan, both groups’ mean scores grew, with differences between mean scores remaining below statistical significance at all of the data collections. Interestingly in this study, while the controls had been weaker than the CLIL group at the time of the pre-​test, they overtook the CLIL group at T2, with the CLIL group progressively catching up by T3. The researchers explain this with CLIL learners needing time to adjust to the new programme. They also argue that CLIL might need a cumulative effect for it to produce robust positive effects on second language reading. Their argument that the initial reading lag of the CLIL group might also be due to the higher difficulty of CLIL reading content is valid only if one assumed that reading more complex content in CLIL negatively interfered with the CLIL group’s ability to read straight EFL texts. In an analysis of a subset of the above data, Pladevall-​Ballester (2016) found that science as a CLIL subject was slightly more effective than arts and crafts. The same comparison had yielded a significant advantage of CLIL-​ science for the skill of listening. The author concludes that different school subjects may support skills development in different ways. To our knowledge, no other study has pursued this interesting and practically relevant question; the possibility of local differences in the teaching traditions of school subjects must, however, be factored in. 117

Christiane Dalton-Puffer and Silvia Bauer-Marschallinger

Learners in the Balearic Islands (Spain) were followed by Prieto-​A rranz et al. (2015) starting in Grade 7. The reading abilities of CLIL and non-​CLIL learners (CLIL =​50, non-​CLIL =​37) were tested four times over a period of three academic years. After eliminating outliers, results show the overall learning curve of the CLIL group to be steeper than that of the EFL-​only learners but with an interesting differentiation: both groups scored very similarly throughout on the General Reading part of the test, meaning that the CLIL group’s learning advantage stemmed mostly from their better ability to deal with the Specific Knowledge Reading part of the test. Matching for hours of exposure and age was applied in the study by Artieda et al. (2017) involving 50 CLIL and 50 EFL-​only students who were Catalan-​Spanish bilinguals. Participants were tested with cloze reading tests on a science topic in two consecutive school years. Ability and motivation to study a foreign language were controlled for. When matched for hours of exposure, the older (EFL-​only) learners did not exhibit a reading advantage (contrary to listening, where they did). In fact, the group means were almost identical. When learners were matched for age (13–​14 years old), the CLIL group did have a statistically significant lead in reading over the EFL-​only group. Incidentally, the same was the case for lexical richness in writing, two aspects of language competence known to correlate. The largest reading study has so far been carried out in Sweden by Sylvén and Ohlander (2019), who used data from the English reading comprehension part of the Swedish Scholastic Assessment Test (SweSAT, a cloze test) to compare CLIL and non-​CLIL learners over their three senior high school years. Both groups increased their English reading abilities, but the CLIL group had a steeper learning curve (see Prieto-​A rranz et al., 2015 above). In addition, the CLIL students’ reading abilities became more homogenous, as indicated by the smaller standard deviation at T2. Nonetheless, CLIL-​students found it challenging to unlock argumentative text structure, which suggests that their better scores are probably due to their larger vocabulary rather than higher-​level reading skills as such. The authors call for pedagogical attention to argumentative structure and logical relations in text. Such focused reading instruction has been the subject of a study by Ruiz de Zarobe and Zenotz (2018) showing that CLIL learners profit from it to a statistically significant extent. A reading strategy training intervention was carried out with 50 CLIL learners (with another 50 CLIL learners as controls) in a pre-​test, post-​test, delayed post-​test design. It is noteworthy that the reading strategy training seemed to have a persistent effect for the experimental group, which showed two years after the intervention, and also prompted a positive cross-​language transfer into Spanish and Basque reading competences. A number of different reading instruction intervention studies in various contexts underscore their effectiveness (Bayram et al., 2019; Hamidavi et al., 2016; Quintana Aguilera et al., 2019). Bayram et al. (2019) add that the significantly better post-​test results of the CLIL group could be explained with the amount of interaction the learners were required to have with the knowledge presented in the texts in their intervention. While the EFL controls simply had to understand and remember to solve reading comprehension items, the experimental group had to reorganise information, transfer between different modalities, create outputs, compare facts, etc. Following Hamidavi et al. (2016), we suggest that it would be interesting to research qualitative aspects of reading in CLIL versus EFL: the amount of non-​verbal elements in texts, the more likely promotion of higher cognitive skills through subject-​ specific texts rather than typical EFL texts, or the different constellation of purposes for reading.

118

L2 proficiency and development in CLIL

Productive skills Speaking In this section, we mainly review studies that investigated speaking (operationalised as reading aloud, storytelling, interviews, or role-​plays) via holistic rating scales, sometimes in combination with in-​depth quantitative analysis of dimensions like quantity, fluency, accuracy, lexical density, or coherence. Other aspects we review are pronunciation, interactional competence, and learner perceptions regarding progress in speaking. Two longitudinal studies using homogenous samples for the CLIL and control groups (Pérez Cañado & Lancaster, 2017; San Isidro & Lasagabaster, 2019) showed improvement over time for all their secondary education participants but higher (statistically significant) gains for the CLIL groups. According to Pérez Cañado and Lancaster (2017, p. 309), the greatest difference could be observed in spoken interaction with CLIL students showing better ‘control of more sophisticated functions in the realm of giving opinions, expressing preferences, agreeing and disagreeing’. Using a story telling task (Frog Story), studies by Martínez-​ Adrián and Gutiérrez Mangado (2015) and Gallardo-​del-​Puerto and Gómez Lacabex (2017) found that secondary CLIL students are more fluent and concise storytellers than the controls, capable of using communication strategies that do not rely on L1. Their stories show greater lexical richness and more consistent use of tenses. While not all variables reach statistical significance, the overall trend is uniformly in favour of the CLIL students. The only variable which showed no difference between groups was pronunciation. A small group of studies focusing specifically on pronunciation present a more differentiated picture: accent per se as well as some fluency measures seem indeed unaffected, at least where input was from non-​native CLIL teachers and/​or no explicit instruction took place (Gómez Lacabex & Gallardo-​del-​Puerto, 2020; Rallo Fabra & Jacob, 2015). An earlier study showed, however, that intelligibility and degree of irritation (as reported by NS judges) were significantly better for the CLIL group (Gallardo-​del-​Puerto et al., 2009). The most obvious speaking affordance of CLIL lessons is probably their potential for fostering classroom interactional competence in the CLIL language (Escobar Urmeneta & Walsh, 2017; Nightingale & Safont, 2019). Teachers’ questions and evaluative feedback play a major role in guiding students towards utterances with a higher degree of discursive elaboration. However, ‘the scarcity of teacher elicitations aimed at more elaborated learner responses may limit the development of academic discourse’ (Escobar Urmeneta & Walsh, 2017, p. 183; see also Llinares & Pascual Peña, 2015). On the other hand, group-​work provides learners with the opportunity to act out symmetrical roles and assume conversational responsibilities in the management of interaction (Escobar Urmeneta & Walsh, 2017), while role-​plays provide ‘opportunities to produce speech functions … that may be unavailable in other types of classroom interaction’ (Llinares & Morton, 2017, p. 142). Over and beyond measures based on constructs of oral competence or discourse competence, there is the learners’ perception of their own progress. In this respect, the upshot of several studies is that CLIL lessons have potential for reducing speaking anxiety. In a rare study with French as the CLIL language, Lamb and King (2020) found that a ten-​ week intervention in a physical education context (N =​42) exerted a positive influence on students’ feelings of self-​confidence, illuminating the potential of the practical environment for developing active spontaneous speaking in French and decreasing sensitivity to negative judgement. The 403 participants in the study by Arribas (2016) report listening and speaking

119

Christiane Dalton-Puffer and Silvia Bauer-Marschallinger

as the most positively influenced skills amid a generally critical attitude towards their CLIL experience.

Writing Writing is a difficult skill to develop (also in L1) because many different subskills have to be deployed simultaneously. It is thus logical that complex constructs are needed when CLIL learner writing is analysed. Quantitative measures include various dimensions of complexity, accuracy, and fluency. Qualitative measures are obtained via holistic rating scales using the dimensions of task fulfilment, text organisation, lexical and syntactic sophistication, accuracy, and mechanics. Several studies have employed a combination of the two and correlations between quantitative and qualitative measures are high (e.g., Lahuerta, 2017). In the Netherlands, Verspoor et al. (2015) tested groups (CLIL, controls) of Grade 6 and 8 learners on an informal writing task using holistic scoring. The controls were matched with the CLIL students for scholastic aptitude and the results showed that the CLIL students, ‘despite all the extra hours of English input, did not improve relatively more than the controls’ (p. 19), but maintained the advantage which had probably prompted them to join a bilingual stream in the first place. As in other competence areas, most research with regard to CLIL effects on writing has been conducted in Spain. In an early round of studies, which appeared around 2015, results showed an advantage for CLIL learners across a broad range of quantitative writing measures. For example, Gené-​Gil et al. (2015) contrasted the writing of a group of CLIL (N =​30) and non-​CLIL (N =​20) students over a period of three school-​years (from 13 to 16 years old). Before the onset of CLIL, both groups were very similar in their writing performance. After three academic years, the non-​CLIL group wrote more accurately and lexically complex, whereas the CLIL students had improved in all domains analysed (such as syntactic complexity). Similar results were obtained by Lahuerta (2015) with a cohort of 399 third-​and fourth-​g raders, as well as by Roquet and Pérez-​Vidal (2017), the latter specifically with regard to writing accuracy. More recent studies conducted in Spain often use designs with a three-​way comparison between CLIL and non-​CLIL students of the same grade as well as non-​CLIL students of a higher grade, who have had the same amount of exposure to English as the CLIL students (e.g., Artieda et al., 2017). In these studies, it turns out that the initial CLIL advantage does not persist in all aspects, and older EFL-​only learners significantly outperform the CLIL learners, with whom they were matched for exposure, with regard to accuracy and cohesion. In other words, time is significant not only in terms of hours of exposure but also in terms of cognitive maturity of the learners, allowing EFL-​only learners to gain ground vis-​à-​v is their CLIL counterparts. However, findings are not uniform, and Lahuerta’s (2020) results on accuracy in the writing of 393 ninth-​and tenth-​g raders showed that for the CLIL group, all types of errors decreased during the observation period while among the EFL-​only group, only lexicogrammatical errors decreased significantly. Since different studies work with different age groups, their differing results may be because different aspects of the writing skill are particularly amenable to development at a certain age. When qualitative measures are applied, CLIL students do, however, tend to achieve higher scores for the overall quality of their texts (Artieda et al., 2017; Lahuerta, 2017). In a study involving not only English but also Dutch as CLIL-​language, Van Mensel, Bulon et al. (2020) were interested in whether the impact of formal and informal input differs depending on target language. Based on the writing of 412 Grade 11 learners from 120

L2 proficiency and development in CLIL

Wallonia (L1 French) who studied mostly history and geography in their respective target languages, it turned out that for the quality of their writing in English, formal input was decisive, whereas the scores for texts written in Dutch correlated strongly with the amount of informal, extramural input the learners received. That explicit writing instruction is effective is shown in two recent studies: Using a pre-​ test–​post-​test design, Breeze and Gerns Jiménez-​Villarejo (2019) investigated a two-​week academic writing instruction module in the subject of history (N =​45, 14–​15-​year-​olds) where learners were taught writing prompt analysis, collaborative composition, as well as text organisation and linking devices. Remarkably, the two-​week intervention triggered a marked improvement in answers to the prompts (more elaborate, more structured, more explicit links, more aware of reader needs). Similarly, in a 35-​hour soft-​CLIL intervention (carried out in the context of an EFL course) with 17–​19-​year-​old baccalaureate students in Ecuador (soft-​CLIL =​40, EFL-​only =​38), Chumbay and Quito Ochoa (2020) demonstrated that a compact seven-​week intervention led to significant improvement on all dimensions of the writing construct (syntax, content, communication task achievement, organisation). In view of the pre-​intervention language competence scores in both groups, the study suggests that a content-​focused writing intervention may be an apt way to reach out to students who are less interested in foreign language lessons.

Conclusion Since CLIL is not a standardised treatment given to standardised learners, generalisations that would unequivocally establish the status of CLIL as a kind of miracle foreign language pill are unwarranted. Nonetheless, the research results we have reported in this chapter do, in their majority, show positive effects of CLIL on participants’ foreign language proficiency and have some important implications for research and practice. First, positive CLIL effects are more pronounced in contexts where outcomes of foreign language teaching are traditionally low. This suggests that it is not only the extra exposure provided by CLIL but also the meaning-​focused nature of its pedagogical design, which are probably under-​represented in some learners’ typical EFL classrooms, that are responsible for the faster learning pace of CLIL students in some contexts (see Goris et al., 2019; Rumlich, 2020). Second, studies at secondary level show more pronounced CLIL effects than those at primary level. The significance of cognitive maturity is further underscored by older EFL groups outperforming younger CLIL groups sharing the same amount of exposure to the target language. These findings suggest that an early start is less important than a firm base in the CLIL language and a certain degree of cognitive maturity. However, there are also indications for a ceiling effect towards the end of secondary schooling. Third, as learning is mediated by classroom experience also in the case of CLIL, the pedagogical design of CLIL lessons is crucial. Learner-​centred pedagogies combined with cognitively engaging content seem particularly well suited to strengthen language-​muscles. What is more, explicit instruction on language aspects of the CLIL subject trumps implicit learning, but pedagogical traditions of different subjects may stand in the way. The studies reported in this chapter examined linguistic attainment as a context-​ independent concept rather than from a subject-​specific perspective. Yet in CLIL, language is a tool to engage with and communicate subject-​specific content and is thus an essential part of subject-​specific skills. Therefore, it appears that considering only ‘general’ L2 outcomes does not suffice. Recently, research into subject literacies has gained momentum, usually indicating that CLIL learners indeed improve their subject-​specific language skills 121

Christiane Dalton-Puffer and Silvia Bauer-Marschallinger

or that their L2 productions are comparable to L1 output (e.g., Nashaat-​Sobhy & Llinares, 2020). With these studies often using qualitative methods, more quantitative research into the effectiveness of CLIL for subject-​specific language skills is needed. What has also become clear is that only few of the studies reported here are longitudinal and/​or set in inclusive contexts. Such studies, however, would be needed to accurately reflect current CLIL practice, providing a solid base to further improve CLIL instruction in diverse contexts.

Further reading Goris, J., Denessen, E., & Verhoeven, L. T. (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. Graham, K., Choi, Y., Davoodi, A., Razmeh, S., & Dixon, L. (2018). Language and content outcomes of CLIL and EMI: A systematic review. Latin American Journal of Content and Language Integrated Learning, 11(1), 19–​37. The following book explores and offers practical insights into how to include explicit instruction in content-​a nd-​language-​i ntegrative settings: Tedick, D.J., & Lyster, R. (2019). Scaffolding language development in immersion and dual language classrooms. Routledge.

References Agustín Llach, M.P. (2015). The effects of the CLIL approach in young foreign language learners’ lexical profiles. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 20(5), 557–​573. https://​doi. org/​10.1080/​13670​050.2015.1103​208 Agustín Llach, M.P. (2016). Age and type of instruction (CLIC vs. traditional EFL) in lexical development. International Journal of English Studies, 16(1), 75–​96. Agustín Llach, M.P., & Canga Alonso, A. (2016). Vocabulary growth in young CLIL and traditional EFL learners: Evidence from research and implications for education. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 26(2), 211–​227. https://​doi.org/​10.1111/​ijal.12090 Agustín Llach, M.P., & Jiménez Catalán, R.M. (2018). Teasing out the role of age and exposure in EFL learners’ lexical profiles: A comparison of children and adults. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 56(1), 25–​43. Alejo, R., & Piquer-​Píriz, A. (2016). Urban vs. rural CLIL: An analysis of input-​related variables, motivation and language attainment. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 29(3), 245–​262. https://​doi. org/​10.1080/​07908​318.2016.1154​068 Arribas, M. (2016). Analysing a whole CLIL school: Students’ attitudes, motivation, and receptive vocabulary outcomes. Latin American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning, 9(2), 267–​ 292. https://​doi.org/​10.5294/​lac​l il.2016.9.2.2 Artieda, G., Roquet, H., & Nicolás-​Conesa, F. (2017). The impact of age and exposure on EFL achievement in two learning contexts: Formal instruction and formal instruction +​content and language integrated learning (CLIL). International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9(4), 1–​19. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​13670 ​050.2017.1373​059 Baten, K., van Hiel, S., & Cuypere, L. de. (2020). Vocabulary development in a CLIL context: A comparison between French and English L2. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 10(2), 307–​336. Bayram, D., Öztürk, R. Ö., & Atay, D. (2019). Reading comprehension and vocabulary size of CLIL and non-​CLIL students: A comparative study. Language Teaching and Educational Research, 2(2), 101–​ 113. https://​doi.org/​10.35207/​later.639​337 Breeze, R., & Gerns Jiménez-​Villarejo, P. (2019). Building literacies in secondary school history: The specific contribution of academic writing support. EuroAmerican Journal of Applied Linguistics and Languages, 6(1), 21–​36. https://​doi.org/​10.21283/​23769​05X.10.149 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.sys​tem.2011.08.002

122

L2 proficiency and development in CLIL Bulon, A. (2020). Comparing the ‘phrasicon’ of teenagers in immersive and non-​ i mmersive settings: Does input quantity impact range and accuracy? Journal of Immersion and Content-​Based Language Education, 8(1), 107–​136. Canga Alonso, A. (2015a). The receptive vocabulary size of Spanish 5th grade primary school students in CLIL and non-​CLIL instruction. ES, 36, 63–​85. Canga Alonso, A. (2015b). Receptive vocabulary of CLIL and non-​CLIL primary and secondary school learners. Complutense Journal of English Studies, 23, 59–​77. Castellano-​R isco, I. (2018). Receptive vocabulary and learning strategies in secondary school CLIL and non-​CLIL learners. Onomázein Revista De Lingüística Filología Y Traducción, 40, 28–​48. Castellano-​R isco, I., Alejo-​González, R., & Piquer-​Píriz, A.M. (2020). The development of receptive vocabulary in CLIL vs EFL: Is the learning context the main variable? System, 91, 102263. https://​ doi.org/​10.1016/​j.sys​tem.2020.102​263 Castro-​García, D. (2017). Receptive vocabulary measures for EFL Costa Rican high school students. International Journal of English Studies, 17(2), 81–​99. Chumbay, J., & Quito Ochoa, J.F. (2020). Language-​d riven CLIL: Developing written production at the secondary school level. English Language Teaching, 13(8), 74–​90. Dallinger, S., Jonkmann, K., & Hollm, J. (2018). Selectivity of content and language integrated learning programmes in German secondary schools. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21(1), 93–​104. Escobar Urmeneta, C., & Walsh, S. (2017). Classroom interactional competence in content and language integrated learning. In A. Llinares & T. Morton (Eds.), Applied linguistics perspectives on CLIL (pp. 183–​200). John Benjamins. European Commission. (1995). Teaching and learning: Towards the learning society. White paper on education and training. Fernández Fontecha, A. (2014). Receptive vocabulary knowledge and motivation in CLIL and EFL. Revista de Lingüística y Lenguas Aplicadas, 9, 23–​32. Fernández Fontecha, A. (2015). Motivation and vocabulary breadth in CLIL and EFL contexts: Different age, same time of exposure. Complutense Journal of English Studies, 23, 79–​96. https://​doi.org/​ 10.5209/​rev_​C​J ES.2015.v23.51214 Fernández-​Sanjurjo, J., Fernández-​Costales, A., & Arias Blanco, J. M. (2019). Analysing students’ content-​learning in science in CLIL vs. non-​CLIL programmes: Empirical evidence from Spain. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 22(6), 661–​674. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​ 13670​050.2017.1294​142 Fung, D., & Yip, V. (2014). The effects of the medium of instruction in certificate-​level physics on achievement and motivation to learn. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(10), 1219–​1245. https://​doi.org/​10.1002/​tea.21174 Gallardo-​del-​Puerto, F., & Gómez Lacabex, E. (2017). Oral production outcomes in CLIL: An attempt to manage amount of exposure. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5(1), 31–​54. https://​doi.org/​ 10.1515/​eujal-​2015-​0 035 Gallardo-​del-​Puerto, F., Gómez Lacabex, E., & García Lecumberri, M. L. (2009). Testing the effectiveness of content and language integrated learning in foreign language contexts: the assessment of English pronunciation. In Y. Ruiz de Zarobe & R.M. Jiménez Catalán (Eds.), Content and language integrated learning: Evidence from research in Europe (pp. 63–​80). Multilingual Matters. Gené-​Gil, M., Juan-​Garau, M., & Salazar Noguera, J. (2015). Development of EFL writing over three years in secondary education: CLIL and non-​CLIL settings. Language Learning Journal, 43(3), 286–​ 303. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​09571​736.2015.1053​278 Genesee, F. (1983). An invited article: Bilingual education of majority-​ language children: The Immersion experiments in review. Applied Psycholinguistics, 4, 1–​46. Gierlinger, E.M., & Wagner, T.A. (2016). The more the merrier –​revisiting CLIL-​based vocabulary growth in secondary education. Latin American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning, 9(1), 37–​63. https://​doi.org/​10.5294/​lac​l il.2016.9.1.3 Gómez Lacabex, E., & Gallardo-​del-​Puerto, F. (2020). Explicit phonetic instruction vs. implicit attention to native exposure: Phonological awareness of English schwa in CLIL. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 58(4), 419–​4 42. Goris, J., Denessen, E., & Verhoeven, L.T. (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/​14749​0411​9872​426

123

Christiane Dalton-Puffer and Silvia Bauer-Marschallinger Graham, K., Choi, Y., Davoodi, A., Razmeh, S., & Dixon, L. (2018). Language and content outcomes of CLIL and EMI: A systematic review. Latin American Journal of Content and Language Integrated Learning, 11(1), 19–​37. Granados, A., Lorenzo-​Espejo, A., & Lorenzo, F. (2021). Evidence for the interdependence hypothesis: a longitudinal study of biliteracy development in a CLIL/​bilingual setting. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 1–​17. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​13670 ​050.2021.2001​428 Hamidavi, N., Amiz, M.S., & Gorjian, B. (2016). The effect of CLIL method on teaching reading comprehension to junior high school students. Bulletin De La Société Royale Des Sciences De Liège, 85, 1642–​1652. Heras, A., & Lasagabaster, D. (2015). The impact of CLIL on affective factors and vocabulary learning. Language Teaching Research, 19(1), 70–​88. https://​doi.org/​10.1177/​13621​6881​4541​736 Hüttner, J., Dalton-​Puffer, C., & Smit, U. (2013). The power of beliefs: Lay theories and their influence on the implementation of CLIL programmes. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16(3), 267–​284. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​13670 ​050.2013.777​385 Iglesias Diéguez, K., & Martínez-​Adrián, M. (2017). The influence of CLIL on receptive vocabulary: A preliminary study. Journal of English Studies, 15, 107. https://​doi.org/​10.18172/​jes.3210 Jiménez Catalán, R.M., & Agustín Llach, M.P. (2017). CLIL or time? Lexical profiles of CLIL and non-​CLIL EFL learners. System, 66, 87–​99. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.sys​tem.2017.03.016 Juan-​Garau, M., Prieto-​A rranz, J.I., & Salazar Noguera, J. (2015). Lexico-​g rammatical development in secondary education CLIL learners. In M. Juan-​Garau & J. Salazar Noguera (Eds.), Educational linguistics: Content-​ based language learning in multilingual educational environments (pp. 179–​ 195). Springer International Publishing. Lahuerta, A.C. (2015). The written competence of Spanish secondary education students in bilingual and non-​bilingual programs. Porta Linguarum, 24, 47–​61. Lahuerta, A.C. (2017). Analysis of the effect of CLIL programmes on the written competence of secondary education students. Revista de Filología, 35, 169–​184. Lahuerta, A.C. (2020). Analysis of accuracy in the writing of EFL students enrolled on CLIL and non-​ CLIL programmes: The impact of grade and gender. The Language Learning Journal, 48(2), 121–​132. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​09571​736.2017.1303​745 Lamb, P., & King, G. (2020). Another platform and a changed context: Student experiences of developing spontaneous speaking in French through physical education. European Physical Education Review, 26(2), 515–​534. Llinares, A., & Morton, T. (2017). Speech function analysis to explore CLIL students’ spoken language for knowledge construction. In A. Llinares & T. Morton (Eds.), Applied linguistics perspectives on CLIL (pp. 125–​144). John Benjamins. Llinares, A., & Pascual Peña, I. (2015). A genre approach to the effect of academic questions on CLIL students’ language production. Language and Education, 29(1), 15–​30. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​ 09500​782.2014.924​964 Llurda, E. (2000). On competence, proficiency and communicative language ability. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10(1), 85–​96. Lorenzo, F., Granados, A., & Ávila, I. (2019). The development of cognitive academic language proficiency in multilingual education: Evidence of a longitudinal study on the language of history. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 41, 100767. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.jeap.2019.06.010 Madrid, D., & Pérez Cañado, M.L. (2018). Innovations and challenges in attending to diversity through CLIL. Theory into Practice, 57(3), 241–​249. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​0 0405​841.2018.1492​237 Martínez-​Adrián, M., & Gutiérrez Mangado, M. J. (2015). L1 use, lexical richness, accuracy and syntactic complexity in the oral production of CLIL and NON-​CLIL Learners of English. Atlantis, 37(2), 175–​197. Martínez-​A gudo, J. D. (2019). To what extent can CLIL learners’ oral competence outcomes be explained by contextual differences? Updated empirical evidence from Spain. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, 37(1), 27–​40. https://​doi.org/​10.2989/​16073​614.2019.1598​878 Meara, P. (2010). EFL vocabulary tests (2nd ed.). Lognostics. Möller, V. (2017). Language acquisition in CLIL and non-​CLIL settings: Learner corpus and experimental evidence on passive constructions. John Benjamins. Nashaat-​ Sobhy, N., & Llinares, A. (2020). CLIL students’ definitions of historical terms. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9, 1–​14. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​13670​ 050.2020.1798​868

124

L2 proficiency and development in CLIL Navarro Gil, N. (2019). The effects of a content-​based language course on students’ academic vocabulary production. CLIL: Journal of Innovation and Research in Plurilingual and Pluricultural Education, 2(2), 25. https://​doi.org/​10.5565/​rev/​clil.30 Nieto Moreno de Diezmas, E. (2018). The acquisition of L2 listening comprehension skills in primary and secondary education settings: A comparison between CLIL and non-​CLIL student performance. Revista de Lingüística Teórica y Aplicada, 56(2), 13–​34. Nightingale, R., & Safont, P. (2019). Conversational style and early academic language skills in CLIL and non-​CLIL settings: A multilingual sociopragmatic perspective. English Language Teaching, 12(2), 37. https://​doi.org/​10.5539/​elt.v12n2​p37 O Ceallaigh, T., Ní Mhurchú, S., & Ní Chróinín, D. (2017). Balancing content and language in CLIL: The experiences of teachers and learners. Journal of Immersion and Content-​Based Language Education, 5(1), 58–​86. https://​doi.org/​10.1075/​jicb.5.1.03oce Olsson, E. (2015). Progress in English academic vocabulary use in writing among CLIL and non-​CLIL students in Sweden. Moderna Språk, 109(2), 51–​74. Olsson, E., & Sylvén, L.K. (2015). Extramural English and academic vocabulary: A longitudinal study of CLIL and non-​CLIL students in Sweden. Apples: Journal of Applied Language Studies, 9(2), 77–​103. https://​doi.org/​10.17011/​app​les/​u rn.20151​2234​129 Olsson, E., & Sylvén, L.K. (2019). English productive proficiency. In L.K. Sylvén (Ed.), Investigating content and language integrated learning: Insights from Swedish high schools (pp. 117–​135). 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/​appli​rev-​2013-​0 014 Pérez Cañado, M.L. (2020). CLIL and elitism: Myth or reality? The Language Learning Journal, 48(1), 4–​17. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​09571​736.2019.1645​872 Pérez Cañado, M.L., & Lancaster, N.K. (2017). The effects of CLIL on oral comprehension and production: A longitudinal case study. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 30(3), 300–​316. https://​doi. org/​10.1080/​07908​318.2017.1338​717 Pérez-​Vidal, C. (2009). The integration of content and language in the classroom: A European approach to education (the second time around). In E. Dafouz & M.C. Guerrini (Eds.), CLIL across educational levels: Experiences from primary, secondary and tertiary contexts (pp. 3–​16). Richmond. Pérez-​Vidal, C., & Roquet, H. (2015). The linguistic impact of a CLIL science programme: An analysis measuring relative gains. System, 54, 80–​90. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.sys​tem.2015.05.004 Pladevall-​Ballester, E. (2016). CLIL subject selection and young learners’ listening and reading comprehension skills. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 26(1), 52–​74. https://​doi.org/​10.1111/​ ijal.12079 Pladevall-​Ballester, E., & Vallbona, A. (2016). CLIL in minimal input contexts: A longitudinal study of primary school learners’ receptive skills. System, 58, 37–​48. Prieto-​A rranz, J.I., Rallo Fabra, L., Calafat-​R ipoll, C., & Catrain-​González, M. (2015). Testing progress on receptive skills in CLIL and non-​CLIL contexts. In M. Juan-​Garau & J. Salazar Noguera (Eds.), Content-​based language learning in multilingual educational environments (pp. 123–​137). Springer International Publishing. https://​doi.org/​10.1007/​978-​3 -​319-​11496-​5 _ ​8 Quintana Aguilera, J.A., Restrepo Castro, D., Romero Martínez, G., & Cárdenas Messa, G.A. (2019). The effect of content and language integrated learning on the development of English reading comprehension skills. Lenguaje, 47(2), 427–​452. https://​doi.org/​10.25100/​lengu​aje. v47i2.7699 Rallo Fabra, L., & Jacob, K. (2015). Does CLIL enhance oral skills? Fluency and pronunciation errors by Spanish-​Catalan learners of English. In M. Juan-​Garau & J. Salazar Noguera (Eds.), Content-​ based language learning in multilingual educational environments (pp. 163–​177). Springer International Publishing. https://​doi.org/​10.1007/​978-​3 -​319-​11496-​5 _​10 Roquet, H., & Pérez-​Vidal, C. (2017). Do productive skills improve in content and language integrated learning contexts? The case of writing. Applied Linguistics, 38(4), 489–​511. https://​doi.org/​10.1093/​ app​l in/​a mv​050 Ruiz de Zarobe, Y., & Zenotz, V. (2018). Learning strategies in CLIL classrooms: How does strategy instruction affect reading competence over time? International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21(3), 319–​331. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​13670 ​050.2017.1391​745 Rumlich, D. (2020). Bilingual education in monolingual contexts: A comparative perspective. The Language Learning Journal, 48(1), 115–​119. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​09571​736.2019.1696​879

125

Christiane Dalton-Puffer and Silvia Bauer-Marschallinger San Isidro, X., & Lasagabaster, D. (2019). The impact of CLIL on pluriliteracy development and content learning in a rural multilingual setting: A longitudinal study. Language Teaching Research, 23(5), 584–​602. https://​doi.org/​10.1177/​13621​6881​7754​103 Schmitt, N., Schmitt, D., & Clapham, C. (2001). Developing and exploring the behaviour of two new versions of the Vocabulary Levels Test. Language Testing, 18(1), 55–​88. https://​doi.org/​10.1177/​026​ 5532​2010​1800​103 Segura, M., Roquet, H., & Pérez-​Vidal, C. (2021). The effects of a CLIL programme on linguistic progress at two different points in time. Journal of Language and Education, 1, 173–​191. https://​doi. org/​10.17323/​jle.2021.10981 Skinnari, K., & Bovellan, E. (2016). CLIL teachers’ beliefs about integration and about their professional roles: Perspectives from a European context. In T. Nikula, E. Dafouz, P. Moore, & U. Smit (Eds.), Bilingual education and bilingualism. Conceptualising integration in CLIL and multilingual education (pp. 145–​170). Multilingual Matters. Sylvén, L.K., & Ohlander, S. (2019). English receptive vocabulary. In L.K. Sylvén (Ed.), Investigating content and language integrated learning: Insights from Swedish high schools (pp. 101–​116). Multilingual Matters. Tragant, E., Marsol, A., Serrano, R., & Llanes, À. (2016). Vocabulary learning at primary school: A comparison of EFL and CLIL. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 19(5), 579–​ 591. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​13670 ​050.2015.1035​227 Van Mensel, L., Bulon, A., Hendrikx, I., Meunier, F., & Van Goethem, K. (2020). Effects of input on L2 writing in English and Dutch: CLIL and non-​CLIL learners in French-​speaking Belgium. Journal of Immersion and Content-​Based Language Education, 8(2), 173–​199. Van Mensel, L., Hiligsmann, P., Mettewie, L., & Galand, B. (2020). CLIL, an elitist language learning approach? A background analysis of English and Dutch CLIL pupils in French-​speaking Belgium. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 33(1), 1–​14. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​07908​318.2019.1571​078 Verspoor, M., Bot, K. de, & 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 Whittemore, R., & Knafl, K. (2005). The integrative review: Updated methodology. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 52(5), 546–​553.

126

127

9 COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT IN CLIL Alberto Fernández-​Costales

Introduction Content and language integrated learning (CLIL) offers students the opportunity to learn content subjects in a target language. While CLIL has typically been implemented in schools of primary and secondary education, universities have also put in practice programmes taught through English under English-​medium instruction (EMI). One of the critical issues to be further explored is whether or not CLIL is beneficial in triggering students’ cognitive processes, as this approach is usually related to content-​learning, students’ performance in non-​language areas, and the personal development of learners. Cognition is referred to in the scientific literature as one of the keystones of CLIL (Coyle, 2002; Coyle et al., 2010, Lorenzo, 2017; Mehisto & Marsh, 2011; Meyer, 2010), as this approach foregrounds metacognition and learning how to learn (Coyle, 2007, p. 553), and may facilitate ‘an advantageous setting for intense cognitive activity’ (Rumlich, 2017, p. 111). However, there is a paucity of studies providing empirical evidence on the influence of CLIL on learners’ cognitive development. This is more noticeable if we compare research on cognition with other topics of enquiry within CLIL, such as competence in the L2, content learning, or students’ motivation. As we will argue, we only have a fragmented and incomplete view of the effects of CLIL on learners’ cognitive development, and many research lines concerning cognitive processes remain unexplored despite their relevance to assessing the effectiveness of CLIL as an educational approach In the following sections we will review research that investigates the impact of CLIL on the cognitive processes in several educational stages. By looking at the data and critically examining the results reported by the available studies, we aim to assess how CLIL may contribute to the cognitive development of students. This chapter does not align with any particular position about the effectiveness of CLIL, but we consider that some researchers and practitioners have overstated the benefits of CLIL and how its implementation is affected by a number of contextual variables.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003173151-12

127

Alberto Fernández-Costales

Cognitive processes in CLIL The relationship between language and thought has been extensively explored within different disciplines, including applied linguistics, psychology, language didactics, and sociology. Leaving aside the possible benefits of bilingualism for metacognition, in this chapter we focus on how thinking processes are framed within CLIL as an educational approach. Here, cognition refers to ‘the cognitive challenge that CLIL should provide to students when it comes to developing thinking skills, language proficiency and interpersonal communication skills’ (Lasagabaster & López Beloqui, 2015, p. 43). Underpinning the relevance of cognition in CLIL, Coyle (2007) refers to the tasks and processes expected from students by stating that it is through progression in knowledge, skills and understanding of the content, engagement in associated cognitive processing, interaction in the communicative context, the development of appropriate language knowledge and skills as well as experiencing a deepening intercultural awareness that effective CLIL takes place. Coyle, 2007, p. 550 Hence, CLIL relies on the principle that students need to be cognitively engaged to maximise their learning process. Within CLIL, cognition is a catalyst to facilitate students’ construction of knowledge, and has to be taken into account when keeping the balance between content and language integration: When the content is unknown, the content-​cognitive demand (CCD) is high […]. We must therefore ensure that the language in which this new content is embedded is easy: Language-​cognitive demand (LCD) must be low. Effective CLIL instruction must thus equilibrate between the CCD and the LCD. Grandinetti et al., 2013, p. 359 Providing comprehensible and meaningful input and offering sufficient scaffolding is critical so that students can construct knowledge while being cognitively engaged. Muñoz (2002, p. 36) highlights that ‘CLIL may strengthen learners’ ability to process input, which prepares them for higher-​level thinking skills, and enhances cognitive development’. In other words, attention to meaningful input can translate to in-​depth processing of language input. As a central element in CLIL, cognition is one of the pillars of the well-​k nown 4Cs Framework developed by Coyle (2007), together with communication, content, and culture. Within the 4Cs, Coyle also defined the language triptych that unfolds into ‘language of learning’, ‘language for learning’, and ‘language through learning’ (Coyle et al., 2010, p. 36). The last element in this triptych –​language through learning –​defines students’ engagement in cognitively demanding tasks when they discover and construct new meaning and knowledge in CLIL. In this way, according to Coyle et al. (2010, p. 10), learners’ cognitive flexibility and engagement are promoted. Coyle’s framework drew from Bloom’s (1956) taxonomy of educational objectives –​ revised by Anderson et al. (2001) and Krathwohl (2002) –​to underline the importance of working with higher-​order thinking skills (HOTS) and lower-​order thinking skills (LOTS): For CLIL to be effective, it must challenge learners to think and review and engage in higher-​order thinking skills. CLIL is not about the transfer of knowledge from 128

Cognitive development in CLIL

an expert to a novice. CLIL is about allowing individuals to construct their own understanding and be challenged –​whatever their age or ability. A useful taxonomy to use as a guide for thinking skills is that of Bloom. He has created two categories of thinking skills: lower order and higher order. Take Bloom’s taxonomy for a well-​ defined range of thinking skills. It serves as an excellent checklist. Coyle, 2005, p. 5 The taxonomy revised by Krathwohl (2002) classified different types of thinking into two dimensions: cognitive and knowledge. The cognitive dimension organises thinking into lower-​order processes –​remembering, understanding, and applying –​and higher-​order processes –​analysing, evaluating, and creating –​while the knowledge dimension comprises factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive knowledge. Coyle et al. (2010) argue that CLIL can promote both cognitive and knowledge dimensions. Teachers should provide meaningful input through scaffolding in order to contribute to students’ independent learning and building of knowledge through constructivism. Furthermore, it is vital that LOTS and HOTS are activated through tasks that are cognitively challenging for learners, so that they develop problem-​solving and decision-​m aking skills (Nikula et al., 2016). The activation (or not) of HOTS is, indeed, one of the central debates in the scientific literature, as discussed in the next section. In addition to Bloom’s taxonomy, a second theoretical construct underpinning the connection between cognitive processes and CLIL is Cummins’ (1981) framework of basic interpersonal communicative skills (BICS) and cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP). The distinction between BICS and CALPS has become one of the most notable contributions to explain language use and development in bilingual learners: BICS refers to language used for everyday interaction, especially in interpersonal and highly contextualised situations; CALP is connected to academic contexts, where language use is more decontextualised and cognitively demanding. Thus, BICS is connected with ‘practices that are supported by meaningful interpersonal and situational cues’, while CALP comprises ‘both oral and written, is associated with higher-​order thinking, including hypothesising, evaluating, inferring, generalising, predicting, or classifying’ (García, 2009, p. 37). As with HOTS and LOTS, both dimensions in this language distinction should be approached and stimulated by teachers working in CLIL settings: CLIL should cognitively challenge learners –​whatever their ability. It provides a setting rich for developing thinking skills in conjunction with both basic interpersonal communication skills (BICS) and cognitive-​academic language proficiency (CALP). Coyle, 2002, p. 28 Cummins’ framework also included an essential tool for task planning, which has been extensively used in CLIL research and practice. Cummins’ (1984) matrix established four quadrants that enable teachers to balance linguistic and cognitive demands by taking both dimensions into account. According to this matrix, the integration of content and language should gradually shift from context-​embedded and undemanding tasks (LOTS) to decontextualised activities that are cognitively challenging (HOTS). This model has been adapted by Coyle et al. (2010, pp. 43–​44) and is one of the principles of the integration of language and contents in CLIL, which is of paramount importance when teachers plan their lessons. The central idea is to stimulate students with challenging and relevant activities 129

Alberto Fernández-Costales

while balancing the level of difficulty in both the language and cognition of the tasks. That is, new contents –​or those that are more cognitively demanding –​should not be introduced at the same time as new language or complex structures (Moore & Lorenzo, 2015). Undeniably, CLIL is a demanding approach from a cognitive point of view, since ‘learners have to make an extra effort to understand the concepts discussed through the FL while they construct language and content knowledge’ (Méndez García, 2014, p. 26). The cognitive challenge may result in gains that exceed the linguistic benefits associated with foreign language learning, as contended by Pérez-​Cañado (2010): CLIL is heralded as providing cognitive engagement, which is a condition for increased and improved opportunities for language acquisition. It advances learners’ cognitive development, broadening their conceptual mapping resources, and develops a broader range of skills: Not only communicative ones, but also problem-​solving, risk-​t aking, pragmatic, and interpersonal abilities. Pérez-​Cañado, 2010, p. 17

Research on cognition in CLIL In this section, we review studies investigating cognitive processes in CLIL, noting questions investigated and research methodologies used, as well as contexts of study and outcomes of this body of research. The studies are organised into four main categories: Students’ thinking processes, teachers’ perceptions, teachers’ discourse, and materials and resources.

Students’ thinking processes The impact of CLIL on students’ cognitive processes has primarily been analysed through quantitative and cross-​sectional studies of students in primary and secondary education. Most investigations compared students in CLIL with those enrolled in mainstream (i.e., non-​CLIL) education, where the spotlight was on the impact of CLIL on learners’ cognitive development, their working memory, the relationship between cognitive skills and affective factors, and promoting learning strategies. A key early study examining the effect of CLIL on cognitive development of primary school students was reported by Jäppinen (2005). The study screened a control group of 334 students and an experimental group of 335 participants learning maths and science through English, French, and Swedish in mainstream public education in Finland –​a pioneer in the implementation of CLIL. Participants were divided into three age groups: 7–​9, 10–​12, and 13–​15. A teaching intervention was followed by 46 teachers from 12 schools; after that, the students’ cognitive development was tested with an adapted version of the SOLO taxonomy (Biggs & Collis, 1982), with t-​tests and Chi-​square used to check for statistical significance. Pre-​tests and post-​tests were carried out in the study. The most salient finding was that, in most cases, ‘the cognitional development in the CLIL environments resembled the development in teaching through the mother tongue’ ( Jäppinen, 2005, p. 162), suggesting that CLIL is not detrimental for students’ cognitional development when compared with learners taught through their L1. It is worth noting that students aged 7–​9 in CLIL were outperformed by their partners in mainstream education when processing very abstract topics. In turn, the results of the CLIL learners aged 10–​12 showed a ‘faster cognitional development’ than their peers, and for those aged 13–​15, no statistically significant differences were found between CLIL and mainstream groups. According to Jäppinen (2005, p. 163), the findings suggest 130

Cognitive development in CLIL

that ‘in the beginning, in CLIL environments, teachers have to consider the contents very carefully to be taught through a foreign language with younger learners’. To our knowledge, the only longitudinal research conducted thus far on the impact of CLIL on cognitive processes is that of Nicolay and Poncelet (2013). This study aimed to analyse the effects of early bilingualism in learners’ cognitive development. In a sample of 106 students, comprising a group of 53 students enrolled in an L2 immersion programme following CLIL in the French-​speaking area of Belgium and 53 others in a control group, the researchers assessed the effect of studying through an additional language for three years in eight-​year-​old children. Several tests were given to check for pupils’ attentional and executive skills. The main results underline how CLIL may promote auditory selective attention, divided attention, and mental flexibility. However, although the results were promising, the authors recommended that the findings ‘be re-​examined in a longitudinal study with two groups of participants matched on age, verbal and nonverbal intelligence, SES and cognitive development’ (Nicolay & Poncelet, 2013, p. 655). Focusing on secondary school pupils, Nieto Moreno de Diezmas (2016), investigated the cognitive processes of 1,966 bilingual students and 14,713 pupils enrolled in mainstream education –​covering the whole population of students enrolled in the second year of Secondary Education Castilla La Mancha (Spain). This project has relevant implications for education, as the underlying objective was to assess the impact of CLIL and the metacognitive development of learners as a proxy to promote the acquisition of learning strategies, especially ‘learning to learn’. The learning skills and key competencies of participants were evaluated through assessment units, while t-​tests were used to determine statistical significance. The results were encouraging, the data underlining that CLIL students develop better metacognitive skills, in particular concerning HOTS in Bloom’s taxonomy such as ‘creating’ –​the ability to plan a written text –​and ‘analysing’ –​organisation of information and content sheets. Furthermore, the study confirms that CLIL has a positive impact on students’ ‘learning to learn’ skill, with statistical significance. Although results reveal that ‘CLIL students showed greater expertise for reflecting on their learning processes, on how they learn, and on what their abilities and their learning outcomes are, and they also displayed a higher mastery of lower and higher thinking skills than their counterparts’ (Nieto Moreno de Diezmas, 2016, p. 28), the conclusions should be taken with caution since data from other contexts may differ due to the diversity of CLIL programmes, as acknowledged by the author. Investigating upper-​ primary education, Otwinowska and Foryś (2017) scrutinised a sample of 140 students enrolled in a CLIL section in Poland to assess the links between affectivity and cognition. In this mixed-​design research, quantitative and qualitative tools were employed to examine if CLIL students of science and maths suffered from intellectual helplessness –​i.e., the domain-​specific deterioration of cognitive functioning (Sędek & Kofta, 1990) –​when learning contents through an additional language. The main finding of the study confirmed that cognitive skills are correlated with affective factors: Pupils in CLIL upper-​primary education were negatively affected by CLIL, as learning contents through a foreign language produced anxiety and low motivation levels. The results of this study on the adverse affective outcomes of students towards CLIL do not concur with prior research that underlined the motivating effect of CLIL (Heras & Lasagabaster, 2015; Lasagabaster, 2011; Lasagabaster & Doiz, 2017; Lasagabaster & López Beloqui, 2015). A possible explanation is that the data reflect a specific context since only one school was analysed, one that had not been successful in implementing CLIL. All in all, Otwinowska and Foryś (2017) emphasise the relevance of BICS and CALP in students’ preparation and link them with the 131

Alberto Fernández-Costales

success of students in CLIL, as they will be in a better position to learn, and their cognitive abilities boosted. A recent study conducted by Sánchez (2019) explored the role of working memory in CLIL by analysing if individual differences influence accuracy, fluency, and structural or lexical complexity in the written production of students’ L3. The author analysed the effect of various components of working memory (in particular, short-​term memory and attention switching) in linguistic performance. The study sample comprised 50 students of secondary education in Catalonia who were Catalan-​Spanish bilinguals learning German as a foreign language. The most relevant finding of the study was that ‘the CLIL learners investigated might have an advantage over language learners in a non-​CLIL context, perhaps because the language experience of CLIL learners might help them enhance a varied array of cognitive abilities, including those investigated here’ (Sánchez, 2019, p. 122). It should be noted, however, that the paper did not include a control group, so the results were not compared with non-​CLIL students. The most relevant result from analysing students’ thinking processes is that CLIL is not detrimental to cognitive development. Furthermore, the studies shown here confirm the relationship between cognitive development and affective factors, and that learning is fostered when thinking skills are emphasised in the classroom. However, there is a scarcity of research data on the cumulative effect of CLIL on students’ cognitive development, since most studies are cross-​sectional, while control groups were not included.

Teachers’ perspectives on students’ cognitive development Several quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-​research studies have been conducted in primary and secondary schools to investigate the teachers’ perspectives on the impact of CLIL on students’ cognitive skills, working with HOTS and LOTS in the classroom, and promoting critical thinking. A study by Pena Díaz and Porto Requejo (2008) examined this topic in the context of bilingual education in primary schools in Madrid. The research covered 150 schools offering CLIL, where the data collection instrument was a survey on practitioners’ perceptions of the implementation of CLIL. The results confirmed that 80% of participating teachers believed ‘bilingualism improves cognitive development because students have to develop abilities and strategies to remember a greater amount of vocabulary and because they are required to make more of an effort’ (Pena Díaz & Porto Requejo, 2008, p. 159). The researchers also pointed out that 10% of teachers were concerned about the cognitive development of students with special needs, indicating these students might find additional challenges learning content through an additional language. Although this is not surprising –​learners might need an extra effort in their language as maintained by the authors –​it is worth noting that students with special needs have been ignored in CLIL research, perhaps because they are rarely enrolled in bilingual streams (Durán-​Martínez et al., 2020). Méndez García (2014) analysed teachers’ perceptions on learners’ development of lower-​ and higher-​order skills to determine if pupils achieve the upper levels of Bloom’s taxonomy –​ i.e., more demanding processes such as ‘analyse’ and ‘create’. The study scrutinised 15 primary and secondary teachers working in public schools (seven content teachers, four language teachers, and four language assistants), where their perceptions were analysed through semi-​ structured interviews. The content of the interview with participating teachers suggested that the combination of languages in CLIL favoured students’ learning and cognitive process. Méndez García noted that ‘the combination of languages for the analysis of similar but 132

Cognitive development in CLIL

slightly different content may make the content studied more meaningful’ (2014, p. 37). Furthermore, the study suggested that pupils enrolled in CLIL streams are encouraged to think more critically, triggering both higher-​order and lower-​order skills. Campillo-​Ferrer et al. (2020) investigated teachers’ perceptions about the promotion of the cognitive processes in science and social science in primary education in Murcia (Spain). The study analysed how often practitioners promoted the six cognitive categories of Anderson et al.’s (2001) revised version of Blooms’ taxonomy, especially as regards the activation of HOTS. Using a mixed-​research approach with quantitative (a semi-​structured questionnaire, α =​0.94) and qualitative tools (discussion forum), 129 teachers were inspected. The investigation found that 93% of the participants reported that the most used CLIL activities related to understanding, while the least frequent were associated with creativity (only 33% of respondents worked with creation activities). Notably, non-​parametric tests ratified the statistical significance between the variable ‘experience’ and the planning of creative activities: Teachers with better training in CLIL planned these activities more often than those with less experience. Still, the most striking result is that participating teachers believed they ‘do not provide enough opportunities for more active modes of learning, especially given the extensive demands that this approach entails’ (Campillo-​Ferrer et al., 2020, p. 6). Furthermore, although there is extensive work with cognitive activities in CLIL, most are ‘cognitively undemanding’, with more tasks encouraging LOTS (activating prior knowledge) than HOTS (developing problem-​solving skills). All things considered, the promotion of HOTS and more demanding cognitive skills may be related to teachers’ experience and training in CLIL as well as their status: practitioners with permanent positions in public schools worked with students’ challenging thinking process more often. The most relevant findings from the studies reviewed above show contradictory results. While most practitioners believed CLIL favours the development of cognitive skills in primary and secondary education, teachers also acknowledged that, more often than not, their CLIL practice focused on LOTS rather than HOTS, as less demanding activities were most recurrent in their CLIL lessons.

Classroom discourse and cognitive development Research has also been devoted to analysing teachers’ discourse to facilitate content-​ acquisition in CLIL and promote students’ cognitive engagement. In particular, this kind of research examined aspects such as the use of the L2 in the classroom, the use of questions to elicit students’ participation and, the way teachers interact with pupils through a foreign language more generally. Yassin et al. (2010) examined the impact teachers’ questions had in triggering students’ cognitive processes in a science class in primary education in Malaysia. Using Bloom’s revised taxonomy as a framework for analysis, the researchers evaluated in-​ class interaction of nine teachers and 338 Year 4 students from eight public schools. Their findings demonstrated that ‘questions posed by teachers form an integral part of classroom engagement’ (Yassin et al., 2010, p. 50). Interestingly, this study found that most questions were oriented towards the basic levels of Bloom’s taxonomy, triggering LOTS, while HOTS were barely approached: 74.8% of teachers’ interactions facilitated students’ remembering, 24% understanding, and 0.6% applying. Researchers did not find any questions approaching HOTS in the lessons observed. This led to the authors’ claim that ‘the teachers generally did not encourage students to think critically from the questions they posed’ (Yassin et al., 2010, p. 51). Furthermore, teachers dominated the lessons, talking for 80.6% of the class time, while students’ interventions were mostly limited to answering yes/​no questions. 133

Alberto Fernández-Costales

An interesting approach into cognitive processes from the linguistic point of view was offered by Dalton-​P uffer, who introduced the construct of cognitive discourse functions (CDFs) in CLIL (Dalton-​P uffer, 2013; Dalton-​P uffer et al., 2018; Evnitskaya & Dalton-​P uffer, 2020). CDFs are understood as expressions of cognitive processes, such as defining, classifying, and explaining in discourse interactions, and stand for critical pillars in CLIL since they lay the foundation for knowledge construction in the non-​ linguistic subject. Furthering the notion that accessing academic language in the classroom is essential for students’ learning and achievement, Dalton-​Puffer approached integration in CLIL by ‘linking up subject-​specific cognitive learning goals with the linguistic representations they receive in classroom interaction’ (Dalton-​Puffer, 2013, p. 220). CDFs are thus ‘discursive, lexical and grammatical schemata arising from the routines of working with and towards specialist knowledge and which form an integral part of spoken and written subject literacy’ (Dalton-​Puffer et al., 2018, p. 7). They are divided into a sevenfold categorisation scheme that defines how students express acts of thinking about the subject: ‘classify’, ‘define’, ‘describe’, ‘evaluate’, ‘explain’, ‘explore’, and ‘report’ (Dalton-​Puffer, 2013). The categories established by Dalton-​Puffer may be understood as ‘prototypical communicative intentions about cognitive steps that are necessary for dealing with knowledge’ (Dalton-​Puffer, 2013, p. 233). The two premises underlying CDFs are that the ‘conscious cognitions about the world dealt with in formal education are fundamentally structured by language […], and that language is the main way in which learners can share their current or new construals of the world with others’ (Dalton-​Puffer et al., 2018, p. 8). Dalton-​Puffer et al. (2018) reported on five studies conducted with students of secondary education in Austria learning maths, history, biology, physics, and English as a foreign language to conclude that CDFs are present in naturalistic CLIL lessons and are frequent in classroom interactions, with ‘describe’ as the most recurrent CDF, followed by ‘explain’ and ‘define’. The studies also confirm ‘evaluate’ and ‘explore’ are ‘rather side-​lined in the classrooms observed’ (Dalton-​Puffer et al., 2018, p. 26). Following this line of enquiry, Evnitskaya and Dalton-​Puffer (2020) addressed the possible mismatch between students’ cognitive level and their L2 proficiency in primary bilingual schools in Madrid. To operationalise the CDF construct, a conceptual map was designed based on the analysis of an oral learner corpus in English (L2) and Spanish (L1) in the subjects of science and history. Aiming to investigate the development of specialist knowledge, this research analysed cognitive and non-​verbal actions by exploring abstract concepts and ideas, acts of classifying, comparing, and contrasting facts, phenomena, and objects. The results of the study revealed that learners faced conceptual and linguistic challenges when categorising in the L2 and the L1. Moreover, the analyses showed that subject-​specific trends can be identified in the way the categorising is carried out, as ‘comparing’ is clearly favoured in history, while ‘classifying’ is predominant in science. The CDF construct proposed by Dalton-​Puffer was recently examined by Morton (2020), who suggested that most objectives in academic courses are expressed as verbs describing concrete cognitive tasks –​define, evaluate, explain –​with their linguistic realisations. Hence, Morton considers CDFs act as ‘a bridge between content learning objectives, the specific types of communication (literacies) associated with academic subjects, and the language used to express knowledge and to think’ (Morton, 2020, p. 8). In brief, research in classroom discourse underscores that accessing academic language in the classroom is critical for students’ learning and achievement, especially when it comes to acquiring contents through a target language. 134

Cognitive development in CLIL

Cognitive development in CLIL materials A critical element for CLIL teachers is the availability and suitability of specific resources and materials to teach subject content through another language. This issue has been analysed in several descriptive studies about promoting HOTS and LOTS in CLIL textbooks. Banegas (2014) investigated how CLIL is approached in English textbooks for young learners. His research combines Bloom’s taxonomy (1956), Cummins’ (1992) textual categorisation, and Coyle et al.’s (2010) hierarchy of text types and uses content analyses to examine four series marketed for use in secondary education in Argentina. The study suggests there is an oversimplification of contents in those textbooks used in classes that adopt a CLIL approach, with a clear emphasis on the development of reading skills and lower-​order thinking tasks over more advanced or cognitively demanding processes. In particular, the textbooks encourage working with comprehension skills –​listening and reading –​with activities that involve mainly lower-​order thinking skills, especially ‘remembering’. Although HOTS are approached in speaking activities, they are less frequently found in the coursebooks analysed, which rely heavily on reading tasks. This study emphasises that teachers need appropriate materials and resources to work with LOTS and HOTS in the classroom. The conclusions of this study are supported by recent research in the Spanish context, where Peyró et al. (2020) analysed six textbooks of science for primary education and concluded that 66% do not promote HOTS sufficiently in CLIL. The limited number of investigations on CLIL materials preclude making general conclusions on how cognitive functions are approached in textbooks. However, the evidence to date suggests that this dimension is given insufficient attention when designing CLIL materials (as with general English textbooks).

Cognitive science and CLIL Cognitive science is a field that has become increasingly influential in education, as it may bring new insights in the way educators plan and organize their teaching. Among other postulates, cognitive load theory is gaining importance in educational research, especially in relation to its implications for instructional design (Sweller, 2015, 2016a, 2016b; Sweller et al., 2011). Cognitive load theory argues that traditional instructional techniques do not take into account the limitations of our cognitive architecture, overloading learners’ working memory (Sweller, 1999). By working memory, we refer to the cognitive structure that facilitates conscious processing. When we process information consciously, we are using our working memory while we are relatively oblivious of the amount of information stored in the long-​term memory (Kirschner et al., 2006). Cognitive load theory relies on an evolutionary view of human cognitive architecture, meaning that humans have evolved to acquire some knowledge areas (such as our native tongue) naturally with less effort than others (such as the ones used for social interaction and cultural exchanges) (Sweller et al., 2007, 2011). Some studies claim that ‘from a cognitive load theory viewpoint, there are reasons to suppose that simultaneous learning of content and a foreign language is likely to be counterproductive’ (Roussel et al., 2017, p. 71). In particular, Roussel et al. (2017) hypothesised that learning new content through an L2 may be a challenge due to the limited capacity of the working memory, which is limited in duration and capacity when we process novel information (Kirschner et al., 2006). The study comprised three separate experiments carried out with 294 university students in France who read domain-​specific texts (law and computing 135

Alberto Fernández-Costales

science) in their native language, in a foreign language, and in a foreign language with a translation in their mother tongue. The pre-​tests and post-​tests carried out indicated that reading in the foreign language may not be the most suitable option to learn academic content or a new language. Therefore, the results concluded that immersion in a foreign language without explicit language instruction when learning content might not be a suitable option for novice learners. Although the authors of the study sustain that cognitive load theory may be used to endorse the teaching of content through a foreign language to advanced language learners, they warn that ‘this hypothesis requires testing using properly controlled studies’ (Roussel et al., 2017, p. 78) and argue that further research is required, especially works with a strict control of variables (e.g., the selection of participants, their L2 competence, their specific subject-​competence, etc.). Following Nikula et al. (2016), Reitbauer et al. (2018, p. 90) argued that integration of content and language ‘is the key to a successful implementation of CLIL’ and emphasised the need to focus on the human cognitive architecture to better approach the dual focus of content and language. On the premise that learning content through an additional language is more cognitively demanding and ‘influences language-​specific mental activities and the processing of content’ (p. 95), Reitbauer et al. propose a framework to be applied in higher education settings. Their framework includes three stages: ‘Assessment of intrinsic cognitive load’, ‘Reduction of extraneous cognitive load’, and ‘Activating cognitive resources’ (p. 99). These three stages are intended to unfold the process of integration by drawing teachers’ and learners’ awareness of cognitive processes in CLIL. This model suggests first that teachers should reflect on the cognitive load of the subject material; second, that educators should guarantee content is accessible to students by providing additional language support (e.g., with visuals); and finally, that teachers should select appropriate methods to support the integration of content and language in the classes. In spite of the paucity of research in this area, the application of cognitive science –​particularly, but not exclusively, cognitive load theory (Sweller et al., 2011) –​to CLIL should also be explored, as this dimension may be a very productive area for future research on the development of students’ cognitive processes.

Conclusion Cognition is a critical component in CLIL, and most theoretical principles connect the successful implementation of this approach with the activation of (cognitively demanding) thinking processes. However, in view of the research published so far, it can be concluded that cognition has been overlooked. Cognition is mentioned at some point in most academic papers and books on CLIL, either to discuss Coyle’s 4Cs or refer to the alleged benefits of bilingualism, but few studies approach the topic in depth. There is a dearth of research on cognitive development in CLIL –​especially compared to other related issues such as language gains, translanguaging, or language attitudes –​and to the attention received by the other ‘Cs’ –​communication, content, and culture, which embodies a large corpus of published studies since 2010. In particular, there is a paucity of longitudinal studies that analyse the long-​term effect of CLIL on students’ cognitive development. Furthermore, although several of the studies reviewed in this chapter rely on large samples, most do not use control groups when examining students’ cognitive development, while the vast majority are context-​bound, reflecting the reality of individual settings. Therefore, the primary conclusion of this review is that more research on cognition and CLIL is welcome, especially

136

Cognitive development in CLIL

national or transnational studies that provide generalised results, but that further studies must also analyse the long-​term effects of CLIL on students’ cognitive development. Second, analysis of the available studies on CLIL and cognition reveals mixed results, which do not allow one to confirm the positive effects of CLIL on students’ thinking processes. All investigations underline the relevance of triggering HOTs and LOTS, but there are contradictory outputs in the empirical evidence: Although some studies confirm the activation of HOTS in CLIL, a majority of investigations seem to confirm that students’ advanced cognitive abilities are not being sufficiently stimulated in the classroom. This conclusion raises an issue about whether teachers have the specific training to deliver high-​quality CLIL-​based teaching, and whether such a shortcoming can be linked to CLIL principles or its implementation. Further research would also benefit by including as many intervening variables as possible, since there are many factors that influence how CLIL is actually being implemented by teachers in the classroom. The lack of clear-​cut conclusions on the correlation between CLIL and cognitive processes underlines the need for further data, especially regarding some critical areas. In particular, teacher training needs to be enhanced as several studies have highlighted that instructors might not be fully prepared to engage students in cognitively demanding tasks (although lack of preparation to trigger creativity or critical thinking may not be limited to CLIL teachers); materials should be carefully reviewed, as teachers need suitable resources to work with HOTS and LOTS in the classroom; and, methodological guidelines for teachers need to stress the relevance of content and language integration as a critical component in CLIL, which is pivotal in the development of BICS and CALPS and the activation of cognitively demanding processes. In this sense, it is worth mentioning that the lack of integration in some CLIL programmes is a problematic issue related to the conceptualisation of CLIL, as contended by Llinares and McCabe (2020). The lack of actual content and language integrated teaching or learning in some programmes and the multiple interpretations of what a CLIL programme entails has led some scholars to use the term CLIL to refer to an approach –​which may be applied not only to CLIL but also to content-​based learning –​rather than a type of programme as some of them do not follow the methodological principles of CLIL (Llinares, 2015; Llinares & McCabe, 2020). Further studies of a longitudinal nature are required that examine the cumulative effect of CLIL on students’ cognition, the specific processes that are worked in primary, secondary, and tertiary education, and the linkage between cognition in CLIL and academic performance of students. These types of studies are the exception in the corpus of research published, probably due to the required time and complexity, and the pressure on scholars to disseminate their results fast. Also, this kind of research requires funding and other resources (permissions, accessing the schools, etc.). Similarly, we need to assess the effects of CLIL in the long-​term, especially when it comes to the intellectual development of learners.

Further reading Bialystok, E. (2005). Consequences of bilingualism for cognitive development. In J.F. Kroll & A.M.B. de Groot (Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches (pp. 417–​432). Oxford University Press. This chapter analyses the effect of bilingualism on specific cognitive processes in young learners, showing that bilingual children are more advanced than monolinguals in solving problems requiring the inhibition of misleading information.

137

Alberto Fernández-Costales Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory. Springer. This volume offers an exhaustive review of research on cognitive load theory and provides novel instructional design principles linked to this dimension.

References Anderson, L.W., Krathwohl, D., Airasian, P., Cruikshank, K., Mayer, R., Pintrich, P., Raths, J., & Wittrock, M. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman. Banegas, D.L. (2014). An investigation into CLIL-​related sections of EFL coursebooks: Issues of CLIL inclusion in the publishing market. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 17(3), 345–​359. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​13670 ​050.2013.793​651 Biggs, J., & Collis, K.F. (1982). Evaluating the quality of learning: The SOLO taxonomy. Academic Press. Bloom, B. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: The cognitive domain. McKay. Campillo-​Ferrer, J.M., Miralles-​Martínez, P., & Sánchez-​Ibáñez, R. (2020). CLIL teachers’ views on cognitive development in primary education. Palgrave Communications, 6(1). https://​doi.org/​ 10.1057/​s41​599-​020-​0480-​x Coyle, D. (2002). Relevance of CLIL to the European Commission’s language learning objectives. In D. March (Ed.), CLIL/​EMILE the European dimension (pp. 27–​28). University of Jyväskylä. Coyle, D. (2005). Developing CLIL: Towards a theory of practice. APAC. Coyle, D. (2007). Content and language integrated learning: Towards a connected research base. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(5), 543–​562. https://​doi.org/​10.2167/​ beb​459.0 Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge University Press. Coyle, D., & Meyer, O. (2021). Beyond CLIL: Pluriliteracies teaching for deeper learning. Cambridge University Press. Cummins, J. (1981). Bilingualism and minority-​ language children. Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. Cummins, J. (1984). Bilingualism and special education. Multilingual Matters. Cummins, J. (1992). Language proficiency, bilingualism, and academic achievement. In P.A. Richard-​ Amato & M.A. Snow (Eds.), The multicultural classroom: Readings for content-​area teachers (pp. 16–​26). Longman. Dalton-​Puffer, C. (2013). A construct of cognitive discourse functions for conceptualising content-​ language integration in CLIL and multilingual education. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 216–​253. https://​doi.org/​10.1515/​eujal-​2013-​0 011 Dalton-​Puffer, C., Bauer-​Marschallinger, S., Brückl-​Mackey, K., Hofmann, V., Hopf, J., Kröss, L., & Lechner, L. (2018). Cognitive discourse functions in Austrian CLIL lessons: Towards an empirical validation of the CDF Construct. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6(1), 5–​29. https://​doi.org/​ 10.1515/​eujal-​2017-​0 028 Durán-​Martínez, R., Martín-​Pastory, E., & Martínez-​Abad, F. (2020). Is bilingual education inclusive? Analysis of the presence and support strategies for students with special educational needs. Bordon: Revista de Pedagogía, 72(2), 65–​82. https://​doi.org/​10.13042/ ​Bor​don.2020.71484 Evnitskaya, N., & Dalton-​Puffer, C. (2020). Cognitive discourse functions in CLIL classrooms: eliciting and analysing students’ oral categorizations in science and history. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, Special Issue. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​13670 ​050.2020.1804​824 García, O. (2009). Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global perspective. Wiley-​Blackwell. Grandinetti, M., Langellotti, M., & Ting, Y.L.T. (2013). How CLIL can provide a pragmatic means to renovate science education even in a sub-​optimally bilingual context. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16(3), 354–​374. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​13670 ​050.2013.777​390 Heras, A., & Lasagabaster, D. (2015). The impact of CLIL on affective factors and vocabulary learning. Language Teaching Research, 19(1), 70–​88. https://​doi.org/​10.1177/​13621​6881​4541​736 Jäppinen, A.K. (2005). Thinking and content learning of mathematics and science as cognitional development in content and language integrated learning (CLIL): Teaching through a foreign

138

Cognitive development in CLIL language in Finland. Language and Education, 19(2), 147–​168. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​095007​8050​ 8668​671 Kirschner, P., Sweller, J., & Clark, R.E. (2006). Why unguided learning does not work: An analysis of the failure of discovery learning, problem-​based learning, experiential learning and inquiry-​based learning. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–​86. Krathwohl, D.R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 212–​264. https://​doi.org/​10.1207/​s15​4304​21ti​p410​4 _ ​2 Lasagabaster, D. (2011). English achievement and student motivation in CLIL and EFL settings. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 5(1), 3–​18. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​17501​229.2010.519​030 Lasagabaster, D., & Doiz, A. (2017). A longitudinal study on the impact of CLIL on affective factors. Applied Linguistics, 38(5), 688–​712. https://​doi.org/​10.1093/​app​l in/​a mv ​059 Lasagabaster, D., & López Beloqui, R. (2015). The impact of type of approach (CLIL versus EFL) and methodology (book-​based versus project work) on motivation. Porta Linguarum, 23, 41–​57. Llinares, A. (2015). Integration in CLIL: A proposal to inform research and successful pedagogy. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28(1), 58–​73. Llinares, A., & McCabe, A. (2020). Systemic functional linguistics: The perfect match for content and language integrated learning. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. https://​doi. org/​10.1080/​13670​050.2019.1635​985 Lorenzo, F. (2017). Historical literacy in bilingual settings: Cognitive academic language in CLIL history narratives. Linguistics and Education, 37, 32–​41. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.lin​ged.2016.11.002 Mehisto, P., & Marsh, D. (2011). Approaching the economic, cognitive and health benefits of bilingualism: Fuel for CLIL. In Y. Ruiz de Zarobe, J.M. Sierra, & F. Gallardo del Puerto (Eds.), Content and foreign language integrated learning (pp. 21–​47). Peter Lang. Méndez García, M.C. (2014). A case study on teachers’ insights into their students’ Language and cognition development through the Andalusian CLIL programme. Porta Linguarum, 22, 23–​39. www.sco​pus.com/​i nw​a rd/​rec​ord.url?eid=​2 -​s2.0- ​8490​3702​974&partne​rID=​4 0&md5=​e469d​59e4​ f69a​3130​73d8​fc27​db53​645 Meyer, O. (2010). Towards quality-​CLIL: Successful planning and teaching strategies. Pulso, 33(1), 11–​29. http://​revis​t apu ​l so.carde​nalc​isne​ros.es/​doc​u men​tos/​a rticu ​los/​114.pdf Moore, P., & Lorenzo, F. (2015). Task-​based learning and content and language integrated learning materials design: Process and product. Language Learning Journal, 43(3), 334–​357. https://​doi.org/​ 10.1080/​09571​736.2015.1053​282 Morton, T. (2020). Cognitive discourse functions: A bridge between content, literacy and language for teaching and assessment in CLIL. CLIL: Journal of Innovation and Research in Plurilingual and Pluricultural Education, 3(1), 7–​17. https://​doi.org/​10.5565/​rev/​clil.33 Muñoz, C. (2002). Relevance & potential of CLIL. In D. Marsh (Ed.), CLIL/​EMILE: The European dimension (pp. 35–​36). University of Jyväskylä. Nicolay, A.C., & Poncelet, M. (2013). Cognitive abilities underlying second-​language vocabulary acquisition in an early second-​language immersion education context: A longitudinal study. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 115(4), 655–​671. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.jecp.2013.04.002 Nieto Moreno de Diezmas, E. (2016). The impact of CLIL on the acquisition of the learning to learn competence in secondary school education in the bilingual programmes of Castilla-​La Mancha. Porta Linguarum, 25, 21–​34. www.ugr.es/​~ porta ​l in/​a rticu​los/​PL_ ​n​u mer​o25/​2 Esther Nieto.pdf Nikula, T., Dafouz, E., Moore, P., & Smit, U. (2016). Conceptualising integration in CLIL and multilingual education. Multilingual Matters. Otwinowska, A., & Foryś, M. (2017). They learn the CLIL way, but do they like it? Affectivity and cognition in upper-​primary CLIL classes. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 20(5), 457–​480. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​13670 ​050.2015.1051​944 Pena Díaz, C., & Porto Requejo, M. D. (2008). Teacher beliefs in a CLIL education project. Porta Linguarum, 10, 151–​161. https://​doi.org/​10.30827/ ​Digi​bug.31786 Pérez-​Cañado, M.L. (2010). Introduction. Revista de Lenguas Para Fines Específicos, 19(2013), 12–​27. Peyró, M.C.R., Herrero, E.C., & Pérez, E.L. (2020). Thinking skills in primary education: An analysis of CLIL textbooks in Spain. Porta Linguarum, 33, 183–​200. http://​hdl.han​d le.net/​10481/​62823 Reitbauer, M., Fürstenberg, U., Kletzenbauer, P., & Marko, K. (2018). Towards a cognitive-​linguistic turn in CLIL: Unfolding integration. Latin American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning, 11(1), 87–​108. https://​doi.org/​10.5294/​lac​l il.2018.11.1.5

139

Alberto Fernández-Costales Roussel, S., Joulia, D., Tricot, A., & Sweller, J. (2017). Learning subject content through a foreign language should not ignore human cognitive architecture: A cognitive load theory approach. Learning and Instruction, 52, 69–​79. http://​d x.doi.org/​10.1016/​j.learn​i nst​r uc.2017.04.007 Rumlich, D. (2017). CLIL theory and empirical reality: Two sides of the same coin? Journal of Immersion and Content-​Based Language Education, 5(1), 110–​134. https://​doi.org/​10.1075/​jicb.5.1.05rum Sánchez, L. (2019). Weighing up the effects of working memory and cognitive abilities in CLIL learning. English Language Teaching, 12(2), 113–​126. https://​doi.org/​10.5539/​elt.v12n2p​113 Sędek, G., & M. Kofta. (1990). When cognitive exertion does not yield cognitive gain: Toward an informational explanation of learned helplessness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 729–​743. Sweller, J. (1999). Instructional design in technical areas. ACER Press. Sweller, J. (2015). In academe, what is learned and how is it learned? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24, 190–​194. Sweller, J. (2016a). Working memory, long-​term memory, and instructional design. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 5, 360–​367. Sweller, J. (2016b). Cognitive load theory, evolutionary educational psychology, and instructional design. In D. Geary & D. Berch (Eds.), Evolutionary perspectives on child development and education (pp. 291–​306). Springer. Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory. Springer. Sweller, J., Kirschner, P., & Clark, R. E. (2007). Why minimally guided teaching techniques do not work: A reply to commentaries. Educational Psychologist, 42, 115–​121. Yassin, S.M., Tek, O.E., Alimon, H., Baharom, S., & Ying, L.Y. (2010). Teaching science through English: Engaging pupils cognitively. International CLIL Research Journal, 1(3), 46–​59.

140

141

10 INTERCULTURAL CITIZENSHIP AS CLIL IN FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION Melina Porto

Introduction The point of departure of this chapter is that CLIL in schools and universities, in any of its varied and multiple forms, can have an educational foundation aimed at fostering students’ intercultural and citizenship development. Meyer et al. (2015) contribute an educational perspective that partially addresses this expectation through what they call ‘a pluriliteracies approach’ to CLIL. This approach highlights the content (subject matter) and communication (language) continua, the importance of the integration, and learners’ pluriliteracies development as citizens. Fostering students’ development as citizens is one way in which CLIL can realise its educational potential. The pluriliteracies approach suggests that this development occurs through the integration of content and language where the focus is on disciplinary literacies to promote deeper learning and expand learners’ meaning-​m aking potential. But how exactly does this integration foster students’ intercultural and citizenship development and how can it be achieved in actual classrooms? The answer is not totally clear, in part because while integration is not under debate, the ways in which it can be encouraged are fraught with challenges that merit further understanding and research (Banegas, 2020; Dalton-​Puffer et al., 2014; Dalton-​Puffer & Nikula, 2014; Meyer et al., 2015). For instance, many times this integration is superficial because it focuses predominantly on either content or language learning and has purely instrumental aims such as acquiring specific content or mastering the second/​foreign language (see Nikula et al., 2016). More specifically, in ‘language-​d riven CLIL models (i.e., teaching English as an additional language through topics derived from the school curriculum)’ (Banegas et al., 2020, p. 284), the focus of attention in this chapter, strong emphasis is placed on language outcomes obtained using test scores, questionnaires and standardised measures (Admiraal et al., 2006; Aguilar & Muñoz, 2014; Heras & Lasagabaster, 2015; Lorenzo et al., 2010, 2011; Mearns, 2012; Ruiz de Zarobe & Zenotz, 2015; see overview in Ruiz de Zarobe, 2011) that tend to disregard processes and the micro-​d imensions of the classroom (cf. Dalton-​Puffer & Nikula, 2006; Nikula et al., 2013). Pedagogy usually relies on the provision of input and information using a transmission approach (Meyer et al., 2015).

DOI: 10.4324/9781003173151-13

141

Melina Porto

There is little autonomous learning (Meyer et al., 2015), teachers dominate talk (Kääntä et al., 2016; Yi Lo & Macaro, 2015), classroom tasks become exercises (Gené-​Gil et al., 2015; Kääntä et al., 2016; Whittaker et al., 2011), the integration of content and language often occurs at below sentence-​level grammar and vocabulary (e.g., nominal groups) (Lorenzo, 2013), and receptive skills tend to gain more attention than productive skills (Aguilar & Muñoz, 2014; Cenoz, 2015; Cenoz & Ruiz de Zarobe, 2015; Mearns, 2012; Meyer et al., 2015). In sum, these characteristics of language-​d riven CLIL seem to give predominance to the aim of acquiring and/​or mastering the language at hand and this aim by itself, if not complemented appropriately, is instrumental (Byram & Wagner, 2018). Furthermore, theoretically, research on CLIL is grounded on second language acquisition theories, sociolinguistic models, classroom discourse approaches, and systemic functional linguistics (Hemmi & Banegas, 2021a; Llinares, 2015) but no theories of citizenship that would contribute to realising CLIL’s educational potential beyond the instrumental. In a recent comprehensive volume on CLIL with an international perspective, the citizenship dimension is not addressed and is not identified as an area deserving further exploration (Hemmi & Banegas, 2021b). It is no surprise then that the educational foundation of world language education in schools and universities aimed at the integral development of individuals and the cultivation of democratic, peaceful, just, and sustainable societies (Byram & Wagner, 2018) has not yet attracted sufficient attention from CLIL scholars and practitioners. It is possible that an overemphasis on the various dimensions of integration has driven the attention away from the critical examination and revision of the educational goals of integrating content and language. This chapter makes a contribution in this respect by suggesting that CLIL teaching and learning must be informed and guided by an educational vision which supersedes all pedagogic and didactical decisions.

Intercultural and citizenship dimensions in CLIL: the 4Cs framework and the pluriliteracies model Despite the predominance of this instrumental orientation in pedagogy and in learning outcomes and the lack of citizenship theories supporting CLIL, over a decade ago Coyle et al. (2010) did define CLIL as an educational approach. However, as Cenoz et al. (2014) point out, the perspective is limited and usually restricted to instruction or curriculum development. Later Meyer et al. (2015, p. 53) introduced the concept of ‘the pluriliterate citizen’ in CLIL as its educational basis, where the focus is on becoming a functionally literate being in terms of being able to make and interpret meanings beyond the written mode considering plurimodal semiotics. In Coyle and Meyer’s (2021, p. 184) words, ‘our pluriliteracies model is based on a functional understanding of language as a process of meaning making’. While this is certainly important, it is not sufficient to make CLIL educational in the sense that Byram and Wagner (2018) characterise world language education, i.e., in terms of learners’ personal development and the fostering of democratic, peaceful, just, and sustainable societies. In this regard, Coyle and Meyer (2021, p. 19) have recently stated that ‘CLIL has been disconnected from broader educational debate’ and suggest that ‘integrated learning must be sustainable, equitable and of perceived value by societies and members of communities within them [considering] the broader sense of educational values and purposes’ (p. 17). They refer to this broader dimension as the values-​d riven pillar of CLIL: ‘CLIL must provide a quality curriculum experience for all learners’ (Coyle & Meyer, 2021, p. 20, italics in original). For CLIL to realise this educational potential, the point in this chapter is that it would need to foster

142

Intercultural citizenship as CLIL in FL education

learners’ intercultural and citizenship development in addition to the linguistic. Let us now see how CLIL deals with these dimensions. The intercultural dimension of communication and of language learning is explicitly addressed in Coyle’s 4Cs framework (Coyle, 2006, 2007a, 2007b). It involves ‘communication and cultures’ and also ‘intercultural experiences’ and ‘intercultural awareness’ where ‘culture permeates the whole’ (Coyle, 2007a, p. 550). Coyle elaborates in this way: the 4Cs Framework … marks a shift in emphasis from language learning based on linguistic form and grammatical progression to a more ‘language using’ one which takes account of functional and cultural imperatives. Coyle, 2007a, p. 551 Mapped onto Meyer et al.’s (2015) pluriliteracies approach, this dimension comprises the ‘societal and academic cultural determinants of learning’ and is described as the ability to ‘conceptualise content in ways that are appropriate to the subject C-​Culture’ (p. 51), or put differently, the ability to ‘communicate purposefully across cultures and languages using the appropriate style, mode and genre typical for the subject and for the audience’ (p. 51, italics in original). In short, the intercultural is given importance by acknowledging the significant role of contextual elements that determine the appropriate use of language considering audience, purpose, setting in time and place, topic, mode, and so on. This understanding of the intercultural bears resonances with the notions of context of situation and context of culture written about, for example, by Malinowski in the 1920s. Most CLIL researchers recognise the importance of the intercultural dimension to help learners use linguistic forms appropriately (Cenoz, 2015; Cenoz & Ruiz de Zarobe, 2015; Coyle, 2007a; Coyle & Meyer, 2021; Llinares et al., 2012; Mearns, 2012, among others), and Meyer et al. (2015) highlight the need for learners to ‘understand, critically reflect and create multimodal messages’ (p. 50). However, this understanding of the intercultural appears limiting in the face of current conceptualisations of language learning involving intercultural communicative competence (Byram, 1997, 2021) and intercultural language learning (Liddicoat, 2021). These conceptualisations state that learners need intercultural awareness and competence not only to use language in appropriate ways depending on contextual elements, but also to act as intercultural speakers and/​or intercultural mediators across several languages, subject domains, and cultures. This means that language learners negotiate their meanings with others resorting to their plurilingual repertoires, semiotic resources, and social practices in complex and dynamic ways. In so doing, they use the intercultural skills of observation, analysis, discovery, comparison, contrast, relating, de-​ centring, perspective-​taking, interpretation, critical reflection, and evaluation (Byram, 1997, 2008, 2021). When learners apply these skills towards the resolution of a local problem of social significance for their community, the intercultural dimension acquires educational significance and the approach is called ‘intercultural citizenship’ (Byram, 2008, 2014; Byram et al., 2017; Byram & Golubeva, 2020). I shall come back to this notion later. With respect to the citizenship sphere, Coyle stated 15 years ago that CLIL ‘is rooted in a philosophical stance to do with education first and then CLIL’ (Coyle, 2007a, p. 551, italics added) and suggested that global citizenship could become an agenda for CLIL to realise this educational potential. She explained: The interrelationship between cultures and languages is complex (Byram, 2001). The framework [4Cs] puts culture at the core and intercultural understanding 143

Melina Porto

pushes the boundaries towards alternative agendas such as transformative pedagogies, global citizenship, student voice and ‘identity investment’ (Cummins, 2004). Coyle, 2007a, p. 551 However, she did not elaborate on these agendas then and offered no definition of global citizenship or specific details of how it could be accomplished through CLIL. Mapped onto Meyer et al.’s (2015) pluriliteracies model, this agenda is realised by fostering deep learning understood as engagement with new knowledge in the real world beyond the classroom through criticality and reflection. Coyle and Meyer (2021) highlight ‘the flow of CLIL into purposeful educational encounters … [in] an evolving Pluriliteracies Model [that] maps out a new trajectory towards more inclusive, aligned, purposeful learning experiences … embracing education in the broadest sense’ (pp. 31–​32, italics in original). However, to my knowledge, this agenda has not been realised theoretically further than this conceptualisation and it has not been enacted in practice pedagogically. Interestingly, in Coyle and Meyer’s (2021) recent formulation of pluriliteracies perspectives in CLIL, the word ‘citizenship’ appears sparingly throughout the book and terms like ‘citizenship’, ‘community’, ‘action’, ‘engagement’, and ‘civic’ are not listed in the index at all. The key phrase to lift from this conceptualisation of the pluriliteracies model is ‘engage beyond the classroom’, or ‘bring the outside in and the inside out’ (Coyle & Meyer, 2021, p. 32), a characteristic that is not given due attention and is not present in accounts of CLIL categorised as addressing global citizenship. The reason may be, as mentioned before, that CLIL research is not grounded on theories of citizenship, where ‘engage beyond the classroom’ means community engagement, i.e., students take social or civic action in their communities during their language learning in schools and universities. For instance, in a review of CLIL in South America, Banegas et al. (2020) categorise several studies under the global citizenship category, but the investigations miss this community engagement pillar. They deal with the use of culturally relevant and locally situated materials, raising students’ intercultural awareness, and developing their intercultural (communicative) competence (e.g., Garzón-​Díaz, 2018/​2021; Helver, 2015; Liendo, 2012; Zhyrun, 2016). These are characteristics and aims of intercultural language education (Byram, 1997, 2021; Liddicoat, 2021), which are also part of intercultural citizenship education, but not sufficient. By the same token, in another review article in the same region, Banegas (2021) identifies ground-​ breaking research in South America dealing with challenging topics in the area of citizenship, such as gender issues, comprehensive sexual education, identity, diversity, human rights, and social justice. However, as I show next, addressing themes of social import is a necessary, but not sufficient, characteristic of intercultural citizenship education (Byram, 2008; Byram et al., 2017; Byram & Golubeva, 2020).

Contributions of intercultural citizenship theory and pedagogy to CLIL On this basis, the argument in this chapter is that intercultural citizenship theory can complement the pluriliteracies model to contribute to the realisation of CLIL’s citizenship agenda. The theory posits that the instrumental aims of world language education (study, travel, entertainment, employment, and so on) can be combined with those of education for citizenship in schools and universities to cultivate a sense of citizenry in students (Byram, 2008, 2014; Byram et al., 2017; Byram & Golubeva, 2020). The integration of instrumental and educational aims occurs as socially significant themes (poverty, violence, discrimination, 144

Intercultural citizenship as CLIL in FL education

ecology, war, diversity, and so on) are addressed (content learning) in the L2 (language learning) and students engage in civic action in their communities in their here and now (citizenship learning). Pedagogically, students from two or more countries who speak different native languages engage in intercultural communication around a particular theme (Byram et al., 2017). In related work, Byram and Wagner (2018) state that intercultural citizenship can occur in one’s own country and community, not necessarily at a transnational level, although collaboration is assumed to take place across linguistic and cultural boundaries. Recently Porto and Di Bin (2022) have shown that intercultural citizenship can indeed happen in contexts where transnational communication with others is not possible. Specifically, following Byram et al. (2017), in an intercultural citizenship project, whether transnational (examples available in Byram et al., 2017) or in contexts in which students in one class in one country only interact among themselves (e.g., Porto & Di Bin, 2022), learners work collaboratively (with or without international peers) to make a contribution to the world by relating the theme to their local conditions. They communicate using any shared language, English as lingua franca, or English as a foreign language, in addition to their native language and any other available languages. Using project work, problem-​ solving, and task-​based, experiential, and student-​centred activities, the teacher facilitates, mediates, supports, and activates instead of delivering content in a traditional sense. There are at least four stages in any intercultural citizenship project (Byram et al. 2017), generally in this order, although stages are not fixed. They are introductory, awareness-​ raising, dialogue, and citizenship. There can be a final reflection phase as well. The introductory stage stimulates students’ curiosity about the theme as they research, explore and reflect on it in their world language classrooms (not interacting with their international peers yet if the project is transnational) and at home. The focus is on content in the 4Cs framework. Students choose the materials to research the theme, which may include varied sign systems, mediums, and languages (print, non-​print, visual, digital, multimodal, artistic, performative, embodied). They gain experience in the conceptualising continuum with a focus on facts and concepts about the theme. They discuss ideas and design posters (or leaflets, videos, etc.) to summarise their research, and in so doing they restructure content in ways they find meaningful and relevant using procedures, strategies, and skills that involve cognition (e.g., meaning negotiation, critical analysis, reflection, perspective-​t aking, and so on). With a focus on content and cognition, the awareness-​raising stage stimulates students’ critical and reflective analysis of the materials they collected during the previous stage, for instance by comparing and contrasting various perspectives on the theme (likely to be conflicting or in tension) to consider biased or prejudiced representations intended to manipulate their thinking and behaviour. They again restructure their knowledge by engaging in creative redesign using posters, leaflets, or any other means. Focusing on communication and cultures, during the intercultural dialogue stage in a transnational project, the students in each country meet online and discuss the theme based on the research they have done. They work collaboratively in mixed nationality groups to design an artefact (e.g., an artistic creation) to sensitise people in their societies but also globally about the theme. In projects without a transnational component, students in one class in one country interact with each other and they also interact with others in other (distant) places and contexts through texts (of all kinds) and the imagination (Risager, 2006). To accomplish the collaborative task, they must ‘ “express/​verbalise” subject-​specific concepts or conceptual knowledge in an appropriate style using the appropriate genre and genre moves for the specific purpose of the communication in a wide variety of modes’ (Meyer et al., 2015, p. 50). They consider aspects such as the message (content) they wish to convey, their intended 145

Melina Porto Table 10.1  Forms of civic engagement Classification: by means of joint work with others (Byram 2008; Byram et al. 2017) Pre-​political 1. Critical reflection on one’s own assumptions and those of others. 2. Critical reflection: proposing/​imagining possible alternatives and changes. Political 3. Proposing change and taking action to instigate change in one’s own society. 4. Proposing change in cooperation with others and taking action to instigate change in each participant’s society. 5. Planning and carrying out joint actions as an international/​t ransnational community.

audience and their specific purpose, with attention to relevant situational, contextual, socio-​ cultural, historical, and other factors. As they interact with texts and their international peers (if available), students ‘participat[e]‌in and construct meaningful social interactions’ (Meyer et al., 2015, p. 50). As they pay attention to message, purpose, audience, mode, and style, they engage cognitive discourse functions which bridge the conceptualisating continuum (content learning) with the communicating continuum (language learning) in the pluriliteracies model (Meyer et al., 2015). In the citizenship stage, still in mixed nationality groups or in within-​country groups depending on the context, and resulting from such collaborative work, learners imagine ways to make small changes in their social milieu in relation to the theme and on this basis, they plan and sometimes implement civic or social actions relevant to their local contexts and sometimes also relevant beyond that. According to Byram (2008), as Table 10.1 shows, this civic engagement can be of two kinds: pre-​political, i.e., at the level of thought, awareness and personal change; and political, i.e. at the level of individual action, or action in cooperation with others. In projects without a transnational component, level 5 involves learners working with distant others in imagined communities. In these communities, members ‘do not have a chance of knowing each other, and therefore do not have the possibility either of acting together in personal interaction’ (Risager, 2006, p. 190). For details, see Porto and Di Bin (2022). Political levels of civic engagement involve what Barnett (1997) calls a ‘collective reconstruction of the world’: students develop their critical skills; apply them to the knowledge they have acquired, to their own selves, and to the world; and this criticality leads to significant change in society, or ‘critique-​in-​action’. This reconstruction of the world transforms learners from being functionally literate in multiple languages as pluriliterate citizens (Coyle & Meyer, 2021; Meyer et al., 2015) into becoming transformative individuals who are able to enact significant albeit small changes in their social milieu and/​or the global community.1 Finally, the axioms and characteristics of intercultural citizenship (Alred et al., 2006, pp. 233–​234; Byram et al., 2017, pp. xxiv–​x xv) that can contribute to broadening CLIL’s citizenship agenda are: 1. A comparative orientation in activities of teaching and learning (with equal attention to cognition/​k nowledge, affect/​attitude, behaviours/​skills, and values) (for instance, comparison and contrast involving languages, worldviews, values, beliefs) and a critical perspective which questions naturalised assumptions through the process of comparison. 146

Intercultural citizenship as CLIL in FL education

2. An explicit emphasis on becoming conscious of working with others (of different groups and cultures) (e.g., teamwork, collaboration, intercultural dialogue) through (a) processes of comparison and (b) communication in a language (L1 or L2/​3/​…) which influences perceptions and fosters awareness of multiple identities. 3. The creation of a community of action and communication which is transnational (real or imagined) and connects people of different beliefs, values and behaviours that are potentially in conflict. 4. A new sense of identification with this community, or group identity, which can be temporary and involves a new way of thinking and acting. 5. Community engagement, or ‘action in the world’, as students engage their critical skills to address a local problem (with global consequences) identified in their community by working with others; this social or civic action can reach communities at local, regional, national or global levels. The next section will showcase how these axioms and characteristics can be enacted in practice.

Examples of intercultural citizenship-​based CLIL in language classrooms In this section I illustrate how intercultural citizenship can realise CLIL’s citizenship agenda. Some examples are available in Byram et al. (2017) and Porto et al. (2018) although they are not theorised as CLIL. They all include some form of civic engagement (Table 10.1) but very few studies have reached the highest levels of political engagement in Byram’s (2008) classification. For this reason, my illustration takes four language-​d riven CLIL projects (Cenoz, 2015) carried out in language classrooms in Argentina between 2012 and 2014 which reached level 4 and occasionally level 5 of political engagement. In three cases, language undergraduates in an Argentinian university (Year 2 prospective teachers and/​or translators of English as a foreign language) worked with language undergraduates in a British university (Year 1 and Year 2 Spanish Honours students), focusing on the Malvinas/​Falklands war fought between both countries in 1982 (2012 project), and on the 1978 football World Cup hosted in Argentina in the context of a military dictatorship (1976–​1983) (2013 and 2014 projects). All students were between 18 and 22 years old and had a B2/​C1 level in their foreign language (Council of Europe, 2001). The fourth case involved the same population in Argentina and Year 2 undergraduates studying English at an Italian university, who addressed the theme of mural art and graffiti (2013 project) using English as lingua franca. Publications based on these projects appear in Porto (2014, 2017, 2018), Porto and Yulita (2017), and Yulita and Porto (2017). The four projects followed the stages of intercultural citizenship described above (introductory, awareness-​raising, dialogue, and citizenship). Each of the projects involved all students in all the stages. Next, I include general examples from the four projects that illustrate how intercultural citizenship can realise CLIL’s educational basis and I make connections with the pluriliteracies model. To give an in-​depth flavour of what the projects accomplished, I then focus on the murals project carried out between Argentinian and Italian students in 2013 to illustrate my argument with data collected then (collaborative mural, reflection log, Skype conversation extracts, civic actions or actions in the world) (Porto, 2017, 2018).

147

Melina Porto

Content and language integration Crucially, the integration of content and language occurred as students, in mixed nationality groups, engaged in the collaborative task of creating bilingual leaflets for peace (or any artistic multimodal creation) aimed at the reconciliation of Argentina and Britain and their peoples (Malvinas war project); at raising awareness about human rights violations in society (dictatorship projects); and at raising the awareness of people about whether mural art and graffiti are a form of art or an act of vandalism (murals project). To realise these aims in their artistic multimodal creations, students had to express concepts or conceptual knowledge from specific subject domains (history, art) in an appropriate style, genre, and mode considering the particular messages they wished to convey, their intended audience, and their specific purpose (Meyer et al., 2015). To do this, they engaged in intercultural dialogue online with their international peers to agree upon these aspects and to decide how to portray them in their creations using linguistic but also non-​linguistic means. In so doing, they mobilised and re-​structured the knowledge about the themes that they had acquired during the introductory and awareness-​raising stages. They also deployed their linguistic and communicative competence, as well as their intercultural competence, i.e., the skills that exemplify intercultural learning (observation, analysis, reflection, interpretation, perspective-​t aking, evaluation, and so on). These are the abilities and skills that characterise the pluriliterate citizen –​skills and abilities that foster students’ pluriliteracies development understood as ‘the dynamic and evolving development of subject specific literacies in several subjects and languages’ (Coyle & Meyer, 2021, p. 184).

Engagement with the world beyond the classroom To be able to say that the projects addressed CLIL’s citizenship agenda following Meyer et al. (2015) and Coyle and Meyer (2021), the requirement in the pluriliteracies model is that students ‘engage with the world beyond the classroom’. However, what this means exactly beyond engaging with significant and relevant world issues is not clear and no indication is given of how teachers can bring ‘the outside in and the inside out’ pedagogically. In intercultural citizenship, this means community action, community engagement, or community outreach. In the projects described above, this happened as the Argentinian students took concrete civic action in their community. Due to institutional restrictions, the British and Italian students did not participate in this phase and for this reason, the actions described next are categorised as ‘political engagement, level 4’ (Table 10.1). Even though there were no joint actions implemented collaboratively with the international peers (level 5), the forms of engagement that took place at level 4 were possible only as a result of the collaboration and intercultural dialogue facilitated by the projects. For instance, some students designed and taught lessons about the project themes (Malvinas war, Argentinian dictatorship, mural art and graffiti) in language schools, universities, community centres, and local NGOs. Others distributed the collaborative awareness-​raising leaflets they had designed with their international peers in squares in their city. Some participated in a local radio programme and others interviewed family members and friends to gather their views on the themes and wrote reports summarising their findings. One group created reverse graffiti (an environmentally friendly way of creating temporary images on walls by removing dirt from a surface). Others contributed their art work based on the dictatorship theme to a local museum. Most students created blogs and Facebook pages where they shared the outcomes of the

148

Intercultural citizenship as CLIL in FL education

projects (posters, photos, videos, drawings, interviews, and other material) and gathered the reactions and views on the themes from people around the world. This engagement with the global community through blogging and social media can be considered to illustrate level 5 of political engagement as the learners’ attention was directed beyond their local communities towards a transnational layer. In addition, despite the fact that the action was not planned and carried out in collaboration with the international peers (what level 5 involves), what students shared in their blogs and social media was the outcome of their joint work during the project. Overall, these actions illustrate the community engagement element of intercultural citizenship, also referred to as ‘action in the world’ (Byram, 2008; Byram et al., 2017; Byram & Golubeva, 2020), and the argument in this chapter is that they enact CLIL’s citizenship agenda in practice.

The murals project All the data samples used in this section belong to one mixed nationality group consisting of two Argentinian and two Italian students. Analysing various data types by this same group provides depth and triangulation. We shall not only see students declaring in their reflection log that they have gained a new perspective; we shall also see their perspectives being verbalised and enriched through discussion in the intercultural dialogue stage, registered in the recorded Skype conversation extracts included here. Furthermore, we shall see their perspectives materialised in an artistic artefact, namely their collaborative mural, and enacted in the local community through their various civic actions.

Collaborative task Figure 10.1 shows one collaborative mural. In their final reflection log, the students stated the rationale for their mural, based on the idea that “BONDS are made through art” (their emphasis in capitals), and explained: We think that this phrase … summarises our experience. Every time we chatted made us unconsciously become closer to each other. Every time we began with the pre-​set questions but the answers revealed more than just our findings, they revealed pieces of us. We discovered how much we had in common even though we were continents apart … Art, colours and words created a long-​lasting bond between us. Reflection log, italics added They invested their identities during the project (‘revealed pieces of us’), embedded their names in the mural (Edda, Piero, Bruno, Gonza) and noted the collaborative nature of their work by referring to it as ‘Padova-​La Plata’ in the upper-​left hand corner. In this way, the mural captures the new group identity they developed by means of their work in a transnational community, also indicated by the expression ‘a long-​lasting bond between us’ in the reflection log. This group identification evolved through the discovery of commonalities and shared worlds (‘closer to each other’, ‘we discovered how much we had in common’, reflection log). A comparative orientation is present in the mural, for instance in the use of languages (Spanish, English), in the combination of the students’ names and cities, and in the juxtaposition of photos of murals in Padova and La Plata cities. There is also a critical perspective that questions naturalised assumptions (‘can this be vandalism?’, ‘money is the

149

Melina Porto

Figure 10.1  Collaborative mural

world’s power’ with a thumb pointing down indicating disapproval). Moreover, the students attributed a very significant role to art as a means to transform life at individual and collective levels and they conveyed this message using short sentences resembling mottos: ‘somos lo que hacemos’, ‘we are what we paint’, ‘butterflies can paint the world’, ‘nothing is right or wrong’. They addressed their intended audience using imperatives to foster personal change in others (‘colour your life’, ‘don’t be stupid’, ‘use your brain’, ‘let your ideas fly’) and they also made a call to their audience to foster collective change (‘change’, ‘it’s time to change your world’). This is political engagement at level 2 in Byram’s (2008) classification (Table 10.1), which involves critical reflection and proposing and imagining possible alternatives and changes. In their reflection log, the students expressed how they conceptualised this political engagement basis for their mural: ‘street art can change people’s mind and begin a revolution with its drawings’ where the words ‘change’ and ‘revolution’ are the linguistic evidence of their political engagement in addition to their mural. In sum, the mural illustrates the axioms and characteristics of intercultural citizenship that can contribute to realising CLIL’s citizenship agenda, namely comparative and critical perspectives in languages and perspectives, a transnational community of action and communication, a new sense of bonding and identification with this community, and civic engagement.

Bridging the content and communication continua Worth noting is the students’ use of plurimodal semiotics to convey their message in the mural through the combination of digital and handmade drawings, colours, words, and 150

Intercultural citizenship as CLIL in FL education

symbols, juxtaposed with photos of murals in Padova and La Plata cities, resulting in a creative multimodal art form. The following Skype conversation extract shows their use of language during the process of creation, in particular how they collaboratively made decisions about what to say (message) (italicised in the extract), for what purpose (why) (underlined) and how to say it (in bold). Their conversation illustrates the bridging of the content and communication continua postulated in the pluriliteracies model (Coyle & Meyer, 2021; Meyer et al., 2015). For instance, the students began by discussing the message (‘what do we want to represent’) and the means to convey it (‘how’) in their mural:

I TA L 2:   Do you have any idea? A RG1:  Maybe we can think of, of what do we want to represent in the graffiti. I TA L1: Yeah. A RG1: And then how… In so doing, they stated their aim (‘demonstrate our relationship or the project’), defined the content of their message as ‘something connected to graffiti’, and discussed several means, linguistic and non-​linguistic, to convey that in their mural such as including ‘many posts’, ‘a word or phrases’, ‘our names’, ‘our cities’, ‘something about us’, ‘painting’, ‘colours’, and ‘images’.

I TA L1:  I think we can create something of course connected to graffiti. I TA L 2:   And I also think to put many posts with … with a word or phrases that we have in common, to demonstrate our relationship or the project, such as, I don’t know, we write our names, we write our cities. I TA L1: Yeah. A RG1:  Yes, I think we also can add something about us. A RG1:  Maybe I thought about how … how, how … how enriching it was for us, and put it in painting by the colours, by images or phrases. I TA L1:  Yes, of course. I TA L 2:   I think the problem is to find the images. A RG1:  Yeah, of course. Finding the linguistic and non-​l inguistic means to convey their message was not straightforward. The students identified multiple possibilities such as finding ‘any graffiti that represent our ideas, or what we feel’, putting the information ‘in different posts’, writing ‘different sentences’, putting things ‘in the background’, and finding ‘images’. The process posed challenges (‘it’s not easy’).

A RG 2:   Maybe I would look for any with … any graffiti that represent our ideas, or what we feel … anything, maybe… […] A RG1:  It’s ok. But do we put all that information in the … on the graffiti? I didn’t understand that. I TA L1:  Ahm … in different posts. We can just write different sentences about different things … all put it together. […] 151

Melina Porto

A RG 2:   In the background. A RG1:  In the back, in the background. An on it we can put maybe … a, a little smaller, the images… I TA L 2:  Yeah. I TA L 2:  We, we have to find any images that, any image ahm…which is representative. A RG1: Ok. A RG 2:   It’s not easy… I TA L 2:   But … we can find the images. Now I think that we can put some … some words… This discussion about the means directed the students’ attention back to their purpose (‘clarify what we represent’, ‘something that represents the project’) and message again (‘a topic of the project we would communicate through our work’, ‘unity in the world’, ‘what would you represent’), to return once more to alternative means. They considered artistic means (‘transmit it not through words but through images’, ‘as the artist does’) including the ‘poetic’. They found multimodal means of meaning making to be difficult (‘the difficult part is’, ‘it’s a little bit difficult’).

I TA L1:  We suppose to … clarify also what we I TA L 2:   Represent. I TA L1:  Yeah, yeah. A sort of the, a topic of the project and … we would communicate through our work … I don’t know … a sort of unity in the world, in different cultures, the thing that we have many things in common. A RG1: Yes. I TA L1: But the, the difficult part is that we, have … have to transmit it not through words but through images … just as the artist does… I TA L1:  I think it´s a little bit difficult. […] I TA L1:  What, what, what … what would you represent? A RG 2:   Maybe … what you said before that. We have to, we have to look for something that represents the project… I TA L1: Yeah. I TA L 2:  Yeah. A RG1:  Ok. What, what do you think if it comes to our minds a phrase that explains it or something, more or less poetic. [laughter] These Skype conversation extracts show that the process of creation involved students in intercultural communication using English as lingua franca and the task of creating a collaborative mural drew their conscious attention to the importance of the message to be conveyed, its purpose, and the means to do so, linguistic and otherwise. In this way, the content and language dimensions of CLIL were integrated in this project as suggested in the pluriliteracies model. Furthermore, the students articulated the different aspects involved in this process in their reflection log, with an emphasis on learning content about the ‘subject of the project’ but also significantly beyond that subject domain (‘a variety of fields that does not only concern art’). The theme, art, was a ‘starting point’ that comprised a variety of other themes and dimensions such as ‘painting techniques and famous street artists to personal 152

Intercultural citizenship as CLIL in FL education

attitudes and politics’. The log also illustrates the concept of knowledge restructuring that is essential in the pluriliteracies model as students ‘did not only gain knowledge from the information they [we] searched specifically for this project, but also form the exchange of it’. Finally, the project ‘made them [us] eager to keep on learning about it [the theme]’ and lifelong learning is one educational aim of the pluriliteracies model. As regards the subject of the project, we found ourselves –​again –​learning more than we thought we would learn. Graffiti turned out to be a mode of expression that is related with a variety of fields that does not only concern art. Taking this theme as a starting point, we were able to discuss from painting techniques and famous street artists to personal attitudes and politics. In this way, we did not only gain knowledge from the information we searched specifically for this project, but also form the exchange of it […] This project opened our minds to new cultures and thoughts, which allowed us to know more about the world and made us eager to keep on learning about it. Reflection log, italics added

Community engagement With respect to CLIL’s citizenship agenda, Figures 10.2 and 10.3 illustrate how this agenda was realised in the form of community engagement when complemented with intercultural citizenship. For example, one group of students created reverse graffiti in one centrally located square in their town with the aim to sensitise the local community about the importance of environmentally friendly artistic expression in public places. First, they designed

Figure 10.2  Civic engagement

153

Melina Porto

Figure 10.3  Collaborative mural and civic action

several prototypes of a pigeon on paper (Figure 10.2a), then they cut them out in eva foam (Figure 10.2b), and finally they created their reverse graffiti by sticking the cut-​outs with tape on a wall and cleaning it with brushes, water and soap until the pigeons emerged (Figure 10.2c). Their graffiti appears in Figure 10.2d and illustrates level 4 of political engagement in Byram (2008). A final example appears in Figure 10.3. It contains two collaborative murals intended to convey the message that ‘art is universal’. One group of students considered that ‘art is universal’ because it is a ‘language’ and ‘everyone can understand and appreciate’ it. In their case, understanding this language helped them become critical as it ‘gave them [us] the opportunity to make a choice between legal or illegal graffiti’ (Figure 10.3a). Their ‘action in the world’, at level 4 of political engagement, consisted in sharing their mural with family 154

Intercultural citizenship as CLIL in FL education

and friends to foster this criticality in others as well. Another group also expressed that ‘art is universal’ because it crosses cultural boundaries, and they painted a mural conveying this message on an outside wall in one student’s house. Figure 10.3b is a photo of their mural –​ representing action at level 4. They chose different works of art by graffiti artists from the different cultures involved in the project using the stencil technique, namely Kenny Random from Italy, Banksy from Britain, and 8-​bit from Argentina. They connected each work of art by painting a bridge which they described as a cultural bridge (‘Arte =​Puente cultural’). Overall, these examples show that the community engagement characteristic of intercultural citizenship contributed to the realisation of CLIL’s citizenship agenda beyond its understanding as the development of students as pluriliterate beings. Here students became active and transformative citizens committed to their communities.

Conclusions and future directions This chapter contributes to the realisation of CLIL’s citizenship agenda by proposing to orient CLIL toward intercultural citizenship and community engagement. This agenda is not generally acknowledged in the literature as a possible theoretical underpinning for CLIL, as a direction for pedagogy, or as a future avenue for research. However, it was considered significant by Coyle (2007a) over a decade ago, without any specifications then, and was recently acknowledged in Meyer et al.’s (2015) pluriliteracies model and its developments (Coyle & Meyer, 2021). In this model, citizenship is realised when deep learning is fostered, meaning that students engage with new knowledge in the real world beyond the classroom through criticality and reflection. To the best of my understanding, this conceptualisation has not been realised theoretically further than this and it has not been enacted in practice pedagogically. Here I have argued and shown that intercultural citizenship theory provides a fresh theoretical conceptualisation on which such agenda can be grounded, fostered in the classroom, and researched. The first three pedagogic stages of intercultural citizenship (introductory, awareness-​raising, and intercultural dialogue) address the integration of content and language leading to students’ pluriliteracies development understood as the ability to express subject-​specific concepts appropriately taking into account aspects such as message, audience, and purpose using linguistic but also non-​ linguistic means comprising plurimodal semiotics. The fourth stage of intercultural citizenship, called citizenship, engages students with the community beyond the classroom as they take social or civic action in the world to address particular local problems associated with specific subject domains. Theoretically, how Meyer et al.’s (2015) pluriliteracies approach to CLIL (also Coyle & Meyer, 2021) could be complemented with intercultural citizenship theory (Byram, 2008) to realise its citizenship agenda deserves further exploration. This chapter contributes the articulation of intercultural citizenship axioms and characteristics that constitute one move in this direction: (1) comparative and critical perspectives in languages, perspectives, and worldviews; (2) a transnational community of action and communication; (3) a new sense of bonding and identification with this community; and (4) community engagement or action in the world. The pluriliteracies model could be updated on this basis. Pedagogically, beyond the cases briefly described here, there is a need for more classroom-​ based accounts of how this complementarity between the pluriliteracies model and intercultural citizenship theory can be enacted in real classrooms with varied characteristics around the world, including contexts in which transnational communication (either face to face or mediated by technologies) is not possible. Of particular interest is the exploration of 155

Melina Porto

learners’ development across time and diversity of situations in longitudinal projects. The projects described here lasted an average of four months and only the Malvinas project was undertaken during the whole academic year (nine months). Byram (2016) has remarked the need to routinise intercultural citizenship to accomplish mid-​and long-​term effects beyond the reported immediate gains (see Porto 2021 on the long-​term evaluation of these projects). It would also be important to explore whether, and how, the critical intercultural citizenship knowledge and orientation can be transferred across contexts, for instance formal education and beyond, other levels of education beyond higher education such as primary and elementary, community contexts, subject area teaching, bilingual education, EMI, ESP, EAP, and others. Finally, the realisation of political engagement at its highest levels, involving proposals for change in cooperation with others and action to instigate change in one’s society (level 4) and the planning and implementation of joint actions in the global community (level 5) is in need of further empirical research.

Note 1 Intercultural citizenship, in particular its critical and community engagement elements, bears resonances with experiential learning, community-​ based learning, critical literacies, critical perspectives in L2 and the notion of transformative action in critical pedagogies in Freire’s work. Byram does not refer to these connections except for criticality as in Barnett (1997).

Further reading Davies, I., Ho, L., Kiwan, D., Peterson, A., Waghid, Y., Peck, C., & Sant, E. (Eds.). (2018). The Palgrave volume of global citizenship and education. Macmillan. A handbook that focuses on the philosophical ideas, social and political contexts, and educational issues and practices of global citizenship. Of particular relevance is the section on issues in teaching and learning comprising history, geography, languages, science, drama, social media, service learning, study abroad, and activism. Piacentini, M., Barrett, M., Boix Mansilla, V., Deardorff, D., & Lee, H. (2018). Preparing our youth for an inclusive and sustainable world. The OECD PISA global competence framework. www.oecd.org/​edu This framework introduces an international global competence framework. It briefly describes the building blocks of global competence (knowledge, skills, attitudes, and values) and contributes theoretical and pedagogical perspectives including assessment. It identifies four key broad content domains considered to be suitable for its development: culture and intercultural relations, socio-​economic development and interdependence, environmental sustainability, and institutions, conflicts, and human rights. Wagner, M., Conlon Perugini, D., & Byram, M. (Eds.). (2018). Teaching intercultural competence across the age range: From theory to practice. Multilingual Matters. This book focuses on the teaching and learning of intercultural communicative competence and illustrates it with classroom-​based cases in foreign language classrooms in the USA ranging from elementary to university level. Each chapter addresses specific subject domains such as housing, transportation, cities, daily routines, immigrant experience, and beauty and aesthetics.

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, 75–​93. Aguilar, M., & Muñoz, C. (2014). The effect of proficiency on CLIL benefits in engineering students in Spain. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 24(1), 1–​18.

156

Intercultural citizenship as CLIL in FL education Alred, G., Byram, M., & Fleming, M. (2006). Education for intercultural citizenship: Concepts and comparisons. Multilingual Matters. Banegas, D.L. (2020). Conceptualising integration in CLIL and multilingual education. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 23(8), 942–​945. Banegas, D.L. (2021). Research into practice: CLIL in South America. Language Teaching, 1–​13. DOI:10.1017/​S0261444820000622 Banegas, D.L., Poole, P.M., & Corrales, K.A. (2020). Content and language integrated learning in Latin America 2008–​2018: Ten years of research and practice. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 10(2), 283–​305. Barnett, R. (1997). Higher education: A critical business. Open University Press. Byram, M. (1997, 2021). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. Multilingual Matters. Byram, M. (2008). From foreign language education to education for intercultural citizenship. Multilingual Matters. Byram, M. (2014). Twenty-​five years on –​from cultural studies to intercultural citizenship. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 27, 209–​225. Byram, M. (2016). Foreign language learning after Brexit. Public lecture, University of East Anglia. Byram, M., & Golubeva, I. (2020). Conceptualizing intercultural (communicative) competence and intercultural citizenship. In J. Jackson (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of language and intercultural communication (2nd ed., pp. 70–​85). Routledge. Byram, M., Golubeva, I., Han, H., & Wagner, M. (Eds.). (2017). From principles to practice in education for intercultural citizenship. Multilingual Matters. Byram, M., & Wagner, M. (2018). Making a difference: Language teaching for intercultural and international dialogue. Foreign Language Annals, 51, 140–​151. Cenoz, J. (2015). Content-​based instruction and content and language integrated learning: The same or different? Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28(1), 8–​24. Cenoz, J., Genesee, F., & Gorter, D. (2014). Critical analysis of CLIL: Taking stock and looking forward. Applied Linguistics, 35(3), 243–​262. Cenoz, J., & Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (2015). Learning through a second or additional language: Content-​ based instruction and CLIL in the twenty-​fi rst century. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28(1), 1–​7. Council of Europe (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge University Press. Coyle, D. (2006). Motivating teachers motivating learners through content and language integrated learning. Scottish Modern Languages Review, 13, 1–​18. Coyle, D. (2007a). Content and language integrated learning: Towards a connected research agenda for CLIL pedagogies. The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(5), 543–​562. Coyle, D. (2007b). The CLIL quality challenge. In D. Marsh & D. Wolff (Eds.), Diverse contexts-​ converging goals: CLIL in Europe (pp. 47–​58). Peter Lang. Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge University Press. Coyle, D., & Meyer, O. (2021). Beyond CLIL: Pluriliteracies teaching for deeper learning. Cambridge University Press. 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. DOI:10.1093/applin/amu010 Dalton-​Puffer, C., & Nikula, T. (2006). Pragmatics of content-​based instruction: Teacher and student directives in Finnish and Austrian classrooms. Applied Linguistics, 27(2), 241–​267. Dalton-​Puffer, C., & Nikula, T. (2014). Content and language integrated learning. The Language Learning Journal, 42(2), 117–​122. Garzón-​Díaz, E. (2018/​2021). From cultural awareness to scientific citizenship: Implementing content and language integrated learning projects to connect environmental science and English in a state school in Colombia. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 24, 242–​259. Gené-​Gil, M., Juan-​Garau, M., & Salazar-​Noguera, J. (2015). Development of EFL writing over three years in secondary education: CLIL and non-​CLIL setting. The Language Learning Journal, 43(3), 286–​303. Helver, A. (2015). The plurilingual classroom and ELT: The challenge to overcome tensions between aboriginal languages and hegemonic languages. Argentinian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 3(2), 67–​78.

157

Melina Porto Hemmi, C., & Banegas, D.L. (2021a). CLIL: An overview. In C. Hemmi & D.L. Banegas (Eds.), International perspectives on CLIL (pp. 1–​20). Palgrave Macmillan. Hemmi, C., & Banegas, D. L. (Eds.). (2021b). International perspectives on CLIL. Palgrave Macmillan. Heras, A., & Lasagabaster, D. (2015). The impact of CLIL on affective factors and vocabulary learning. Language Teaching Research, 19(1), 70–​88. Kääntä, L., Kasper, G., & Piirainen-​Marsh, A. (2016). Explaining Hooke’s law: Definitional practices in a CLIL physics classroom. Applied Linguistics, 39(5), 694–​717. Liddicoat, A. (2021). Teaching languages from an intercultural perspective: Rethinking the nature of learning. In R. Arber, M. Weinmann & J. Blackmore (Eds.), Rethinking languages education. Directions, challenges and innovations (pp. 224–​241). Routledge. Liendo, P.J. (2012). A pragmatic approach to teaching intercultural competence to trainee teachers and translators. Latin American Journal of Content and Language Integrated Learning, 5(2), 57–​72. Llinares, A. (2015). Integration in CLIL: A proposal to inform research and successful pedagogy. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28(1), 58–​73. Llinares, A., Morton, T., & Whittaker, R. (2012). The roles of language in CLIL. Cambridge University Press. Lorenzo, F. (2013). Genre-​based curricula: Multilingual academic literacy in content and language integrated learning. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16(3), 375–​388. Lorenzo, F., Casal, S., & Moore, P. (2010). The effects of content and language integrated learning in European education: Key findings from the Andalusian Bilingual Sections evaluation project. Applied Linguistics, 31(3), 418–​4 42. Lorenzo, F., Moore, P., & Casal, S. (2011). On complexity in bilingual research: The causes, effects, and breadth of content and language integrated learning –​a reply to Bruton (2011). Applied Linguistics, 32(4), 450–​455. Mearns, T.L. (2012). Using CLIL to enhance pupils’ experience of learning and raise attainment in German and health education: a teacher research project. The Language Learning Journal, 40(2), 175–​192. 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-​m aking. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28(1), 41–​57. Nikula, T., Dafouz, E., Moore, P., & Smit, U. (Eds.). (2016). Conceptualizing integration in CLIL and multilingual education. Multilingual Matters. Nikula, T., Dalton-​Puffer, C., & Llinares, A. (2013). European research on CLIL classroom discourse. International Journal of Immersion and Content Based Education, 1(1), 70–​100. Porto, M. (2014). Intercultural citizenship education in an EFL (English as a foreign language) online project in Argentina. Language and intercultural communication, 14(2), 245–​261. Porto, M. (2017). Mural art and graffiti: Developing intercultural citizenship in higher education classes in English as a foreign language in Argentina and Italy. In M. Byram, I. Golubeva, H. Han & M. Wagner (Eds.), From principles to practice in education for intercultural citizenship (pp. 181–​198). Multilingual Matters. Porto, M. (2018). Intercultural citizenship education in the language classroom. In I. Davies, L. Ho, D. Kiwan, A. Peterson, Y. Waghid, C. Peck & E. Sant (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of global citizenship and education (pp. 489–​506). Macmillan. Porto, M. (2021). Long-​term impact of four intercultural citizenship projects in the higher education foreign language classroom. The Language Learning Journal, 4(:6), 648–667. Porto, M., & Di Bin, V. (2022). When the axiom of supranational communication in intercultural citizenship theory is not met: Enriching theory and pedagogy. In T. McConachy, I. Golubeva, & M. Wagner (Eds.), Intercultural learning in language education and beyond: Evolving concepts, perspectives and practices (pp. 285–​310). Multilingual Matters. Porto, M., Houghton, S.A., & Byram, M. (2018). Guest editorial: Intercultural citizenship in the (foreign) language classroom. Language Teaching Research, 22, 484–​498. Porto, M., & Yulita, L. (2017). Language and intercultural citizenship education for a culture of peace: The Malvinas/​Falklands project. In M. Byram, I. Golubeva, H. Han & M. Wagner (Eds.), From principles to practice in education for intercultural citizenship (pp. 199–​224). Multilingual Matters. Risager, K. (2006). Language and culture: Global flows and local complexity. Multilingual Matters. Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (2011). Which language competencies benefit from CLIL? An insight into applied linguistics research. In Y. Ruiz de Zarobe, J.M. Sierra & F. Gallardo del Puerto (Eds.), Content and

158

Intercultural citizenship as CLIL in FL education foreign language integrated learning: Contributions to multilingualism in European contexts (pp. 129–​154). Peter Lang. Ruiz de Zarobe, Y., & Zenotz, V. (2015). Reading strategies and CLIL: The effect of training in formal instruction. The Language Learning Journal, 43(3), 319–​333. Whittaker, R., Llinares, A., & McCabe, A. (2011). Written discourse development in CLIL at secondary school. Language Teaching Research, 5, 343–​362. Yi Lo, Y., & Macaro, E. (2015). Getting used to content and language integrated learning: What can classroom interaction reveal? The Language Learning Journal, 43(3), 239–​255. Yulita, L., & Porto, M. (2017). Human rights education in language teaching. In M. Byram, I. Golubeva, H. Hui & M. Wagner (Eds.), From principles to practice in education for intercultural citizenship (pp. 225–​250). Multilingual Matters. Zhyrun, I. (2016). Culture through comparison: Creating audio-​v isual listening materials for a CLIL course. Latin American Journal of Content and Language Integrated Learning, 9(2), 345–​373.

159

160

11 CLIL AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT Limin Yuan and Yuen Yi Lo

Introduction Several labels are used to describe the educational phenomenon of using an additional language (L2) as the medium of instruction for content subjects, including content and language integrated learning (CLIL), English-​medium instruction (EMI), content-​based instruction (CBI), immersion, and so forth (Lo, 2020). This chapter uses the term CLIL as an umbrella term to cover different variants of bilingual education programmes because it is extremely difficult and sometimes futile to differentiate these variants (Cenoz et al., 2014). Using CLIL as an umbrella term enables us to consult, compare, and consolidate research findings from various contexts, while acknowledging the differences among them. Although integration is highlighted in the label of CLIL, it may not take place in actual classrooms. Such integration indeed represents a main source of challenge for CLIL teachers, since integration of content and language is well supported by theories of second language acquisition but remains difficult to achieve in real practice (Dalton-​Puffer, 2013; Lyster & Ruiz de Zarobe, 2018). In many educational contexts, CLIL is implemented by content subject teachers (Galloway, 2020) who have been trained as subject specialists. Hence, the CLIL teacher in this chapter concerns more about the content subject teachers who teach academic knowledge in an additional language. This group of teachers may need additional support, i.e., professional development (PD), to integrate content and language teaching in their lessons as they may not have received preparation in language teaching (Lo, 2019). As for teacher PD, it is about teacher learning, in which teachers learn to transform their knowledge into teaching practices and to facilitate students’ learning (Avalos, 2011). This chapter mainly focuses on the PD of content subject teachers to promote their effective implementation of CLIL. This chapter aims to address three main questions: (1) What professional knowledge base do CLIL teachers need so that they could integrate content and language effectively? (2) How can ongoing PD be provided to CLIL teachers, who are often experienced and have established their own beliefs and practices? and (3) How can such PD be effective and at the same time sustainable? The first discusses the challenges encountered by content subject teachers when implementing CLIL and summarises the essential knowledge and expertise that CLIL teachers need. It then surveys existing CLIL PD programmes to take stock of the current trend in CLIL teacher education. Empirical studies on CLIL teacher PD are 160

DOI: 10.4324/9781003173151-14

CLIL and professional development

synthesised to capture a comprehensive picture of the research in this direction. This chapter concludes with some useful models for CLIL teacher PD and future research directions.

Challenges for content subject teachers Considering its nature and goals, CLIL brings along challenges to content subject teachers in terms of their roles, beliefs, knowledge, and pedagogical practices (Cammarata, 2009; Moate, 2011). To begin with, the expected dual role of content and language teaching may not necessarily be recognised by CLIL teachers. This is probably related to the teachers’ professional identity construction during their prior professional training and teaching experience as either content or language specialists (Pennington & Richards, 2016). They may not agree that they have to bear extra responsibilities. For instance, teachers in EMI schools in Hong Kong were observed to construct separate identities as language teachers or content subject teachers (Trent, 2010). The content subject teachers did not agree that teaching content subject and English language (L2) were equally important in their lessons, and they tended to believe that it was the language teachers’ responsibility to teach students academic English (Lo, 2014). Similarly, mathematics and science teachers in EMI schools in Malaysia perceived themselves as content subject teachers only (Tan, 2011), and physics academics in EMI universities in Airey’s (2012) study rejected the idea of teaching English as well in their lectures. Even after attending professional development programmes on incorporating language teaching into content-​oriented lessons, some content subject teachers in immersion programmes in Cammarata and Tedick’s (2012) study remained sceptical about teaching language in their content lessons. Kong et al. (2011) surveyed EMI teachers in Hong Kong and Xi’an (China) and discovered that the teachers did not thoroughly understand the rationale behind content and language integration. That may explain why in Fan and Lo’s (2015) study on teacher collaboration in an EMI school in Hong Kong, the science teacher did not recognise her English colleague’s efforts in helping students develop scientific literacies. The science teacher believed that students would be able to develop subject-​specific language through her teaching of science in English. In a similar vein, Bonnet and Breidbach (2017) analysed two CLIL teachers in Europe. One of the teachers, who was a subject specialist, did not see the value of integrating content and language teaching. As a result, he did not invest in CLIL pedagogies or collaborate with his language teaching colleagues. In terms of the challenges related to pedagogical knowledge and practices, previous studies have shown that without sufficient training in language teaching, CLIL content subject teachers often lack language awareness and are not well equipped with the proper strategies to teach their subjects in L2, or to help students to learn the content knowledge through L2. For example, it has been observed that CLIL content subject teachers found it difficult to plan content and language integrated lessons. They may not be able to identify the language-​related objectives for a CLIL lesson (Cammarata & Haley, 2018); they tended to equate ‘language teaching’ with vocabulary teaching, suggesting that they were not fully aware of other linguistic features of academic literacies (e.g., grammar, sentence structures, genres) (Baecher et al., 2014; Skinnari & Bovellan, 2016). Indeed, some scholars and teachers have challenged the possibility of content and language integration, since discipline-​specific pedagogical approaches may not be completely compatible with language teaching approaches (Weinburgh et al., 2014). Some pedagogical frameworks have been proposed to guide CLIL teachers to incorporate language teaching into content lessons. For instance, Cammarata (2016) designed a 161

Limin Yuan and Yuen Yi Lo

framework for planning content-​language-​literacy integrated curricula, in which CLIL teachers need to identify what he calls content objectives, content-​related language objectives, academic literacy skills objectives, and literacy-​related language objectives. Lyster (2016) also put forward an integrated instructional sequence, with four phases, namely noticing, awareness, guided practice, and autonomous practice. Dalton-​Puffer (2013) identified seven major cognitive discourse functions (CDFs) (e.g., classify, define, describe), each of which can be associated with some recurring linguistic patterns, and are believed to inform CLIL curriculum, instruction, and assessment design (Morton, 2020). Some researchers (e.g., Lin, 2016; Lorenzo, 2013) have demonstrated the potential of adopting genre-​based approaches to integrating content and language teaching, which help L2 learners to develop control over subject-​specific literacies through a cycle of deconstruction, joint construction, and independent construction. While the effectiveness of these pedagogical frameworks is being researched, their existence does illuminate the challenges for CLIL teachers to integrate content and language teaching.

CLIL teachers’ professional knowledge base There have been some attempts to conceptualise CLIL teachers’ competences and knowledge, such as the CLIL Teacher’s Competences Grid (Bertaux et al., 2010), the European Framework for CLIL Teacher Education (Marsh et al., 2010) and the model of content and language knowledge for teaching (CLKT) in content-​based instruction/​i mmersion (Morton, 2016). These frameworks share several key components, which will be briefly discussed here.

Teachers’ content knowledge In his seminal work, Shulman (1987) proposed seven domains of teachers’ knowledge: (1) general pedagogical knowledge; (2) knowledge of learners; (3) knowledge of the educational context; (4) knowledge of educational philosophy; (5) curriculum knowledge; (6) content knowledge; and (7) pedagogical content knowledge. Of these seven domains, pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), which refers to how teachers make the subject matter of their lessons accessible to students, is arguably the most important domain as it identifies the distinctive knowledge bases for teaching (Shulman, 1987). Ball et al. (2008) further developed the notion of PCK and proposed content knowledge for teaching (CKT), which divides content knowledge into common content knowledge and specialised content knowledge, and categorises PCK into knowledge of content and students and knowledge of content and teaching. These domains of knowledge illustrate teachers’ own mastery of the subject knowledge, awareness of difficulties students may encounter during the learning process, how teachers could make the content accessible to students (i.e., ‘unpack’ the content), and how they design instructional activities to help students master the knowledge (Morton, 2016). In CLIL programmes, content knowledge is either taught through an L2, or content and language teaching are integrated to be the dual goal of the programme. Hence, CLIL teachers’ knowledge base should encompass the knowledge related to content subjects (e.g., mathematics, science, geography) and the target language (L2). Furthermore, CLIL teachers need to apply their PCK to plan and implement a curriculum, course, or lesson that integrates content and language teaching. This starts with setting appropriate objectives regarding content, cognitive skills, and language skills, followed by instructional activities and assessment tasks. While the pedagogical frameworks discussed above (e.g., Cammarata, 2016; Lin, 2016) may provide some useful tools for integrating 162

CLIL and professional development

content and language teaching, some additional competences regarding pedagogy have been highlighted. First, CLIL teachers need to provide a meaningful learning environment for co-​construction of knowledge by teachers and students (Marsh et al., 2010). They should be aware of the social constructivist theory of learning and adopt interactive methodology or dialogic teaching and learning, which ‘can give students a substantial “voice” in classroom discourse’ (Bertaux et al., 2010, p. 7). Second, CLIL teachers should strive to nurture students’ autonomy, higher-​order thinking skills, and metalinguistic awareness (Bertaux et al., 2010). Third, teachers should be competent to design appropriate assessment and evaluation tools to measure students’ learning in both content and language aspects. This competence is crucial, since there are concerns about assessing CLIL students’ content knowledge through their L2 (Lo & Fung, 2020), but it seems that CLIL teachers have received insufficient training in designing valid assessment tools (Otto & Estrada, 2019).

Teachers’ language knowledge Morton (2018) proposed that the language knowledge for CLIL teachers can be divided into common language knowledge and specialised language knowledge for content teaching. Common language knowledge consists of ‘linguistic competence and knowledge about language that teachers share with others who use the language for a wide range of non-​teaching purposes’ (Morton, 2018, p. 278). Specifically, CLIL teachers should be able to understand the target language used in the teaching materials, identify the language errors made by students, and use the language with confidence. In terms of specialised language knowledge, it is ‘characterized as the unique ways in which teachers use language to represent content knowledge and make it accessible to learners’ (Morton, 2018, p. 279). It is thus more about academic language, which can be defined as a set of linguistic registers (including words, grammar, and organisational strategies) used to construe complex ideas and abstract concepts in subjects of schooling (Zwiers, 2008). In short, CLIL teachers not only need to be proficient in the target language themselves so as to communicate effectively through the language, they also need to be aware of: (1) how language construes content; (2) how such language may create difficulties for L2 learners; and (3) how language scaffolding can be provided with reference to second language acquisition theories (Cammarata & Tedick, 2012). These different aspects of language knowledge are also reflected in Andrews and Lin’s (2017) attempt to tease out the important components of CLIL teachers’ language awareness. These include: (1) the user domain, which consists of language proficiency and implicit and procedural knowledge of how to use language in discipline-​specific ways; (2) the analyst domain, which refers to knowledge about language (forms and functions) and explicit, declarative, metalinguistic knowledge about the language of the disciplines; and (3) the teacher domain, which consists of pedagogical content knowledge, general pedagogical knowledge, and L2 theory knowledge as well as empathy with L2 learners. These domains of language awareness indeed align well with the language domains in Morton’s model (2018) and some key competences listed in Bertaux et al.’s (2010) and Marsh et al.’s (2010) work (e.g., using basic interpersonal communication skills, using cognitive academic language proficiency, using the language of teaching, ability to link language awareness issues to content learning and cognition, ability to scaffold language learning during content classes). Teachers’ intercultural knowledge  Culture is a key component in Coyle et al.’s (2010) 4Cs Framework and Marsh et al.’s (2010) five dimensions of CLIL. It highlights that one of the objectives of CLIL is to cultivate students’ intercultural understanding, intercultural communicative competence, and intercultural citizenship (Porto, 2018). Hence, this 163

Limin Yuan and Yuen Yi Lo

chapter also regards intercultural knowledge as one major competence of CLIL teachers. However, the extant research on CLIL centres on teachers’ content and language knowledge but ignores their intercultural competence to some extent. Also, there has been some critical discussion about whether language learning in CLIL is able to promote intercultural learning, as content subject teaching may not necessarily involve cultural features of the target language. Students learning English, the most common target language in CLIL, may be more concerned about the instrumental value of the language than English-​speaking cultures (Bruton, 2013). To transform the CLIL approach from an instrumental to an educational orientation, Porto (2018) suggests drawing on intercultural citizenship theory, which underscores the importance of cultivating students’ critical thinking beyond the classroom and engaging in civic action in the community simultaneously. There is some emerging research on developing students’ intercultural citizenship in CLIL contexts (e.g., Baker & Fang, 2021). Nevertheless, few studies explore how to equip teachers with intercultural knowledge to promote intercultural learning in CLIL lessons. Future studies need to pay more attention to this direction to support CLIL teachers.

PD programmes for CLIL teachers In view of the challenges facing CLIL teachers discussed above, there is an urgent need for suitable teacher education programmes for CLIL teachers. Teacher education normally includes both pre-​service teacher education and in-​service PD. Pre-​service teacher education usually spans a period of three to five years, covering different domains of knowledge and pedagogical skills. Conversely, PD programmes for in-​service teachers may take various forms, with different components and duration (Cammarata & Haley, 2018; Lo, 2019). To advance discussion and research in this field, it is necessary to examine the current provision of teacher education programmes for CLIL teachers and their effectiveness. To have a general picture of PD programmes in practice, we searched for relevant programmes on the internet using keywords such as ‘CLIL teacher education programmes’, ‘CLIL teacher training programmes’, ‘EMI teacher education programmes’, and ‘EMI teacher training programmes’ to find as many related programmes as possible. Due to space limitations, we could only summarise the results of the first three pages of each keyword in the Google search engine. Most of these PD programmes were provided by private educational institutions lasting for one or two weeks. Given their short duration, the programmes mainly cover the theoretical principles and methodology of CLIL and they are delivered in the form of workshops with hands-​on activities. The target participants of these PD programmes are usually in-​service teachers, who obtain a certificate on completion. Considering the tight schedule and heavy workload of in-​service teachers, it is understandable that the duration of such PD programmes cannot be too long. However, it may take teachers time to internalise the new ideas they have learned from PD workshops, experiment with them in their practice, and then reflect on their effectiveness. For example, in their study on PD for in-​service immersion teachers, Cammarata and Haley (2018) concluded that it took a year and a half for their participating teachers to start feeling more comfortable with the content and language integrated approach. Hence, it is suggested that a PD programme should spread over at least one school year for observable impact on teachers (Short, 2013). Bearing this in mind, we further searched for more substantial PD programmes at some key universities known for their CLIL research and education such as Universitat Autònoma

164

CLIL and professional development

de Barcelona in Spain, the University of Jyväskylä in Finland, the University of Melbourne in Australia, and the University of Hong Kong in China. Only 12 PD programmes at university level were found (Appendix A). These CLIL PD programmes are mainly provided at postgraduate level lasting for one year (full-​time) or two years (part-​time). Only one CLIL PD course was found at the undergraduate level in Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. Another two CLIL PD programmes are designed as professional certificate courses for in-​ service teachers. Similar to short-​term PD courses, the objectives of these programmes are to equip teachers with basic theoretical knowledge of CLIL and apply that knowledge to classroom practices. One typical example is the CLIL PD programme developed by Universitat Autónoma de Barcelona in Spain.1 The objectives of this postgraduate programme are to enable non-​ language teachers to design and teach their subjects in English based on the principles of CLIL. Teachers can also evaluate student learning progress according to the integrated goals of CLIL. Furthermore, this programme aims to develop non-​language teachers’ linguistic knowledge and enable them to use English for various classroom activities. It also promotes collaboration between teachers to foster students’ multilingualism development in their native language and other languages of academic use in the educational context. In terms of the course design, the CLIL PD programme consists of nine modules (see Appendix B). These courses not only equip students with theoretical knowledge and pedagogical approaches (e.g., modules 1, 2, 6, 8), but also provide them with practical opportunities to reflect on and improve their teaching practices (e.g., modules 4, 5, 9). Similarly, the University of Hong Kong has pioneered a Master of Education (MEd) in CLIL (renamed from language across the curriculum) since 2012.2 It aims to equip CLIL teachers with the linguistic principles and knowledge of practice to develop and implement language-​across-​the-​curriculum initiatives in schools to improve both English academic literacy and EMI content instruction. There are four specialist courses in this programme, covering textual analysis of academic texts and tasks, as well as curriculum, course design, and pedagogy in CLIL. This programme has become increasingly popular and has attracted teacher participants from Mainland China, Thailand, Korea, and Canada in its recent cohorts. Different from the postgraduate programmes in Spain and Hong Kong, the University of Jyväskylä offers a Class Teacher Education Programme as well as elective courses to enhance teacher professional development in CLIL. Teachers will obtain a general teaching qualification for teaching English to the lower grades of the Finnish comprehensive schools. The content of the elective courses covers the development of CLIL, pedagogical implications of teaching and learning an academic subject in a foreign language, CLIL material development and adaptation, CLIL practices in different contexts and so on. In sum, our quick survey of the PD courses or programmes for CLIL teachers in different parts of the world shows that their content largely aligns with some key CLIL teachers’ competences, such as PCK in CLIL and knowledge of L2, as discussed in the previous section. However, their various durations may imply the differences in the depth of discussion or exploration of those key concepts, and the opportunities that teachers are provided with to apply the knowledge into their real practice and perhaps receive feedback from teacher educators or their peers. Their effectiveness in developing CLIL teachers’ professional knowledge base also needs to be further investigated through empirical studies. The next section reviews some recent empirical studies on CLIL teacher PD and explores what needs to be improved in the future.

165

Limin Yuan and Yuen Yi Lo

Empirical studies on CLIL teacher professional development CLIL teacher PD has attracted increasing research interest as it is crucial for the sustainable and successful implementation of CLIL (Cammarata & Tedick, 2012; Coyle et al., 2010). This section reviews empirical studies that have examined the potential impact of PD programmes on CLIL teachers. Aligning with teachers’ professional knowledge base, these extant studies fall into three main categories concerning teachers’ content knowledge, language awareness (LA), and teachers’ intercultural competence. As for teacher content knowledge, one important aspect is to make the subject matter of their lessons available to students (Morton, 2016; Shulman, 1987). Teachers need to set up appropriate learning objectives and design balanced curriculum to support students’ learning in CLIL. Hence, some PD studies emphasise the curriculum development capacity of CLIL teachers to enhance their PCK. For instance, Banegas (2016) explored how a group of Argentinian teachers developed CLIL materials after attending a one-​d ay workshop. He found that the teachers were able to develop their own materials to respond to both content and language aspects and scaffold students’ cognitive and language development. However, it could be time-​consuming and challenging for teachers to design the CLIL materials by themselves. Similar to Lo (2019), Banegas (2016) also recommended collaboration between teachers to reduce their workload and share their materials, practices, and experience to promote co-​development in CLIL. Cinganotto (2017) investigated the effectiveness of an online initiative training (eTwinning) in developing teachers’ competencies of content, language, and technologies. The eTwinning programme is proposed by the European Commission to enhance the collaboration of teachers from various European countries using online technology. It generally consists of a ten-​d ay training programme on a series of topics. The key approach for this is experiential learning, where teachers first study materials and resources about CLIL in Europe and Italy, then do hands-​on activities of CLIL using the tools of Web 2.0, and actively exchange ideas and share experiences on the forum and blog. Through such a self-​ reflective process, this online training programme aims to deepen teachers’ understanding of CLIL and information computer and technology (ICT). The results of Cinganotto’s (2017) preliminary survey showed that participants had a positive evaluation of the initiative in terms of developing their knowledge in a meaningful and effective way. Different from Banegas’ (2016) and Cinganotto’s (2017) research on a short-​term training, Cammarata and Haley (2018) examined the learning experience of immersion teachers in an 18-​month PD project in Canada. Drawing on an integrated framework for curricular development proposed by Cammarata (2016) and a Lesson Study Model, the PD intervention programme aimed at equipping teachers with the theoretical foundations and key principles of content, language, and literacy integrated instruction and developing their material design competence through iterative cycles of authentic practices. In each lesson study cycle, teachers collaborated in a sustained way involving steps of co-​planning, teaching, observing, and refining. After each cycle, teachers and teacher educators debriefed their teaching practice and shared views on possible improvement for future lessons. Their study found that such collaborative process accompanying pedagogical materials could enable teachers to adopt more effective methods to contextualise language instruction in the target disciplines. By the end of the PD intervention, most of the teachers demonstrated great improvement in designing well-​balanced CLIL materials, although they encountered various struggles when planning and implementing the integrated lessons. The researchers concluded that a collaborative PD framework could maximise teachers’ learning potential. 166

CLIL and professional development

Some other studies focus more on developing teachers’ language knowledge, especially their language awareness (LA) in CLIL context. For instance, in the Netherlands, Koopman et al. (2014) conducted a small-​scale investigation on content teachers’ knowledge of language pedagogy. Using the Language Teaching Wall instrument, the researchers first asked six participating teachers to reflect on the activities or actions they used to support students’ language learning and then matched their pedagogical practices with the rationales beyond. The results showed that teachers could use a variety of strategies to help their students in language learning. However, teachers seemed to lack theoretical bases for their language pedagogical practices. This was probably because teachers did not receive systematic training in L2 pedagogy. In Hong Kong, He and Lin (2018) explored the complex process of how a science teacher became a language-​aware CLIL teacher in a school–​university collaborative project. Using an ethnographic case study approach, the researchers described and discussed the teacher’s transformation in detail. In particular, the teacher gradually changed from L2 user (with high language proficiency but implicit and procedural knowledge about how to use language in the subject), to L2 analyst (having good knowledge about language, and explicit, declarative, metalinguistic knowledge of the language in the subject), to L2 teacher (mastering pedagogical content knowledge, L2 theory knowledge, and empathy with students’ learning). In other words, the science teacher became more language-​aware and was able to employ appropriate teaching strategies to facilitate student learning. The researchers of this study also changed their roles from CLIL teacher educators, teaching consultants, scaffold providers, to finally partners. Through such a collaborative, dynamic, and dialogic training process, it was concluded that both the teacher and researchers developed their expertise and learned from each other. In a similar vein, Lo (2019) examined the effectiveness of a six-​month CLIL PD programme on CLIL teachers’ beliefs and LA in Hong Kong. The PD programme consisted of two three-​hour workshops and at least three instances of on-​site support for teachers. Comparing the questionnaire and interview data collected before and after the programme, this study found that the teachers involved experienced different changes in their beliefs and LA even though they attended the same PD programme. For example, one science teacher developed her LA and experimented with different language teaching strategies in her lessons, while one mathematics teacher remained resistant to the role of content and language teacher. Factors such as school context, teachers’ own learning and teaching experience, and their epistemological beliefs could affect teachers’ experience in PD programmes. Hence, Lo (2019) called for more tailor-​m ade PD programmes for teachers and advocated cross-​curricular collaboration between language and content subject teachers in the same school context with teacher educators’ on-​site support. Less research attention has been paid to developing CLIL teachers’ intercultural competence. The existing PD in this aspect has usually centred on language teachers in foreign language education. For example, in Colombia, Holguín (2013) explored the impact of a research and pedagogy programme with an intercultural component on pre-​service foreign language teachers. The results showed that these pre-​service teachers began to raise their intercultural awareness through interpreting and contextualising cultural practices. However, some other studies found it difficult to enhance teachers’ intercultural competence. For instance, He et al. (2017) investigated the effect of a short-​term study abroad programme on in-​service teachers’ intercultural competence in the United States. This programme consisted of three phases: (1) pre-​departure course about intercultural theories and the culture of China and America; (2) four-​week short-​term trip in China; (3) follow-​up 167

Limin Yuan and Yuen Yi Lo

curriculum design and delivery activities. The researchers found that the overseas study experience alone was not enough for equipping teachers with multicultural and global competences. They suggested that such short-​term PD programmes needed to plan intentional and meaningful cultural activities and provide opportunities for the participants to collaborate with local teachers and reflect on their practice and beliefs to foster their professional growth. Concerning CLIL teachers’ intercultural competence, no empirical studies seem to be available even when cultivating learners’ intercultural development in CLIL has been highlighted (e.g., Mendez Garcia, 2012). In sum, the above empirical studies on CLIL teacher PD have focused more on developing teachers’ content and language knowledge but tended to ignore their intercultural knowledge. Therefore, future CLIL PD programmes should involve intercultural component to promote comprehensive development of teachers’ professional knowledge base.

Conclusion and implications With the rapid spread of CLIL (and other variants of bilingual education programmes), there is an increasing demand for teachers who are competent to teach content through an L2 or, even better, who are competent to integrate content and L2 teaching. The challenges involved are enormous and the required competences are therefore demanding for CLIL teachers, most of whom have not been sufficiently prepared for CLIL teaching. These result in urgent needs for CLIL teacher professional development (PD). This chapter has synthesised some proposals for the key competences of CLIL teachers, including their content knowledge, language knowledge and intercultural competence (Andrews & Lin, 2017; Coyle et al., 2010; Morton, 2016, 2018; Porto, 2018). All these competences could form the basis of the content of PD programmes for CLIL teachers. This chapter has also reviewed existing PD programmes provided for CLIL teachers and empirical studies on the effectiveness of such programmes. We noted that most existing PD programmes tend to be short and intensive. Hence, it is questionable whether these programmes could help teachers internalise the new concepts or approaches, try them out, and reflect on their experience, the process of which has been shown to be important for teacher professional development (Escobar Urmeneta, 2013). While some programmes were found to be effective in shaping teachers’ beliefs, language awareness, and reflective process, there has been a lack of evidence on the potential impact of PD programmes on teachers’ changes and students’ learning outcomes. Undoubtedly, it is difficult to investigate the impact of PD programmes on teachers and students, since the relationship between teacher learning, beliefs and practices is not linear (Opfer et al., 2011), and there are too many confounding variables affecting student learning outcomes. Thus, research along such direction would need very careful planning to ensure its validity and rigour. It is also worth noting that some PD programmes reviewed in this chapter are more traditional ones, in the sense that they are usually designed and delivered by teacher educators (mostly language specialists), who are trying to ‘impose’ some good practices on participating teachers (Macaro & Tian, 2020). On the other hand, some PD programmes have facilitated collaboration between content and language specialists who share their expertise when designing content and language integrated curriculum and instructional activities. The language specialists could be teacher educators or language teachers working in the same school as the content subject teachers. Such a collaborative PD model is argued to be more school-​based and sustainable (Lo, 2020), and should be further investigated.

168

CLIL and professional development

Notes 1 http://​clil.cat/​en/​clil-​m ast​ers-​deg ​ree-​progr​a ma-​eng/​ 2 https://​web.edu.hku.hk/​f /​t ab/​839/​M Ed%20w​eb_​C​LIL.pdf

Further reading Cammarata, L., & Ó Ceallaigh, T.J. (Eds.). (2018). Teacher education and professional development for immersion and content-​based instruction: Research on programmes, practices, and teacher educators. Journal of Immersion and Content-​Based Language Education, 6(2). This special issue showcases ground-​breaking studies on teacher preparation and PD programmes in CLIL and other similar contexts. It offers new insights into the dynamic and complex process of CLIL teacher professional learning. Lo, Y.Y. (2020). Professional development of content and language integrated learning (CLIL) teachers. Springer. This monograph explicates challenges faced by CLIL teachers, their competences expected, two models of professional development and relevant empirical studies. It can provide both theoretical and practical guidance for future studies on CLIL teacher PD. Lyster, R., & Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (Eds.). (2018). Instructional practices and teacher development in CLIL and immersion school settings. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 20(3). This special issue covers both empirical studies on classroom practices and teacher PD initiatives in CLIL and immersion contexts. It provides useful references for implementing effective CLIL and facilitating CLIL teacher knowledge development.

References Airey, J. (2012). ‘I don’t teach language’: The linguistic attitudes of physics lecturers in Sweden. AILA Review, 25, 64–​79. https://​doi.org/​10.1075/​a ila.25.05air Andrews, S.J., & Lin, A.M.Y. (2017). Language awareness and teacher development. In P. Garrett & J.M. Cots (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of language awareness (pp. 57–​74). Routledge. Avalos, B. (2011). Teacher professional development in teaching and teacher education over ten years. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(1), 10–​20. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.tate.2010.08.007 Baecher, L., Farnsworth, T., & Ediger, A. (2014). The challenges of planning language objectives in content-​based ESL instruction. Language Teaching Research, 18(1), 118–​136. https://​doi.org/​10.1177/​ 13621​6881​3505​381 Baker, W., & Fang, F. (2021). ‘So maybe I’m a global citizen’: Developing intercultural citizenship in English medium education. Language, Culture, and Curriculum, 34(1), 1–​17. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​ 07908​318.2020.1748​045 Ball, D.L., Thames, M.H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special. Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389–​407. https://​doi.org/​10.1177/​0 0224​8710​8324​554 Banegas, D. L. (2016). Teachers develop CLIL materials in Argentina: A workshop experience. Latin American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning, 9(1), 17–​36. https://​doi.org/​10.5294/​lac​ lil.2016.9.1.2 Bertaux, P., Coonan, C.M., Frigols-​Martín, M.J., & Mehisto, P. (2010). The CLIL teacher’s competences grid. http://​t pl​usm.net/​CLIL_​Comp​eten​ces_​Grid ​_ ​31.12.09.pdf Bonnet, A., & Breidbach, S. (2017). CLIL teachers’ professionalization: Between explicit knowledge and professional identity. In A. Llinares & T. Morton (Eds.), Applied linguistics perspectives on CLIL (pp. 269–​285). John Benjamins. Bruton, A. (2013). CLIL: Some of the reasons why… and why not. System, 41(3), 587–​597. https://​doi. org/​10.1016/​j.sys​tem.2013.07.001 Cammarata, L. (2009). Negotiating curricular transitions: Foreign language teachers’ learning experience with content-​ based instruction. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 65(4), 559–​585. https://​doi.org/​10.3138/​cmlr.65.4.559 Cammarata, L. (2016). Foreign language education and the development of inquiry-​d riven language programs: Key challenges and curricular planning strategies. In L. Cammarata (Ed.), Content-​based

169

Limin Yuan and Yuen Yi Lo foreign language teaching: Curriculum and pedagogy for developing advanced thinking and literacy skills (pp. 123–​143). Routledge. Cammarata, L., & Haley, C. (2018). Integrated content, language, and literacy instruction in a Canadian French immersion context: A professional development journey. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21(3), 332–​348. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​13670 ​050.2017.1386​617 Cammarata, L., & Tedick, D.J. (2012). Balancing content and language in instruction: The experience of immersion teachers. The Modern Language Journal, 96(2), 251–​269. https://​doi.org/​10.1111/​ j.1540-​4781.2012.01330.x Cenoz, J., Genesee, F., & Gorter, D. (2014). Critical analysis of CLIL: Taking stock and looking forward. Applied Linguistics, 35(3), 243–​262. https://​doi.org/​10.1093/​app​l in/​a mt ​011 Cinganotto, L. (2017). Experiential learning for teacher training: A case example on language, content and technologies in a learning event by eTwinning. Journal of e-​L earning and Knowledge Society, 13(1). https://​doi.org/​10.20368/​1971-​8829/​156 Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge University Press. Dalton-​Puffer, C. (2013). A construct of cognitive discourse functions for conceptualising content-​ language integration in CLIL and multilingual education. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 216–​253. https://​doi.org/​10.1515/​eujal-​2013-​0 011 Escobar Urmeneta, C. (2013). Learning to become a CLIL teacher: Teaching, reflection and professional development. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16(3), 334–​353. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​13670 ​050.2013.777​389 Fan, C., & Lo, Y.Y. (2015). Interdisciplinary collaboration to promote L2 Science literacy in Hong Kong. In A. Tajino, T. Stewart & D. Dalsky (Eds.), Team teaching and team learning in the language classroom (pp. 94–​111). Routledge. Galloway, N. (Ed.). (2020) English in higher education –​English medium part 1: Literature review. British Council. He, P., & Lin, A.M.Y. (2018). Becoming a ‘language-​aware’ content teacher: Content and language integrated learning (CLIL) teacher professional development as a collaborative, dynamic, dialogic process. Journal of Immersion and Content-​Based Education, 6(2), 162–​188. https://​doi.org/​10.1075/​ jicb.17009.he He, Y., Lundgren, K., & Pynes, P. (2017). Impact of short-​term study abroad program: Inservice teachers’ development of intercultural competence and pedagogical beliefs. Teaching and Teacher Education, 66, 147–​157. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.tate.2017.04.012 Holguín, B.R. (2013). Towards the development of intercultural competence skills: A pedagogical experience with pre-​service teachers. HOW Journal, 20(1), 206–​225. https://​how ​jour ​nalc​olom​bia. org/​i ndex.php/​how/​a rti​cle/​v iew/​31 Kong, S., Hoare, P., & Chi, Y.P. (2011). Immersion education in China: Teachers’ perspectives. Frontiers of Education in China, 6(1), 68–​91. https://​doi.org/​10.1007/​s11​516- ​011- ​0122- ​6 Koopman, G.J., Skeet, J., & de Graaff, R. (2014). Exploring content teachers’ knowledge of language pedagogy: A report on a small-​scale research project in a Dutch CLIL context. The Language Learning Journal, 42(2), 123–​136. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​09571​736.2014.889​974 Lin, A.M.Y. (2016). Language across the curriculum and CLIL in English as an additional language (EAL) contexts: Theory and practice. Springer. Lo, Y.Y. (2014). Collaboration between L2 and content subject teachers in CBI: Contrasting beliefs and attitudes. RELC Journal, 45(2), 181–​196. https://​doi.org/​10.1177/​0 0336​8821​4535​054 Lo, Y.Y. (2019). Development of the beliefs and language awareness of content subject teachers in CLIL: Does professional development help? International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 22(7), 818–​832. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​13670 ​050.2017.1318​821 Lo, Y.Y. (2020). Professional development of content and language integrated learning (CLIL) teachers. Springer. Lo, Y.Y., & Fung, D. (2020). Assessments in CLIL: The interplay between cognitive and linguistic demands and their progression in secondary education. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 23(10), 1192–​1210. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​13670 ​050.2018.1436​519 Lorenzo, F. (2013). Genre-​based curricula: Multilingual academic literacy in content and language integrated learning. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16(3), 375–​388. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​13670 ​050.2013.777​391 Lyster, R. (2016). Vers une approche intégrée en immersion. Les Éditions CEC.

170

CLIL and professional development Lyster, R., & Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (2018). Introduction: Instructional practices and teacher development in CLIL and immersion school settings. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21(3), 273–​274. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​13670 ​050.2017.1383​353 Macaro, E., & Tian, L. (2020). Developing EMI teachers through a collaborative research model. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​01434​632.2020.1862​131 Marsh, D., Mehisto, P., Wolff, D., & Frigols-​Martin, M. (2010). The European Framework for CLIL Teacher Education. English EFL. www.engl ​ish-​efl.com/​w p-​cont​ent/​uplo​ads/​pdf/​CLIL-​EN.pdf Mendez Garcia, M.D.C. (2012). The potential of CLIL for intercultural development: A case study of Andalusian bilingual schools. Language and Intercultural Communication, 12(3), 196–​213. https://​doi. org/​10.1080/​14708​477.2012.667​417 Moate, J. (2011). The impact of foreign language mediated teaching on teachers’ sense of professional integrity in the CLIL classroom. European Journal of Teacher Education, 34(3), 333–​346. https://​doi. org/​10.1080/​02619​768.2011.585​023 Morton, T. (2016). Conceptualizing and investigating teachers’ knowledge for integrating content and language in content-​based instruction. Journal of Immersion and Content-​Based Language Education, 4(2), 144–​167. https://​doi.org/​10.1075/​jicb.4.2.01mor Morton, T. (2018). Reconceptualizing and describing teachers’ knowledge of language for content and language integrated learning (CLIL). International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21(3), 275–​286. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​13670 ​050.2017.1383​352 Morton, T. (2020). Cognitive discourse functions: A bridge between content, literacy and language for teaching and assessment in CLIL. CLIL: Journal of Innovation and Research in Plurilingual and Pluricultural Education, 3(1), 7–​17. https://​doi.org/​10.5565/​rev/​clil.33 Opfer, V.D., Pedder, D.G., & Lavicza, Z. (2011). The role of teachers’ orientation to learning in professional development and change: A national study of teachers in England. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(2), 443–​453. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.tate.2010.09.014 Otto, A., & Estrada, J.L. (2019). Towards an understanding of CLIL in a European context: Main assessment tools and the role of language in content subjects. CLIL Journal of Innovation and Research in Plurilingual and Pluricultural Education, 2(1), 31–​42. https://​doi.org/​10.5565/​rev/​clil.11 Pennington, M.C., & Richards, J.C. (2016). Teacher identity in language teaching: Integrating personal, contextual, and professional factors. RELC Journal, 47(1), 5–​23. https://​doi.org/​10.1177/​ 00336​8821​6631​219 Porto, M. (2018). Intercultural citizenship in foreign language education: An opportunity to broaden CLIL’s theoretical outlook and pedagogy. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​13670 ​050.2018.1526​886 Short, D.J. (2013). Training and sustaining effective teachers of sheltered instruction. Theory into Practice, 52(2), 118–​127. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​0 0405​841.2013.770​329 Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–​22. https://​doi.org/​10.17763/​haer.57.1.j463w​79r5​6455​411 Skinnari, K., & Bovellan, E. (2016). CLIL teachers’ beliefs about integration and about their professional roles: Perspectives from a European context. In T. Nikula, E. Dafouz, P. Moore, & U. Smit (Eds.), Conceptualising integration in CLIL and multilingual education (pp. 145–​167). Multilingual Matters. Tan, M. (2011). Mathematics and science teachers’ beliefs and practices regarding the teaching of language in content learning. Language Teaching Research, 15(3), 325–​342. https://​doi.org/​10.1177/​ 13621​6881​1401​153 Trent, J. (2010). Teacher identity construction across the curriculum: promoting cross-​curriculum collaboration in English-​medium schools. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 30(2), 167–​183. https://​ doi.org/​10.1080/​021887​9100​3721​622 Weinburgh, M., Silva, C., Smith, K.H., Groulx, J., & Nettles, J. (2014). The intersection of inquiry-​ based science and language: Preparing teachers for ELL classrooms. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25(5), 519–​541. https://​doi.org/​10.1007/​s10​972-​014-​9389-​9 Zwiers, J. (2008). Building academic language: Essential practices for content classrooms, Grades 5-​12. John Wiley & Sons.

171

newgenrtpdf

Appendix A: Summary of PD programmes offered by universities Country

University

Level

Duration

Programme Description

Website

Australia

University of Melbourne

Postgraduate

1 year (ft); 2 years (pt)

This programme provides students with the opportunity to develop an understanding of basic principles of CLIL, to survey the available research, courses and teaching materials, and to apply that knowledge in classroom practice.

https://​handbook.unimelb. edu.au/​2017/​courses/​ mc-​edclil

In-​service 1 year (pt) (professional certificate)

Austria

In-​service 1–​2 weeks (professional certificate)

University of Postgraduate Education in Lower Austria

1 year (ft)

background other than English and who teach, or want to teach, course content using English-​medium instruction (EMI). It has a strong focus on the development of practical skills and includes workshops that allow participants to apply strategies presented during the programme to their own teaching contexts, using their own teaching materials. www.onestopenglish.com/​ The MA CLIL is a four-​semester course. It consists of 17 download?ac=​5745 modules. The first two semesters of the MA CLIL provide the participants with the methodological foundation of using a foreign language across the curriculum in connection with the most recent models of foreign language acquisition. In the last two semesters, the methodological skills for delivering CLIL are furthered and supplemented by theoretical and practical elements on curriculum design.

Limin Yuan and Yuen Yi Lo

172

University of Queensland

https://​study.unimelb.edu. This programme is designed for those who teach subjects au/​fi nd/​courses/​g raduate/​ like science, mathematics or technology through a professional-​certificate-​i n-​ second language and it will enhance teachers’ skills and education-​clil/​ understanding of the relationship between language, concepts and cognition. This programme is designed for educators who have a language https://​icte.uq.edu.au/​clil

173

newgenrtpdf

Spain

Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona

1.5 years (blended mode)

secondary private or state schools. (continued)

CLIL and professional development

173 Universidad Catolica San Antonio de Murcia

http://​clil.cat/​en/​clil-​m asters-​ This programme aims to enable teachers of non-​language degree-​objectius-​eng/​ subjects to plan and teach in English according to the pedagogic principles of the CLIL approach. It can also help CLIL teachers of non-​language subjects to evaluate student progress and the achievement of learning goals in an integrated fashion. Furthermore, it provides CLIL teachers of non-​language subjects with the linguistic and discursive tools they need to be able to use English for the full gamut of classroom activities. In addition, it helps CLIL teachers of non-​language subjects to work together with teachers from other areas of the curriculum in a way that respects and fosters multilingualism, guaranteeing that students learn their native language as well as other languages of academic use in the educational context. https://​ddd.uab.cat/​ Undergraduate One semester This course is designed to help student-​teachers become pub/​procur/​2020-​21/​ (one familiar with basic teaching strategies which are specific g103578a2020-​21iENG.pdf course) to CLIL contexts. It also helps them develop the basic knowledge and skills needed for life-​long professional development as primary teachers, with a special concern for foreign language teaching and learning. https://​i nternational.ucam. Postgraduate 1 year (ft) This master programme in Bilingual Teaching is aimed at edu/​sites/​ucam.edu. international and Spanish university graduates from different en/​fi les/​documentos/​ academic backgrounds such as pre-​primary and primary folletos-​estudios/​ education, Engineering, and other graduates with an interest ucam-​m aster-​degree-​i n-​ in bilingual teaching and in the CLIL approach. It is also bilingual-​education.pdf aimed at all those teachers currently working in primary or Postgraduate

newgenrtpdf

Country

Level

Duration

Programme Description

University of Jaén

Postgraduate

Online

This programme mainly aims to train students to: know the characteristics, similarities and differences between immersion, bilingual education, and CLIL; be familiar with the main research results in these types of programmes and their main associations, networks, and publications; teach a non-​linguistic discipline of their specialty through English; apply student-​centred communication methodologies in the CLIL classroom; design integrated curricula of their area of knowledge with linguistic content to develop bilingual teaching programmes; use the European Portfolio of Languages in the bilingual classroom; create and adapt didactic materials for bilingual teaching, turning authentic material into didactic material and graduating the linguistic level of the source language; coordinate evaluation of linguistic and non-​linguistic content in bilingual education.

https://​w ww.ujaen. es/​estudios/​oferta-​ academica/​m asteres/​ master-​i nteruniversitario-​ en-​ensenanza-​bilingue-​y-​ aprendizaje-​i ntegrado-​de-​ contenidos-​y#presentacion

Postgraduate

1 year (ft)

The Master Gymnasium English (CLIL specialisation) programme includes two compulsory modules related to CLIL. They are: Advanced and Applied English Studies: CLIL I and Advanced and Applied English Studies: CLIL II. These modules are designed to enhance teachers’ English proficiency in implementing CLIL lessons. This programme provides at least one semester of studying the subject in an English-​speaking country or comparable performance, e.g., working as an assistant teacher, which also relates to teaching in at least one subject.

https://​w ww.tu-​ braunschweig. de/​fi leadmin/​ Redaktionsgruppen/​ Institute_ ​Fakultaet_​ 6/​A nglistik/​ Pruefungsordnungen/​ infoblatt-​m a-​bili.pdf

Postgraduate

1 year (ft)

https://​www.tu-​braunschweig. The Master Gymnasium English (Advanced CLIL) includes two de/​fileadmin/​Redaktions core modules related to CLIL. They are Teaching English gruppen/​Institute_​ Gym CLIL I and Advanced English Studies CLIL II Gym. Fakultaet_​6/​Anglistik/​ This advanced CLIL master programme provides at least one Pruefungsordnungen/​ semester of studying the subject in an English-​speaking country Moduluebersicht_​Master_​ or comparable performance, e.g., working as an assistant Gymnasium_​Englisch_​-​_​ teacher, which also relates to teaching in at least one subject. Vertiefung_​CLIL.pdf

Germany Technical University of Braunschweig

Website

Limin Yuan and Yuen Yi Lo

174

University

newgenrtpdf

University of Jyväskylä

Class teacher education program

China

University of Hong Kong

Postgraduate

www.jyu.fi/​ops/​fi /​edupsy/​ This teacher education programme offer an elective course in kasvatustieteiden-​ CLIL to deepen teachers’ understanding of education and ja-​psykologian-​ CLIL research; combine their understanding of educational tiedekunnan-​erilliset-​ theory and practice for CLIL in particular subjects; opintokokonaisuudet/​u nit/​ understand the role of educational communities in the 7415 introduction and development of an innovation such as CLIL; and plan and implement CLIL units of work, accompanying materials and assessment procedures. https://​web.edu.hku.hk/​f /​ 1 year (ft); The Master of Education in CLIL aims to cater for content tab/​839/​M Ed%20web_​ 2 years (pt) and language in-​service and pre-​service teachers in Hong CLIL.pdf Kong, Mainland China as well as overseas. It is designed for 3 years

175

subject teachers who are directly involved in English-​medium instruction (EMI) and English language teachers who have a role to play in supporting EMI content teaching. It equips participants with the linguistic principles and knowledge of practice to develop and implement language-​across-​the-​ curriculum initiatives in schools to improve both English academic literacy and EMI content instruction.

CLIL and professional development

Finland

Limin Yuan and Yuen Yi Lo

Appendix B: The design of a PD programme for CLIL teachers Courses

Course content

Module 1: An introduction to multilingual education and the integrated learning of content and language Module 2: Talking, reading and writing to learn through a foreign language Module 3: Planning and assessing learning in multilingual contexts Module 4: Innovative approaches to foreign language education

• Multilingualism and plurilingual education. • Language learning in foreign language classrooms and CLIL contexts. • Language resources for the multilingual classroom.

Module 5: Practical placement (internship) Module 6: Focus on language and discourse in content-​r ich contexts Module 7: Empowering approaches to teacher education in L2 medium instruction Module 8: Special issues in CLIL pedagogy

Module 9: Master’s dissertation. Teaching and learning in CLIL environments

• Talking to learn academic content and language. • Academic texts in the content-​r ich classroom.

• Planning and designing materials for foreign language learning in content-​r ich contexts. • The integrated assessment of learning in the content-​r ich classroom. • Workshops in which local primary and secondary school teachers present various innovative approaches that they have applied in the content-​r ich classroom. • A personal project in which the student will create a specialised lexicon for use in a CLIL classroom to teach a non-​language subject of his/​her own choosing. • Classroom observation. • Teaching practice. • Self-​evaluation of teaching to become a more effective teacher. • Focus on form in innovative approaches to foreign language learning. • Focus on language and discourse in content-​r ich contexts. • Genre-​based pedagogy. • Empowering approaches to teacher education. • Using evidence as a basis for reflection on teaching and learning. • Professional development project. • • • • •

Internationalising the classroom. Organisational models of plurilingual education. Literature in the CLIL classroom. Communicative competence and intercultural competence. CLIL itinerary master’s dissertation. Evidence-​based study of limited scope intended to enhance professional development as a CLIL teacher or trainer of CLIL teachers.

Source: http://​clil.cat/​en/​clil-​m ast​ers-​deg ​ree-​progr​a ma-​eng/​

176

177

12 COLLABORATION BETWEEN CLIL TEACHERS Josephine Moate

Introduction The integration of content and language integrated learning (CLIL) relies on careful negotiation between the priorities of subject learning and the requirements of language learning. While research suggests that CLIL can improve learning outcomes (Escobar Urmeneta, 2020; Grandinetti et al., 2013), as a dual-​focused approach the success of integrating subject-​ based learning and language development often relies on collaboration between teachers with different areas of expertise (Lo, 2020; Pham & Unaldi, 2022). A review of current research indicates that collaboration between CLIL teachers can take many forms within and beyond classroom settings, within and across educational institutions, although collaboration in CLIL is neither easy nor automatic. Indeed, fostering successful collaboration in CLIL requires the investment of individuals and institutions. This chapter begins by addressing the important considerations of what is meant by a ‘dual-​focused’ approach and the pedagogical demands teachers working in CLIL environments face. These considerations provide the background to why collaboration between CLIL teachers can be challenging, but also worthwhile. Learning a subject can be understood as coming to understand a cultural body of knowledge, gradually seeing from different perspectives, exploring, and understanding phenomena with tools and concepts developed by over time expert others (Moate, 2010). Ideally this experience would bring students into greater awareness of the world and themselves as part of the world (Biesta, 2020). To learn a language also involves an encounter with a cultural body of knowledge developed over time and this encounter also involves the use of tools and concepts. An important distinction between learning a subject and learning a language, however, is the way learning a subject often assumes the use of language to convey and conceptualise phenomena, whereas learning a language draws attention to the use and characteristics of language. With the dual focus of CLIL and the explicit integration of foreign language learning with subject-​based learning, teachers have to carefully reappraise the what, how, and why of their practice. In other words, teachers have to consider what content to include so that students working through a foreign language can access content, participate in and demonstrate learning.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003173151-15

177

Josephine Moate

These substantive and methodological considerations require teachers to revisit their own epistemological beliefs and pedagogical assumptions, that is the why underpinning their practice (Moate, 2011; Pham & Unaldi, 2022; Zappa-​Hollman, 2018) and recognise the crucial role of language as the mediator of content, teaching, and learning activities. While the dual focus of CLIL creates opportunities for teachers to learn about the perspectives and pedagogical priorities of colleagues (Grandinetti et al., 2013; Li, 2020; Molle & Huang, 2021), the distinct disciplinary and pedagogical expertise of subject and language teachers need to be acknowledged to enable successful collaboration. Pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) (Van Driel & Berry, 2010) is a useful starting point for recognising the complexity and distinctiveness of pedagogical expertise. PCK comprises teachers’ understanding of their subject, expertise in sharing this subject knowledge with students, and understanding of learning and development. From this perspective, the pedagogical approach of teachers is tightly interwoven with their disciplinary expertise (Paretti, 2011) and the pedagogical approaches and priorities of teachers working with different subjects can significantly contrast. PCK has been complemented by the notion of pedagogical language knowledge (PLK) highlighting the importance of language in education, particularly when students learn through an additional language (Aalto & Tarnanen, 2015; Bunch, 2013). PLK incorporates basic interpersonal communication skills (BICS) and cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP) (Cummins, 1981), the language triptych (Coyle et al., 2010), the instructive and regulative registers of classroom discourse (Christie, 2002), and the different genres of disciplinary knowledge (Unsworth, 2001). The particular contribution of PLK is to acknowledge the need for all teachers to recognise the significance of language in teaching and learning activities and how language-​related expertise can differ between subject and language teachers. This understanding is particularly pertinent within CLIL collaboration as language and subject teachers ideally work together to guide students’ engagement with subject matter and support students’ language development from their respective areas of expertise. Moreover, as many CLIL teachers are teaching through a foreign language and working on the edge of their existing linguistic and/​or substantive repertoires (Moate, 2011, 2014a; Valdés-​Sánchez & Espinet, 2020), the need for collaboration between CLIL educators is all the greater. Drawing on research from across the educational spectrum, this chapter illustrates how the differing foci and priorities of language and subject teachers can offer rich resources for the development of complementary collaborations. Due to the breadth of the CLIL umbrella, there is no one-​size-​fits-​a ll model for teacher collaboration (Bauler & Kang, 2020); however, approaches to and understanding of how content and language learning can be integrated, particularly through collaboration, have been expanded and enriched over time (Aguilar Cortés & Alzate, 2015; Molle & Huang, 2021). Moreover, while much of the research on teacher collaboration referenced here refers to school-​based CLIL, these principles and practices can benefit teachers seeking to collaborate in higher education as well (Moate, 2014b; Pappa & Moate, 2021).

Considering collaboration Current research outlines a range of benefits associated with teacher collaboration in CLIL. Collaboration is reported to be motivating and beneficial for students and teachers (Méndez García & Pavón Vázquez, 2012), and research also suggests CLIL can create richer learning environments with enhanced instruction (Bell & Baecher, 2012; Nguyen & Dang, 2020), improve student learning (Bauler & Kang, 2020; Grandinetti et al., 2013), and increase 178

Collaboration between CLIL teachers

student investment (Kim & Lee, 2020; Méndez García & Pavón Vázquez, 2012). For teachers, discussing their pedagogical understanding and decision-​m aking with colleagues can help them adopt different perspectives (He & Lin, 2018). In turn, trialling and collaboratively developing new approaches can profoundly develop subject pedagogy (Valdés-​Sánchez & Espinet, 2020) as well as empower and enable subject and language teachers (Grandinetti et al., 2013). Research also indicates that positive collegial relationships can sustain CLIL initiatives as teachers share resources, challenges, hopes, and concerns (Pappa et al., 2019). Based on these insights, it is perhaps easy to underestimate what is involved in collaboration and the commitment it requires. Engaging in collaboration can offer teachers valuable opportunities for theorising practice (Banegas, 2020) and ensuring that everyday pedagogical practices are not limited to institutionalised routines or assumed ways of being and doing. However, collaboration also requires investment by individuals and educational communities committed to shared goals (Escobar Urmeneta, 2020; Zappa-​Hollman, 2018). Investment is required because collaboration is more than chatting over the occasional cup of coffee and more than being a colleague (Kelchtermans, 2006). Collaboration cannot be reduced to ‘just a collection of meetings but [rather is] a way of life’ (Hargreaves, 2019, p. 611) that involves the ‘push and pull’ of peer relationships, with teachers ideally ‘pulling each other in by inspiration and motivation to engage in interesting work and pushing each other on and up to ever higher standards of performance together’ (Hargreaves, 2019, p. 613). To be productive, collaborations need to be founded on professional relationships that allow teachers to exercise their relational agency (Nguyen & Dang, 2020) and to enter into difficult conversations (Kelchtermans, 2006) that ultimately help them to face and address challenges and difficulties encountered in teaching (Valdés-​ Sánchez & Espinet, 2020). These demanding professional relationships depend on individuals collaborating, as well as the curricular and organisational structures that influence pedagogical activities, collegial relationships, and collaborative potential (Bauler & Kang, 2020; Zappa-​Hollman, 2018). Time and space are needed for genuinely collaborative relationships to form, and although collaboration is a form of professional development, forcing teachers to collaborate can be counterproductive, undermining rather than promoting potential (Davison, 2006).

Approaches to collaboration in CLIL Ideally collaboration is an opportunity for pooling resources, for teachers with different forms of expertise to share their insights and understanding, and to generate new expertise (Arkoudis, 2006; Li, 2020; Nguyen & Dang, 2020). While in some settings, such as higher education, collaboration might be more feasible outside the classroom (Lasagabaster, 2018), educational communities seeking to integrate subject teaching with language education have developed a range of collaborative approaches that suit their situational contexts (Pham & Unaldi, 2022). Drawing on collaboration taxonomies put forward by Davison (2006) and Méndez García and Pavón Vázquez (2012), Figure 12.1 presents a continuum of collaboration along levels of relational proximity and creative potential. The six approaches represent a continuum from the least to most intensive forms of collaboration (Li, 2020). Beginning with the leftmost column, compliance is represented by two light grey circles indicative of the teachers’ minimal presence and reluctance to share their professional space, whether physical, epistemological, or pedagogical. Even compliance, however, has the potential to be productive if teachers see improvement, for example, in student participation (Escobar Urmeneta, 2020). A more positive approach is cooperation 179

Josephine Moate

Figure 12.1  Continuum of collaboration approaches based on proximity

illustrated by a crescent and circle representing the way teachers can accommodate each other’s expertise. Cooperation can involve students being ‘pulled out’ of mainstream or content lessons or language teachers being ‘pushed in’ to subject classes to support students’ language development (Bell & Baecher, 2012). Cooperation can also be approached as ‘one teach, one drift,’ an approach which requires little preparation by the teachers (Méndez García & Pavón Vázquez, 2012), or can be facilitated through preparatory courses, such as English for Specific Purposes (Kim & Lee, 2020). Neither of these approaches, however, require significant dialogue between the teachers as they are largely dependent on organisational, rather than interpersonal, arrangements. Partnerships are a more intensive approach to collaboration represented in Figure 12.1 by two circles side-​by-​side, this time in darker shades indicative of their greater presence. A partnership needs to be equal with shared responsibilities, not just divided territory. As Escobar Urmeneta’s (2020) study illustrates, partnerships can be arranged in different ways including ‘one teach, one observe’, parallel teaching, alternative teaching, or station teaching. With these arrangements the teachers are aware that their work should complement each other (Kong, 2014) and provide a richer learning environment. Convergence is an even more intensive approach as represented by the overlapping circles. Convergence is facilitated by dialogue between teachers in which a shared vision is developed (Aguilar Cortés & Alzate, 2015). Convergence can take place outside of classrooms through the careful planning of teams and programmes, in separate yet complementary lessons with, for example, the language teacher introducing key vocabulary and structures prior to the subject lesson (Pavón Vázquez et al., 2015) or in shared classrooms with the practice of ‘one teach, one assist’. All of these practices involve good communication between teachers and not only benefit from, but also require mutual respect and understanding. The most intensive approaches to collaboration are co-​teaching and creative co-​construction. When co-​teaching, teachers share the teaching space, either taking turns or co-​constructing pedagogic action together. For example, one teacher can explain to students as the other makes notes on the board or paraphrases what is said (Escobar Urmeneta, 2020), or as one teacher teachers, the other teacher can model student language use, helping students to actively participate in lessons (Turner & Fielding, 2020). Creative co-​construction, however, goes beyond the initial or individual expertise of collaborating teachers. In this case, teachers’ pedagogical repertoires and potential are enriched as they learn from each other, adopting and modifying each other’s practices (Giles & Yazan, 2020; He & Lin, 2018). Moreover, in creative co-​construction the combined resources and investment of teachers generate new pedagogical options in the planning (Nguyen & Dang, 2020) and realisation (Gardner, 2006) of CLIL lessons. 180

Collaboration between CLIL teachers

The more successful approaches to collaboration appear to benefit from both organisational and interpersonal investment (Martin-​Beltrán & Peercy, 2012; Zappa-​Hollman, 2018). Regular opportunities for teachers to communicate with each other as well as appreciation for the investment in collaborations appears to create more sustainable and rewarding forms of collaboration (Bell & Baecher, 2012). Moreover, since the needs of students differ, staffing arrangements and resources vary, and the pedagogical repertoires of teachers develop over time, collaborative approaches should be modified and used flexibly (Bauler & Kang, 2020; Escobar Urmeneta, 2020). Moreover, careful consideration should be given to how encounters between teachers are understood and arranged, as well as the implications of these arrangements for the ongoing development of collaborative practices.

Conceptualising collaboration As suggested above, time, willing, and different forms of investment are needed to transform encounters between colleagues into successful collaborations. The transformation has been conceptualised in various ways. For example, Wallace et al. (2020) describe encounters between colleagues as a ‘trading’ or ‘contact zone’, recognising the complementary expertise of language teachers and subject teachers, and the need to negotiate across boundaries that can be: institutional, such as the limits of conventional subject or language teaching or employment status; linguistic, including notions of language and the role of language in education; and epistemological, who has authority and what foci are priority. Although ‘trading zone’ suggests a pragmatic encounter, the issues to be addressed are demanding in that they involve the tacit understanding, hidden institutional norms and negotiations that impinge on the professional identities of educators (Moate, 2011, 2014a, 2014b). Collaborations have also been conceptualised as a form of ‘struggle’ (Arkoudis, 2006) as CLIL collaborators grapple with frustration and uncertainty in the face of new challenges (Peercy et al., 2017). These struggles, however, can also be viewed as opportunities for both students and teachers to learn, although to benefit from such struggles requires time and investment, as well as the ability to verbalise and share tacit knowledge and pedagogical assumptions that are hidden beneath years of practice. When teachers can share their understanding and communicate well, contradictions can lead to development (Martin-​ Beltrán & Peercy, 2014), with colleagues benefiting from each other’s insights leading to valuable opportunities to reimagine and renegotiate practices (Giles & Yazan, 2020). If colleagues are willing to enter into dialogic struggles together, they can begin to see from different perspectives as they ask questions and explore different answers, mutually enriching one another (Moate, 2014a). Encounters between collaborating teachers can also be conceptualised as a ‘third space’ created, mediated, and expanded through the relational agency of teachers (Nguyen & Dang, 2020). This third space is illustrated by research with CLIL teachers collaborating across institutional boundaries as early childhood, basic education, and upper secondary education teachers came together to explore the similarities and differences in their educational priorities. Through these explorations and in response to the changing conditions of the wider educational environment, a shared pathway can begin to take shape as an actual, rather than idealised, entity (Moate, 2011, 2014b, 2017). This third space can be considered a productive environment that surpasses conventional boundaries. Conceptualising encounters between CLIL teachers as ‘boundary experiences’ in which colleagues work together with complex problems to generate shared understanding and create a space to benefit from different forms of expertise (Nguyen & Dang, 2020) usefully 181

Josephine Moate

draws attention to the challenges and resources of collaboration. A boundary experience requires teachers to draw on and share their personal-​professional resources, which in turn gives rise to potential resources that are not readily anticipated prior to the encounter. This conceptualisation highlights the relational resourcefulness and agency required of teachers to manage collaborations as they work on the edge of their existing expertise, pedagogical experience, and perhaps linguistic competence. This conceptualisation is particularly useful when seeking understanding of encounters between teachers coming from significantly different pedagogical paradigms, as well as when teachers are teaching through an additional language and supporting students learning through an additional language(s). When teachers collaborate under these conditions, they are simultaneously managing multiple boundary experiences, a complex process that can benefit from a range of tools that can mediate collaboration (Martin-​Beltrán & Peercy, 2014).

Tools for negotiating collaboration A range of conceptual, material, and relational tools can support collaboration in CLIL environments (Martin-​Beltrán & Peercy, 2014). These tools can include shared understanding, for example recognising language as a meaning-​making resource (Wallace et al., 2020; Zappa-​ Hollman, 2018) which students have to actively use for a functional purpose. When language is recognised as a meaning-​m aking resource, the mutual benefit of integrating language and content can become clearer. While on the one hand, identifying key language features strengthens students’ engagement with subject knowledge, on the other hand, the authenticity of the content enhances the meaningfulness of language use. Moreover, recognising language as a meaning-​m aking resource requires greater space for student participation, in turn offering teachers better opportunities to observe how students participate and manage with language and content. Indeed, recognising language as a meaning-​m aking resource provides an important starting point for teachers having to find new pedagogical approaches (Pavón Vázquez, 2014) and ways of engaging students in educational activities with limited linguistic resources (Moate, 2011; Escobar Urmeneta, 2020). A material tool that can help teachers to coordinate and develop their collaboration is the curriculum framework. As Martin-​Beltrán and Peercy (2012, 2014) demonstrate, curriculum frameworks can be useful multifaceted tools that help with the practical realisation of and reflection on collaborative efforts. Using a curriculum framework, teachers can define and share their goals to coordinate their activities and teaching priorities on a regular basis. As an institutional document, a curriculum framework creates a shared space for complementary expertise and the development of complementary tools that can coordinate collaboration across different classrooms and temporal frames. Regular email updates, shared checklists and lesson plans, co-​planned activities, shared assessment rubrics, instructional materials, and classroom technology (Martin-​Beltrán & Peercy, 2012, 2014) can all contribute to collaborative efforts when they are part of ongoing, focused communication born out of shared activity. Notes made during a planning session, for example, can serve as an informal record of what has been done and shared to support and develop communication between teachers working with the same students and shared checklists can keep colleagues in sync and up-​ to-​d ate with one another (Martin-​Beltrán & Peercy, 2014). These ‘everyday’ tools provide concrete ways for teachers to articulate and conceptualise their goals as they co-​construct their knowledge and transform their practices and materials to meet the particular needs of students. Moreover, these tools can legitimate and sustain partnerships when meeting time is limited. 182

Collaboration between CLIL teachers

Whereas curriculum frameworks are often ‘given’ to teachers, curriculum planning places the responsibility for curriculum development in teachers’ hands. Curriculum planning can include deciding what themes and skills can be addressed in cumulative or complementary ways, where generic academic skills can be built into the curriculum pathway, and where opportunities for project-​based collaborations can be written into different programmes of study (Lo, 2020; Pham & Unaldi, 2022). Curriculum planning offers opportunities for teachers to reflect on what kind of language is appropriate and whether bigger units of study should be divided into smaller units, how students can be actively involved in different activities, how progress can build on what has gone before and how to acknowledge positive change.

Features of successful collaborations Research on teacher collaboration in different CLIL environments includes key features indicating positive collaboration. These key features can derive from the personal-​professional characteristics of collaborators as outlined by the participants in Zappa-​Hollman’s (2018, p. 596) study. These characteristics include being both inquisitive and creative when identifying and understanding differences, being willing to take risks to learn and engage with colleagues and new ideas as well as being committed to the development of a programme, despite challenges that are encountered, the ability to communicate with others, to show respect and to value student learning. Moreover, Zappa-​Hollman’s (2018) study draws attention to the value of educators being proactive in forming relationships and sensitive to potential hierarchies that can undermine collaborative endeavours. Other key features of successful collaborations include the development of a shared language to talk about a collaboration (Arkoudis, 2006). Shared language develops as teachers begin to adopt the terminology and expressions of collaborators and use shared metaphors (Davison, 2006). Positive relational features include planning together and a mutual valuing of the partnership, appreciating each other’s expertise and enjoying equal status within the collaboration (Bell & Baecher, 2012; Zappa-​Hollman, 2018). Studies also highlight the importance of CLIL collaborations not being exclusively dependent on the efforts of individuals, but for collaborations to be established as part of the community which sustains CLIL initiatives despite staff changes (Escobar Urmeneta, 2020). That is, addition to the personal-​professional investment of colleagues, successful collaborations rely on organisational conditions that give colleagues the time and space to visit each other’s classes, provide sufficient time for developing rapport, and a shared understanding of challenges that collaborators need to overcome (Zappa-​Hollman, 2018). These organisational conditions emphasise the importance of administrators valuing collaboration and interdisciplinary networks by providing resources that facilitate these relationships The wide variety of approaches to collaboration, different teacher personalities, contrasting community arrangements and the (non-​)availability of resources all make a significant difference to the practical realisation of CLIL collaboration (Pham & Unaldi, 2022). In contrast, lack of planning time, lack of clarity regarding roles and contributions, being overwhelmed by curricular demands or an extensive workload suggest that collaborative efforts are neither fruitful nor beneficial for participating teachers (Bauler & Kang, 2020). While features of successful collaborations are useful to consider when reflecting on teacher collaborations, it is important to be aware of the different ways in which collaborations can be implemented in practice and that different forms of collaboration take shape under different conditions. 183

Josephine Moate

Exemplary collaborations Although CLIL collaboration can be realised in different ways, exemplary collaborations rely on the contributions of all partners involved to create something more than the individuals could achieve if working alone. The examples in this section appear to be born out of the committed actions of collaborating educators, teachers, and language assistants, and illustrate how effective partnerships are negotiated by teachers within the particular conditions of their environment as well as the way in which language and subject-​learning objectives intertwine and complement each other. These examples provide useful insights into how successful collaborations can develop when working with students of different ages and with different disciplines. Martin-​Beltrán and Peercy (2014) provide various examples in their studies on teacher collaboration. In one example, Kathleen a language specialist and Gina a second-​g rade teacher, co-​plan their lesson and negotiate how to model a ‘think aloud’ activity as this is a skill the teachers want the students to develop. Kathleen suggests modelling a ‘think aloud person’ and begins to enact what she could say in the classroom as she looked at the instructions given to the students, ‘Okay, let me think about, let me look at my word’ (p. 728). Gina listens carefully and then checks she has understood, ‘We are partners. So, different modelling partners?’ (p. 728, italics in original). As these teachers negotiate their understanding, their approach for this lesson takes shape and a resource for future lessons is also established. Creese’s (2010) study with a geography teacher and a language specialist illustrates the value of teacher collaboration in materials development. This is a useful example as it contrasts the priorities of the subject and language teachers and how this affects the language they use and texts that they produce for students. The geography teacher’s text on the use of land is quite short, but it includes long sentences to convey relationships between people’s actions and the effect on the environment. The language teacher uses shorter, simpler sentences and focuses on the meaning of keywords (resource, recreation, environment, ecosystem), but this revised version omits the cause–​effect relationship between people and the use of land. While the language teacher’s text provides a good starting point, the text from the geography teacher is more scientific and goes beyond keywords to key concepts providing incremental steps towards the lexically dense language of disciplinary subjects. Nguyen and Dang’s (2020) study also exemplifies how common understanding can develop through practical collaboration between a language and science teacher. The lesson aimed to help students write a scientific report and the teachers explained that they began by looking at the language of an experiment and focusing on verb forms. The teachers are delighted by the way this helps to focus student attention and prepares them for independently writing scientific texts in the past tense. The language teacher then comments that ‘then we had to change it to the third person as well’. The science teacher acknowledges, ‘Yes… there was a lot involved in that’. While this comment refers to the amount of activity in the classroom, it can also be read as an expansion of pedagogical vision through the successful collaboration. Dealing with the demands of scientific language is a key focus of Grandinetti et al.’s (2013) study with teachers and students in a particularly challenging secondary school. Once the collaborating teachers recognise language as a meaning-​m aking resource, they start renegotiating the content and activities of lessons and breaking the overall aim of CLIL science lessons into cumulative ‘micro-​content-​objectives’. The teacher collaborators agree on three questions they can regularly use to develop and refine their CLIL lessons: (1) 184

Collaboration between CLIL teachers

Is the language of input comprehensible? focusing on whether students can grasp what content to attend to; (2) Can students use language to engage with the content? ensuring that students can participate in learning activities, and (3) Is the language of the content comprehensible? highlighting the importance of students engaging with the content in order to learn. Once the teachers have identified the micro-​content-​objectives for the lessons, they incrementally introduce the language and content through multimodal activities that encourage students to explore and work with the content and language in different ways. Through this collaboration, the teachers’ pedagogical repertoires expand and lead to greater language-​ and content-​awareness to the extent that the science teacher can continue with good CLIL practices when teaching alone. Research into teacher collaboration in CLIL usefully highlights how teachers can learn from each other in different ways. Turner and Fielding’s (2020) research on CLIL partnerships in schools using a variety of languages highlights how teachers can mentor one another as they collaborate and share expertise. Monolingual teachers, for example, can learn a target language alongside their students. A shared unit planner can ensure that teachers of subjects and languages can recycle and develop shared language features across different lessons supporting collaboration outside classroom environments. Over time, through in-​ and beyond classroom collaborations, teachers can better understand the expertise partners bring to the partnership to the extent that they can draw on their collaborator’s expertise even when they are absent (Li et al., 2019) or improvise when teaching together (Gardner, 2006). For collaborations to reach this degree of creative co-​construction, however, means that certain conditions or needs are met.

Recognised needs Research highlights needs that should be considered when developing collaboration between CLIL teachers. Although CLIL collaborations can succeed despite the limitations of the wider environment or the initial hesitancy of some teachers, the more the wider community is aware of and invested in CLIL collaboration, the greater the resilience of participating teachers and potential of the collaboration (Bauler & Kang, 2020). This section outlines a range of needs to take into consideration. At an institutional level several needs have been highlighted. For example, an institution with an established protocol for collaborative action can greatly support CLIL collaborations and foster trust between collaborators (Pham & Unaldi, 2022; Zappa-​Hollman, 2018). A collaborative culture enables teachers to find time to work together (Martin-​Beltrán & Peercy, 2014), to spontaneously interact with one another and to exchange ideas (Kong, 2014). The formal coordination of CLIL within an educational community can significantly help teachers as they negotiate their different roles within and contributions to CLIL (Pavón Vázquez, 2014). Moreover, institutional involvement can help to overcome structural constraints and imbalances (Molle & Huang, 2021), for example, in the employment status of collaborating teachers or the authority ascribed to different subjects and roles. Institutional providers can also be aware of where CLIL initiatives are being placed in the overall curriculum of an institution and try to ensure that no teacher feels that their ascribed space is being reduced or undermined. And finally, institutional authorities can support CLIL collaborators by formally appreciating their efforts and investment as individuals and collaborators (Giles & Yazan, 2020). CLIL collaboration is also influenced by interpersonal needs, such as whether the vision or goal for the collaboration is shared by the different collaborators (Aguilar Cortés & Alzate, 185

Josephine Moate

2015). CLIL collaboration benefits from good communication between teachers and a willingness to invest in the collaboration (Martin-​Beltrán & Peercy, 2014). Although institutional settings might formally place colleagues in hierarchical positions, collaborations work better if they are experienced as non-​h ierarchical (He & Lin, 2018), as an equal relationship to which both or all partners can contribute from their respective strengths (Pavón Vázquez et al., 2015) and learn from each other (Bauler & Kang, 2020). The most positive CLIL collaborations appear to be underpinned by trust and the willingness to take risks (Gardner, 2006) as well as to appreciate and value the contributions and expertise of others (Nguyen & Dang, 2020). Pedagogical and linguistic needs closely connect with interpersonal needs and are embedded within institutional roles and relationships. Research suggests that through ongoing investment, the pedagogical practices teachers use help to maintain effective collaborations (Martin-​Beltrán-​Peercy, 2014; Pavón Vázquez, 2014). The integrated nature of CLIL means that all educators, language teachers, subject teachers, and language assistants involved in CLIL are responsible for the pedagogical realisation, linguistic resources, and quality of CLIL (Bauler & Kang, 2020). When the complementarity of CLIL educators is recognised, the resources and potential of CLIL are greater and the challenge of teaching through a foreign language can be less intimidating. For example, the ‘expert’ disciplinary-​ specific language subject teachers use to introduce key concepts and terminology (Méndez García & Pavón Vázquez, 2012; Pavón Vázquez, 2014) can be complemented by the conversational ‘everyday’ language a teaching assistant might use to lower the threshold for student participation (Dafouz & Hibler, 2013) or the interrogative language another teacher might use to check understanding (Creese, 2006). These different forms of language do not replace one another but complement each other with expert language representing an important learning goal and everyday language opening the space for student participation as part of the learning process. Moreover, recognising language as a meaning-​m aking resource can help teachers break overall objectives into smaller aims and to maximise opportunities for student participation (Grandinetti et al., 2013) and to share the responsibilities and perspectives of language and subject teachers (Pavón Vázquez et al., 2015). While these needs are relevant to CLIL collaborations across educational settings, CLIL collaborations are also affected by the personal beliefs and attitudes of teachers, individual personalities and working styles (Pham & Unaldi, 2022; Zappa-​Hollman, 2018). CLIL collaborators may well come together as experienced teacher practitioners, used to working alone and independently. It can take a significant amount of time for teachers to learn how to communicate with one another and how to verbalise their pedagogical thinking (Pavón Vázquez, 2014). The need to better understand the beliefs of CLIL colleagues is illustrated in an exchange reported by Arkoudis (2006). In the exchange, a language teacher explains that as a language teacher ‘almost it doesn’t matter what the content, I mean it does matter … [but] the content is a vehicle whereas for you [the science teacher] the content is obviously more primary’ (p. 420). In response the science teacher emphasises that ‘REALLY content is something you must have an idea about otherwise you wouldn’t really be able to structure anything’ (Arkoudis, 2006, p. 420, emphasis in original). Whereas the language teacher can ‘teach the same linguistic structures and features and FUNCTIONS’ regardless of the content as ‘it’s very easy to adapt’ (Arkoudis, 2006, p. 420), the content is the crucial starting point for the science teacher, anchoring teaching and learning activities. These distinct approaches highlight the contrasting PCK and PLK of language and subject teachers as well as their beliefs. These distinctions point to the importance of pre-​and in-​service teacher education creating opportunities for teachers to work together, to practice and experience 186

Collaboration between CLIL teachers

what it means to negotiate from different perspectives (Aalto et al., 2019; Turner & Fielding, 2020) and to see collaboration as an important part of expert practice.

Conclusion and implications Different approaches and tools can help sensitise educators and educational authorities to the demands of CLIL and contribute to the significant development of pedagogical practice within (and beyond) CLIL classrooms. The key characteristics of collaboration between CLIL teachers presented in this chapter come from across the educational pathway. While it is hoped that these insights are useful to CLIL teachers and researchers working in different CLIL environments, teacher collaboration in CLIL does not, and likely cannot, conform to a particular model or approach. Escobar Urmeneta’s (2020) work highlights the value of fluid configurations as teachers respond to the changing needs of the students, institutional resources and pedagogical pathways. Nevertheless, it can be useful to have ways of recognising what kind of approach is being used and the sustainability of collaborations. One way of differentiating between options is to acknowledge the (in)frequency of the collaboration, as well as the (in)formality of the relationship (Bell & Baecher, 2012). This frequency-​ formality matrix can help educational communities to discern whether the collaboration is rooted in the community or in interpersonal relationships. Although ‘organic structures’ that mould to teacher relationships can be beneficial, without institutional support collaborations are vulnerable and dependent on teacher commitment (Bauler & Kang, 2020). Another, perhaps obvious but important, point is that CLIL research could benefit more from existing research on teacher collaboration. Although CLIL has particular challenges, the observation that, ‘Setting aside time and space to meet is necessary, but it does not guarantee that teachers will collaborate or establish a learning community. Other conditions must be present’ (Shank, 2006, p. 712) is likely to resonate with any teacher commissioned to ‘collaborate’. These other conditions include daring to share doubts (Shank, 2006) and being able to encourage one another when it requires hard work and investment (Nguyen & Ng, 2020). These points are important as they acknowledge the vulnerability teachers can experience when they are facing significant changes and challenges, as in CLIL. Nguyen and Ng (2020) suggest a pragmatic approach to collaboration, for example, inviting teachers to share resources and practices, to create a low threshold for establishing a collaborative relationship. In their experience, once teachers have begun to share resources and practices, they are more willing to work together to improve their response to bigger educational issues. Moreover, they found that ‘contributing constructive feedback, brainstorming collectively solutions to emergent issues, and trialling alternative implementation methods’ (Nguyen & Ng, 2020, p. 647) helped to sustain collaborations as collaborators became increasingly interdependent and experienced a co-​equal relationship. While it might be that these activities are part of CLIL teacher collaboration in some communities already, the emphasis on existing expertise being integrated in CLIL can suggest that teachers have the answers if they can only appropriately express their understanding to their collaborators. The study of Nguyen and Ng (2020), however, usefully highlights the need for teachers to develop new, shared expertise through collaboration, going beyond the existing expertise of all CLIL collaborators. To date, much CLIL research on teacher collaboration relies on interview and observation data, as well as recorded conversations between teachers. Using different designs, however, can provide novel insights for example through action research as illustrated in He and Lin’s (2018) study in which a teacher educator collaborates with an enthusiastic language teacher 187

Josephine Moate

or through the use of creative methods, such as storytelling. Storytelling between teachers is ‘a social practice; … a means of helping teachers understand and navigate the social and cultural contexts in which they work … in the immediate context of school life as well as in the more abstract world of educational ideas’ (Shank, 2006, p. 714). Storytelling as part of CLIL collaboration could help teachers to connect and develop professional identities that make sense to one another. Storytelling can include stories of unexpected success and disappointment, stories of significant change as well as obstinate problems. Sharing stories is one way of sharing one’s professional self and pedagogical thinking, and an opportunity to explore one’s practice from different perspectives generating new understanding. Feldman (1999, p. 130) notes that as teachers tell ‘brief stories of practice, listen, question, and tell other anecdotes. Knowledge and understanding … grow and are shared in conversations, and they carry it back to their classrooms where they try out new ideas’. Sharing stories can be complemented with honest questions that further enrich individual and group reflections, questions without ‘ready answers’, or implied advice (Palmer, 2017). Honest questions in CLIL collaborations could explore whether and why different activities are important or feasible, how collaborators understand from different perspectives, whether language-​ awareness and content-​awareness are complementary and what kind of new challenges CLIL has created for teachers. Sharing stories and honest questions should lead to sustained conversations: ‘oral inquiry processes … which include references to life and professional experiences, students’ work and other data’ (Feldman, 1999, p. 128). Sustained conversations include research activities as part of the collaborative practice of educational communities. While conversations can be inspired by shared visions, for example, the desire to improve the school environment or CLIL learning experiences, for conversations to be sustained, investment is needed. In Feldman’s (1999) study food, company, and conversation enticed teachers to meet together and gradually they found ‘a place for them to talk about their teaching concerns without the risk of disempowering feedback, they shared and generated their understandings about teaching’ (p. 129). Understanding and ideas, materials and activities generated through shared stories, honest questions, and sustained conversations are important resources for individual teachers and teacher communities. Moreover, alternative approaches to researching teacher collaboration should yield rich data for CLIL researchers and useful insights into the complexity and potential of CLIL.

Further reading Ball, P., Kelly, K., & Clegg, J. (2016). Putting CLIL into practice: Oxford handbooks for language teachers. Oxford University Press. This publication provides a comprehensive overview of different types of CLIL as an enriched pedagogical approach. Chapter 9 addresses collegial collaboration from a school management point of view and the last chapter describes what is involved in being a good CLIL teacher. Nikula, T., Dafouz, E., Moore, P., & Smit, U. (Eds.). (2016). Conceptualising integration in CLIL and multilingual education. Multilingual Matters. A comprehensive collection of chapters by CLIL researchers and teacher educators seeking a better understanding of the complex integration at the heart of CLIL. The introduction in particular outlines the importance and role of teacher collaboration in CLIL. Palmer, P.J. (2017). The courage to teach: Exploring the inner landscape of a teacher’s life. John Wiley & Sons. This classic book is written for all teachers that are aware of the joys and challenges of being a teacher. Based on years of experience working with teachers, Parker J. Palmer provides useful tools and insights for collaborating in a variety of educational settings.

188

Collaboration between CLIL teachers

References Aalto, E., & Tarnanen, M. (2015). Approaching pedagogical language knowledge through student teachers: Assessment of second language writing. Language and education, 29(5), 400– ​415. Aalto, E., Tarnanen, M., & Heikkinen, H. L. (2019). Constructing a pedagogical practice across disciplines in pre-​service teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 85, 69–​80. Aguilar Cortés, C.E., & Alzate, B. (2015). The dialogues between content and language: Cautions and challenges in the emergence of a bilingual education program. Latin American Journal of Content and Language Integrated Learning, 8(2), 161–​183. Arkoudis, S. (2006). Negotiating the rough ground between ESL and mainstream teachers. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9(4), 415–​433. Banegas, D.L. (2020). Teacher professional development in language-​d riven CLIL: A case study. Latin American Journal of Content and Language Integrated Learning, 12(2), 242–​264. Bauler, C.V., & Kang, E.J. (2020). Elementary ESOL and content teachers’ resilient co-​teaching practices: A long-​term analysis. International Multilingual Research Journal, 14(4), 338–​354. Bell, A.B., & Baecher, L. (2012). Points on a continuum: ESL teachers reporting on collaboration. TESOL Journal, 3(3), 488–​515. Biesta, G. (2020). Have we been paying attention? Educational anaesthetics in a time of crises. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 1–​3. Bunch, G.C. (2013). Pedagogical language knowledge: Preparing mainstream teachers for English learners in the new standards era. Review of Research in Education, 37(1), 298–​341. Christie, F. (2002). Classroom discourse analysis: A functional perspective. Continuum. Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge University Press. Creese, A. (2006). Supporting talk? Partnership teachers in classroom interaction. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9(4), 434–​453. DOI:10.2167/ ​beb340.0 Creese, A. (2010). Content-​focused classrooms and learning English: How teachers collaborate. Theory into Practice, 49(2), 99–​105. Cummins, J. (1981). Empirical and theoretical underpinnings of bilingual education. Journal of Education, 163(1), 16–​29. Dafouz, E., & Hibler, A. (2013). ‘Zip your lips’ or ‘Keep quiet’: Main teachers’ and language assistants’ classroom discourse in CLIL settings. The Modern Language Journal, 97(3), 655–​669. Davison, C. (2006). Collaboration between ESL and content teachers: How do we know when we are doing it right? International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9(4), 454–​475. Escobar Urmeneta, C. (2020). Coteaching in CLIL in Catalonia. CLIL Journal of Innovation and Research in Plurilingual and Pluricultural Education, 3(2), 37–​55. https://​doi.org/​10.5565/​Rev/​clil.54 Feldman, A. (1999). The role of conversation in collaborative action research. Educational action research, 7(1), 125–​147. Gardner, S. (2006). Centre-​ stage in the instructional register: Partnership talk in primary EAL. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9(4), 476–​494. DOI: 10.2167/​ beb342.0. Giles, A., & Yazan, B. (2020). ‘You’re not an island’: A middle grades language arts teacher’s changed perceptions in ESL and content teachers’ collaboration. RMLE Online, 43(3), 1–​15. Grandinetti, M., Langellotti, M., & Ting, Y.T. (2013). How CLIL can provide a pragmatic means to renovate science education –​even in a sub-​optimally bilingual context. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16(3), 354–​374. Hargreaves, A. (2019). Teacher collaboration: 30 years of research on its nature, forms, limitations and effects. Teachers and Teaching, 25(5), 603– ​621. He, P., & Lin, A.M. (2018). Becoming a ‘language-​aware’ content teacher: Content and language integrated learning (CLIL) teacher professional development as a collaborative, dynamic, and dialogic process. Journal of Immersion and Content-​Based Language Education, 6(2), 162–​188. Kelchtermans, G. (2006). Teacher collaboration and collegiality as workplace conditions. A review. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 52(2), 220–​237. Kim, H.K., & Lee, S. (2020). Multiple roles of language teachers in supporting CLIL. English Teaching & Learning, 44(2), 109–​126. Kong, S. (2014). Collaboration between content and language specialists in late immersion. Canadian Modern Language Review, 70(1), 103–​122.

189

Josephine Moate Lasagabaster, D. (2018). Fostering team teaching: Mapping out a research agenda for English-​medium instruction at university level. Language Teaching, 51(3), 400. Li, Y. (2020). Language–​content partnership in higher education: Development and opportunities. Higher Education Research & Development, 39(3), 500–​514, DOI:10.1080/​07294360.2019.1685947 Li, Y., Cargill, M., Gao, X., Wang, X., & O’Connor, P. (2019). A scientist in interdisciplinary team-​ teaching in an English for research publication purposes classroom: Beyond a ‘cameo role’. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 40, 129–​140. Lo, Y.Y. (2020). Professional development of CLIL teachers. Springer. Martin-​Beltrán, M., & Peercy, M.M. (2012). How can ESOL and mainstream teachers make the best of a standards-​based curriculum in order to collaborate? TESOL Journal, 3(3), 425–​4 44. Martin-​ Beltrán, M., & Peercy, M.M. (2014). Collaboration to teach English language learners: Opportunities for shared teacher learning. Teachers and Teaching, 20(6), 721–​737. Méndez García, M.D.C., & Pavón Vázquez, V. (2012). Investigating the coexistence of the mother tongue and the foreign language through teacher collaboration in CLIL contexts: Perceptions and practice of the teachers involved in the plurilingual programme in Andalusia. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 15(5), 573–​592. Moate, J. (2010). The integrated nature of CLIL. International CLIL Research Journal, 1(3), 30–​37. Moate, J. (2011). The impact of foreign language mediated teaching on teachers’ sense of professional integrity in the CLIL classroom. European Journal of Teacher Education, 34(3), 333–​346. Moate, J. (2014a). Dialogic struggles and pedagogic innovation. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 22(2), 295–​314. Moate, J. (2014b). A narrative account of a teacher community. Teacher Development, 18(3), 384–​402. Moate, J. (2017). Developing an integrated content and language integrated learning (CLIL) pathway in Central Finland. Kieli, koulutus ja yhteiskunta, 14. Molle, D., & Huang, W. (2021) Bridging science and language development through interdisciplinary and interorganizational collaboration: What does it take? Science Education International, 32(2), 114–​124. Nguyen, D., & Ng, D. (2020). Teacher collaboration for change: Sharing, improving, and spreading. Professional Development in Education, 46(4), 638–​651. Nguyen, M.H., & Dang, T.K.A. (2020). Exploring teachers’ relational agency in content–​language teacher collaboration in secondary science education in Australia. The Australian Educational Researcher, 48(4), 1–​18. DOI:10.1007/​s13384-​020-​0 0413-​9 Palmer, P.J. (2017). The courage to teach: Exploring the inner landscape of a teacher’s life. John Wiley & Sons. Pappa, S., & Moate, J. (2021). Teacher educators’ professional identity in English-​medium instruction at a Finnish university. CEPS Journal, 11(3). Pappa, S., Moate, J., Ruohotie-​Lyhty, M., & Eteläpelto, A. (2019). Teacher agency within the Finnish CLIL context: Tensions and resources. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 22(5), 593– ​613. Paretti, M. (2011). Interdisciplinarity as a lens for theorizing language/​content partnerships. Across the disciplines, 8(3), 299. Pavón Vázquez, V. (2014). Enhancing the quality of CLIL: Making the best of the collaboration between language teachers and content teachers. Encuentro, 23, 115–​127. Pavón Vázquez, V., Avila Lopez, J., Gallego Segador, A., & Espejo Mohedano, R. (2015). Strategic and organisational considerations in planning content and language integrated learning: A study on the coordination between content and language teachers. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 18(4), 409–​425. Peercy, M.M., Martin-​Beltrán, M., Yazan, B., & DeStefano, M. (2017). ‘Jump in any time’: How teacher struggle with curricular reform generates opportunities for teacher learning. Action in Teacher Education, 39(2), 203–​217. Pham, P.A., & Unaldi, A. (2022) Cross-​curricular collaboration in a CLIL bilingual context: the perceptions and practices of language teachers and content subject teachers. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 25(8), 2918–​2932. DOI:10.1080/​13670050.2021.1995320 Shank, M.J. (2006). Teacher storytelling: A means for creating and learning within a collaborative space. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22(6), 711–​721. Turner, M., & Fielding, R. (2020). CLIL teacher training and teachers’ choices: exploring planned language use in the Australian context. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 34(3), 224–​241. Unsworth, L. (2001). Teaching multiliteracies across the curriculum. Open University Press.

190

Collaboration between CLIL teachers Valdés-​Sánchez, L., & Espinet, M. (2020). Coteaching in a science-​CLIL classroom: Changes in discursive interaction as evidence of an English teacher’s science-​CLIL professional identity development. International Journal of Science Education, 42(14), 2426–​2452. Van Driel, J.H., & Berry, A. (2010). Pedagogical content knowledge. In P. Peterson, E. Baker & B. McGaw (Eds), International encyclopedia of education (pp. 656–​661). Academic Press. Wallace, A., Spiliotopoulos, V., & Ilieva, R. (2020). CLIL collaborations in higher education: A critical perspective. English Teaching & Learning, 44(2), 127–​148. Zappa-​Hollman, S. (2018). Collaborations between language and content university instructors: Factors and indicators of positive partnerships. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21(5), 591–​606. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​13670 ​050.2018.1491​946

191

192

193

PART III

Contexts and learners

194

195

13 CLIL WITH HERITAGE LANGUAGES Joanna McPake

Introduction Accounts of CLIL commonly discuss the kinds of language learning provision included and excluded in the definition of this approach to language learning and teaching. The same is true of heritage languages (HLs) and heritage language learners (HLLs): considerable debate surrounds the choice of these terms rather than others, the question of which languages or which kinds of languages are included or excluded, and in which ways HLLs differ (or not) from other (first, second, foreign, or additional) language learners. In relation both to CLIL and to HLs and HLLs, taxonomies and continua have proliferated. Bringing the two fields together, to consider whether and how CLIL approaches might benefit HLLs, represents a multidimensional challenge at the level of conceptualisation. In practical terms, however, a pervasive view that HLLs are peripheral to the concerns of mainstream education has meant that provision for HLLs to learn, maintain and develop their HLs has been patchy, marginalised, and under-​researched. Unsurprisingly, then, attention to the potential of CLIL for these learners is limited. This chapter summarises definitional issues, limiting CLIL debates to issues of relevance to HLLs, and discussions around HLs and HLLs to those which could have a bearing on the use of CLIL. Two contrasting examples of provision for HLLs, in the US and the UK, illustrate the impact of distinctive histories of language education in each case, the evolution of provision for HLs, and the different opportunities to adopt or adapt CLIL approaches that ensue. Arguably, the CLIL literature has focused quite extensively on policy and pedagogical dimensions, but has paid less attention to CLIL learners: who they are, what they want or need in terms of language learning provision, and whether they feel that CLIL is effective, in their eyes. While second/​foreign/​additional language learners (henceforth, SLLs) in a given educational context are often assumed to be a homogeneous group (e.g., sharing the same first language, or L1, and having reached approximately the same level of competence in the second language, or L2, at any given stage), work on HLLs has emphasised diversity, in their linguistic repertoires, their cultural contexts, and their purposes for learning the HL in question, leading to the view that issues of identity and agency may be as important as developing linguistic proficiency. This suggests some ways forward, particularly in relation

DOI: 10.4324/9781003173151-17

195

Joanna McPake

to the development of CLIL provision targeting HLLs, but perhaps also for CLIL learners more generally.

CLIL: an umbrella term Coyle et al. (2010, p. 1) defined CLIL as ‘a dual-​focused educational approach in which an additional language is used for the teaching and learning of both content and language’. Significantly, they chose to use the term additional language rather than second or foreign because, as they explain, ‘An additional language is often a learner’s “foreign language” but it may also be a second language or some form of heritage or community language’ (p. 1). Thus, an inclusive orientation was established early on in the conceptualisation of CLIL. Subsequently, however, the distinction between SLLs and HLLs appears rarely to be addressed in the CLIL literature, and the implications for classroom practice in situations where all the students are HLLs, or where there is a mix of SLLs and HLLs, are not often explored. Coyle et al. (2010) note also that CLIL is not a new phenomenon. Approaches combining language and content learning had long been in existence before the term was coined in the 1990s, in relation to the development of European Union policy on languages education. In North America, where language immersion programmes pre-​d ate the emergence of CLIL in Europe, the term content-​based instruction (CBI) is widely used. Such variations in history and terminology have led to international discussion as to whether CLIL, immersion, and CBI relate to the same kind of provision, or diverge significantly. Here, Gabillon’s definition, following a review of these debates (2020, pp. 5–​6) is adopted: that CLIL is a broad term, or umbrella, for a dual-​focused approach, whereby an additional language and subject content are learned simultaneously, with equal attention to both; and that this approach is flexible, allowing for many variations. CLIL will therefore be adopted here as a shorthand form to refer to all approaches that include these characteristics. The corollary of the view that CLIL is an umbrella term has been the creation of CLIL taxonomies. Summing these up, Gabillon (2020, pp. 8–​9) identifies intensity, objectives, programme type, language proficiency level, age and educational context, and language of instruction as key variables. Some of these variables can be understood as continua, as already proposed by Ball (2009), ranging from ‘weak’ to ‘strong’; or Met (1998), from ‘content-​ driven’ to ‘language-​d riven’. For example, language proficiency level (understood as a goal, rather than a starting point) can be considered as a weak–​strong continuum, where the weak end would constitute a basic level of functional communicative ability; and the strong end, ‘native-​like’ competence. Similarly, programme types can be classified on the language-​/​ content-​d riven continuum, ranging from those which are largely language-​d riven, in which projects involving subject content from other areas of the curriculum occasionally feature, to those which are largely content-​d riven, in which the fact that they are taught through an additional language is rarely addressed and there is little or no overt attention to linguistic development. For these reasons, when considering how CLIL can or might work for HLLs, we need to acknowledge that we are not talking of a method uniform in its conceptualisation and application around the world, but rather of a range of approaches with loose connections to each other. Learners in CLIL classrooms are, therefore, likely to have very different experiences, depending on the learning context and the type of programme they encounter. An additional dimension, when focusing on HLLs, concerns the range of languages potentially involved, learners’ linguistic and educational histories, and the personal, professional, and 196

CLIL with heritage languages

cultural contexts in which they may already use the HLs in question or wish to use them in future. The challenge is thus to consider what happens when a loose federation of approaches encounters a very diverse learner population.

Heritage languages and heritage language learners Heritage languages The term heritage languages has long been used in North America to refer to languages associated with immigrant communities, and sometimes also those of indigenous peoples. It suggests that these languages are a valued part of communities’ cultural heritage. However, it also has connotations of the past and so may imply that English (in the US) or English and French (in Canada) are the languages of these communities’ futures. Any attempt at classifying languages runs the risk of revealing more about the classifier’s cultural and political orientations than of creating ‘neutral’ distinctions, particularly when applied to allocating resources, structuring educational provision, or evaluating impact. Elsewhere in the world, other terminology, such as community languages in the UK and Australia (Clyne, 1991), or the four part distinction deployed by the EU –​which lists regional and minority languages, migrant languages, non-​territorial languages, and sign languages (McPake et al., 2007) –​has similarly proved controversial and ultimately unhelpful. Kelleher’s position (2010, p. 1), that HLs should be considered ‘languages other than the dominant language (or languages) in a given social context’ is now widely used in North America. A similar argument was put forward by McPake et al. (2007, p. 7) in favour of the adoption of the term additional languages (and parallel forms in languages other than English) in Europe. The advantages of such a definition are, first, that it does not allocate specific languages to exclusive categories: thus, in the US, Spanish can be considered both a foreign language, widely taught ab initio to students with no family or community connection to the language, on the basis of its status as a language with global reach; and also a heritage language of particular significance to families and communities with Latin American or Spanish roots. Second, by contrasting HLs with the dominant language in any given context, such a definition establishes that the key educational distinction is between learning (or enhancing competence in) the language of wider communication (i.e., English, in the case of the US and the UK), and learning (or enhancing competence in) a language of family or community significance. Kelleher’s definition is, therefore, adopted here; and the term heritage languages is considered, for the purposes of this chapter, a parallel to others with similar connotations, such as community languages, minority/​minoritised languages, or additional languages.

Heritage language learners Accompanying discussion around the term heritage languages has been another longstanding debate about heritage language learners, focusing on the nature of HLLs’ linguistic competences and on questions of identity. Numbers of (potential) HLLs appear to be rising around the world, as a result of the intensification of migration in the 21st century. Gaining an accurate picture is difficult because countries collect data concerning languages in use among their populations differently, or else do not collect them at all. In the US, numbers of people over the age of five speaking languages other than English at home doubled in over the two decades from 1990 to 2010, from 25 million to 50 million. Even in a small country, such as Scotland, where 197

Joanna McPake

emigration rather than immigration has been the historical trend, the number of students classified as having a ‘mother tongue’ other than English increased by 50% over the decade from 2010 to 2020, now constituting almost a tenth of the school population. However, not all students who speak an HL become HLLs. Many HL speakers lack formal opportunities to study their HL; and some may not wish to do so, even where provision is available. In some situations, HL speakers may be discouraged from using the language among themselves, or with their children, so that even informal learning may be limited (Wiley, 2015). It can therefore be difficult for HL communities to maintain family or community use of the HL over time (Rumbaut, 2009), let alone envisage opportunities to learn through the medium of the HL in question. Moreover, in the context of second language acquisition (SLA) theories, HLLs occupy a somewhat anomalous position, considered to be neither L1 speakers of the HL in question, nor L2 learners (Valdés, 2001). In situations where students are deemed ‘native speakers’ of their HL –​with all that that term has traditionally implied about full linguistic competence, including competence in literacy commensurate with age and stage of education –​ schools may assume they need no further provision, although clearly young ‘native speakers’ would benefit from opportunities to develop formal competences in the HL, in the same way as young ‘native speakers’ of the dominant language. For example, in Anglophone countries, students whose ‘native language’ is English are not assumed to acquire academic competences (particularly academic literacies) unaided; and, similarly, bilingual learners cannot be expected to develop parallel competences in their HLs if such provision is not made available.1 The linguistic repertoires of HL speakers are likely to differ markedly from those of students who have studied the same language formally as an L2, for a variety of reasons. The standardised variety of the language taught in schools might be very different from the variety that HL speakers use in everyday life outside school, sometimes to the extent that these may not be mutually intelligible (Lynch, 2014). But even where varieties are closer to the standard, HL students may be considered by teachers familiar only with the standard variety to be speaking the ‘wrong kind’ of language and criticised for apparent gaps in their knowledge of the language, because their acquisition patterns do not follow those of the textbook. Moreover, these students’ experiences of using the language, and their purposes for developing it, as HLLs, may be very different from those considered relevant to SLLs. For example, they may use the language in specific cultural contexts (such as religious observance), not necessarily the focus of school-​based provision. Conversely, the assumption in many L2 textbooks, that students will be interested in learning the language for future tourism purposes –​visiting monuments and galleries, buying train tickets and booking hotels –​may not match HLLs’ current or future experiences of contexts for use. Polinsky and Kagan (2007) posit a continuum of linguistic competence for HLLs, ranging from very limited knowledge of the HL, but a desire to learn the language derived from family and community connections, to a level of competence almost comparable to that of a ‘native speaker’. Lynch (2014) argues that providers should be sensitive both to students from HL backgrounds who do not want to learn or use these HLs, and to students who do wish to learn an HL of significance to them but whose opportunities have been limited: the latter will, effectively, be close to ab initio learners at the outset. Nevertheless, such students may aspire to become ‘new speakers’ (O’Rourke & Walsh, 2020) of the HL with the long-​ term intention of using the HL extensively in adult life, even although they did not grow up speaking the HL in question. Ultimately, Lynch (2014) argues, questions of identity

198

CLIL with heritage languages

and agency may be more important considerations in devising appropriate provision than questions of formally measured linguistic competence. HLLs thus do not constitute a homogeneous group of students even when they are considered to be learners of the same HL. Spiky profiles are likely: a plausible profile for many would involve relatively high levels of oral competences but much lower (or non-​ existent) literacy competences. Of course, some HLs may have no written form; and many have very different kinds of literacy traditions from those associated, for example, with mainstream schooling in Anglophone countries. Researchers such as Moll (e.g., Gonzáles et al., 2005) and Gregory (e.g., Gregory et al., 2007) have revealed different funds of knowledge, and culturally distinctive approaches to literacy developed in HL communities outside the mainstream education system. A significant risk, when mainstream provision is made for HLs, is that these ways of knowing and of expressing ideas and understandings are ignored or glossed over, in the interests of fitting in with those of the dominant (educational) culture (Valdés, 2021). The purposes for which learners might wish to maintain and develop their HL will also vary, depending, for example, on whether or not they can to travel to their families’ countries of origin on a regular basis, expect to return there at a later stage of their education or for work, or have opportunities to use the language in digital communities as well as those local to them. McPake and Sachdev (2010) provide examples, from higher education, of HLLs’ plans to use their HLs in their studies and their careers. Assumptions about long-​term goals need to be critically scrutinised by teachers, and by the learners and their families and communities: as with all language learners, questions of identity, investment, and imagined communities (Kramsch, 2013) should be at the heart of the project. Moreover, HLLs’ experiences of power differentials in society –​particularly as these relate to their status as immigrants, or the children or grandchildren of immigrants, as people who may or may not speak the dominant language of society and of schooling like ‘native speakers’, or as potential or actual bilinguals in societies with a ‘monolingual habitus’ (Gogolin, 1997) –​ are likely to have a bearing on their linguistic identities, sense of agency, and, therefore, on attitudes towards maintaining, developing, or losing their HLs.

CLIL and heritage language learning Three consequences for HL provision follow on from the fact that HLLs can be considered neither ‘native speakers’ of their HLs nor SLLs. First, provision is patchy, because policymakers at all levels (from class teachers to education ministries, and supranational organisations) have found it difficult to recognise and respond to their needs and aspirations. In Anglophone countries, it has been considered more pressing to ensure that HL-​speaking students acquire academic competences in English than to make provision for the maintenance and development of the HL. This is despite the fact that a considerable body of research shows that HL maintenance benefits, rather than hampers, the acquisition of English (Collier & Thomas, 2017; Lindholm-​Leary & Genesee, 2014; McField & McField, 2014). Moreover, where HL-​ speaking students’ English is already ‘native’ or ‘native-​l ike’, it tends to be assumed, in contexts where the ‘monolingual habitus’ is well-​established, that their HLs are of little or no interest, to themselves or others (Quehl, 2021). The view that standard academic English is critical to academic success in Anglophone countries is not in doubt. However, an exclusive focus on this, rather than on multilingualism as an asset for HLLs, may reflect and further longstanding discriminatory practices, ultimately framing provision for HLLs as peripheral or irrelevant.

199

Joanna McPake

Second, failure to recognise HLLs as distinctive, or to consider that provision to support HL learning requires bespoke pedagogies reflecting and responding to their needs and aspirations, means that any review of pedagogies in use with HLLs (and the place of CLIL within these pedagogies), must take account of the fact that HLLs are usually or always peripheral to the main or target group. For example, in provision devised for ‘native speakers’ of the HL in question, HLLs who are not already highly proficient may struggle to participate in a meaningful way, and may also find their identities as speakers of this language under threat, if teachers or others in the class do not accept them as such. Similarly, in L2 programmes, HLLs’ different starting points and different goals from SLLs may not be recognised as legitimate. Third, this patchy provision, in which HLLs are often marginalised, takes on different characteristics around the world, depending on histories of migration, of minoritisation of HLs as they are displaced by dominant languages, and of the broader language education policies in force. As we have seen, these different histories of language education policies have a bearing also on the nature of CLIL provision around the world. Here, two e­ xamples –​ of two-​way immersion programmes in the US and project-​based learning in the UK –​are discussed to illustrate the interplay of the CLIL and HLL constellations.

Two-​way immersion in the US The long history of mass immigration to the US from around the world has meant that the multilingualism of the school population is an established factor in devising educational policy. One important consequence has been the development of language immersion programmes, deriving from well-​k nown Canadian initiatives that date back to the 1960s (Lambert & Tucker, 1972). These might be considered to represent a maximalist CLIL position, in that immersion students study content through the medium of the additional language in question, for between 50% and 100% of the school day; and that successful immersion students typically achieve high levels of fluency in this language, as well as performing as well, or better, than their non-​immersion peers on content-​related tests ( Johnstone, 2002; Tedick, 2014). In their original Canadian formulation, immersion programmes were not designed for HLLs, but rather for students assumed to be ‘native speakers’ of English outside school, with parents who wanted them to become fluent French speakers, principally to broaden career options in officially bilingual Canada. In the US, two-​way immersion (TWI) programmes, combining opportunities for students speaking an HL at home to learn English and students speaking English at home to learn a second language, emerged in the 1960s (Coady, 2019). Such programmes were attractive, for two reasons. First, despite the positive outcomes of language immersion noted above, researchers found that SLLs in such programmes did not necessarily develop parallel social or cultural competences in the language, because they had few opportunities to use the immersion language in contexts beyond the classroom (Ó Duibhir, 2018; Swain & Lapkin, 2005). Second, TWI constituted a response to critical debates concerning the ‘submersion’ of HL-​speaking students in English-​medium settings: in contrast to the positive outcomes for immersed students (i.e., SLLs with the same L1s), submerged students (i.e., HL speakers required to learn through English) often failed to learn English to an adequate standard, or to achieve good grades on tests of subject knowledge (Wright, 2004). Such outcomes sometimes elicited surprise, given the well-​publicised benefits of immersion programmes, and an assumption that HL-​speaking students should have similar

200

CLIL with heritage languages

experiences in English-​medium classrooms; but also dismay among those concerned with securing educational equality for all students. TWI programmes, therefore, aim to recruit a balanced school population, where around half of the students are ‘native’ English-​speakers and around half speak the other language to be used as a medium of instruction. Achieving this balance is challenging, and effectively only possible where there are large populations speaking the same HL. Therefore, most TWI programmes in the US involve English and Spanish as media of instruction (Kim et al., 2015). Another factor in determining which language is to be offered alongside English concerns the potential benefits for ‘native’ English speakers recruited to the programme: ‘global’ languages, such as Spanish, French, or Mandarin may be considered more attractive than ‘smaller’ languages, such as Khmer or Cree. Thus, even in the US, opportunities to establish TWI programmes are limited. Pérez (2004) provides an ethnographic account of TWI programmes in two elementary schools in Texas, in a six-​year longitudinal study. Such an orientation is unusual in TWI research, which has largely focused on assessing outcomes, in terms of both the linguistic and the broader educational gains made by the students. Pérez begins with an account of the policy process that led to the implementation of the new programme, firstly at district level and then within the schools themselves. This discussion incorporates a focus on the parents’ hopes and concerns, and how these evolve over the research period. She describes in detail the pedagogical strategies which teachers developed to support students learning bilingually, coupled with a strong focus on ensuring that literacy development in both Spanish and English drew on contemporary theories of linguistic transfer, and involved culturally relevant texts. (It is worth noting that most of the students in these schools were of Mexican descent, regardless of whether they were considered to be English-​or Spanish-​speaking at the start of their school careers.) This work reflected a commitment, within school and at district level, to ongoing professional development for the teachers, one consequence of which was that the teachers became increasingly able to defend the programme when reviews of its value were undertaken. Extensive testing took place over the period the research was conducted, and Pérez is therefore able to combine this thick description of classroom practice with statistical analysis of test scores which shows very considerable improvements, in students’ literacy scores (in both languages) compared with those achieved by students in the same schools before the programme was introduced. More generally, evaluations of TWI programme outcomes (e.g., Lindholm-​Leary, 2005) initially followed the pattern established for Canadian immersion programmes, focusing on linguistic gains in both languages, and comparing these with other groups of students attending non-​immersion programmes. They showed that SLLs and HLLs in TWI programmes made greater progress in both languages than students in other programmes. However, they also showed that students with higher socio-​economic status (SES) performed better than those with lower SES, findings which are unsurprising in general terms, but which in this context indicate that HLLs –​typically of lower SES than the SLLs –​may still be disadvantaged in programmes specifically intended to benefit them. This becomes clear in evaluations of content learning: for example, Lindholm-​Leary’s account (2001) of TWI students’ maths scores showed that SLLs of Spanish performed better in maths than students with Spanish as their HL when both groups were tested in Spanish. These early studies therefore raised questions about the extent to which TWI programmes could address wider issues of social disadvantage in educational contexts; and later studies (e.g., Palmer, 2010; Valdez et al., 2016) continue to question the extent to which less privileged student groups benefit from TWI programmes.

201

Joanna McPake

Another caveat concerning TWI programmes in the US is that most cater only for the elementary school years (Kim et al., 2015). So, it is not clear how effective they are, long-​ term, in securing students’ bilingualism and the academic advantages associated with immersion. Thomas and Collier (1997) found that HLLs in TWI programmes were, eventually, more successful, in terms of linguistic gains (in both languages) and academic achievements, compared with HLLs not in TWI programmes, but that these gains were conclusively demonstrated around Grade 11. Evaluation of outcomes at earlier stages were either inconclusive, or showed lower performance compared with peers not attending TWI settings. This is consistent with studies of SLLs in other immersion programmes, which often show a lag in the early stages of the programme. It is usually assumed that this temporary dip in scores reflects the need to develop linguistic competences in the L2, before the benefits begin to emerge. However, if TWI programmes are largely restricted to elementary grades, these benefits may not be demonstrated by the end of the programme. This account demonstrates that an awareness of historical and geopolitical context is important in understanding the strengths and limitations of TWI programmes. They may be considered a ‘gold standard’ model of CLIL for HLLs, in that they are mainstream, offer extensive dual-​focused provision, provide opportunities for students to develop both social and academic competences in two languages, and constitute a valiant attempt to address education inequities experienced by HLLs in other educational contexts. At the same time, these opportunities are open to only a small subset of HLLs (mainly Spanish-​speakers), and, given the limited number of K-​12 TWI programmes, may not be as effective as other immersion programmes in securing the anticipated linguistic and academic gains. It is also possible that the historic link, back ultimately to Canadian immersion programmes, retains elements of their strong orientation towards language separation, thus limiting opportunities for explorations of hybridity, which are, in contrast, a feature of project-​based CLIL initiatives in the UK.

Project-​based CLIL initiatives in the UK The UK has traditionally offered few opportunities for HL learning within mainstream education. Although research at the turn of the present century indicated that there were over 300 languages in use among students in London schools (Baker & Eversley, 2000), educational policy has made little headway in expanding formal provision beyond the well-​ established modern languages trio of French, German, and Spanish, and remains largely sceptical towards the possibilities for using languages other than English as media of instruction. The main exception to this rule relates to minoritised languages with a long history of use in the UK, such as Scottish Gaelic or Welsh, for which various forms of provision, including immersion programmes, have been established. (See Lewis et al., 2013, O’Hanlon, 2015, and Ó Duibhir, 2018, for discussions of immersion models for minoritised languages in the UK and Ireland: these models have some similarities with the American TWI programmes, discussed above.) Otherwise, mainstream L2 provision is typically in dripfeed form (Stern, 1985), i.e., two or three discrete modern language lessons, constituting 90 to 120 minutes of instruction per week, based on the assumption that students are all SLLs. Although there are significant numbers of French and Spanish HL speakers in UK schools, their presence in mainstream French or Spanish classes of this kind seems rarely to be acknowledged, nor are their distinctive linguistic needs and aspirations addressed. Mainstream provision for students who speak other HLs is very limited, although national examinations exist for around a dozen 202

CLIL with heritage languages

languages (including Arabic, Bengali, Mandarin, and Punjabi) associated with linguistic communities which had become well-​established in the UK by the latter decades of the 20th century. A small number of mainstream schools have developed formal teaching programmes for these languages. However, CLIL approaches seem rarely, if ever, to have been adopted in these mainstream programmes (though see Fitzpatrick, 1987, for one historical exception). Given the lack of mainstream provision, many HLLs attend out-​of-​school classes, run independently by communities associated with the HL in question. These are referred to as community, complementary, or supplementary classes or schools in the UK. While complementary provision has a long history in the UK (and in many other parts of the world), it suffers from precarity, and much research has, therefore, focused on how to enhance its sustainability (Sneddon, 2017). There appears to have been little research into the pedagogical approaches adopted in the complementary sector, nor, therefore, into the potential of CLIL (though see Anderson, 2008, 2011). However, a critical set of case studies into HLLs’ experiences of complementary schools in England was conducted in the early 2000s (Creese et al., 2006; Martin et al., 2004). These investigated multilingual practices in such schools, drawing attention to the tensions between separate and flexible bilingualism (i.e., the notion that the different languages need to be kept separate, particularly in the learning process, versus informal practices which, the research established, typically involved creative translanguaging, in and out of the classroom). Reflecting on these studies, Creese and Blackledge (2011) argued that the predominant separate approach to the teaching of HLs fails to take into account the fluidity of language boundaries and the ways in which bilinguals habitually use the linguistic resources at their disposal to reflect and create hybrid identities: Flexible bilingualism captures the heteroglossic nature of communication in the bilingual context of complementary schools. It leads us away from a focus on ‘languages’ as distinct codes, to a focus on the agency of individuals in a school community engaging in using, creating and interpreting signs to communicate to multilingual audiences. Creese and Blackledge, 2011, p. 1197 Anderson’s work (2009, 2017) builds on the insights from these studies to support HL teachers in the mainstream and the complementary sector, in the context of a teacher education course he devised for these teachers. Anderson encouraged these teachers to think about how project-​based learning (PBL) approaches –​which are quite widely used in primary and lower secondary teaching in UK schools, and draw on theories associated with the process model of curriculum (Kelly, 1999; Stenhouse, 1975) –​could be adapted to incorporate a linguistic dimension for use in either mainstream or complementary contexts. Similarities between PBL and CLIL are perhaps deserving of greater scholarly attention than appears to have been the case to date. Dalton-​Puffer (2018, p. 386) notes the absence of engagement of content teachers and researchers with CLIL; but one might also note that languages teachers and researchers seem rarely to have considered the potential of including language learning in PBL initiatives (but see Anderson & Macleroy, 2021; Arnold et al., 2018). Anderson (2009) reports three examples of projects designed by the teachers. One, with HLLs aged 11 to 16, learning Panjabi in a complementary school, involved developing a drama performance, called the Anti-​Racist Show in which students explored citizenship issues, focusing on their own experiences of racism. A second, with HLLs aged 13 to 15, learning Mandarin in a complementary school, involved a series of activities based on the traditional 203

Joanna McPake

Chinese story The Butterfly Lovers, ranging from comprehension of the story in Chinese and formal language learning to critical and creative work around the story. A third, with HLLs aged 13 and 14, attending a mainstream school where they were studying either Urdu or Bengali, concerned the design of school webpages on the theme of Regeneration, combining the learning of one of the two languages with the development of ICT skills, ranging from word-​processing to webpage design, and focusing on the arts. Anderson makes clear, in each case, that the HLLs in these projects had very diverse linguistic repertoires in their HLs. For example, in the Anti-​Racist Show project, the decision to work with a mixed age-​g roup reflected the fact that students’ developing linguistic competence in Panjabi was not closely tied to their ages but to their experiences within and beyond the complementary school. Rather than see this diversity as a barrier, it was embraced as an opportunity to enable students to learn from each other, linguistically, socially, and culturally. This drama project allowed for different kinds of engagement, including performing, script-​w riting, stage management, and music, and provided extensive opportunities to collaborate on research and development of the ideas to be addressed in the show. A second factor influencing teachers’ approach was recognition of the developing hybrid identities of their students. Teachers found ways of acknowledging students’ experiences of mainstream schooling in the UK, so that, for example, work for the Butterfly Lovers incorporated aspects of teaching literacy and literature familiar to students from their experiences of the mainstream English curriculum, and used these to develop skills in Mandarin. They also supported development of a critical, comparative dimension to this work, asking students to look at similarities and differences between this story and that of Romeo and Juliet, and at ways in which the original Chinese story had been adapted into UK culture through the creation of a classic Spode china design, the Willow Pattern. In the Regeneration project, students’ cultural roots in the Indian subcontinent were highlighted in choices about arts projects to present on the school’s webpages –​for example, a focus on the ‘art of Mehndi’ (henna patterns) –​but the ‘regeneration’ theme encouraged them to look at how traditions are renewed over time and from place to place. The Regeneration project is undoubtedly unusual in bringing together two groups of HLLs, learning different HLs, with the goal of looking at cultural traditions across languages rather than within one linguistic context. It illustrates a third trend relevant to the recognition of hybridity in these initiatives: the use of English alongside the HLs in question. This was overt in the Anti-​Racist Show and Regeneration, both of which allowed students to work bilingually and encouraged them to think about the role each language might play in the finished work. As Anderson (2009, p. 129) comments: Too often bilingual pupils see themselves pigeon-​holed into one cultural frame or another, as though the boundaries were fixed and unchanging. Amongst other things this denies the intercultural literacy, the ability to ‘navigate difference’ and to see things from different viewpoints that are benefits arising from a bilingual, bicultural upbringing.

From umbrellas to kaleidoscopes: a research agenda for CLIL with HLLs This chapter has drawn attention to diversity as characteristic both of CLIL as it evolves to become a global phenomenon, and of HLLs, as their numbers rise around the world and the imperative to develop appropriate provision becomes ever more pressing. When CLIL approaches intersect with HLLs’ language and learning needs and aspirations, it may be 204

CLIL with heritage languages

appropriate to move from the image of an umbrella to that of a kaleidoscope, where myriad elements combine to form patterns that can change quite radically with minor adjustments. We have looked at some existing patterns –​TWI in the US and PBL in the UK –​but many others are possible. For example, TWI programmes have also been developed in Germany, but through an approach which has supported several different languages in the same city (Berlin) and with a strong orientation towards social cohesion (Meier, 2014). Anderson’s early PBL experiments led him to a more sustained focus on the creative arts and digital storytelling as distinctive HLL pedagogies in their own right, taking inspiration from CLIL, but also staking a claim for divergence, in terms of a focus on enabling HLLs to build on existing oral competences, including, often, sophisticated translanguaging abilities, to develop multiliteracies (Anderson, 2017). Constructing a research agenda which responds to such diversity, complexity, and fluidity is challenging, particularly when there has been relatively little work which explicitly addresses, on the one hand, the CLILness of certain types of provision already in existence for HLLs, or the potential of CLIL to enhance existing provision; or, on the other, the possibilities that open up for CLIL when the diversity of learners’ language and learning histories, and how they envisage these combining to achieve future goals, is acknowledged in CLIL classrooms. Existing work suggests three questions for future research to explore: 1. What changes in research concerning educational outcomes for HLLs if we adopt a more explicit focus on integration of language and content? Traditionally, research has addressed methods for maintaining and developing the HL, relying on correlation studies, such as the work of Thomas and Collier over the past two decades (e.g., Collier & Thomas, 2017; Thomas & Collier, 1997) to support the view that this, in itself, leads to higher attainment for HLL students. CLIL research challenges us to understand the interrelationship of language of, for, and through learning (Coyle et al., 2010, p. 36), and to develop classroom practice based on that triptych. Thinking about HLLs’ learning from this perspective may be revealing. 2. How does, or might, CLIL work in multilingual classrooms where some, or most, or all students are HLLs rather than SLLs? To what extent can CLIL approaches cope with ‘mixed ability’ classes where students’ linguistic competences, their funds of knowledge and their literacies variously influence the ways in which they approach learning content through the CLIL language, and develop linguistic competences by engaging with the content? 3. What might research at the intersection of CLIL and HL learning reveal about the construction of hybridities –​through, for example, translanguaging, intercultural mediation, and transcultural appropriation –​and what are the educational implications of these processes, not only for HLLs, for whom hybridities are already envisaged, but also for SLLs, for whom these are more rarely considered?

Note 1 The term ‘native speaker’ is used here and elsewhere in this chapter with inverted commas. Although extensively used in the past and still possessing powerful currency in popular thinking about individuals’ linguistic competences, it is now widely discredited (Davies, 2003), particularly in discussions concerning bilinguals and bilingual learners, representing what is now seen, following the ‘multilingual turn’ (Conteh & Meier, 2014; May, 2014) as a relic of monolingual habitus. By extension terms such as ‘first language’ or ‘mother tongue’ are equally anachronistic. The use of terms such as ‘L1’ and ‘L2’ in this chapter is also problematic, but these have been retained for

205

Joanna McPake the sake of brevity. In time, terminology may change, reflecting the view that everyone develops a unique linguistic repertoire (Busch, 2012) over the course of a lifetime, and that this repertoire is likely to contain several linguistic varieties (languages, dialects, sociolects, etc.), acquired through a mixture of formal and informal learning. In different contexts, different varieties are salient (or may be mixed together). The question of which came, chronologically, first, second, or last may come to be seen as irrelevant in future.

Further reading Conteh, J., & Meier, G. (Eds.). (2014). The multilingual turn in languages education: Opportunities and challenges. Multilingual Matters. This edited collection concerns the educational implications of recognising that multilingualism, rather than monolingualism, is the norm. It asks what changes when we consider that many students are already bilingual, by virtue of their experiences outside school, and that all have the potential to become so, when living in increasingly multilingual environments. How, then, do we rethink questions of media of instruction and of language pedagogies, to maximise this potential? CLIL is viewed somewhat critically in this book: for example, Meier (p. 136) argues that CLIL approaches have difficulty adapting to classrooms where some students are already fluent speakers of the CLIL language; and that language immersion programmes have traditionally favoured language separation policies, possibly preventing (actual and potential) bilingual students from making connections across languages. However, the final section of the book provides examples of innovative classrooms which embrace plurilingualism, finding ways of using and building students’ linguistic repertoires across the curriculum. Such work may not be defined as CLIL, but could be considered an evolution of the ideas which inspired CLIL approaches. Kagan, O., Carreira, M., & Chik, C. (Eds.). (2017). Routledge handbook of heritage languages. Routledge. A recent overview of issues relating to HLs and provision for HL learning, this book is geographically wide-​ranging, addresses issues relating to a variety of HLs, and covers all educational sectors, from community-​based provision to higher education. The goal is to emphasise diverse approaches, enabling those involved in HL education, often isolated as result of the precarity of their field, to identify common ground and new ideas. Explicit discussion of the potential of CLIL in this context is limited: there is one reference to CLIL, none to CBI, and two to immersion in the index. Thus, despite the fact that provision discussed in the HL field might fit comfortably under the CLIL ‘umbrella’, the orientation of the book underlines the fact that such connections have not yet been widely made. Ó Duibhir, P. (2018). Immersion education: Lessons from a minority language context. Multilingual Matters. This book-​length discussion of issues arising from language immersion programmes to revitalise Irish –​a language of great symbolic significance in Ireland but nevertheless at risk of disappearance –​allows the reader to consider the impact of CLIL approaches in relation to provision for a single language for which there is extensive state support. Ó Duibhir reviews the sociolinguistic context, educational settings, and political stakes informing provision. He is particularly acute on the question of what different stakeholders mean by ‘native-​speaker’ competence, and whether this is a realistic or appropriate goal. In line with the ‘counterbalance’ hypothesis put forward by Lyster (2007) –​that the communicative thrust within immersion approaches needs to be counterbalanced by a focus on linguistic form –​conclusions recommend closer attention to students’ linguistic production to achieve greater linguistic accuracy; but also prioritisation of opportunities for students to use their Irish outside school in informal contexts.

References Anderson, J. (2008). Towards integrated second language teaching pedagogy for foreign and community/​heritage languages in multilingual Britain. Language Learning Journal, 36(1), 79–​89. Anderson, J. (2009). Relevance of CLIL in developing pedagogies for minority language teaching. In D. Marsh, P. Mehisto, D. Wolff, R. Aliaga, T. Asikainen, M.-​J. Frigols-​Martin, S. Hughes, & G. Langé (Eds.), CLIL practice: Perspectives from the field (pp. 124–​132). University of Jyväskylä.

206

CLIL with heritage languages Anderson, J. (2011). Reshaping pedagogies for a plurilingual agenda. Language Learning Journal, 39(2), 135–​147. Anderson, J. (2017). Engagement, multiliteracies and identity: Developing pedagogies for heritage/​ community language learners within the UK school system. In O. Kagan, M. Carreira, & C. H. Chik (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of heritage language education: From innovation to program building (pp. 248–​262). Routledge. Anderson, J., & Macleroy, V. (2021). Stories, communities, voices: Revitalising language learning through digital media within a project-​ based pedagogical framework. In M. Thomas & K. Yamazaki (Eds.), Project-​based language learning and CALL: From virtual exchange to social justice (pp. 231–​262). Equinox. Arnold, W., Bradshaw, C., & Gregson, K. (2018). Language learning through projects. In F. Copland & S. Garton (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of teaching English to young learners (pp. 288–​302). Routledge. Baker, P., & Eversley, J. (2000). Multilingual capital. Battlebridge. Ball, P. (2009). Does CLIL work? In D.A. Hill & A. Pulverness (Eds.), The best of both worlds? International perspectives on CLIL (pp. 32–​43). Norwich Institute for Language Education. Busch, B. (2012). The linguistic repertoire revisited. Applied Linguistics, 33(5), 503–​523. https://​doi. org/​10.1093/​app​l in/​a ms​056 Clyne, M. (1991). Community languages: The Australian experience. Cambridge University Press. Coady, M. (2019). The Coral Way bilingual program. Multilingual Matters. Collier, V.P., & Thomas, W.P. (2017). Validating the power of bilingual schooling: Thirty-​t wo years of large-​scale, longitudinal research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 37(2017), 203–​217. https://​ doi.org/​10.1017/​S02671​9051​7000​034 Conteh, J., & Meier, G. (2014). The multilingual turn in languages education: Opportunities and challenges. Multilingual Matters. Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL content and language integrated learning. Cambridge University Press. Creese, A., Bhatt, A., Bhojani, N., & Martin, P. (2006). Multicultural, heritage and learner identities in complementary schools. Language and Education, 20(1), 23–​43. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​095007​ 8060​8668​708 Creese, A., & Blackledge, A. (2011). Separate and flexible bilingualism in complementary schools: Multiple language practices in interrelationship. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(5), 1196–​1208. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.pra​g ma.2010.10.006 Dalton-​Puffer, C. (2018). Postscriptum: Research pathways in CLIL/​i mmersion instructional practices and teacher development. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21(3), 384–​387. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​13670 ​050.2017.1384​4 48 Davies, A. (2003). The native speaker: Myth and reality. Multilingual Matters. Fitzpatrick, F. (1987). The open door. The Bradford bilingual project. Multilingual Matters. Gabillon, Z. (2020). Revisiting CLIL: Background, pedagogy, and theoretical underpinnings. Contextes et Didactiques, 15. http://​journ​a ls.open​edit​ion.org/​ced/​1836 Gogolin, I. (1997). The ‘monolingual habitus’ as the common feature in teaching in the language of the majority in different countries. Per Linguam, 13(2), 38–​49. https://​doi.org/​10.5785/​13-​2 -​187 Gonzáles, N., Moll, L., & Amanti, C. (2005). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households, communities and classrooms. Routledge. Gregory, E., Arju, T., Jessel, J., Kenner, C., & Ruby, M. (2007). Snow White in different guises: Interlingual and intercultural exchanges between grandparents and young children at home in East London. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 7(1), 5–​25. https://​doi.org/​10.1177/​14687​9840​ 7074​831 Johnstone, R. (2002). Immersion as a second or additional language at school: A review of the international reseatch. Scottish CILT, University of Stirling. Kelleher, A. (2010). What is a heritage language? Heritage Briefs Collection. https://​cal.org/​herit​a ge/​ pdfs/​bri​efs/​W hat-​is-​a-​Herit​a ge-​Langu​a ge.pdf Kelly, A.V. (1999). The curriculum: Theory and practice (4th ed.). Sage. Kim, Y.K., Hutchison, L.A., & Winsler, A. (2015). Bilingual education in the United States: An historical overview and examination of two-​way immersion. Educational Review, 67(2), 236–​252. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​0 0131​911.2013.865​593

207

Joanna McPake Kramsch, C. (2013). Afterword. In B. Norton, Identity and language learning: Extending the conversation. Multilingual Matters. Lambert, W.E., & Tucker, R. (1972). Bilingual education of children: The St. Lambert experiment. Newbury House. Lewis, W.G., Jones, B., & Baker, C. (2013). 100 bilingual lessons: Distributing two languages in classrooms. In C. Abello-​Contesse, P.M. Chandler, M.D. López-​Jiménez & R. Chacón-​Beltrán (Eds.), Bilingual and multilingual education education in the 21st century (pp. 107–​135). Multilingual Matters. Lindholm-​L eary, K.J. (2001). Dual language education. Multilingual Matters. Lindholm-​L eary, K.J. (2005). Review of research and best practices on effective features of dual language education programs. Researchgate. www.resea​rchg ​ate.net/​prof​i le/​K ath ​r yn-​Lindh​olm-​L eary/​publi​cati​ons Lindholm-​L eary, K.J., & Genesee, F. (2014). Student outcomes in one-​way, two-​way and indigenous language immersion education. Journal of Immersion and Content-​Based Language Education, 2(2), 165–​180. https://​doi.org/​10.1075/​jicb.2.2.01lin Lynch, A. (2014). The first decade of the Heritage Language Journal: A retrospective view of research on heritage languages. Heritage Language Journal, 11(3), 224–​242. https://​doi.org/​10.46538/​h lj.11.3.3 Lyster, R. (2007). Learning and teaching languages through content: A counterbalanced approach. John Benjamins. Martin, P.W., Creese, A., Bhatt, A., & Bhojani, N. (2004). Final report on complementary schools and their communities in Leicester. University of Leicester/​University of Birmingham. May, S. (2014). The multilingual turn. Routledge. McField, G. P., & McField, D. R. (2014). The consistent outcome of bilingual education programs: A metanalysis of metanalyses. In G. McField (Ed.), The miseducation of English learners: A tale of three states and lessons to be learned (pp. 267–​297). Information Age Publishing. McPake, J., & Sachdev, I. (2010). Community languages: Mapping provision and matching needs in higher education in England. Sociolinguistic Studies, 4(3), 509–​534. https://​doi.org/​10.1558/​sols. v4i3.509 McPake, J., Tinsley, T., Broeder, P., Latomaa, S., Martyniuk, W., & Mijares, L. (2007). Valuing all languages in Europe. European Centre for Modern Languages. http://​a rch​ive.ecml.at/​mtp2/​publi​ cati​ons/ ​Val​eur-​rep​ort-​E .pdf Meier, G. (2014). Multilingualism and social cohesion: two-​way immersion education meets diverse needs. In J. Conteh & G. Meier (Eds.), The multilingual turn in languages education (pp. 179–​208). Multilingual Matters. Met, M. (1998). Curriculum decision-​ m aking in content-​ based language teaching. In J. Cenoz & F. Genesee (Eds.), Beyond bilingualism: Multilingualism and multilingual education (pp. 35–​63). Multilingual Matters. Ó Duibhir, P. (2018). Immersion education: Lessons from a minority language context. Multilingual Matters. O’Hanlon, F. (2015). Choice of Scottish Gaelic-​medium and Welsh-​medium education at the primary and secondary school stages: Parent and pupil perspectives. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 18(2), 242–​259. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​13670 ​050.2014.923​374 O’Rourke, B., & Walsh, J. (2020). New speakers, new paradigms? Building a theoretical framework. In B. O’Rourke & J. Walsh (Eds.), New speakers of Irish in the global context: New revival? (pp. 17–​35). Routledge. https://​doi.org/​10.4324/​978131​5277​325 Palmer, D. (2010). Race, power, and equity in a multiethnic urban elementary school with a dual-​ language ‘strand’ program. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 41(1), 94–​114. https://​doi.org/​ 10.1111/​j.1548-​1492.2010.01069.x Pérez, B. (2004). Becoming biliterate: A study of two-​way bilingual immersion education. Erlbaum. Polinsky, M., & Kagan, O. (2007). Heritage languages: In the ‘wild’ and in the classroom. Languages and Linguistics Compass, 1(5), 368–​395. Quehl, T. (2021). Pedagogical spaces in the primary school: Teacher agency in multilingual pedagogies. Doctoral thesis, Goldsmiths’ University of London. https://research.gold.ac.uk/id/eprint/30334/. Rumbaut, R.G. (2009). A language graveyard? The evolution of language competencies, preferences and use among young adult children of immigrants. In T.G. Wiley, J.S. Lee & R.W. Rumberger (Eds.), The education of language minority immigrants in the United States (pp. 35–​71). Multilingual Matters.

208

CLIL with heritage languages Sneddon, R. (2017). Sustainable approaches to complementary education in England. In O. Kagan, M. Carreira & C.H. Chik (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of heritage language education: From innovation to program building (pp. 85–​99). Routledge. Stenhouse, L. (1975). An introduction to curriculum research and development. Heinemann. Stern, H.H. (1985). The time factor and compact course development. TESL Canada Journal, 3(1), 13–​27. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2005). The evolving sociopolitical context of immersion education in Canada: Some implications for program development. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15(2), 169–​186. https://​doi.org/​10.1111/​j.1473-​4192.2005.00086.x Tedick, D.J. (2014). Language immersion education: A research agenda for 2015 and beyond (Special Issue). Journal of Immersion and Content-​Based Language Education, 2(2), 155–​164. https://​doi.org/​ 10.1075/​jicb.2.2.00int Thomas, W.P., & Collier, V.P. (1997). School effectiveness for language minority students. National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education (NCBE). www.ncela.gwu.edu/​pubs/​resou​rce/​effect​ iven​ess/​ Valdés, G. (2001). Heritage language students: Profiles and possibilities. In J.K. Peyton, D. Ranard & S. McGinnis (Eds.), Heritage languages in America: Preserving a national resource (pp. 37–​77). Delta Systems Company. Valdés, G. (2021). ‘Verde is not the word for green in Spanish’: The problematic arrogance of monolingual, powerful parents. Language Policy, 20(3), 517–​523. https://​doi.org/​10.1007/​s10​ 993-​021-​09598-​w Valdez, V., Freire, J., & Delavan, M. (2016). The gentrification of dual language education. Urban Review, 48(4), 601–​627. https://​doi.org/​10.1007/​s11​256-​016-​0370-​0 Wiley, T.G. (2015). Language policy and planning in education. In W. Wright, S. Boun, & O. García (Eds.), The handbook of bilingual and multilingual education (pp. 164–​184). Wiley-​Blackwell. https://​ doi.org/​10.1002/​978111​8533​406.ch10 Wright, W. (2004). What English-​only really means: A study of the implementation of California language policy with Cambodian-​A merican students. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 7(1), 1–​23. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​136700​5040​8667​798

209

210

14 CLIL WITH LANGUAGES OTHER THAN ENGLISH Kim Bower

Introduction The term languages other than English (LOTE) first introduced in Australia in the context of community languages, currently termed ‘additional languages’ (Clyne, 1991), is now more widely used across linguistic contexts. The rapid expansion of Global English has seen its predominance as the language of choice for foreign language study increase at the expense of LOTEs such as French or Spanish. LOTEs are therefore facing a crisis in many European and Asian educational sectors. Where there are contextual reasons for learning another foreign language (e.g., bilingual countries or regions), or contexts in which there are heritage languages, motivation and take up of LOTES may be higher, but less so where the language is a distinct foreign language. Content and language integrated learning (CLIL) literature in such contexts often refers to English but may refer to a LOTE or may compare CLIL in English and a LOTE. Examples of LOTE research in European countries include bilingual Belgium (e.g., Baten et al., 2020; De Smet et al., 2018, 2019; Surmont et al., 2016) and Switzerland, where different Cantons have different policies regarding bilingual education, with some of the German cantons leading the way in LOTE CLIL (Bartholemy, 2021). The European Centre for Modern Languages has some LOTE-​specific projects such as ‘CLIL LOTE Start’ (Haataja et al., 2011) aimed particularly at German, with project members from Finland, Hungary and Portugal. CLIL LOTE Transitions (2020–​2023) aims to develop a wide network for CLIL LOTE to address transition and is led by team members from Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Greece. Predominantly Anglophone countries such as Australia and the UK, however, represent the majority of contexts in which LOTEs are the only foreign languages learned. Learning foreign languages in an Anglophone country combines with the context of learning CLIL through the medium of a foreign language, rather than through the medium of English, to create particular conditions for CLIL LOTE. In common with some European contexts such as trilingual Spain, where many CLIL learners do not encounter the target language (TL) outside the classroom (Lasagabaster, 2011), learners in Anglophone contexts rarely do so.

210

DOI: 10.4324/9781003173151-18

CLIL with languages other than English

In England and Australia, a broader prevailing demotivation for language learning among school-​aged learners is well documented for England (see Bower, 2019b; Collen, 2020, 2021a; Lanvers, 2017; Mills & Tinsley, 2020). The rise of Global English, however, threatens take-​up further (Lanvers & Chambers, 2019; Lanvers et al., 2021). Issues of social justice have also been shown to disadvantage language learners in particular (NALA, 2020). While policymakers aim to close the attainment gap between disadvantaged students and their peers, Hutchinson et al. (2020) report that in England this gap had ceased closing for the first time in a decade. As a result, prior to Covid-​19, disadvantaged students were 14.1 months of learning behind their peers by the time they finished their exams at age 16. The gap in the primary sector has increased for the first time since 2007. Persistent poverty was found to be a factor. Disadvantaged learners and boys are least likely to study a language (Tinsley & Doležal, 2018) or attain higher grades (Mills & Tinsley, 2020). Issues of social justice are also present in the inequality of provision in disadvantaged schools, where choice of language is limited, and where community and lesser taught languages lack the opportunities and prestige of the most common languages (Collen, 2021a) and where the linguistic skills of these often bilingual and plurilingual learners tend to be overlooked. This is also true in Australia, where education in other languages is perceived to attract children from middle-​ class households (Wright et al., 2018). Turner and Cross (2016) argue for making space for multilingualism in Australia, noting that while the concept is gaining ground elsewhere, it is losing ground in there. There is a clear need for what Gale et al. (2017) term an advancement of conceptual understanding of socially inclusive pedagogies, and for all within education to think differently about diversity and learning. CLIL has been found to have the potential to counter the prevailing trend of demotivation for language learning through age-​relevant, content-​based, meaningful use of the foreign language for learning subject disciplines and language. In some contexts, such as the UK, it has also been found to support learners of all abilities and socio-​economic status (e.g., Bower, 2019b; Coyle, 2011). However, CLIL practice in these settings is limited, and therefore so is research on it. In light of this, this chapter explores CLIL and its applications in these predominantly English contexts. Given the importance of context in CLIL (Dobson, 2020), after defining key terms, the Anglophone contexts of Australia and the UK are detailed. CLIL’s potential for addressing demotivation in learning LOTEs is examined and optimal conditions for implementation are then explored. Finally, the direction of travel for CLIL LOTE and languages education is considered.

Overview Languages in the UK Teaching in minority and heritage languages in Wales, Northern Ireland, and Scotland has developed since 1944 (Bower, 2021b; Eurydice, 2006, p. 16). Devolution, i.e., the political process that allowed the UK countries different degrees of autonomy, provides for different education systems in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, and England. Scotland has adopted an ambitious 1+​2 policy whereby two additional languages are learned in addition to English. Here, L1 Gaelic medium schools account for less than five percent of primary provision (Collen, 2021b). In Wales, language provision is also distinct: around 16% of pupils attend Welsh-​medium schools, with a further 10% attending schools that are bilingual, dual-​medium, or in English with significant Welsh provision. From a population of

211

Kim Bower

about 3.2 million, the Welsh government aims to increase the number of people speaking the Welsh language from 570,000 in 2017 to one million by 2050 (Education Directorate, 2017). All pupils aged 5–​16 learn English and Welsh, and although there is a commitment for a further foreign language from age nine, in practice, system-​w ide take up is limited (Tinsley & Board, 2017). Northern Ireland’s shorter three-​year compulsory language learning period (age 11–​14) requires one European language including Irish (Gaelic), which 5.59% of the population can speak to some degree (ONS, 2011) and 5,256 children attend an Irish-​ medium school in Northern Ireland (Government NI, 2015). A further 1.98% of the population speak Ulster Scots to some degree (ONS, 2011). Irish and Ulster Scots speakers therefore make up a small minority of the population. In Ireland, where the uptake of Irish is higher, but also in decline, Mac Gearailt et al. (2021) call for the use of CLIL to reverse the trend. Despite its multilingual population, unlike her sister UK countries, England has no official heritage or border languages. English is the predominant L1 and in this sense, motivation for language learning has no inherent inducements.

Languages in Australia and England Australia shares a similar context to that of England. Lo Bianco and Slaughter (2009) note that across Australia only 17.6% of students aged 14–​15 and 10.9% aged 15–​16 study a language with New South Wales (NSW) lagging behind its fellow states. Here, students aged 11–​12 or 12–​13 study a second language for only 100 hours and just 20% continue learning a language for the higher certificate. Despite being one of the most multilingual countries in the world, ‘Kids come to school bilingual, and end up monolingual in English’ (Baker, 2021). In these two LOTE contexts, which share other similarities as Table 14.1 illustrates, CLIL –​albeit through different approaches –​has found fertile ground. Bilingual education based on the Canadian model was successfully introduced by pioneers in the 1970s/​80s in a few schools in both Australia and England, and was supported by Modern Language (ML) associations. In both cases, initiatives were language teacher led. Up to 50% of the curriculum was taught in a foreign language. By 2002, immersion programmes were found in 49 primary and 14 secondary schools across Australia (De Courcy, 2002), while in England, where no statistics are available, there were fewer. In England, some language colleges (1995–​2010) –​i.e., specialist schools which aimed to promote language learning in schools and the community –​supported bilingual initiatives. Crucially in Australia, unlike England, bilingual education had government policy support (Cross & Bower, 2018). The ways in which CLIL was introduced in England and Australia differ. In England, CLIL evolved from the ground up, led by language teachers seeking to promote and preserve language learning in the UK and received governmental support which stopped short of national policy. For example, Bower (2013) notes a recommendation of the Nuffield Inquiry (Nuffield Foundation, 2000) for a nationally coordinated programme of CLIL in the UK. Consequently, the Df ES (2002) funded a three-​year national CLIL pilot study involving 15 schools, of which eight were secondary (Eurydice at NFER, 2005; Wiesemes, 2005). By 2011, over 50 schools had implemented CLIL to some degree (Coyle, 2011). Subsequent support came through language colleges until their abolition under the Coalition government in 2010, and through government-​ initiated projects, notably the Anglo-​ French Bilateral Exchange Project (2007–​2011) for teacher education, in which both subject and language specialist trainee teachers spent four weeks teaching a curriculum subject in a foreign language in the reciprocal country. The government’s current strategy for foreign languages 212

CLIL with languages other than English Table 14.1  Summary of developing strands in bilingual education in Australia and the UK Developing strands in bilingual education in Australia and the UK Bilingual education England

Australia

• • • •

• pioneers 1970s/​80s • based on Canadian model • schools: Mansfield Secondary, Bayswater South Primary • curriculum taught in a foreign language (33–​50%) • school type varies between states • government support • ML association support

pioneers 1970s/​80s based on Canadian model schools: Goff’s, Mill Hill curriculum taught in a foreign language (10–​50%) • language colleges 1995–​2010 (promote language learning in school and community) • Modern Languages (ML) association support CLIL England

Australia

• 1990s • led by language teachers • promote and preserve modern language learning dual focus on content and language • range of models –​modules in language lessons to subject and curriculum strands • language colleges 1995–​2010 • ML association support

• 2010s • led by language teachers • promote high quality language learning • dual focus on content and language • range of models –​modules in language lessons to subject and curriculum strands • government support • ML association support

Source: Cross & Bower, 2018.

in England is to increase take-​up for languages in secondary schools by a focus on linguistic form centred on grammar, vocabulary, and phonics, spearheaded by a national centre for teaching excellence (Bower, 2021b). Despite the success of bilingual programmes and the growing number of plurilingual migrants, many of whom arrive with little or no English, bilingual education does not yet form part of the strategy. By contrast, in Australia, CLIL’s systemic introduction from the top down began in 2010 in a selection of schools in Victoria, and was supported from the outset by governmental policy, which allowed CLIL to thrive. Here the objective was to promote high quality language learning (Cross & Bower, 2018). While language education approaches and policies vary across states and territories, a National Languages Plan is being developed (AFMLTA, 2021). As CLIL was being introduced in Australia, literature and smaller research studies focused on issues pertaining to how CLIL might be used to expand bilingual education into more schools (Turner, 2013a), consideration of whether CLIL might be used to invigorate the Japanese language (Turner, 2013b), the design and implementation of a unit of work (Turner, 2015), integration in the context of local curricula (Cross, 2016), and on defining CLIL for Australia (Cross, 2015). More recent studies consider whether Japanese CLIL might be a driver for innovation in the teaching of content (Turner, 2019), pedagogy in Japanese CLIL contexts (Ohki, 2022), and the need for teacher training and research of the appropriate use of L1 (Turner & Fielding, 2020). 213

Kim Bower

CLIL’s potential for addressing demotivation in learning LOTEs In both English and Australian contexts, CLIL’s potential to motivate learners has been reported. For example, three larger scale studies (Bower, 2013; Coyle, 2011; Cross & Gearon, 2013) found that learners were positive about the importance of learning a language. They also reported increased confidence and attainment for the majority of learners. These gains were found in learning across the curriculum, not just in the CLIL subjects, in contrast to some settings where underachievement has been found (e.g., Sylvén, 2013). This may relate to the nation-​specific CLIL profile of England –​in these schools, learners of all abilities enter their language national exams at least one year earlier than their peers and revert to English for the curriculum subject in their final year. Cross and Gearon (2013) report an evaluation of pre-​and post-​t rial stakeholder surveys of a semester-​long trial of CLIL in six Victorian schools that involved parents, students, principals, and teachers, all of whom favoured this pedagogical approach. The study contributed to government vision and policy for languages education (Victorian Df E, 2011, 2013), which focused on high quality provision informed by international best practice. Overall findings revealed consistent parental support for CLIL. Student data interestingly revealed a minimal (0.1%) decrease in their enjoyment of studying languages, yet conversely a slight increase in the data revealed that students felt languages education supported both their learning in English and their overall work in school. Confidence in self-​reported perceptions of languages skills and oral skills had also increased. Data from school leaders demonstrated high levels of support and positive perceptions of CLIL and languages education, irrespective of any previous experience of bilingual education. Teachers consistently favoured the CLIL content approach to language teaching over traditional language programmes, building on pilot work that also identified positive gains in creativity (Cross, 2012). CLIL was introduced systematically year by year starting with foundation year in primary schools. The state of Victoria introduced the initiative more widely, supported by a CLIL training course for CLIL teachers at the University of Melbourne, professional development for principals in both government and non-​g overnment schools, and a resources website, which by 2018 had published accessible resources for half the first year of the secondary science curriculum in a range of languages. The project and associated resources from one of the trial primary schools demonstrated sustained benefits when it was shared after seven years (Peterson, 2021). Following the teacher professional development course in 2014 at the University of Melbourne, Peterson began small, establishing one geography unit for children aged seven, and shared the value of CLIL with both leadership and generalist teachers from the outset. Aims of learner engagement and motivation, enhanced outcomes and making language learning relevant and meaningful to learners were met. By 2021 all children in the school were learning part of their science curriculum in either Italian or Greek throughout their primary school education (Peterson, 2021). Two larger studies in the UK focusing predominantly on well-​established projects found similar learner benefits. The Interacting for Teaching and Learning in CLIL (ITALIC) study (Coyle, 2011) reported that 85% of the participating learners were motivated to continue CLIL. Students cited benefits such as engagement, developing speaking skills, confidence, greater use of study skills, preferring CLIL to traditional language lessons, genuine communication, and a sense of achievement. In contrast to the prevailing monolingual mentality of predominantly Anglophone contexts, 70% of learners saw themselves as future users of a foreign language for work and leisure. 214

CLIL with languages other than English

Bower’s (2013) study, which researched stakeholder perspectives of learners, teachers, and school leaders in three contrasting CLIL settings, focused specifically on the effects of the CLIL pedagogical approach on learner motivation. Here, a similar proportion of learners found CLIL lessons motivating. Challenge, linguistic competence, and confidence were also raised as positives. Students were engaged and viewed the higher expectations as positive. As in the ITALIC project, learners enjoyed developing a wider range of skills including independent research skills rarely found in a traditional language classroom. They also demonstrated a shared appreciation of intercultural awareness resulting from CLIL lessons such as ‘learning French is like stepping into a whole other world’ and ‘because you understand people better’ (Bower, 2019b). These two studies in the UK along with other limited research available (e.g., Hunt, 2011; Zindler, 2013) demonstrate the potential of CLIL to generate similar significant learner motivation gains to those in other countries, such as Finland (Seikkula-​Leino, 2007), France and Germany (Dooly, 2008), and Spain (Lasagabaster, 2011; Lorenzo & Moore, 2010). See also Lasagabaster (2019) for a broader review of motivation literature in CLIL in the European context. It will be interesting to see whether in Australia, after a longer period of implementation and as CLIL becomes more embedded within the curriculum, there is any positive impact on learner motivation. In England’s and Australia’s CLIL classrooms, where the majority of CLIL groups tend to be mixed ability, any higher learner gains cannot be attributed to selection, motivation, or the ability of the learners in a similar way to studies undertaken elsewhere (e.g., Rumlich, 2017) or indeed in some Australian immersion programs (Smala et al., 2013).

Conditions for implementation Key conditions that favour and support bilingual education in schools which emerge from the literature include governmental policy for languages that is systematically implemented, as well as school-​based factors, and professional learning for teachers.

Government languages policy Where a coherent governmental policy for languages including bilingual education has been implemented, such as in Australia, CLIL has been able to thrive. In European contexts such as Spain, for example, language policy has enabled CLIL to become embedded in the curriculum in the six trilingual autonomous communities in Spain, in which Basque, Catalan, and Galician share co-​official status with Spanish. Here, different languages are used as the means of instruction in multilingual school programmes to enable students to learn English as a further additional language (Lasagabaster, 2017; San Isidro & Lasagabaster, 2020). In Italy, final year students in secondary schools learn a curriculum subject through a foreign language (European Commission et al., 2017). In England, by contrast, the lack of a coherent national languages policy has hindered the development of foreign languages over time (e.g., Coleman et al., 2007) –​including in bilingual education (e.g., Bower, 2019a) –​despite government support for languages (e.g., in the form of reviews, projects, and funding). When priorities or governments change, so can the policies that affect language projects and approaches. In England, the absence of a national languages policy is not the only barrier to innovation. In a climate where schools compete against each other for success in examination outcomes age 16, school leaders find themselves under constant accountability pressure in the form of a narrow and relentless focus on attainment. Schools are required to become 215

Kim Bower

at least ‘good’ under the current national inspection regime, which may deter them from curriculum innovations such as CLIL (e.g., Waldegrave & Simons, 2014). This kind of educational policy which focuses on economic competitiveness to the detriment of the broader social purposes of education, as Ball (2017) suggests, is a retrograde step (see Bower, 2019a). Given this context, it is perhaps not surprising that only a few, confident school leaders have chosen to innovate the curriculum through CLIL.

School-​based factors There are a number of factors, however, that are significant to successful implementation and take up of CLIL in schools. The first is support from school leaders. Bower (2019a) explores the key role a school leader’s commitment plays in establishing and sustaining CLIL programmes. Leaders in the three diverse contexts studied attribute ‘a depth of engagement that has the potential to stretch, challenge and inspire all learners’ to CLIL (Bower, 2019a, p. 362). In the Australian context Turner (2013b) suggests the importance for schools to committing long-​term to one or more specific CLIL languages, despite any changes in governmental policy about which language should be taught in schools. The second is how CLIL is organised. A number of studies (e.g., Bower, 2019a; Peterson, 2021) suggest starting small and developing strategically. Studies also highlight the benefits of CLIL’s flexibility to adapt to a wide range of contexts (Bower, 2020; Bower, et al., 2020a) and therefore be adopted by a larger number and range of schools. Others (e.g., Turner, 2013a) call for whole-​school approaches rather than standalone subjects. However, a wide range of models have been found to be successful in the UK, from language-​based projects based on a link with a school in a target-​language-​speaking country (e.g., language-​based field studies and language exchange school-​based CLIL) to language-​based projects based on links with other curriculum areas (e.g., a series of lessons on an aspect of the science curriculum in a language lesson) or school-​based projects such as whole-​school subject and curriculum strands. This would seem to confirm the scalability found in the Victorian evaluation (Cross & Gearon, 2013). Given this flexibility and track record in the range of schools that have adopted the approach, it is interesting that anecdotally CLIL seems to have been considered insufficiently scalable to become a viable part of the current governmental focus for learning languages in England (i.e., achieving linguistic excellence through grammar, vocabulary, and phonics). A third factor is that of resources and materials. Developing resources to support learning of any new courses requires significant time, effort, and expertise. This is particularly true of CLIL because planning and teaching need to take account of both language and discipline content. Teachers invariably mention heavy workloads (Bower, 2013). In this regard, collaboration and the sharing of resources can support teachers by providing a starting point from which to adapt materials to meet the needs of their own learners. Resources to support bilingual learning in LOTE are now available on a wide range of websites, summarised here. From the outset, the Victorian government working in conjunction with schools, teachers, academics, the Modern Language Teacher Association Victoria (MLTAV), and the MLTAV CLIL Language Teachers’ Professional Network (2013) set up a resources website Fuse providing half a year of CLIL secondary science curriculum units in seven LOTE languages (Bower, 2021b). In the UK, the Embedding Languages Across Primary and Secondary Education (ELAPSE) KA2 project provided individual units of work in four disciplines for learners aged 8–​12 in French, German, and Spanish. Although delayed due to the pandemic, the subsequent ELAPSE +​project will provide an intensive week of CLIL training 216

CLIL with languages other than English

for teachers from 29 schools in the appropriate TL country. The Addressing Diversity in Bilingual Education (ADiBE) European project 2018–​2021 (Pérez Cañado, 2018) provided research projects in the six participating countries for a special issue in the International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, CLIL teaching units including some for LOTE, and video guides on a wide range of aspects of CLIL teaching. Websites such as the Association for Language Learning CLIL Zone and Learning Through Languages UK provide access to some of these and to other resources. The European Centre for Modern Languages (ECML) website provides resources to projects including the CLIL LOTE Start project (Haataja et al., 2011) and CLIL LOTE transitions project (Daryai-​Hansen, 2020–​2023).

Teacher training The need for more teacher professional development in CLIL is well documented (see e.g., British Council, 2014) and is similar to other bilingual education contexts (e.g., Tedick et al., 2011). While teacher education in the UK for primary schools has minimal training in modern languages, postgraduate secondary teacher education programmes for LOTE languages, via numerous initial teacher education routes, are well-​established and rigorous. Although not a requirement, some providers may include one or more sessions about bilingual education and/​or CLIL within the training. Potentially then, despite an overcrowded curriculum, a vehicle exists for the provision of CLIL training for all trainee teachers. This is also true of Australia, where pre-​service teacher education in languages exists in most states and territories on secondary programmes, but it is much less common in primary programmes. Here any CLIL training contributes to the professional development programmes that all in-​service teachers are required to select and to undertake. Professional development that goes beyond the basics of CLIL to supporting teachers in their ongoing development is needed to enable the embedding and growth of this kind of bilingual learning. Understanding the nature of CLIL is quite different from developing curricula and to implementing teaching approaches on the ground. As Pavón and Rubio (2010) suggest, the demands of curriculum planning in CLIL can be a stumbling block. In addition to specific teaching strategies, teachers need to be conversant in both theoretical and practical understandings of CLIL to integrate linguistic and non-​linguist goals, content and assessment criteria into the curriculum –​CLIL is no easy option. The Victorian model for professional development includes a two-​d ay in-​service training course leading to the planning of lessons with a further follow-​up day after teachers have taught the lessons with a teacher educator from the University of Melbourne. Subsequent lesson observation and feedback visits have provided further support in some schools. San Isidro and Lasagabaster (2020, p. 100) suggest four aspects of training that are key in integrating CLIL curriculum planning with teaching: first, that professional learning is undertaken prior to curriculum planning and teaching; second, that a pluriliteracies approach is adopted in which subject and language teachers understand both content and language objectives and the pivotal role of meaning-​m aking when developing subject and linguistic knowledge (Meyer & Coyle, 2017); third, that teacher collaboration allows co-​construction and implementation of the CLIL curriculum; and finally that teachers are empowered to ‘own’ CLIL pedagogies through training in integrated curriculum planning and design aligned with task-​based learning, project-​based learning, and integrated assessment. A professional development course aimed at addressing diversity in bilingual education was developed by the UK team for the ADiBE project for participating partners to adapt and disseminate for specific contexts. In this programme learning and assessment are underpinned by six principles: teachers as designers; 217

Kim Bower

dialogic classrooms for deeper learning; transparency/​ explicitness; learner-​ centredness; multimodality and pluriliteracies; and scaffolding (Bower, 2021a).

Direction of travel Over 1,620,000 students in schools in England speak, or engage with a LOTE at home (Df E, 2020). In these bilingual, predominantly Anglophone contexts, where English is the language of schooling, EAL is considered akin to LOTE CLIL languages (in the broader sense of languages education). Yet rather than being viewed as a resource, these bilingual and plurilingual learners who speak a different language from the language of schooling, have tended to be viewed from a deficit perspective. Hence EAL support tends to define students by their lack of English, and heritage language education defines learners by their lack of native speaker fluency. Minority language students are then generally placed without support in classes with native speakers of English. This separation is also evident in other spheres: EAL and heritage/​community languages have separate research journals, separate teacher associations, and separate conferences; in schools EAL and heritage/​community languages teachers generally work and teach in separate spaces. And yet the goal of support and intervention programmes for these multilingual student groups is learning that draws on a single coherent set of linguistic practices and resources. A holistic reconceptualisation of languages education is needed if we are to address the issue of bilingual learners leaving schooling monolingual. We need to do more to address social injustice in languages education. In England, although there are examples of good practice (see, e.g., Anderson et al., 2016; Foley et al., 2018), EAL learners tend to be integrated in mainstream classes, often without specialist support. Headline data masks the differentials of attainment: for example, attainment is often noticeably much lower in locations with a higher percentage of EAL pupils (Choudry, 2018). Uptake for modern languages is also reduced in areas of social deprivation. In England, the combining of EAL and CLIL pedagogies is beginning to be researched as part of addressing the pressing need for effective approaches and professional development for learners in all multilingual settings (Coyle et al., 2021). Coyle et al.’s (2021) study in England for example, reports the combining of EAL and CLIL pedagogies in a multilingual school in an area of deprivation, where 42 languages are spoken, and newly arrived migrants follow a values-​d riven parallel curriculum. Here diversity is embraced. All learners are considered different from one other, and each student is understood to bring unique experiences, strengths, and ideas to the learning environment –​and these enrich the environment to the benefit of all. Australia’s successful ‘rich task’ EAL programme has enabled it to become the only OECD country where first-​and second-​generation migrant and refugee students score at or above the national average on international tests (Thomson et al., 2017). Cruickshank et al.’s (2018) study with eight low socio-​economic secondary schools with high populations (80%+​) of bilingual students focused on improving student engagement and teacher professional knowledge in science, language, and literacy. Findings indicate substantial gains in working, thinking, and writing scientifically as a result of teacher-​sustained, onsite teacher professional learning and enquiry. However, the situation for heritage languages differs. Australia has one of the lowest rates of provision of languages of all OECD countries and NSW, despite the wealth of linguistic resources students bring to school, has the lowest rate of provision in Australia. In Victoria, on the other hand, the number of community languages schools is quite high and the number of students who attend these is also significant. Between

218

CLIL with languages other than English

28% and 32% of households in Victoria are bilingual. Collaboration in the combining of EAL ‘rich task’ and CLIL pedagogies between the UK and Australia has begun and a larger-​ scale research project is on hold due to the pandemic.

Conclusion Exploration of the contexts of the UK and Australia has provided an overview of the CLIL pedagogical approach, potential learner gains, and its current trajectory in both Anglophone contexts. Online resources for commonly taught LOTEs are becoming available. However, it will be important to further advance professional learning for teachers and leaders –​not only to seek to increase the numbers of teachers, and thereby learners, confident in these pedagogical approaches, but also to develop capacity beyond the basics so that teachers’ understanding of diversity, learner-​d riven pedagogies, collaborative learning environment, and multilingual classrooms continues to be deepened. Given the rapidly increasing multicultural and multilingual nature of our classrooms, this is particularly pressing if we are to implement this kind of alternative thinking about, and approaches to, diversity and inclusion in all classrooms and thereby contribute to increasing equity and closing the education gap. Further research, especially longitudinal studies, are needed in LOTE contexts to investigate the impact that CLIL approaches may have on learning over time and the effectiveness of pedagogical approaches as they emerge and develop to meet the needs of all learners. As practice that combines CLIL and EAL approaches develops, it will be important to explore if and how this might enable access to multilingual, multicultural learning for all rather than the few. Theoretical and practical consideration of how CLIL approaches might contribute to the field of literacies in L1 as well as other languages offers further fertile ground for investigation (Bower et al., 2020b). The incorporation of socially inclusive pedagogies such as those advocated by Gale et al. (2017) are needed by teachers across our education systems –​the pedagogical principles and cooperative nature of the CLIL learning environment have the potential to become part of the way forward. The combining of pedagogies in a reconceptualisation of languages education from a holistic perspective thus offers potential progress in meeting the learning needs of all learners.

Further reading Bower, K., Coyle, D., Cross, R., & Chambers, G.N. (Eds.), Curriculum integrated language teaching: CLIL in practice. Cambridge University Press. This book addresses the issues of developing CLIL in Anglophone and similar LOTE contexts and shows how to implement this method of language learning successfully in the classroom. Through three key themes, sustainability, pedagogy, and social justice, each author explores CLIL as a means of addressing cultural diversity and socio-​economic disparity. It offers a set of flexible teaching tools for all contexts, which serve to combine language and content, ultimately enhancing the learning experience of students. Coyle, D., & Meyer, O. (2021). Beyond CLIL: Pluriliteracies teaching for deeper learning. Cambridge University Press. Coyle and Meyer propose a pluriliteracies approach to move beyond CLIL, providing strong theoretical grounding and explaining how to put this understanding into practice. Pluriliteracies aims to facilitate deeper learning through an explicit focus on disciplinary literacies, guiding learners towards textual fluency, encouraging successful communication across cultures, and providing a key stepping-​ stone towards becoming responsible global citizens.

219

Kim Bower Paniagua, A., & Istance, D. (2018). Teachers as designers of learning environments: The importance of innovative pedagogies. OECD Publishing. Paniagua and Istance explore how focusing on pedagogies, (as we do in CLIL), shifts the perception of teachers from technicians who strive to attain the education goals set by the curriculum to experts in the art and science of teaching. Seen through this lens, innovation in teaching becomes a problem-​solving process rooted in teachers’ professionalism, rather than an add-​on applied by only some teachers in some schools.

References Australian Federation of Modern Language Teachers Associations (AFMLTA). (2021). National languages plan and strategy. https://​n lps.afm ​lta.asn.au/​ Association for Language Learning (ALL). (nd). CLIL zone. www.all-​langua​ges.org.uk/​resea​rch-​ pract​ice/​clil-​zone/​ Anderson, C., Foley, Y., Sangster, P., Edwards, V., & Rassool, N. (2016). Policy, pedagogy and pupil perceptions: EAL in Scotland and England. CERES, University of Edinburgh. Baker, J. (8 May, 2021). NSW students lag Australia and world in learning second language: teachers. The Sydney Morning Herald. www.smh.com.au/​natio​nal/​n sw/​n sw-​stude​nts-​lag-​austra​l ia-​a nd-​ world-​i n-​learn ​i ng-​sec​ond-​langu​a ge-​teach​ers-​20210​506-​p57​pm6.html Ball, S.J. (2017). The education debate. Policy Press. Bartholemy, C. (2021). CLIL in languages other than English –​successful transitions across educational stages: Curriculum and teacher training in Switzerland. CLIL LOTE Transitions Project. Baten, K., Van Hiel, S., & De Cuypere, L. (2020). Vocabulary development in a CLIL Context: A comparison between French and English L2. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 10(2), 307–​336. Bower, K. (2013). To what extent does content and language integrated learning (CLIL) as a language-​based project approach promote pupil motivation in the teaching of MFL in three secondary schools in England? University of Hull. Bower, K. (2019a). School leaders’ perspectives on content and language integrated learning in England. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 33(4), 351–​367. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​07908​318.2019.1667​367 Bower, K. (2019b). ‘Speaking French alive’: Learner perspectives on their motivation in content and language integrated learning in England. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 13(1), 45–​60. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​17501​229.2017.1314​483 Bower, K. (2020). Three schools, three models: Senior leaders’ views about the value of CLIL in their school. In K. Bower, D. Coyle, R. Cross, & G.N. Chambers (Eds.), Curriculum integrated language teaching: CLIL in practice. Cambridge University Press. Bower, K. (2021a). ADiBE professional development course part 1: Content and language integrated learning for all, CLIL 2021. https://​adibe​proj​ect.com/​ Bower, K. (2021b). Content and language integrated learning in England: Missed opportunities and ways forward. In U. Lanvers, A.S. Thompson, & M. East (Eds.), Language learning in Anglophone countries (pp.267–​287). Palgrave Macmillan. Bower, K., Coyle, D., & Cross, R. (2020a). CLIL in multilingual and English-​ background contexts: Expanding the potential of content and language integrated pedagogies for mainstream learning. In K. Bower, D. Coyle, R. Cross, & G.N. Chambers (Eds.), Curriculum integrated language teaching: CLIL in practice. Cambridge University Press. Bower, K., Coyle, D., Cross, R., Chambers, G.N., Gieron, M., Lasagabaster, D., Meiers, G., Smala, S., & San Isidro, X. (2020b). In K. Bower, D. Coyle, R. Cross, & G.N. Chambers (Eds.), Curriculum integrated language teaching: CLIL in practice. Cambridge University Press. British Council. (2014). Drafting a new strategy for CLIL in Europe: Recommendations from the policy workshop in Como 10-​12 March 2014. www.bri​t ish​coun​cil.org/​sites/​defa​u lt/​fi les/​clil_ ​re​comm​enda​t ion​ s_​au​g ust​_​14_​pdf.pdf Choudry, S. (2018). The attainment of EAL pupils in England: What the headlines don’t tell us. https://​nal​ dic.org.uk/​https-​eal​jour​nal-​org-​2018-​02-​01-​the-​att​a inm​ent-​of-​eal-​pup​i ls-​i n-​engl​a nd-​what-​the-​ headli​nes-​dont-​tell-​us/​ Clyne, M.G. (1991). Community languages: The Australian experience. Cambridge University Press.

220

CLIL with languages other than English Coleman, J.A., Galaczi, A., & Astruc, L. (2007). Motivation of UK school pupils towards foreign languages: A large-​scale survey at Key Stage 3. The Language Learning Journal, 35(2), 245–​281. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​095717​3070​1599​252 Collen, I. (2020). Language trends 2020: Language teaching in primary and secondary schools in England. British Council. www.bri​t ish​coun​cil.org/​resea ​rch-​pol ​icy-​i nsi​g ht/​resea ​rch-​repo​r ts/​ langu​a ge-​t re​nds-​2020 Collen, I. (2021a). Language trends 2021: Language teaching in primary and secondary schools in England. British Council. www.bri​t ish​coun​cil.org/​resea​rch-​pol​icy-​i nsi​g ht/​resea​rch-​repo​r ts/​langu​a ge-​t re​ nds-​2021 Collen, I. (2021b). A review from Northern Ireland of the linguistic devolution of primary school languages. In U. Lanvers, A.S. Thompson, & M. East (Eds.), Language learning in Anglophone countries (pp. 117–​133). Springer. Coyle, D. (2011). ITALIC research report investigating student gains: Content and language integrated learning. University of Aberdeen, Esmée Fairbairn Foundation. www.abdn.ac.uk/​ita​l ic Coyle, D., Bower, K., Foley, Y., & Hancock, J. (2021). Teachers as designers of learning in diverse bilingual classrooms: A UK case study. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​13670 ​050.2021.1989​373 Coyle, D., & Meyer, O. (2021). Beyond CLIL: Pluriliteracies teaching for deeper learning. Cambridge University Press. Cross, R. (2012). Creative in finding creativity in the curriculum: The CLIL second language classroom. The Australian Educational Researcher, 39(4), 431–​4 45. Cross, R. (2015). Defining content and language integrated learning for languages education in australia. Babel, 49(2), 4–​15. Cross, R. (2016). Language and content ‘integration’: The affordances of additional languages as a tool within a single curriculum space. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 48(3), 388–​408. https://​doi.org/​ 10.1080/​0 0220​272.2015.1125​528 Cross, R., & Bower, K. (2018). CLIL in Australia and the UK: Similar or different? AARE. Cross, R., & Gearon, M. (2013). Research and evaluation of the content and language integrated learning (CLIL): Approach to teaching and learning in Victorian schools. Victorian Government. Cruickshank, K., Ellsmore, M., & Brownlee, P. (2018). The skills in question: Report on the professional learning strengths and needs of teachers in the NSW community languages schools to the NSW community languages schools advisory board. University of Sydney, Australia Daryai-​Hansen, P. (2020–​2023). CLIL LOTE transitions project. European Centre for Modern Languages. www.ecml.at/​CLIL​LOTE​t ran​siti​ons De Courcy, M. (2002). Learners’ experiences of immersion education: Case studies of French and Chinese. Multilingual Matters. De Smet, A., Mettewie, L., Galand, B., Hiligsmann, P., & Van Mensel, L. (2018). Classroom anxiety and enjoyment in CLIL and non-​CLIL: Does the target language matter? Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 8(1), 47–​71. De Smet, A., Mettewie, L., Hiligsmann, P., Galand, B., & Van Mensel, L. (2019). Does CLIL shape language attitudes and motivation? Interactions with target languages and instruction levels. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​13670​ 050.2019.1671​308 Df E. (2020). Schools, pupils and their characteristics. Crown. Df ES. (2002). Languages for All: Languages for Life –​a strategy for England. Crown. Dobson, A. (2020). Context is everything: reflections on CLIL in the UK. The Language Learning Journal, 48(5), 508–​518. https://​doi.org/​https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​09571​736.2020.1804​104 Dooly, M. (2008). Content and language integrated learning: Introduction. In D.E.M. Dooly (Ed.), ‘How we’re going about it’: Teachers’ voices on innovative approaches to teaching and learning languages (pp. 104–​108). Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Education Directorate. (2017). Welsh in education: Action plan 2017–​21. https://​gov.wales/​sites/​defa​u lt/​ files/​publi​cati​ons/​2018- ​02/​welsh-​i n-​educat ​ion-​act ​ion-​plan-​2017%E2%80%9321.pdf European Commission, EACEA, & Eurydice. (2017). Key data on teaching languages at school in Europe –​ 2017 edition. European Commission. Eurydice. (2006). Content and language integrated learning (CLIL) at schools in Europe. European Commission.

221

Kim Bower Eurydice at NFER. (2005). Content and language integrated learning (CLIL) at schools in Europe, England, Wales and Northern Ireland, national description 2004/​2005. European Commission. Foley, Y., Anderson, C., Conteh, J., & Hancock, J. (2018). Initial teacher education and English as an additional language. CERES, University of Edinburgh. Gale, T., Mills, C., & Cross, R. (2017). Socially inclusive teaching: Belief, design, action as pedagogic work. Journal of Teacher Education, 68(3), 345–​356. https://​doi.org/​10.1177/​0 0224​8711​6685​754 Government NI. (2015). Irish-​medium schools. www.educat​ion-​n i.gov.uk/​artic​les/​irish-​med​ium-​scho​ols Haataja, K., Kruczinna, R., Àrkossy, K., & Costa Afonso, C. (2011). CLIL-​LOTE-​START. European Centre for Modern Languages. www.ecml.at/​Port​a ls/​1/​docume​nts/​ECML-​resour​ces/​ CLIL-​LOTE-​START-​EN.pdf Hunt, M. (2011). Learners’ perceptions of their experiences of learning subject content through a foreign language. Educational Review, 63(3), 365–​378. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​0 0131​911.2011.571​765 Hutchinson, J., Reader, M., & Akhal, A. (2020). Education in England: Annual report. https://​epi.org.uk/​ publi​cati​ons-​a nd-​resea​rch/​educat​ion-​i n-​engl​a nd-​a nn​ual-​rep​ort-​2020/​ Lanvers, U. (2017). Contradictory others and the habitus of languages: Surveying the L2 motivation landscape in the United Kingdom. The Modern Language Journal, 101(3), 517–​532. Lanvers, U., & Chambers, G. (2019). In the shadow of Global English? Comparing language learner motivation in Germany and the United Kingdom. In M. Lamb, K. Csizér, A. Henry, & S. Ryan (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of motivation for language learning (pp. 429–​4 48). Springer. Lanvers, U., Thompson, A.S., & East, M. (2021). Introduction: Is language learning in Anglophone countries in crisis? In U. Lanvers, A.S. Thompson, & M. East (Eds.), Language learning in Anglophone countries (pp. 1–​15). Springer. Lasagabaster, D. (2011). English achievement and student motivation in CLIL and EFL settings. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 5(1), 3–​18. http://​d x.doi.org/​10.1080/​17501​ 229.2010.519​030 Lasagabaster, D. (2017). Language learning motivation and language attitudes in multilingual Spain from an international perspective. Modern Language Journal, 101(3), 583–​596. https://​doi.org/​ 10.1111/​modl.12414 Lasagabaster, D. (2019). Motivation in content and language integrated learning (CLIL) research. In M. Lamb, K. Csizér, A. Henry, & S. Ryan (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of motivation for language learning (pp. 347–​366). Springer. Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. (2010). Immersion and CLIL in English: More differences than similarities. ELT, 64(4), 367–​375. https://​doi.org/​10.1093/​elt/​ccp​o82 Lo Bianco, J., & Slaughter, Y. (2009). Second languages and Australian schooling. ACER Press Australian Council for Educational Research. Lorenzo, F., & Moore, P. (2010). On the natural emergence of language structures in CLIL. Language Use and Language Learning in CLIL Classrooms, 7, 23. Mac Gearailt, B., Mac Ruairc, G., & Murray, C. (2021). Actualising content and language integrated learning (CLIL) in Irish-​medium education: Why, how and why now? Irish Educational Studies, 1–​19. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​03323​315.2021.1910​971 Meyer, O., & Coyle, D. (2017). Pluriliteracies teaching for learning: Conceptualizing progression for deeper learning in literacies development. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5(2), 199–​222. https://​doi.org/​10.1515/​eujal-​2017- ​0 006 Mills, B., & Tinsley, T. (2020). Boys studying modern foreign languages at GCSE in schools in England. British Council. https://​epi.org.uk/​publi​c ati​ons-​a nd-​resea​rch/​boys-​study ​i ng-​fore​ign-​ langua​g es/​ NALA. (2020). National Association of Language Advisors (NALA) survey: The languages curriculum and disadvantaged students. www.nala.org.uk/​2020/​05/​langua​ges-​cur​r icu​lum-​v ul​nera​ble-​a nd-​d isadv​ anta​ged-​stude​nts/​ Nuffield Foundation. (2000). Languages: The next generation: The final report and recommendations of the Nuffield Languages Inquiry. Nuffield Foundation. www.nuf​fi el​d fou​ndat ​ion.org/​w p-​cont​ent/​uplo​ ads/​2019/​11/​langua​ges_​fi na​l rep​ort.pdf Ohki, S. (2022). A sociocultural perspective of risk: An activity theoretical investigation into the influence of risk on teachers’ pedagogical knowledge and practice in a content and language integrated learning (CLIL) context. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Melbourne. ONS. (2011). 2011 Census. www.ons.gov.uk/​cen​sus/​201​1cen​sus

222

CLIL with languages other than English Paniagua, A., & Istance, D. (2018). Teachers as designers of learning environments: The importance of innovative pedagogies. educational research and innovation. OECD Publishing. Pavón, V.V., & Rubio, A.F.D. (2010). Teachers’ concerns and uncertainties about the introduction of CLIL programmes. Porta Linguarum: Revista Internacional de Didáctica de las lenguas extranjeras, 14, 45–​58. Pérez Cañado, M.L. (2018). Attention to diversity in bilingual education (ADiBE). https://​adibe​proj​ect.com Peterson, M. (2021). The challenges and rewards of the CLIL unit design process: Sharing our story of how we introduced CLIL to increase the engagement of students’ learning of Italian. Language World. Rumlich, D. (2017). CLIL theory and empirical reality: Two sides of the same coin? A quantitative-​ longitudinal evaluation of general EFL proficiency and affective-​motivational dispositions in CLIL students at German secondary schools. Journal of Immersion and Content-​Based Language Education, 5(1), 110–​134. https://​doi.org/​10.1075/​jicb.5.1.05rum San Isidro, X., & Lasagabaster, D. (2020). Lessons to be learned: A professional development approach to curriculum planning in a multilingual school in Galicia. In K. Bower, C. Coyle, R. Cross, & G. Chambers (Eds.), Curriculum integrated language teaching: CLIL in practice. Cambridge University Press. Seikkula-​L eino, J. (2007). CLIL learning: Achievement levels and affective factors. Language and Education, 21(4), 328–​341. https://​doi.org/​10.2167/​le635.0 Smala, S., Paz, J.B., & Lingard, B. (2013). Languages, cultural capital and school choice: Distinction and second-​language immersion programmes. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 34(3), 373–​ 391. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​01425​692.2012.722​278 Surmont, J., Struys, E., Van Den Noort, M., & Van De Craen, P. (2016). The effects of CLIL on mathematical content learning: A longitudinal study. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 6(2), 319–​337. Sylvén, L.K. (2013). CLIL in Sweden: Why does it not work? A metaperspective on CLIL across contexts in Europe. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16(3), 301–​320. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​13670 ​050.2013.777​387 Tedick, D.J., Christian, D., & Fortune, T.W. (2011). Immersion education: Practices, policies, possibilities (Vol. 83). Multilingual Matters. Thomson, S., De Bortoli, L., & Underwood, C. (2017). PISA 2015: Reporting Australia’s results. ACER. Tinsley, T., & Board, K. (2017). Language trends 2016/​7: Language teaching in primary and secondary schools in England: Survey report. British Council. www.bri​t ish​coun​cil.org/​sites/​defa​u lt/​fi les/​langua​ge_​t​ rend​s _​su​r vey​_ ​201​7_​0.pdf Tinsley, T., & Doležal, N. (2018). Language trends 2018: Language teaching in primary and secondary schools in England: Survey report. British Council. www.bri​t ish​coun​cil.org/​resea ​rch-​pol ​icy-​i nsi​g ht/​resea​ rch-​repo​r ts/​langu​a ge-​t re​nds-​2018 Turner, M. (2013a). CLIL in Australia: The importance of context. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16(4), 395–​410. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​13670 ​050.2012.691​086 Turner, M. (2013b). Content-​based Japanese language teaching in Australian schools: Is CLIL a good fit? Japanese Studies, 33(3), 315–​330. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​10371​397.2013.846​211 Turner, M. (2015). The significance of affordances on teachers’ choices: Embedding Japanese across the curriculum in Australian secondary schools. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28(3), 276–​290. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​07908​318.2015.1085​063 Turner, M. (2019). The positioning of Japanese in a secondary CLIL science classroom in Australia: Language use and the learning of content. Journal of Immersion and Content-​Based Language Education, 7(2), 192–​211. https://​doi.org/​10.1075/​jicb.18021.tur Turner, M., & Cross, R. (2016). Making space for multilingualism in Australian schooling. Language and Education, 30(4), 289–​297. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​09500​782.2015.1114​627 Turner, M., & Fielding, R. (2020). CLIL teacher training and teachers’ choices: Exploring planned language use in the Australian context. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 1–​18. https://​doi.org/​ 10.1080/​07908​318.2020.1792​920 Victorian Df E. (2011). Victorian department of education and early childhood development: The Victorian government’s vision for languages education. Victorian Department for Education. Victorian Df E. (2013). Languages –​expanding your world: Plan for implementing the Victorian government’s vision for languages education. Victorian Department for Education. Victorian government. (2018). Fuse. https://​f use.educat ​ion.vic.gov.au/​pages/​clil

223

Kim Bower Waldegrave, H., & Simons, J. (2014). Watching the watchmen. Policy Exchange, London. www.pol​icye​ xcha ​nge.org.uk/​i ma​ges/​publi​cati​ons/​watch ​i ng% 20the%20watchmen.pdf Wiesemes, R. (2005). The final report for the content and language integrated project. CILT. Wright, J., Cruickshank, K., & Black, S. (2018). Languages discourses in Australian middle-​class schools: Parent and student perspectives. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 39(1), 98–​112. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​01596​306.2016.1232​536 Zindler, K. (2013). Content and language integrated learning (CLIL) and PE in England: An exploratory study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Sheffield.

224

225

15 DOING CLIL WITH PRIMARY LEARNERS From principles to practice Fabiana Fazzi and Marcella Menegale1

The benefits of CLIL for 21st-​century primary learners To be ready to cope with today’s digital, and rapidly changing, society, learners need to be equipped with new competencies and skills. The challenge for educational systems is twofold. First, the multimodal nature of communication environments has urged to provide young people with a range of opportunities to use their resources appropriately in face-​to-​ face interactions as well as through different platforms and formats (Moore, 2019). Thus, alongside developing good skills in basic literacy, namely, in reading and writing, pupils also need to become competent in several related literacies. For example, they should be able to interpret the meaning of the media images they are exposed to and interact by using multimedia tools (media literacy); moreover, they are expected to gain those knowledge, skills, and attitudes that allow for a safe use of technologies (digital literacy). Second, the increasing multilingual and multicultural nature that characterise learning environments has put the lens on the importance of applying comprehensive approaches to improve language education by including the teaching and learning of the many languages present in the classroom (not only the school language and foreign languages, but also second and minority languages). Therefore, to help pupils to become skilful in constructing and communicating knowledge ‘adequately and successfully across cultures, languages and disciplines’, the adoption of innovative and multilingual pedagogies is strongly advocated (Coyle & Meyer, 2021, p. 36). Content and language integrated learning (CLIL) is considered to be one of the approaches that can help face this twofold challenge as it integrates the aforementioned competences and skills. In fact, CLIL provides an enhanced language learning context where pupils can build new understanding and subject-​specific literacy skills capitalising on their existing personal communicative resources (or repertoire). These resources, which include language as well as other semiotic and multimodal knowledge, allow pupils to participate in content-​based learning activities across the different languages present in the curriculum and in the classroom –​see, for example, the reconceptualisation of the role of language, Liu and Lin (2021)

DOI: 10.4324/9781003173151-19

225

Fabiana Fazzi and Marcella Menegale

with their notions of translanguaging and trans-​semiotising, and the Graz Group’s proposal of a pluriliteracies model (Coyle & Meyer, 2021). A further reason why the CLIL approach particularly fits the primary curriculum is that, along with language and subject literacies, it can aid the development of intercultural competence, which in turn may nurture children’s awareness of self and otherness through their pluricultural understanding. Accessing new content through a new language allows students to see the world ‘through another cultural lens’ (Coyle et al., 2009, p. 14), while also helping them ‘to explore and evaluate beliefs and attitudes. In this way CLIL can make a valid contribution to personal development and preparation for global citizenship’ (p. 7). Finally, recent studies have highlighted the relationship between CLIL and the development of learner autonomy (Banegas, 2012; Menegale, 2019; Wolff, 2011). In fact, CLIL requires pupils to combine new knowledge deriving from the target (vehicular) language and from subject content, and for this to happen successfully, they need to be ready to ‘see things anew’ and purposefully develop their capacity of self-​organisation (Wolff, 2011, p. 73). Of critical importance are metacognitive skills directed at increasing awareness of their own learning, which should be fostered from early childhood (Anderson et al., 2015, p. 140) with the purpose of helping pupils be more strategic in their learning in any context, in and out of school. These are highly valued competences in today’s society, and, for this reason, they need to be properly incorporated in curriculum planning and implementation.

Potential challenges In general, CLIL can have a positive impact on learners’ linguistic and cognitive development, as well as on their motivation across all educational levels (Seikkula-​Leino, 2007). That said, several studies focusing on primary school learners have shown contradictory results. On the one hand, primary CLIL pupils seem to display equal or better gains in subject knowledge than their non-​CLIL counterparts (Mattheoudakis et al., 2014). On the other hand, other evidence shows that CLIL might also have a negative effect on pupils’ subject-​ matter learning and cognition (Anghel et al., 2016; Virdia, 2019). For example, Jäppinen (2005) found that while there was no detrimental effect of CLIL on thinking and content learning in mathematics and science across three age groups (7–​9, 10–​12, 13–​15), the younger pupils had more difficulty with abstract topics (i.e., spatial concepts) in the experimental group than in the control group. Similar conclusions were reached by other studies across different subjects (for example mathematics in Czura & Anklewicz, 2018, and science and arts and crafts in Pladevall-​Ballester, 2015). Also, in a study on the interface between affect and cognition in CLIL, Otwinowska and Foryś (2017) reached the conclusion that ‘CLIL may not work for all learners because some cannot cope with its cognitive demands’ (p. 474), leading to feelings of intellectual hopelessness and negative affectivity. Other research is more encouraging, showing that the implementation of CLIL can positively affect primary students’ motivation towards the foreign language (Fernández Fontecha, 2014; Pladevall-​ Ballester, 2019) and attitudes towards critical intercultural awareness (Méndez García, 2013). The intercultural component is seen as one of the greatest assets of CLIL (Sudhoff, 2010). However, it does not evolve naturally, so it requires explicit attention, which not all teachers are able to integrate in their practice (Roiha & Sommier, 2018). Teachers seem often unable to find a way to present topics so that diverse perspectives are considered, or so that intercultural awareness is constantly and purposefully promoted. The difficulty with primary children is specifically due to teachers’ need to explore cultural meanings and enhance 226

Doing CLIL with primary learners

students’ self-​reflexivity, reflection, and self-​awareness through concrete examples and activities (Driscoll & Simpson, 2015). The contradictory results presented above raise the question of how CLIL should be best implemented to cater for both the cognitive and emotional needs of children aged 5–​12 years. Certainly, one of the issues concerns the language to be promoted in the CLIL classroom, as language is what helps individuals give shape to their cognitive processes (Vygotsky, 1987). The type of language and language competence needed by CLIL pupils to cope with subject-​specific literacy, i.e., Cummins’ (2000) notion of cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP), requires more time to develop in comparison to that needed for socialisation, i.e., Cummins’ (2000) basic interpersonal communication skills (BICS). In this context, children need to be given the opportunity to build up their CALP competence through and alongside their BICS competence, by focusing on the ‘doing –​be it playing, singing, drawing, building models, or other activities’ (Coyle et al., 2010, p. 16; Ellison, 2019). This is in line with research on teaching additional languages to young children, which invites practitioners to build a supportive and stress-​f ree environment in which pupils’ learning is scaffolded through the use of multimodal input and learning games. For example, in a study carried out by Otwinowska (2013) on ten-​year-​old pupils’ perception of CLIL, learners pointed at the difficulty in coping with the type of language required to solve tasks and expressed the wish to be engaged in more fun and game-​like activities (similar to the ones provided in the foreign language lessons). Another aspect which should be considered is that at primary school level, strategy instruction is rarely included either in CLIL lessons (Coonan & Ricci Garotti, 2019) or in CLIL textbooks (Menegale, 2020). Specific strategy instruction for CLIL-​based learning would represent a great help for them when dealing, for example, with comprehension or other communication problems in the foreign language (including those relating to the affective sphere, like anxiety or just the fear of using the target language in front of the class).

From principles to practice In order to implement CLIL effectively and to maximise its positive impact on young learners, a series of guiding principles have been proposed. These principles are described below alongside examples for how they can be applied to the classroom.

Creating a physical and social language-​enhanced environment Creating a physical environment, where the foreign language (ideally together with all the languages of the classroom) is present in its different forms, e.g., through written words, cultural symbols, pictures, and sounds, is the first step in creating a rich language learning context. Pupils need to be surrounded by language used in its many modes to start to feel more at ease when using it. To this end, walls can be decorated with pictures and posters that contain language (e.g., vocabulary, expressions, sentence starters) for such things as: dates, days of the week, months, seasons/​weather, time of day, etc. For younger learners (5–​7 years old), playing songs in the background and using language routines at different stages of the CLIL lesson can also be useful. For pupils to experience a positive and favourable social environment, it is essential to establish a sense of belonging to the class group, favouring genuine teacher–​student and student–​student interactions. Pair work and group work, for example, allow CLIL learners to cooperate, while acquiring new knowledge and understanding. This kind of interaction 227

Fabiana Fazzi and Marcella Menegale

among peers is especially useful in situations where either the target language or the subject-​ matter is a problem for one of the pupils as the other members may be better able than expert teachers to clarify concepts in familiar terms. The success of interaction can be enhanced through the Think-​Pair-​Share (TPS) mode: in TPS activities the pupils are given a question or prompt (e.g., in a geography CLIL lesson: ‘What do you think causes earthquakes?’) and are allowed time to individually gather their thoughts on the topic and jot them down (Think). They then discuss these thoughts in pairs with another pupil (Pair) and, finally, they share the results with the whole class (Share). In this way, as pupils are all naturally engaged and allowed to speak, the learning of the target language as well as deep understanding of the subject matter are promoted.

Planning linguistic and cognitive progression One popular planning tool which helps put into practice the CLIL approach and support teachers in designing effective CLIL programmes is Coyle’s (1999) 4Cs Framework, which integrates four different components: content, communication, cognition, and culture. Content relates to the subject-​m atter or theme to be learnt; communication refers to the language needed to learn the content; cognition is the thinking skills that underpin the pupils’ ability to acquire and create new knowledge; and culture refers to the development of intercultural understanding and global citizenship, which means learning about, from, and with others. These 4Cs are interconnected to such an extent that their boundaries are sometimes difficult to mark: only when knowledges (content) and cognitive processes (cognition) are purposefully integrated, deeper understanding will occur, and only when knowledges are processed through appropriate discourses (communication and culture), meaningful and deeper learning will take place. Supporting academic language through basic interpersonal language (see CALP and BICS above) means giving pupils plenty of opportunities to actively engage with the content by first focusing on the ‘here and now’ and, only later, on the more abstract concepts. Teaching CLIL to young learners is not, however, limited to what can be seen and touched, but needs to include a progression from specific to general, from practical to abstract, and from implicit to explicit (Met, 1994). This can be accomplished by taking into consideration pupils’ developmental stages when sequencing content objectives and designing activities, tasks, and assessment tools (Ellison, 2019) that are positioned on a route from low linguistic and cognitive demands (Task A) to high linguistic and cognitive demands (Task D) (see the adaptation of Cummins’ diagram in Coyle et al., 2010, p. 68). On this route, Task A aims at instilling confidence in the learners by presenting a familiar topic or engaging them in a familiar activity. Task B asks pupils to recycle language to use with new content, which is presented through visualisations, graphs, and realia or through a practical/​experiential activity. Task C deals again with new knowledge, but it requires more complex language skills. Finally, Task D engages the pupils with both new content knowledge and new language. In Table 15.1 we show an example of task progression (CLIL for Children, 2018b, p. 51). Just as the pupils’ competence in coping with content knowledge and cognitive processes progresses exponentially, so too their language develops following similar developmental stages. Respecting the ‘silent period’ is central here: the child is not pressed to produce verbal output, as it is acknowledged that time is needed for pupils to understand, process, and internalise the language input, before they can/​w ill want to use it. In line with multilingual 228

Doing CLIL with primary learners Table 15.1  Example of experience-​based task progression following the CLIL Matrix Science –​Lesson 3 –​The Growth of a Plant Linguistic objectives: Vocabulary: soil, pot, make a hole, drop a seed, cover with soil, pour water, sunlight; Skills: Pupils follow instructions for an experiment; Functions: pupils create text for pictures (source: picture book by Helen Nicoll & Jan Pieńkowski: Meg’s Veg –​online version animation film). Content objectives: Pupils hypothesise about how a plant will grow; Pupils plant and record growth of a plant through observation. Communication: Pupils talk about the life cycle of plants. Cognition: Pupils prepare a zigzag book to record the changes observed in a growing plant; They hypothesise about the growth of a plant. WHAT PUPILS DO

LEARNING OBJECTIVE

Task A (part 1)

Pupils watch a video and mime the parts of the plant with their bodies.

Gaining confidence through a multimodal activity.

Task A (part 2)

Pupils are given a worksheet, watch the video again and match words with pictures with sentences. When they finish, they read out the correct key and the part of the plant.

Focusing on subject-​specific language.

Task B

Pupils are asked to record the growth of a plant writing predictions and observations in a zigzag book they have made.

Understanding content through an experiential activity; using the language to describe experience.

Task C

Pupils in groups receive a worksheet with six pictures from an animation movie and label the pictures. Once ready, they read out their stories with pictures to the other groups.

Developing a more abstract understanding of content; applying subject-​specific language knowledge to other contents.

Task D

Pupils watch the animation video and compare it with their stories. Each group has to describe a difference between the story they watched and their own story.

Extending subject-​specific competence of the content and of the language through deeper understanding and use of more complex language.

Source: Adapted from CLIL for Children, 2018a, p. 51.

approaches, children might be allowed to use their first language, while gradually scaffolding their use of keywords and short utterances in the target language as they go along (Lo & Lin, 2015). A further option could be to use Total Physical Response (TPR; Asher, 1969) activities. Action rhymes and songs are part of this teaching method as they allow for kinaesthetic learning. For example, in a lesson focusing on the life-​c ycle of the frog, the different stages can be taught through mime and body language: ‘You are a small, small tadpole. Curl up, really small. Wiggle through the water. Wiggle, wiggle. Stop. You grow bigger and bigger and bigger. You are a beautiful frog! Jump out of the pond. SPLASH. Jump on the rock. Say hello to your friends: ‘CROAK!” ’ (CLIL for Children, 2018a, p. 24). Although for children aged five to seven years old, a focus on oral rather than on written work is preferable, ‘learners in all CLIL subjects need to produce subject-​specific vocabulary’, 229

Fabiana Fazzi and Marcella Menegale Table 15.2  Example of task progression in relation to the stages of child development Age

5–​7

8–​9

10–​11

Task

Colour the part of the plants we eat.

Colour the part of the plants we eat. Then match and write the names.

Give a short presentation about the structure of the plant explaining which part we eat and why.

Source: Adapted from Ioannou-​Georgiou & Pavlou, 2011, p. 124.

including chunks and formulaic sequences (Bentley, 2015, p. 93) that will later extend to simple sentences ‘to define, describe and comment on subject-​specific concepts’ and to text level communication through the production of subject-​specific genres (p. 94). The idea is to adapt the task to support pupils’ communication respecting both their linguistic and developmental level (see Table 15.2). This is also in line with the pluriliteracies model (Coyle & Meyer, 2021; Meyer et al., 2015 –​see above), which theorises that students can develop their subject-​literacies across different languages only if they are encouraged to communicate knowledge and demonstrate understanding in progressively complex ways. At the basis of the model there is the idea that the relationship between BICS and CALP is far more complex and dynamic than previously thought (Coyle & Meyer, 2021, p. 77). While academic language offers students the possibility to ‘abstract complex ideas’, colloquial language helps them express contents and negotiate ‘meaning in highly accessible and more concrete ways’ (Coyle & Meyer, 2021, p. 77). This means that promoting BICS through and alongside CALP is not only advisable but also necessary for deeper learning to occur in the CLIL primary classroom. Pupils could, for example, be engaged in routine activities at specific moments in the CLIL lesson (i.e., ‘circle time’ at the beginning) to practise social as well as classroom language (i.e., language to turn take, to agree and disagree, to greet or ask about the weather etc.; Mourão, 2015) and use content-​compatible language through communicative activities related to the current (or future) content topic. A further option could be to bring forward language needs in one unit and recycle them in another (e.g., food-​related vocabulary is introduced in a science unit and then recycled later in a unit focusing on nutrition; Met, 1994), supporting redundancy and connections. In this way, children will be able to verbalise their knowledge in increasingly precise ways reaching deeper learning (Coyle & Meyer, 2021).

Selecting language-​enhanced content-​based activities In a CLIL lesson, learning activities focus primarily on subject matter (content and cognition) but will incorporate also an attention to the language dimension of the content (communication and culture). One pedagogical tool that can be used to present new content holistically, by focusing on meaning rather than on discrete language forms, is storytelling. Storytelling would seem to be one of children’s favourite activities, since it stimulates their imagination and creativity, makes learning an amusing process and helps them develop positive attitudes towards language learning. Interestingly, stories are also considered as ‘effective tools for children to develop those essential principles involved within a CLIL approach that include not only language and content but also communication, cognition and culture’ (Ioannou-​Georgiou & Pavlou, 2011, p. 138). Children’s picture books and storybooks allow 230

Doing CLIL with primary learners

for work on key topics that are part of the primary curriculum. To use them successfully, however, materials should be carefully selected, paying attention to learning objectives (see Ioannou-​Georgiou & Pavlou, 2011 for some ideas). For example, to make children understand how a plant grows a teacher may decide to use a story like Jacob’s English fairy tale Jack and the Beanstalk (see García Esteban, 2015) instead of a more ‘traditional’ experience-​based activity like the one described above in Table 15.1. Table 15.3 illustrates how this story could be used to develop all the 4Cs components. Table 15.3  Example of story-​based task progression following the CLIL Matrix Science –​the Growth of a Plant Source: Jacob’s English fairy tale Jack and the Beanstalk WHAT PUPILS DO

LEARNING OBJECTIVE

Task A (part 1)

First pupils focus on the foreign language related to the cycle of plant growth (e.g., by using flashcards with pictures and corresponding vocabulary, diagrams with keywords, etc.). Then they progressively advance in their content understanding and critical thinking (e.g., by being asked to guess how the plot might develop, explain pictures, discuss facts, or talk about the behaviours of the characters, using their mother tongue if necessary).

Gaining confidence through a multimodal activity; focusing on specific-​subject language.

Task A (part 2)

Pupils use their new content and language knowledge through transcoding or note-​ taking activities, filling in diagrams or tables or drawing pictures or completing sentences based on the story.

Furthering knowledge and use of the new subject-​ specific language.

Task B

Pupils are allowed for first-​hand experience (e.g., growing seeds in the school garden).

Understanding content through an experiential activity.

Task C

The pupils review what they have done (i.e., the actions carried out to grow the seeds) and describe the experiment relying on scaffolding (e.g., through key words, visuals, sentence starters, and other useful support which will enable the pupils to confidently produce their output).

Developing a more abstract understanding of content; applying subject-​specific language knowledge to describe the experiment.

Task D

Pupils dramatise the experiment to show what they have learnt.* *Dramatisation could be more beneficial for younger children (or low-​proficient language learners, or kinaesthetic learners). For example, the concepts underlying the life cycle could be turned into a living representation by means of improvisation, role play, mime, and movement activities.

Extending subject-​ specific competence of the content and of the language through deeper understanding and use of more complex language.

Source: Adapted from García Esteban, 2015; Ioannou-​Georgiou & Pavlou, 2011.

231

Fabiana Fazzi and Marcella Menegale

If we consider that at the primary school level pupils may not be able to consciously learn grammatical forms and patterns (Dooly & Masats, 2015) and that understanding is mainly semantic (Barreras Gómez, 2010, p. 34), stories can represent the starting point and rich context to develop a wide variety of related language and learning activities involving children creatively and actively in an all-​round whole curriculum approach (Ellis & Brewster, 2002). Alongside stories, games-​based learning has ‘a significant contribution to make to CLIL by not only enabling learners and teachers to enjoy learning but also to actively explore and create their own successful plurilingual and pluricultural experiences’ (Coyle, 2015, p. 12). Game-​based activities can be embedded in the curriculum at different stages. At the very beginning of primary school, for example, games can be used to gradually introduce the pupils to the foreign language using subject-​m atter related topics (e.g., a CLIL geography game might require pupils to move around the classroom to get from point A to point B on a fixed pathway as quickly as possible). Then, while the pupils improve their language competence, game-​based activities can be used to review key vocabulary and key content concepts before, while, or after new subject content is presented. For example, a CLIL game like ‘Maths Bingo’ might get the children to think, count, and calculate in the target language. Compared to a regular bingo where numerical values are used (e.g., 3, 10, 16, etc.), the CLIL bingo uses maths problems (e.g., 5–​2 , 2×5, 9+​7, etc.); this requires the children to do mental maths in the target language. Games may also be used to engage pupils in more creative and cognitively demanding processes, as shown in an interesting project called ‘PlayingCLIL’ (Müller & Schroeder, 2015), which links CLIL and learning through play by means of games inspired by drama pedagogy. Thanks to the appeal of games, pupils explore language and thinking in a creative way, developing self-​confidence, and gradually overcoming the difficulties encountered in learning content through a foreign language, as reported by Otwinowska’s (2013) study (see above in this chapter). This is due to children feeling more intellectually, affectively, and physically engaged when learning through games.

Fostering intercultural learning through arts-​and object-​based activities As explained earlier in the chapter, the role of culture in the 4Cs Framework is a ‘challenging one’ (Coyle, 2009, p. 107). Culture in CLIL does not simply stand for the teaching of tokenistic aspects of the target culture, which is what often happens especially at the primary school level, but for a more dynamic process in which children explore content from different points of view developing appreciation and respect for diversity (UNESCO, 2006) as well as a better understanding of themselves as members of a multilingual and multicultural society. This is particularly important with young pupils as studies suggest that ‘stereotypes and prejudices formed early are the most resolute’ (Driscoll et al., 2013, p. 150). What Coyle et al. (2010, p. 40) suggest, however, is that if we want pupils to develop intercultural knowledge and awareness, we need to engage them in interactive and dialogic learning activities in and beyond the classroom. Embedding arts-​and object-​based activities in a CLIL unit could not only promote this type of interactive learning but also help develop students’ multiliteracies skills. Objects are ‘tracers of the relationships people have with the world’ (Pahl & Rowsell, 2011, p. 136), and engaging with them allows students to develop creativity, communication, problem-​ solving, and critical skills across different languages and cultures (Abdelhadi et al., 2020). For example, in the Critical Connections: Multilingual Digital Storytelling Project, initiated in 2017 by Goldsmith (University of London), museum artefacts from the British Museum and Museum of London were used to provide a valuable stimulus for translingual-​transcultural 232

Doing CLIL with primary learners

learning and for storytelling (Abdelhadi et al., 2020). In the same way, Cornish et al. (2021) found that allowing primary students to use nature-​ based objects for cross-​ curricular learning can boost discussion around values and attitudes and other cultures. This is because interacting with museum objects –​archival documents, artefacts, specimens, or works of art –​gives young pupils the opportunity to ask questions, speculate, explore different cultural dimensions, and share their personal responses and interpretations starting from their multisensorial experience with the objects (Hooper-​Greenhill, 1994). Additionally, promoting students’ analysis, appreciation, and personal reinterpretation of objects within a CLIL unit opens a space for negotiation of different perspectives and of diverse identities and literacy practices (Abdelhadi et al., 2020). In this sense, arts-​and object-​based activities could also help primary teachers ‘decolonise’ their CLIL provision, by creating a positive classroom culture (the other dimension of Culture in the 4Cs Framework) in which objects uncover children’s funds of knowledge (Moll et al., 1992). For example, in Cornish et al.’s (2021) project, pupils were encouraged to build a school museum, exhibiting plant-​based objects from their various communities. These objects were then used as a point of departure for discussion about science contents and about the origin and uses of the objects in the different cultures (p. 342), altering the discourse practices of the classroom (Budach, 2013, p. 332). In this sense, embedding arts-​and object-​based activities in the CLIL primary classroom could not only help to scaffold students’ content and language learning (Fazzi & Lasagabaster, 2020) but also to create ‘semiotic spaces in which the multiple life worlds of multilingual learners can thrive’ (Budach, 2013, p. 329).

Promoting metacognitive skills using reflective tools As CLIL represents a challenging learning environment for its entailed cognitive complexity, it is fundamental that pupils in general, and especially young students, become more strategic in their learning. This implies developing awareness of what they are doing, of what input works for them, and of what they can do to improve their learning (Chamot & O’Malley, 1994). While, until recently, it was thought that younger learners lacked the metacognitive awareness to engage in strategy training, recent studies show that explicit learning strategy instruction can greatly enhance children’s awareness of strategies for solving problems, overcoming knowledge gaps, and managing their learning (for a review see Gunning et al., 2019). There are several ways in which CLIL children can be helped to gain more awareness of their learning: for example, by making them reflect on how they do things, how they find solution to problems, what memorisation strategies work for them, what types of activity they prefer, etc. If proposed at the end of a task, reflection activities (either teacher-​led or performed as group discussion) allow the children to think about what they have just accomplished (see also Otto & Estrada, 2019). This will increase their sense of control over what they learn. Self-​a ssessment, together with peer or group assessment, is highly recommended from the very beginning of primary education, as it fosters pupils’ involvement while increasing their awareness about the learning process, their understanding of their strengths and weaknesses vis-​à-​v is the learning objectives to reach. This also enhances their sense of responsibility towards the whole learning process and self-​esteem for their gained achievements. Useful tools that can be integrated into the CLIL curriculum for (self-​)assessment are logbooks, diaries, learning journals, and portfolios (see Menegale, 2018). These, on the one hand, encourage pupils to reflect on their progress and on their difficulties and, on the other, 233

Fabiana Fazzi and Marcella Menegale

provide meaningful information for teachers on ongoing learning processes, behaviours, and orientations. Given the learners’ young age, it is advisable that all the aforementioned metacognitive tools be well presented to and explored with the pupils, and that a certain level of creativity and autonomy be left for them to manage the process.

Conclusion and implications Far from being exhaustive, this chapter has tried to present the potential benefits and issues related to the implementation of CLIL with primary pupils. As a pedagogic approach to language education that implies cross-​d isciplinary activities and use of languages, CLIL ‘not only reflects the reality of our times and our classrooms but, just as importantly, provides an educational opportunity for children to grow and acquire the attitudes, skills and knowledge, that are required from them’ (Furlong & Bernaus, 2017, p. 36). By fostering a holistic, constructivist and experiential learning environment, CLIL is fully in line with 21st-​century pedagogies, which widely call for multimodal, active, and cooperative learning, preferably based on discovery and task-​based activities, and for actions directed to foster pupils’ cognitive and psychological involvement in their learning process. However, implementing CLIL is not without its challenges, especially in primary education. Young learners’ linguistic and cognitive developmental stages need to be taken into account when planning for CLIL, so as to design a learning environment where content, cognition, communication and culture (namely, the 4Cs of Coyle’s Framework) are purposefully considered and successfully interconnected. What young learners most benefit from is classroom practices that promote the development of CALP through and alongside BICS, build a positive and safe learning environment, support intercultural knowledge and reflection, and promote metacognition. While these facets are certainly not new, it is the way they are embedded in the curriculum that will really improve the primary pupils’ positive experience of CLIL, from the cognitive, linguistic, and, most important, affective point of view. Undoubtedly, young learners have specific needs, which still need to be fully tackled by the literature. Research on CLIL has mainly had a monolingual orientation and there needs to be more of a focus on how multilingual practices (Nikula & Moore, 2019) can be used to promote and make use of the cultural and linguistic resources of the pupils as a means to build their self-​confidence and deeper involvement in learning. With primary learners, it is not so much a matter of how early to introduce CLIL, but rather of what specific classroom practices to use and with what aims, especially considering the increasing linguistic and cultural diversity of our classrooms. Only then will CLIL be able to reach its full potential and provide primary learners with the multiliteracies skills necessary to become active and critical global citizens.

Note 1 Although both authors have equally contributed to the conception and planning of this chapter, paragraphs ‘The benefits of CLIL for 21st-​century primary learners’, ‘Creating a physical and social language-​ enhanced environment’, ‘Selecting language-​ enhanced content-​ based activities’, ‘Promoting metacognitive skills using reflective tools’ should be attributed to M. Menegale, and paragraphs ‘Potential challenges’, ‘Planning linguistic and cognitive progression’, ‘Fostering intercultural learning through arts-​and object-​based activities’ and ‘Conclusion and implications’ should be attributed to F. Fazzi. The remaining parts should be attributed to both authors.

234

Doing CLIL with primary learners

Further reading Bland, J. (Ed.) (2015). Teaching English to young learners: Critical issues in language teaching with 3–​12 year olds. Bloomsbury. This book gives an overview of the most important aspects related to language teaching to 3–​12-​year-​ olds. There is also a chapter on ‘CLIL scenarios with young learners’ by Kay Bentley (p. 91). Garton, S. & Copland, F. (Eds.) (2019). The Routledge handbook of teaching English to young learners. Routledge. This handbook is the ultimate guide for language teachers and researchers of young learners. Chapter 16 (by Maria Ellison) specifically focuses on CLIL. Ioannou-​Georgiou, S., & Pavlou, P. (Eds.). (2011). Guidelines for CLIL implementation in primary and pre-​primary education. European Commission. A publication specifically designed to give primary teachers practical strategies and techniques to scaffold both content and language learning.

References Abdelhadi, R., Hameed, L., Khaled, F., & Anderson, J. (2020). Creative interactions with art works: An engaging approach to Arabic language-​a nd-​culture learning. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 14(3), 273–​289. Anderson, C.E., McDougald, J.S., & Cuesta Medina, L. (2015). CLIL for young learners. In C.N. Giannikas, L. Mclaughlin, G. Fanning, & N. Deutsch Muller (Eds.), Children learning English: From research to practice (pp. 137–​151). Garnet Education. Anghel, B., Cabrales, A., & Carro, J.M. (2016). Evaluating a bilingual education program in Spain: The impact beyond foreign language learning. Economic Inquiry, 54(2), 1202–​1223. Asher, J.J. (1969). The Total Physical Response approach to second language learning. The Modern Language Journal, 53(1), 3–​17. Banegas, D. (2012). Motivation and autonomy through CLIL: A collaborative undertaking. In L. Anglada & D.L. Banegas (Eds.), XXXVII FAAPI Conference proceedings: Research on motivation and autonomy in ELT (pp. 39–​45). FAAPI. Barreras Gómez, A. (2010). How to use tales for the teaching of vocabulary and grammar in a primary education English class. RESLA, 23, 31–​52. Bentley, K. (2015). CLIL scenarios with young learners. In J. Bland (Ed.), Teaching English to young learners: Critical issues in language teaching with 3–​12 year olds (pp. 91–​112). Bloomsbury. Budach, G. (2013). From language choice to mode choice: How artefacts impact on language use and meaning making in a bilingual classroom. Language and Education, 27(4), 329–​342. Chamot, A.U., & O’Malley, J.M. (1994). The CALLA handbook: Implementing the cognitive academic language learning approach. Addison Wesley Longman. CLIL for Children. (2018a). Teacher’s guide on CLIL methodology in primary schools. Volume 1. www.clil4c​ hild ​ren.eu/​w p-​cont​ent/​uplo​ads/​2018/​06/​Guide_ ​Addr​esse​d _​to​_​Tea​cher ​s _​Vo​l01.pdf CLIL for Children. (2018b). Teacher’s guide on CLIL methodology in primary schools. Volume 2. www.clil4c​ hild​ren.eu/​w p-​cont​ent/​uplo​ads/​2018/​05/​Guide_ ​Addres​sed_​to_​T​each​ers_​Vol0​2 _ ​re​l08.pdf Coonan, C.M., & Ricci Garotti, F. (2019). Uno studio qualitativo. In D. Wolff & S. Virdia (Eds.), Il CLIL nella scuola primaria: una ricerca quali-​quantitativa nel contesto trentino (pp. 69–​103). IPRASE. Cornish, C., Driver, F., Nesbitt, M., & Willison, J. (2021). Revitalizing the school museum: Using nature-​based objects for cross-​curricular learning. Journal of Museum Education, 46(3), 334–​347. Coyle, D. (1999). Supporting students in content and language integrated contexts: Planning for effective classrooms. In J. Masih (Ed.), Learning through a foreign language: Models, methods and outcomes (pp. 46–​62). CILT. Coyle, D. (2009). Promoting cultural diversity through intercultural understanding: A case study of CLIL teacher professional development at in-​service and pre-​service levels. In M.L. Carrió-​Pastor (Ed.), Content and language integrated learning: Cultural diversity (pp. 105–​124). Peter Lang. Coyle, D. (2015). Foreword. In C. Müller & M. Schroeder (Eds.), Playing CLIL: Content and language integrated learning inspired by drama pedagogy (pp. 12–​13). Lifelong Learning Programme Project. www.play ​i ngc​l il.eu/​w p-​cont​ent/​uplo​ads/​2015/​11/​eBoo​k _ ​A F​_​17-​12-​web.pdf

235

Fabiana Fazzi and Marcella Menegale Coyle, D., Holmes, B., & King, L. (2009). Towards an integrated curriculum: CLIL national statement and guidelines. The Languages Company. Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge University Press. Coyle, D., & Meyer, O. (2021). Beyond CLIL: Pluriliteracies teaching for deeper learning. Cambridge University Press. Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Multilingual Matters. Czura, A., & Anklewicz, A. (2018). Pupils’ and teachers’ perceptions of CLIL in primary school: A case study. Linguodidactica, 22, 47–​63. Dooly, M., & Masats, D. (2015). A critical appraisal of foreign language research in content and language integrated learning, young language learners, and technology-​enhanced language learning published in Spain (2003–​2012). Language Teaching, 48(3), 343–​372. Driscoll, P., Earl, J., & Cable, C. (2013). The role and nature of the cultural dimension in primary modern languages. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 26(2), 146–​160. Driscoll, P., & Simpson, E. (2015). Developing intercultural understanding in primary schools. In J. Bland (Ed), Teaching English to young learners: Critical issues in language teaching with 3–​12 year olds (pp. 167–​182). Bloomsbury. Ellis, G., & Brewster, J. (2002). The storytelling handbook for primary English language teachers. Penguin Longman. Ellison, M. (2019). CLIL in the primary school context. In S. Garton & F. Copland (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of teaching English to young learners (pp. 247–​268). Routledge. Fazzi, F., & Lasagabaster, D. (2020). Learning beyond the classroom: Students’ attitudes towards the integration of CLIL and museum-​based pedagogies. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 15(2), 1–​13. Fernández Fontecha, A. (2014). Receptive vocabulary knowledge and motivation in CLIL and EFL. Revista de lingüística y lenguas aplicadas, 9, 23–​32. Furlong, A., & Bernaus, M. (2017). CLIL as a plurilingual approach or languageof real life and language as carrier of culture. Research Papers in Language Teaching and Learning, 8(1), 34–​43. García Esteban, S. (2015). Integrating curricular contents and language through storytelling: Criteria for effective CLIL lesson planning. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 212, 47–​51. Gunning, P., White, J., & Busque, C. (2019). Designing effective strategy instruction: Approaches and materials for young language learners. In A.U. Chamot & V. Harris (Eds.), Learning strategy instruction in the language classroom: Issues and implementation (pp. 155–​170). Multilingual Matters. Hooper-​Greenhill, E. (1994). The educational role of the museum. Routledge. Ioannou-​Georgiou, S., & Pavlou, P. (Eds.). (2011). Guidelines for CLIL implementation in primary and pre-​primary education. European Commission. Jäppinen, A.K. (2005). Thinking and content learning of mathematics and science as cognitional development in content and language integrated learning (CLIL): Teaching through a foreign language in Finland. Language and Education, 19(2), 148–​169. Liu, E.J., & Lin, A.M. (2021). (Re)conceptualizing ‘language’ in CLIL multimodality, translanguaging and transsemiotizing in CLIL. AILA Review, 34(2), 240–​261. Lo, Y.Y., & Lin, A.M. (2015). Designing multilingual and multimodal CLIL frameworks for EFL students. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 18(3), 261–​269. Mattheoudakis, M., Alexiou, T., & Laskaridou, C. (2014). To CLIL or not to CLIL? The case of the 3rd Experimental Primary School in Evosmos. In M. Mattheoudakis, T. Alexiou, & C. Laskaridou (Eds.), Major trends in theoretical and applied linguistics 3 (pp. 215–​234). De Gruyter Open Poland. Méndez García, M. (2013). The intercultural turn brought about by the implementation of CLIL programmes in Spanish monolingual areas: A case study of Andalusian primary and secondary schools. Language Learning Journal, 41(3), 268–​283. Menegale, M. (2018). Logbook: A tool for learning inside and outside the language class. EL.LE, 7(1), 51–​73. Menegale, M. (2019). Integrating learning strategies into content and language integrated learning programs. In A.U. Chamot & V. Harris (Eds.), Learning strategy instruction in the language classroom: Issues and implementation (pp. 81–​106). Multilingual Matters. Menegale, M. (2020). Learning strategies instruction in CLIL textbooks and teacher-​ authored materials: A qualitative study. International Journal of Linguistics, 12(2), 186–​205.

236

Doing CLIL with primary learners Met, M. (1994). Teaching content through a second language. In F. Genesee (Ed.), Educating second language children: The whole child, the whole curriculum, the whole community (pp. 159–​182). Cambridge University Press. 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-​m aking. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28(1), 41–​57. Moll, L.C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into practice, 31(2), 132–​141. Moore, E. (2019). Teaching in and for plurilingualism in the 21st century: A resource for teachers and teacher educators. KONECT Teaching Materials, 2. Mourão, S. (2015). English in pre-​primary: The challenges of getting it right. In J. Bland (Ed.), Teaching English to young learners. Critical issues in language teaching with 3–​12 year olds (pp. 51–​70). Bloomsbury. Müller, C., & Schroeder, M. (Eds). (2015). Playing CLIL: Content and language integrated learning inspired by drama pedagogy. Lifelong Learning Programme Project. www.play ​i ngc​l il.eu/​w p-​cont​ent/​uplo​ ads/​2015/​11/​eBoo​k _​A F​_​17-​12-​web.pdf Nikula, T., & Moore, P. (2019). Exploring translanguaging in CLIL. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 22(2), 237–​249. Otto, A., & Estrada, J. L. (2019). Towards an understanding of CLIL assessment practices in a European context: Main assessment tools and the role of language in content subjects. CLIL: Journal of Innovation and Research in Plurilingual and Pluricultural Education, 2(1), 31–​42. Otwinowska, A. (2013). CLIL lessons in the upper-​primary: The interplay of affective factors and CALP. In D. Gabrys- ́​Barker & J. Bielska (Eds.), Affective dimension in second language acquisition (pp. 211–​225). Multilingual Matters. Otwinowska, A., & Foryś, M. (2017). They learn the CLIL way, but do they like it? Affectivity and cognition in upper-​primary CLIL classes. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 20(5), 457– ​480. Pahl, K.H., & Rowsell, J. (2011). Artifactual critical literacy: A new perspective for literacy education. Berkeley Review of Education, 2(2), 129–​151. Pladevall-​Ballester, E. (2015). Exploring primary school CLIL perceptions in Catalonia: Students’, teachers’ and parents’ opinions and expectations. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 18(1), 45–​59. Pladevall-​Ballester, E. (2019). A longitudinal study of primary school EFL learning motivation in CLIL and non-​CLIL settings. Language Teaching Research, 23(6), 765–​786. Roiha, A., & Sommier, M. (2018). Viewing CLIL through the eyes of former pupils: Insights into foreign language and intercultural attitudes, Language and Intercultural Communication, 18(6), 631–​647. Seikkula-​L eino, J. (2007). CLIL learning: Achievement levels and affective factors. Language and Education, 21(4), 328–​341. Sudhoff, J. (2010). CLIL and intercultural communicative competence: Foundations and approaches towards a fusion. International CLIL Research Journal, 1(3), 30–​37. UNESCO. (2006). Guidelines on intercultural education. www.ugr.es/​~ jav​era/​pdf/​DB2.pdf Virdia, S. (2019). Il CLIL e l’apprendimento in scienze. In D. Wolff & S. Virdia (Eds), Il CLIL nella scuola primaria: Una ricerca quali-​quantitativa nel contesto trentino (pp. 19–​43). IPRASE. Vygotsky, L.S. (1987). Thinking and speech. The collected works of LS Vygotsky, 1, 39–​285. Wolff, D. (2011). CLIL and learner autonomy: Relating two educational concepts. Education et Sociétés Plurilingues, 30, 69–​80.

237

238

16 CLIL WITH SECONDARY SCHOOL LEARNERS Veronico N. Tarrayo and Philippe Jose S. Hernandez

Introduction Language for communication and cognitive development may be best learned in meaningful academic and social contexts. It is within this premise that content and language integrated learning (CLIL) emerged both as a content-​d riven (i.e., subject-​a rea) and a language-​d riven (i.e., language learning) approach to learning –​the integration of content and language that highlights the centrality of function in relation to language use. Such communication-​ focused and cognitive-​based language teaching accentuates the role of content (and context) in instruction where a target (or additional) language is introduced and practised. Generally, the use of CLIL aims to improve learners’ content-​a rea knowledge while enhancing their knowledge and skills in a target language. Moreover, it can be assumed that reasons for language learning vis-​à-​v is content learning have become instrumental where students have specific needs for studying such as the capacity to ‘interact with specialized language and usage tasks’ (Thompson & McKinley, 2018, p. 1) in the academic milieu and beyond, especially amid continued globalisation where certain dominant languages (e.g., English) have become the lingua franca for business and education. This may be true in secondary schools where learners are preparing to pursue higher education studies or enter the world of work. Although conceptual articles and empirical studies on CLIL have been extensive, literature reviews on specific issues and contexts concerning CLIL for secondary school learners (SSLs) have remained scant, especially those reviewing works published in the past decade, when CLIL implementation has seen great variety across different geographical areas (although most were set in European contexts). It should be noted, however, that earlier works on CLIL at the secondary level can be found in the edited volume Language Use and Language Learning in CLIL Classrooms by Dalton-​Puffer et al. (2010). To address the said gap, this literature review aims to examine CLIL SSLs, whose age range is 12 to 18 years. The studies reviewed were published within the period of 2012 to 2021 and can be found in first quartile (Q1) journals recognised by SCImago. Considering CLIL’s nature as a dual-​ focused approach where an additional language is utilised for the learning and teaching of both content and language (Abaunza et al., 2020), this comprehensive review mainly focuses on CLIL’s impact on SSLs’ linguistic, cognitive, and affective development. Although the chapter highlights the benefits of CLIL, a more critical perspective on alternative views is 238

DOI: 10.4324/9781003173151-20

CLIL with secondary school learners

discussed in the conclusion-​and-​implications section. Also, the authors acknowledge that given the scope, this review is not exhaustive. As a significant educational approach, CLIL has been implemented in secondary education, with documented practices across the globe (e.g., in Asia [Lin & He, 2017; Rachmajanti & Anugerahwati, 2019], Europe [Fazzi & Lasagabaster, 2021; Hüttner & Smit, 2018], Latin America [Banegas et al., 2020; Belle ́s-​Calvera, 2018; Garzo ́n-​Di ́az, 2018]). The international spread of CLIL as a popular educational or language-​teaching approach may be attributed to its dual focus on making students learn subject-​m atter in an additional language, while learning this language along with content (Coyle et al., 2010).

Linguistic development CLIL highlights the use of language-​supportive methods intended for authentic learning where focus is on both the content and the language of instruction (Marsh & Frigols Martín, 2013). Using CLIL may not only provide the opportunity to learn content from specific subjects, such as science, geography, and mathematics, but it may also help improve language skills with an additional language. As a pedagogical endeavour, CLIL ‘requires a focus on language as a meaning-​m aking activity, in which language is the window to knowledge and, in turn, content learning can help students learn and understand language’ (Llinares & Evnitskaya, 2021, p. 367). This section examines research efforts describing the impact of CLIL on students’ linguistic development, one of the main purported benefits associated with CLIL. Results from several recent studies have provided general support for CLIL concerning its potential effects on learners’ linguistic development, particularly fluency, vocabulary, grammatical features, and writing (Basterrechea & Leeser, 2019; Guillamo ́n-​Suesta & Renau Renau, 2015; Möller, 2018). Basterrechea and Leeser (2019) conducted dictogloss activities among English as a foreign language (EFL) learners and found that the language-​related episodes in the class helped the learners acquire proficiency in grammatical elements such as the third-​person singular, determiners, word order, and gender pronouns. In turn, by collecting quantitative and qualitative data from English language teachers and content teachers, Guillamo ́n-​Suesta and Renau Renau (2015) found that utilising CLIL helped foster students’ English language proficiency (specifically, an enriched vocabulary) and communicative competence (fluency, in particular). Similar results were found in De Waard and Demeulenaere’s (2017) one-​year exploratory study, which used a mixed approach. Specifically, the study reported that in terms of linguistic development, students demonstrated the ability to contextualise and adjust their vocabularies to the reality of selected topics. In a similar vein, Morton’s (2015) research, which took a conversation-​a nalysis perspective, found that vocabulary learning could be contextualised without the need to move out of content teaching to look for made-​up or contrived examples of lexical items; thus, CLIL’s goal to be conducive to authentic communication in the target language was made tangible. For example, instead of repeating essential lexical items or displaying them on the board, teachers gathered learners’ claims of understanding or displays of knowledge through target-​ language synonyms or code-​switching. Code-​switching in this context was employed as a double check to ensure that everybody had access to meanings, and could thereby perform the content task. To explore the effects of CLIL on learners’ writing skills, Ikeda (2013) conducted a one-​ year mixed-​methods study, which collected qualitative data through a questionnaire about teachers’ evaluation of CLIL instruction, and quantitative ones from pre-​test and post-​test 239

Veronico N. Tarrayo and Philippe Jose S. Hernandez

essay scores of 80 low-​intermediate-​level students. The findings indicated that in CLIL, the students’ writing skills, specifically vocabulary, grammar, and organisation, improved considerably. This finding was supported by the CLIL teachers’ observations, which suggested that students’ communicative competence improved, particularly in terms of their vocabulary and oral presentations skills. The enthusiasm CLIL has engendered in language education has stimulated research comparing CLIL and non-​CLIL groups of learners, and findings of this work suggest that CLIL learners experience higher linguistic achievement in the target language (e.g., English) than their non-​ CLIL counterparts (Agusti ́n-​ Llach & Canga Alonso, 2016; Castellano-​ Risco, 2018; Lahuerta, 2017; Pérez Canado & Lancaster, 2017). Pérez Canado and Lancaster (2017) conducted a comparison of CLIL and non-​CLIL groups and reported that the use of CLIL had a positive sustained effect on productive, rather than receptive oral skills even as the students went to the baccalaureate level. Meanwhile, the non-​CLIL group did not demonstrate significant development in English oral comprehension and production skills. To measure receptive academic vocabulary size, Castellano-​R isco (2018), in a preliminary study of fourth-​g rade SSLs’ academic vocabulary skills, found that CLIL learners demonstrated a significantly larger academic vocabulary size than their non-​CLIL counterparts. A similar result was revealed in Agusti ́n-​Llach and Canga Alonso’s (2016) three-​year study, which showed CLIL learners’ higher receptive vocabulary and lexical growth rate, and more consistent vocabulary progress in the succeeding school years, in contrast to non-​CLIL students. In a study on writing development in CLIL contexts, Gene -́ ​Gil et al. (2015) examined how using CLIL can develop writing competence. In their three-​year longitudinal study with EFL learners in a bilingual school, the researchers found that CLIL learners obtained higher scores in lexical and syntactic complexity, and accuracy and fluency, in comparison with their non-​CLIL peers. A corollary to this finding was reported in Pe ́rez-​Vidal and Roquet’s (2015) research that examined the linguistic progress manifested over one school year by CLIL SSLs who were enrolled in an English-​medium science course in comparison with a formal instruction programme (non-​CLIL) in the same school. The results suggested relatively significant gains by CLIL learners on their writing skills in terms of accuracy as measured by the number of errors per word. Another study examining CLIL’s impact on students’ writing accuracy was conducted by Lahuerta (2017), who found that accuracy tended to progress with grade or level in the CLIL setting as evinced by the significant decrease in syntactic, lexical, and lexicogrammatical errors among CLIL students; on the other hand, the non-​CLIL group had stronger error stabilisation and regression tendencies. The results from Abaunza et al.’s (2020) investigation yielded similar potential effects of CLIL: based on data gathered from three groups of students with varied socio-​economic and educational contexts and from five academic staff (three English, two computer science), CLIL participants displayed higher verbal intelligence, thus outperforming their non-​CLIL counterparts. What makes Abaunza et al.’s study distinct was its attempt to address the research gap concerning CLIL in diverse urban and (some vulnerable) rural populations, showing that with CLIL, even those at a socio-​economic disadvantage may develop proficiency. San Isidro and Lasagabaster (2019) likewise conducted a CLIL study in a rural setting, this time focusing on language skills in both an additional language (i.e., English) and native languages (i.e., Galician and Spanish). In all three languages, CLIL students performed significantly better than their non-​CLIL counterparts across the macro-​ communication skills of reading, writing, listening, and speaking. The literature reviewed in this section thus far provides evidence that generally, CLIL can be a significant and conducive approach to develop students’ linguistic proficiency, 240

CLIL with secondary school learners

highlighting how the approach enhances learners’ academic (i.e., content-​related) vocabulary size, grammar knowledge, and writing skills. This positive impact of CLIL may be attributed to the increased, integrative, and authentic exposure to the target language it provides and nurtures, which essentially enriches language instruction.

Cognitive development Because the goal of CLIL is to be conducive to authentic communication, students may develop their ability to think critically and be creative, linking concept formation (abstract and concrete), understanding, and language (Coyle, 2008). For instance, previous studies in Asian (Yang, 2015) and European (Dallinger et al., 2016) contexts have reported that through CLIL, learners can enhance their receptive skills. Critical thinking tends to manifest if learners can analyse, question, and challenge what they are being taught; and with open minds, they can evaluate ideas and situations, solve challenging problems, and think outside the box. In this manner, they can become more curious and can learn to appreciate a classroom culture where asking questions and negotiating arguments are viewed positively. In relation to critical thinking, CLIL students are encouraged to think of new, innovative ways to articulate their understanding and solve problems. This section highlights significant research findings regarding the impact of CLIL on SSLs’ cognitive development. Several voices have stressed the potential of CLIL to support cognitive development in different aspects such as content understanding (Tagnin & Ní Ríordáin, 2021), argumentation skills (Hüttner & Smit, 2018), critical thinking (Cossu & Brun, 2021; Hurajova, 2019), and oral comprehension and production, such as expressing opinions, and agreeing and disagreeing (Pérez Canado & Lancaster, 2017). In Ikeda’s (2013) mixed-​ methods longitudinal study, teachers expressed that CLIL students seemed to appreciate cognitive activities more. The teachers also believed that there was more constructive learning among the students in terms of idea development in writing and discussion, and that the leaners displayed excellent knowledge of the content. In a related vein, Tagnin and Ní Ríordáin’s (2021) study, which analysed classroom talk transcripts through a mixed-​methods approach to discourse analysis, discovered that teachers’ strategic questioning can foster both science understanding and science language development. Using questions contingent on learners’ responses was reported to promote content understanding (i.e., reasoning processes) and reduce the linguistic demand on the CLIL students as well. Specifically, the teachers’ use of higher-​order thinking (HOT) questions was observed to help promote cognitive engagement and oral production about science, thus contributing to science language development. One manifestation of higher-​level cognitive engagement was the students’ capacity to provide longer responses (i.e., extensive oral production) than single utterances in the classroom discourse. The study emphasises the vital role of spoken language in a science classroom for building conceptual understanding. It should be noted, too, that in an attempt to utilise structured questioning to support a high level of cognitive learning in a CLIL science classroom, the teachers would adopt and promote translanguaging practices; that is, they used more than one linguistic code in a flexible manner. Translanguaging, according to Martinez Agudo (2021), is common in CLIL settings, and it encourages students’ active participation in the classroom talk. Lin and He’s (2017) study affirmed the use of translanguaging in CLIL as a medium of student-​and-​ teacher interaction, distinct from the teacher’s medium of instruction, which was English. However, Mari and Carroll’s (2021) investigation suggested that although English teachers 241

Veronico N. Tarrayo and Philippe Jose S. Hernandez

(un)consciously adopted translanguaging (i.e., using Spanish in the English classroom), such an approach would need to be critically assessed based on students’ language proficiency and confidence. Utilising filmed CLIL lessons in a ninth grade CLIL class offering subjects taught in English, Mahan et al. (2021) observed and characterised CLIL teaching in science and mathematics. The findings indicated that both science and mathematics classes scored high on the use of academic language, which illustrated how teachers consistently employed and prompted discipline-​specific language throughout the lessons. By prompting the learners to use discipline-​specific language, the CLIL instructors helped their students to think and speak scientifically or mathematically in the target language (i.e., English); this points to process-​ oriented integration where students do not only learn to express themselves in the target language, but they also communicate in specific disciplinary ways (Berger, 2016; Ødegaard et al., 2014). The study also revealed that based on observed tasks and dialogues between teachers and students, complex instructional explanations and intellectual challenges were successfully incorporated in the lessons. Specifically, although the students were provided slightly rote and recall activities in mathematics, they were given analytical or high inference tasks through English in science in almost half of the time.

CLIL and cognitive development across subject areas The implementation of CLIL has gone beyond common areas such as science and mathematics. Mahan (2020) examined teacher scaffolding in CLIL by analysing video-​recorded lectures across three CLIL subjects (i.e., science, geography, and social science) in a Grade 11 class in Norway. The findings showed that the three teachers in the study used several and various comprehension scaffolding strategies, such as prompting students to make connections to prior knowledge, utilising supportive materials (e.g., visual aids), and employing subject-​specific vocabulary to support the development of academic language. To a much lesser degree, though, the teachers used some scaffolding strategies to support solving tasks; of these, the most productive were referential questions (employed by the social studies teacher), which led to productive open discussion. Another case in point is Cossu and Brun’s (2021) study. Drawing on CLIL underpinnings, the two authors conducted a series of Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE) lessons framed within a CLIL-​oriented teaching proposal, and reflected upon the effectiveness of the experience. The authors suggested that the students may have developed their critical thinking skills because of opportunities for discussion and reflection incorporated in their CLIL lessons. The integration of CSE equipped the learners with the knowledge and skills to challenge and be critical about heteronormative discourses related to gender. In this manner, the teachers offered learners meaningful spaces for critical thinking through language-​d riven tasks and topics (e.g., gender issues) relevant to their needs and interests, engaging the students as active participants in the learning process. Mendez Garcia (2012) conducted a study that highlighted CLIL’s potential to develop critical cultural awareness. Based on self-​reported data taken from interviews and focus group discussions among teachers and learners across subjects such as French, geography, history, physics, and chemistry, it was found that using CLIL could promote positive attitudes towards additional languages and cultures. As CLIL was viewed as beneficial for developing critical thought and intercultural competence (Mendez Garcia, 2012), the learners were given opportunities to use their skills in communicating and integrating with students from other cultural backgrounds, and such was observed to contribute to their global education 242

CLIL with secondary school learners

and intercultural development. Through this exposure and access to additional languages, the use of CLIL could allow students to become conscious of the relativity of their own thinking, question and be critical about long-​established ideologies (e.g., ethnocentrism) and stereotypes, and recognise and show respect for diversity in their own society and in others’. Utilising an innovative CLIL approach, Fazzi and Lasagabaster (2021) examined students’ attitudes towards the integration of CLIL and museum-​based pedagogies. The students showed positive attitudes towards participating in a CLIL museum visit in terms of engagement with museum objects and the use of English beyond the classroom. They reported that the museum visit made them focus on learning because of the multisensorial and material experience it offered. Collaborative and enquiry-​based tasks (e.g., completing worksheets while touring the museum on their own) allowed them to be autonomous where they could explore the museum and observe its holdings. The authenticity of the learning environment allowed the learners to enjoy using English and freed them from the controlled classroom milieu, which offered opportunities for creative thinking. Another interesting study, which explored the impact of CLIL on advanced learners, was conducted by Hüttner and Smit (2018) who investigated the discursive structure and quality argumentation episodes produced within European economics and politics lessons in CLIL classrooms. Based on the analysed qualitative data from video-​recorded teacher-​ whole-​class (TWC) interactions, group work, and role-​plays that showed episodes of argumentation, the students demonstrated their critical thinking skills by participating in varied classroom events that allowed them to access their full range of disciplinary knowledge and subject-​specific language. By providing the students with interactional spaces to articulate their understanding, they applied their target language spontaneously to negotiate and argue about their political positions in a manner considered appropriate by experts within their relevant discipline (e.g., as politicians or journalists). The cognitive potential of CLIL across disciplines is one of its consistently reported benefits as a methodological approach to teaching and learning. It can promote the authentic use of a target language because at the heart of integrating the learning of content and of language lies the capacity of learners to apply the target language for conceptual understanding and critical thinking in meaningful contexts. As the implementation of CLIL recognises the vitality of meaning-​m aking and authenticity of purpose in relation to language use, it likewise advances and strengthens interdisciplinary work, and encourages collaborative and autonomous learning.

Affective factors Extensive research on CLIL has revealed significant improvement in language learning vis-​ à-​v is content learning, and although the importance of linguistic and cognitive variables in CLIL is supported in several studies, the significance of affective factors should not be overlooked. Apart from improving target-​language proficiency and critical thinking, CLIL is said to favourably impact socio-​a ffective variables such as motivation (Doiz et al., 2014; Ferna ́ndez-​Agu ë ro & Hidalgo-​ McCab, 2020). Because CLIL is also content-​ focused, it provides an added dimension to learning, which can foster self-​confidence and bolster students’ engagement and enthusiasm about language learning (Goris et al., 2019; Karabassova, 2020). Thompson and McKinley (2018) suggest that the use of CLIL may provide additional instrumental motivation for students, for they have an authentic, immediate, and concrete reason for language learning to complete content subjects taught through an additional language. As a goal of CLIL is to provide a quality learning atmosphere for both 243

Veronico N. Tarrayo and Philippe Jose S. Hernandez

content learning and language development, aspects of CLIL in terms of students’ affective factors (e.g., motivation, confidence, self-​esteem) have been reported in several studies, which this section covers. The literature has provided rich, substantial discussions on the affective benefits of CLIL in terms of increasing students’ motivation (Denman et al., 2013; Doiz et al., 2014; Ferna ́ndez-​ Agu ë ro & Hidalgo-​McCab, 2020; Lasagabaster & Doiz, 2017), developing their confidence (Fazzi & Lasagabaster, 2021; Goris et al., 2019; Karabassova, 2020), reducing their anxiety (Kontio & Sylvén, 2015; Martinez Agudo, 2021; Mendez Garcia, 2012; Möller, 2018), as well as reducing gender differences in motivation (Heras & Lasagabaster, 2015). In Salvador-​García et al.’s (2020) recent mixed-​methods study involving students and teachers who had been using CLIL in physical education (PE) lessons, the results showed that because of high levels of motivation linked to PE through CLIL, the students were provided opportunities to assist one another in understanding the lessons, interact with others, stay focused, foster teamwork, and share similar weaknesses; such are essential facets linked to the personal and social dimensions of PE. These findings suggest that in PE with the CLIL approach, collaborative tasks may function as socio-​a ffective factors, reinforcing social dynamics and promoting prosocial behaviour and empathy among learners. Previous studies likewise have reported the potential impact of CLIL classes on students’ motivation in learning music and environmental science. Belle ́s-​Calvera’s (2018) study proposed a content-​ based instruction model in teaching music in English and found that students valued and enjoyed learning music through the said language. Several of these students reportedly were motivated to take a CLIL programme in the future. In a similar vein, Garzo ́n-​Di ́az’s (2018) research focused on CLIL’s potential contribution to the development of scientific citizenship among students. In this investigation, the students prepared technology-​ enhanced CLIL-​based environmental learning projects to integrate science and English. Through pedagogical intervention, the students were motivated to employ English in science lessons, integrate technology for academic purposes, foster cooperation, and value scientific citizenship, which was a cultural component in the science lessons. Some evidence also suggests higher levels of motivation of CLIL learners in comparison with their non-​CLIL counterparts. For instance, Doiz et al. (2014) analysed the role of CLIL in motivating students to learn English and their attitudes towards the language. In general, CLIL learners were found to be more motivated than non-​CLIL ones: higher means were obtained from the CLIL group in terms of intrinsic motivation, instrumental orientation, and interest in additional languages or cultures. One explanation offered for this improvement is that CLIL methodology can consciously create a positive atmosphere. This has the potential to enrich one’s learning experience where an additional language (e.g., English) is utilised for communicative purposes. A similar result was found in De Smet et al.’s (2019) study, which reported more positive attitudes and higher motivation to learn English in CLIL in contrast to non-​CLIL among SSLs. Emphasising the inextricable connection between language and content, Somers and Llinares (2021) investigated students’ intrinsic and instrumental motivation, and CLIL participation anxiety towards both content and language learning in two bilingual tracks of differing intensity (high-​versus low-​intensity). The findings indicated that overall, participation in either the high-​or low-​intensity CLIL track had a critical impact on students’ reported high levels of motivation and enjoyment in learning. Interestingly, instrumental motivation towards CLIL was prevalent and served as the driving force to do CLIL, which may suggest learners’ positive perceptions of CLIL and their awareness of the practical value or usefulness of bilingual education. In a related study, which described the challenges and 244

CLIL with secondary school learners

opportunities for CLIL teaching and learning among vocational students, Denman et al.’s (2013) mixed-​methods study found that both students and teachers perceived CLIL as highly motivating. The students, in particular, responded to the challenges of CLIL positively, disclosing that these challenges are relevant to their future educational endeavours and/​or career opportunities. The teachers expressed the same perspective, highlighting that challenges integrated into CLIL activities would be meaningful for the students’ vocational education, for such tasks could provide them with learning opportunities to communicate with peers in an international context and utilise the target language in authentic ways. In a recent study set in a Thai bilingual school, positive views towards CLIL were reported despite the difficulties in teaching and learning content subjects via English. Thai SSLs’ motivation to learn English and use it to learn academic content was based on scoring high in high-​stakes examinations (e.g., International English Language Testing System [IELTS]), and working in international corporations (Liu, 2019). The claim that students develop confidence from the CLIL environment has been well substantiated in empirical research (Goris et al., 2020; Karabassova, 2020). In Hurajova’s (2019) case study in a vocational school (i.e., a business academy), it was found that the positive classroom climate promoted through CLIL influenced learners’ language competence. This was also observed in a study by Goris et al. (2020) involving learners from eight academically oriented schools (i.e., schools preparing students for university study) in four European countries (the Netherlands, Germany, Italy, and Hungary). Specifically, students with confidence in English benefit the most from CLIL; that is, the CLIL environment significantly enhanced the effect of such confidence, and as a result, these learners demonstrated considerable growth in English proficiency over their first two years of CLIL. The authors claimed that these students experienced feelings of success when they took on challenges and eventually progressed in their second language (L2) skills, which helped them develop into confident L2 speakers. A potential additional indicator of motivation among CLIL learners is the willingness to enrol in CLIL programmes, which are available in some schools in Spain (Hughes & Madrid, 2020). As Dale and Tanner (2012, p. 11) remarked, CLIL students ‘blossom and feel challenged because they are learning both a subject and a language’. Goris et al. (2020) emphasised that teachers’ sensitivity to the needs of less confident students and their familiarity with strategies to improve the performance of these learners are critical to developing their confidence. This aspect characterising CLIL points to the significance of teachers’ awareness of their students –​recognising and managing the difficulties inherent in CLIL for the students (e.g., CLIL lessons are more cognitively demanding and challenging for learners [Martinez Agudo, 2021]), especially if CLIL has been presented as a new learning approach. Teachers may utilise strategies to reach out to their students and foster student engagement in learning both content and language through an enjoyable and active manner (e.g., pair work, group dynamics, use of visuals, schema activation). On the flip side of teachers aiding students is the students aiding their teachers who had difficulty in English language proficiency. According to Karabassova (2020), students’ confidence increased in CLIL classrooms where the students who had better English proficiency than their teachers found themselves helping their teachers communicate in English. This situation would show teachers viewing student support as a resource and teachers ‘relaxing controls and relinquishing some power to their students’ (Karabassova, 2020, p. 11), who became more confident and freer. Because it may offer a facilitative approach to learning, CLIL is believed to reduce anxiety in the classroom. For example, Thompson and Sylve ́n’s (2015) longitudinal study, which explored the relation between CLIL education and language learning anxiety over time, 245

Veronico N. Tarrayo and Philippe Jose S. Hernandez

indicated that SSLs in CLIL showed significantly less English class performance anxiety and higher self-​confidence than their non-​CLIL counterparts. In a vocational CLIL research conducted by Kontio and Sylvén (2015), it was shown how English use, as a vehicle, was geared towards getting work done in a skills-​intensive context in a relaxed way. In contrast to most CLIL studies inclined to preparing learners for higher education, vocational CLIL is more focused on how English facilitates conversations about work; it is less text-​heavy and less teacher-​centred. Further, in the study, it was observed that students were allowed to alternate between languages to arrive at meaning and facilitate what they want to perform (e.g., fix a piece of equipment, install the lightbulb). When English proficiency would seem not yet established, Swedish became the alternative and compensated for what one lacked in English. The same feeling of being relaxed and comfortable was expressed by student-​ participants in Fazzi and Lasagabaster’s (2021) study that integrated CLIL and museum-​ based pedagogies. The students felt positive about the CLIL museum experience, which they found more engaging and fun in comparison with the traditional guided tours. They likewise affirmed that the unique experience of using English in the museum context positively influenced their confidence and self-​esteem as learners or users of English. CLIL’s contribution has been significant in the opportunities it offers to positively impact affective dimensions of learning. As suggested by several studies, utilising CLIL can facilitate positive attitudes towards both language and content, and help increase learners’ motivation. The CLIL approach can also reduce anxiety. One reason for this is because it reduces the focus on linguistic forms and encourages collaboration, so learners may feel more confident and experience lower affective filter, which directly affects the students’ attitudinal stance towards content and language learning.

Conclusion and implications Over the decades, CLIL has received consistent recognition and support from various scholars. Notable successes have been found in developing SSLs’ cognitive and language skills, especially in English, the dominant additional language used in CLIL, and in enhancing affective factors. For a long time, CLIL has undergone significant developments and has been a well-​ organised and useful construct for promoting content and language learning, cementing its place as a viable programme to consider in secondary school language learning contexts, especially those using English. As the implementation of CLIL continues to develop, scholars may take off from where recent research has left off, such as the accessibility of CLIL to a broad range of students, the achievement of content knowledge through CLIL, the sustained positive impact of CLIL, and the fluctuations in student motivation. CLIL implementation has shown opt-​in or top-​down mandatory implementation in various contexts, providing at the start a variation in terms of access among students. In a three-​country study, Goris et al. (2019) acknowledged that while the use of CLIL aimed to be egalitarian in its inception, in practice, it was not so. CLIL implementation cannot discount the importance of learner context, and future studies may examine how SSLs from various socio-​economic classes and how those from urban and rural areas fare in CLIL. Abaunza et al. (2020) considered such factors and infused gamification, through the app Duolingo, and found that even learners from some rural-​v ulnerable areas could have an increased proficiency through CLIL. Hughes and Madrid (2020) likewise highlight the socio-​economic dimension, stating that the scarcity of bilingual learning resources in rural areas may hinder student motivation and learning in the L2. Meanwhile, Dallinger et al. (2016) also found

246

CLIL with secondary school learners

advantages for CLIL students who showed better results when viewed according to parents’ education, socio-​economic status, and the number of books per household. Another dimension worth investigating is how CLIL implementors determine who enter the programmes. Various studies have noted how CLIL can be selective, with seeming preference for learners who are already excelling academically. Möller (2018) argues that CLIL’s success is hinged on the fact that it usually recruits learners who are already outstanding. This predisposition is an invitation to scholars to see how average or below-​average learners can benefit from CLIL. Lialikhova (2021) found that CLIL achievers were mostly high-​and mid-​achievers, who showed significant and marginally significant improvements in overall oral development, specifically fluency, vocabulary, and pronunciation, during their short-​ term intervention. CLIL implementors can thus investigate how low-​achievers fare with a well-​designed CLIL programme and measure the extent of improvement. This is especially needed in the secondary school context, being the final stage before learners undertake tertiary studies. By this time, whatever content and language learning gaps learners have accumulated need to be addressed, and a dual-​focused approach such as CLIL may be in the best position to do so in an effective and expeditious manner. Most studies reviewed also focused on the language side of CLIL, and attention must be paid to content achievement. Mahan (2020) highlighted the scaffolding practices of CLIL teachers when making learners comprehend content in science and geography, allowing them to express themselves through long and non-​ teacher-​ d irected responses, which provided avenues for the learners to show how they understood terminologies. Hughes and Madrid (2020) found that CLIL implementation did not deter learners from acquiring content knowledge in natural science successfully, countering initial negative results in the primary education level. Still, there are studies pointing to insignificant correlation or impact on content achievement. San Isidro and Lasagabaster (2019) studied content achievement in social science but yielded insignificant results despite instruction in CLIL. In another study, Martinez Agudo (2021) measured the correlation between content achievement and affective factors such as motivation but found a low correlation. The positive impact of CLIL on the development of language skills has been well-​ documented, but future studies, especially longitudinal ones, are worth conducting to see its lasting impact. Merino and Lasagabaster (2018) conducted two test rounds over a span of one year and assessed proficiency in the macro skills in the English language and found that without being made part of a high-​intensity programme, CLIL’s impact on linguistic improvement may not be significant. Thus, implementing CLIL requires sustained and intensified exposure of students to the target language for programme success. The sustained positive impact of CLIL has likewise been documented by Pérez Canado and Lancaster (2017), whose longitudinal study observed students who experienced CLIL as SSLs and who were already in their baccalaureate. Conducting studies on SSL CLIL graduates and their performance beyond the secondary school level will help validate the impact of the programme. CLIL implementors in the secondary school context must thus remember to situate themselves in a continuum of education –​that they are the bridge between basic education and undergraduate studies. Doing so primes implementors to ensure that programme delivery is attuned to equipping learners with skills they need to meet the demands of higher education. Equipping learners to be successful in CLIL cannot discount the importance of provision of capacity-​building for teachers and clear evaluation and assessment parameters. In Karabassova’s (2020) study, it was uncovered that content teachers were ill-​equipped with skills in English, precipitating their resistance to CLIL, which was implemented without much school and teacher agency. In Codó’s (2022) study, teachers were concerned about 247

Veronico N. Tarrayo and Philippe Jose S. Hernandez

the quality of English they were passing on to students, accepting that they were not well-​ equipped for teaching using the additional language. Most studies likewise reported CLIL as being implemented in seeming silos, with minimal evidence of actual collaboration between content and language teachers. In the secondary level where content becomes more technical, the expectation of a content and the additional language by a single teacher may be too lofty of a goal. Codó (2022) also found that the experimental implementation of CLIL did not achieve its full potential due to the absence of explicit and graded linguistic goals, which does not bode well for what Codó called the democratising agenda of CLIL. CLIL implementors must not forget that teachers are the champions of the programmes in their classrooms, and students’ affective factors will be influenced by their own teachers’ disposition towards the programme (Codó, 2022). Ensuring that the teachers are ready and on board with the programme thus becomes necessary for better implementation. As learners progress and encounter more challenging contexts, motivation may fluctuate, as Martinez Agudo (2021) found in her study exploring the correlation between motivational variables and content learning achievement. Further into student motivations, Möller (2018) found that while CLIL learners, who in some jurisdictions are placed in classrooms different from the regular or traditional classes, were ambitious, motivated, and were achievers, they also ‘pay a price by displaying significantly greater fear of success’ (p. 1318). Mendez Garcia (2012) reported that CLIL students hold a special status in school not because the CLIL students accord it to themselves, but because non-​CLIL learners see them differently. Implementing CLIL must then also consider the affective dimension of learners and any other stakeholders, as the motivation to or resistance to learn (Codó, 2022) through an additional language plays a crucial role in success. The foregoing review has shown generally positive evidence about CLIL as implemented in the secondary school level in various geographical contexts. While quantitative studies, sometimes conducted longitudinally, measured achievement in both language and content, qualitative studies reported how CLIL stakeholders have experienced the programme. The potential of utilising CLIL to help learners succeed has proven to hinge on sustained exposure to meaningful input and the target language and the sound integration between language and content, which can be predicted by well-​planned programmes and competent teaching staff. Current and future implementors of CLIL can learn from this review’s findings to embrace good practice and ensure that CLIL’s purported perks become realised benefits.

Further reading Hemmi, C., & Banegas, D.L. (Eds.). (2021). International perspectives on CLIL. Palgrave Macmillan. This edited book gives a reconceptualisation of CLIL and offers insights into potential context-​i nformed CLIL pedagogies. It also highlights discussions on possible future CLIL research undertakings, with emphasis on teacher research. Rymarczyk, J. (Ed.). (2013). Foreign language learning outside school: Places to see, learn, enjoy. Peter Lang. This ten-​chapter volume explores foreign language learning outside the formal school context (e.g., workplaces, museums). It covers discussions on how both content and language learning take place in leisure-​time venues where aesthetic appreciation, motivation, cultural awareness, and foreign language competence can be cultivated. Snow, M.A., & Brinton, D. (Eds.). (2017). The content-​based classroom: Perspectives on integrating language and content (2nd ed.). University of Michigan Press. This six-​part volume offers teachers with a concrete understanding on how to apply the principles of a content-​based approach to language teaching with learners of various ages and proficiency levels.

248

CLIL with secondary school learners It provides insightful discussions on teacher preparation, classroom strategies, models and varieties, research and assessment, and connections between content-​based instruction and other approaches such as English for specific purposes (ESP), English for academic purposes (EAP), and corpus linguistics.

References Abaunza, G.A., Martinez-​Abad, F., Rodriguez-​Conde, M.J., Avalos-​Obregon, M.D., & Urena-​Lara, D. (2020). The effect of CLIL methodology and web applications in the foreign language class: A comparative case in Colombian schools. Revista Espacios, 41(20), 97–​114. Agustín-​Llach, M.P., & Canga Alonso, A. (2016). Vocabulary growth in young CLIL and traditional EFL learners: Evidence from research and implications for education. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 26(2), 211–​227. https://​doi.org/​10.1111/​ijal.12090 Banegas, D.L., Poole, P.M., & Corrales, K.A. (2020). Content and language integrated learning in Latin America 2008–​2018: Ten years of research and practice. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 10(2), 283–​305. https://​doi.org/​10.14746/​ssllt.2020.10.2.4 Basterrechea, M., & Leeser, M.J. (2019). Language-​related episodes and learner proficiency during collaborative dialogue in CLIL. Language Awareness, 28(2), 97–​113. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​09658​ 416.2019.1606​229 Belle ́s-​Calvera, L. (2018). Teaching music in English: A content-​based instruction model in secondary education. Latin American Journal of Content and Language Integrated Learning, 11(1), 109–​139. https://​ lac​l il.unisab​a na.edu.co/​i ndex.php/​LAC​LIL/​a rti​cle/​v iew/​8942 Berger, A. (2016). Learning mathematics bilingually: An integrated language and mathematics model (ILMM) of word problem-​solving processes in English as a foreign language. In T. Nikula, E. Dafouz, P. Moore, & U. Smit (Eds.), Conceptualising integration in CLIL and multilingual education (pp. 73–​100). Multilingual Matters. Castellano-​R isco, I. (2018). CLIL and academic vocabulary: A preliminary study of secondary-​school learners’ academic vocabulary size. EPiC Series in Languages and Linguistics, 3, 27–​32. Codó, E. (2020). The dilemmas of experimental CLIL in Catalonia. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2020.1725525 Cossu, P., & Brun, G. (2021). Comprehensive sexuality education: An Argentinean experience. ELT Journal, 75(2), 172–​180. https://​doi.org/​10.1093/​elt/​ccaa​080 Coyle, D. (2008). CLIL: A pedagogical approach. In N. Van Deusen-​Scholl, & N. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education (2nd ed.) (pp. 97–​111). Springer. Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge University Press. Dale, L., & Tanner, T. (2012). CLIL activities: A resource for subject and language teachers. Cambridge University Press. 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.learn​i nst​r uc.2015.09.003 Dalton-​Puffer, C., Nikula, T., & Smit, U. (Eds.). (2010). Language use and language learning in CLIL classrooms. John Benjamins. De Smet, A., Mettewie, L., Hiligsmann, P., Galand, B., & Van Mensel, L. (2019). Does CLIL shape language attitudes and motivation? Interactions with target languages and instruction levels. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​13670​ 050.2019.1671​308 De Waard, I., & Demeulenaere, K. (2017). The MOOC-​CLIL project: Using MOOCs to increase language, and social and online learning skills for 5th grade K-​12 students. In Q. Kan, & S. Bax (Eds.), Beyond the language classroom: Researching MOOCs and other innovations (pp. 29–​42). Research-​ publishing.net. https://doi.org/10.14705/ rpnet.2017.mooc2016.669 Denman J., Tanner, R., & de Graaff, R. (2013). CLIL in junior vocational secondary education: Challenges and opportunities for teaching and learning. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16(3), 285–​300. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​13670 ​050.2013.777​386 Doiz, A., Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J.M. (2014). CLIL and motivation: The effect of individual and contextual variables. The Language Learning Journal, 42(2), 209–​224. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​09571​ 736.2014.889​508

249

Veronico N. Tarrayo and Philippe Jose S. Hernandez Fazzi, F., & Lasagabaster, D. (2021). Learning beyond the classroom: Students’ attitudes towards the integration of CLIL and museum-​based pedagogies. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 15(2), 156–​168. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​17501​229.2020.1714​630 Ferna ́ndez-​A gu ë ro, M., & Hidalgo-​McCab, E. (2020). CLIL students’ affectivity in the transition between education levels: The effect of streaming at the beginning of secondary education. Journal of Language, Identity & Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/15348458.2020.1795864 Garzo ́n-​Di ́az, E. (2018). From cultural awareness to scientific citizenship: Implementing content and language integrated learning projects to connect environmental science and English in a state school in Colombia. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 24(2), 242–​259. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​13670 ​050.2018.1456​512 Gene ́- ​Gil, M., Juan-​Garau, M., & Salazar-​Noguera, J. (2015). Development of EFL writing over three years in secondary education: CLIL and non-​CLIL settings. The Language Learning Journal, 43(3), 286–​303. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​09571​736.2015.1053​278 Goris, J., Denessen, E., & Verhoeven, L. (2019). The contribution of CLIL to learners’ international orientation and EFL confidence. The Language Learning Journal, 47(2), 246–​256. http://​d x.doi.org/​ 10.1080/​09571​736.2016.1275​034 Goris, J., Denessen, E., & Verhoeven, L. (2020). Determinants of EFL learning success in content and language integrated learning. The Language Learning Journal. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​09571​ 736.2019.1709​886 Guillamo ́n-​Suesta, F., & Renau Renau, M.L. (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. http://​d x.doi.org/​10.5294/​lac​l il.2014.8.1.1 Heras, A., & Lasagabaster, D. (2015). The impact of CLIL on affective factors and vocabulary learning. Language Teaching Research, 19(1), 70–​88. https://​doi.org/​10.1177/​13621​6881​4541​736 Hughes, S.P., & Madrid, D. (2020). The effects of CLIL on content knowledge in monolingual contexts. The Language Learning Journal, 48(1), 48–​59. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​09571​736.2019.1671​483 Hurajova, A. (2019). Contribution of CLIL methodology to the development of bilingualism and bilingual language competence of Slovak secondary-​school students. European Journal of Educational Research, 8(4), 905–​919. https://​doi.org/​10.12973/​eu-​jer.8.4.905 Hüttner, J., & Smit, U. (2018). Negotiating political positions: Subject-​specific oral language use in CLIL classrooms. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21(3), 287–​302. http://​ dx.doi.org/​10.1080/​13670​050.2017.1386​616 Ikeda, M. (2013). Does CLIL work for Japanese secondary school students? Potential for the ‘weak’ version of CLIL. International CLIL Research Journal, 2(1), 31–​42. Karabassova, L. (2020). Is top-​down CLIL justified? A grounded theory exploration of secondary school Science teachers’ experiences. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​13670 ​050.2020.1775​781 Kontio, J., & Sylvén, L.K. (2015). Language alternation and language norm in vocational content and language integrated learning. The Language Learning Journal, 43(3), 271–​285. http://​d x.doi.org/​ 10.1080/​09571​736.2015.1053​279 Lahuerta, A. (2017). Analysis of accuracy in the writing of EFL students enrolled on CLIL and non-​ CLIL programmes: The impact of grade and gender. The Language Learning Journal, 48(2), 121–​132. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​09571​736.2017.1303​745 Lasagabaster, D., & Doiz, A. (2017). A longitudinal study on the impact of CLIL on affective factors. Applied Linguistics, 38(5), 688–​712. https://​doi.org/​10.1093/​app​l in/​a mv ​059 Lialikhova, D. (2021). The impact of a short-​term CLIL intervention project on Norwegian different ability ninth graders’ oral development. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 24(5), 671–​692. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​13670 ​050.2018.1509​055 Lin, A.M.Y., & He, P. (2017). Translanguaging as dynamic activity flows in CLIL classrooms. Journal of Language, Identity, & Education, 16(4), 228–​244. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​15348​458.2017.1328​283 Liu, Y. (2019). Exploring bilingual learners’ desires in English-​medium studies: Evidence from a Thai private bilingual school. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. https://​doi.org/​ 10.1080/​13670​050.2019.1631​750 Llinares, A., & Evnitskaya, M. (2021). Classroom interaction in CLIL programs: Offering opportunities or fostering inequalities? TESOL Quarterly, 55(2), 366–​397. https://​doi.org/​10.1002/​tesq.607 Mahan, K.R. (2020). The comprehending teacher: Scaffolding in content and language integrated learning (CLIL). The Language Learning Journal. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​09571​736.2019.1705​879

250

CLIL with secondary school learners Mahan, K.R., Brevik, L.M., & Ødegaard, M. (2021). Characterizing CLIL teaching: New insights from a lower secondary classroom. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 24(3), 401–​418. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​13670 ​050.2018.1472​206 Mari, V., & Carroll, K.S. (2021). Puerto Rican teachers’ and students’ beliefs toward Spanish use in the English classroom as a way to motivate students. Latin American Journal of Content and Language Integrated Learning, 13(2), 289–​311. https://​doi.org/​10.5294/​lac​l il.2020.13.2.6 Marsh, D., & Frigols Martín, M.J. (2013). Content and language integrated learning. In C.A. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics (pp. 1–​10). Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Martinez Agudo, J.D. (2021). To what extent do affective variables correlate with content learning achievements in CLIL programmes? Language and Education, 35(3), 226–​240. https://​doi.org/​ 10.1080/​09500​782.2020.1833​910 Mendez Garcia, M.D.C. (2012). The potential of CLIL for intercultural development: A case study of Andalusian bilingual schools. Language and Intercultural Communication, 12(3), 196–​213. http://​ dx.doi.org/​10.1080/​14708​477.2012.667​417 Merino, J.A., & Lasagabaster, D. (2018). The effect of content and language integrated learning programmes’ intensity on English proficiency: A longitudinal study. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 28(1), 18–​30. https://​doi.org/​10.1111/​ijal.12177 Möller, V. (2018). Promoting bilingualism at the primary and secondary level: The role of intelligence, motivation, and anxiety. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 24(9), 1306–​1323. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​13670 ​050.2018.1559​795 Morton, T. (2015). Vocabulary explanations in CLIL classrooms: A conversation analysis perspective. The Language Learning Journal, 43(3), 256–​270. http://​d x.doi.org/​10.1080/​09571​736.2015.1053​283 Ødegaard, M., Haug, B.S., Mork, S.M., & Sørvik, G.O. (2014). Challenges and support when teaching science through an integrated inquiry and literacy approach. International Journal of Science Education, 36(18), 2997–​3020. Pérez Canado, M.L., & Lancaster, N.K. (2017). The effects of CLIL on oral comprehension and production: A longitudinal case study. Language, Culture, and Curriculum, 30(3), 300–​316. http://​d x.doi. org/​10.1080/​07908​318.2017.1338​717 Pe ́rez-​Vidal, C., & Roquet, H. (2015). The linguistic impact of a CLIL science programme: An analysis measuring relative gains. System, 54, 80–​90. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.sys​tem.2015.05.004 Rachmajanti, S., & Anugerahwati, M. (2019). Predictors of the students’ English achievement at lower secondary school: CLIL context. TEFLIN Journal, 30(1), 72–​87. http://​d x.doi.org/​10.15639/​teflin​ jour​nal.v30i1/​72-​87 Salvador-​García, C., Capella-​Peris, C., Chiva-​Bartoll, O., & Ruiz-​Montero, P.J. (2020). A mixed methods study to examine the influence of CLIL on physical education lessons: Analysis of social interactions and physical activity levels. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 578. https://​doi.org/​10.3389/​ fpsyg.2020.00578 San Isidro, X., & Lasagabaster, D. (2019). The impact of CLIL on pluriliteracy development and content learning in a rural multilingual setting: A longitudinal study. Language Teaching Research, 23(5), 584–​602. https://​doi.org/​10.1177/​13621​6881​7754​103 Somers, T., & Llinares, A. (2021). Students’ motivation for content and language integrated learning and the role of programme intensity. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 24(6), 839–​854. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​13670 ​050.2018.1517​722 Tagnin, L., & Ní Ríordáin, M. (2021). Building science through questions in content and language integrated learning (CLIL) classrooms. International Journal of STEM Education, 8, 34. https://​doi. org/​10.1186/​s40​594- ​021- ​0 0293- ​0 Thompson, A.S., & Sylve ́n, L.K. (2015). Language learning motivation and CLIL. Journal of Immersion and Content-​Based Language Education, 3(1), 28–​50. https://​doi.org/​10.1075/​jicb.3.1.02syl Thompson, G., & McKinley, J. (2018). Integration of content and language learning. In J.I. Liontas (Ed.), The TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching (pp. 1–​13). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. https://​doi.org/​10.1002/​978111​8784​235.eelt0​634 Yang, W. (2015). Content and language integrated learning next in Asia: Evidence of learners’ achievement in CLIL education from a Taiwan tertiary degree programme. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 18(4), 361–​382. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​13670 ​050.2014.904​840

251

252

253

PART IV

CLIL in practice

254

255

17 TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS, BELIEFS, AND ATTITUDES ON CLIL Jermaine S. McDougald

Introduction Research about teachers’ perceptions, beliefs, and attitudes on CLIL has led to several projects that have opened the doors to implementation and provided valuable information for school administrators, educators, classroom practitioners, and the entire education ecosystem. This research has aided stakeholders across education levels in establishing clear educational goals on combing both content and language. Nonetheless, the debate is still active around how teachers’ perceptions, beliefs, and attitudes develop vis-​à-​v is CLIL. Gámez Macías (2020) reminds us that researching beliefs and perceptions provide educators with insight as to the students’ motivation and experience, as well as the teachers’ classroom behaviour, which is valuable information in comprehending what is needed for a successful CLIL class. The objective of this chapter is to discuss the different types of teacher perceptions, beliefs, and attitudes related to CLIL implementation as per the existing research. Then, the chapter revisits the benefits, challenges, and identifiable and desirable CLIL teacher competencies, through focused continued professional development (CPD) and how it influences CLIL. Overall, this chapter will provide insights and key perspectives from teachers’ drawing on findings from research that has examined their perceptions, beliefs, and attitudes on CLIL implementation.

Key terms Beliefs, perceptions, and experiences lead up to attitudes and then create a behaviour towards certain actions in general. The same applies to the CLIL classroom, in which these elements promote or influence behaviour. Five elements –​beliefs, perceptions, experiences, attitudes, and behaviour –​form a continuous cycle that is part of the teaching and learning process. Understanding these elements can help teachers define how classes are taught and the extent of their success.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003173151-22

255

Jermaine S. McDougald

Perceptions Before discussing teachers’ perceptions of CLIL, it is necessary to clarify the importance of including perceptions and attitudes in bilingual education research. These two terms –​ attitudes and perceptions –​are often viewed together when describing the teacher’s perspective as it pertains to pedagogical and classroom practices; however, these two terms need to be distinguished from one another. Perception refers to how one sees the world around oneself. Our perception of things, people, and situations is based on information that we already know about these elements. We draw on our perceptions in order to organise the teaching and learning process and to make sense of our context. Therefore, for bi-​/​multilingual educators, perception is important since it helps drive behaviours and actions in the CLIL classroom. In short, perception is affected by surroundings, experience, and information derived from a variety of sources. In this landscape, professional development (PD) programmes constitute a powerful source as they pave the way for informed decisions and actions which benefit the teaching and learning process. Since the mid-​1980s educational researchers (e.g., Borg et al., 1986) have examined notions of perceptions, discovering that these were a very important element in making decisions in the teaching environment. They found that teachers were pragmatic and tend to value knowledge and skills that have a direct relation to their effectiveness in the classroom, or even the programme they are using.

Beliefs and experiences An often-​cited definition of beliefs is that of Pajares (1992, p. 316): ‘an individual’s judgement of the truth or falsity of a proposition’. In the case of teachers this definition can be translated into their judgement of the effectiveness, or lack thereof, of certain teaching practices. Teachers arrive at the classroom with beliefs before even teaching their first lesson since they draw on their personal experiences as learners to inform their teaching practices. We all have beliefs regarding how classes should be taught or could be taught, but from different points of view. As time progresses, teachers’ beliefs are complemented with perceptions of how certain teaching scenarios work, based on things that are seen and felt according to the teaching context. However, experience must be factored in because to believe or to perceive certain things, they may need to be experienced. According to Borg (2018), teacher beliefs shape and are shaped by teaching experience. Therefore, teacher beliefs are central to understand their reaction to and participation in educational change. All teachers, regardless of their backgrounds, hold beliefs about their work, their students, their subject matter, as well as the rules and responsibilities in the classroom. Andreasen et al. (2019) suggest that teachers are like any other learner: they interpret new content through their existing understandings while modifying and reinterpreting new ideas based on what they already know or believe. Both teachers and learners bring meaningful experiences into the bi-​/​multilingual classroom, which is a valuable resource to both the teaching and learning process. Teachers employ a complex set of variables based on attitudes and experiences as well as expectations towards the teaching and learning process. Variables are closely related to beliefs about the nature of language learning and their conceptions about what the classroom rules should be like (Bovellan, 2014). It is important to study teacher beliefs for several reasons. According to Tsui (2003), conceptions of teaching and learning held by teachers have a powerful influence on their classroom practices on what and how they learn (p. 61). Tsui also claims that beliefs about 256

Teachers’ perceptions, beliefs, and attitudes on CLIL

teachers help them establish ‘a sense of the complex and multidimensional nature of classroom life, to identify goals, to prioritise actions to be taken, and to shape their evolving perception of themselves as teachers’ (Tsui, 2003, p. 61). There are different types of beliefs that can be found in the literature. Barcelos (2003) categorises teacher beliefs about second language acquisition (SLA) into three approaches: the normative approach, the metacognitive approach, and the contextual approach. Her classification is based on definitions of beliefs, research methodology, and the relationship between beliefs and other factors (see Villarreal Suarez et al., 2016). The normative approach is best described as individuals’ beliefs about the extent to which other people who are important to them think they should or should not perform behaviours (Trafimow, 2007). Bovellan (2014, p. 53) summarises normative beliefs as ‘students’ culture as an explanation for their behaviour in the classroom’. In turn, the metacognitive approach are beliefs defined by metacognitive knowledge and the contextual approach is more about beliefs that are embedded in students’ context or learning environment. This chapter adopts the contextual approach as a basis to help define teacher beliefs, as related to language learning, especially since CLIL teachers are placed in certain contexts, they get their beliefs from an array of previous experiences as a learner or teacher, and the social aspects of their lives in general. Contextual beliefs are important when discussing a CLIL approach since CLIL is context-​ oriented; no educational institution is the same and the CLIL principles are often interpreted and applied differently (Coyle et al., 2010). Teachers often have varying degrees of experience related to CLIL and bi-​/​multilingual education, since they all have started at different areas of the CLIL spectrum, thereby using that experience to shape their beliefs about integrating content and language. Since the CLIL approach is relatively new in comparison to other ELT approaches and methodologies, it is safe to say that not every teacher is aware and knowledgeable about CLIL.

Attitudes Classroom experiences lead to an attitude. Attitudes are positive or negative and they help shape behaviours, which are understood as visible pedagogical, instructional classroom practices. Within the field of teaching, an attitude may be defined as ‘a mental or neural state of readiness, organised through experience, exerting a directive or dynamic influence on the individual’s response to all objects and situations to which it is related’ (Allport, 1935, cited in Pickens, 2005, p. 44). In simpler terms, an attitude is a teacher’s mindset to act in a particular way because of their experience, disposition, or mood. So, the relationship between beliefs, perceptions, and attitudes is crucial in CLIL implementation at all levels. Thus, teacher beliefs help shape and/​or develop attitudes towards teaching, which leads to intentions that determine behaviours and classroom practices.

Review on teachers’ perceptions of CLIL Research into teachers’ attitudes and beliefs in CLIL contexts specifically is still rather scarce but it is gaining traction, as more CLIL programmes are implemented across the globe (Banegas et al., 2020b; De Mesmaeker & Lochtman, 2014). The outcomes from more recent studies (Karabassova & San Isidro, 2020; Soto, 2018) suggest that ‘teachers’ pedagogical decisions are based on their beliefs about what is appropriate for their learners in the specific situated context of their school and classroom realities’ (Soto, 2018, p. 220). An analysis of 257

Jermaine S. McDougald

the themes that surfaced during the review concerning teachers’ perceptions, beliefs, and attitudes is summarised below. Recent empirical studies can be summarised into five key areas where teachers have an opinion (perception, attitude, and/​or belief ) on CLIL implementation, usually connected to their self-​perceived lack of knowledge/​skills: (1) appropriate administrative and regulatory support; (2) content knowledge; (3) appropriate communication skills and appropriate language levels needed to successfully communicate; (4) knowledge of lesson planning; and (5) a general understanding of the CLIL concept. Below, I review recent studies connected to these five areas. Vilkancienė and Rozgienė (2017) in Lithuania claim that ‘teachers lack the appropriate administrative and regulatory support (both at school and a higher level) legalising and fostering this practice’ (p. 208), in which their beliefs do not coincide with institutional policy, thereby creating conflict with the overall objectives for CLIL implementation. Furthermore, Campillo et al. (2019, p. 154) in Spain also recognised that administrative support was needed for CLIL implementation in which ‘teachers demand a greater number of resources, training and coordination from the educational administrations’, to provide improved CLIL practices. In addition to institutional support, Tachaiyaphum and Sukying (2017) in Thailand, found that there were several issues and concerns teachers held regarding CLIL implementation. The authors claimed that teachers were concerned about their lack of content knowledge and the students’ low levels of English, which in turn proved to be a challenge for communication. The study also revealed that even after receiving training or professional development on CLIL, the participating teachers still grappled with their lesson planning, as teachers perceived Coyle et al.’s (2010) 4Cs Framework to be difficult to plan. This is also similar to Torres-​R incon and Cuesta-​Medina’s (2019) findings of their study in Colombia where they observed that teachers were not planning their lessons according to helpful CLIL planning tools such as the 4Cs Framework. In addition, teachers struggled to understand that CLIL ‘goes beyond the mere usage of the target language in content’ (p. 109), with no specific lesson planning format or connections to CLIL literature on lesson planning and delivery. There are diverse variations of CLIL educational programmes –​preschool, primary, secondary, higher education (HE), and vocational education; public or private –​that cater to learners at all levels of education regardless of their socio-​economic status. Yet, the debate is still active as to whether CLIL is designed for both resource-​rich as well as resource-​ limited educational contexts (Garzón-​Díaz, 2021; Mejía-​Mejía, 2016). Teachers believe that the CLIL approach in higher education is a challenge given the lack of resources (Del Pozo, 2015). This situation may have driven teachers to use EMI (English-​medium instruction) instead of CLIL, mainly since ‘EMI started at the tertiary level in universities, while CLIL was mainly used in primary and secondary schools’ (Carrió-​Pastor, 2021, p. 14). On the other hand, other studies have shown that CLIL has provided teachers with opportunities to integrate content subjects more successfully in higher education (Corrales et al., 2016; Garone et al., 2020), yet they believe that they lack proper administrative support, spaces for collaboration among lecturers and language support for both teachers and students (Arnó-​ Macià & Mancho-​Barés, 2015; Kim & Lee, 2020). Oattes et al. (2018) found that the Dutch history teachers’ perceptions of content and language integration were positive. Initially, the participating Dutch teachers found the duality of being subject and language teachers challenging, yet this challenge enhanced their teaching and learning skills in both history and language awareness, thereby categorising their perceptions of CLIL implementation as positive. 258

Teachers’ perceptions, beliefs, and attitudes on CLIL

Gámez Macías (2020) in Spain found that the science teachers perceived that the CLIL approach could be an obstacle for students to understand content area subjects, especially for learners with limited language competence in L2. However, Salvador-​García et al. (2018) in Spain also used the CLIL approach in a physical education course and claimed that it is important for teachers to also know and be aware of the student’s perception of the CLIL subject, thus enabling teachers in having first-​hand knowledge of aspects such as learners’ interest and motivations towards the subject, as well as levels of understanding and their fears in acquiring knowledge in L2. There are still gaps in research on teachers’ perceptions, beliefs and attitudes on CLIL implementation in relation to their lack of teacher training (Hunt et al., 2009; Kewara & Prabjandee, 2018; Pérez Cañado, 2020), limitations in lesson planning (Torres-​R incon & Cuesta-​Medina, 2019), limited knowledge of CLIL (Kewara & Prabjandee, 2018; Lo et al., 2019), and teachers’ beliefs that their L2 proficiency is not good enough to engage in CLIL implementation (Tatzl, 2011; Vilkancienė & Rozgienė, 2017). Nevertheless, several studies (Arnó-​Macià & Mancho-​Barés, 2015; Ghanaguru & Rao, 2013; Huettner et al., 2013; McDougald, 2020; Suárez Flórez & Basto Basto, 2017) over the past decade have focused on perceptions and attitudes on CLIL implementation at all educational levels. Although most of these studies report students’ and teachers’ positive attitudes as well as the administrators’ willingness to implement CLIL, there are still grey areas such as CLIL in context, fundamental concepts of CLIL, institutional and individualised training plans, that need to be resolved and understood by educators regarding CLIL implementation. It is of vital importance to understand what kinds of beliefs teachers have about learning, language, and content in CLIL, and how these beliefs influence the teaching and learning practices related to CLIL pedagogy. These decisions strongly affect the teacher’s behaviours and choice towards materials, resources, decisions, and assessment practices, among others, thereby influencing teachers’ attitudes towards CLIL pedagogy, which is crucial in guiding their pedagogical practices. This becomes of special interest, especially when teaching through a foreign language, making what they think, believe, or perceive a vital part of the bi-​/​multilingual educational process. Due to CLIL’s vast reach within education, McDougald and Alvarez Ayure (2021) recognise that the doubts that exist are likely to surface when CLIL is implemented, thereby creating gaps of information as to its efficiency, value, or even the possibility of being used in different teaching contexts. This very volume demonstrates the positive benefits that this approach has provided, where teachers report positive perceptions that may lead to conducive classroom experiences, which in turn may result in improvement in terms of content delivery, materials and assessment (Vilkancienė & Rozgienė, 2017).

Experiences and attitudes towards CLIL There have been studies carried out across the globe on teachers’ experiences and attitudes toward CLIL (Arnó-​ Macià & Mancho-​ Barés, 2015; Arribas, 2016; Cinganotto, 2016; Finardi et al., 2016; Jaramillo et al., 2016; McDougald, 2015; Ruiz de Zarobe, 2013) since it continues to provide educators with a viable option to quality education. These studies may invite institutions and educators to reconsider PD programmes and curricula that incorporate 21st-​century skills and competencies (McDougald & Pissarello, 2020) and provide possible solutions for different stakeholders, thereby making the case for CLIL implementation clearer for many. For example, secondary teachers in the United Arab Emirates (Younes, 2016) had positive attitudes toward CLIL implementation, even though the approach 259

Jermaine S. McDougald

was demanding; teachers recognised the impact the approach had on the target language (English), not to mention that their learners preferred learning the content through CLIL in the TL and not in Arabic. Along the same lines, Japanese pre-​service elementary teachers reported that ‘making CLIL lessons was a great opportunity to learn diverse aspects of teaching multiple subjects not only English’ (Kashiwagi & Tomecsek, 2015, p. 82). These teachers also referred to CLIL as an effective teaching style that allows teachers to engage and inspire their students. In turn, the teachers from Spain in Arnó-​Macià and Mancho-​Barés’ (2015) study ‘showed positive views towards CLIL, expressing language benefits like specific vocabulary/​d iscourse, the development of fluency, and students losing their fear of speaking in public’ (p. 68). These teachers also noted the need for both language support and the gradual increase of language demands in CLIL courses and considered CLIL as an ‘opportunity for authentic language use’ or as a way for learners to practise (discipline-​related) English (Arnó-​Macià & Mancho-​ Barés, 2015, p. 68). Experiences and attitudes are crucial in creating realistic educational programmes, especially since ‘CLIL subject teachers are key players in the bilingual education of students, and the importance of teacher perceptions or teacher beliefs on the decision-​m aking process of (language) teaching’ (Oattes et al., 2018, p. 166) are key in the teaching and learning process. Due to the diverse aspects of CLIL programmes, teachers can benefit from CLIL CPD, which, as mentioned above, can help them revisit their own beliefs, perceptions, and attitudes. For example, in McDougald and Pissarello’s (2020) study in Colombia, teachers reported that CLIL training courses were useful in helping them to better understand the concepts of CLIL. Teachers reported being more comfortable with lesson planning under this approach while gaining access to new learning strategies. Similarly, teachers’ feedback on similar courses has allowed administrators and decision-​m akers to promote and design context-​oriented CLIL models (Alumnado & Manzano, 2020; Grady, 2016).

CLIL benefits The findings summarised below are based on teachers’ reported perceptions, beliefs, and attitudes on CLIL implementation. The studies show that CLIL has been consistent with research on immersion as well as other models of bilingual education that are in line with additive bilingual education. Studies continue to highlight benefits such as linguistic, academic, and socially beneficial outcomes (Cross & Gearon, 2013). Concerning comparisons between CLIL and non-​CLIL students, the former appear to be more engaged than the latter due to the authenticity of the content that drives the CLIL learning experience (Coyle et al., 2010; Mehisto et al., 2008). Teachers and researchers alike continue to report that CLIL students show a strong performance on tests in L2 competence as compared to learners in non-​CLIL programmes (Cano Blandón, 2015). Cihat Yavuz et al. (2020) also claimed that there are benefits to implementing the CLIL approach in which it ‘enables contextualization of language learning by providing authentic settings, thus helping students acquire the language better’ (p. 98). Furthermore, the authors claim that learners also experienced benefits of increased motivation, communication, more specifically fluency, collaboration, and creativity. In this regard, del Puerto and Lacabex (2017) found positive connections between learners’ oral proficiency and motivation in CLIL settings. As the studies above illustrate, teachers may see the CLIL approach as positive, even though teachers are still coming to terms with all the variables that CLIL brings to bi-​/​ 260

Teachers’ perceptions, beliefs, and attitudes on CLIL

multilingual educational scenarios (Cihat Yavuz et al., 2020; Oattes et al., 2018; Vilkancienė & Rozgienė, 2017). An example of this is seen in Huertas-​Abril and Shashken’s (2021) study, in which the outcomes of using CLIL –​increased student interest, students acquiring the TL better used in lessons, designed for modern-​d ay education –​outweighed the challenges such as low language proficiency or limited resources. This echoes Lundin and Persson’s (2015, p. 36) findings in Sweden reinforcing the benefits of CLIL where they reported that ‘participants are very positive to using content and language integration as a means to enhance learner engagement and confidence in language use as well as to giving the students a deeper knowledge of the subject areas’.

CLIL challenges Empirical research and studies in the past decade have provided a picture of how teachers’ perceptions, beliefs and attitudes have influenced the implementation of the CLIL approach. Among the challenges reported, teachers’ professional development, learners’ L2 proficiency, and teaching and learning materials (Banegas et al., 2020a, p. 2) appear to be the most dominant. Yet, teacher training or continuing professional development continues to be at the forefront of the challenges of CLIL implementation according to teachers. Teachers are still left with doubts on the CLIL philosophy, as well as grey areas on assessment and overall doubts about linguistic competences (Coonan et al., 2017; Kewara & Prabjandee, 2018; Oattes et al., 2018; Pérez Cañado, 2016b). In a study conducted in Spain, Samper’s (2015) participating teachers underscore lesson planning as a challenge, especially when they are asked to incorporate Coyle et al.’s (2010) 4Cs Framework as a planning tool. This is also echoed by Satayev et al. (2022) in Sweden, where teachers also found it difficult to plan CLIL teaching units, in which they were not able to include adequate support (scaffolding) and/​or challenges (differentiated instruction) for the different learners while designing tasks that foster natural collaboration (Lundin & Persson, 2015). Nevertheless, Samper (2015, p. 294) adds that another difficult challenge for teachers to overcome was to ‘create a context in which students feel the need to communicate in English’, especially since teachers are faced every day with creating a rich L2 learning environment, that surrounds the learner with rich subject content, and extensive oral and written language input. Martínez Agudo (2019) suggests that the CLIL approach presents challenges because of its diversity and flexibility in terms of formats and practices. CLIL by nature is context-​oriented, and therefore, there are many ways in which the approach could be implemented (Coyle et al., 2010). This alone can bring about doubts for teachers, and in turn these reservations may eventually lead to challenges which prevent CLIL success (Mehisto et al., 2008; Nikula et al., 2013).

CLIL competency and CPD Teacher perceptions surrounding CLIL implementation go beyond what teachers experience or believe since lack of preparation has influenced educators’ beliefs regarding the extent to which they can perform (McDougald, 2020; Pérez Cañado, 2016a). Quality education requires quality teachers, and these quality teachers require essential competencies and skills when teaching in bi-​/​multilingual contexts to successfully combine content and language. Vázquez and Ellison (2013) suggest eight areas of CLIL teacher competency: learner needs, planning, multimodality, interaction, subject literacies, evaluation, cooperation and 261

Jermaine S. McDougald

reflection, context, and culture. Scholars (Lo, 2020; Pérez Cañado, 2018, 2020) agree that there is an urgent need for a point of reference that can guide professional development and teacher education in CLIL pedagogy, thereby providing practitioners with clarity on what they need to improve on. These competencies are in addition to the core competencies that teachers should possess such as pedagogical, personal, social, and professional, which are theorised as core competencies for teachers’ innovative teaching as well as bilingual instructional competencies. Yet, these competencies have played an important role in shaping and determining educational aims and systems (Shekhawat & Thakur, 2014). Some frameworks help to guide PD in CLIL such as the European Framework for CLIL Teacher Education (Ruiz-​Garrido & Gómez, 2009) or the CLIL Teacher’s Competences Grid (Bertaux et al., 2010) which maps competencies for quality CLIL learning environments focusing on CLIL underpinnings and CLIL in action. Since the approach is context-​oriented, the need for context-​specific frameworks would be beneficial, thereby incorporating competencies needed or desired, which in turn would provide CLIL teachers with a clearer path for professional development. Teacher education programmes have a crucial role in helping shape ideas related to bi-​/​ multilingual education (Banegas, 2014; Mena et al., 2017) but also the experience gained from training makes a difference in teacher practice. Considering that many initiatives are set up to help teachers improve their practice, the downfall is that these initiatives are often isolated, with no clear direction, or are simply connected to commercial products (textbooks, off-​the-​shelf programmes, software programmes, etc.) where training is very specific to a product and are not guided by a more structured framework for PD. Therefore, having a focused PD for CLIL practitioners (Lo, 2020) would allow them to select and choose the tracks that are needed to help them develop and grow within the CLIL pedagogy. As mentioned previously, the experience that CLIL teachers bring to the classroom on how to integrate content and language comes at different levels. There are experienced bi-​/​multilingual teachers, who clearly understand SLA and have demonstrated results and there are novice bilingual teachers, who have limited classroom experience, and a toolbox of theories acquired from initial teacher education programmes yet to be problematised to inform practice. Yet, these two types of teachers are often placed together in the same teaching context and are expected to deliver the same results. Focused PD programmes for in-​service teachers are an opportunity to maintain quality educational programmes that have local contextualised learning objectives for the integration of content and language.

Conclusions and implications The chapter has provided reviewed literature that sheds light on CLIL teachers’ beliefs, perceptions, attitudes, behaviours, and experiences. Studies have found that CLIL is perceived as a conducive to tackle challenges presented in bi-​/​multilingual environments and where content specialists have also been found to be motivated towards using CLIL to deliver content classes (Gámez Macías, 2020; Oattes et al., 2018; Torres-​R incon & Cuesta-​ Medina, 2019; Vilkancienė & Rozgienė, 2017). Furthermore, CLIL practitioners across the globe have expressed and developed a positive attitude towards using this approach; however, they have also reiterated concerns about acquiring competencies needed for successful classroom practices for content and language integration, not just language. Teachers also expressed the need for opportunities for collaboration among colleagues, clear implementation guidelines, and increased cooperation by administrators, along with language and linguistic support. 262

Teachers’ perceptions, beliefs, and attitudes on CLIL

Some of the most important lessons highlighted in this chapter are that there are still teachers who are trying to understand the extent to which CLIL provides an adequate educational approach, and mindsets are still wrapped around the language portion, leaving gaps in understanding how the language is used with the content. Yet, the perceived challenges of being a subject teacher and a language teacher are still present, but the benefits of enhanced teaching practices for subject teachers have been seen as a positive aspect of the CLIL approach. In turn, language teachers continue to enjoy the benefits of CLIL, but also acknowledge their lack of sufficient knowledge in content areas, thus requiring additional time to plan accordingly, thereby distorting the lens of the positive views on CLIL and relabelling CLIL as time-​consuming, troublesome, challenging, or unrealistic. The aspects explored in this chapter are invitations for the ELT, CLIL, and content teachers to join forces to explore collectively and combat the misconceptions surrounding CLIL practices, thus paving the way for future research endeavours. The issues discussed in this chapter are not related to a particular region or area; however, all the teachers that have voiced their opinions about CLIL implementation come from across the globe, where they are experiencing similarities in terms of benefits and/​or challenges in CLIL. Taking advantage of teachers’ voices is paramount to co-​construct policy or to develop focused CLIL PD programmes that foster quality bi-​/​multilingual education across settings.

Further reading Ball, P., Kelly, K., & Clegg, J. (2016). Oxford handbooks for language teachers: Putting CLIL into practice. Oxford University Press. This book provides an overview of the CLIL approach in action, through real-​l ife examples for all types of CLIL practitioners. It can help teachers inform, confirm, and challenge their beliefs and attitudes. Lo, Y.Y. (2020). Professional development of CLIL teachers. Springer Nature. A practical guide to aid educators in better comprehending CLIL professional development through theoretical models and empirical evidence. Marsh, D., Cañado, M.L., & Padilla, J.R. (Eds.). (2015). CLIL in action: Voices from the classroom. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. An excellent volume that looks at CLIL from implementation, research, and teacher training drawing on key examples and insights from each area.

References Alumnado, P.D.E.L., & Manzano, I.A. (2020). Students’ perceptions in a CLIL context. E-​SEDLL, 3, 125–​138. Andreasen, J.K., Bjørndal, C.R.P., & Kovač, V.B. (2019). Being a teacher and teacher educator: The antecedents of teacher educator identity among mentor teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 85, 281–​291. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.tate.2019.05.011 Arnó-​Macià, E., & Mancho-​Barés, G. (2015). The role of content and language in content and language integrated learning (CLIL) at university: Challenges and implications for ESP. English for Specific Purposes, 37(1), 63–​73. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.esp.2014.06.007 Arribas, M. (2016). Analysing a whole CLIL school: Students’ attitudes, motivation, and receptive vocabulary outcomes. Latin American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning (LACLIL), 9(2), 267–​292. https://​doi.org/​10.5294/​lac​l il.2016.9.2.6 Banegas, D.L. (2014). Initial English language teacher education: Processes and tensions towards a unifying curriculum in an Argentinian province. English Teaching, 13(1), 224–​237. Banegas, D.L., Corrales, K., & Poole, P. (2020a). Can engaging L2 teachers as material designers contribute to their professional development? Findings from Colombia. System, 91, 102265. https://​ doi.org/​10.1016/​j.sys​tem.2020.102​265

263

Jermaine S. McDougald Banegas, D.L., Poole, P.M., & Corrales, K.A. (2020b). Content and language integrated learning in Latin America 2008–​2018: Ten years of research and practice. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 10(2), 283–​305. https://​doi.org/​10.14746/​ssllt.2020.10.2.4 Barcelos, A.M.F. (2003). Researching beliefs about SLA: A critical review. In P. Kalaja & A.M.F. Barcelos (Eds.), Beliefs about SLA: New research approaches (pp. 7–​33). Springer. Bertaux, P., Coonan, C.M., Frigols-​Martín, M.J., & Mehisto, P. (2010). The CLIL teacher’s competences grid. http://​t pl​usm.net/​CLIL_​Comp​eten​ces_​Grid ​_ ​31.12.09.pdf Borg, S. (2018). Teachers’ beliefs and classroom practices. In P. Garrett & J.M. Cots (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of language awareness (pp. 75–​91). Routledge. Borg, W.R., Worthen, B.R., & Valcarce, R.W. (1986). Teachers’ perceptions of the importance of educational measurement. Journal of Experimental Education, 55(1), 9–​14. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​ 00220​973.1986.10806​428 Bovellan, E. (2014). Teachers’ beliefs about learning and language as reflected in their views of teaching materials for content and language integrated learning (CLIL). Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Jyväskylä. Campillo, J.M., Sánchez, R., & Miralles, P. (2019). Primary teachers’ perceptions of CLIL implementation in Spain. English Language Teaching, 12(4), 149–​156. https://​doi.org/​10.5539/​ELT.V12N4P​149 Cano Blandón, R.D. (2015). Evaluating the implementation of content classes delivered in English in light of a CLIL-​based curriculum. Unpublished master’s thesis. Universidad Pontificia Bolivariana. Carrió-​Pastor, M.L. (2021). CLIL vs EMI: Different approaches or the same dog with a different collar? In M.L. Carrió-​Pastor & B. Bellés Fortuño (Eds.), Teaching language and content in multicultural and multilingual classrooms (13–​30). Springer International Publishing. https://​doi.org/​10.1007/​ 978-​3 - ​030-​56615-​9 Cihat Yavuz, A., Öztüfekçi, A., Demet Ören, A., Kaplan, A., & Yilmaz Uzunkaya, Ç. (2020). Teachers’ perceptions and needs of CLIL: A collective case study from Turkey. Shanlax International Journal of Education, 9(1), 92–​103. https://​doi.org/​10.34293/​educat​ion.v9i1.3506 Cinganotto, L. (2016). CLIL in Italy: A general overview. Latin American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning (LACLIL), 9(2), 374–​400. https://​doi.org/​https://​doi.org/​10.5294/​7177 Coonan, C.M., Favaro, L., & Menegale, M. (Eds.). (2017). A journey through the content and language integrated learning landscape: problems and prospects. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Corrales, K.A., Paba Rey, L.A., & Escamilla, N.S. (2016). Is EMI Enough? Perceptions from university professors and students. Latin American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning (LACLIL), 9(2), 318–​344. https://​doi.org/​https://​doi.org/​10.5294/​7094 Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge University Press. Cross, R., & Gearon, M. (2013). Research and evaluation of the content and language integrated learning (CLIL) approach to teaching and learning languages in Victorian schools. www.educat ​ion.vic.gov.au/​ Docume​nts/​sch​ool/​teach​ers/​teachi​ngre​sour​ces/​d is​cipl ​i ne/​langua​ges/​CLILt ​r ial ​rese​a rch ​r pt.pdf De Mesmaeker, E., & Lochtman, K. (2014). Belgian CLIL teachers’ professional identity. In D. Abendroth-​Timmer & E-​M. Hennig (Eds.), Plurilingualism and multiliteracies (pp. 191–​208). Peter Lang AG. Del Pozo, M.Á.M. (2015). Signposts for comprehensive knowledge of CLIL contexts. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 212, 99–​105. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.sbs​pro.2015.11.305 Del Puerto, F.G., & Lacabex, E.G. (2017). Oral production outcomes in CLIL: An attempt to manage amount of exposure. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5(1), 31–​54. https://​doi.org/​10.1515/​ eujal-​2015-​0 035 Dobson, C. (1985). Attitudes and perceptions. In E.A. Powers, W.J. Goudy, & P.M. Keith (Eds.), Later life transitions: Older males in rural America (pp. 123–​136). Springer Netherlands. https://​doi.org/​ 10.1007/​978-​94-​0 09-​4978-​2 _​11 Finardi, K., Leao, R., & Pinheiro, L.M. (2016). English in Brazil: Insights from the analysis of language policies, internationalisation programs and the CLIL approach. Education and Linguistics Research, 2(1), 54. https://​doi.org/​10.5296/​elr.v2i1.9150 Gámez Macías, J. (2020). Students and teachers’ perceptions on CLIL: Exploring the socio-​affective factors and the diversity in levels of English in a science CLIL class. Universitat Ramon Llull. Garone, A., Van de Craen, P., & Struyven, K. (2020). Multilingual nursing education: Nursing students’ and teachers’ interests, perceptions and expectations. Nurse Education Today, 86, 104311. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.nedt.2019.104​311

264

Teachers’ perceptions, beliefs, and attitudes on CLIL Garzón-​Díaz, E. (2021). From cultural awareness to scientific citizenship: Implementing content and language integrated learning projects to connect environmental science and English in a state school in Colombia. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 24(2), 242–​259. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​13670 ​050.2018.1456​512 Ghanaguru, S., & Rao, R. (2013). Pre-​service ELT teacher beliefs: Implications for teacher education. The English Teacher, 42(1), 37–​51. Grady, C.E. (2016). Educational stakeholders’ perceptions of parental involvement in an urban school setting. Unpublished master’s thesis. Walden University. Huertas-​Abril, C.A., & Shashken, A. (2021). Exploring the potential of CLIL in Kazakhstan: A qualitative study. Revista Complutense de Educación, 32(2), 261–​271. https://​doi.org/​10.5209/​RCED.68345 Huettner, J., Dalton-​Puffer, C., & Smit, U. (2013). The power of beliefs: Lay theories and their influence on the implementation of CLIL programmes. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16(3), 267–​284. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​13670 ​050.2013.777​385 Hunt, M., Neofitou, A., & Redford, J. (2009). Developing CLIL training for modern languages teacher trainees. In D. Marsh, P. Mehisto, D. Wolff, R. Aliaga, T. Asikainen, M.J. Frigols-​Martin, S. Hughes, & G. Langé (Eds.), CLIL practice: Perspectives from the field (110–​116). University of Jyväskylä. Jaramillo, S., Opina, D.A., & Reinoso, P.E. (2016). Analysis of a dynamic bilingual education model based on CLIL and translanguaging in a state school. Published undergraduate thesis. Universidad Tecnológica de Pereira. Karabassova, L., & San Isidro, X. (2020). Towards translanguaging in CLIL: A study on teachers’ perceptions and practices in Kazakhstan. International Journal of Multilingualism, 1–​20. https://​doi. org/​10.1080/​14790​718.2020.1828​426 Kashiwagi, K., & Tomecsek, J. (2015). How CLIL classes exert a positive influence on teaching style in student centered language learning through overseas teacher training in Sweden and Finland. Procedia, Social and Behavioural Sciences, 173, 79–​84. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.sbs​pro.2015.02.034 Kewara, P., & Prabjandee, D. (2018). CLIL teacher professional development for content teachers in Thailand. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 6(1), 93–​108. Kim, H.K., & Lee, S. (2020). Multiple roles of language teachers in supporting CLIL. English Teaching and Learning, 44(2), 109–​126. https://​doi.org/​10.1007/​s42​321-​020-​0 0050-​6 Lo, Y.Y. (2020). Empirical studies on cross-​curricular collaboration: Promises and pitfalls. In Y.Y. Lo (Ed.), Professional development of CLIL teachers (pp. 49–​92). Springer Singapore. Lo, Y.Y., Lui, W., & Wong, M. (2019). Scaffolding for cognitive and linguistic challenges in CLIL science assessments. Journal of Immersion and Content-​ Based Language Education, 7(2), 289–​314. https://​doi.org/​10.1075/​jicb.18028.lo Lundin, C., & Persson, L. (2015). Advantages and challenges with CLIL: A study examining teachers’ thoughts on learner engagement and confidence within content and language integrated learning. Malmö Universitet. Martínez Agudo, J. de D. (2019). Which instructional programme (EFL or CLIL) results in better oral communicative competence? Updated empirical evidence from a monolingual context. Linguistics and Education, 51, 69–​78. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.lin​ged.2019.04.008 McDougald, J.S. (2015). Teachers’ attitudes, perceptions and experiences in CLIL: A look at content and language. Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal, 17(1), 25–​41. https://​doi.org/​10.14483/​udi​stri​ tal.jour.calj.2015.1.a02 McDougald, J.S. (2020). What is next for CLIL professional development? Latin American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning (LACLIL), 12(2), 197–​206. https://​doi.org/​10.5294/​lac​ lil.2019.12.2.1 McDougald, J.S., & Alvarez Ayure, C.P. (2021). Expanding the value of CLIL: Perspectives from primary to higher education. Latin American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning (LACLIL), 13(2), 155–​162. https://​doi.org/​10.5294/​lac​l il.2020.13.2.1 McDougald, J.S., & Pissarello, D. (2020). Content and language integrated learning: In-​ service teachers’ knowledge and perceptions before and after a professional development program. Íkala, 25(2), 353–​372. https://​doi.org/​10.17533/​udea.ikala.v25n02​a03 Mehisto, P., Frigols, M.J., & Marsh, D. (2008). Uncovering CLIL: Content and language integrated learning in bilingual and multilingual education. Macmillan Education. Mejía-​Mejía, S. (2016). ¿Vamos hacia una Colombia Bilingu ë ? Análisis de la brecha académica entre el sector público y privado en la educación del inglés. Educación y Educadores, 19(2), 223–​237. https://​ doi.org/​10.5294/​edu.2016.19.2.3

265

Jermaine S. McDougald Mena, J., Hennissen, P., & Loughran, J. (2017). Developing pre-​service teachers’ professional knowledge of teaching: The influence of mentoring. Teaching and Teacher Education, 66, 47–​59. https://​ doi.org/​10.1016/​j.tate.2017.03.024 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 Oattes, H., Oostdam, R., de Graaff, R., & Wilschut, A. (2018). The challenge of balancing content and language: Perceptions of Dutch bilingual education history teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 70(2), 165–​174. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.tate.2017.11.022 Pajares, M.F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307–​332. https://​doi.org/​10.2307/​1170​741 Pérez Cañado, M.L. (2016a). Are teachers ready for CLIL? Evidence from a European study. European Journal of Teacher Education, 39(2), 202–​221. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​02619​768.2016.1138​104 Pérez Cañado, M.L. (2016b). Teacher training needs for bilingual education: In-​ service teacher perceptions. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 19(3), 266–​295.https://​doi. org/​10.1080/​13670​050.2014.980​778 Pérez Cañado, M.L. (2018). Innovations and challenges in CLIL teacher training. Theory into Practice, 57(3), 1–​10. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​0 0405​841.2018.1492​238 Pérez Cañado, M.L. (2020). Addressing the research gap in teacher training for EMI: An evidence-​ based teacher education proposal in monolingual contexts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 48. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.jeap.2020.100​927 Pickens, J. (2005). Perceptions and attitudes of individuals. In N. Borkowski (Ed.), Organizational behavior in health care (pp. 44–​76). Jones & Barlett Publishing. Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (2013). CLIL implementation: from policy-​ m akers to individual initiatives. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16(3), 231–​243. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​ 13670​050.2013.777​383 Ruiz-​Garrido, M., & Gómez, I.F. (2009). Needs analysis in a CLIL context: A transfer from ESP. In D. Marsh, P. Mehisto, D. Wolff, R. Aliaga, T. Asikainen, M.J. Frigols-​Martin, S. Hughes, & G. Langé (Eds.), CLIL practice: Perspectives from the field (pp. 179–​188). University of Jyväskylä. Salvador-​García, C., Chiva-​bartoll, Ó., José, J., Gallego, V., España, U.J.I., & España, U.D.V. (2018). Perception of students on the use of CLIL method in physical education: A case study. Retos, 33, 138–​142. Samper, M. C. (2015). Evaluation of the implementation of CLIL (content and language integrated learning) methodology in the didactics of the English language in preschool education course taught in the preschool education teacher undergraduate program at the University of Ali. Universidad de Alicante. Satayev, M., Balta, N., Shaymerdenovna, I.R., Fernández-​Cézar, R., & Alcaraz-​Mármol, G. (2022). Content and language integrated learning implementation through team teaching in biology lessons: A quasi-​ experimental design with university students. Frontiers in Education, 7, 1–​11. https://​doi.org/​10.3389/​feduc.2022.867​4 47 Shekhawat, M., & Thakur, A. (2014). The study of different components of teacher competencies and their effectiveness on student performance (according to students). International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT), 3(7), 1426–​1428. Soto, M.A. (2018). Imaginary realities: Curriculum change that ignores classroom contexts. In M. Wedell, & L. Grassick (Eds.), International perspectives on teachers living with curriculum change (pp. 205–​ 227). Palgrave Macmillan. https://​doi.org/​10.1057/​978-​1-​137-​54309-​7_​11 Suárez Flórez, S.A., & Basto Basto, E.A. (2017). Identifying pre-​service teachers’ beliefs about teaching EFL and their potential changes. PROFILE Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development, 19(2), 167–​ 184. https://​doi.org/​10.15446/​prof​i le.v19n2.59675 Tachaiyaphum, N., & Sukying, A. (2017). EFL pre-​service teachers’ perceptions of CLIL. Asian Education Studies, 2(4), 44. https://​doi.org/​10.20849/​A ES.V2I4.283 Tatzl, D. (2011). English-​ medium masters’ programmes at an Austrian university of applied sciences: Attitudes, experiences and challenges. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 10(4), 252–​ 270. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.jeap.2011.08.003 Torres-​ R incon, J.C., & Cuesta-​ Medina, L.M. (2019). Situated practice in CLIL: Voices from Colombian teachers. GiST Education and Learning Research Journal, 18, 109–​141. https://​doi.org/​ 10.26817/​16925​777.456

266

Teachers’ perceptions, beliefs, and attitudes on CLIL Trafimow, D. (2007). Normative beliefs: Description and theoretical background normative. www.acade​m ia. edu/​9457​885/​NORMATIVE_ ​BELIEFS_ ​Description ​_ ​a nd ​_​The​oret​ical ​_ ​Bac​kgro​u nd Tsui, A.B.M. (2003). Understanding expertise in teaching: Case studies of ESL teachers. Cambridge University Press. Vásquez, C. (2004). Review: Understanding expertise in teaching: Case studies of ESL teachers by A.B.M. Tsui. TESOL Quarterly, 38(1), 167–​169. https://​doi.org/​10.2307/​3588​268 Vázquez, V.P., & Ellison, M. (2013). Examining teacher roles and competences in (CLIL). Lingvarum Arena, 4, 65–​78. Vilkancienė, L., & Rozgienė, I. (2017). CLIL teacher competences and attitudes. Sustainable Multilingualism, 11(1), 196–​218. https://​doi.org/​10.1515/​sm-​2017- ​0 019 Villarreal Suarez, J., Muñoz Taborda, J.V., & Perdomo Santacruz, J.M. (2016). Students’ beliefs about their English class: Exploring new voices in a national discussion. PROFILE Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development, 18(2), 139. https://​doi.org/​10.15446/​prof​i le.v18n2.53388 Younes, M. (2016). The impact of CLIL on Arabic, English and content learning of Arab high school students in the UAE. Unpublished master’s thesis. American University of Sharjah College of Engineering.

267

268

18 THE LEARNER’S PERSPECTIVE ON CLIL Attitudes, motivations, and perceptions Xabier San Isidro and María Luisa Pérez Cañado

Introduction The widespread endorsement and increasing popularity of content and language integrated learning (CLIL) among policymakers and practitioners in recent decades has run parallel with researchers striving to keep track of the phenomenal growth of this approach. The literature on the topic has increased exponentially and adapted to a myriad of contexts. Until recently research has put the spotlight on measuring students’ results to a much greater extent than on tapping into their perspectives and beliefs (Lorenzo et al., 2021; Madrid & Barrios, 2018; Pavón Vázquez, 2018; Pérez Cañado, 2020; Rascón Moreno & Bretones Callejas, 2018; Shepherd & Ainsworth, 2017). In the past few years, the thrust of the arguments found in the majority of empirically robust studies comparing CLIL and non-​CLIL learners is that CLIL cohorts are more motivated and usually outperform their non-​CLIL counterparts in additional language learning without L1 and content learning being affected (Barrios, 2021; Dallinger et al., 2016; Fernández-​Sanjurjo et al., 2019; Martínez Agudo, 2021; Navarro-​ Pablo & López Gándara, 2020; Ouazizi, 2016; Pérez Cañado, 2018a; Piesche et al., 2016; San Isidro & Lasagabaster, 2019; Surmont et al., 2016). Within those studies, students have been key stakeholders whose language proficiency, subject mastery, verbal intelligence, socio-​ economic status, or motivations and attitudes have been measured, quantified, and evaluated from multifaceted perspectives in order to appraise the full effects of CLIL programmes (Bauer-​Marschallinger, 2020; Dalton-​Puffer et al., 2021; Doiz & Lasagabaster, 2018; Nishida, 2021). However, despite the numerous studies, the CLIL learner’s perspective is one of the most underexplored areas. This is undoubtedly a major niche which should figure prominently on the CLIL agenda, as students are the whole raison d’être of setting in motion such a pedagogical innovation initiative. Stakeholder perceptions on these programmes should be an important remit of research, as Barrios (2022, p. 183) underscores: However, some areas of CLIL remain in need of further exploration. One such area is that of stakeholders’ perceptions of CLIL, the interest of which lies in the fact that their interpretations and beliefs are crucial to understand how the CLIL 268

DOI: 10.4324/9781003173151-23

The learner’s perspective on CLIL: Attitudes, motivations, and perceptions

programme is socially viewed, understood, and constructed, and the expectations it raises. And student perceptions are even more significant, as they ‘can be reliable and predictive of learning (Wallace et al., 2016), and allowing students to express their perceptions of teaching is a powerful diagnostic tool’ (Mahan & Norheim, 2021, p. 77). Indeed, when students take centre stage and become the true protagonists of the learning process, it becomes incumbent upon us to gauge their outlook on the development and implementation of CLIL programmes in order to do some much-​needed stocktaking and to identify scope for improvement. This is the objective of the present chapter: to canvass the existing research on student attitudes, motivations, and perceptions on CLIL. Two clear-​cut movements will be discerned in the literature on this topic: the examination of students’ attitudes and motivations in CLIL scenarios, and the in-​depth scrutiny of their perceptions on programme development and evaluation. These two strands will be approached from a three-​pronged perspective. To begin with, the chapter will summarise learners’ attitudes and motivations, along with their views on CLIL programme evaluation, including curricular and organisational aspects. It will then expound on within-​cohort analyses conducted to determine statistically significant differences in terms of a series of identification variables, such as gender, country, setting, type of school, grade, experience in a CLIL programme, or number of subjects received in English. Finally, it will consider across-​cohort analyses to identify the main areas where divergences and similarities with other key stakeholders (e.g., teachers and parents) transpire.

The studies and method Despite the comparative paucity of research into CLIL student perspectives, the number of stringent studies on this topic has recently increased, and progress has been made in their robustness. From initial cross-​sectional studies (e.g., Lorenzo et al., 2009), there has been a transition towards longitudinal investigations (e.g., Nishida, 2021). From general studies focusing on a handful of CLIL-​related aspects (e.g., Alonso et al., 2008), the move has been made to comprehensive overviews of CLIL programmes in all their curricular and organisational facets (e.g., Durán-​Martínez & Beltrán-​Llavador, 2016). Work with reduced numbers of respondents (e.g., Infante et al., 2009) has given way to geographically and numerically representative samples (e.g., Pérez Cañado, 2017). From modest instances of survey-​based research (e.g., Cabezas Cabello, 2010), a qualitative leap has been taken to studies which factor in data, methodological, or location triangulation, and a much tighter control of numerous identification variables (e.g., Pérez Cañado, 2018b). Global analyses of cohort stakeholder perceptions (e.g., Rubio Mostacero, 2009) have been refined via within-​ and across-​cohort comparisons (e.g., Lancaster, 2016) which have unveiled very interesting patterns. And, finally, from isolated studies in concrete contexts (e.g., Czura et al., 2009), research has evolved towards a replication of similar studies in diverse settings to determine whether the same trends emerge, or a completely different reality transpires (e.g., Pérez Cañado, 2021). In line with the foregoing, and in order to offer a reliable snapshot of student perspectives in CLIL programmes, our review draws exclusively from empirically stalwart investigations conducted in the past few years. Only recent (i.e., published between 2015 and early 2021) longitudinal investigations which carried out a comprehensive analysis of CLIL programme evaluation, worked with representative samples, factored in multiple triangulation and identification variables, conducted within-​and/​or across-​cohort analyses, and favoured replication met the criteria for inclusion in this literature review. 269

Xabier San Isidro and María Luisa Pérez Cañado

An in-​depth search for studies analysing students’ attitudes, motivations, and perceptions of CLIL implementation was conducted in January 2021, using metadata from three academic databases: Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. The searches were carried out in the search field type ‘Article title, abstract, keywords’ (Scopus)/​‘Topic’ (Web of Science)/​ ‘Find articles’ (Google Scholar) and, by making use of the Boolean operator ‘OR’ and ‘the exact phrase’, ‘with at least one of the words’, the search syntax was as follows: CLIL OR ‘Content and language integrated learning’ OR ‘bilingual programmes’ OR ‘bilingual program’ OR ‘bilingual programs’ OR ‘bilingual school’ OR ‘bilingual schools’, all of them in combination with the phrases ‘student perceptions’, ‘learner perceptions’, ‘student views’, ‘learner views’. Articles were then quantified, and a qualitative thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006) was used to identify recurrent patterns in the data and generate themes. A total of 18 studies, listed in Table 18.1 below, met all inclusion criteria.

General analyses Despite the scant research on the topic under scrutiny, an interesting evolution can be traced. From initial studies which focused on the analysis of the students’ attitudes and motivations in CLIL scenarios, interest has shifted to a more in-​depth scrutiny of their perceptions of overall CLIL programme evaluation. A detailed analysis of emergent themes on both these moments is now provided.

Students’ attitudes and motivations in CLIL scenarios Since CLIL originated in the 1990s ‘as a way to transcend the perceived weakness of traditional FL (foreign language) teaching’ (Dalton-​Puffer, 2011, p. 185) with a view to motivating and producing ‘a highly skilled plurilingual, pluricultural workforce’ (Coyle, 2008, p. 99), it seems logical that some research focused not only on how the students were performing, but also how they affectively reacted when immersed in language-​across-​ the-​curriculum scenarios. The first trend of studies on the CLIL learner’s perspective drew attention to the question of motivation and attitudes, modelled on different theoretical frameworks. Gardner’s socio-​educational model (1985) was used as a framework to analyse learners’ attitudes towards a foreign language and their integrativeness (i.e., how open a learner is to another culture), showing that learner attitudes make a deep impact on the level of motivation. Self-​determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2017), in turn, has been used to examine the motivation behind the choices people make without external influence and interference. And Dörnyei’s L2 Motivational Self System (2005, 2009) was used to conceptualise three motivational dimensions: the Ideal L2 self (the representation of all the attributes that a person would like to possess), the Ought-​to L2 self (‘the attributes that one believes one ought to possess (i.e. various duties, obligations, or responsibilities) in order to avoid possible negative outcomes’ (Dörnyei, 2009, p. 29), and the L2 learning experience, which refers to ‘situation “executive” motives related to the immediate learning environment and experience’ (Dörnyei, 2009, p. 29). Additionally, motivation has also been conceptualised as non-​linear and as influenced by the impact of multiple factors (Dörnyei et al., 2014). Initial research on affective factors included mostly cross-​sectional studies, and was rather heterogeneous and lacked an explicit theoretical framework or simply measured motivation from a general perspective –​usually complementing the analysis of language gains. Later studies on attitudes and motivation drew on a socio-​dynamic and cognition-​based 270

271

newgenrtpdf

Table 18.1  Studies canvassed on student perspectives Year

Country

Student sample n

Educational level

Sylvén & Thompson

2015

Sweden

177

Lancaster

2016

Spain ( Jaén)

Lasagabaster & Doiz

2017

Spain (Basque Country)

Pérez Cañado

2017

Chaieberras & Rascón Moreno

2018

Oxbrow

2018

Pérez Cañado

2018b Spain (Andalusia, 1,763 Extremadura, and the Canary Islands)

De Smet, Mettewie, 2019 Galand, Hiligsmann, & Van Mensel Ocaña Peinado

2019

Triangulation

Within-​ Across- ​cohort cohort analysis analysis

Secondary Questionnaires education

Yes (data)

No

No

692

Secondary Questionnaires education

Yes (data, location)

No

Yes

304

Secondary Questionnaires education

Yes (data)

Yes

No

Spain (Andalusia, 1,763 Extremadura, and the Canary Islands)

Primary and Questionnaires and secondary interviews education

Yes

Spain (Madrid)

Primary and Questionnaires secondary education

Yes Yes (data, methodological, investigator, location) No Yes (data, investigator,

Spain (the Canary Islands)

754

221

Instruments

No

location)

Primary and Questionnaires secondary education

Yes (location)

Yes

No

Primary and Questionnaires and secondary interviews education

Yes Yes (data, methodological, investigator, location) Yes Yes (data)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Belgium

896

Primary and Questionnaires secondary education

Guatemala

71

Secondary Questionnaires, education interviews, observation protocols

Yes (data, methodological)

Yes

(continued)

The learner’s perspective on CLIL: Attitudes, motivations, and perceptions

271

Author(s)

272

newgenrtpdf

Table 15.3 Cont. Year

Country

Student sample n

Educational level

Pladevall-​Ballester

2019

Spain (Catalonia)

287

Barrios & Milla Lara

2020

Spain (Cádiz and Málaga)

San Isidro & Lasagabaster 2020 Mahan & Norheim

2021

272

Bauer-​Marschallinger, 2021 Dalton-​Puffer, Heaney, Katzinger & Smit

Instruments

Triangulation

Within-​ Across- ​cohort cohort analysis analysis

Primary Questionnaires education

Yes (data)

Yes

No

544

Primary and Questionnaires and secondary interviews education

No Yes (methodological, investigator, location)

Yes

Spain (Galicia)

44

Secondary Questionnaires education

Yes (data)

Yes

Yes

Norway

50

Secondary 2 questionnaires education (open questions and Likert-​scale)

Yes (methodological, location)

No

No

Austria

132

Secondary Questionnaires and education interviews

Yes

Spain (Granada, Jaén, Córdoba, and Zaragoza)

742

Secondary Questionnaires education

No Yes (data, methodological, investigator, location) No Yes (data, investigator,

Yes

Casas Pedrosa & Rascón Moreno

2021

Nikula, Skinnari & Mård-​M iettinen

2021

Finland

110

Secondary Interviews education

Yes(data, investigator, location)

No

No

Pérez Cañado

2021

Spain, Austria, Germany, Finland, Italy, and the UK

1,878

Secondary Questionnaires education

Yes (data, investigator, location)

Yes

Yes

Siepmann, Rumlich, Matz & Römhild

2021

Germany

595

Secondary Questionnaires and education interviews

No Yes (data, methodological, investigator, location)

Yes

location)

Xabier San Isidro and María Luisa Pérez Cañado

Author(s)

The learner’s perspective on CLIL: Attitudes, motivations, and perceptions

perspective that views motivation as inextricably linked to the learning context (Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2011). Parallel to this conception of affective variables as complex constructs that evolve and fluctuate over time, the initial cross-​sectional research was followed by empirically robust quantitative and longitudinal studies, the majority of which focused on secondary education students. By and large, most findings from these studies have found higher motivation levels and more positive attitudes to language learning in CLIL students when compared to their non-​CLIL counterparts across a number of variables: instrumental orientation, attitudes towards learning English, effort, interest in foreign languages, intrinsic motivation, anxiety and parental encouragement (Lasagabaster & Doiz, 2017; San Isidro & Lasagabaster, 2020), the students’ higher expectancy for success, their higher perceived task value and the lower cost in learning the target language (De Smet et al., 2019), and their drive to achieve an image of the ideal self, along with their positive attitudes towards the ought-​to self (De Smet et al., 2019; Pladevall-​Ballester, 2019). These differences seem to point to various reasons: in CLIL, both content and language play a crucial role, unlike in traditional FL settings; CLIL provides cognitively challenging learning situations linked to an improved sense of achievement; students might be influenced by other stakeholders’ belief that CLIL makes a positive impact on learning; CLIL seems to boost teachers’ motivation through collaboration and cross-​curricular practice; and CLIL seems to provide students and teachers with a sense of ownership of their teaching and learning process (Lasagabaster & Doiz, 2017; San Isidro & Lasagabaster, 2020). Some have questioned these differences on the grounds of the so-​called ‘creaming effect’ (i.e., CLIL students’ self-​selection, Sylvén & Thompson, 2015). Although researchers seem to agree that a key benefit of CLIL relates to students’ higher levels of motivation and more favourable attitudes towards language learning, the reality is that learners might potentially be more motivated and better language learners even before enrolling in a CLIL programme. This suggests that there is a need for controlling the motivational-​attitudinal variables a priori (De Smet et al., 2019). This is not the case, however, with the second-​movement studies analysed in the section below, as research is now tapping into mainstream CLIL, in which self-​selection is non-​existent. Noteworthy is the fact that none of the studies reviewed (with the exception of Sylvén & Thompson, 2015, which focused on exploring the motivational profiles of the students at the onset on the programme) measured attitudes and motivation levels prior to the start of the CLIL programme, which might indicate that differences in affective variables cannot be solely attributed to the type of instruction (Pladevall-​Ballester, 2019). Whether it is only CLIL that makes attitudes and motivations improve or the combination of various methodological aspects remains to be seen. Future research should address the methodological component on a longitudinal basis to explore the impact of pedagogy on motivations and attitudes. Concerning the time factor, as students’ motivation and attitudes undergo variation, research has revealed less clear-​cut evidence, as affective variables may improve or wane in the course of time. Some studies, making use of longitudinal intra-​g roup and inter-​g roup comparisons, have substantiated that attitudes and motivations are sustained over time (Pladevall-​Ballester, 2019; San Isidro & Lasagabaster, 2020) in CLIL learners, especially in relation to the learning of subject content (Lasagabaster & Doiz, 2017). Nevertheless, research has also shown a motivational decline over time with younger students (Lasagabaster & Doiz, 2017), as motivation might start to decrease once CLIL becomes regular classroom practice. Furthermore, contrary to expectations, some studies have also revealed that, on the one hand, non-​CLIL groups might improve their attitudes and motivations over time (San Isidro & Lasagabaster, 2020), and, on the other hand, some of the variables analysed have shown no difference 273

Xabier San Isidro and María Luisa Pérez Cañado

between CLIL and non-​CLIL cohorts (Lasagabaster & Doiz, 2017; Sylvén & Thompson, 2015). This has led us to question whether it is only CLIL that makes attitudes and motivations improve, or the methodology used (from which the whole school might have benefited) or the target language (TL) itself, mostly English. Lasagabaster and Doiz (2017: 707) attributed the similarity of the means among CLIL and non-​CLIL groups to the fact that the hegemonic position of English leads students to assign an enormous symbolic value to this language, to the point that non-​CLIL students are currently willing to make the effort to learn a language that opens up a great deal of different career opportunities. The prestigious status of English also seems to be the reason behind the differences among CLIL students using different languages of instruction. De Smet et al. (2019) revealed that the TL used might also play a role in how affective variables are sustained in time. When comparing CLIL in Dutch and English, the learners’ attitudes and motivations towards English were more favourable than those towards Dutch. Their results suggest that affective variables are less likely to decrease over time when CLIL is implemented in English. It is striking that the existing literature in the field in general, and the studies analysed here in particular seem to disregard the impact of CLIL on attitudes towards L1, something very important in multilingual communities with two or more co-​official languages, in which one of those languages is a minority one (San Isidro & Lasagabaster, 2020). With regard to the influence of the type of subject in the learner’s attitudes and motivation, only one of the studies in this first research trend (Pladevall-​Ballester, 2019) analysed a low exposure context comparing two types of CLIL subjects in primary education (science and arts and crafts). The results revealed that the type of subject may have an effect on motivation in relation to the learning experience. This might point towards how necessary it is to carefully select subjects in CLIL implementation, not only at school level but also at policymaking level. Although in this section we have canvassed a multi-​contextual number of European studies, the representation of Spanish studies selected for this review outnumbers the studies from other countries. This is due to the widespread endorsement of CLIL in this country, which has triggered academic production. It is interesting that, in the Spanish case, research conducted in the bilingual communities (the Basque Country, Catalonia, and Galicia) has scrutinised the attitudinal-​motivational perspective, whereas the studies undertaken in the monolingual communities seem to have delved into the analysis of stakeholders’ perceptions from a multifaceted perspective, as we will analyse in the following section.

Student perceptions on CLIL programmes After this initial, although still ongoing, wave of studies focusing on students’ attitudes and motivations in CLIL scenarios, the onus, particularly from 2016 onwards, is now on gauging learners’ perspectives on the way in which CLIL is developing at the grassroots level. Here, we can also discern two clear-​cut moments in the specialised literature: a first one focusing on general programme evaluation, where SWOT analyses were carried out on all the curricular and organisational aspects inherent in CLIL (Barrios & Milla Lara, 2020; Chaieberras & Rascón-​Moreno, 2018; Lancaster, 2016; Mahan & Norheim, 2021; Ocaña Peinado, 2019; Oxbrow, 2018; Pérez Cañado, 2017, 2018b), and a more recent tendency to centre on one 274

The learner’s perspective on CLIL: Attitudes, motivations, and perceptions

of the greatest challenges facing CLIL programmes at present: catering for diversity (Bauer-​ Marschallinger et al., 2021; Casas Pedrosa & Rascón Moreno, 2021; Nikula et al., 2021; Pérez Cañado, 2021; Siepmann et al., 2021). Iterative patterns can be detected in participant responses which hinge on six main fronts: linguistic aspects, methodology and types of groupings, materials and resources, evaluation, teacher preparation, and mobility and motivation towards English. In what follows, we summarise the key take-​aways for each one. Vis-​à-​v is linguistic aspects, highly positive reactions are unearthed across all the studies canvassed. Indeed, students overwhelmingly tend to harbour a self-​complacent view of their own English competence, considering it has improved as a result of their participation in a CLIL programme and ranking it as very adequate on all four skills (Chaieberras & Rascón Moreno, 2018; Lancaster, 2016; Mahan & Norheim, 2021; Ocaña Peinado, 2019; Oxbrow, 2018). They also claim to have improved their content knowledge and understanding of the subjects taught through the target language (Chaieberras & Rascón Moreno, 2018; Ocaña Peinado, 2019; Oxbrow, 2018) and do not believe English has been a hindrance to understanding the subject material successfully (Mahan & Norheim, 2021). Despite this, there seems to be a consensus that they would not welcome the use of more English in the bilingual class (Chaieberras & Rascón Moreno, 2018; Ocaña Peinado, 2019). As regards the L1, the students polled do not consider it has improved or been watered down due to the impact of the bilingual education programme (Chaieberras & Rascón Moreno, 2018; Ocaña Peinado, 2019). They do claim, however, to have an enhanced understanding of how languages work and an increased awareness of the connection between the L1 and L2 (Chaieberras & Rascón Moreno, 2018; Ocaña Peinado, 2019; Oxbrow, 2018). However, in certain studies (e.g., Mahan & Norheim, 2021), the role and status of the L1 are problematised, as students clamour for a more systematic integration of the L1 in CLIL classrooms, as they are concerned about their lack of familiarity with scientific terminology in their mother tongue. This perspective resonates with the outcomes from another recent study (Bauer-​M arschallinger et al., 2021), where students particularly value systematic language alternation to facilitate understanding of new content. In this sense, the use of German as a support strategy comes across as decisive for successful content scaffolding. Thus, the principled use of pedagogical translanguaging is highly valued by the cohort under scrutiny. Turning now to methodology and types of groupings, findings strongly suggest that student-​ centredness is firmly embedded in CLIL scenarios. Project-​based learning, task-​based language teaching, cooperative learning, and the lexical approach are all finding traction in bilingual classrooms (Bauer-​Marschallinger et al., 2021; Barrios & Milla Lara, 2020; Casas Pedrosa & Rascón Moreno, 2021; Chaieberras & Rascón Moreno, 2018; Lancaster, 2016; Ocaña Peinado, 2019; Oxbrow, 2018; Pérez Cañado, 2018b; Siepmann et al., 2021). This is favouring diversity of activities, including group work, oral presentations, final tasks, or projects, and enhancing 21st-​century soft skills like creativity, critical thinking, or collaboration (Pérez Cañado, 2018b), which intellectually challenges the students and creates a positive classroom environment (Mahan & Norheim, 2021). Adequate language scaffolding is also held to be provided to successfully cope with more complex content (Casas Pedrosa & Rascón Moreno, 2021; Pérez Cañado, 2021; Siepmann et al., 2021). However, this tendency is less conspicuous in Latin American contexts like Guatemala (Ocaña Peinado, 2019), which suggests that it takes time for CLIL to take root and that countries which are just starting out on the CLIL enterprise (e.g., Brazil, Colombia, or Peru) will likely find the same challenges along the way as those which have greater bilingual teaching experience; learning from the best practices of others can undoubtedly help smoother sailing on this front (Pérez 275

Xabier San Isidro and María Luisa Pérez Cañado

Cañado, 2021). Finally, less positive appreciations transpire for the use of diverse classroom arrangements, mixed-​ability groupings, peer assistance strategies, or individualised support (Nikula et al., 2021; Siepmann et al., 2021). Thus, ensuring an adequate development of a vast range of learning modalities is still a challenge, especially in order to secure diversity-​ sensitive teaching in the CLIL classroom. Materials and resources, like methodology and types of groupings, also have both affordances and pitfalls. On the upside, headway has been made on the CLIL materials front, as students regard them as interesting, innovative, communicative, diversified (the textbook is scarcely used), multimodal, adequately adapted, and collaboratively drawn up (Barrios & Milla Lara, 2020; Casas Pedrosa & Rascón Moreno, 2021; Chaieberras & Rascón Moreno, 2018; Lancaster, 2016; Ocaña Peinado, 2019; Oxbrow, 2018; Pérez Cañado, 2021). Information and communication technologies (ICTs) also feature as important resources, although reduced use is still made of computer-​mediated communication techniques, blogs, wikis, or webquests (Chaieberras & Rascón Moreno, 2018; Lancaster, 2016; Ocaña Peinado, 2019; Oxbrow, 2018; Pérez Cañado, 2018b). Indeed, the pitfalls associated to materials primarily relate to the limited use of technological options (Siepmann et al., 2021), the fact that no single material covers content adequately, that using multiple textbooks or resources can be confusing (Mahan & Norheim, 2021), and that they are not well-​suited to accommodate differentiation (Casas Pedrosa & Rascón Moreno, 2021; Pérez Cañado, 2021; Siepmann et al., 2021). These findings identify aspects warranting further attention. Clear-​cut tendencies can be discerned on the next recurrent theme: evaluation. A positive overall appraisal by students of this curricular aspect can be ascertained: the content covered in the subjects is considered to be pertinently assessed, oral skills are evaluated to a greater extent, both formative and summative assessment procedures are included, content is prioritised over language proficiency, and a greater diversification runs through evaluation techniques (including tasks, projects, homework, rubrics, peer-​, or self-​assessment) (Barrios & Milla Lara, 2020; Chaieberras & Rascón Moreno, 2018; Lancaster, 2016; Ocaña Peinado, 2019; Oxbrow, 2018; Pérez Cañado, 2018b;). However, the situation changes when diversity is factored in: it seems that the need to evaluate different learning styles, levels, paces, or backgrounds has thrown a real curveball, according to the students. Now, a much more negative outlook is sustained. The learners do not consider different ability levels are taken into account in either ongoing or final assessment (Casas Pedrosa & Rascón Moreno 2021; Pérez Cañado, 2021; Siepmann et al., 2021). Grading criteria are not varied according to level, homework or in-​class activities are not aligned with diverse capacities, different versions of the exam or extra time to complete it are not provided, and self-​a ssessment is not fully capitalised on. The provision of detailed guidelines and personalised feedback are the only two strategies that seem to be resorted to. Thus, in the new mainstreaming scenario, which is increasingly characterising CLIL, evaluation is one of the aspects which wrestles with the greatest problems, and a major overhaul of its manifold dimensions is required. More positive attitudes are garnered towards teacher preparation, which comes across as possibly the most highly valued item in CLIL programme development. Students unanimously have a positive regard for their teachers’ linguistic command, methodological mastery, motivating potential, and socio-​cultural knowledge (Chaieberras & Rascón Moreno, 2018; Casas Pedrosa & Rascón Moreno, 2021; Ocaña Peinado, 2019; Oxbrow, 2018; Pérez Cañado, 2017, 2021). This is the case especially of language teachers, followed by language assistants and content teachers. The only negative view harboured on this aspect relates to the collaboration of the diverse types of teachers with language assistants, which the students consider should be stepped up (Pérez Cañado, 2017). Closer working relationships should 276

The learner’s perspective on CLIL: Attitudes, motivations, and perceptions

be forged to address the intersecting needs especially of diverse learners (Casas Pedrosa & Rascón Moreno, 2021). However, overall, students appear to fully trust their teachers’ preparation to successfully navigate bilingual education (aside from the new challenge which differentiation now poses, which they consider their practitioners are well-​equipped to tackle). Finally, as regards mobility and motivation towards English, a recurrent finding across studies is that students with a lower socio-​economic status (SES) are still not participating sufficiently in exchange programmes, despite being encouraged to do so by their teachers and parents (Chaieberras & Rascón Moreno, 2018; Lancaster, 2016; Ocaña Peinado, 2019; Oxbrow, 2018). They invariably acknowledge the increased cognitive challenge, linguistic demand, and workload inherent in CLIL programmes (Chaieberras & Rascón Moreno, 2018; Mahan & Norheim, 2021; Ocaña Peinado, 2019; Oxbrow, 2018; Pérez Cañado, 2018b), but this does not seem to raise any cause for concern (Oxbrow, 2018), as they are satisfied with the cost–​ benefit ratio of CLIL initiatives (Ocaña Peinado, 2019). They surmise that this could be due to their increased motivation levels, enhanced language proficiency, and satisfaction with access to English materials outside school (Chaieberras & Rascón Moreno, 2018; Lancaster, 2016; Ocaña Peinado, 2019; Oxbrow, 2018). Thus, the benefits of bilingual education far outweigh the potential pitfalls, according to this group of stakeholders.

Within-​cohort analyses These tendencies are interestingly qualified in the within-​cohort analyses, where identification variables such as gender, country, setting, type of school, grade, experience in a CLIL programme, or number of subjects received in English have yielded conspicuous differences. With regards to gender, female students tend to exhibit greater interest in the bilingual class, consider they have more notably improved their English proficiency and developed soft skills, and harbour a more positive opinion of their teachers’ comprehension and production skills in the target language (Ocaña Peinado, 2019; Oxbrow, 2018). Interesting differences also transpire when country is considered (Pérez Cañado, 2021). Spanish, Italian, and Finnish pupils consider their CLIL classrooms to be more teacher-​led than UK pupils do, where student-​centredness appears to be more firmly embedded. In Spain and Italy, students believe scaffolding is more present than in Germany or Austria, and diversified classroom layouts and newcomer classes are also more conspicuous in the former two countries, as opposed to the latter two. Spain also stands out in the support system provided by multi-​professional teams, in the role of the guidance counsellor, and in student views on teacher preparation. Thus, it appears that Spain is more invested in diversity-​sensitive teaching, perhaps precisely because mainstreaming of bilingual education is increasingly the norm in this country and, consequently, setting in place techniques to ensure CLIL works with over-​and under-​achievers alike becomes a sine qua non for bilingual education to prosper. Rural-​urban setting is another variable that offers interesting insights into the way CLIL programmes are playing out. Distinct patterns once again emerge (Oxbrow, 2018; Pérez Cañado, 2018b): urban learners have greater access to new technologies in their bilingual education classes and are more motivated, self-​confident in their content knowledge, interactive, and eager to use English in class. In contrast, rural students document less access to the target language beyond the confines of the classroom, have less exposure to authentic and adapted materials, are less satisfied with teacher preparation, and value language assistants to a lesser extent. Echoing these results are those found when type of school is factored in: private school students consider diversified student-​centred methodologies and evaluation procedures are 277

Xabier San Isidro and María Luisa Pérez Cañado

present to a greater extent than public school pupils. Thus, the potential disenfranchisement of students in rural areas and public schools should seriously inform future debates on bilingual education. Measures should be set in place to safeguard equitable access to materials and enhanced extramural exposure to the target language, adequate implementation of CLIL-​ related methodologies and evaluation procedures, and teacher development options in these comparatively under-​equipped settings. Grade, amount of time studying in CLIL programmes, and number of subjects received in English also allow the identification on marked trends. A recurrent finding is that primary education students have a more optimistic view of the methodology, materials, evaluation, and teacher preparation in CLIL programmes (Oxbrow, 2018; Pérez Cañado, 2017, 2018). Indeed, it appears CLIL methodological recommendations are more closely followed at primary level, together with the use of ICT tools and ongoing assessment. At secondary education level, these diminish and the level of motivation of students in CLIL programmes also decreases. However, this finding runs counter to those obtained for experience in a CLIL stream. Here, the longer students are involved in a CLIL programme, the more optimistic their outlook on their teachers’ preparation, as regards the incorporation of adequate methodologies and materials, and vis-​à-​v is their participation, interest, and motivation. They also grow more conscious with time of the increased workload inherent in CLIL, but the effort is perceived as worthwhile. Similarly, the greater the number of subjects taken in the target language, the greater the knowledge, skills development, and awareness of interlanguage connections reported by the students (Ocaña Peinado, 2019; Oxbrow, 2018; Pérez Cañado, 2017, 2018). Thus, these findings corroborate the view that it takes time for the full extent of CLIL programmes to be perceived and for the latter to take root.

Across-​cohort comparisons How do these student views compare with those of other frontline stakeholders (teachers and parents)? A notable group of investigations has carried out across-​cohort comparisons (Bauer-​Marschallinger et al., 2021; Barrios & Milla Lara, 2020; Casas Pedrosa & Rascón Moreno, 2021; Lancaster, 2016; Nikula et al., 2021; Ocaña Peinado, 2019; Pérez Cañado, 2017, 2018, 2021; Siepmann et al., 2021). Interestingly, despite the diverse contexts where these studies have been conducted, the patterns which transpire are convergent. Three main take-​aways are derived from the findings. To begin with, parents tend to harbour, homogeneously, the most positive outlook on bilingual education (in terms of methodology, support systems, and teacher preparation). They thus associate great prestige to bilingual education and there is strong buy-​in from this cohort. Second, there is an across-​the-​board tendency for greater teacher optimism on several aspects. Indeed, teachers sustain a significantly more self-​complacent view of their own language competence, their use of student-​centred methodologies and evaluation systems, the innovative and communicative nature of bilingual materials, their motivating potential, and their incorporation of diverse techniques to cater for diversity (in terms of linguistic scaffolding, individualised support during groupwork, mixed-​ability groupings, or the provision of individualised feedback). Finally, despite their overwhelmingly positive appraisal of CLIL programmes in all their facets, students sustain a more critical outlook on teacher collaboration, the need for enhanced teacher training, the teacher-​led component of the CLIL class, the use of different layouts and groupings, and the use of self-​a ssessment. This could be ascribed to the fact that teachers are not very explicit in their pedagogical practices and need to make them more visible to the learners (Bauer-​Marschallinger et al., 2021). This finding clearly points to ‘the 278

The learner’s perspective on CLIL: Attitudes, motivations, and perceptions

need to pay attention to how the different groups involved interpret the CLIL educational experience’ (Barrios & Milla Lara, 2020, p. 60) and calls for ‘more research on the reasons for this disagreement’ (Siepmann et al., 2021, p. 17).

Conclusion and implications This chapter has showcased how research into learner perspectives has made considerable headway and increased in sophistication and empirical robustness, particularly over the course of the past five years. This systematic literature review has shown that learners, as central agents in CLIL programmes, have strong faith in the bilingual education system. They document the positive effect of CLIL schemes on their motivation and attitudes, L2 proficiency and content knowledge, while not detrimentally impacting their L1 competence. They appreciate the more student-​centred and diversified methodologies, activities, and evaluation techniques, which help hone crucial 21st-​century soft skills. Materials are regarded as more interesting, innovative, communicative, and multimodal than they were in the past. And they have the utmost confidence in their teachers’ preparation, including their capacity to step up to new challenges, such as catering for diversity in CLIL. All in all, bilingual education initiatives are considered undoubtedly worthwhile by this cohort, despite the increased workload they entail, as they enhance students’ motivation and satisfaction. Our overview of the specialised literature has also signposted areas which warrant further attention. Vis-​à-​v is the first movement of studies analysed, although research has empirically substantiated that CLIL learners improve their attitudes and develop higher motivation over time, mixed findings lead us to question whether it is only the CLIL approach that makes attitudes and motivations improve, or the pedagogy used, the type of subject, or the target language (mostly English). Results suggest that affective variables are less likely to decrease over time when CLIL is implemented in English, which points towards this language being a motivator in itself. Interestingly, the literature has also revealed that the type of subject may have an effect on motivation in relation to the learning experience. This suggests that policymakers and schools should carefully consider whether some subjects are more suitable than others for CLIL implementation. What the existing literature has not yet tackled is whether CLIL makes an impact on attitudes towards the L1, something essential in multilingual regions or communities with two or more co-​official languages, in which one of those languages is a minority one. With regard to the second trend of studies reviewed, findings have revealed some areas that merit discussion and analysis, according to CLIL learners. These, in turn, necessitate new pedagogical considerations in order to address the new challenges detected. To begin with, the pedagogical use of translanguaging as a crucial support strategy needs to be sharpened and refined, not only given the many assets which students associate to it but also to make sure the students develop their whole linguistic repertoire. Second, greater collaboration among the different types of teachers involved in CLIL programmes needs to be fostered. In this sense, authorities should ensure that sufficient time is allocated within school hours for this purpose. And, finally, the new demands posed by catering for diversity need to be accommodated in CLIL programmes. A greater range of groupings, learning modalities, materials and ICTs, and evaluation techniques (especially summative ones) need to be incorporated in the new mainstreaming scenario for CLIL to continue working successfully. Thus, teacher training for differentiation needs to be stepped up and materials which are transdisciplinary, tiered-​level, and project-​based need to be designed, with differentiated learning objectives according to, for example, Bloom’s taxonomy.1 279

Xabier San Isidro and María Luisa Pérez Cañado

Further pedagogical recommendations accrue from the within-​and across-​cohort analyses conducted with student data. These point to the desirability of learning from the best practices of others, especially in catering for diversity, where countries like Spain particularly stand out for the mechanisms they have set in place in their diversity-​sensitive bilingual education systems. It also behoves authorities to equip rural and public schools with adequate materials, technological tools, and teacher development options to ensure bilingual education works to its greatest potential. Extra effort should also be made to ensure motivation is sustained at secondary education level, and awareness should be raised among participants that it takes time for CLIL initiatives to come to fruition. Finally, the tensions detected between teacher and student perceptions reveal the need to orchestrate a balance between them and explore, through further research, the reasons behind this rift and how to adequately bridge it. In this sense, fruitful avenues for future research include replicating studies on student perceptions across diverse settings for greater contextualisation and embeddedness in order to guarantee that the decisions made are based on real and relevant needs. Another interesting pathway for progression would involve conducting a random-​effects meta-​analysis of the solid, unskewed studies currently available in order to determine whether the same patterns bear out as in individual studies, or whether a completely new picture emerges. Finally, self-​ reported data like those included in the studies canvassed herein should be complemented with observational results to ascertain whether the same tendencies are sustained. Perhaps the most important take-​away of all, however, is that the opinions, attitudes, and perceptions of students should be fully considered in order to reshape CLIL educational structures and to articulate the necessary reforms to promote more inclusive policies and practices which are aligned with the current challenges in bilingual education. This is key to foster ‘learner engagement in the learning process’ (Coyle, 2013, p. 249) and ensure that we provide our learners with ‘the best linguistically rich learning experiences they can possibly have throughout their schooling’ (Coyle, 2010, p. viii).

Note 1 See www.adibe​proj​ect.com for pedagogical initiatives on these fronts.

Further reading Bower, K., Coyle, D., Cross, R., & Chambers, G.N. (Eds.). (2020). Curriculum integrated language teaching: CLIL in practice. Cambridge University Press. This book includes international perspectives on content and language integrated learning in Anglophone and non-​ A nglophone contexts. The authors offer a set of flexible teaching tools considering the student perspective in a number of contexts, and address how to implement CLIL through three key themes: sustainability, pedagogy, and social justice. Lasagabaster, D., Doiz, A., & Sierra, J. M. (2014). Motivation and foreign language learning: From theory to practice. John Benjamins. With an emphasis on pedagogy grounded on both theoretical and empirical work, this volume focuses on language learning motivation, along with the relationship between different approaches to foreign language learning –​such as EFL, CLIL, or immersion –​and motivation. Sylvén, L.K. (Ed.). (2019). Investigating content and language integrated learning: Insights from Swedish high schools. Multilingual Matters. This book offers an interesting longitudinal account of CLIL, and provides insights into language learning outcomes, learner motivation among CLIL and non-​CLIL students, or effects of extramural exposure to English from the point of view of learners and teachers.

280

The learner’s perspective on CLIL: Attitudes, motivations, and perceptions

References Alonso, E., Grisaleña, J., & Campo, A. (2008). Plurilingual education in secondary schools: Analysis of results. International CLIL Research Journal, 1(1), 36–​49. www.icrj.eu/​11/​a rtic​le3.html Barrios, E. (2021). CLIL and L1 competence development. In M.L. Pérez Cañado (Ed.), Content and language integrated learning in monolingual settings: New insights from the Spanish context (pp. 103–​118). Springer. Barrios, E. (2022). The effect of parental education level on perceptions about CLIL: A study in Andalusia. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 25(1), 183–​195. DOI:10.1080/​ 13670050.2019.1646702 Barrios, E., & Milla Lara, M.D. (2020). CLIL methodology, materials and resources, and assessment in a monolingual context: An analysis of stakeholders’ perceptions in Andalusia. The Language Learning Journal, 48(1), 60–​80. DOI:10.1080/​09571736.2018.1544269 Bauer-​Marschallinger, S. (2020). Involving students in educational design: How student voices contribute to shaping transdisciplinary CLIL history materials. Journal for the Psychology of Language Learning, 2(2), 107–​117. DOI:10.52598/​jpll/​2/​2/​8 Bauer-​Marschallinger, S., Dalton-​Puffer, C., Heaney, H., Katzinger, L., & Smit, U. (2021). CLIL for all? An exploratory study of reported pedagogical practices in Austrian secondary schools. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. DOI:10.1080/​13670050.2021.1996533 Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–​101. DOI:10.1191/​1478088706qp063oa Cabezas Cabello, J. M. (2010). A SWOT analysis of the Andalusian plurilingualism promotion plan (APPP). In M.L. Pérez (Ed.), Proceedings of the 23rd GRETA convention (pp. 83–​91). Joxman. Casas Pedrosa, A.V., & Rascón Moreno, D. (2021). Attention to diversity in bilingual education: Student and teacher perspectives in Spain. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. DOI:10.1080/​13670050.2021.1997902 Chaieberras, Z., & Rascón Moreno, D. (2018). Perspectives of compulsory secondary education students on bilingual sections in Madrid (Spain). English Language Teaching, 11(10), 152–​161. DOI:10.5539/​elt.v11n10p152 Coyle, D. (2008). CLIL: A pedagogical approach from the European perspective. In N. Van Deusen-​ Scholl & N.H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Language and Education, 2nd Edition, Volume 4: Second and Foreign Language Education (pp. 97–​111). Springer Science+​Business Media LLC. Coyle, D. (2010). Foreword. In D. Lasagabaster & Y. Ruiz de Zarobe (Eds.), CLIL in Spain: Implementation, results and teacher training (pp. vii–​v iii). Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Coyle, D. (2013). Listening to learners: an investigation into ‘successful learning’ across CLIL contexts. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16(3), 244–​266. DOI:10.1080/​ 13670050.2013.777384 Czura, A., Papaja, K., & Urbaniak, M. (2009). Bilingual education and the emergence of CLIL in Poland. In D. Marsh, P. Mehisto, D. Wolff, R. Aliaga, T. Asikainen, M.J. Frigols-​Martín, S. Hughes, & G. Langé (Eds.), CLIL practice: Perspectives from the field (pp. 172–​178). University of Jyväskylä. 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. DOI: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. DOI:10.1017/​S0267190511000092 Dalton-​Puffer, C., Hüttner, J., & Smit, U. (2021). From voluntary to obligatory CLIL in upper secondary technical colleges: Teacher and student voices from a diverse landscape. In K. Talbot, M-​T. Gruber, & R. Nishida (Eds.), The psychological experience of integrating language and content: Teacher and learner perspectives (pp. 93–​111). Multilingual Matters. De Smet, A., Mettewie, L., Galand, B., Hiligsmann, P., & Van Mensel, L. (2019). Does CLIL shape attitudes and motivations? Interactions with target languages and instruction levels. International Journal of Bilingualism and Bilingual Education. DOI:10.1080/​13670050.2019.1671308 Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R.M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-​determination in human behavior. Plenum. Doiz, A., & Lasagabaster, D. (2018). Teachers’ and students’ second language motivational self-​ system in English-​medium instruction: A qualitative approach. TESOL Quarterly, 52(3), 657–​679. DOI:10.1002/​tesq.452

281

Xabier San Isidro and María Luisa Pérez Cañado Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. L. Erlbaum. Dörnyei, Z. (2009). The L2 motivational self system. In Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp. 9–​42). Multilingual Matters. Dörnyei, Z., MacIntyre, P.D., & Henry, A. (2015). Motivational dynamics in language learning. Multilingual Matters. Dörnyei, Z., Muir, C., & Ibrahim, Z. (2014). Directed motivational currents: Energising language learning through creating intense motivational pathways. In D. Lasagabaster, A. Doiz, & J. M. Sierra (Eds.), Motivation and foreign language learning: From theory to practice (pp. 9–​29). John Benjamins. Dörnyei, Z., & Ushioda, E. (2011). Teaching and researching motivation. Longman. Durán-​Martínez, R., & Beltrán-​Llavador, F. (2016). A regional assessment of bilingual programmes in primary and secondary schools: The teachers’ views. Porta Linguarum, 25, 79–​92. DOI:10.30827/​ Digibug.53890 Fernández-​Sanjurjo, J., Fernández-​Costales, A., & Arias Blanco, J.M. (2019). Analysing students’ content-​ learning in science in CLIL vs. non-​ CLIL programmes: Empirical evidence from Spain. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 22(6), 661–​674. DOI:10.1080/​ 13670050.2017.1294142 Gardner, R.C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The role of attitudes and motivation. Edward Arnold. Gardner, R.C., & MacIntyre, P.D. (1993). A student’s contribution to second language learning: Part II, affective factors. Language Teaching, 26(1), 1–​11. DOI:10.1017/​S0261444800000045 Infante, D., Benvenuto, G., & Lastrucci, E. (2009). The effects of CLIL from the perspective of experienced teachers. In D. Marsh, P. Mehisto, D. Wolff, R. Aliaga, T. Asikainen, M.J. Frigols-​ Martín, S. Hughes, & G. Langé (Eds.), CLIL practice: Perspectives from the field (pp. 156–​163). University of Jyväskylä. Lancaster, N.K. (2016). Stakeholder perspectives on CLIL in a monolingual context. English Language Teaching, 9(2), 148–​177. DOI:10.5539/​elt.v9n2p148 Lasagabaster, D., & Doiz, A. (2017). A longitudinal study on the impact of CLIL on affective factors. Applied Linguistics, 38, 688–​712. DOI:10.1093/​applin/​a mv059 Lorenzo, F., Casal, S., & Moore, P. (2009). The effects of content and language integrated learning in European education: Key findings from the Andalusian Bilingual Sections Evaluation Project. Applied Linguistics, 31(3), 418–​4 42. DOI:10.1093/​applin/​a mp041 Lorenzo, F., Granados, A., & Rico, N. (2021). Equity in bilingual education: Socioeconomic status and content and language integrated learning in monolingual southern Europe. Applied Linguistics, 42(3), 393–​413. DOI:10.1093/​applin/​a maa037 Madrid, D., & Barrios, E. (2018). A comparison of students’ educational achievement across programmes and school types with and without CLIL provision. Porta Linguarum, 29, 29–​50. DOI:10.30827/​ Digibug.54021 Mahan, K.R., & Norheim, H. (2021). ‘Something new and different’: Student perceptions of content and language integrated learning. ELT Journal, 75(1), 77–​86. DOI:10.1093/​elt/​ccaa057 Martínez Agudo, J.D. (2021). The effects of CLIL on subject matter learning: The case of science in primary and secondary education. In M.L. Pérez Cañado (Ed.), Content and language integrated learning in monolingual settings: New insights from the Spanish Context (pp. 167–​184). Springer. Navarro-​Pablo, M., & López Gándara, Y. (2020). The effects of CLIL on L1 competence development in monolingual contexts. The Language Learning Journal, 48(1), 18–​ 35. DOI:10.1080/​ 09571736.2019.1656764 Nikula, T., Skinnari, K., & Mård-​M iettinen, K. (2021). Diversity in CLIL as experienced by Finnish CLIL teachers and students: Matters of equality and equity. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. DOI:10.1080/​13670050.2022.2028125 Nishida, R. (2021). A longitudinal study of Japanese tertiary students’ motivation, perceived communication competency and classroom dynamics on soft-​CLIL. In K. Talbot, M-​T. Gruber & R. Nishida, (Eds.), The psychological experience of integrating language and content: Teacher and learner perspectives (pp. 251–​266). Multilingual Matters. Ocaña Peinado, M.E. (2019). Stakeholder perceptions on CLIL in Guatemala: A mixed methods case study. Unpublished master’s thesis. University of Jaén.

282

The learner’s perspective on CLIL: Attitudes, motivations, and perceptions Ouazizi, K. (2016). The effects of CLIL education on the subject matter (mathematics) and the target language (English). Latin American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning, 9(1), 110–​137. DOI:10.5294/​laclil.2016.9.1.5 Oxbrow, G.L. (2018). Students’ perspectives on CLIL programme development: A quantitative analysis. Porta Linguarum, 29, 137–​158. DOI:10.30827/​Digibug.54026 Pavón Vázquez, V. (2018). Learning outcomes in CLIL programmes: A comparison of results between urban and rural environments. Porta Linguarum, 29, 9–​28. DOI: 10.30827/​Digibug.54020 Pérez Cañado, M.L. (2017). CLIL teacher education: Where do we stand and where do we need to go? In M.E. Gómez Parra & R. Johnstone (Eds.), Bilingual education: Educational trends and key concepts (pp. 129–​144). Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte. Pérez Cañado, M.L. (2018a). The effects of CLIL on L1 and content learning: Updated empirical evidence from monolingual contexts. Learning and Instruction, 57, 18–​ 33. DOI:0.1016/​ j.learninstruc.2017.12.002 Pérez Cañado, M.L. (2018b). CLIL and pedagogical innovation: Fact or fiction? International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 28, 369–​390. DOI:10.1111/​ijal.12208 Pérez Cañado, M.L. (2020). CLIL and elitism: Myth or reality? Language Learning Journal, 48(1), 1–​14. DOI:10.1080/​09571736.2019.1645872 Pérez Cañado, M.L. (2021). Inclusion and diversity in bilingual education: A European comparative study. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. DOI:10.1080/​ 13670050.2021.2013770 Piesche, N., Jonkmann, K., Fiege, C., & Kebler, J. (2016). CLIL for all? A randomised controlled field experiment with sixth-​g rade students on the effects of content and language integrated science learning. Learning and Instruction, 44, 108–​116. DOI:10.1016/​j.learninstruc.2016.04.001 Pladevall-​ Ballester, E. (2019). A longitudinal study of primary school EFL learning motivation in CLIL and non-​ CLIL settings. Language Teaching Research, 23(6), 765–​ 786. DOI:10.1177/​ 1362168818765877 Rascón Moreno, D., & Bretones Callejas, C. (2018). Socioeconomic status and its impact on language and content attainment in CLIL contexts. Porta Linguarum, 29, 115–​136. DOI:10.30827/​ Digibug.54025 Rubio Mostacero, M.D. (2009). Language teacher training for non-​language teachers: Meeting the needs of Andalusian teachers for school plurilingualism projects. Design of a targeted training course. Universidad de Jaén. Ryan, R.M., & Deci, E.L. (2017). Self-​determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. The Guilford Press. San Isidro, X., & Lasagabaster, D. (2019). The impact of CLIL on pluriliteracy development and content learning in a rural multilingual setting: A longitudinal study. Language Teaching Research, 23(5), 584–​602. DOI:10.1177/​1362168817754103 San Isidro, X., & Lasagabaster, D. (2020). Students’ and families’ attitudes and motivations to language learning and CLIL: A longitudinal study. The Language Learning Journal, 50(1), 119–​134. DOI:10.1080/​09571736.2020.1724185 Shepherd, E., & Ainsworth, V. (2017). English impact: An evaluation of English language capability. British Council. Siepmann, P., Rumlich, D., Matz, F., & Römhild, R. (2021). Attention to diversity in German CLIL classrooms: Multi-​perspective research on students’ and teachers’ perceptions. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. DOI:10.1080/​13670050.2021.1981821. Surmont, J., Struys, E., Van Den Noort, M., & Van De Craen, P. (2016). The effects of CLIL on mathematical content learning: A longitudinal study. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 6(2), 319–​337. DOI:10.14746/​ssllt.2016.6.2.7 Sylvén, L.K., & Thompson, A.S. (2015). Language learning motivation and CLIL: Is there a connection? Journal of Immersion and Content-​Based Language Education, 3(1), 28–​50. DOI:10.1075/​jicb.3.1.02syl

283

284

19 INSTRUCTIONAL SCAFFOLDING IN CLIL An overview of theory and research Karina Rose Mahan

Introduction This chapter offers insight into how instructional scaffolding is conceptualised and researched in CLIL classrooms. In this chapter, scaffolding is understood as ‘a type of teacher assistance that helps students learn new skills, concepts, or levels of understanding that lead to the student successfully completing a task’ (Maybin et al., 1992, p. 188).1 There will be a distinct emphasis on one type of scaffolding, namely interactional scaffolding.2 This is a ‘moment-​to-​ moment pedagogical action’ between teacher and student in the classroom, in which they ‘construct utterances across a series of turns’ (van Lier, 2004, pp. 148–​149). Interactional scaffolding is chosen because it has a direct application toward classroom practices –​i.e., what a teacher can do or say during a lesson to support a student’s learning. The goals of this chapter are the following: to offer an overview of scaffolding and types of scaffolding; to discuss the theoretical underpinnings of scaffolding with a particular emphasis on interactional scaffolding; to conduct a brief literature review of interactional scaffolding in CLIL, and to suggest the next steps for researching scaffolding in CLIL research. The overarching goal is to foster unity in our understanding of instructional scaffolding, so CLIL researchers will know when and how to critically apply scaffolding to their research.

Why instructional scaffolding in CLIL? The most commonly cited argument for why scaffolding should be incorporated in second language learning is that scaffolding is an important means of access to authentic texts for second language learners (van Lier, 2004, p. 150). Scaffolding serves as a teaching framework to provide second language learners with high support through high context (e.g., use of visuals aids and familiar topics), instead of simplifying material (see frameworks by Cummins, 1984; Mariani, 1997). Scaffolding fills linguistic gaps that students have and provides strategies for communicating independently. The rituals, predictability, and extra support that come with scaffolding a lesson provide a high context environment where students can understand the task at hand (van Lier, 2004; Walqui & van Lier, 2010). Scaffolding research 284

DOI: 10.4324/9781003173151-24

Instructional scaffolding in CLIL: An overview of theory and research

examines how ‘teachers talk to, and about, their students’; respecting students as capable and intelligent learners who can, with the right support, participate equally with the English L1 peers (Gibbons, 2014, p. 3). There is an alignment of goals between scaffolding and CLIL teaching. Scaffolding researchers believe that scaffolding is highly compatible with communicative approaches (e.g., Mercer et al., 2009), as it emphasises dialogue between the teacher and students, and how to improve communication between the two. CLIL can be viewed as such a communicative approach (Coyle et al., 2010). Additionally, scaffolding promotes deeper learning, because there is a greater focus on skills and becoming part of a community (Roehler & Cantlon, 1997, p. 8). CLIL researchers argue that CLIL pedagogy also focuses on deeper learning –​by working with subject material, students focus more on higher-​order thinking processes, such as analysing, evaluating, and creating (Coyle et al., 2010, pp. 30–​31). For these reasons, the position of this chapter is that scaffolding is an important resource to CLIL teaching and learning. Even though scaffolding originated from developmental psychology and a North American context, many of its tenets and learning goals align with CLIL. Both scaffolding and CLIL highlight the importance of communication, student autonomy, access to authentic language/​t asks, and high contextual support. Scaffolding is therefore considered an important resource to unpack and apply in a CLIL context.

What does scaffolding research need? Scaffolding has existed as a topic of research since the late 1970s, and is a significant and growing area of interest in education (Mahan, 2022; van de Pol et al., 2019). There are a number of challenges currently facing research on scaffolding, and this section will outline some of them. The main challenge is a lack of common understanding of what scaffolding constitutes, and how it can be measured empirically (van de Pol et al., 2010). The goals of scaffolding are also unclear: is it to complete tasks or develop skills? And what exactly is a scaffold (Xi & Lantolf, 2021)? Scaffolding is often used as a synonym or umbrella term for teaching strategies in education research ( Jacobs, 2001; Verenikina, 2004). The watering down of this term creates disparities –​if any type of teaching is scaffolding, what, then is the difference between teaching and scaffolding? We need more discussion of what scaffolding is on a conceptual level, and to create more unity in our understanding of scaffolding. Scaffolding research and literature must create a common language and framework that researchers can draw on as a resource. There are a variety of definitions, methods, and bottom-​up frameworks that describe scaffolding in different ways. This is due to the fact that much of the literature on scaffolding rarely builds on prior research (Mahan, 2022). Although bottom-​up frameworks and independent, qualitative research are important, researchers need a common understanding of certain concepts to ensure that they are researching the same phenomenon (Klette & Blikstad-​ Balas, 2018). When researchers do not use the same concepts, tools, and frameworks, it becomes difficult to compare research to identify patterns. In other words, the research needs to be more streamlined and standardised before we can start comparing and building on it. This would include the use of validated instruments (van de Pol et al., 2010). Lastly, although there is a plethora of scaffolding research on English language learners (ELLs)3 in English-​speaking countries, there is little research on scaffolding in CLIL contexts. We cannot directly apply models from ELL to CLIL contexts. There is a need to chisel out scaffolding for CLIL; preferably for each linguistic landscape (e.g., national context) and each 285

Karina Rose Mahan

content subject (e.g., scaffolding in mathematics, science, and so forth). We must move from general scaffolding principles (what is effective scaffolding?) to more specific (how do we effectively scaffold English L2 learners in science?).

Theoretical considerations The following section will characterise some of the most salient understandings and categorisations of scaffolding. This is by no means a comprehensive overview, as there are many small-​scale, independent frameworks as well. Theoretical justifications for scaffolding will be critically examined and discussed in light of the teachings of Vygotsky.

Unpacking the scaffolding metaphor Scaffolding is described as a broad metaphor that highlights a key feature of learning: that it is often guided by others (Stone, 1998a). Metaphors in education are useful. They can build theories, explain, motivate, and be a mnemonic device to remember concepts (Askeland, 2015). However, they can also oversimplify or misguide us in our understanding of complex theories. The metaphor of the scaffold comes from construction work: it is a temporary supporting structure for a building that is gradually removed as the building takes shape. Wood et al. (1976) first used the scaffolding metaphor to describe the tutorial behaviour between adults and children as a gradual release once the child can support him/​herself. Stone (1998a, 1998b) mentions that the strength of using scaffolding as a metaphor is that it does not impose many constraints on how we can interpret and use this theory (Stone, 1998a, p. 351). However, there are many critical voices towards the metaphor, and they need to be addressed on a theoretical level. One criticism is that scaffolding presents teacher–​ student interaction as one-​sided. The scaffold becomes an ‘imposition of a structure on the student’ (Searle, 1984, p. 481). This one-​sided description of teacher–​student interaction may lead us back to transmission models of teaching. Focusing solely on student–​teacher interactions also inhibits the dynamic nature of interaction (Butler, 1998; Smagorinsky, 2018). Another problem posed with the metaphor is its vagueness (Stone, 1998a; van de Pol et al., 2010) –​what constitutes a scaffold? How can teachers scaffold effectively? As van de Pol et al. (2010, p. 286) put it, ‘much remains unknown about the effectiveness and processes of scaffolding’. There is much theoretical work that needs to be done to answer these questions. Moving forward, we could place more emphasis on realistic classroom situations, such as group work, projects, and so forth. In other words, the scaffolding metaphor needs to be expanded to include more dynamic, realistic, and diverse types of interaction.

Vygotsky and scaffolding Scaffolding was first used by cognitive psychologist Jerome Bruner as a metaphor to explain how adults aided children in solving tasks, without explicit ties to any theory (Wood et al., 1976). Researchers began to connect the scaffolding metaphor to education theories in later years (Stone, 1998a). The search for compatible education theories was important to justify scaffolding as a legitimate teaching and research practice. The most prominent theoretical underpinning of scaffolding is Vygotskyan socio-​cultural theory (Tajeddin et al., 2020; Walqui, 2006; Walqui & van Lier, 2010). As Walqui (2006, p. 162) puts it, language learning and scaffolding go hand-​in-​hand as social interaction is the basis of learning, and the key feature of scaffolding. 286

Instructional scaffolding in CLIL: An overview of theory and research

According to Cazden (1979), the notion of scaffolding should be linked to Vygotsky’s concept of the Zone of Proximal Development (hereafter ZPD). In Vygotsky’s terms, ZPD refers to the distance between the actual developmental level of as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem-​solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers. Vygotsky, 1978, p. 86 According to select education researchers, scaffolding is thus viewed as occupying the space between what the student can do alone and with the assistance of an adult (or more capable peer) (e.g., Hogan & Pressley, 1997). This has led some researchers to interpret scaffolding as a translation of the ZPD from theory to practice (Llinares et al., 2012; Walqui, 2006). However, other researchers are sceptical of describing the ZPD as the space for learning in scaffolding. Xi and Lantolf (2021) argue that this is a reductionist view of Vygotsky’s original ideas about ZPD. Smagorinsky (2018, p. 254) postulates that scaffolding is typically ‘trivialised’ as short-​term learning, e.g., the goals of a particular lesson. The ZPD was intended to describe a collective and dynamic space for interaction, whereas scaffolding research typically focuses on turn-​taking and dyadic teaching between teacher and student (van de Pol et al., 2010). The recent objections to linking scaffolding to Vygotsky have raised serious concerns (e.g., Shvarts & Bakker, 2019; Smagorinsky, 2018; Xi & Lantolf, 2021). There are several dilemmas with uncritically applying scaffolding to a theory that comes from a vastly different educational and cultural context. However, I believe that using socio-​cultural underpinnings is a way of justifying and understanding scaffolding in a broader sense of how people learn and develop. Socio-​cultural theory can be a useful lens to recognise that humans learn through interaction and context. This is a learning paradigm that we cannot abandon. Yet, there is much more conceptual work to be done in scaffolding that may help describe its theoretical underpinnings in a way that does not detract from Vygotsky.

Salient features of scaffolding The term scaffolding was used by Wood et al. (1976) to explain how young children built wooden blocks into pyramids with and without assistance from an adult (or tutor). Wood et al. (1976) called this interactional instructional relationship between the adult and learner ‘a kind of “scaffolding” process that enables a child or novice to solve a problem … beyond his unassisted efforts’ (Wood et al., 1976, p. 90). They argued that learning consists of two steps: first, comprehension of a task/​theory, then completion of a task/​development of a skill. A tutor sat and helped young children build wooden blocks with a predetermined programme. Based on how the tutor interacted with the children, the article concluded that there were six steps to scaffolding: recruitment of the child’s interest/​participation, reduction in degrees of freedom (simplifying the task), direction maintenance (keeping the child motivated), marking critical features of the task, frustration control (e.g., face-​saving), and demonstration (modelling or explaining the task to a student) (Wood et al., 1976, p. 98). It is worth noting that even at the early stages of scaffolding research, the researchers had a bottom-​up approach based on observations to formulate theories on how scaffolding worked. 287

Karina Rose Mahan

Stone (1998a) reviewed and synthesised a number of studies from the 1970s to the 1990s to summarise how researchers interpreted the scaffolding metaphor. Building on this research, van de Pol et al. (2010) offered an updated view of scaffolding a decade later. They concluded that the most currently agreed-​upon definition is that ‘scaffolding is construed as the support given by a teacher to a student when performing a task that the student might otherwise not be able to accomplish’ (van de Pol et al., 2010, p. 276). Here we see that the shift has gone from adult and child to teacher and student, placing scaffolding in the educational sciences. Based on a synthesis of various scaffolding studies, Van de Pol et al. (2010) created a conceptual model of scaffolding with four traits: (1) contingency (differentiated support that builds on diagnostic strategies), (2) fading (the teacher determines when to stop scaffolding and at what rate), (3) transfer of responsibility (students’ metacognitive activities or affect), and (4) internalisation of support (the student appropriates the essence of a support structure) (van de Pol et al., 2010, pp. 274–​275). The most noticeable differences since the days of Wood and Stone are that there is now less focus on motivation (such as recruitment, direction maintenance, and frustration control). This could perhaps be because the children in later studies are older and in school. Assistance and transfer are treated as two separate mechanisms, and there is now more focus on the student’s internalisation of scaffolding. Scaffolding researchers largely agree on the mechanisms behind scaffolding, but disagree on what constitutes interactional scaffolding. Researchers also disagree on when to fade, and how teachers can determine student autonomy (e.g., van de Pol et al., 2019).

Conceptualising scaffolding for second language learning The previous section described scaffolding mechanisms in mainstream education and at a general level. However, the needs of second language learners need to be considered when discussing how to scaffold language learning classrooms. As Walqui (2006, p. 169) puts it: ‘English learners benefit from the same good teaching as all learners do, but they need even more of it as they are working to accomplish English learning and content area learning simultaneously.’ Van Lier (1996) was one of the first to suggest applying scaffolding to second language learning. He proposed two main types of scaffolding: structural and interactional scaffolding (van Lier, 2004, p. 149). He argued that scaffolding works on a continuum from macro to micro levels. Macro levels include when a teacher plans lessons, creates projects and materials, and predicts needs and classroom rituals. Activity planning operates on a meso level. Lastly, the moment-​to-​moment process of interaction (interactional scaffolding) is on a micro level. Macro and meso levels are permanent structures that do not fade. Second language learners rely on predictable rituals and planned materials to fill in linguistic and cultural gaps. CLIL researchers must take this into account when discussing scaffolding for second language learners. This means that the fade concept does not appear to apply to second language learning (also voiced by Tedick & Lyster, 2020). Walqui (2006) dug further into interactional scaffolding strategies for language learners to propose how to scaffold for them. She proposed the following interactional scaffolding strategies: Modelling (clear examples of what they are supposed to imitate), bridging (strategies in which teachers build new knowledge on prior knowledge), contextualising (use of visuals, films, and authentic objects to contextualise academic language), schema building (strategies to process information, such as graphic organisers), re-​presenting text (translating academic language into everyday language by changing genres of text, e.g., a historical essay into a drama), and developing metacognition (explicit teaching of strategies for learners to 288

Instructional scaffolding in CLIL: An overview of theory and research

solve tasks) (Walqui, 2006, pp. 170–​176). These strategies have been central to researching scaffolding in second language learning (e.g., Ahmadi Safa & Rozati, 2017; Fan & Chen, 2021; Mahan, 2022). More recently, Tedick and Lyster (2020) suggested that scaffolding techniques can be divided in two: scaffolding to help the students understand content through the L2, and scaffolding that supports the students in using the L2. In each of these types of scaffolding, teachers can provide verbal scaffolding (the teacher prompts the student through interaction), procedural scaffolding (activities and routines that provide predictability), and instructional scaffolding (e.g., graphic organisers, books, maps, and so forth) (Tedick & Lyster, 2020, pp. 131–​134).

Conceptualising scaffolding in CLIL Several scholars have discussed how to conceptualise scaffolding in CLIL (see Dafouz-​ Milne et al., 2010; Fernández-​Fontecha et al., 2020; Lin, 2016). However, only two CLIL studies propose a holistic view of scaffolding through synthesising scaffolding research in CLIL. Tang (2019) argues that language is scaffolded in CLIL in three ways: providing the discursive means for interaction to occur (discursive role), enabling the students’ construction of knowledge through cognitive and/​or linguistic processes (cognitive-​linguistic), and providing the semantic relationships for science meaning-​m aking (semiotic roles of language) (Tang, 2019, p. 317). The discursive role of language is connected to interaction research, and springs from Sinclair and Coulthard’s (1975) much-​d iscussed IRF (initiation, response, feedback) pattern. It is a way of supporting students’ language through structured talk, including mediation, translation, probing, evoking discussion, and so forth (Tang, 2019). The second aspect of scaffolding (construction of knowledge) examines the relationship between content and language. Examples include a focus on science terminology and how to write within specific scientific genres. The last aspect, semiotics, highlights that learning goes beyond simply words. It focuses on multimodality through visual aids and theme-​based learning (see Fernández-​Fontecha et al., 2020 for more concrete examples). In Mahan (2022), I synthesised research from teaching English as a second language (TESOL) and CLIL to propose a framework for scaffolding strategies for CLIL students. The idea was to examine how CLIL teachers scaffolded their students to understand the material, and then how they scaffolded students in completing tasks (Mahan’s classification of second language learning scaffolding strategies, Mahan, 2022, p. 3). The figure was twofold and included scaffolding strategies for comprehension (drawing on previous knowledge, academic language development, supportive materials) and task-​solving strategies (use of discourse, e.g., revoicing, prompting, and metacognitive strategies, such as modelling and proposing strategies to complete tasks). This was similar to Tedick and Lyster’s (2020) classification, although the task-​solving strategies were more content-​oriented. Since the 1970s, there has been less focus on motivation and engagement of students, and more focus on which strategies to use in interactional scaffolding. However, what these strategies may consist of and when to apply them vary greatly. Second language learning research differs from mainstream research, in that it recognises the importance of planning lessons and activities to scaffold second language learners (i.e., structural scaffolding). Scaffolding does not necessarily need to be temporary, and there are certain structures that second language learners need consistently to follow a lesson. In CLIL research, there is also an overt focus on metacognitive strategies, connecting to prior knowledge, visual aids, and multimodality. 289

Karina Rose Mahan

These strategies recognise the special needs of second language learners by providing high context to support a lesson.

Historical overview and development of scaffolding This section will provide background information on the historical development of scaffolding, with particular emphasis on empirical research. It will move chronologically from the field of developmental psychology to education research, narrowing the scope to CLIL research. A brief literature review of the empirical studies in CLIL research will be presented.

From psychology to education research The work on scaffolding in tutoring young children was ground-​breaking (e.g., Wood et al., 1976, 1995). It was a useful way of describing how adults could temporarily support children in the learning process and led to a multitude of articles spanning nearly half a century (see the following review articles in their respective fields: Lehr, 1985; Mahan, 2022; Stone, 1998a; van de Pol et al., 2010). However, it is important to note that the origins of this outspring were centred in white, middle-​class families that represented an idealised version of a parent–​child relationship (Stone, 1998a). Therefore, scaffolding should be discussed critically in terms of its universality and the importance of context (see Palincsar, 1998). In the years following Wood et al. (1976), the majority of studies focused on parent–​child interactions (e.g., Greenfield, 1984; Hodapp et al., 1984). Cazden (1979) recognised the potential for scaffolding in the field of education, translating ‘tutor’ to ‘teacher’ and ‘tutee’ to ‘student’. During the 1980s, a number of education researchers conducted empirical research on scaffolding in the classroom (e.g., Applebee & Langer, 1983; Palincsar, 1986). By the 1990s, scaffolding was widely used in education research –​particularly in the field of early literacy development (for an overview, see Lehr, 1985). These methods were later adapted by interaction researchers, such as Neil Mercer and Gordon Wells. They used Vygotskian socio-​cultural theory and the concept of scaffolding to suggest how teachers and students can communicate in ways that optimise learning (examples include Mercer, 2004; Mercer & Fisher, 1992; Myhill & Warren, 2005; Rojas-​Drummond & Mercer, 2003; Wells, 1999). However, these studies were mainly conducted in mainstream classrooms. Palincsar (1998) argues that especially second language learners have considerable barriers in the classroom, such as miscommunication between immigrant students and mainstream teachers, discontinuities between the culture of home and school, and the internalisation of negative stereotypes by minority groups (p. 368). These are challenges that need to be discussed in more detail when we transfer concepts from mainstream education to second language learning.

Adapting scaffolding to second language learners Van Lier (1996) was the first to explicitly demonstrate scaffolding’s relevance to second language learning. One of the first researchers to suggest specific scaffolding strategies for ELLs was Gibbons (2002). Walqui (2006) was the next to suggest scaffolding strategies. Her conceptual article on how to provide scaffolding for ELL students opened a new realm of possibilities for research and teaching. It described in detail how scaffolding could be tailored to 290

Instructional scaffolding in CLIL: An overview of theory and research

ELL contexts, based on the needs of ELL students. Hers and Gibbons’ (2002) ideas were further developed in a variety of books that suggest different scaffolding strategies for working with ELLs (e.g., Echevarría et al., 2017; Gibbons, 2014; Walqui & van Lier, 2010). These books were useful in their adaptation of scaffolding to ELL contexts, discussing problems such as linguistic gaps in L2, minority cultures, and so forth. However, these books served more as teaching guides to aspiring TESOL teachers. To date, we are lacking an overview of scaffolding research in TESOL that identifies the most effective scaffolding practices. This would be useful to identify gaps in the research and see what researchers agree on in their findings. The majority of second language scaffolding literature and research comes from North America and is tailored to ELLs (Mahan, 2022). ELLs are immigrant children in English-​ speaking countries who learn English as a second language (ESL) with a minority background in a mainstream school (e.g., Gibbons, 2003, 2014). This differs greatly from most CLIL contexts, which are often described as European content subject classrooms where teachers and students from the majority culture communicate in English as a foreign language (EFL) together (e.g., Cenoz et al., 2014; Lasagabaster & Sierra, 2010). ELLs need scaffolding to a much higher degree because they are from a minority culture and may not have a teacher who speaks their L1 or understands their culture. CLIL students have home resources, and are familiar with classroom practices, rituals, the country’s culture, and so forth –​which subsequently leads to a higher learning context. The L1 is also an important source of scaffolding in CLIL (Gierlinger, 2015; Mahan, 2022), which ELLs may be stripped of in English-​speaking countries. To summarise, students from these two contexts have differing needs and resources. Therefore, not all ELL material will be applicable in a CLIL context.

CLIL scaffolding research: a brief overview This section will summarise the empirical studies conducted on scaffolding in CLIL research. It will discuss some of the challenges that scaffolding is currently facing in CLIL research. It will conclude with suggestions for the next steps for CLIL research.

The beginning of scaffolding in CLIL One of the earliest mentions of scaffolding in the CLIL literature was by Coyle (2002), who wrote that one of the key principles of CLIL is that language is ‘learned through using it in authentic and unrehearsed yet “scaffolded” situations to complement the more structured approaches common in foreign language lessons” (p. 28). The scaffolding metaphor was tied to the ZPD and interaction research in later publications (Coyle et al., 2010; Llinares et al., 2012). In general, very few CLIL researchers have used scaffolding theory to illuminate classroom practices in CLIL. Yet the potential for scaffolding has been recognised by several CLIL researchers, including Dalton-​Puffer (2007, p. 264): ‘There clearly is ample room for research on how and whether scaffolding in whole-​class interaction facilitates not only subject learning but also language learning.’ There is a general consensus in the CLIL literature that there is a potential for scaffolding to support the dual goals of content and language learning (e.g., Llinares et al., 2012; Lo & Lin, 2019; Mahan, 2022), yet how this can be achieved is still unclear. As Lo and Lin (2019, p. 157) ask: ‘what kinds of scaffolds should CLIL teachers provide, especially considering the integration of content and language learning? And when and how should they provide these scaffolds in lessons?’ 291

Karina Rose Mahan

Studies on scaffolding in CLIL Llinares et al. (2012) focused on the role of scaffolding and interaction in CLIL. Using extracts of dialogue from CLIL classrooms in Spanish and German L1 contexts, the authors looked at interactional scaffolding. They also discussed peer scaffolding –​‘group work activities that allowed for students’ co-​construction of knowledge’ (Llinares et al., 2012, p. 100). They concluded that the teachers used a number of strategies to scaffold students’ learning of language as well as content. Strategies included bridging links between prior knowledge and new academic knowledge, reformulating academic words, organising tasks, and checking comprehension. Another empirical study to explicitly research scaffolding in CLIL classrooms was by Mahan (2022). Using the framework outlined above, I filmed an 11th-​g rade Norwegian CLIL class in science, geography, and social science. I used the Protocol for Language Arts Teaching Observation (PLATO) to analyse 12 lessons and coded the strategies suggested in the framework. In terms of comprehension strategies, I found that the teachers frequently referred to students’ prior knowledge and used academic language consistently, using it as goals for the students’ learning and discussion topics. However, there was a large difference in the use of visual aids between the natural and social sciences. This suggested that scaffolding can also be subject-​based, depending on the nature and traditions of certain subjects. In terms of task-​solving strategies, the teachers consistently used interactional strategies to help students further build on ideas and concepts. The natural sciences (science and geography) had more IRF patterns, whereas the social science class allowed for more free speech and longer interactions. However, there was little use of strategy instruction and modelling. Fernández-​ Fontecha et al. (2020) discussed scaffolding CLIL in science via visual thinking. The authors blended Vygotskian theory with multimodality to explore multimodal scaffolding in a science classroom. They used a Systemic Functional Multimodal Discourse Analysis, drawing on Halliday (1975). They discussed which resemiotisation strategies could be used to reinforce grammatical metaphors. Some of their strategies included translanguaging, explicit visualisation of processes and/​ or their relationship, using visualisation to use key terminology (e.g., see a picture of a chromosome and use the word in a sentence), and rewording visuals into words (Fernández-​Fontecha et al., 2020, pp. 7–​8).

Lo and Lin’s (2019) volume Lo and Lin (2019) edited a volume on interactional scaffolding in science CLIL classrooms. This anthology includes several chapters on scaffolding in CLIL classrooms, with in-​depth descriptions of how scaffolding unfolds in naturalistic CLIL teaching. In the following paragraphs, I will summarise some of the key findings from the studies of this anthology. Xu and Harfitt (2019) examined teacher language awareness and scaffolding strategies in a science class in Hong Kong. The researchers identified six types of scaffolding strategies: mediation (teacher helps the student navigate through everyday and academic language), probing (teacher asks follow-​up questions to expand answers), translating (teacher uses L1, Cantonese), evoking student discussions (teacher organises group discussions), encouraging students’ self-​scaffolding (teacher signals that the student needs to reformulate utterances), and withholding the scaffolding (Xu & Harfitt, 2019). The authors conclude that it is important for the teacher to know the perspective of learners to know when and how to scaffold. 292

Instructional scaffolding in CLIL: An overview of theory and research

Ho et al. (2019) investigated how biology teachers could support students’ content learning through classroom talk in Singapore. The researchers listed some of the following strategies: reformulation, revoicing, probing, seeking clarification, consolidating, and elicitation of specifics. They suggest for teachers to modify their questions with the following prompts: revoicing to draw and focus attention on concrete terms, foregrounding (talk that scaffolds students’ thinking and challenges assumptions), gap-​fi lling through guiding and shaping thinking to what is relevant, and sharpening specificity in language use. The authors conclude that classroom talk is an important tool to consolidate content learning. He and Lin (2019) used a Concept +​Language Mapping (CLM) approach in a biology classroom in Hong Kong. Students were provided cards, maps, and sentence-​m aking tables that contained both content and language. The authors argued that these CLM materials served as structural scaffolding, and suggest that CLM materials make science learning more focused and complete, implicating that this type of structural scaffolding is crucial to science learning. Lo et al. (2019) examined how science teachers could scaffold for cognitive and linguistic challenges in assessment. They investigated two science teachers in Hong Kong in secondary school through observation and interviews. The researchers used a self-​compiled coding scheme that divided the scaffolding strategies into content and language. The content strategies were taken from Bloom’s taxonomy and included recall, application, and analysis. The language strategies were taken from Lin (2016) and represented by lexicogrammar, sentence, and text. They conclude that both teachers focus the most on content-​oriented strategies. However, one of the teachers used scaffolding strategies that incorporated both implicit and explicit language instruction.

Translanguaging and scaffolding Recent literature has also explored the potential of scaffolding strategies in translanguaging (cf.; Daniel et al., 2016, 2019; Feller, 2021; Goodman & Tastanbek, 2021; Reynolds & Daniel, 2018). This vein of research examines how both structural and interactional scaffolding, can assist teachers in making their students gain awareness of how translanguaging is useful in the language learning process (Daniel et al., 2019). However, it is important to point out that only one of these studies explicitly studies a CLIL classroom (Feller, 2021). Feller (2021) posits that CLIL classrooms veer toward being strictly L2, and by using scaffolding strategies from translanguaging, the teacher and students can use the L1 to support their learning. This would be an interesting avenue for further research, as it broadens the perspective of the scaffold to also being in the L1 in second language learning (Feller, 2021).

Future research on scaffolding in CLIL Some of the research in the prior section refers to similar scaffolding strategies. Examples include tenets of interaction research, such as revoicing, prompting, and open questions (He & Lin, 2019; Ho et al., 2019; Llinares et al., 2012; Mahan, 2022; Xu & Harfitt, 2019). Other common themes include the use of visual aids/​multimodality, activating prior knowledge, and translating. However, it is unclear if these strategies lead to student autonomy (which is the ultimate goal of scaffolding). Essentially, current CLIL research is missing longitudinal data that inform us if the student has developed autonomy over time (Koole & Elbers, 2014). Additionally, it is difficult to draw any definitive conclusions from the research on scaffolding in CLIL. CLIL researchers operate with various understandings of scaffolding, frameworks, 293

Karina Rose Mahan

strategies, and tools in vastly different contexts. There is a need for unifying this research to synthesise and compare this body of research. Another issue worth raising is the CLIL research that uses concepts similar to that of scaffolding research, but which we do not count because it does not use a scaffolding framework (examples include Dafouz et al., 2016; Dalton-​Puffer, 2007; Dalton-​Puffer et al., 2010; Nikula, 2015; Ruiz de Zarobe & Smala, 2020; Sylvén, 2019). This conundrum was already presented by Scruggs and Mastropieri (1998), who underlined that researchers from many different perspectives have undertaken research in which students were … assisted to the point at which they could … perform specific tasks independently … And yet, few of these researchers have specifically used scaffolding as a metaphor to describe these procedures. Scruggs and Mastropieri, 1998, p. 407 So, it is unclear how we can include relevant CLIL research that does not explicitly use scaffolding. We should also discuss why only scaffolding frameworks are recognised as playing a role in fostering autonomous learners. The next natural step would be to compile a protocol that could identify scaffolding strategies for CLIL teachers and rate how well they are implemented. The protocol should include structural scaffolding, peer scaffolding, and self-​scaffolding as well. Such a protocol would allow CLIL researchers to replicate studies across different linguistic landscapes and contexts. Additionally, it would be useful to conduct more longitudinal studies with input from students if they have understood the teachers’ scaffolding strategies and achieved more autonomy.

Concluding remarks This chapter has reflected on the development of scaffolding theory and research from the 1970s until the present. It has provided an overview of scaffolding typologies. Scaffolding literature has been summarised, discovering that CLIL researchers also consider structural scaffolding to be an essential step of scaffolding. CLIL researchers also focus more heavily on interaction strategies (revoicing, prompting, open questions), visual aids, multimodality, metacognitive strategies, and building on students’ prior knowledge. One interesting discovery in the synthesis of research is that CLIL researchers do not view scaffolding as temporary; scaffolding is needed as an existing support system. This might require a reinterpretation of the scaffolding metaphor in second language learning contexts. The CLIL studies shed light on how scaffolding can unfold, but the varying frameworks, strategies, and methods make it difficult to compare research. Researchers need to work more coherently together to establish what scaffolding is in CLIL, expanding this definition to peer and self-​ scaffolding as well. Several pedagogical implications can be drawn from a synthesis of these studies. First, scaffolding is something that should be implemented from the beginning of planning a curriculum to the end of the school day (van Lier, 2004). Predictability, rituals, and streamlined procedures are more necessary for language learners, and we should therefore think of scaffolding in terms of lasting, consistent patterns of teaching (Gibbons, 2014; Walqui, 2006). CLIL teachers need scaffolding strategies that address both content and language (Lo et al.,

294

Instructional scaffolding in CLIL: An overview of theory and research

2019; Mahan, 2022; Tedick & Lyster, 2020). This includes visual aids, graphic organisers, use of multimedia, translanguaging, modelling, and talking strategies (revoicing, prompting, consolidating, etc.) (Ho et al., 2019; Llinares et al., 2012; Lo et al., 2019). Understanding scaffolding is the key to fostering independent learners. In a world where CLIL students are expected to be active and focus on skills rather than knowledge, teachers must know how to aid their students in autonomy. This chapter has hopefully lifted some of the most salient aspects of scaffolding in CLIL, and how this can be applied to further research.

Notes 1 Although there will be introduced many definitions and understandings of scaffolding throughout the text, this is my positionality as a scaffolding researcher. 2 For a full overview, see the section ‘Conceptualising scaffolding for second language learning’. 3 This chapter differentiates between ELLs and CLIL English L2 learners. ELLs are immigrant students in English-​speaking countries; CLIL English L2 learners are largely from European countries and belong to the majority culture, often having English as a foreign language (although this is not exclusive). See a discussion of differences in the section ‘Adapting scaffolding to second language learners’.

Further reading Lin, A.M.Y. (2016). Language across the curriculum and CLIL in English as an additional language (EAL) contexts: Theory and practice. Springer. This is a comprehensive empirical anthology that focuses on scaffolding in various ESL contexts. Lo, Y.Y., & Lin, A. (2019). Teaching, learning, and scaffolding in CLIL science classrooms. John Benjamins. In this edited volume, readers can find robust studies on scaffolding in CLIL. Tedick, D.J., & Lyster, R. (2020). Scaffolding language development in immersion and dual language classrooms. Routledge. This recent edited volume addresses scaffolding in various ESL settings. Walqui, A., & van Lier, L. (2010). Scaffolding the academic success of adolescent English language learners: A pedagogy of promise. WestEd. This is a detailed book about scaffolding for English as a second language (ESL) learners and therefore it can be useful for CLIL research and practice.

References Ahmadi Safa, M., & Rozati, F. (2017). The impact of scaffolding and nonscaffolding strategies on the EFL learners’ listening comprehension development. The Journal of Educational Research, 110(5), 447–​456. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​0 0220​671.2015.1118​0 04 Applebee, A.N., & Langer, J.A. (1983). Instructional scaffolding: Reading and writing as natural language activities. Language Arts, 60(2), 168–​175. Askeland, N. (2015). Metaforer i fagtekster og lærebøker. Retoriske og pedagogiske utfordringer [Metaphors in academic texts and textbooks. Rhetorical and pedagogical challenges]. In E. Maagerø & E. Seip Tønnessen (Eds.), Å lese i alle fag [Reading in all subjects] (2nd ed., pp. 96–​118). Universitetsforlaget. Butler, D.L. (1998). In search of the architect of learning: A commentary on scaffolding as a metaphor for instructional interactions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31(4), 374–​385. https://​doi.org/​ 10.1177/​0 02​2219​4980​3100​407 Cazden, C.B. (1979). Peekaboo as an instructional model: Discourse development at home and at school. In B. Bain (Ed.), The sociogenesis of language and human conduct (pp. 33–​58). Springer.

295

Karina Rose Mahan Cenoz, J., Genesee, F., & Gorter, D. (2014). Critical analysis of CLIL: Taking stock and looking forward. Applied Linguistics, 35(3), 243–​262. https://​doi.org/​10.1093/​app​l in/​a mt ​011 Coyle, D. (2002). Relevance of CLIL to the European Commission’s language learning objectives. In D. Marsh (Ed.), CLIL/​EMILE: The European dimension: Actions, trends and foresight potential. UniCOM, Continuing Education Center. Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge University Press. Cummins, J. (1984). Bilingualism and special education: Issues in assessment and pedagogy. Multilingual Matters. Dafouz, E., Moore, P., Nikula, T., & Smit, U. (2016). Conceptualising integration in CLIL and multilingual education. Multilingual Matters. Dafouz-​M ilne, E., Llinares, A., & Morton, T. (2010). CLIL across contexts: A scaffolding framework for CLIL teacher education. Vienna English Working Paper, 19(3), 12–​20. Dalton-​Puffer, C. (2007). Discourse in content and language integrated learning (CLIL) classrooms (Vol. 20). John Benjamins Publishing Company. Dalton-​Puffer, C., Nikula, T., & Smit, U. (2010). Language use and language learning in CLIL classrooms (Vol. 7). John Benjamins. Daniel, S.M., Jiménez, R.T., Pray, L., & Pacheco, M.B. (2019). Scaffolding to make translanguaging a classroom norm. TESOL Journal, 10(1), 1–​14. https://​doi.org/​https://​doi.org/​10.1002/​tesj.361 Daniel, S.M., Martin-​Beltrán, M., Peercy, M.M., & Silverman, R. (2016). Moving beyond yes or no: Shifting from over-​scaffolding to contingent scaffolding in literacy instruction with emergent bilingual students. TESOL Journal, 7(2), 393–​420. https://​doi.org/​10.1002/​tesj.213 Echevarría, J., Vogt, M., & Short, D.J. (2017). Making content comprehensible for English learners: The SIOP model (5th ed.). Pearson. Fan, C-​Y., & Chen, G-​D. (2021). A scaffolding tool to assist learners in argumentative writing. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 34(1–​2), 159–​183. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​09588​221.2019.1660​685 Feller, N.P. (2021). Translanguaging and scaffolding as pedagogical strategies in a primary bilingual classroom. Classroom Discourse, 13(3), 312–​335. https://​d oi.org/​10.1080/​19463​ 014.2021.1954​9 60 Fernández-​Fontecha, A., O’Halloran, K.L., Wignell, P., & Tan, S. (2020). Scaffolding CLIL in the science classroom via visual thinking: A systemic functional multimodal approach. Linguistics and Education, 55, 100788. https://​doi.org/​https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.lin​ged.2019.100​788 Gibbons, P. (2002). Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning: Teaching ESL children in the mainstream classroom. Heinemann Educational Books. Gibbons, P. (2003). Mediating language learning: teacher interactions with ESL students in a content-​ based classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 37(2), 247–​273. https://​doi.org/​10.2307/​3588​504 Gibbons, P. (2014). Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning: Teaching English language learners in the mainstream classroom (2nd ed.). Heinemann Educational Books. Gierlinger, E. (2015). ‘You can speak German, sir’: On the complexity of teachers’ L1 use in CLIL. Language and Education, 29(4), 347–​368. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​09500​782.2015.1023​733 Goodman, B., & Tastanbek, S. (2021). Making the shift from a codeswitching to a translanguaging lens in English language teacher education. TESOL Quarterly, 55(1), 29–​53. https://​doi.org/​ 10.1002/​tesq.571 Greenfield, P.M. (1984). A theory of the teacher in the learning activities of everyday life. In B. Rogoff & J. Lave (Eds.), Everyday cognition: Its development in social context (pp. 117–​138). Harvard University Press. Halliday, M.A.K. (1975). Learning how to mean: Explorations in the development of language. Edward Arnold. He, P., & Lin, A. (2019). Co-​developing science literacy and foreign language literacy through ‘Concept +​Language Mapping’. Journal of Immersion and Content-​based Language Education, 7(2), 261–​288. https://​doi.org/​10.1075/​jicb.18033.he Ho, C., Wong, J.K.Y., & Rappa, N.A. (2019). Supporting students’ content learning in biology through teachers’ use of classroom talk drawing on concept sketches. Journal of Immersion and Content-​Based Language Education, 7(2), 192–​211. https://​doi.org/​10.1075/​jicb.18020.ho Hodapp, R.M., Goldfield, E.C., & Boyatzis, C.J. (1984). The use and effectiveness of maternal scaffolding in mother-​ i nfant games. Child Development, 55(3), 772. https://​doi.org/​10.2307/​ 1130​128

296

Instructional scaffolding in CLIL: An overview of theory and research Hogan, K.E., & Pressley, M.E. (1997). Scaffolding student learning: Instructional approaches & issues. Advances in teaching and learning series. Brookline Books. Jacobs, G. (2001). Providing the scaffold: A model for early childhood/​primary teacher preparation. Early Childhood Education Journal, 29(2), 125–​130. Klette, K., & Blikstad-​Balas, M. (2018). Observation manuals as lenses to classroom teaching: Pitfalls and possibilities. European Educational Research Journal EERJ, 17(1), 129–​146. https://​doi.org/​ 10.1177/​14749​0411​7703​228 Koole, T., & Elbers, E. (2014). Responsiveness in teacher explanations: A conversation analytical perspective on scaffolding. Linguistics and Education, 26(1), 57–​69. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.lin​ ged.2014.02.001 Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J.M. (2010). Immersion and CLIL in English: More differences than similarities. ELT Journal, 64(4), 367–​375. https://​doi.org/​10.1093/​elt/​ccp​082 Lehr, F. (1985). ERIC/​RCS report: Instructional scaffolding. Language Arts, 62(6), 667–​672. Lin, A.M.Y. (2016). Language across the curriculum and CLIL in English as an additional language (EAL) contexts: Theory and practice. Springer. Llinares, A., Morton, T., & Whittaker, R. (2012). The roles of language in CLIL. Cambridge University Press. Lo, Y.Y., & Lin, A. (2019). Teaching, learning and scaffolding in CLIL science classrooms. John Benjamins Publishing Co. Lo, Y.Y., Lui, W-​M., & Wong, M. (2019). Scaffolding for cognitive and linguistic challenges in CLIL science assessments. Journal of Immersion and Content-​based Language Education, 7(2), 289–​314. https://​ doi.org/​10.1075/​jicb.18028.lo Mahan, K.R. (2022). The comprehending teacher: Scaffolding in content and language integrated learning (CLIL). Language Learning Journal, 50(1), 74–​88. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​09571​ 736.2019.1705​879 Mariani, L. (1997). Teacher support and teacher challenge in promoting learner autonomy. Perspectives: A Journal of TESOL, 23(2), 5–​19. Maybin, J., Mercer, N., & Stierer, B. (1992). ‘Scaffolding’: Learning in the classroom. In K. Norman (Ed.), Thinking voices: The work of the national oracy project (pp. 186–​195). Hodder & Stoughton. Mercer, N. (2004). Sociocultural discourse analysis: Analysing classroom talk as a social mode of thinking. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 137–​168. https://​doi.org/​10.1558/​japl.2004.1.2.137 Mercer, N., Dawes, L., & Staarman, J.K. (2009). Dialogic teaching in the primary science classroom. Language and Education, 23(4), 353–​369. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​095007​8090​2954​273 Mercer, N., & Fisher, E. (1992). How do teachers help children to learn? An analysis of teachers’ interventions in computer-​based activities. Learning and Instruction, 2(4), 111–​130. https://​doi.org/​ https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​0959- ​4752(92)90022-​E Myhill, D., & Warren, P. (2005). Scaffolds or straitjackets? Critical moments in classroom discourse. Educational Review, 57(1), 55–​69. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​0 013​1910​4200​0274​187 Nikula, T. (2015). Hands-​on tasks in CLIL science classrooms as sites for subject-​specific language use and learning. System, 54, 1427. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.sys​tem.2015.04.003 Palincsar, A.S. (1986). The role of dialogue in providing scaffolded instruction. Educational Psychologist, 21(1–​2), 73–​98. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​0 0461​520.1986.9653​025 Palincsar, A. S. (1998). Social constructivist perspectives on teaching and learning. Annual Review of Psychology, 49(1), 345–​375. https://​doi.org/​10.1146/​a nnu​rev.psych.49.1.345 Reynolds, D., & Daniel, S. (2018). Toward contingency in scaffolding reading comprehension: Next steps for research. Reading Research Quarterly, 53(3), 367–​373. https://​doi.org/​10.1002/​r rq.200 Roehler, L., & Cantlon, D. (1997). Scaffolding: a powerful tool in social constructivist classrooms. In K. Hogan & M. Pressley (Eds.), Scaffolding student learning: Instructional approaches and issues (pp. 6–​42). Brookline Books. Rojas-​Drummond, S., & Mercer, N. (2003). Scaffolding the development of effective collaboration and learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 39(1), 99–​111. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​ S0883- ​0355(03)00075-​2 Ruiz de Zarobe, Y., & Smala, S. (2020). Metacognitive awareness in language learning strategies and strategy instruction in CLIL settings. Journal for the Psychology of Language Learning, 2(2), 20–​35. Scruggs, T.E., & Mastropieri, M.A. (1998). What happens during instruction: Is any metaphor necessary? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31(4), 404– ​4 08. https://​doi.org/​10.1177/​0 02​2 219​4980​ 3100​410

297

Karina Rose Mahan Searle, D. (1984). Scaffolding: Who’s building whose building? Language Arts, 61(5), 480– ​483. Shvarts, A., & Bakker, A. (2019). The early history of the scaffolding metaphor: Bernstein, Luria, Vygotsky, and before. Mind, Culture and Activity, 26(1), 4–​23. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​10749​ 039.2019.1574​306 Sinclair, J., & Coulthard, R.M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils. Oxford University Press. Smagorinsky, P. (2018). Is instructional scaffolding actually Vygotskian, and why should it matter to literacy teachers? Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 62(3), 253–​257. https://​doi.org/​10.1002/​ jaal.756 Stone, C.A. (1998a). The metaphor of scaffolding: Its utility for the field of learning disabilities. The Journal of Learning Disability, 31(4), 344–​364. https://​doi.org/​10.1177/​0 02​2219​4980​3100​404 Stone, C.A. (1998b). Should we salvage the scaffolding metaphor? The Journal of Learning Disability, 31(4), 409–​413. https://​doi.org/​10.1177/​0 02​2219​4980​3100​411 Sylvén, L.K. (2019). Investigating content and language integrated learning: Insights from Swedish high schools. Multilingual Matters. Tajeddin, Z., Alemi, M., & Kamrani, Z. (2020). Functions and strategies of teachers’ discursive scaffolding in English-​ medium content-​ based instruction. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 8(3), 1–​24. https://​doi.org/​10.30466/​I JLTR.2020.120​931 Tang, K.-​S. (2019). The role of language in scaffolding content and language integration in CLIL science classrooms. Journal of Immersion and Content-​based Language Education, 7(2), 315–​328. https://​ doi.org/​10.1075/​jicb.00007.tan Tedick, D.J., & Lyster, R. (2020). Scaffolding language development in immersion and dual language classrooms. Routledge. van de Pol, J., Mercer, N., & Volman, M. (2019). Scaffolding student understanding in small-​g roup work: Students’ uptake of teacher support in subsequent small-​g roup interaction. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 28(2), 206–​239. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​10508​406.2018.1522​258 van de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2010). Scaffolding in teacher–​ student interaction: A decade of research. Educational Psychology Review, 22(3), 271–​296. https://​doi.org/​10.1007/​ s10​648-​010-​9127-​6 van Lier, L. (1996). Interaction in the language curriculum: Awareness, autonomy and authenticity. Longman. van Lier, L. (2004). The ecology and semiotics of language learning: A sociocultural perspective. Kluwer Academic. Verenikina, I. (2004). From theory to practice: What does the metaphor of scaffolding mean to educators today? Outlines Critical Practice Studies, 6(2), 5–​16. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press. Walqui, A. (2006). Scaffolding instruction for English language learners: A conceptual framework. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9(2), 159–​180. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​ 136700​5060​8668​639 Walqui, A., & van Lier, L. (2010). Scaffolding the academic success of adolescent English language learners: A pedagogy of promise. WestEd. Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Towards a socio-​cultural practice and theory of education. Cambridge University Press. Wood, D., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89–​100. Wood, D., Wood, H., Ainsworth, S., & O’Malley, C. (1995). On becoming a tutor: Toward an ontogenetic model. Cognition and Instruction, 13(4), 565–​581. https://​doi.org/​10.1207/​s15326​90xc​ i130​4 _​7 Xi, J., & Lantolf, J.P. (2021). Scaffolding and the zone of proximal development: A problematic relationship. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 51(1), 25–​48. https://​doi.org/​10.1111/​jtsb.12260 Xu, D., & Harfitt, G.J. (2019). Teacher language awareness and scaffolded interaction in CLIL science classrooms. Journal of Immersion and Content-​based Language Education, 7(2), 212–​232. https://​doi. org/​10.1075/​jicb.18023.xu

298

299

20 CLASSROOM INTERACTION IN CLIL Dongying Li

Classroom interaction in CLIL: some key terms Research suggests that classroom interaction plays a crucial role in supporting content-​ language-​integrated-​learning (CLIL) (Dalton-​Puffer, 2011; Ortega, 2015). Since CLIL is ‘a dual-​focused educational approach in which an additional language is used for the learning and teaching of both content and language’ (Coyle et al., 2010, p. 1), in this approach, content and language learning serve one another. In other words, while content learning needs generally create a real disciplinary context for language learning, language learning acts both as a means as well as an ends through which academic content is expressed (Dalton-​Puffer, 2011). Content learning goals and practices create a genuine need for learners to engage in complex reasoning and communication through an additional language (Ruiz de Zarobe, 2017). These practices may in turn generate rich language learning opportunities which not only draw learners’ attention to language but also provide them with opportunities for repeated language exposure and practice (Cammarata et al., 2016). In other words, in the process of meaning-​m aking and thinking through language, the integration of language and cognitive development are promoted (Coyle et al., 2010). In CLIL, this process is mainly achieved through classroom interaction (Phillipson & Wegerif, 2020). According to Tsui (2001, p. 120), ‘classroom interaction refers to the interaction between the teacher and learners, and amongst the learners in the classroom’. This definition highlights the mutuality and reciprocity between subjects in information exchange. Through the joint contribution of interlocutors in mutual exchanges, meanings can be explored while thoughts are developed, which in turn paves the way for language learning and knowledge construction. Thus, exploring the structures and patterns of classroom interactions can unveil the processes and mechanisms through which learning occurs (Phillipson & Wegerif, 2020). Concerning its importance, this field of research has been developing for years under an attempt to understand teacher and students’ language and actions in interactions (Gardner, 2019). In recent years, however, the scope of investigation has gone beyond the verbal and behavioural aspects to encompass a wider range of semiotic resources (e.g., gestures, gaze) interlocking with one another through learners’ constant interactions with the surrounding environment (Hall, 2019).

DOI: 10.4324/9781003173151-25

299

Dongying Li

From a pedagogical perspective, these interactions are largely facilitated when the teacher and learners are involved in genuine communication, which in Nunan’s (1987, p. 137) terms is characterised by ‘the uneven distribution of information’ and ‘the negotiation of meaning’. It is through such negotiations that interactions generally embody real communicative purposes and information gaps, making the content and process of interaction partially unpredictable (Nunan, 1987). Through this negotiation process, if done felicitously, multiple perspectives are elicited and respected so that differences in opinion are tolerated rather than condemned (Phillipson & Wegerif, 2020; Walsh, 2011; Wells, 1999). This multi-​ voiced and symmetric nature of interaction paves the way for effective learning and knowledge construction to occur (Phillipson & Wegerif, 2020). Research suggests that something that effective classroom interactions have in common is that they often address a real-​world problem, and they offer multiple opportunities for symmetric and open-​ended inquiries while embodying demanding yet achievable challenges (Hicks, 1996; van Lier, 2004). This notion is closely aligned with features of CLIL classroom discourse, which in its ideal form, encourages content learning through an additional language via complex meaning-​m aking and reasoning around a disciplinary topic. In this respect, interaction serves an important role in conceptualising and implementing CLIL in instructional settings.

The role of interaction in CLIL For interactions to be generative and developmental in CLIL, they need to encourage learners to create meaning, experiment with their language and thoughts while engaging in authentic content learning practices (Ball et al., 2015). Here, authentic refers to communication addressed to a real audience for real communicative purposes (Gilmore, 2007). This mirrors what Barnes (2008) termed ‘exploratory talk’, which ‘enables the speaker to try out ideas, to hear how they sound, to see what others make of them, to arrange information and ideas into different patterns’ (p. 5). These talks stay in contrast with presentational talk, which ‘primarily focused on adjusting the language, content and manner to the needs of an audience’ (p. 5) Thus, while exploratory talk fosters meaning-​m aking and knowledge construction through interactional exchanges, presentational talk refers to transmission of knowledge through talk. Both kinds of talk are necessary in instruction. However, for effective learning to occur, exploratory talk should be encouraged as ‘an important means of working on understanding rather than getting at the answer right’ (Waring, 2016, p. 18). Both kinds of talk appear in CLIL, however, compared to traditional English as a foreign language (EFL) classrooms which are often featured by relatively rigid initiation-​response-​ feedback (IRF) interactional structures, CLIL classrooms, in its ideal form, generally involve more open-​ended inquiries and discussions (Dalton-​Puffer, 2011). For instance, Nikula et al. (2013) proposed in a review that CLIL classrooms generally demonstrated a less tightly packed IRF structure, allowing more follow-​up moves by both the teacher and students. This often offers multiple opportunities for discourse extensions that foster comprehension and negotiation over the academic content. As mentioned previously, the need to learn subject matter knowledge through an additional language in CLIL promotes complex meaning-​m aking and higher-​order thinking, which in turn paves the way for integrated language and cognitive development (Ruiz de Zarobe, 2017). This assumption is closely related to a series of second language learning and human development theories, including cognitive-​interactionist approaches to second language learning, socio-​cultural approaches to human learning and development, and critical 300

Classroom interaction in CLIL

approaches towards language, communication, and social transformation (Gee, 2015; Lantolf & Thorne, 2006; Ortega, 2015). Research insights in light of these theories will be discussed in the following sections.

Interaction in CLIL from a cognitive-​interactionist perspective From a cognitive-​ interactionist perspective, language learning stems from meaningful interactions over real-​world problems (Ellis, 2003). To achieve meaningful communication, learners need to be both cognitively and affectively engaged to stretch their interlanguage systems for complex meaning-​m aking (Robinson, 2011). This process also embodies rich opportunities for language learning through explicit focus on form activities that promote the noticing, comprehension, and gradual internalisation of language knowledge through repeated exposure and practice (Long, 2015). In CLIL, this is often achieved when learners use language as a tool to communicate ideas, expand their knowledge and negotiate their positions within the academic community (Cammarata et al., 2016). These practices can in turn enhance learners’ cognitive engagement. For instance, Coyle and de Larios (2020) found that compared to EFL learners, CLIL learners tend to ‘intensify their cognitive activity when faced with linguistic problems which leads to deeper semantic processing and better understanding of curricular content’ (p. 11). Similarly, language learning in CLIL is highly functional and communicative, as the need to learn subject-​m atter knowledge through an additional language renders the process of learning and interaction meaningful, purposeful, and cognitively challenging (Dalton-​ Puffer, 2011). This notion can be understood from the close relationships between language learning and cognitive development in second language pedagogy (Long, 2015). For instance, Robinson’s (2011) cognition hypothesis proposed that increasing cognitive complexity can enhance language complexity in communicative tasks, as learners continue to stretch their interlanguage systems and draw on multiple resources to fulfil particular communicative needs. However, evidence also suggests a possible trade-​off relationship between accuracy and complexity in interactions due to their competition for working memory capacities (Skehan, 1996). These trade-​off relations are particularly evident in language use activities with high communicative stress, limited planning time, and low levels of cognitive support (Skehan, 1996). In classroom interactions, the trade-​off relations can be alleviated through instructional feedback which provides learners with the necessary language and cognitive resources to fulfil their communicative needs. For instance, rearticulating learners’ understandings in a more academic way can serve this purpose (Coyle et al., 2010; Gibbons, 2015). As proposed by Gibbons (2006), the development of ‘curriculum understanding’ often goes hand in hand with the development of ‘discourse’ (p. 124). Interactions can not only foster learners’ thinking and engagement but also create opportunities for teachers to tailor their instruction and feedback to learners’ current developmental levels (Long, 2015). In other words, it is through interaction that the processes of saying, knowing, and thinking are eventually integrated. In CLIL classroom interactions, the integration of curriculum and discourse can be supported by tasks. From the perspective of task-​based language teaching, a task is a meaning-​ focused activity with a non-​linguistic outcome that requires learners to draw from multiple language and cognitive resources (Ellis, 2003). Thus, the completion of a task is generally meaning-​oriented and language-​supported, which can in turn promote learners to think through language in content communication. However, despite the proposed benefits, the 301

Dongying Li

effectiveness of interaction largely depends on the way it unfolds in real pedagogical tasks. That is, task conditions can shape both the structure and content of interaction, participant roles and relationships, and consequently the semiotic resources involved (Dalton-​Puffer, 2011). For instance, Llinares and Dalton-​Puffer (2015) showed that students generally did more appraisal in group work than in whole-​class interaction but still lesser than those of role plays and interviews. This can be partly accounted by the fact that compared to role plays and interviews, group work seems to embody less personal relevance and significance and may in turn be less engaging for learners (Llinares & Dalton-​Puffer, 2015). These studies suggest that manipulating task conditions can maximise students’ language and cognitive engagement in CLIL classroom interactions. However, they do not specify how this can be achieved (Cammarata & Tedick, 2012). In fact, the question of how content and language learning can be integrated in CLIL is still an issue that leads to much discussion and that appears to be hard to implement. In an attempt to explicate the relationship between language and content, Darvin et al. (2020) contended that the balance between language and content instruction in CLIL constitutes a dynamic continuum rather than a set of fixed expectations, and suggested that how to handle this ‘in-​betweenness’ actually gives rise to ‘both CLIL’s greatest strength and challenge’ (p. 104). One way to foster integration is by providing instructional feedback with a dual focus on meaning and form in classroom interactions, which can either be planned or incidental (Long, 2015). Feedback provided in this way is not only aimed at promoting learners to notice the gap in their own interlanguage systems but also engaging them into deeper levels of knowing and thinking (Escobar Urmeneta & Walsh, 2017; Lyster, 2007). For instance, research by Cammarata and Tedick (2012, p. 264) has shown that a ‘functional approach to language teaching with explicit rule explanation’ in communicative interactions helps to draw learners’ attention to specific linguistic features that ‘infrequently surface in communication’ or do not contain a ‘heavy communicative load’. This approach can largely be facilitated by the identification of cognitive discourse functions in instruction (e.g., classify, define, describe, evaluate, explain, etc.) that helps learners establish the link among form, meaning and function in academic communications (Dalton-​Puffer, 2016).

Interaction in CLIL from a socio-​cultural perspective A socio-​cultural approach intends to unveil the process of learning by bridging the gap between the cognitive and the social in mediated interactions (Lantolf & Thorne, 2006). From a socio-​cultural theory perspective, mediated interactions which are social in nature serve as the main impetus for learning (Lantolf & Poehner, 2008). In other words, learning signifies the internalisation of cognitive and semiotic resources through interactions gradually moving from the social to the individual level during which one becomes more self-​ regulated (Lantolf & Thorne, 2006). Thus, the quality of interaction plays an important part in enhancing the quality of learning (Boyd, 2015; Mercer & Littleton, 2007). As is indicated by Mercer and Littleton (2007, p. 125), ‘what children learn from talk in the classroom, and how significant it is for their psychological development and educational progress, will depend a great deal on the range and quality of the dialogues in which they engage’. From a socio-​cultural theory perspective, this is mainly achieved by the process of scaffolding. According to Donato (1994, p. 40), scaffolding refers to a ‘situation where a knowledgeable participant can create supportive conditions in which the novice can participate and extend his or her current skills and knowledge to higher levels of competence’. Through 302

Classroom interaction in CLIL

scaffolding, students are equipped with the necessary semiotic and cognitive resources to attain higher levels of performance beyond their actual competences (Wood et al., 1976). Thus, while the cognitive approach aims to specify the contextual variables and interactional task characteristics conducive to learning, the socio-​cultural approach seeks to unveil how learning occurs through moment-​to-​moment scaffolded interactions. From a socio-​ cultural theory perspective, scaffolded interactions serve two crucial functions: (1) to engage learners into deeper levels of thinking and knowing, and (2) to reformulate, elaborate, and extend learners’ responses to create learning opportunities in light of the curriculum goals and objectives (Gibbons, 2015). These practices generally correspond to the ‘high challenge and high support’ language learning principle in content-​ based classrooms (Gibbons, 2015). That is, promoting learners to reason and think through their language use while connecting and recontextualising their responses to larger scientific principles (Gibbons, 2006). Through scaffolded interactions, opportunities for higher-​order thinking are created and attention to language forms and resources are promoted. Research suggests that effective scaffolding shares multiple features (van de Pol et al., 2010; van Lier, 2004; Walqui, 2006; Wood et al., 1976). Van de Pol et al. (2010) identified three main characteristics of scaffolding as contingency, fading, and transfer of responsibility, indicating effective scaffolding to be interactive and dynamic, extending learners’ performances through interactions while paving the way for their future developmental potentials to be achieved. These characteristics can be further instantiated through a series of classroom instructional strategies, such as modelling, bridging, contextualising, marking critical features and developing metacognition, and others (Walqui, 2006; Wood et al., 1976). They generally provide useful guidance on how scaffolding can be effectively envisioned and implemented in classroom interactions. These scaffolding strategies also apply in CLIL. In fact, they are further developed through the affordances of CLIL classroom discourse that generally embodies a rich environment for scaffolded interactions (Ball et al., 2015; Gibbons, 2006, 2015; Li & Zhang, 2020). Until now, much of the research has focused on the specific strategies in implementing teacher scaffolding in CLIL (e.g., Cammarata et al., 2016; Fernández-​Fontecha et al., 2020; Mahan, 2020). For instance, Mahan (2020) identified a series of scaffolding strategies to make content comprehensible in CLIL classrooms, including connecting to prior knowledge, using supportive materials, defining academic language and uptake of students’ responses, etc. However, more research is still needed to unveil the conditions required for effective scaffolding to occur. In this regard, research evidence on effective scaffolding from a socio-​cultural perspective mainly involves the following aspects: (1) creating a safe and encouraging learning environment for frequent uptake and open-​ended inquiries (Nikula et al., 2013; Skidmore, 2016); (2) enhancing students’ cognitive and affective engagement in authentic disciplinary learning tasks (Ball et al., 2015; Coyle et al., 2010); (3) providing abundant semiotic resources for meaning-​m aking (Lin, 2016); and (4) systematic planning of classroom tasks to enable the recycling of target language features (Li & Zhang, 2020). First, research suggests that teacher scaffolding in CLIL can largely be facilitated by a safe learning environment that encourages learners’ active participation in classroom interactions (Nikula et al., 2013). This often proceeds through a relatively loose classroom participation structure in which learners can freely self-​select and add on one another’s ideas in meaningful communications. For instance, Escobar Urmeneta and Evnitskaya (2014) reported that the adoption of multiple conversational resources, shift in deictic perspective, and allowances for private turns in teacher talk can largely facilitate learners’ participation and engagement in 303

Dongying Li

classroom interactions. In this process, ideas are elicited, meanings negotiated, and opportunities for scaffolding and instruction gradually emerge (Hicks, 1996). Second, studies revealed that for effective scaffolding to occur, students need to be cognitively and affectively engaged (Ball et al., 2015). Svalberg (2017) proposed that learners’ engagement in tasks constitutes an important process for conscious learning, for instance focused attention, a positive and purposeful attitude, and an interactive and initiating disposition for learning. One way to achieve this is to initiate higher-​order thinking and reasoning in CLIL classroom interactions (Ball et al., 2015; Gibbons, 2015). For example, Ball et al. (2015, p. 52) proposed the principle of ‘teaching conceptual content by means of procedural choices using specific language derived from the content discourse’. Procedural choices here signify a series of mental operations such as comparing, inferencing, analysing, and evaluating, etc. (Anderson et al., 2001). Through these cognitive processes, learners’ engagement can be enhanced and opportunities for language learning thus promoted (Zhang & Li, 2019). Third, teacher scaffolding in CLIL can be enhanced by creating multiple semiotic resources in instructional contexts (Gibbons, 2006). These include both verbal and non-​verbal codes (Lin, 2016). For verbal codes, different languages and registers can be recognised to achieve an interconnected meaning-​m aking repertoire. For instance, L1 use can be acknowledged and even encouraged in CLIL classrooms along with a recognition of learners’ own communicative repertories, emotions, and paralinguistic features (Liu, 2020). As indicated by Lin (2016, p. 84): ‘This brings us to the point of the need to draw on multiple resources in the communicative repertoire of the students to provide language and semiotic support to them when they are learning content using a second or foreign language (an L2).’ The use of L1 along with other semiotic resources not only scaffolds communication but also fosters effective meaning-​m aking in a systematic and functional way (Lin, 2016). In CLIL classroom interactions, this is mainly achieved by making content comprehensible through teacher and student extensions drawing on multiple semiotic resources and creating ‘message abundancy’, in other words ‘the same information given in a variety of ways’ (Gibbons, 2015, p. 47). For instance, research from Fernández-​Fontecha et al. (2020) found that resemiotisation in the form of combined verbal and visual codes enhanced learners’ understanding of grammatical metaphor, signifying the benefits of ‘an upsurge in various modes of learning’ in CLIL classrooms. Comparable results were also obtained by Escobar Urmeneta and Walsh (2017) showing that deploying multimodal resources facilitated comprehension and learners’ self-​selection in CLIL classroom interactions. These findings are all considered crucial in revealing the potential of applying multiple semiotic resources in CLIL classroom interactions. Yet, it is still a relatively under-​researched area, and more attention is deserved in future studies. Fourth, effective implementation of teacher scaffolding in CLIL benefits from systematic planning of classroom tasks and recycling of target language features (Li & Zhang, 2020). From a socio-​cultural theory perspective, for learning to occur, mediation needs to be internalised (Lantolf & Thorne, 2006). This process, however, does not take place spontaneously but often results from learners’ constant engagement and practices (Kozulin, 2018). From a pedagogical perspective, this can be achieved through recycling instruction to provide learners with frequent exposure to target language features in meaningful language use (Tomlinson, 2011). In CLIL classroom interactions, this is manifested as systematic task design that enables language features to be recycled through different cognitive-​level tasks, which in turn paves the way for their gradual internalisation (Li & Zhang, 2020). The four tenets above all serve to account for the planning and implementation of effective teacher scaffolding in CLIL classrooms (Ball et al., 2015; Lin, 2016). However, to 304

Classroom interaction in CLIL

date, few studies have managed to relate the process of learning in interaction with its long-​ term developmental effects. In other words, how can processes of scaffolded interactions in CLIL benefit learners’ language and cognitive development in the long-​term? This is, however, an important issue. From a socio-​cultural theory perspective, mediated interactions do not necessarily guarantee internalisation, as the latter often requires deliberate practice and prolonged engagement (Kozulin, 2018). Thus, it is necessary to extend the scope of investigation of scaffolded interactions in CLIL beyond a single task to larger curriculum goals and objectives (Gibbons, 2006). In this respect, the purpose of teacher scaffolding is not only to help learners acquire content and language knowledge but aimed at human learning and development from a sociogenetic and ontogenetic perspective. Thus, future research and pedagogy need to lay more emphasis on the links between scaffolding at the task level for single problem solving and scaffolding that systematically varies along a series of task chains for students’ long-​term language and cognitive development.

Interaction in CLIL from a critical perspective From a critical perspective, communication and interactions on a local plane embody important social and political consequences, indicating potential developmental paths and potentialities for change (Waring, 2016). In the same vein, classroom interaction in CLIL is not merely a language and cognitive issue but a social and political one as well, embodying concrete actions, enacting social relationships, enabling transformations, and repositioning self and others (Beach & Beauchemin, 2019). In this respect, classroom interaction in CLIL is both enabled and constrained by local and wider socio-​political structures and the learning effects of CLIL classroom discourse are no longer confined to the development of individual mental functioning but involve new ways of ‘acting, being and intervening in the material world’ (Fairclough, 2011, p. 124). Just as indicated by Darvin et al. (2020, p. 104), a critical lens on CLIL examines ‘how CLIL is continually interpreted and discursively constructed by policymakers and practitioners and remains a perpetual site of struggle’. These practices reflect the emancipatory and transformative potential of CLIL classroom discourse. That is, while classroom discourse is widely shaped by social, cultural, and political forces, individuals are by no means passive recipients of those power relations but actively practising, negotiating, or resisting the structures and possibly reconstructing them for their own purposes (Miller, 2015). In fact, the relations between agency and structure never seem to reach an equilibrium in CLIL classroom discourse. And it is through this constant balancing between multiple resources, negotiation and renegotiation of power and structure in interactions that advances in teaching and learning can be achieved (Darvin et al., 2020). Note that in talking about the critical lens, the focus on CLIL classroom interaction has gradually expanded to that of discourse. This is because classroom interactions are closely related to a series of social, cultural, and political practices which are in turn reshaped and transformed through these interaction processes (Miller, 2015). One such example is the concern for Englishisation in CLIL contexts, namely the use of English in contexts where previously local languages were used (Moncada-​Comas & Block, 2022). It is believed that Englishisation can possibly lead to a sense of ‘role diminishment’ on the part of the teacher and students who may feel relatively incompetent or uncomfortable in teaching/​learning in their L2 (Moncada-​Comas & Block, 2022). This phenomenon suggests the need to attend to the complex realities of 305

Dongying Li

CLIL instructional contexts where idealised mode of CLIL classroom interactions can be questioned or even contended. To date, research on critical CLIL classroom interaction mainly involves two major themes. The first theme attends to the wider socio-​cultural contexts and real-​life experiences that learners bring into the classroom, connecting different educational contexts, and creating a space for multiple voices to co-​exist and converse (Ho, 2020). In this respect, classroom interactions in CLIL are gradually transformed into discursive practices that help connect the individual, school, and community, envisioning potentialities for the betterment of society (Darvin et al., 2020). An example is Ho’s (2020) study that introduced critical literacy into CLIL classrooms, allowing learners to reflect and discuss the conflicting discourses on gender issues while developing their critical awareness. Considering the relative paucity of research on this issue, the study can be deemed as pioneering in its attempt to draw more attention to the critical and transformative aspects of CLIL classroom discourse. The second theme under this topic highlights the necessity to understand the complexities of CLIL classroom realities (Fernández-​Barrera, 2019; Lin & He, 2017; Llinares & Evnitskaya, 2021). These include learners’ varying L2 proficiencies, diverse learning backgrounds, and community cultures, etc. (Nikula et al., 2013). It is believed that interaction not only serves to reveal these complexities but also to empower the learners to respond, react, and reflect upon them (Fernández-​Barrera, 2019). For instance, Fernández-​Barrera (2019) reported how teachers struggled to manage and negotiate their teaching practices amid the complex classroom realities and institutional demands. In this sense, classroom interactions serve both as an affordance and constraint for the innovation and transformation of CLIL classroom practices. Similarly, Llinares and Evnitskaya’s (2021) study revealed how CLIL classroom interactions could unintentionally ‘silence’ particular groups of learners due to their limited language and academic proficiencies. As revealed by the study, content teachers tended to use a more dialogic approach towards the high exposure group compared to a more authoritative approach towards the low exposure group in CLIL (Llinares & Evnitskaya, 2021). Comparable findings were also obtained by Tompkins (2022) showing that students of lower L2 proficiency levels not only studied fewer and less academic subjects but were also limited in their opportunities to practise receptive skills, which in turn led to their diminishing learning engagement. These findings suggest that CLIL classroom interactions tend to favour students with higher language proficiency and academic scores as these students are generally more inclined to participate in classroom discussions and share their views through an additional language. In this sense, a critical lens not only promotes more reflections on the content and structure of CLIL classroom discourse but more importantly raises participants’ awareness on the underlying influencing factors for the patterns of classroom interactions. Research suggests that one way to negotiate such complex realities is through teacher and students’ emerging translanguaging practices. According to García (2012, p. 1), ‘translanguaging posits that bilinguals have one linguistic repertoire from which they select features strategically to communicate effectively’. This notion highlights the strategic and functional nature of language use as social actions and practices (García, 2012). These practices specify the communicative nature of CLIL classroom discourse while also enabling the negotiation and construction of teacher and students’ identities in interactions, particularly in terms of whose voices are acknowledged or silenced and what learning opportunities are created or constrained. In recent years, the notion of translanguaging gradually expands to refer to the ‘dynamic communication flows of interrelated meaning-​m aking webs’ in educational settings (Lin & He, 2017, p. 229). This means that translanguaging practices are no longer confined 306

Classroom interaction in CLIL

to language codes but incorporate other semiotic resources as well, for instance emotion, register, image, etc. (Fernández-​Fontecha et al., 2020; Liu, 2020). In classroom interactions, these resources constitute an unbounded, dynamic flow of information to facilitate identity construction, meaning-​m aking, and problem-​solving (Lin & He, 2017). Through these practices, CLIL classroom interactions generally become more inclusive and empowering in facilitating learners’ participation and engagement in wider social practices (Lin, 2016). One example is Liu’s (2020) study that reported the benefits of translanguaging and trans-​ semiotising in aligning feeling and meaning to challenge ‘the dominance of English’ and ‘stabilized cultural patterns of academic and non-​academic registers’ in CLIL classrooms (p. 149). In sum, the critical approach addresses the importance to align social, cultural, and structural relations to the study of CLIL classroom discourse (Darvin et al., 2020). This strand of research is deemed crucial to tap the potential of CLIL classroom discourse in shaping and transforming individuals’ and community’s learning practices (Gee, 2015). Yet, it is still a relatively under-​researched area that is just beginning to emerge. Moreover, only few existing studies on this issue take an interventionist perspective (Ho, 2020; Lin & He, 2017). This means that there is still room for systematic implementation of a critical CLIL pedagogy. To achieve this goal, in-​depth inquiries on the complex CLIL classroom realities are often necessary.

Possible future research directions The above discussions reveal three different perspectives to investigate CLIL classroom interactions. They are not mutually exclusive but complement one another in instructional settings, altogether enriching our understanding of classroom interaction in CLIL. In other words, although the role of classroom interaction has already been widely acknowledged in CLIL, more attention is still deserved to unveil the dynamics and complexities of the CLIL classroom realities particularly in terms of students’ varying language proficiencies and diverse social and cultural backgrounds. These diversities, in Bakhtin’s (1981) terms, may represent a centrifugal force in education contrary to a more idealised role of classroom interaction where the proposed benefits of CLIL have already been well acknowledged (centripetal force). These diversities do not ‘disrupt’ the flow of CLIL classroom interactions but actually give rise to emergent learning opportunities, for instance the practices of translanguaging and use of multimodal semiotic resources (Leung & Morton, 2016). It is thus proposed that future CLIL classroom interaction research continues to strike a balance between the planned and the incidental, the ideal and the local, as well as the centripetal and the centrifugal. Just as Leung and Morton (2016, p. 248) indicated, ‘an emphasis on “performance” (in Bernstein’s terms) will not squeeze out creativity and contingency, and that CLIL classrooms can continue to be, as seen in the chapters in this volume, mosaics of different pedagogies and learning practices’. Upon these discussions, three possible future research directions are proposed: (1) integrating content and language learning through interactions in multiple contexts, (2) connecting process and product in scaffolded interactions, and (3) exploring the role of translanguaging in enhancing learning and social transformation. The underlying assumption for these aspects is to bridge the gap between language and cognition, teaching and learning, as well as centripetal and the centrifugal forces in situated CLIL classroom pedagogies. The first future research direction taps the need to investigate the specific approaches to integrate content and language learning through interactions in multiple instructional 307

Dongying Li

settings. As mentioned before, a basic assumption of CLIL is that content learning needs prompt learners to engage in cognitively demanding communications which can in turn promote their language development (Coyle et al., 2010). Interactions bear an important role in achieving these pedagogical purposes. However, the ways interactions are enacted in CLIL vary across contexts and cultures and largely depend on teacher knowledge and expertise (Nikula et al., 2013). This has made the teacher one of the main stakeholders for the effectiveness of interactions in CLIL classroom discourse (Hicks, 1996). In recent years, concerns have been raised over the need for teacher training and support which is particularly pressing in EFL contexts where meaningful language use outside the classroom is rather limited and learners’ language proficiency levels vary widely (Zou & Shi, 2018). As Zou and Shi (2018) revealed in their inquiry, EFL learners with relatively low language proficiency levels may feel less prepared for CLIL classroom interaction concerning its dual linguistic and cognitive demands. This has raised concerns over the effectiveness of teacher scaffolding, language, and cognitive support in CLIL classrooms within an EFL context. From an empirical perspective, controversies mainly centre around the role of explicit language instruction in CLIL as relevant research evidence questioned the effectiveness of incidental focus on form in adult second language acquisition (Svalberg, 2017). As indicated by Swan (2005, p. 387), ‘language use involves not only recall but also computation, learners must acquire the ability to perform the operations required with reasonable accuracy in real time’. In the future, more research is still needed to investigate the amount of explicit instruction required for different proficiency level learners in multiple CLIL instructional contexts. From a pedagogical perspective, pursuits for effective practices to align content and language learning are still underway. Previous research suggested an ‘hourglass’ approach that starts from meaningful negotiations and gradually directs learners’ attention to language forms (Cammarata & Tedick, 2012). This approach addresses the importance of both accuracy and fluency in CLIL classroom interactions, highlighting the need to integrate explicit language instruction with communicative activities. This approach can be further developed through carefully designed activities that enable the recycling of target language features for repeated exposure and practice, particularly within an EFL context. The second research direction involves connecting process and product in scaffolded interactions. As is widely acknowledged, learning happens in interactions, and it is through interaction that the process of learning becomes visible and transparent ( Jakonen & Morton, 2016). To date, much of the interaction studies in CLIL take a micro-​genetic perspective that is a ‘thorough minute analysis of psychological process’ examining moment-​to-​moment changes in participants’ language and cognition (De Guerrero & Villamil, 2000, p. 54). This approach is deemed crucial as they unveil how learning gradually unfolds through socially mediated interactions. However, as mentioned above, the goal of interaction in CLIL is certainly beyond single task completion but to promote structural changes to one’s higher order mental functioning. It is thus proposed that relevant studies attend to both the process and product of classroom interactions, particularly in terms of their effects on learners’ language and cognitive development in the long-​term. As mentioned by Smagorinsky (2018), the goal is not to teach children something to do independently within 24h, but to engage in a long-​term process of acculturation to communication practices

308

Classroom interaction in CLIL

that serve not only to develop a competency … but for those processes in turn to mediate development toward socially-​valued, culturally-​mediated conceptual ends. Smagorinsky, 2018, p. 74 Future CLIL classroom interaction research may need to pay joint attention to local interactional contingencies and long-​term developmental effects among individual and group learners. From a pedagogical perspective, connecting process and product in interactions entails multiple pedagogical practices: (1) adopting a developmental perspective in scaffolded interactions (van Lier, 2004; Walqui, 2006); 2) systematic planning of instructional activities into a series of ‘task chains’ to enable the recycling of target language features and enhancing learners’ engagement with the subject matter (Li & Zhang, 2020). These practices create multiple opportunities for meaningful exposure and practice which in turn pave the way for internalisation to occur. The third research direction advocates exploring translanguaging practices in CLIL classroom interactions. As noted above, one of the underlying learning mechanisms for CLIL is scaffolded interactions around cognitively challenging tasks (Cammarata et al., 2016). These interactions embody ample learning opportunities but may also set requirements for learners’ language proficiencies. Thus, those who are of a relatively low L2 proficiency level may be kept, at least to some extent, from engaging actively in interactional activities (Llinares & Evnitskaya, 2021). The use of L1 or more inclusively translanguaging practices can not only help maintain the natural flow of communication but also serve as a resource and strategy for meaning-​m aking and cognitive development (Moore & Nikula, 2016). In recent years, attempts have been made to integrate translanguaging as an emerging and legitimate practice to scaffold CLIL classroom interactions (Lin & He, 2017; Moore & Nikula, 2016). Findings generally indicated its benefits in creating a sense of ‘message abundancy’ by enacting multiple semiotic and non-​semiotic resources in interactions (Gibbons, 2015; Lin & He, 2017). Moreover, research suggests that effective translanguaging practices in CLIL are to some extent organised and systematic rather than intuitive and random (Moore & Nikula, 2016). This points to the need for future research to explore the role and function of translanguaging in different instructional settings and among diverse learner populations.

Further reading Hemmi, C., & Banegas, D.L. (Eds.). (2021). International perspectives on CLIL. Switzerland Palgrave Macmillan. This book addresses the role of classroom interaction in CLIL from its relations to both teacher and student learning in diverse cultural backgrounds thus shedding light on the implementation and development of ‘glocalised’ CLIL educational practices. Lin, A.M.Y. (2016). Language across the curriculum and CLIL in English as an additional language (EAL) contexts: Theory and practice. Springer. This book unveils the role of classroom interaction in CLIL from the close interactions among curriculum, discourse, and pedagogy which in turn provides concrete guidance for researchers and teachers to further reflect and improve their own practices. Llinares, A., & Morton, T. (Eds.). (2017). Applied linguistics perspectives on CLIL. John Benjamins Publishing Company. This book explores the structure and functions of CLIL classroom interactions from multiple theoretical perspectives (e.g., second language acquisition, systemic functional linguistics, and discourse analysis) thus shedding light on potential future research insights and classroom pedagogies.

309

Dongying Li

Funding The chapter is jointly supported by BFSU Landmark Research Projects for Critical Thinkingoriented English Language Education: Research and Development (Grant No. 2021SYLZD002) and University-​Industry Collaboration Projects for ‘The Voice of English: Online MOOC Construction and Promotion’ funded by the Ministry of Education (Grant No. 202101065013).

Acknowledgement I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Professor Dario Banegas, Professor Sandra Zappa-​ Hollman, and an anonymous reviewer for their constructive and valuable feedback on the original manuscript.

References Anderson, L.W., Krathwohl, D.R., Airasian, P.W., Cruikshank, K.A., Mayer, R.E., Pintrich, P.R., Rathes, J., & Wittrock, M.C. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman. Bakhtin, M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays. University of Texas Press. Ball, P., Kelly, K., & Clegg, J. (2015). Putting CLIL into practice. Oxford University Press. Barnes, D. (2008). Exploratory talk for learning. In N. Mercer & S. Hodgkinson (Eds.), Exploring talk in schools: Inspired by the work of Douglas Barnes (pp. 1–​17). Sage Publication. Beach, R., & Beauchemin, F. (2019). Teaching language as action in the ELA classroom. Routledge. Boyd, M.P. (2015). Relations between teacher questioning and student talk in one elementary ELL classroom. Journal of Literacy Research, 47(3), 370–​404. https://​doi.org/​10.1177/​10862​96X1​6632​451 Cammarata, L., & Tedick, D.J. (2012). Balancing content and language in instruction: The experience of immersion teachers. The Modern Language Journal, 96(2), 251–​269. Cammarata, L., Tedick, D.J., & Osborn, T.A. (2016). Content-​ based instruction and curricular reforms: Issues and goals. In L. Cammarata (Ed.), Content-​based foreign language teaching: Curriculum and pedagogy for developing advanced thinking and literacy skills (pp. 1–​23). Routledge. Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge University Press. Coyle, Y., & de Larios, J.R. (2020). Exploring young learners’ engagement with models as a written corrective technique in EFL and CLIL settings. System, 95, 1–​14. Dalton-​Puffer, C. (2011). Content-​and-​language integrated learning: From practice to principles? Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 182–​204. Dalton-​Puffer, C. (2016). Cognitive discourse functions: Specifying an integrative interdisciplinary construct. In T. Nikula, E. Dafouz, P. Moore, & U. Smit (Eds.), Conceptualising integration in CLIL and multilingual education (pp. 29–​55). Multilingual Matters. Darvin, R., Lo, Y.Y., & Lin, A.M.Y. (2020). Examining CLIL through a critical lens. English Teaching & Learning, 44, 103–​108. De Guerrero, M.C.M., & Villamil, O.S. (2000). Activating the ZPD: Mutual scaffolding in L2 peer revision. The Modern Language Journal, 84, 51–​68. Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J.P. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 33–​56). Norwood. Ellis, R. (2003). Task-​based language learning and teaching. Oxford University Press. Escobar Urmeneta, C., & Evnitskaya, N. (2014). ‘Do you know Actimel?’ The adaptive nature of dialogic teacher-​led discussions in the CLIL science classroom: A case study. The Language Learning Journal, 42(2), 165–​180. Escobar Urmeneta, C., & Walsh, S. (2017). Classroom interactional competence in content and language integrated learning. In T. Morton & A. Llinares (Eds.), Applied linguistics perspectives on CLIL (pp. 183–​201). John Benjamins.

310

Classroom interaction in CLIL Fairclough, N. (2011). Semiotic aspects of social transformation and learning. In R. Rogers (Ed.), An introduction to critical discourse analysis in education (pp. 119–​128). Routledge. Fernández-​Barrera, A. (2019). Doing CLIL in the science classroom: A critical sociolinguistic ethnography in La Mancha secondary schools. Foro de Educación, 17(27), 37–​63. Fernández-​Fontecha, A., O’Halloran, K.L., Wignell, P., & Tan, S. (2020). Scaffolding CLIL in the science classroom via visual thinking: A systemic functional multimodal approach. Linguistics and Education, 55, 1–​10. García, O. (2012). Theorizing translanguaging for educators. In C. Celic & K. Seltzer (Eds.), Translanguaging: A CUNY-​N YSIEB guide for educators (pp. 1–​6). CUNY-​N YSIEB. Gardner, R. (2019). Classroom interaction research: The state of the art. Research on language and social interaction, 52(3), 212–​226. Gee, J.P. (2015). Literacy and education. Routledge. Gibbons, P. (2006). Bridging discourses in the ESL classroom: Students, teachers and researchers. Continuum. Gibbons, P. (2015). Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning: Teaching English language learners in the mainstream classroom. Heinemann. Gilmore, A. (2007). Authentic materials and authenticity in foreign language learning. Language Teaching, 40(2), 97–​118. Hall, J. K. (2019). The contributions of conversation analysis and interactional linguistics to a usage-​ based understanding of language: Expanding the transdisciplinary framework. The Modern Language Journal, 103, 80–​94. Hemmi, C., & Banegas, D.L. (Eds.). (2021). International perspectives on CLIL. Switzerland Palgrave Macmillan. Ho, M.B. (2020). Queering CLIL: A critical sexual literacy curriculum for the Hong Kong context. English Teaching and Learning, 44(2), 193–​210. Hicks, D. (1996). Discourse, learning, and teaching. Review of Research in Education, 21, 49–​95. Jakonen, T., & Morton, T. (2015). Epistemic search sequences in peer interaction in a content-​based language classroom. Applied Linguistics, 36(1), 73–​94. Kozulin, A. (2018). Mediation and internalisation: Conceptual analysis and practical applications. In J.P. Lantolf, M.E. Poehner, & M. Swain (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of sociocultural theory and second language development (pp. 23–​42). Routledge. Lantolf, J.P., & Poehner, M.E. (2008). Introduction to sociocultural theory and the teaching of second languages. In J.P. Lantolf & M.E. Poehner (Eds.), Sociocultural theory and the teaching of second languages (pp. 1–​33). Equinox. Lantolf, J.P., & Thorne, S.L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press. Leung, C., & Morton, T. (2016). Conclusion: Language competence, learning and pedagogy in CLIL –​ deepening and broadening integration. In T. Nikula, E. Dafouz, P. Moore, & U. Smit (Eds.), Conceptualising integration in CLIL and multilingual education (pp. 235–​249). Multilingual Matters. Li, D., & Zhang, L. (2020). Exploring teacher scaffolding in a CLIL-​framed EFL intensive reading class: A classroom discourse analysis approach. Language Teaching Research, 26(3), 333–​360. Lin, A.M.Y. (2016). Language across the curriculum and CLIL in English as an additional language (EAL) contexts: Theory and practice. Springer. Lin, A.M.Y., & He, P. (2017). Translanguaging as dynamic activity flows in CLIL classrooms. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 16(4), 228–​244. Liu, Y. (2020). Translanguaging and trans-​semiotizing as planned systematic scaffolding: Examining feeling-​meaning in CLIL classrooms. English Teaching & Learning, 44, 149–​173. Llinares, A., & Dalton-​Puffer, C. (2015). The role of different tasks in CLIL students’ use of evaluative language. System, 54, 69–​79. Llinares, A., & Evnitskaya, N. (2021). Classroom interaction in CLIL programs: Offering opportunities or fostering inequalities? TESOL Quarterly, 55(2), 366–​397. DOI:10.1002/​tesq.607 Llinares, A., & Morton, T. (Eds.). (2017). Applied linguistics perspectives on CLIL. John Benjamins. Long, M. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-​based language teaching. Wiley Blackwell. Lyster, R. (2007). Learning and teaching languages through content: A counterbalanced approach. John Benjamins. Mahan, K.R. (2020). The comprehending teacher: Scaffolding in content and language integrated learning (CLIL). The Language Learning Journal, 50(1), 74–​88. DOI:10.1080/​09571736.2019.1705879 Mercer, N., & Littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and the development of children’s thinking: A sociocultural approach. Routledge.

311

Dongying Li Miller, E.R. (2015). Power, resistance and second language learning. In N. Markee (Ed.), The handbook of classroom discourse and interaction (pp. 461–​474). Wiley Blackwell. Moncada-​Comas, B. & Block, D. (2022) CLIL-​ised EMI in practice: issues arising, The Language Learning Journal, 49(6), 686–​698, DOI:10.1080/​09571736.2019.1660704 Moore, P., & Nikula, T. (2016). Translanguaging in CLIL classrooms. In T. Nikula, E. Dafouz, P. Moore, & U. Smit (Eds.), Conceptualising integration in CLIL and multilingual education (pp. 211–​235). Multilingual Matters. Nikula, T., Dalton-​Puffer, C., & Llinares, A. (2013). CLIL classroom discourse: Research from Europe. Journal of Immersion and Content-​Based Language Education, 1(1), 70–​100. Nunan, D. (1987). Communicative language teaching: Making it work. ELT Journal, 41(2), 136–​145. Ortega, L. (2015). Researching CLIL and TBLT interfaces. System, 54, 103–​109. Phillipson, N., & Wegerif, R. (2020). The Thinking Together approach to dialogic teaching. In E. Manalo (Ed.), Deeper learning, dialogic learning, and critical thinking: Research strategies for the classroom (pp. 32–​46). Routledge. Robinson, P. (2011). Task-​based language learning: A review of issues. Language Learning, 61(1), 1–​36. Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (2017). Language awareness and CLIL. In J. Cenoz, D. Gorter, & S. May (Eds.), Language awareness and multilingualism (pp. 149–​161). Springer. Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-​based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 17(1), 38–​62. Skidmore, D. (2016). Pedagogy and dialogue. In D. Skidmore & K. Murakami (Eds.), Dialogic pedagogy: The importance of dialogue in teaching and learning (pp. 98–​111). Multilingual Matters. Smagorinsky, P. (2018). Deconflating the ZPD and instructional scaffolding: Retranslating and reconceiving the zone of proximal development as the zone of next development. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 16, 70–​75. Svalberg, A. M-​L . (2017). Researching language engagement: Current trends and future directions. Language Awareness, 27(1–​2), 21–​39. DOI:10.1080/​09658416.2017.1406490 Swan, M. (2005). Legislation by hypothesis: The case of task-​based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 26(3), 376–​401. Tomlinson, B. (2011). Introduction: principles and procedures of materials development. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), Materials development in language teaching (pp. 1–​35). Cambridge University Press. Tompkins, F.L. (2022). Socioeconomic status, English exposure and CLIL motivation in high and low exposure CLIL groups. CLIL Journal of Innovation and Research in Plurilingual and Pluricultural Education, 5(1), 41–​52. Tsui, A. (2001). Classroom interaction. In R. Carter & D. Nunan (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to teaching English to speakers of other languages (pp. 120–​126). Cambridge University Press. van de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2010). Scaffolding in teacher–​student interaction: A decade of research. Educational Psychology Review, 22, 271–​296. van Lier, L. (2004). The ecology and semiotics of language learning: A sociocultural perspective. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Walqui, A. (2006). Scaffolding instruction for English language learners: A conceptual framework. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9(2), 159–​180. Walsh, S. (2011). Exploring classroom discourse: Language in action. Routledge. Waring, H.Z. (2016). Theorizing pedagogical interaction: Insights from conversation analysis. Routledge. Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Towards a sociocultural practice and theory of education. Cambridge University Press. Wood, D., Bruner, J.S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Child Psychology, 17(2), 89–​100. Zhang, L., & Li, D. (2019). An integrated development of students’ language and cognition under the CLIL pedagogy. Foreign Language Education in China, 2(2), 16–​24. Zou, W., & Shi, Q. (2018). A study of English major’s curriculum reform constraints and future directions based on the students’ workload-​based perceptions at three Chinese universities. Foreign Languages and Their Teaching, 1(1), 84–​91.

312

313

21 CLIL CHALLENGES IN DESIGNING LEARNING EXPERIENCES Liz Dale and Tessa Mearns

Introduction Content and language integrated learning (CLIL) takes place in many different ways and contexts. It is therefore not surprising that CLIL specialists (academics, researchers, teachers, and teacher educators) have developed their own conceptualisations of CLIL and interpretations for implementation, which, as suggested in van Kampen et al. (2017), do not always align. In this chapter, we draw on our experiences as teacher educators in pre-​service undergraduate (bachelors) and postgraduate (masters) programmes specialising in bilingual secondary education. We reflect critically on the recommendations presented in literature aimed at teachers and identify issues our student teachers face when designing learning experiences for CLIL in practice. We start by defining learning experiences, and summarising current guidelines in teaching handbooks for designing these. We use the term learning experiences rather than lessons to acknowledge that the unit of learning teachers prepare may vary. As such, a learning experience can involve a single task, a series of tasks, a whole lesson, or a series of lessons. It can involve learning inside or outside the classroom, online or in person. We use the term design rather than plan to emphasise that the process involves more than selecting, ordering, and organising materials and activities, and that it is an iterative, creative process driven by a desire to optimise the learning experience for all learners. An emphasis on designing learning experiences reflects approaches presented to teachers via teaching handbooks. While some resources provide examples of isolated learner tasks (Dale & Tanner, 2012), most sources implicitly and explicitly suggest that CLIL tasks should form part of a learning progression, defined by Mehisto and Ting (2017, p. 263) as ‘a pathway that students travel as they seek to achieve intended short and long-​term content and language learning outcomes that have been set for them’. These authors focus on designing learning progressions both within individual lessons and across series of lessons. In Dale and Tanner (2012), learning progression is implicit in the chapter structure (activate, guide understanding, focus on language, focus on speaking, focus on writing, assessment, review, and feedback), which moves from providing input to encouraging output. Coyle et al. (2010) focus on designing at institutional, departmental, and curricular level, and Coyle and Meyer DOI: 10.4324/9781003173151-26

313

Liz Dale and Tessa Mearns

(2021) coin the term deeper learning episodes (p. 128) to emphasise that the design process should focus not only on timetabled lessons. CLIL teaching handbooks offer an array of guidelines and frameworks for designing learning experiences. These include types of learning progressions, features of CLIL tasks, and types of CLIL activities. As Ball et al. (2015) point out, the terms activity, exercise, and task are often used interchangeably in informal educational discourse. In discussing design for CLIL, handbooks make use of all these terms, as well as the term materials. Ball et al. (2015, p. 307) give a broad definition of a task as ‘an educational process or procedure intended to stimulate learning’. In this chapter, we follow the use of these terms as they occur in the teaching resources cited. Suggested learning progressions include helping learners move along a mode continuum from spoken to written, from lower-​order to higher-​order thinking skills, from word level to text level to discourse level, and from guided to independent learning activities. Ball et al. (2015) advocate a sequencing of tasks which helps learners move from private to public talk, along with a parallel progression from personalised (own) ideas to standardised (subject) ideas and from informal to formal language. Coyle and Meyer (2021) suggest a mode continuum should also include how learners move between subject-​specific non-​linguistic (graphs, symbols) and linguistic (spoken and written) modes, and analogue and digital modes. Coyle et al. (2010) suggest that the tasks CLIL teachers design determine how learners make sense of subject material and express their understandings of the subject. Although more research is needed on the effects of task type on learner achievement in relation to both content mastery and language acquisition (Coyle et al., 2010; Mehisto & Ting, 2017), teaching handbooks suggest a number of features required in CLIL tasks. These include being meaningful (e.g., relevant, linked to learners’ lives); having a clear purpose; being carefully sequenced; encouraging cross-​curricular transfer; fostering critical thinking; fostering learner autonomy; being language-​sensitive (e.g., highlighting differences between spoken and written language, Bentley, 2012); and encouraging spoken interaction as preparation for writing. Coyle et al. (2010) place content at the fore, linking language and content in terms of first helping learners understand input (making sense of material) and then asking learners to talk or write about what they have heard or read (expressing understanding). This reflects an underlying distinction in second language acquisition on understanding input (e.g., Krashen, 1985) and producing spoken or written output (e.g., Swain, 2005) and provides an organisational principle which is evident in handbooks (e.g., Ball et al., 2015; Bentley, 2012; Coyle et al., 2010; Dale & Tanner, 2012; Mehisto & Ting, 2017). Suggestions are made for how CLIL teachers can design input tasks which guide learners in understanding texts and materials and help them to notice language, and design output tasks which show learners how to use appropriate language to demonstrate understanding of content. Example activities for guiding understanding encourage teachers to activate prior knowledge, use multimodal input, and use graphic organisers to identify, process, and reorganise important subject concepts. Activities for helping learners to notice language include having learners select, order, define, and analyse vocabulary and language use in subject-​specific texts. Activities for supporting the use of appropriate language to demonstrate understanding of content include analysing models or examples of subject-​specific texts (spoken or written), providing speaking and writing frames, comparing and transforming texts from social to academic language, rewriting or reorganising subject-​specific texts, and using self-​and peer assessment. Coyle and Meyer’s more recent (2021) Pluriliteracies Teaching for Deeper Learning (PTDL) model emphasises that learning is linked to subject-​ specific ways of building 314

CLIL challenges in designing learning experiences

knowledge. Making sense of subject concepts through language remains central to this model. The authors reiterate that the teaching and learning of subject literacies includes ‘language activities as a means to promoting understanding’ (p. 185). They introduce the construct of task fidelity (p. 131). The input-​output distinction is less prominent in the ten elements they list under this construct. Additions to the above features include giving learners opportunities to experience subject-​specific ‘practical knowledge building and knowledge using’ (p. 131), develop subject-​specific literacies across subjects and languages, mentoring of both learning and personal growth, building awareness, engagement and progression by doing, organising, explaining and arguing, critical reflection, assessment for learning, and learning in partnership. As teacher educators based in the Netherlands, our roles involve supporting pre-​service teachers in learning how to design effective learning experiences for their future CLIL learners. Our student teachers may be training primarily to teach the target language as the object of study (henceforth language teachers) or the content of non-​language subjects through English (content teachers). In our view, both language and content teachers can struggle to implement learning progressions and the advice included in CLIL guidelines. Drawing on our experience as CLIL teacher educators, in what follows we explore struggles our student teachers typically face. We structure our exploration around five key features of CLIL which are commonly found across CLIL teaching handbooks.

Issues In this section, we draw on developments addressing how teachers integrate elements of CLIL through a focus on disciplinary literacy. In academic developments, explorations of systemic functional linguistics (Llinares, 2015; Llinares et al., 2012) and cognitive discourse functions (Dalton-​Puffer et al., 2018) have helped to map how communication and cognition interact with content in particular subject areas (e.g., Llinares & Peña, 2015; van Kampen et al., 2020). Practical CLIL literature has followed suit, moving towards a concept of disciplinary literacies to describe subject-​specific ways of generating and communicating knowledge (Coyle & Meyer, 2021). Disciplinary literacy is the underlying concept in positioning culture as the culture of a particular academic discipline (Coyle & Meyer, 2021; Dale & Tanner, 2012). In this way, Coyle et al.’s 4Cs (content, communication, cognition, and culture) are integral aspects of learning any subject, rather than something extra for teachers to attend to in their already full curriculum. In addition to this, an important element of CLIL, according to the literature, is that content and language teachers work together to promote the integration of language and content in the curriculum. We therefore add a fifth C to this discussion: collaboration.

Views on language In our experience, taking a disciplinary literacies approach can help content teachers to relate to the idea that language has a role to play in their teaching. Content remains the starting point in designing learning experiences, but disciplinary literacy helps them to understand how the other Cs are intrinsically connected to that content. Perhaps this addresses some content teachers’ fear that learners taught in an additional language may not fully grasp subject concepts (cf. Skinnari & Bovellan, 2016). A disciplinary literacies approach underlines that language is integrated in CLIL rather than an add-​on. Our student teachers are open to techniques that will support understanding, and which focus on their role as specialist 315

Liz Dale and Tessa Mearns

in their subject area. While they are open to the idea that language is an integral aspect of learning their subject, they still struggle with helping learners to notice language. This applies to content teachers, but also to language teachers when teaching content (e.g., literature; for similar findings see de Graaff et al., 2007). We suggest this may have something to do with the lens through which language is viewed in much of the guidance offered in the literature. Several teaching handbooks emphasise that CLIL is different to traditional language teaching. In the latter, language is the object of learning, and the language syllabus is often based on systematic grammatical progression. In CLIL, language is the medium of learning and the language used does not follow a predictable grammatical progression (Coyle et al., 2010). However, the way language is presented in CLIL literature aimed at teachers has not always been congruent with this view. Some statements in the guidelines reflect the more functional or usage-​based approach to subject literacies advocated by Llinares et al. (2012), for instance, indicating that the language of art, design, and technology ‘recounts –​i.e., retells events in chronological order in biographies and descriptions of artistic movements’ (Dale & Tanner, 2012, p. 48). Others, even within the same resource, echo more form-​ focused or structure-​based traditions common in English language teaching (ELT), as in, ‘simple present for descriptions and characteristics in art, design and technology’ (Dale & Tanner, 2012, p. 50). A challenge we encounter as teacher educators is that we are not specialists in the subjects –​or the subject-​specific language –​of many of our student teachers. This also applies to the authors of many of the existing handbooks for CLIL teachers, whose main area of expertise, like ours, is often in language teaching, and may help account for the discrepancies found in those resources. For our student teachers of both language and content, these contrasting views of language can be problematic, as they feel themselves being pulled in opposing directions. In our experience, more integrated approaches to formulating objectives and designing learning experiences are the most relatable for content teachers. They are receptive to approaches in which language is viewed as an aspect of content and as being learned through use in relation to content (Llinares et al., 2012). When the focus on language is placed on its form (i.e., a view of language as primarily a set of rules), the content teachers we work with tend to pass responsibility for language learning back to the language teachers (Dale et al., 2018b), who in turn feel they lack expertise in the language of other subjects. We find a more usage-​based approach highlighting genres as an element of their subject can be less alienating and help content and language teachers to retain their sense of expertise in their subject, including its language. In addition to being an object of learning, language –​or indeed, languages –​in CLIL are also a vehicle for learning. There is increasing attention in CLIL research to the role of deliberate translanguaging as a form of scaffolding or to stimulate content processing (Nikula & Moore, 2019). For our student teachers, the role of other languages can sometimes be an area of internal conflict. As has also been observed in studies of qualified teachers’ classroom practice (Oattes et al., 2018), some of them instinctively recognise the potential benefits of pedagogical translanguaging (Cenoz, 2017), but strict school policies based on the traditional ‘two solitudes’ view (Cummins, 2000) often discourage or even forbid use of any language other than the target/​instructional language (English in our context) in the CLIL classroom. Mehisto and Ting (2017) take a clear stance on this subject, setting out empirically based parameters for planned translanguaging, and providing examples from practice, such as bilingual projects involving teachers of subjects taught in different languages in order to encourage interaction between the languages in learners’ repertoires. Some other authors 316

CLIL challenges in designing learning experiences

mention the possibility of planning for use of different languages, for example, as a tool to activate prior content knowledge, summarise lesson content or evaluate a lesson (Bentley, 2012), or as a consideration in activity design (Coyle et al., 2010). However, extensive exploration of this topic and practical recommendations with regard to how to make effective use of multiple languages in the CLIL classroom are not prominent. More recently, Coyle and Meyer (2021) argue the concepts of translanguaging and translation have a place in their inclusive view of a mode continuum from everyday and academic language to subject literacies. In addition to advocating the inclusion of learners’ home languages, they emphasise the need for learners to practice moving to and fro between everyday and academic language, translating from one to the other and in both directions. They also emphasise the need for learners to practise moving between multiple modes (semiotic translation), for example, from texts to graphs, from audio to visual, and vice versa. This approach places the development of subject knowledge at the centre of CLIL learning experiences. In our experience, student CLIL teachers appreciate input which helps them become aware of the range of languages learners need to learn to control and navigate as they develop subject knowledge, even when learning in their first language or the majority school language. More explicit attention to benefits and strategic implementation of translanguaging (including the use of home languages) would be a helpful addition to existing recommendations for designing learning experiences for CLIL. Tedick and Lyster’s (2020) overview of the evidence and arguments provide a useful resource here, but there is certainly scope for both future teaching handbooks and research to provide more support for teachers in this area.

Views on content While universally regarded as being at the heart of CLIL, content as a concept is rarely addressed in the literature. In their review of research into CLIL pedagogical practices, van Kampen et al. (2018) highlighted that, of the 45 studies reviewed, none addressed the role of subject content in teachers’ pedagogical choices. In our experience, shared understanding of the role of content in relation to the other Cs is not necessarily a given for content teachers, and language teachers are often unsure as to whether this C even applies to them. Yet, as disciplinary literacies focus specifically on the intricate relationship between the 4Cs, the nature and role of content in CLIL can be an issue for both. For content teachers in CLIL settings, working through the prescribed content of their subject curriculum presents relatively few problems. However, what subject teachers are not quite ready to do is engage in designing learning experiences that support students’ development of critical thinking, intercultural development, and global citizenship. These are all important aspects of development that CLIL is well positioned to address (Coyle et al., 2010; Mehisto & Ting, 2017). Yet given that these aspects are not typically included explicitly in the curriculum of subjects such as mathematics or physical education, among others, content teachers appear to be ill-​equipped to address them in their practice. If it is our expectation that CLIL content teachers address these areas, additional guidance is required. This will be discussed in more detail with regard to the Cs for cognition and culture, below. For language teachers, content can in itself be an ambiguous concept. ‘The language is my content’, is a commonly heard claim from our student teachers, and is to some extent supported in the literature. Coyle et al. (2010), Dale and Tanner (2012) and Mehisto and Ting (2017) suggest the language teacher in CLIL settings might take a more language-​ focused approach than content teachers in their own lessons. Ball et al. (2015) also emphasise 317

Liz Dale and Tessa Mearns

that the language teacher should help learners develop general academic language and cross-​ curricular language skills. This potentially addresses issues of language teachers lacking expertise in content areas and allows content teachers to maintain authority in their own subject. What it does not address, however, is the question of whether language teachers also have their own content. Beyond this, the language teacher is referred to by many authors primarily in terms of adopting a supporting role for content teachers, planning reactively in response to and addressing the language needs that arise as an element of content teachers’ curricula (e.g., Bentley, 2012; Dale & Tanner, 2012). Genesee and Hamayan (2016) suggest language teachers use themes borrowed from other parts of the curriculum (e.g., weather from science) to introduce students to genres (e.g., a report on the weather or a process description of the evaporation cycle) and associated language features. Mehisto and Ting (2017) point out that a focus on subject-​specific language skills in content teaching offers language teachers the opportunity to focus on common academic language functions such as how to express cause and effect, using content from parallel classes. In our practice, alongside supporting their subject teacher colleagues, we encourage student language teachers to retain a view of their subject as a discipline in its own right, and to explore the opportunities offered by the CLIL context and the principles behind CLIL pedagogy to enrich the language curriculum with disciplinary content closer to the language teachers’ own areas of expertise. Some English teachers in bilingual streams in Dale et al.’s (2018a, 2018b) studies expressed a strong disciplinary affinity with literature as content, whereas others had not considered positioning literature as content in their curriculum. Coyle and Meyer (2021) respond to Dale’s (2020, p. 168) suggestion that ‘placing subject-​specific literacy at the heart of CLIL risks side-​l ining language teachers’ by exploring how language teachers can be re-​positioned as subject-​specialists in their own right using the study of literature or linguistics (e.g., prosodic features) as their content. CLIL for language teachers could be viewed as supporting development of the communicative, cognitive, and cultural skills needed to navigate content related to the literacies of their own discipline, rather than focusing primarily on communicative or form-​focused language teaching in which content is secondary. This has been proposed not only for teachers of the CLIL target language (often English), but also for teachers of other languages (Mearns & Platteel, 2020).

The role of cognition Teaching handbooks recommend CLIL teachers design learning experiences which facilitate learners’ cognitive processing of content and language. In many cases, this goes hand in hand with sequencing and progression. For example, Bentley (2012) includes a chapter on cognitive skills and addresses them as an element of her sample lesson plan, and Dale and Tanner (2012) mention the higher-​and lower-​order thinking skills addressed by each of their sample lesson activities. Ball et al. (2015) and Coyle et al. (2010) each highlight the interrelatedness of language, content and cognition explicitly in their models for CLIL planning (procedures in Ball et al.’s 3 Dimensions of CLIL content, and the cognition element of Coyle et al.’s 4Cs). Mehisto and Ting (2017) and Coyle and Meyer (2021) address this relationship in terms of the promotion of enquiry-​based learning. Bloom’s taxonomy of thinking skills and Anderson and Krathwohl’s (2001) four kinds of knowledge (factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive) are also commonly referenced. From the perspective of disciplinary literacy, thinking skills and types of knowledge are subject-​specific. This raises issues for both our student teachers and ourselves as teacher educators. 318

CLIL challenges in designing learning experiences

On the one hand, we notice that our student teachers find integration of content and cognition an easier fit than the integration of content and language. They respond positively to the generic idea of helping learners progress from lower-​to higher-​order thinking skills, and to Coyle et al.’s (2010) CLIL Matrix. The latter introduces the idea that language demands may need to be reduced (e.g., through scaffolding) where cognitive demands are higher, and vice versa. In peer-​teaching sessions and lesson observations, we have noticed that student teachers actively adjust their language and stage their explanations in response to peers or learners struggling with language or a subject concept. However, they find it more challenging to anticipate such difficulties and to design activities which plan-​in and stage support to develop subject-​specific thinking skills and language. Perhaps this is because, as Coyle and Meyer (2021) suggest, the relationship between everyday language and the language of schooling is more dynamic and complex than previously assumed. They highlight, for example, how cognitive discourse functions (Dalton-​Puffer, 2013) –​seven categories of cognitive skills, and the types of language required for each in different subject areas –​can be combined with the genre of explanations. This offers an additional resource for teachers to increase or decrease cognitive and linguistic complexity, and support learners in moving from everyday to more academic and subject-​specific language. On the other hand, our student teachers are not always aware of how unique to their subject certain ways of thinking may be. This presents challenges to us as teacher educators steeped in the disciplines of language learning and teaching. We notice that we are not fully versed in which subject-​specific thinking skills our student teachers seek to develop in their subjects and how these are best developed. Valdés et al. (2005) argue that new teachers will only become aware of the language demands made by their particular curriculum if they are guided by members of their own discipline in analysing the kinds of receptive and productive language that is normally taken for granted in ordinary teaching. […] Because language demands are unique to each discipline and curriculum, this can only be done in the context of students’ work on their area of specialization. Valdés et al., 2005, p. 167 A similar argument could be applied to supporting student teachers in making explicit how they develop their learners’ subject-​specific thinking skills. Furthermore, as mentioned above, critical thinking may not be prioritised in existing curricula. Some authors (e.g., Mehisto & Ting, 2017; Reagan, 2016) view CLIL as an opportunity to promote the development of learners’ critical thinking, whereby learners should be encouraged to take a critical view of subject content and develop the language skills needed to engage in critical analysis and discussion. However, this in itself can create issues for our student teachers in their position as beginning teachers. Higher-​order thinking skills may not be prioritised in the classrooms where our student teachers carry out their traineeships, and existing subject curricula or department assessment practices may leave student teachers little space to experiment. In such cases, subject-​specific suggestions for focusing on language as an aspect of critical thinking are crucial.

Understandings of culture The extent to which culture is approached as an integral aspect of CLIL pedagogy, and the understandings of what is meant by culture vary across teaching handbooks. Three main 319

Liz Dale and Tessa Mearns

understandings of culture in CLIL emerge across the literature: learning about cultures by placing the subject in a global context; developing intercultural competence; and with respect to disciplinary literacy, developing understanding of subject culture. The first understanding of culture relates closely to the approach taken in many language classrooms: learning about the world beyond the local context. In CLIL classrooms, this understanding of culture impacts on the choice of and approach to subject content. Coyle et al. (2010) suggest teachers can extend content to include a global perspective, select content relating to different cultural contexts, or discuss attitudes to content in other cultural contexts. Examples include a technology lesson taking the topic of bicycles as transport across the world, a maths lesson investigating geometrical patterns in Asian and European culture, or attitudes to recycling in different countries. Mehisto and Ting (2017) similarly suggest teachers make cultural connections in content, although from a more explicitly critical standpoint. They give the example of showing how multicultural knowledge has informed understanding of the circulatory system in biology from ideas developed in China, Damascus, and England, or addressing ethnocentrism in maps in history and geography. Furthermore, as Baetens Beardsmore (2014) points out, subject content may be addressed differently in different cultures, which can have implications for choice of textbooks and authentic materials, but also offers opportunities for cultural comparison. This relates to the earlier discussion on critical thinking, and in our experience, student teachers react similarly, some heartily embracing the invitation to adjust content, while others feel more limited. Again, a challenge we experience as teacher educators of heterogeneous groups of student teachers is that we are not our student teachers’ main source of learning with regard to subject pedagogy. While we can suggest they take alternative perspectives on subject content, our suggestions are not always concrete enough for student teachers to transfer them to their practice. What we miss in this regard is a subject-​specific angle on culture. The second understanding of culture explored in the literature is intercultural communication. Mehisto and Ting (2017) suggest teachers introduce learners to frameworks which help explore perspective-​taking, e.g., Meyer’s (2014 as cited in Mehisto & Ting, 2017) eight frames of reference on attitudes to communicating, evaluating, persuading, leading, deciding, trust, disagreeing, and scheduling. In addition, they suggest teachers have learners share or investigate each other’s cultural backgrounds, or use drama to explore different perspectives. They include a chapter on culture and intercultural communication, in which they explore intercultural content in relation to language, critical thinking, and equity. In this view of CLIL, culture is integrated with all three of the other Cs. A further point, addressed by Coyle et al.’s (2010) examples, and highlighted by Genesee and Hamayan (2016) is that intercultural awareness can be developed through physical or virtual exchanges and projects. This is a prominent aspect of our Dutch CLIL context (Nuffic, 2019), in which bilingual schools are expected to organise international collaborative projects for all learners. Such projects require extensive planning and preparation, but this is not an area that can easily be taught without an element of practical experience. As it is not always possible for student teachers to gain experience in projects like these as part of their internship in school, alternative approaches need to be found. Our programmes aim to include an opportunity for student teachers to engage in a virtual exchange project themselves (see O’Dowd, 2017), although this needs to be carefully embedded in the teacher education curriculum in order to be effective. We have also found it helpful to invite guest speakers, including learners, to share ideas and experiences of international collaboration, and for student teachers to receive feedback from teachers in the field on proposals for their own collaborative projects. 320

CLIL challenges in designing learning experiences

As also referred to by Mehisto and Ting (2017), an aspect of exploring intercultural communication with teachers is to begin by having them explore their own identity and the role played by their own culture. In our experience with pre-​service student teachers, this not only helps them to grow in self-​awareness but also gives them ideas for activities and resources they can adapt for use with learners (e.g., from Mompoint-​Gaillard & Lázár, 2015), and can help with group forming. We also explore questions of equity and inclusion, for example using Banks’ dimensions of multicultural education (2008). Genesee and Hamayan (2016) point out that learners’ families and communities can also be a resource for enriching the cultural curriculum and culturally responsive teaching. This is an area that is under-​ explored in our teacher education programmes. The third understanding of culture, as an aspect of disciplinary literacy, emerged after the publication of many of the most widely used CLIL handbooks, as an extension to the original 4Cs model. As identified by Coyle (2015), in CLIL contexts there is not only a sense of broader societal cultures that are inextricably connected to language use, but in addition the academic culture associated with individual subjects or disciplines. Hence the focus is also on the role of culture in learning. Coyle, 2015, p. 93 In this vein, Coyle and Meyer (2021) further integrate culture by repurposing it to include subject-​specific ways of thinking and knowing. They advocate the formulation of objectives which make explicit subject-​specific procedures and strategies, subject-​specific conceptual lenses needed to understand content, and subject-​specific ways in which knowledge is constructed and interpreted. In this approach to culture, the 4Cs are integrated and on an equal footing with each other. We find that student teachers respond well to the invitation to reflect on the culture associated with their own subject as an aspect of disciplinary literacy but that the idea of cultural and/​or intercultural learning as an objective in their subject classroom is not always one that they expect to encounter. As non-​subject specialist teacher educators, we find that the best approach is to ask student teachers to reflect themselves on the culture –​ practices, assumptions, text types, ways of communicating –​that are typical for their subject. Exchanging thoughts and comparing with peers from other disciplines helps them to identify subject specific features, but we notice that as language teacher educators we miss the perspective of subject-​specialist colleagues when addressing this question.

Collaboration in practice CLIL is by its very nature cross-​curricular, not only due to the focus on both language and content, but also because, as we have seen above, it can involve placing subject content within a broader global context. In some settings, it is a whole-​school endeavour that can involve multiple disciplines and affect the entire curriculum (Morton & Llinares, 2017). In other settings, collaboration (referred to as coordination by Genesee & Hamayan, 2016) goes beyond the school to involve learners’ families and communities or society in general. Collaboration between teachers (e.g., content teachers and language teachers), within and between departments (e.g., for cross-​curricular projects), is mentioned in the literature as desirable, although it is addressed by some authors in more detail than by others. When teachers from different subject areas co-​design learning experiences for CLIL, the success 321

Liz Dale and Tessa Mearns

or failure of their collaborative practices is influenced by a variety of factors. These include organisational factors, and underlying issues relating to differing cultural and disciplinary identities (Dale et al., 2018a). However, limited guidance is provided in teaching handbooks on collaboration between subject teachers, or between subject and language teachers. Some teaching handbooks acknowledge the organisational challenges of collaboration, emphasising the importance of schools creating structural opportunities for co-​designing learning experiences for CLIL. Mehisto and Ting (2017), Coyle et al. (2010), and Coyle and Meyer (2021) propose cross-​departmental or even whole-​school approaches. They propose frequent joint-​planning meetings involving all departments, shared objectives for language and cross-​curricular skills, cross-​curricular projects, and clear agreements on the sharing of plans and materials. Coyle et al. (2010) also promote collaboration in terms of agreeing shared priorities, and joint reflection and evaluation as part of an iterative planning process. Mehisto and Ting (2017) mention that content teachers can support language teachers in understanding subject content, agree assessment procedures, and (see above) reinforce both the majority language and the target language in bilingual projects. Such bilingual projects have the advantage of involving all teachers, including those teaching in the majority language in a bilingual setting. Similar suggestions are made elsewhere (Ball et al., 2015; Bentley, 2012; Dale & Tanner, 2012). For example, departments might conduct a joint language audit of the curriculum (Ball et al., 2015) or work together to identify language aims for content subjects (Dale & Tanner, 2012), within the parameters of what is possible in the local context. The latter present a rubric for Collaboration in CLIL (pp. 25–​29), including a number of elements relating to curriculum and lesson planning. In general, we find that our student teachers enthusiastically embrace opportunities to co-​design with peers from other subject areas, to explore connections between their subjects and to discuss different perspectives on the same theme. This not only helps them to think beyond the boundaries of their own subject curriculum but can also strengthen their own sense of disciplinary identity, as they recognise features of how their subject is taught and learned in comparison to others. An aspect of collaboration that receives less consistent attention in CLIL handbooks, however, is how teachers can mitigate their differing cultural and disciplinary identities when they collaborate. In addition to lacking expertise, knowledge and skills regarding language or their respective subjects, teachers often lack expertise, knowledge, and skills regarding collaboration itself (see Arkoudis, 2006). Cross-​d isciplinary conversations, for example, involve specialised skills which are not necessarily self-​evident (Arkoudis, 2006). Subject teachers and language teachers balance content and language in different ways (see Arkoudis, 2006; Kong, 2014; Tedick & Cammarata, 2012), and teachers from different disciplines (e.g., scientists, linguists, historians) may value different ways of thinking, affecting how they interact (Tedick & Cammarata, 2012). No guidance is provided in teaching handbooks, for example, on how teachers can conduct cross-​d isciplinary conversations, an important skill if content and language teachers have varied understandings of what to teach and how to teach it. Not unrelated to this are issues of inequalities of power and status, in particular with regard to the relative roles of language and content teachers in collaboration. These inequalities can be bound up with teachers’ relative language skills or content knowledge (see Creese, 2006), and may be reinforced if we emphasise more structure-​based approaches to language rather than taking a functional approach and focusing on subject-​specific literacy. These risks and challenges are not addressed explicitly in CLIL teaching handbooks, in spite of the emphasis on collaboration. As explored above, a risk in our context can be the tendency to view the role of language teachers in the co-​designing process mainly as a supporting one (Dale et al., 322

CLIL challenges in designing learning experiences

2018b). In our experience, more functional perspectives acknowledge the expertise of content teachers in the language of their subject and may place them on a more equal footing with language teachers in terms of being experts in their own field. At the same time, when language teachers take as a starting point disciplinary literacy in their own fields of literature, culture, or linguistics, as suggested earlier, their understandings of what content to teach and how to teach it may align more easily with teachers of non-​language subjects. Some literature also advocates collaboration between teachers and learners in designing learning experiences for CLIL (e.g., Genesee & Hamayan, 2016). According to Mehisto and Ting (2017), learners should be consulted at every stage of the planning process, while Coyle et al. (2010) refer to learner input at the evaluation stage. Both authors highlight that involving learners in planning and evaluation of CLIL can be a learning experience for them as well as for their teachers. This aligns well with our approaches in teacher education. Our student teachers are required to engage in research in the form of lesson study involving learner interviews or participatory action research (Ponte & Smit, 2007). The clear presence of learner voice as part of the recommendations for planning in some handbooks, but not all, suggests that this is not yet a universally accepted aspect of CLIL, although we believe it may be worthy of further exploration and more extensive attention. Here, again, more practical recommendations regarding dynamics of power and status would be welcome in order to position learners as co-​designers rather than research respondents (Smit et al., 2020).

Conclusions Practical CLIL literature contains many suggestions to support teachers in the design of learning experiences for their learners. We have explored issues we and our student content and language teachers face in implementing these suggestions in practice. As an organising principle for this exploration, we drew on five elements which feature in CLIL teaching handbooks: communication, content, cognition, culture, and collaboration. We also drew on developments advocating integration through a focus on disciplinary literacy. Our student teachers find an emphasis on disciplinary literacy both helpful and challenging. While there is no one formula or design that can be applied to all subjects in all CLIL settings, we see disciplinary literacy as a promising starting point. Our student teachers are open to the idea that disciplinary language is an integral aspect of every subject and therefore of designing learning in that subject. As CLIL teacher educators we endorse developments which emphasise that it is essential to treat disciplinary literacy not as an extra focus in planning, but to take it into account throughout the design process. With this in mind, we argue that CLIL teachers will best learn how to teach subjects in ways that suit the discipline, the learners, the curriculum, and the context when disciplinary literacy is given a central role for all CLIL teachers, including teachers of the target language. Challenges our student teachers face with regard to the five Cs we have identified include the lens through which practical literature views language and the use of all languages at learners’ disposal, and the nature of content in both subject and language curricula. They also include identifying subject-​specific thinking skills and designing-​in scaffolding for the development of related subject-​specific language if higher-​order thinking skills are not part of existing curricula. Furthermore, our student CLIL teachers find it a challenge to include several different understandings of culture in their practice, and to navigate cross-​ disciplinary collaboration without explicit guidelines on how to do so. We argue that it is more helpful for both content teachers and language teachers to take a usage-​based rather than a structure-​based view of language. For this reason, we welcome the 323

Liz Dale and Tessa Mearns

use of ‘a functional understanding of language as a process of meaning making’ as the basis for the pluriliteracies model (Coyle & Meyer, 2021, p. 185). However, we are also mindful of the potential conflict this may bring about for language teachers trained to design language learning based on grammatical systems and lexical expansion. We suggest that both language teachers and content teachers will need to develop knowledge and expertise in this area. In addition, we are aware that our current CLIL teacher education curricula lack practical ideas for how teachers can use their learners’ multilingualism as a resource for learning. Coyle and Meyer’s suggestion that ‘translanguaging might be re-​conceptualised as a discipline-​based, plurimodal activity to language subject understanding adequately across the full linguistic and cultural repertoire of learners’ (2021, p. 75) offers potential for developing our ideas further. Coyle and Meyer call for critical reflection on the adage ‘every teacher is a language teacher’ (2021, p. 185). In response, we agree that CLIL teacher education should not aim to turn content teachers into language teachers. Nor should it aim to turn language teachers into teachers of non-​language subjects. However, we suggest there is potential for CLIL teacher educators to concern themselves with how we help both content and language teachers to view themselves as literacy teachers who give content and meaning a primary position. This could entail repositioning language teachers as subject-​specialists in their own right, with content derived from affiliated disciplines such as literature and linguistics. We are curious as to how our student teachers will respond to Coyle and Meyer’s (2021) suggestions for linking cognitive discourse functions and genres. We contend that if future teachers are to see culture as a central concern of their teaching and not as an add-​on requirement, they need to be aware of and prepared to teach their own disciplinary culture. This aligns closely with placing disciplinary literacy at the heart of CLIL. We find raising content and language teachers’ awareness of their own disciplinary identities and values through comparison with other subjects has potential for encouraging understanding of how subject concepts and ways of thinking are expressed through language. In this way, in addition to exploring culturally specific perspectives on their subjects, intercultural awareness could be linked to both interdisciplinary and intercultural communication. Furthermore, we suggest teacher education also has a role to play in providing CLIL teachers with practical guidelines for cross-​d isciplinary collaboration and opportunities to practice designing cross-​d isciplinary learning experiences. Here lies a challenge for teacher educators such as ourselves to lead by example. Just as student content and language teachers have their own subject disciplines, so do teacher educators. As teacher educators with a background in language education, we rely on our student teachers to explore the language and culture of their own disciplines and to explain those disciplines to us. While this can be fruitful, students often cannot do this independently and we are not always fully equipped to provide adaptive support. We see potential not just for student teachers but also teacher educators from different disciplines to bring together subject and linguistic knowledge and work together to explore and map the literacies of their respective subjects, and how to approach them in practice.

Further reading Coyle, D., & Meyer, O. (2021). Beyond CLIL: Pluriliteracies teaching for deeper learning. Cambridge University Press. The pedagogical approach laid out in this resource demonstrates comprehensively how and why content and language teachers can build disciplinary literacy into their practice.

324

CLIL challenges in designing learning experiences Mehisto, P., & Ting, T.Y.L. (2017). CLIL essentials for secondary school teachers. Cambridge University Press. This volume provides guidance to both content and language teachers on implementing CLIL in secondary schools. Tedick, D.J., & Lyster, R. (2020). Scaffolding language development in immersion and dual language classrooms. Routledge. This book includes strategies for encouraging biliteracy and cross-​linguistic connections.

References Anderson, L.W., & Krathwohl, D.R. (Eds). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman. Arkoudis, A. (2006). Negotiating the rough ground between ESL and mainstream teachers. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9(4), 415–​433. https://​doi.org/​10.2167/ ​beb​337.0 Baetens Beardsmore, H. (2014, 18–​19 September). The cultural element in content and language integrated learning (CLIL) programmes. Paper presentation. Sociocultural Competence and Language Learning in Multilingual Settings Conference 2014, Brussels, Belgium. http://​h isto​i re-​geo.ac-​a mi​ens.fr/​ IMG/​pdf/​clil_ ​hugo​_​bae​tens ​_​bea​rdsm​ore.pdf Ball, P., Kelly, K., & Clegg, J. (2015). Putting CLIL into practice. Oxford University Press. Banks, J.A. (2008). An introduction to multicultural education (4th ed.). Pearson. Bentley, K. (2012). The TKT course CLIL module. Cambridge University Press. Cenoz, J. (2017). Translanguaging in school context: International perspectives. Journal of Language, Identity and Education, 16(4), 193–​198. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​15348​458.2017.1327​816 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/​lac​l il.2015.8.2.2 Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge University Press. Coyle, D., & Meyer, O. (2021). Beyond CLIL: Pluriliteracies teaching for deeper learning. Cambridge University Press. Creese, A. (2006). Supporting talk? Partnership teachers in classroom interaction. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9(4), 434–​453. https://​doi.org/​10.2167/ ​beb​340.0 Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power, and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Multilingual Matters. Dale, L. (2020). On language teachers and CLIL: Shifting the perspectives Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences Centre for Applied Research in Education. https://​hdl.han​d le.net/​11245.1/​98c15​569-​9e2f-​4542-​8472-​9515a​a7ba​c7d Dale, L., Oostdam, R., & Verspoor, M. (2018a). Searching for identity and focus: Towards an analytical framework for language teachers in bilingual education. Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21(3), 366–​383. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​13670 ​050.2017.1383​351 Dale, L., Oostdam, R., & Verspoor, M. (2018b). Juggling ideals and constraints: The position of English teachers in CLIL contexts. Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics, 7(2), 176–​202. https://​doi. org/​10.1075/​dujal.18002.dal Dale, L., & Tanner, R. (2012). CLIL activities. Cambridge University Press. Dalton-​Puffer, C. (2013). A construct of cognitive discourse functions for conceptualising content-​ language integration in CLIL and multilingual education. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 216–​253. https://​doi.org/​10.1515/​eujal-​2013-​0 011 Dalton-​Puffer, C., Bauer-​Marschallinger, S., Brückl-​Mackey, K., Hofmann, V., Hopf, J., Kröss, L., & Lechner, L. (2018). Cognitive discourse functions in Austrian CLIL lessons: Towards an empirical validation of the CDF construct. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6(1), 5–​29. https://​doi.org/​ 10.1515/​eujal-​2017-​0 028 de Graaff, R., Koopman, G. J., Anikina, Y., & Westhoff, G. (2007). An observation tool for effective L2 pedagogy in content and language integrated learning (CLIL). International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(5), 603– ​624. https://​doi.org/​10.2167/ ​beb​462.0 Genesee, F., & Hamayan, E. (2016). CLIL in context: Practical guidance for educators. Cambridge University Press.

325

Liz Dale and Tessa Mearns Kong, S. (2014). Collaboration between content and language specialists in late immersion. The Canadian Modern Language Review/​L a Revue Canadienne Des Langues Vivantes, 70(1), 103–​122. http://​d x.doi.org/​10.3138/​cmlr.1607 Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. Longman. Llinares, A. (2015). Integration in CLIL: A proposal to inform research and successful pedagogy. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28(1), 58–​73. https://​d oi.org/​10.1080/​0 7908​ 318.2014.1000​9 25 Llinares, A., Morton, T., & Whittaker, R. (2012). The roles of language in CLIL. Cambridge University Press. Llinares, A., & Peña, I.P. (2015). A genre approach to the effect of academic questions on CLIL students’ language production, Language and Education, 29(1), 15–​30. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​ 09500​782.2014.924​964 Mearns, T., & Platteel, T. (2020). Exploring teacher support for a content and language integrated modern languages curriculum. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 34(3), 207–​223. https://​doi.org/​ 10.1080/​07908​318.2020.1809​665 Mehisto, P., & Ting, T.Y.L. (2017). CLIL essentials for secondary school teachers. Cambridge University Press. Mompoint-​Gaillard, P., & Lázár, I. (2015). Tasks for democracy: 60 activities to learn and assess transversal attitudes, skills and knowledge. Council of Europe. Morton, T., & Llinares, A. (2017). Content and language integrated learning (CLIL): Type of programme or pedagogical model? In A. Llinares & T. Morton (Eds.), Applied linguistics perspectives on CLIL (pp. 1–​16). John Benjamins. https://​doi.org/​10.1075/​l llt.47.01mor Nikula, T., & Moore, P. (2019). Exploring translanguaging in CLIL. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 22(2), 237–​249. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​13670 ​050.2016.1254​151 Nuffic. (2019). Kwaliteitsstandaard tweetalig onderwijs 2.0. [Quality Standards in Bilingual Education] Nuffic. www.nuf​fi c.nl/​publ ​icat ​ies/​k wal ​itei​t sst ​a nda ​a rd-​t weeta ​l ig- ​onderw ​ijs-​20/​ Oattes, H., Oostdam, R., de Graaff, R., Fukkink, R., & Wilschut, A. (2018). Content and language integrated learning in Dutch bilingual education: How Dutch history teachers focus on second language teaching. Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics, 7(2), 156–​176. https://​doi.org/​10.1075/​ dujal.18003.oat O’Dowd, R. (2017). Exploring the impact of telecollaboration in initial teacher education: The EVALUATE project, The EuroCALL Review, 25(2), 38–​41. https://​doi.org/​10.4995/​ euroc​a ll.2017.7636 Ponte, P., & Smit, B.H.J. (2007). Introduction: Doing research and being researched? In P. Ponte & B.H.J. Smit (Eds.), The quality of practitioners’ research: Reflections on the positions of the researcher and the researched (pp. 1–​8). Sense Publishers. https://​doi.org/​10.1163/​978908​7903​190_​0 02 Reagan, T. (2016). Language teachers in foreign territory: A call for a critical pedagogy-​infused curriculum. In L. Cammarata (Ed.), Content-​based foreign language teaching: Curriculum and pedagogy for developing advanced thinking and literacy skills (pp. 173–​191). Routledge. Skinnari, K., & Bovellan, E. (2016). CLIL teachers’ beliefs about integration and about their professional roles: Perspectives from a European context. In T. Nikula, E. Dafouz, P. Moore, & U. Smit (Eds.) Conceptualising integration in CLIL and multilingual education (pp. 145–​167). Multilingual Matters. Smit, B.H.J., Meirink, J.A., Berry A.K., & Admiraal W.F. (2020). Source, respondent, or partner? Involvement of secondary school students in participatory action research. International Journal of Educational Research, 100, 1–​12. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.ijer.2020.101​544 Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471–​483). Erlbaum. Tedick, D.J., & Cammarata, L. (2012). Content and language integration in K-​12 contexts: Student outcomes, teacher practices and stakeholder perspectives. Foreign Language Annals, 45(1), 28–​53. https://​doi.org/​10.1111/​j.1944-​9720.2012.01178.x Tedick, D.J., & Lyster, R. (2020). Scaffolding language development in immersion and dual language classrooms. Routledge. Valdés, G., Bunch, G., Snow, C., Lee, C., & Matos, L. (2005). Enhancing the development of students’ language(s). In L. Darling-​Hammond, & J. Bransford (Eds.) Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do (pp. 126–​168). Jossey-​Bass.

326

CLIL challenges in designing learning experiences van Kampen, E., Mearns, T., Meirink, J., Admiraal, W., & Berry, A. (2018). How do we measure up? A review of Dutch CLIL subject pedagogies against an international backdrop. Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics, 7(2), 129–​155. https://​doi.org/​10.1075/​dujal.18004.kam 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, 23(8), 855–​871. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​13670 ​050.2017.1411​332 van Kampen, E., Meirink, J., Admiraal, W., & Berry, A. (2020). Characterising integrated content-​ language pedagogies of global perspectives teachers in Dutch bilingual schools. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 34(1), 18–​34. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​07908​318.2020.1732​999

327

328

22 CLIL MATERIALS From theory to practice Laura Karabassova and Nurziya Oralbayeva

Introduction Content and language integrated learning (CLIL) emerged as a solution to the European Union’s interest in a multilingual society across its member states (Marsch, 2002). As compared to a whole range of other language teaching approaches with similar aims, CLIL has a dual focus on both content and language (Coyle, 2008). In CLIL, language serves as a tool for acquiring and reinforcing new knowledge and skills in the content area and, thus, students make progress in mastering both subject content and language. The teaching of content through the means of an additional language (also referred to as a vehicular language) requires that teachers change the way they traditionally teach and create specific learning resources. The European framework for CLIL teacher education (Marsh et al., 2011) stresses the importance of highly integrative, multilayered, and cognitively demanding learning resources and environments that can support learners in experimenting with the new language and managing their own learning. With this imperative, appropriate planning, design, and use of learning resources is indeed vital for successful CLIL implementation. The availability of suitable teaching materials is, in fact, one of the central questions that should be addressed in relation to the sustainability of CLIL (Banegas, 2016). Therefore, preparation of teaching materials should be one of the strategic tasks carried out by educational stakeholders on the offset of CLIL implementation since ‘an effective way to avoid the various pitfalls associated with fuzzy parameters is to create quality materials that reflect the learning beliefs inherent to CLIL practice and the set of methods that carry them out’ (Ball, 2018, p. 223). This chapter is organised into four sections. It begins with a historical overview of CLIL as an approach in language and education, defining relevant terms, baseline frameworks, and giving a general overview of CLIL materials. Following this, the theoretical frameworks for CLIL materials design are presented, breaking down the key principles to attend to when using ready-​m ade materials, and adapting and/​or designing high-​quality materials. The third section discusses the previous empirical research findings in terms of materials use and development by stakeholders as teachers and material publishers. The fourth section focuses on the evaluation of materials’ effectiveness and the importance of needs analysis to respond to students’ varying levels of knowledge and skills. The chapter closes with some 328

DOI: 10.4324/9781003173151-27

CLIL materials: From theory to practice

reflections and recommendations for policymakers and practitioners as well as avenues for further research and development.

Overview of CLIL materials The history of CLIL materials dates back more than three decades, to when CLIL began to be implemented across a diverse range of formal educational settings (Banegas, 2011), becoming a subject of interest among language researchers, language and subject teachers, and increasing the demand for quality learning materials conforming to the needs of both learners and teachers (Mehisto, 2012). This has led researchers and educators to consider theoretical aspects of producing the highly cognitively loaded and meaningful CLIL learning materials. In general terms, materials can be defined as ‘information and knowledge that are represented in a variety of media and formats, and that support the achievement of intended learning outcomes’ (Mehisto, 2012, p. 15). Teaching materials are meant to support both students and teachers and secure sufficient autonomy for teachers, who need to be able to decide how and to what extent a particular learning material will be used. Alongside student textbooks, teaching materials also include teacher handbooks and other guiding resources that provide a framework for designing and adapting texts and tasks. Given the duality of its focus, materials in CLIL should align with the main pillars of CLIL and beyond its scope. In this regard, the development of CLIL materials can be strongly linked to how the concept of CLIL has been introduced through the 4Cs Framework (Coyle, 1999), which is one of the most influential conceptual tools seeking to enhance the quality of CLIL implementation. The framework goes beyond the subject matter and language division, focusing on the interplay between content (subject matter), communication (language), cognition (learning and thinking), and culture (the nature and acquisition of knowledge). According to the 4Cs Framework, subject matter or thematic learning is at the heart of learning since it ‘determines the learning route’ (Coyle, 2005, p. 4). Herewith, the learning process is not limited to the acquisition of knowledge, skills, and understanding, but rather enables learners to construct knowledge by themselves. For the effectiveness of CLIL, the process of learning must involve cognitively demanding tasks that foster the passage from lower-​ order to higher-​order thinking skills (LOTS and HOTS). In the process of learning and thinking, students learn a language that is embedded in the context of disciplinary knowledge. When used in CLIL materials design, this framework is likely to yield the desired learning outcomes given the balanced input through a sequence of tasks corresponding to all 4Cs, thus enriching the CLIL experience both content-​and language-​w ise (Pérez Agustín, 2019; San Isidro et al., 2020). The design of linguistically accessible and cognitively demanding materials and tasks remains one of the major challenges of CLIL implementation (Bovellan, 2014). In this respect, Cummins’ (1981) quadrants matrix of high/​low cognitive and linguistic demands provides guidance in identifying the degree of cognitive and linguistic demands and evaluating teaching materials in CLIL. According to the framework, teachers should start with less cognitively demanding tasks (i.e., with more contextual support) to help students gradually move to cope with more cognitively demanding and abstract concepts. It should be noted that cognitively demanding material can be recalled more easily than cognitively undemanding material and that learners require content and language scaffolding to cope with the extra demands of learning through an additional language. They also require

329

Laura Karabassova and Nurziya Oralbayeva

support in seeing, using, and learning the component parts of academic language and its conventions (AEO NIS, 2013). While the two frameworks outlined above can be referred to as a point of departure in the development of CLIL materials, further guidance can be found in the European framework for CLIL teacher education (Marsh et al., 2011). This framework suggests that teachers should be developing skills to design and use cognitively and linguistically appropriate learning materials, create criteria for developing CLIL resources that embed the core features of CLIL, and articulate techniques for developing cooperative networks aimed at choosing, creating, adapting, and accessing materials or developing learning resources and accessing learning environments. These characteristics thus portray the relevance of a dynamic CLIL teacher as an agent enacting and disseminating the principles of CLIL and materials design to a larger community of educational stakeholders. The advent of CLIL materials, as compared to traditional subject materials, necessitates a focus on learning skills as well as content and language (Marsh et al., 2011). Consequently, it is of paramount importance that teachers and other stakeholders involved in CLIL material development are supported with the knowledge of principles in developing materials for CLIL to eliminate potential obstacles. According to Mehisto (2012), the general principles for CLIL-​specific materials entail the applicability of knowledge in and out of the classroom, learners’ ability to narrate and communicate ideas, understanding, knowledge through various modalities, learner autonomy and self-​consciousness of limitations, and promotion of inclusivity through content and illustrations. The use of these principles has further led to the establishment of various handbooks for teachers (e.g., Ball et al., 2015; Dale & Tanner, 2012; Ruiz-​Garrido & Fortanet-​Gómez, 2015; San Isidro et al., 2020) outlining guidelines for CLIL materials adaptation and development. For instance, Ruiz-​Garrido and Fortanet-​Gómez (2015) put forward a didactic sequence and methodological guidelines with a group of subject and language teachers for designing well-​balanced materials to mitigate the lack of local resources and teachers’ understanding of CLIL. Teachers’ varying interpretations of CLIL as an educational approach seem to define their choices of materials. Those CLIL practitioners who perceive themselves solely as the ‘driving force in increasing exposure time to the L2’ are typically prone to relying on materials translated ad hoc or borrowing from the curricula of the country speaking the target L2 without proper adaptation to the context (Gómez, 2015, p. 16). Consequently, methodological guidelines, conceptualised as a didactic sequence, have been designed to overcome the possible lack of attention to either language or content, provide homogeneity to CLIL practitioners in terms of materials choice and development, and make the assessment process more balanced. A didactic sequence highlights the relevance of a fixed logical order of organisation to make the learning material consistent, following the principles suggested by Zabala (2000): (1) logical presentation of language, (2) logical order of activities implying different levels of difficulty, (3) order imposed by the non-​language content. Drawing on these principles, Gómez (2015) places the selection of target educational levels, subject areas, objectives, and content, before assessment criteria. In conjunction with the frameworks mentioned above, Meyer’s (2010) CLIL Pyramid may be leveraged as an integrative planning tool for those involved in CLIL, such as material developers, teachers, or teacher trainers. The CLIL Pyramid, which is built on the core CLIL elements, may help maintain the quality of CLIL as a pedagogical approach and its learning materials through a set of quality principles. Rich input, scaffolding learning, rich interaction and pushed output, intercultural awareness, and communication, thinking skills 330

CLIL materials: From theory to practice

(from LOTS to HOTS), and sustainable teaching and learning are the key pillars of the CLIL Pyramid (Meyer, 2010). These pillars are integrated to form a four-​t iered pyramid, each tier informing crucial stages of lesson planning, material construction, and adaptation. Furthermore, Mehisto (2012) proposed a list of ten criteria for producing valuable learning materials which are intended to foster various pillars of learning within the content-​d riven and language-​supported classrooms, as well as benefit both learners and educators. The criteria are: • make the learning intentions (language, content, learning skills) and process visible to students; • systematically foster academic language proficiency; • foster learning skills development and learner autonomy; • include self, peer, and other types of formative assessment; • help create a safe learning environment; • foster cooperative learning; • seek ways of incorporating authentic language and authentic language use; • foster critical thinking; • foster cognitive fluency through scaffolding of (1) content, (2) language, and (c) learning skills development helping student to reach well beyond what they could do on their own; • help to make learning meaningful. The above criteria tend to inform the material provision for any foreign language teaching pedagogy, not CLIL specifically, as Banegas (2016) stresses. Yet, their socio-​cultural and socio-​cognitive perspectives rest within the pillars of CLIL pedagogies. These criteria could provide more opportunities for students’ linguistic and cognitive achievements given the teachers are provided with clear guidelines. In this regard, Morton (2013) proposes a set of can-​do statements that ensure appropriate language and content learning. According to this author, CLIL materials: • can avoid underestimating learners linguistically and cognitively by, for example, not treating linguistically low-​level learners as cognitively low-​level learners; • include listening and reading activities that are not used to teach language features but are content meaning-​focused; • can avoid the use of bland, safe, and harmonious texts by engaging students affectively and intellectually with stimulating texts relating to aspects of content; • can involve learners in activities in which they cognitively engage with conceptual content, thus enabling them to use the full resources of the brain. Banegas (2016) suggests that for a cohesive negotiation of the dual focus in material design and adaptation, teachers need the flexibility to circumvent the tensions and challenges by considering materials development as building blocks that move towards the common goal. In Kazakhstan, San Isidro, Coyle, and Kerimkulova (2020) devised guidelines directed toward CLIL classrooms in the trilingual education context. As a practical resource, these guidelines provide hands-​on examples for teachers to experiment with learners, apply a range of activities, create their own materials, and evaluate the CLIL lessons following the established CLIL frameworks. Not only do they correspond to Mehisto’s (2012) criteria of CLIL material design, but they also align with Meyer’s (2010) CLIL Pyramid. The frameworks and principles described above might bridge the gap in the lack of standardised 331

Laura Karabassova and Nurziya Oralbayeva

guidelines for various CLIL contexts. In what follows, we further elaborate on the features of CLIL materials and procedures that are involved in their development.

Key features and procedures in CLIL materials development In this section, we particularly discuss issues of CLIL materials in relation to authenticity, content, needs analysis, and input. According to Pinner (2013), the notion of authenticity has frequently appeared in CLIL-​ related research journals since 1998. Within the CLIL literature, Moore and Lorenzo (2007, p. 28) define authenticity as ‘both non-​pedagogic materials from the general media and specifically didactic content materials produced for native speakers of the target language’. CLIL guidelines call for the use of unedited and authentic materials as the core of CLIL methodology. As Ball (2018, p. 222) notes, ‘materials can be incorporated from authentic sources, but in practice, they tend to be adaptations of existing materials, or originals designed to fit the needs of CLIL learners across the diversity of CLIL contexts’. Authentic materials are seen to be those providing genuine opportunities for students to effectively engage with the target language (Coyle et al., 2009). However, it is rather challenging for teachers to ensure that these materials are appropriate for students’ educational setting (Coyle et al., 2009) as well as level of cognitive and linguistic development (Moore & Lorenzo, 2007). As a response to this shortcoming, teachers often design their own materials to meet the needs and demands of their local context (Banegas, 2017). Moore and Lorenzo (2007, p. 28) suggest that CLIL teachers have three options for creating their teaching resources: (1) produce their own materials from scratch, (2) use authentic sources without any changes, and (3) adapt authentic materials in line with their course learning objectives. The authors propose that adaptation of authentic written texts for CLIL can include three processes: ‘simplification’ (shorter sentences, simplified vocabulary), ‘elaboration’ (paraphrase and synonyms) and ‘discursification’ (adaptation to a specific discourse). Albeit helpful in boosting motivation, simplification and elaboration tend to sacrifice linguistic and cognitive complexity as the readability decreases in the former and increases in the latter, resulting in little to no language learning gains. On the other hand, discursification provides a smooth transition from one discourse type to another without losing content complexity as mentioned above. Thus, texts, which are conveyors of the message, are part of the primacy of the task (Ball, 2018); therefore, they carry a certain weight in the three processes outlined by Moore and Lorenzo (2017). Alongside authenticity, researchers suggest approaching CLIL materials design unit by unit (a sequence of lessons on one topic), by carefully selecting content as a starting point (Meyer, 2010; San Isidro et al., 2020). While material design from scratch may depart from the point of content selection, the adaptation of existing resources to fit the CLIL environment might start with the scaffolding of input and language. Grandinetti et al. (2013) described a successful case in point. They transformed traditional learning materials into CLIL materials, paying attention to the scaffolding between familiar language and unfamiliar content in the Italian CLIL context. Grandinetti et al.’s (2013) approach to adapting CLIL materials is grounded on the solid theoretical framework guiding the material development process through a balanced input. They suggest chunking the topic’s contents into ‘a sequence of micro-​learning-​objectives which cumulate towards the content-​learning objectives established by the L1-​science curriculum’ (p. 356). Moreover, to initiate a shift toward more student-​centred learning, the authors sought to answer if, how, and how well the students were learning, using, and mastering the foreign language. 332

CLIL materials: From theory to practice

There is some support for maintaining the balanced scaffolding across various stages of materials construction adhering to the 4Cs, Cummins’ (1984) quadrant matrix, Mehisto’s (2012) ten principles, and Meyer’s (2010) CLIL Pyramid. Grandinetti et al. (2013) highlight the balanced scaffolding between the content-​cognitive demand (CCD) and the language cognitive demand (LCD). Thus, the language-​cognitive demand should be low to facilitate the attainment of unfamiliar scientific knowledge that raises the content-​cognitive demand. While the language in CLIL materials should be able to foster students’ academic proficiency (Mehisto, 2012), it should not be oversimplified; instead, its difficulty must be increased gradually (Gondová, 2015; Grandinetti et al., 2013). Gondová (2015) claims that quality CLIL material should be able to provide more opportunities for students’ independent work with input that is secure enough for experimenting with both language and content. Apart from the general principles of CLIL material design, she suggests several adjustments which can contribute to a more student-​centred learning paradigm through balanced and transparent texts, output, and scaffolding. These three components are seen to lie at the basis of the criteria she offers: varied input (i.e., multimodality of texts), adjusting the material to a learner’s prior knowledge and age appropriacy, and stages of the learning process. On the one hand, the first criterion seems self-​explanatory as it is referred to most often. On the other hand, upon adjusting the learning materials to CLIL classrooms, it is essential that teachers thoroughly analyse the language for comprehensibility and the content for accessibility when adapting the existing learning materials designed for traditional non-​CLIL classrooms. Regarding the stages of the learning process, the author identifies task-​specific criteria that help carry out scaffolding in an orderly but selective manner, giving freedom of choice to learners. Hence, scaffolding should be present at all stages of CLIL materials development and their implementation. Developing and designing materials from scratch follows similar principles as mentioned above. However, Ball et al. (2015) offer seven principles for this purpose: 1. The primacy of task (the text-​t ask relationship). 2. Prioritising the three dimensions of content. 3. Guiding input and supporting output. 4. Scaffolding and embedding. 5. The concept of difficulty. 6. Making key language salient. 7. Thinking in sequences. Readers might notice a commonality between these principles and those of Mehisto (2012). For example, some of these principles (principles 3, 4, and 5) overlap with the previously mentioned principles (Mehisto’s principles 1 and 10) that oftentimes appear in the discussions around CLIL materials design and adaptation. However, Ball et al. (2015) consider it worth highlighting that one of the distinguishing features of their set of principles is the primacy of task, which is deemed to entail the entire process of materials design through the selection of text and task, while also discussing the concept of difficulty. Grandinetti et al. (2013) suggest that whatever set of principles teachers decide to follow, a needs analysis should be a priority. Thus, they propose using the CLIL Modus Operandi pipeline (adapted from Ting, 2011), which provides teachers with thought-​ provoking questions to analyse learners’ needs before jumping into the process of materials construction. Needs analysis has been a common practice mainly in English for specific purposes (ESP) (Ruiz-​Garrido & Fortanet-​Gómez, 2015). In the CLIL context, however, only a 333

Laura Karabassova and Nurziya Oralbayeva

few scholars (e.g., Banegas, 2012; Ruiz-​Garrido & Fortanet-​Gómez, 2015) have addressed the importance of needs analysis for CLIL materials design. Adapting and designing CLIL learning materials should thus be handled in close relation to students’ needs and cognitive development. However, this scenario is suitable for bottom-​up decision-​m aking, while in the top-​down scenario, a needs analysis should be performed at an institutional level. As regards the multimodality of input when designing CLIL material, Guerrini (2009) offers several parameters: 1. Illustrations with labels and captions. 2. Content area text types, vocabulary, and language. 3. Graphic organisers as scaffolding tools. 4. Scaffolding input and output with digital applications. These practice-​orientated parameters are deemed to help materials ‘act as instructional scaffolding to facilitate learning’ (pp. 74–​78) by enriching them to provide multimodal input.

Review of empirical studies The development and use of CLIL materials has attracted a considerable amount of research interest internationally (Banegas, 2016; Charunsri, 2019; Lopriore, 2018; Marongiu, 2019; Morton, 2013; Pappa et al., 2019; Gómez, 2015), reflecting the voices of the major educational stakeholders such as teachers, students, and parents across different educational contexts. Evidence related to the CLIL materials design and implementation in classrooms across various contexts is discussed further in the section.

CLIL materials design Research has documented a lack of readily available and appropriate materials for the integrated teaching of subject content and language (Gondová, 2015; Karabassova, 2018). Teachers involved in the construction of CLIL materials, as Morton (2013) outlined, raise different types of concerns, such as contextual and cultural, learner-​focused, content and design-​focused, and teacher-​focused. The findings provided by Morton (2013) on contextual and cultural concerns indicated that teachers mostly acknowledged the problem in the lack of suitability of the materials for the students. This finding suggests that the materials should be appropriate for the educational context and culture. As regards the suitability of the materials to the educational context and curricula, it was documented that teachers found CLIL guidelines and resources to be insufficient or contextually unsuitable. In all cases, the participants reported the scarcity of practice-​oriented teaching manuals with more practical tasks. Besides, teachers expressed the need for more local textbooks and therefore planned to develop their own resources (Karabassova, 2018). Indeed, scholars (Ball et al., 2015; Banegas 2017) note the lack of alignment between local curriculum and English-​medium books of international publishers and the distance between having ‘native speakers’ as intended users and L2 learners in contexts where English is not the mainstream language of instruction. However, lack of contextuality did not seem to matter to a group of Thai teachers when they opted for the textbooks imported from the countries speaking English as L1 and intended for the native speakers of English (Charunsri, 2019). This is explained by the Thai teachers’ assumption about the perceived quality the imported textbooks could provide, but even then, they were not contextually appropriate. The teachers did not adapt those materials to 334

CLIL materials: From theory to practice

the local educational context because they were described as possessing little or no linguistic competence to embark on the development and adaptation of materials for CLIL. Along with the contextual appropriation of the materials, teachers’ professional competence poses an additional critical challenge for the overall implementation of CLIL in the Thai context. However, Morton’s (2013) findings challenge this kind of use of materials designed for native speakers as teachers reported them to be problematic for CLIL students who learn through the medium of a second language. In her analysis of the subject textbooks for CLIL curricula with English as a medium of instruction, Marongiu (2019) relies upon principles of material development suggested by Tomlinson (2011) and Coyle’s (1999) 4Cs framework for evaluation of their quality. The textbooks used in the Italian CLIL classrooms showed adherence to the criteria and framework, concomitantly facilitating the content comprehension. Other subject-​specific textbooks contained scaffolding activities of various cognitive levels and integrated skills of higher order. Although textbooks guided the students and provided the necessary language support for specific subject areas, there was little or no integration of textbook content with accompanying tasks for fostering the development of the receptive skills from web resources (Marongiu, 2019).

CLIL materials implementation In Kazakhstan, Nazarbayev Intellectual Schools (NIS) were the first to implement CLIL within the trilingual education policy (AEO NIS, 2013), teaching different curriculum subjects through purposive translanguaging between Kazakh, Russian, and English. Distancing itself from the idea of using one-​size-​fits-​a ll textbooks, NIS gave teachers a free choice in the selection of resources within the subject courses jointly developed with the participation of Cambridge International Examinations specialists to help students achieve learning objectives. As reported in Karabassova (2020), teachers initially used the mainstream textbooks, designed for L1 learners, and approved by the Ministry of Education and Science (MoES), by incorporating tasks created in the target language. In senior grades, where English was used as a language of instruction for most of the subjects, GCSE1 secondary books were used by teachers. Whether teachers could use such materials also depended on their experience and background. Those teachers, who had a more extended internship in English-​speaking countries, could make use of subject textbooks from international publishers (Karabassova, 2020). A few studies (Lopriore, 2018; Marongiu, 2019; Morton, 2013; Pappa et al., 2019) emphasise the issues related to the excessive workload resulting from material selection and development, providing empirical evidence of the teachers’ stance on teacher-​m ade CLIL materials. Pappa et al. (2019) have found that this practice usually causes tension on teachers’ agency in Finnish primary school CLIL education. Their findings regarding the perceived tension in practising agency pointed to the scarcity of materials as a ‘tensioned factor’. In contrast, teachers hinted at the lack of funds for self-​developing materials from a broader range of resources as they are constricted to use the existing ones. Plus, according to the authors’ evidence, there was ‘no mere reliance on books for teaching’ as teachers consider them outdated (p. 599). Lopriore (2018) agrees that the choice and development of teaching materials can be seen as a challenge, especially for inexperienced subject teachers with relatively low language awareness. Indeed, as mentioned earlier, teachers’ competency plays a critical part in the process of material construction and adaptation, which may negatively affect learners’ 335

Laura Karabassova and Nurziya Oralbayeva

development of new content (Marongiu, 2019). Thus, developing CLIL materials is found to be one reason for teacher tension. A key consideration for tension-​free collaborative teacher work could be professional training and workshops to raise teachers’ awareness and responsibility (Banegas, 2016; Karabassova, 2018). As regards the perception of roles by stakeholders, which is one of the common concerns expressed by a few authors (Barrios & Milla Lara, 2020; Dale & Tanner, 2012), Dale and Tanner (2012) provide resources for subject teachers in terms of defining their roles and responsibilities, collaborating with language teachers, examples from different subject areas and practical activities in CLIL aspects such as enhancing motivation, scaffolding students’ content and language learning, and developing communicative abilities and higher-​order thinking skills. However, teachers’ abilities to collaborate are often challenged by the lack of unity of purpose and systematicity (Pham & Unaldi, 2021). Collaboration is believed to bring more benefits when all stakeholders are fully aware of their responsibilities as well as objectives (Lawson, 2004), especially in teaching contexts like CLIL, which consequently could optimise the process and maximise the result. Here, the concept of community of practice (CoP), proposed by Wenger (1998), would provide valuable insights into the collaborative work of CLIL teachers and even students (Evnitskaya & Morton, 2011) in the design and development of learning resources. The CoP would allow more space and freedom for new CLIL practitioners to negotiate meaning with more experienced ones and exchange ideas as well as materials (Evnitskaya & Morton, 2011). Consequently, the results of this kind of engagement in practice are assumed to be more fruitful and feasible when enacting curricula and educational policies in a classroom. In addition, it is likely to help accomplish relatively stable and higher learning outcomes. A study by Gómez (2015) envisions how experts among language and content teachers should unanimously assemble their efforts to decide upon the selection of materials and arrange them based on the proposed didactics to create a baseline model from which both students and teachers could benefit. However, this kind of practice is often context-​specific and, therefore, might vary considerably depending on the local educational context and curricula. This mismatch in decision-​m aking may stem from the teachers’ unshared attempts to create a tentatively valuable bank of learning materials. Contrary to the evidence on teachers’ involvement in materials development being seen as a ‘tension’, some scholars have stressed it as a catalyst for the successful and fruitful implementation of CLIL in general. This is not at all a negative phenomenon. Instead, it was reported as a nuanced approach, otherwise termed DIY (do it yourself ) by the British to refer to the teachers practising CLIL material development by customising the existing textbooks designed for the L1 curriculum (Ball, 2018). Barrios and Milla Lara (2020) agree with this and position the teachers’ own involvement in producing contextually aligned learning materials as a driving force for the successful implementation of CLIL practices. This aligns with what Pladevall-​Ballester (2015) and Roiha (2014) pointed out in terms of material adaptation as being a common practice among CLIL teachers. In a workshop conducted by Banegas (2016), secondary school teachers embarked on developing materials from scratch based on pre-​ established lesson plans by them, considering specific criteria as set in a workshop. According to the analysis conducted, teachers demonstrated promising results in designing materials aligned with the lesson plan and responsive to the acquisition of both content and language. According to evidence presented in Banegas (2016), there was a positive shift from traditional ELT-​based coursebooks to CLIL materials development, specifically, at the activity level, with the help of various charts, tables, and timelines. In addition, the activities that teachers exhibited these features: 336

CLIL materials: From theory to practice

• • • • • •

Inclusion of multimodal sources. Text simplification. Text enhancement through the inclusion of visual support. Knowledge structuring through graphic organisers. Promotion of cooperative learning strategies. Focus on lower-​order thinking skills.

As a result, it is observable that teachers managed to develop materials that suited their own context, although within a limited timeframe. A line of researchers (Kupetz, 2011; Vlachos, 2009) advocated for using multimodal resources deployed by both teachers and students for meaning-​m aking in the CLIL context. According to Morton (2013), there is an increasing awareness of the CLIL learners’ needs among teachers as well as publishers that is noticeable through a more scaffolded approach in books, enriched with visual support and simplified texts. Nevertheless, his findings from teachers’ responses tend to contradict the above as teachers still find the need to customise the learning materials as a ‘bricolage’ to suit the local curriculum. Either creating their own or adapting the existing materials, teachers show a general inclination to apply a range of resources and put them together to meet the learners’ needs. Drawing on the findings of Barrios and Milla Lara’s study (2020), which explored the educational stakeholders’ (teacher, students, parents) perspectives on CLIL methodologies, materials, and resources, one of the strengths of the bilingual programme in the context of Andalusia was the authenticity of the adapted instructional materials. According to subject teachers’ responses, the internet was found to be the ‘primary source of authentic and potentially adaptable materials’ (Barrios & Milla Lara, 2020, p. 67). However, teachers also portrayed it as a threat, especially in areas with poor internet provision, where online resources could not be accessed by teachers, students, or even parents. Hence, it is not a ‘one-​ size-​fits-​a ll’ instance considering the access to the internet across different locations. As a result, some teachers have no option but to rely on text-​based resources only. Not only teachers’ but students’ perceptions as one of the key stakeholders may yield a deeper understanding of the current state of the materials used in class. In a study about CLIL implementation in Malaga (Spain), Barrios and Milla Lara (2020) found striking differences between teachers’, students’, and parents’ perceptions of CLIL materials based on the extent to which they were authentic, innovative, interesting, and communicative. While teachers claimed materials to be authentic, students tended to dismiss this fact, which, according to Barrios and Milla Lara (2020) can be accounted for by their incompetency to identify features of authenticity and paucity of awareness about the sources of materials used in class. Similarly, parents’ and students’ perceptions of innovativeness and interestingness differed from that of the teachers who viewed them positively. Empirical evidence from a number of studies investigating teachers’ perspectives on materials development and adaptation suggests three major themes as (1) teachers’ creativity and (2) proactivity in adapting materials from various contexts, and (3) culture of collaboration (Barrios & Milla Lara, 2020). Taken together, the findings presented above may serve to inform CLIL material developers and teachers to raise their awareness of contextual and cultural differences as teaching is indeed a ‘cultural activity’ (Stigler & Hiebert, 1999, as cited in Morton, 2013). Because CLIL material development causes tension for some teachers, further empirical study on why teachers confront material design and adaptation needs to be conducted. Furthermore, the question of what adaptations are needed for teacher-​m ade materials (Banegas, 2022) should also be explored. 337

Laura Karabassova and Nurziya Oralbayeva

Conclusion The literature suggests that CLIL cannot be fully accomplished without materials that are designed to cater for learners’ specific needs. Despite the abundance of available criteria and frameworks, not all contexts address the shortcomings of materials in the same way due to factors such as teachers’ professional competency, time and financial resource allocation, and cooperation. Our review of the empirical literature on CLIL materials design reveals that teachers face significant challenges. These include the practical challenges teachers face teaching their subjects, which cause additional tension above their already overloaded schedules. Novice CLIL teachers are particularly under stress, due to a lack of support and collaboration with more experienced and knowledgeable professionals when choosing the appropriate materials, not to mention the process of designing and developing materials on their own. Hence, ensuring the proper training of novice CLIL teachers on the context-​ responsive construction or adaptation of materials should be a priority.

Note 1 General Certificate of Secondary Education.

Further reading Coonan, C.M., Favaro, L., & Menegale, M. (Eds.). (2017). A journey through the content and language integrated learning landscape: Problems and prospects. Cambridge Scholars Publisher. This book delves into the problems that are faced by anyone involved in CLIL in any way. Specifically, it contributes to the understanding of the current issues, one of the most important elements of which is the design of teaching and learning materials. Dale, L., & Tanner, R. (2012). CLIL activities with CD-​ROM: A resource for subject and language teachers. Cambridge University Press. ‘CLIL activities’ is intended for both subject teachers and language educators who work in a bilingual context, offering not only theoretical support but also practical activities. Moreover, the book draws on the ‘multifaceted’ approach in the CLIL teaching environment. Meyer, O. (2010). Introducing the CLIL-​P yramid: Key strategies and principles for quality CLIL planning and teaching. In M. Eisenmann & T. Summer (Eds.), Basic issues in EFL-​teaching and learning (pp. 295–​313). Universitätsverlag Winter. This book chapter might benefit those who plan on constructing a CLIL-​focused learning materials. It provides a deep understanding of the processes involved in the CLIL material development and its stages. Apart from that, it also guides teachers and material developers in choosing appropriate input. Papaja, K., & Świątek, A. (Eds.). (2016). Modernizing educational practice: Perspectives in content and language integrated learning (CLIL). Cambridge Scholars Publisher. A collection that brings together some original publications of CLIL researchers, academicians, teachers, and educational authorities focusing on practical, theoretical and methodological considerations of implementing CLIL.

References AEO NIS. (2013). Integration of content and language: Guidance for teachers. AEO NIS. Ball, P. (2018). Innovations and challenges in CLIL materials design. Theory Into Practice, 57(3), 222–​ 231. DOI:10.1080/​0 0405841.2018.1484036 Ball, P., Kelly, K., & Clegg, J. (2015). Putting CLIL into practice. Oxford University Press.

338

CLIL materials: From theory to practice Banegas, D.L. (2011). A review of CLIL: Content and language integrated learning. Language and Education, 25(2), 182–​185. DOI:10.1080/​09500782.2010.539045 Banegas, D.L. (2012). CLIL teacher development: Challenges and experiences. Latin American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning, 5(1), 46–​56. Banegas, D.L. (2016). Teachers develop CLIL materials in Argentina: A workshop experience. Latin American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning, 9(1), 17–​36. DOI:10.5294/​laclil.2016.9.1.2 Banegas, D.L. (2017). Teacher developed materials for CLIL: Frameworks, sources, and activities. Asian EFL Journal, 19(3), 31–​48. www.elej​ourn​a ls.com/​1590/​2017/​a sian-​efl​jour​nal/​the-​a sian-​efl-​ jour​nal-​quarte​rly-​septem​ber-​2017 Banegas, D.L. (2022). Research into practice: CLIL in South America. Language Teaching, 55(3), 379–​ 391. DOI:10.1017/​S0261444820000622 Barrios, E., & Milla Lara, M.D. (2020). CLIL methodology, materials and resources, and assessment in a monolingual context: An analysis of stakeholders’ perceptions in Andalusia. The Language Learning Journal, 48(1), 60–​80. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​09571​736.2018.1544​269 Bovellan, E. (2014). Teachers’ beliefs about learning and language as reflected in their views of teaching materials for content and language integrated learning (CLIL). Jyväskylä Studies in Humanities. https://​jyx.jyu.fi/​ bitstr​eam/​han​d le/​123456​789/​4 4277/​1/​978-​951-​39-​5809-​1_​vai​tos2​0 092​014.pdf Charunsri, K. (2019). The challenges of implementing content language integrated learning in tertiary education in Thailand: A review and implication of materials. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 10(4), 125–​129. http://​d x.doi.org/​10.7575/​a iac.alls.v.10n.4p.125. Coyle, D. (1999). Theory and planning for effective classrooms: Supporting students in content and language integrated learning contexts. In J. Masih (Ed.), Learning Through a Foreign Language (pp. 46–​62). CILT. Coyle, D. (2005). Developing CLIL: Towards a Theory of Practice. APAC Monograph 6. APAC Barcelona. Coyle, D. (2008). CLIL: A pedagogical approach from the European perspective. In N. Hornberger (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Education. Springer. Coyle, D., Holmes, B., & King, L. (2009). Towards an integrated curriculum: CLIL national statement and guidelines. The Languages Company. Cummins, J. (1981). The role of primary language development in promoting educational success for language minority students. In California State Department of Education (Ed.), Schooling and language minority students: A theoretical framework (pp. 3–​49). National Dissemination and Assessment Center. Cummins, J. (1984). Bilingualism and special education: Issues in assessment and pedagogy. Multilingual Matters. Dale, L., & Tanner, R. (2012). CLIL activities. Cambridge University Press. Evnitskaya, N., & Morton, T. (2011). Knowledge construction, meaning-​m aking and interaction in CLIL science classroom communities of practice. Language and Education, 25(2), 109–​127. https://​ doi.org/​10.1080/​09500​782.2010.547​199 Gómez, D.Á.R. (2015). A practical approach to CLIL. In D. Marsh, M.L.P. Cañado, & J.R. Padilla (Eds.), CLIL in action: Voices from the classroom (pp. 14–​30). Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Gondová, D. (2015). Selecting, adapting and creating CLIL materials. In S. Pokrivcáková (Ed.), CLIL in foreign language rducation: E-​textbook for foreign language teachers (pp. 151–​163). Constantine the Philosopher University. Grandinetti, M., Langellotti, M., & Ting, Y.L.T. (2013). How CLIL can provide a pragmatic means to renovate science education: Even in a sub-​optimally bilingual context. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16(3), 354–​374. DOI:10.1080/​13670050.2013.777390 Guerrini, M. C. (2009). CLIL materials as scaffolds to learning. In D. Marsh, P. Mehisto, D. Wolff, R. Aliaga, T. Asikainen, M. Frigols-​Martin, S. Hughes, & G. Langé (Eds.), CLIL practice: Perspectives from the field (pp. 74–​84). University of Jyväskylä. Karabassova, L. (2018). Content and language integrated learning (CLIL) in Kazakhstan: Case studies of five teachers at a Nazarbayev Intellectual School (NIS). Unpublished PhD dissertation. Nazarbayev University. Karabassova, L. (2020). Is top-​down CLIL justified? A grounded theory exploration of secondary school Science teachers’ experiences. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 25(4), 1530–​1545. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​13670 ​050.2020.1775​781

339

Laura Karabassova and Nurziya Oralbayeva Kupetz, M. (2011). Multimodal resources in students’ explanations in CLIL interaction. Novitas-​Royal (Research on Youth and Language), 5(1), 121–​142. Lawson, H.A. (2004). The logic of collaboration in education and the human services. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 18(3), 225–​237. Lopriore, L. (2018). Reframing teaching knowledge in content and language integrated learning (CLIL): A European perspective. Language Teaching Research, 24(1), 94–​ 104. DOI:10.1177/​ 1362168818777518 Marongiu, M.A. (2019). Teaching materials and CLIL teaching. Linguae & Rivista di Lingue e Culture Moderne, 18(2), 81–​104. https:doi.org/​10.7358/​l ing-​2019- ​0 02-​m aro Marsch, D. (2002). CLIL/​ EMILE: The European dimension: Actions, trends, and foresight potential. Continuing Education Centre. Marsh, D., Mehisto, P., Wolff, D., & Frigols Martín, M.J. (2011). European framework for CLIL teacher education: Framework for the professional development of CLIL teachers. European Centre for Modern Languages. www.engl ​ish-​efl.com/​w p-​cont​ent/​uplo​ads/​pdf/​CLIL-​EN.pdf Mehisto, P. (2012). Criteria for producing CLIL learning material. Encuentro, 21, 15–​33. Meyer, O. (2010). Introducing the CLIL-​P yramid: Key strategies and principles for quality CLIL planning and teaching. In M. Eisenmann & T. Summer (Eds.), Basic issues in EFL-​teaching and learning (pp. 295–​313). Universitätsverlag Winter. Moore, P., & Lorenzo, F. (2007). Adapting authentic materials for CLIL classrooms: An empirical study. Vienna English Working Papers, 16(3), 28–​35. Morton, T. (2013). Critically evaluating materials for CLIL: Practitioners’ practices and perspectives. In J. Gray (Ed.), Critical perspectives on language teaching materials (pp. 111–​136). Palgrave Macmillan. https://​doi.org/​10.1057/​9781​1373​8426​3 _​6 Pappa, S., Moate, J., Ruohotie-​Lyhty, M., & Eteläpelto, A. (2019). Teacher agency within the Finnish CLIL context: Tensions and resources. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 22(5), 593– ​613. Pérez Agustín, M. (2019). Meeting CLIL teachers’ training and professional development needs. NABE Journal of Research and Practice, 9(3–​4), 119–​127. DOI:10.1080/​26390043.2019.1634961 Pham, P.A., & Unaldi, A. (2021). Cross-​curricular collaboration in a CLIL bilingual context: The perceptions and practices of language teachers and content subject teachers. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 25(8), 2918–​2932. Pinner, R.S. (2013). Authenticity of purpose: CLIL as a way to bring meaning and motivation into EFL contexts. Asian EFL Journal, 15(4), 138–​159. Pladevall-​Ballester, E. (2015). Exploring primary school CLIL perceptions in Catalonia: Students’, teachers’ and parents’ opinions and expectations. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 18(1), 45–​59. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​13670 ​050.2013.874​972 Roiha, A.S. (2014). Teachers’ views on differentiation in content and language integrated learning (CLIL): Perceptions, practices and challenges. Language and Education, 28(1), 1–​18. https://​doi.org/​ 10.1080/​09500​782.2012.748​061 Ruiz-​Garrido, M., & Fortanet-​Gómez, I. (2015). Needs analysis in a CLIL context: A transfer from ESP. In D. Marsh, P. Mehisto, D. Wolff, R. Aliaga, T. Asikainen, M. Frigols-​Martin, S. Hughes, & G. Langé (Eds.), CLIL practice: Perspectives from the field (pp. 179–​188). University of Jyväskylä. San Isidro, X., Coyle, D., & Kerimkulova, S.I. (2020). CLIL classroom practices in multilingual education in Kazakhstan. Nazarbayev University. Ting, Y.L.T. (2011). CLIL … not only not immersion but also much more than the sum of its parts. ELT Journal, 65(3), 314–​317. DOI:10.1093/​elt/​ccr026. Tomlinson, B. (Ed.) (2011). Materials development in language teaching. Cambridge University Press. Vlachos, K. (2009). The potential of information communication technologies (ICT) in content and language integrated learning (CLIL): The case of English as a second/​foreign language. In D. Marsh, P. Mehisto, D. Wolff, R. Aliaga, T. Asikainen, M. Frigols-​Martin, S. Hughes, & G. Langé (Eds.), CLIL practice: Perspectives from the field (pp. 189–​198). University of Jyväskylä. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press. Zabala, A. (2000). La práctica educativa: Cómo enseñar. Grao.

340

341

23 CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK IN CLIL Ruth Milla and María del Pilar García Mayo

Introduction Language learning is often promoted by focus on form techniques, such as corrective feedback (CF) (Nassaji & Kartchava, 2021). In second language (SL) and foreign language (FL) settings, teachers make use of different strategies in order to compensate for the scarcity of input and opportunities for genuine communication. However, there is a specific language learning context, namely content and language integrated learning (CLIL), where CF has not been addressed in depth. CLIL has been defined as ‘a dual-​focused educational approach in which an additional language is used for the learning and teaching of both content and language’ (Coyle et al., 2010, p. 1). CLIL classrooms are typically set in instructional contexts where the target language is a FL (Lasagabaster & Sierra, 2010) but, given the meaning-​ oriented nature of these type of contexts, differences are expected in the approach to language teaching in CLIL and FL lessons. As noted in Nassaji and Kartchava (2021), research on CF in FL classrooms is extensive, but that is not the case in CLIL contexts. Therefore, the present chapter reviews the scant existing literature on CF in CLIL classrooms, trying to provide the reader with a comprehensive picture of the use and effectiveness of this technique in this particular setting. It will examine teachers’ provision of oral and written feedback and learners’ response, operationalised as immediate uptake. The chapter will review studies reporting findings from primary and secondary education CLIL classrooms, but will not include studies in tertiary education belonging to English-​medium instruction (EMI) (Lasagabaster & Doiz, 2018) since the characteristics and aims of these lessons differ notably from those in CLIL programmes with younger students. The following section presents some key concepts and a review of empirical studies about feedback on language errors in FL classrooms. Next, the literature on oral and written CF in CLIL classrooms is reviewed. A final section concludes the chapter and offers some research and pedagogical implications.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003173151-28

341

Ruth Milla and María del Pilar García Mayo

Feedback in second/​foreign language contexts This section provides a justification for the need for CF and then defines and illustrates the three moves of corrective feedback episodes (CFEs), namely, error, CF, and learners’ uptake/​ repair. Research on the process of second language (L2) acquisition has promoted the use of activities that focus both on meaning and on formal aspects of the target language. As is well-​k nown, the mere exposure to meaningful L2 input is not enough for learners to reach proficiency in an L2/​FL and to foster their productive skills (Spada, 2011). Evidence from Canadian immersion programmes (Lyster, 2007) showed that, after large amounts of exposure to meaningful input, the speaking and writing skills remained lower than expected and some aspects of grammar were never acquired. VanPatten (1990) also pointed out the processing limitations that led to learners’ focus on meaning rather than on form at the beginning stages, and Schmidt (2001) highlighted that some attention to form1 was essential for language learning to take place. CF is one of the ways to draw learners’ attention to formal aspects of the target language. Feedback on learners’ output can be positive or negative. Positive feedback entails the provision of input in the target language, that is, positive evidence. Negative feedback, also known as corrective feedback, consists of providing negative evidence, hence, drawing attention to problems in the learners’ production. CF has been defined as ‘a reactive type of form-​focused instruction which is considered to be effective in promoting noticing and thus conducive to learning’ (Yang & Lyster, 2010, p. 237). It can be incidental or pre-​emptive, orally or in writing with various options in each modality, as will be seen below. 2 A number of studies have shown that CF is beneficial for FL learning (Nassaji & Kartchava, 2021). Regarding oral corrective feedback (OCF), CF typically occurs in the context of CFEs, which consist of three moves as shown in example (1) below:

(1) L e ar n e r :  last night he was watching TV but then he *fall asleep. T e ac h e r : he…? L e ar n e r :  he fell asleep. The first move is the learner’s erroneous utterance, in this case a wrong irregular verb form in the past tense, so a morphosyntactic error. We may also find errors related to vocabulary, pronunciation, content, or even the unsolicited use of the L1, which is not always considered erroneous. The second move is the CF itself, which can be of different types. Ranta and Lyster (2007) established a distinction between prompts, where no positive feedback is provided –​just the indication of the existence of an error, as in turn 2 in example (1) above –​and reformulations, those types that offer the learners some positive evidence related to their error, such as the recast in example (2) below. Hence, prompts are output-​ pushing types (which elicit learners’ production), such as clarification requests, repetitions, elicitation and metalinguistic explanations, and reformulations would be recasts and explicit correction:

(2) L e ar n e r :  …depends also *in your personality in the company. T e ac h e r : you have said the first one: on your personality, depending on your personality. Explain that a little bit.

342

Corrective feedback in CLIL

The third turn in example (1) represents the learners’ response, which is referred to as uptake in OCF research and has been defined as ‘a learner’s utterance that immediately follows the teacher’s feedback and that constitutes a reaction in some way to the teacher’s intention to draw attention to some aspect of the learner’s initial utterance’ (Lyster & Ranta, 1997, p. 49). Most studies have operationalised the effectiveness of OCF in terms of learners’ immediate uptake, and research has shown that different types of OCF lead to different rates of uptake. In this sense, recasts are the most frequently provided CF type in FL/​SL classrooms, but not necessarily the most effective in terms of learners’ immediate use of that feedback (Yang & Lyster, 2010; Yilmaz, 2012). According to research, other factors such as learners’ individual differences seem to affect the effectiveness of OCF, but the present chapter focuses on the type of instructional context, which has also been found to act as an influencing factor. That is, studies comparing FL classrooms and immersion or SL classrooms, report that CF types have a different effect on the learners’ response (Lyster & Mori, 2006). In the context of FL teaching, more implicit types such as recasts appear to lead to higher rates of uptake than in SL contexts, since the learners’ attention is already set on language form, while in meaning-​ oriented classrooms uptake is achieved by means of prompts or explicit correction. This idea has been captured in Lyster and Mori’s Counterbalance Hypothesis, which states that: Instructional activities and interactional feedback that act as a counterbalance to the predominant communicative orientation of a given classroom setting will be more facilitative of interlanguage restructuring than instructional activities and interactional feedback that are congruent with the predominant communicative orientation. Lyster & Mori, 2006, p. 294 CLIL classrooms are usually more oriented to meaning and content than to pure language form. Therefore, it would be reasonable to think that the effect of OCF would be similar to that in SL classrooms. However, CLIL is an umbrella term which includes multiple types of models and a variation in the focus of the lessons, so this issue needs to be analysed in more detail, as we will do below. Concerning written corrective feedback (WCF), information about the errors in the learners’ written output may be given in more or less explicit forms. Thus, teachers sometimes provide explicit correction on learners’ texts by reformulating the errors and providing the target form. On other occasions more indirect feedback in the form of written codes is used, explicitly indicating the presence of the error (and the type of error) but giving the student the opportunity to find the correct form and repair the error by himself/​herself. An even more indirect type of WCF would be providing learners with model texts written by proficient speakers or the teachers themselves and allowing the learners to establish comparisons with their original drafts. Learners’ response to WCF can be understood as noticing of features. Noticing and attention to form have been found to be essential for L2 acquisition (Schmidt, 2001). In order to study the effect of WCF on noticing, different studies in the field of second language acquisition (SLA) have compared the learners’ first drafts with those produced after the WCF has been provided. Studies on WCF types have reported mixed findings as to their effectiveness. In general, when teachers provided feedback on a first draft and required learners to revise and submit a second draft, direct WCF has been found to promote learners’ noticing more than less

343

Ruth Milla and María del Pilar García Mayo

direct or indirect WCF (Suzuki et al., 2019). For instance, reformulating the specific erroneous feature by means of direct error correction (EC) has proved to be effective (Coyle & Roca de Larios, 2014; Sheen, 2007) since it offers the solution to the error in a juxtaposed position, and it does not require complex processing of the feedback. Noticing can be more problematic with indirect WCF such as the one provided by model texts, especially with low level and/​or young students (Coyle & Roca de Larios, 2014). A reformulated text is another type of indirect WCF but it provides more salient corrections as the errors in each learner’s text are specifically addressed. Previous research has found that reformulations seem to offer more opportunities than model texts, for deeper processing (Kim & Bowles, 2019) and noticing of language problems (Yang & Zhang, 2010). Comparison between WCF types has shown that they trigger noticing of different types of features as well as different amount of incorporation in revised drafts (Hanaoka & Izumi, 2012; Yang & Zhang, 2010), as will be detailed below. The following section addresses issues related to oral and written CF in the CLIL contexts in more detail.

Corrective feedback in CLIL The CLIL approach has been implemented in FL contexts, usually with English as the target language and it is an umbrella term for a variety of teaching programmes. As seen above, although there is plenty of research on CF in immersion settings (Sheen, 2007) and mainstream FL classrooms (Yilmaz, 2012), relatively few studies have considered CF in CLIL settings (Dalton-​Puffer & Nikula, 2014). However, research has attempted to explore how CLIL teachers react to students’ language errors and the effectiveness of their corrective measures. The findings and pedagogical implications of those studies are reviewed in what follows. As with studies on CF in FL classrooms above, the review that follows considers empirical studies on OCF and WCF in CLIL separately.

Oral corrective feedback in CLIL In this section, we consider several aspects about OCF that have been dealt with in the literature. First, we focus on teachers’ use of CF in terms of frequency, types, and linguistic focus at different educational levels, followed by the relationship between teachers’ beliefs and actual classroom corrective practices. Then, the learners’ perspective is examined, both as far as uptake and as to their preferences about OCF.

Primary and secondary classrooms Findings on OCF generally show how CLIL teachers in primary education provide rather explicit and frequent corrections to learners’ oral errors (Llinares & Lyster, 2014; Nguyen, 2018) while teachers in secondary education classrooms tend to ignore the errors related to language and when they address them, they prefer to use implicit CF, such as recasts (Milla & García Mayo, 2014, 2021a). CF and uptake were analysed in three different contexts at elementary level by Llinares and Lyster (2014): French as a second language (FSL) in Canada, Japanese as a foreign language ( JFL) in the US, and CLIL classrooms in Spain. The data in FSL classrooms was taken from a seminal study on CF by Lyster and Ranta (1997) where they examined feedback provided to L1 English learners in French immersion classrooms. The second set of data 344

Corrective feedback in CLIL

belonged to a study by Mori (2002) and had been analysed in a comparative study of French immersion and Japanese immersion classrooms (Lyster & Mori, 2006). In fact, the so-​called Japanese immersion classrooms were actually L1 English learners in the US JFL classroom, who followed an intensive programme. Finally, the third set of data came from a study with L1 Spanish learners in a CLIL programme in Madrid (Spain). In their comparison, Llinares and Lyster (2014) found that CF was provided in a similar proportion in the three contexts. Hence, recasts were the most frequently provided type but the JFL and CLIL teachers used more explicit recasts –​also referred to as didactic recasts in Sheen (2007) –​while the teachers in the immersion classrooms preferred the use of conversational recasts of a more implicit nature. Moreover, differences were found mainly in the learners’ immediate response to the feedback: higher uptake of recasts was found in CLIL and JFL classrooms while more uptake after prompts occurred in the FSL classrooms. In terms of repair, similar rates were found after recasts, prompts, and explicit correction, but recasts were much more effective in JFL classrooms while the opposite happened in the CLIL context. The authors concluded that the teachers’ beliefs about teaching techniques and previous teaching experience accounted for the CF patterns while the type of instructional setting (more or less oriented to form) seemed to influence learners’ noticing of CF. In her doctoral dissertation about OCF in CLIL primary classrooms, Nguyen (2018) compared teachers’ behaviour in CLIL natural-​science classrooms in Spain and Vietnam. Nguyen (2018) reported that the three participant teachers in the CLIL classrooms in Spain corrected content errors in a double proportion over formal errors, while the four teachers in Vietnam corrected content and form errors in a similar proportion. The author explains that this difference might be related to the number of years the programme had been implemented. Teachers in Spain had been teaching CLIL programmes for several years, while this type of programme had been very recently implemented in the Vietnamese schools participating in the study. Apparently, the longer the primary school teachers had been teaching in a CLIL programme, the less they addressed language errors, since they considered that attention to form should be dealt with in English classes. On the contrary, teachers in Vietnam came from a FL teaching tradition that they were now applying in their CLIL lessons. Regarding the types of CF, Nguyen (2018) found that prompts were preferred in both contexts, while recasts were the second more frequently used CF type. Nguyen attributed the difference in her findings to those in Llinares and Lyster (2014) to the fact that their study focused only on language errors while hers included content and form errors in the data. In fact, when examining the use of CF to address formal errors only, teachers in Spain used recasts more frequently, in line to what Llinares and Lyster (2014) had observed. Similar findings were reported in a study by Guzmán-​A lcón (2019), in which she compared the application of several principles proposed by Brandl (2008) in order to achieve effectiveness in communicative language teaching methodologies. Some of the principles observed were promoting collaborative work, focusing on form, and providing corrective feedback. Guzmán-​A lcón analysed the application of these principles by observing oral interaction in EFL and CLIL lessons in a primary education class (N =​27; age =​6) at a European school in the UK. Following an action research approach, five sessions of Spanish as a FL and five maths sessions were observed, and group interaction and peer interaction were analysed. Some of the tasks performed by the learners were using dimensions and shapes in order to describe the classroom, telling the time in relation to their daily schedule, and describing animals in a farm. Regarding CF, the author reported that CLIL teachers almost never provided CF or focus on form. The types of feedback were different in the EFL and the CLIL 345

Ruth Milla and María del Pilar García Mayo

classrooms as well: recasts were the most frequent type in CLIL lessons whereas in FL lessons the different types were used in a similar proportion. Marsol Jornet (2015) showed that the two participant teachers in her study behaved differently depending on the subject they were teaching in the primary school classroom: natural and social sciences (CLIL) or English (EFL). Thus, more recasts were offered by the teachers in the EFL lessons, while prompts were preferred in the CLIL subjects. Explicit correction was rare in both contexts, and slightly higher in EFL lessons. As to the linguistic focus of the OCF, even though no significant differences were found, a slightly higher proportion of lexical and pronunciation errors were addressed in CLIL and more morphosyntactic errors when teaching EFL. Therefore, one might think that it is not only the teacher’s background but also the instructional context that creates a different lesson orientation to form or meaning, thus resulting in more or less frequency and the preference for different types of OCF to address language errors. On the contrary, CLIL teachers in secondary education are clearly focused on content as comparative studies have found (Hampl, 2011; Milla & García Mayo, 2014, 2021a). Even though they have a positive attitude towards OCF and believe it is necessary and beneficial (Milla & García Mayo, 2021b), they seem to consider it the responsibility of their language teachers’ counterparts (Schuitemaker-​K ing, 2013). Hence, they tend to provide OCF only when communication is hindered because of lack of lexical knowledge or because of content errors. This is what Hampl (2011) found when investigating error correction in secondary EFL and CLIL (social and natural sciences) classrooms in Austria. In her study, 12 lessons by six different teachers were observed and findings showed that language errors in CLIL classrooms were much more frequent than in EFL but less than 50% were addressed by the teacher. Similarly, Mariotti (2015) reported that teachers in secondary school (learners’ age =​13–​18) CLIL (biology, geography, and natural science) classrooms in two schools in Italy with English as the language of instruction rarely used negotiation moves (interactional moves to overcome communication breakdowns) with a corrective intention. They did not encourage learners to produce comprehensible output and there was a lack of output-​pushing moves in the teacher’s feedback. The author claimed that teacher training is needed since negotiation of form and output modification are conducive to L2 acquisition. This supports Meyer’s (2012) claim that systematic error treatment is essential for L2 learning, particularly in CLIL classrooms. Similar findings were reported by Milla and García Mayo (2014, 2021a) in their comparative studies in CLIL and EFL secondary school classrooms. Milla and García Mayo (2014) observed and recorded three lessons of a CLIL teacher in business English and four of an EFL teacher in English in a post-​obligatory secondary education class (age =​17–​18) of a bilingual community in the north of Spain (L1 =​Spanish/​Basque). In Milla and García Mayo (2021a) the authors increased the sample of teachers (two CLIL and two EFL) as well as the number of sessions (20 CLIL and 18 EFL) and recorded the lessons to explain CFEs in these two different contexts. In both studies, CLIL teachers were found to overlook most errors and address mainly lexical errors by means of recasts while EFL teachers showed a more form-​ focused orientation in their corrective practices with more than 70% of the errors receiving attention from the EFL teachers and the use of different types of OCF, including prompts and multiple feedback moves. Regarding the types of CF used by CLIL teachers in secondary education to correct oral errors, research has also found that they tend to overlook errors and merely provide OCF in the form of recasts, as opposed to FL teachers’ comprehensive and more explicit feedback (Dalton-​Puffer, 2007; García Mayo & Milla, 2021). Regarding error types, lexical errors are 346

Corrective feedback in CLIL

corrected while others such as morphosyntactic or pronunciation errors are less frequently addressed. Although the comparison of different linguistic foci has not yielded significant differences, in some studies the correction rates of pronunciation and lexical errors were slightly higher in CLIL while in EFL there was more correction of oral morphosyntactic errors (Dalton-​Puffer, 2007; Krampitz, 2007; Llinares et al., 2012; Marsol Jornet, 2015). As suggested above, one of the explanations for these differences in OCF between EFL and CLIL classrooms and even between primary and secondary levels might be the different background teachers have at both educational levels. While in primary school CLIL teachers are usually language specialists, in secondary classrooms teachers are subject specialists with a certified English level. As Dalton-​Puffer (2007) indicated, it seems that CLIL teachers with previous training on language teaching corrected much more frequently than those without it. The focus of the lessons in primary school, then, can shift from content to language depending on the circumstances if the teacher is a FL specialist. However, generalist educators and secondary CLIL teachers are usually oriented to content and leave the language teaching exclusively to the English teachers. Along with teachers’ training background, many other variables should be considered such as course length, class frequency and aims of the lessons, which are likely to have an impact on the findings reported in the different studies. The type of CLIL programme and whether it is language oriented or content oriented (see Hemmi & Banegas, 2021) might play a role in teacher behaviour (i.e., the CLIL teachers in Asian contexts such as Japan are language teachers at all educational levels; Tsuchiya & Pérez Murillo, 2019). All these differences lead to variations in the approach towards language teaching and are likely to have an effect in the use of CF; however, no studies have been carried out so far to study them in depth.

Learners’ uptake and repair The effect of OCF can be measured in terms of immediate uptake, which has been investigated in depth and found to be influenced by different variables, such as the type of feature in the CFE, the type of CF provided, the instructional context, and the learners’ characteristics, among others. One of the most widely researched variables in studies about OCF effectiveness has been the type of CF provided. Different studies have reported mixed findings, although some general conclusions can be reached. On the one hand, it seems that more implicit and input-​providing types such as recasts are less effective in terms of uptake and are usually overlooked by the learners, who fail to recognise the corrective nature of the teacher’s utterance (Lyster & Mori, 2006). Again, controversial results have been found regarding the effectiveness of recasts, but mainly due to the different nature of the contexts involved. As explained above, recasts seem to be more effective in form-​focused contexts (such as FL classrooms) while they are generally not easily perceived by learners in immersion settings or content-​oriented lessons such as many of those in CLIL programmes. On the other hand, prompts or output-​pushing types of OCF seem to be very helpful to draw learners’ attention to form in meaning-​oriented settings, as Lyster and Mori’s (2006) Counterbalance Hypothesis suggests. Hence, in CLIL lessons, where content is generally the focus of the lesson, a similar situation seems to occur. For instance, in García Mayo and Milla (2021), the CLIL teachers’ OCF was almost exclusively in the form of recasts, but, interestingly, prompts had a much greater impact on the learners’ uptake. A similar trend was observed in Nguyen (2018) study in primary school CLIL classrooms, as recasts were the most frequently provided type of OCF in both Spanish and Vietnamese classrooms, but also the least effective in terms of uptake. Explicit correction 347

Ruth Milla and María del Pilar García Mayo

was especially effective in Vietnamese classrooms, due to the practice of choral repetition in this setting. Thus, the effect of some types of OCF seem to be related to educational cultures in certain contexts. Regarding recasts, Dalton-​Puffer (2008) explains that the use of this type of CF is beneficial in that it helps to maintain the communicative flow and learners are more engaged in interaction and feel more relaxed. The focus on meaning of these lessons is said to create an atmosphere that may resemble L1 interactions. However, as she herself points out, a great deal of repair occurs also in ‘normal’ conversations outside the instructional settings, therefore, focusing on problematic language features does not necessarily create an artificial environment in the classroom, since it is also part of L1 interactions.

Teachers’ beliefs and corrective practices in CLIL contexts As explained above, in studies where teachers’ beliefs about OCF and practices have been compared, mismatches have been found, especially with CLIL teachers, whose reported beliefs were often at odds with the observed feedback giving practices. Milla and García Mayo (2021b) compared 11 CLIL and 20 EFL teachers’ responses to a belief questionnaire about CF, which included 27 closed questions and one open question on the teachers’ opinion about the need for OCF, the types of errors they believe have to receive attention, and the CF types to be used. The researchers found that CLIL teachers show a positive attitude towards the use of CF and consider it beneficial for FL learning. However, when comparing these beliefs with the teachers’ actual CF practices, Milla and García Mayo (2021b) reported that CLIL teachers used a very small amount of corrections and, when they did, they merely chose recasts and addressed almost exclusively lexical or content errors. As just mentioned, similar findings were observed in Dalton-​Puffer’s (2007) study, where former EFL teachers corrected much more frequently than those who did not have a language teaching background, although their beliefs were not consistent with their practices. Thus, teachers with FL teaching training reported not being concerned with language errors in the CLIL lessons, but their behaviour was actually much more form-​oriented than the non-​EFL teachers in terms of CF provided. In a similar vein, in a small-​scale study with 47 language teacher trainees in Argentina, Banegas (2015) found that, when planning a CLIL lesson, the pre-​service teachers considered language development in their aims and employed language noticing and awareness strategies, even though the majority of the proposed activities were content-​focused. Such a mismatch, which has not been observed when comparing FL teachers’ beliefs and feedback, has been attributed to the fact that CLIL teachers do not consider themselves responsible for attention to form, leaving this job to their language teacher counterparts (Milla & García Mayo, 2021b; Schuitemaker-​K ing, 2013).

Learners’ preferences In general, studies on FL learners’ preference for CF have shown a mismatch with teachers’ practices in that usually learners demand more frequent, comprehensive, and explicit OCF. A similar trend has been found in studies involving CLIL classrooms. Given the lack of attention to form on the part of CLIL teachers, it appears that learners are more concerned with linguistic accuracy than their content teachers (Dalton-​Puffer, 2008; Milla & García Mayo, 2021b).

348

Corrective feedback in CLIL

Although a few studies have explored learners’ perspectives about CLIL regarding language learning process or instructional activities (Lasagabaster & Doiz, 2016), to the best of our knowledge there are no studies on learners’ beliefs about OCF in CLIL classrooms.

Written corrective feedback in CLIL In what follows, we will consider the WCF provided in CLIL classrooms and the impact of the different types of WCF on learners’ noticing and subsequent improvement (Coyle & Roca de Larios, 2020). Unfortunately, in spite of the great amount of teachers’ handbooks and articles with indications for teachers on how and when to provide WCF (e.g., Dale et al. 2011; de Graaff et al., 2006), as well as plenty of research carried out about WCF in SLA (Bitchener, 2012; Bitchener & Ferris, 2012; Lee, 2013), there are very few studies that have actually investigated teachers’ corrective practices in the written modality in CLIL contexts. We saw above that CLIL teachers do not provide learners with a great amount of correction on oral errors, so it would seem reasonable to think that they would be more concerned with content when revising the learners’ written work. Additionally, learners receiving CLIL instruction are expected to react differently to feedback, since the FL literacy demands in CLIL are higher than in non-​CLIL programmes, where the FL is not a tool to acquire other knowledge. Coyle and Cánovas Guirao (2019) conducted a study with fourth-​and fifth-​g rade EFL learners (N=16; age range=9–11) performing two multi-​stage writing and feedback tasks, where they received models as feedback to be compared with their compositions from picture prompts. The authors advocate for the use of model texts as WCF for young learners in CLIL classrooms, since, according to their results, it seems that this type of WCF (in this case together with scaffolding by the teacher), helps these learners develop skills in comprehension, word recognition, spelling, morphology, and text structure. In a recent study, Coyle and Roca de Larios (2020) selected four pairs of fifth-​g rade EFL learners (age =​10–​11) and four pairs of fourth grade CLIL learners (age =​9–​10) to carry out a collaborative writing task using a picture prompt, followed by a second stage where models were provided for comparison and a final stage when learners had to rewrite the story based on the picture prompt. The authors found that CLIL students were more capable of identifying alternative lexical features and solutions for their linguistic problems in model texts written by proficient speakers than their EFL counterparts. According to Coyle and Roca de Larios (2020), since the CLIL learners’ lexical repertoire is larger, they may pay attention to language forms at the sentence level. In this study, uptake to WCF was operationalised as incorporation of features in a revised draft after providing the learners with model texts and requesting them to make a comparison with their own compositions. A larger number of features was incorporated in the CLIL group (55%) than in the EFL group (26%). It appears, then, that CLIL learners can benefit more from WCF than their EFL counterparts, at least in the Spanish context and in the primary education level where the study was carried out. More recent studies have supported these findings. For example, work by Luquin and García Mayo (2021) on models and by Milla and García Mayo (2022) on reformulations, have reported that young primary school learners are able to notice and incorporate lexical and grammatical features in the revised drafts of their original compositions. In a study looking at the effect of models in the noticing and incorporation of features in the written output of primary school young CLIL learners (11–​12 years old), Luquin and García Mayo found that the learners in the group receiving models (N =​18) noticed and incorporated significantly

349

Ruth Milla and María del Pilar García Mayo

more lexical and content features than the control group (N =​20) but also aspects related to grammar, mechanics, and discourse. The learners in the study were able to retain some of the learned knowledge, as the results from the delayed post-​test showed. The authors recommend the use of models as a source of native input for lexical and content elements and to combine it with more focused WCF types. Reformulations might be useful to this aim, as seen in Milla and García Mayo (2022). The authors analysed the written output produced by 14 pairs of 11–​12-​year-​old children and compared the noticing and incorporation of features in models and reformulations. They reported that children provided with models noticed and incorporated more lexical features, while those provided with reformulations focused on grammar and spelling features and incorporated a larger amount of these features in the revised drafts than the learners in the models group.

Conclusion and pedagogical implications This chapter has reviewed the scant literature on teachers’ oral and written CF in CLIL primary and secondary school classrooms. Research suggests that a combination of different types of CF is advisable since each seems to trigger a different type of uptake. Besides, the CLIL lesson’s orientation has to be considered and teachers should try to make OCF more explicit when necessary, to shift the learners’ focus from content to form. Not only CF types, but other variables are also at play with regards to the effect of OCF in terms of uptake, such as educational context, teacher background, and whether CF focuses on content or on form. When providing WCF, reformulations seem to be helpful with grammar and spelling while model texts provide a source of input in terms of vocabulary and expressions that enrich learners’ written output. In addition, learners’ preferences need to be considered and an attempt to match them should be made, to improve their level of motivation and self-​confidence. After reviewing the existing literature on CF in CLIL, some pedagogical implications deriving from these findings are suggested. First, research has shown that teacher training makes a difference regarding how teachers provide incidental focus-​on-​form techniques, such as CF. Mackey et al. (2004) reported that teachers behaved differently depending on their level of experience, with more experienced teachers using more incidental focus-​on-​ form techniques than inexperienced teachers. What is more, the study showed that after the inexperienced teachers participated in a teacher education workshop that dealt with the issue of providing feedback their performance improved. Thus, we believe that it would be of utmost importance to raise CLIL teachers’ awareness regarding the need of drawing their learners’ attention to formal aspects of language in their content classes as competences and skills are transferred from one area to another (Cummins, 2021). Awareness-​raising may need to be promoted via teacher workshops, where teachers would be informed about advances in research and be provided with appropriate pedagogical tools. Second, collaboration between CLIL and EFL teachers may need to be fluent and continuous: the CLIL teachers should convey the language requirements of their content courses to the EFL teachers. It is likely that the CLIL teachers will need the EFL teacher’s help to do this, in case their linguistic knowledge is limited. Subsequently, the EFL teachers will adapt their timeline and adjust to the demands of the content subjects. Third, materials developers might also have to be involved in these changes. If CLIL teachers have their materials appropriately prepared for a focus on content and language, it will be easier for them to focus on language when problems arise within the development of the lesson. However, CLIL materials have been found to be too complex in terms of language (Aguirregoitia Martínez et al., 2021), which poses problems not only for the 350

Corrective feedback in CLIL

learners’ L2 development, but especially for content learning. CLIL does not simply consist in teaching a subject in English (or any other foreign language); specific techniques and materials must be developed and used. When making decisions, teachers, material developers, and policymakers (as agents of change in relation to foreign language and CLIL programmes) should keep in mind that CLIL learners are in FL instructional contexts, low-​ input contexts by definition, most of the time with teachers who have to handle classes with large numbers of students where keeping a fluent communication is not an easy task. Even though research on CF in FL and SL contexts is extensive, there is a lack of research on CLIL classrooms, particularly in terms of WCF, which appears to occur very rarely in this type of content-​oriented settings. Moreover, teachers’ beliefs and practices show a mismatch which should be addressed in further studies, together with research on learners’ preferences. There is still much work to do if we want to reach the full potential of CLIL in terms of integrating content and language learning.

Notes 1 In this chapter, we are drawing on Long’s (1991) notion of focus on form (see also Ellis, 2016) as attention to language within communicative or meaning-​focused tasks and oral interaction. This concept contrasts with focus on forms, which would refer to the teaching of linguistic forms directly and explicitly, not as a result of interaction or negotiation of meaning. 2 Feedback can be also provided online in computer-​assisted language learning (CALL) environments. Due to space constraints, this chapter will only deal with offline oral and written feedback because that is the most common type of feedback in content lessons.

Further reading Nassaji, H., & Kartchava, E. (2021). The Cambridge handbook of corrective feedback in language learning and teaching. Cambridge University Press. This volume compiles the most updated research and state-​of-​the art articles about the role of corrective feedback in second and foreign language teaching and learning. Different aspects of this teaching technique are addressed, including learning context and its effect on corrective feedback provision and effectiveness. Pedagogical implications and ideas for further research are suggested. Nguyen, T.T. (2018). Interactional corrective feedback: A comparison between primary CLIL in Spain and primary CLIL in Vietnam. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Universidad Autónoma de Madrid. In this PhD dissertation, the author compares the use of corrective feedback occurring during oral interaction in primary school CLIL classrooms in Spain and in Vietnam. The thesis explores the types and amount of CF provided by the teachers in the two contexts to content and language errors, as well as the learners’ uptake of those corrections. Pedagogical and research implications are suggested based on the findings. Talbot, K., Gruber, M-​T., & Nishida, R. (2021). The psychological experience of integrating language and content. Multilingual Matters. This book presents a variety of psychological constructs in the context of teaching and learning content through a foreign or second language. The empirical chapters explore the challenges and benefits that integrating content and language entails for teachers and learners, one of this being feedback as a corrective technique. The range of contexts includes CLIL and bilingual education as well as various educational levels.

References Aguirregoitia Martínez, A., Bengoetxea Kortazar, K., & González-​Dios, I. (2021). Are CLIL texts too complicated? A computational analysis of their linguistic characteristics. Journal of Immersion and Content-​Based Language Education, 9(1), 4–​30.

351

Ruth Milla and María del Pilar García Mayo Banegas, D.L. (2015). Sharing views of CLIL lesson planning in language teacher education. Latin American Journal of Content and Language Integrated Learning, 8(2), 104–​130. https://​doi.org/​ 10.5294/​5791 Bitchener, J. (2012). Written corrective feedback for L2 development: Current knowledge and future research. TESOL Quarterly, 46(4), 855–​867. Bitchener, J., & Ferris, D.R. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. Routledge. Brandl, K. (2008). Communicative language teaching in action: Putting principles to work. Pearson. Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge University Press. Coyle, Y., & Cánovas Guirao, J. (2019). Learning to write in a second language: The role of guided interaction in promoting children’s noticing from model texts. CLIL Journal of Innovation and Research in Plurilingual and Pluricultural Education, 2(1), 21–​30. Coyle, Y., & Roca de Larios, J. (2014). Exploring the role played by error correction and models on children’s reported noticing and output production in an L2 writing task. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 36(3), 451–​485. Coyle, Y., & Roca de Larios, J. (2020). Exploring young learners’ engagement with models as a written corrective technique in EFL and CLIL settings. System, 95, 1–​14. Cummins, J. (2021). Rethinking the education of multilingual learners: A critical analysis of theoretical concepts. Multilingual Matters. Dale, L., van der Es, W., & Tanner, R. (2011). CLIL skills. European Platform. Dalton-​Puffer, C. (2007). Discourse in content and language integrated learning (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., & Nikula, T. (2014). Content and language integrated learning (guest editorial). The Language Learning Journal, 42(2), 117–​122. de Graaff, R., Koopam, G.J., & Westhoff, G. (2006). Identifying effective L2 pedagogy in content and language integrated learning (CLIL). VIEWS, 16(3), 12–​19. Ellis, R. (2016). Anniversary article. Focus on form: A critical review. Language Teaching Research, 20(3), 405– ​428. García Mayo, M.P., & Milla, R. (2021). Corrective feedback in second vs foreign language contexts. In H. Nassaji & E. Kartchava (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of corrective feedback in language learning and teaching (pp. 473–​493). Cambridge University Press. Guzmán-​A lcón, I. (2019). Investigating the application of communicative language teaching principles in primary education: A comparison of CLIL and FL classrooms. English Language Teaching, 12(2), 88–​99. Hampl, M. (2011). Error and error correction in classroom conversation: A comparative study of CLIL and traditional EFL lessons in Austria. Unpublished master’s thesis. University of Vienna. Hanaoka, O., & Izumi, S. (2012). Noticing and uptake: Addressing pre-​a rticulated covert problems in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 332–​347. Hemmi, C., & Banegas, D.L. (Eds.). (2021). International perspectives on CLIL. Palgrave. Kim, H.R., & Bowles, M. (2019). How deeply do second language learners process written corrective feedback? Insights gained form think-​a louds. TESOL Quarterly, 94(4), 913–​938. Krampitz, S. (2007). Spracharbeit im bilingualen Unterricht. Ergebnisse einer Befragung von LehrerInnen und Lehrern. In D. Caspari, W. Hallet, A. Wegner & W. Zidati (Eds.). Bilingualer unterritch macht schule: Beitrage aus der praxisforschung (pp. 133–​146). Peter Lang. Lasagabaster, D., & Doiz, A. (2016). CLIL students’ perceptions of their language learning process: Delving into self-​perceived improvement and instructional preferences. Language Awareness, 25(1–​2), 110–​126. Lasagabaster, D., & Doiz, A. (2018). Language errors in an English-​medium instruction university setting: How do language versus content teachers tackle them? Porta Linguarum, 30, 31–​48. Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J.M. (2010). Immersion and CLIL in English: More differences than similarities. ELT Journal, 64, 376–​395. Lee, I. (2013). Research into practice: Written corrective feedback. Language Teaching, 46(1), 108–​119.

352

Corrective feedback in CLIL Llinares, A., & Lyster, R. (2014). The influence of context on patterns of corrective feedback and learner uptake: A comparison of CLIL and immersion classrooms. The Language Learning Journal, 42(2), 181–​194. Llinares, A., Morton, T., & Whittaker, R. (2012). The roles of language in CLIL. Cambridge University Press. Long, M.H. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. de Bot, D. Coste, R. Ginsberg, & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-​cultural perspectives (pp. 39–​52). John Benjamins. Luquin, M., & García Mayo, M.P. (2021). Exploring the use of models as a written corrective technique among EFL children. System, 98, 1–​13. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.sys​tem.2021.102​465 Lyster, R. (2007). Learning and teaching languages through content. A counterbalanced approach. John Benjamins. Lyster, R., & Mori, H. (2006). Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), 269–​300. Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37–​66. Mackey, A., Polio, C., & McDonough, K. (2004). The relationship between experience, education and teachers’ use of incidental focus-​on-​form techniques. Language Teaching Research, 8, 301–​327. Mariotti, C. (2015). Negotiated interactions and repair patterns in CLIL settings. Views, 15(3), 33–​40. Marsol Jornet, A. (2015). English language learning in CLIL and EFL classroom settings: A look at two primary education schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Universitat de Barcelona. Meyer, O. (2012). Introducing the CLIL-​P yramid: Key strategies and principles for quality CLIL planning and teaching. In M. Eisenmann & T. Summer (Eds.), Basic issues in EFL-​teaching and learning (pp. 295–​313). Winter. Milla, R., & García Mayo, M.P. (2014). Corrective feedback episodes in oral interaction: A comparison of a CLIL and an EFL classroom. IJES, 14(1), 1–​20. Milla, R., & García Mayo, M.P. (2021a). Teacher’ oral corrective feedback and learners’ uptake in high school CLIL and EFL classrooms. Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 18, 149–​176. Milla, R., & García Mayo, M.P. (2021b). Teachers’ and learners’ beliefs about corrective feedback compared with classroom behaviour in CLIL and EFL. In K. Talbot, S. Mercer, M-​T. Gruber, & R. Nishida (Eds.), The psychological experience of integrating language and content (pp. 112–​133). Multilingual Matters. Milla, R., & García Mayo, M.P. (2022). The impact of models and reformulations on EFL primary school children’s noticing and written output. Instructed Second Language Aquisition, 6, 29–​56. https://​doi.org/​10.1558/​isla.19670 Mori, R. (2002). Teachers’ beliefs and corrective feedback. JALT Journal, 24(1), 48–​69. Nassaji, H., & Kartchava, E. (2021). The Cambridge handbook of corrective feedback in language learning and teaching. Cambridge University Press. Nguyen, T.T. (2018). Interactional corrective feedback: A comparison between primary CLIL in Spain and primary CLIL in Vietnam. Unpublished doctoral thesis. Universidad Autónoma de Madrid. Ranta, L., & Lyster, R. (2007). A cognitive approach to improving immersion learners’ oral language abilities: The awareness-​practice-​feedback sequence. In R. DeKeyser (Ed.), Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology (pp. 141–​160). Cambridge University Press. Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–​32). Cambridge University Press. Schuitemaker-​K ing, J. (2013). Giving corrective feedback in CLIL and EFL classes. Levende Talen Tijdschrift, 14(2), 3–​10. Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of corrective feedback, language aptitude and learner attitudes on the acquisition of English articles. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 301–​322). Oxford University Press. Spada, N. (2011). Beyond form-​focused instruction: Reflections on past, present and future research. Language Teaching Research, 44, 225–​236. Suzuki, W., Nassaji, H., & Sato, K. (2019). The effects of feedback explicitness and type of target structure on accuracy in revision and new pieces of writing. System, 81, 135–​145. Tsuchiya, K., & Pérez Murillo, M.D. (2019). Content and language integrated learning in Spanish and Japanese contexts. Palgrave Macmillan.

353

Ruth Milla and María del Pilar García Mayo VanPatten, B. (1990). Attention to form and content in the input. An experiment in consciousness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 287–​301. Yang, L., & Zhang, L. (2010). Exploring the role of reformulations and a model text in EFL students’ writing performance. Language Teaching Research, 14, 464–​484. Yang, Y., & Lyster, R. (2010). Effects of form-​focused practice and feedback on Chinese EFL learners’ acquisition of regular and irregular past tense forms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 235–​263. Yilmaz, Y. (2012). The relative effects of explicit correction and recasts on two target structures via two communication modes. Language Learning, 62, 1134–​1169.

354

355

24 ASSESSMENT IN CLIL Takanori Sato

Introduction Content and language integrated learning (CLIL) is a ‘dual-​focused educational approach’ (Coyle et al., 2010, p. 1) for fostering second language (L2) proficiency and content knowledge. Currently, there exist diverse interpretations of CLIL, making the approach dynamic (Coyle & Meyer, 2021). A crucial factor in this dynamic nature is the degree of language and content orientations; while language-​ d riven (soft) CLIL primarily addresses linguistic objectives, content-​d riven (hard) CLIL focuses on content objectives (Ball et al., 2015). Regardless of the orientation, the CLIL approach considers language as a vehicle for understanding and expressing content and does not restrict the object of interest to either L2 proficiency or content knowledge, unlike conventional language-​focused pedagogies and English-​medium instruction (Carrió-​Pastor, 2021; Richards & Rodgers, 2014). This has an important implication for assessment, understood as ‘the process of collecting information about a given object of interest, according to procedures that are systematic and substantively grounded’ (Bachman, 2004, p. 7). In essence, both L2 proficiency and content knowledge are regarded as relevant constructs that need to be assessed in CLIL contexts in order to make decisions pertaining to students’ progress and performance, and potentially also to inform course or programme design. This chapter focuses on CLIL assessment approaches used for research and pedagogical purposes, addressing the question whether L2 proficiency and content knowledge should be gauged in a separate or integrated manner, and discusses how to assess learners’ abilities in CLIL settings. The first section explores an important theoretical model in the field of language testing for developing assessment tasks and justifying their use. Its understanding would help assessors clarify learners’ abilities that should be gauged for making appropriate decisions in CLIL contexts. The second section delineates three approaches to CLIL assessments that I classified based on the degree of integration between L2 proficiency and content knowledge, that is, separate, weakly integrated, and strongly integrated assessment approaches. It elucidates the links between assessors’ intended decisions and students’ abilities to be interpreted, demonstrating concrete examples of assessment practices. Although CLIL is mainly implemented in primary and secondary schools (Carrió-​Pastor, 2021), examples of the weakly and strongly integrated approaches are based on my university-​level CLIL DOI: 10.4324/9781003173151-29

355

Takanori Sato

course, since they illustrate my intentions and processes of development in depth. Finally, this chapter concludes with implications for practice and research in the field.

Development and use of assessment tasks In the field of education, assessments are conducted for various pedagogical and research purposes. Specifically, information collected through assessments is used to make inferences about students’ abilities and to make decisions to bring about beneficial consequences for diverse stakeholders (Bachman & Damböck, 2017). For example, the assessment outcomes of students’ research papers on a subject taught in a CLIL course (see Sato et al., 2021) can be used to understand their weaknesses in academic writing and determine supplemental instructions for the course. This decision would benefit students, as the teacher can provide appropriate remedial instruction for improving proficiency in academic writing. The same assessment outcomes can also be utilised for scrutinising the effectiveness of CLIL on subject knowledge mastery. This enables researchers to decide whether the current understanding of CLIL is supported or should be modified, contributing to research in various areas of applied linguistics, and allows teachers or institutions to consider the implementation of CLIL in their educational contexts. The responsibility of assessors (teachers, researchers, and programme evaluators) is not restricted to creating assessment tasks and eliciting samples of students’ performance. This is reflected in the definition of validity, which is the most vital concept that assessors must consider in developing assessment tasks and justifying their use. Messick (1989) defined validity as ‘an integrated evaluative judgment of the degree to which empirical evidence and theoretical rationales support the adequacy and appropriateness of inferences and actions based on test scores and other modes of assessment’ (p. 13, italics in original). This definition suggests that assessors’ responsibilities entail examining how well assessment outcomes (e.g., a test score) represent students’ abilities, thereby supporting decision-​m aking. Messick’s (1989) conceptualisation of validity has influenced numerous scholars in designing assessment tasks and justifying the use of assessment outcomes (e.g., Bachman & Palmer, 2010; Chapelle & Lee, 2021; Kane, 2013). They all suggest that assessors should build coherent arguments to support intended score interpretations and uses. Among others, the Assessment Use Argument (AUA) framework designed by Bachman and Palmer (2010) is particularly useful for teachers in building assessment tasks and justifying their use. The AUA framework specifies four claims that link an intended consequence to students’ assessment performances. The claims and related questions included in Table 24.1 need to be considered when creating assessment tasks or adopting existing tests. First, assessors must clarify the beneficial consequences they wish to bring about through assessment (Claim 1). Second, they must specify the decisions to be made for achieving the intended consequences (Claim 2). Third, assessors must define the ability required for making the intended decisions (Claim 3). Finally, they should describe the assessment records that help interpret students’ abilities (Claim 4). The following is a series of AUAs in the context of the first example of the assessment of the research papers mentioned earlier: 1. The intended consequence is the improvement of students’ proficiency in academic writing. 2. The intended decision is the adjustment of instruction for addressing students’ weaknesses in academic writing. 356

Assessment in CLIL Table 24.1  Claims in an AUA and relevant questions Claim

Question

1. Intended consequences

What beneficial consequences do we want to help bring about?

2. Intended decisions

What decisions do we need to make in order to help promote these beneficial consequences?

3. Intended interpretations of students’ ability

What information about our students’ ability do we need in order to make these decisions?

4. Intended assessment records (scores, descriptions)

What performance from our students will give us this information, and how will we get this?

Source: Based on Bachman & Damböck, 2017, p. 32.

3. The interpretation of students’ ability is proficiency in academic writing, defined as grammatical and textual knowledge (Bachman & Palmer, 2010). 4. The intended assessment records are the scores for lexicogrammatical accuracy and rhetorical organisation (see Sato et al., 2021). Once assessment tasks are developed, assessors must appraise the links from assessment tasks to beneficial consequences (Bachman & Palmer, 2010). For instance, a clear argument is warranted to demonstrate whether information on students’ grammatical and textual knowledge truly helps adjust teaching to enhance academic writing (i.e., the link between Claims 2 and 3). Additionally, assessors need to carefully consider whether scores for the two criteria sufficiently represent the defined academic writing proficiency (i.e., the link between Claims 3 and 4). If no claim is established, the entire argument would stand disqualified (Kane, 2013). Bachman and Palmer (2010) listed three types of decisions made by assessors in educational settings: decisions about students, programmes, and research questions or hypotheses (see also Bachman, 2004). The first type concerns students’ progress in a course. Teachers can use the assessment outcome to facilitate subsequent learning (formative decisions) or give students a course grade (summative decisions). Decisions about programmes are made based on investigations into the effectiveness of instructional programmes for deciding on their continuation, modification, or elimination. Finally, for research questions or hypotheses, researchers need to decide on answers to the former and either accept or reject the latter on the basis of information collected through assessments. Assessors must specify the intended decisions to induce beneficial consequences, before considering which competence should be examined. Of all the claims, Claim 3 directly addresses the definition of the ability to be assessed. Bachman and Damböck (2017) provided three criteria for what to assess. First, assessors need to ascertain whether the ability’s interpretation is pertinent to the intended decisions. For example, if the assessment’s purpose is to make a summative decision on students’ learning in a CLIL science course, the teacher must interpret the students’ L2 proficiency and knowledge covered in that specific course, rather than other abilities (e.g., the ability to read between the lines). Second, assessors must provide sufficient information for making the intended decisions. For instance, for the aforementioned summative decision, teachers need to collect details of all the salient aspects of the abilities covered in the course. The decision would be undermined if the interpretation of students’ abilities fails to include knowledge of 357

Takanori Sato

essential scientific terminology or important laboratory apparatuses. Third, assessors need to ensure that interpretation of students’ abilities is meaningful for stakeholders. This criterion concerns the source of the definition of ability. For classroom-​based assessments focused on students’ progress, for example, the objectives stipulated in a course syllabus should be the source of the definition of ability (Cheng & Fox, 2017). In summary, this section has explored the framework for building assessment tasks and justifying assessment use (Bachman & Palmer, 2010). Assessors must clarify Claims 1–​4 and make coherent arguments for demonstrating their interlinkages. When CLIL teachers and researchers consider whether L2 proficiency and content knowledge should be assessed separately or in an integrated manner, they must go through the claims and demonstrate whether the definition of ability is relevant, sufficient, and meaningful to their intended decisions.

Assessment approaches This section proposes three assessment approaches in CLIL –​separate, weakly integrated, and strongly integrated approaches –​for addressing the link with intended decisions. Some assessment tasks under each approach are also delineated.

Separate assessment approach The first CLIL assessment approach entails the interpretation of students’ L2 proficiency and content knowledge separately. The tasks in this approach gauge either of the two elements by excluding the other’s influence. Therefore, non-​subject-​specific L2 proficiency is measured through ubiquitous language assessment tasks, while content knowledge is analysed using students’ L1. This approach can be incorporated when assessors must decide based on the interpretation of either students’ L2 proficiency or content knowledge, such as for research and programme evaluation for analysing the effectiveness of CLIL. Additionally, assessing non-​subject-​specific L2 proficiency is justifiable in language-​focused soft CLIL, which fosters generic language functions or forms applicable to various language use domains (see Leung & Morton, 2016). In the CLIL literature, the separate assessment approach has been widely incorporated into research on the effectiveness of CLIL in the development of L2 proficiency and content knowledge (e.g., Fernández-​Sanjurjo et al., 2019; Roquet & Pérez-​Vidal, 2017; San Isidro & Lasagabaster, 2019). For example, San Isidro and Lasagabaster (2019) explored the research question, ‘Are there any significant differences between CLIL and non-​ CLIL students regarding foreign language (English) learning?’ (p. 589). The assessment of L2 proficiency or content knowledge for research purposes is justifiable in the following AUA. It contributes to the theory and practice of CLIL in foreign language or bilingual education (the intended consequence) by confirming or rejecting the current understanding of its effectiveness for language or content learning (the intended decision). If research concentrates upon either general L2 proficiency or content knowledge, interpreting them separately is reasonable because the separately interpreted abilities are relevant, sufficient, and meaningful to the intended decision about the effectiveness of CLIL.

Assessing L2 proficiency Many studies have addressed the effectiveness of CLIL in L2 development. Table 24.2 presents the foci and assessment instruments employed in several empirical studies on L2 development. 358

Assessment in CLIL Table 24.2  Assessment instruments and tasks used by empirical studies Study

Focus

Assessment instrument/​task

Merino and Lasagabaster (2018)

Overall competence in English

Key English Test (KET) and picture description (orally describing a series of 24 pictures without any text)

Jiménez Catalán and Agustín Llach (2017)

Quality and quantity of vocabulary output

Lexical availability task (writing down all the words associated with given prompts)

Nashaat-​Sobhy (2017)

Pragmatic competence

Written discourse completion task (writing what students would say in given social situations)

Roquet and Pérez-​Vidal (2017)

Written production skills

Dialogue writing (writing a dialogue based on a picture)

Rumlich (2017)

General language proficiency

C-​test (filling in the missing part of words in a passage)

Gené-​Gil et al. (2015)

Written competence

Timed writing (writing an email to friend about a movie seen last weekend)

Rallo Fabra and Jacob (2015)

Oral language performance

Reading aloud and storytelling

Note: The foci of the studies are the terms used by the researchers.

Commercial proficiency tests and C-​tests were employed to measure overall L2 proficiency. The first option for an assessment instrument is an existing proficiency test (Admiraal et al., 2006; Merino & Lasagabaster, 2018; San Isidro & Lasagabaster, 2019). For example, Merino and Lasagabaster (2018) utilised the Key English Test (KET) to gauge the listening, writing, and reading abilities of students in lower secondary school. Assessment tasks include reading brief real-​world texts for the main message, listening to everyday conversations for details, composing a short email, and participating in a simple conversation about daily life (UCLES, 2021). Thus, KET is a general-​purpose proficiency test that measures ‘language proficiency generalisable to a wide range of unspecified and unspecifiable contexts’ (Davies et al., 1999, p. 67). The C-​test is another assessment instrument used in some studies for eliciting general language proficiency ( Jexenflicker & Dalton-​Puffer, 2010; Rumlich, 2017). In a C-​test, the second half of every second word in a passage is deleted, and students are asked to complete these while reading the passage. It estimates overall language proficiency by tapping into a wide range of L2 knowledge, by providing minimal time and space for reading (Norris, 2018). CLIL research often employs certain tasks for eliciting students’ L2 productive skills. A common task for assessing students’ proficiency in speaking L2 is storytelling without texts, by making students view a series of pictures while narrating or describing a story (e.g., Gallardo del Puerto & Gómez Lacabex, 2017; Merino & Lasagabaster, 2018; Rallo Fabra & Jacob, 2015). It assesses non-​i nteractional language proficiency, such as the ability to report on events (Fulcher, 2003). Roquet and Pérez-​Vidal (2017) utilised an alternative version of this picture-​c ued task for measuring students’ skills in written productivity, wherein participants were asked to write dialogues for a picture of two police officers talking to a mother and her child. Additionally, other studies on students’ L2 writing 359

Takanori Sato

proficiency have employed a mail-​w riting task (e.g., Jexenflicker & Dalton-​P uffer, 2010; Gené-​Gil et al., 2015; Ruiz de Zarobe, 2010). For instance, Jexenflicker and Dalton-​P uffer (2010) asked their participants to write an email to a host family in New York, including details about their personal information and questions for the family. Different linguistic features can be elicited from the specific instructions on the information to be included in the email. Finally, CLIL researchers have employed assessment tasks that elicit restricted aspects of L2 performance. These include read-​a loud tasks for pronunciation (Rallo Fabra & Jacob, 2015), lexical availability tasks for vocabulary knowledge ( Jiménez Catalán & Agustín Llach, 2017), and discourse completion tasks for interlanguage pragmatic competence (Nashaat-​ Sobhy, 2017). Researchers must realise two caveats when assessing L2 proficiency for the effectiveness of CLIL. First, most general-​purpose proficiency tests measure basic interpersonal communication skills (BICS), rather than cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP) (Cummins, 1984). Language use tasks for general-​purpose proficiency tests include reserving a hotel room, listening to news on TV, reading popular magazine articles, and filling out forms with personal information (Green, 2021). It is questionable if these tasks thoroughly explore the effectiveness of CLIL, as the language proficiency that CLIL develops is CALP (Leontjev & deBoer, 2020; Richards & Rodgers, 2014). However, focusing on BICS is acceptable if the curriculum’s central objective is developing general L2 proficiency or communicative competence, as in some soft CLIL approaches. Second, a single assessment task reveals only a limited part of L2 proficiency and might not provide sufficient evidence on overall productive skills. For example, the storytelling task neither gauges students’ interactional competence, such as turn management and interactive listening (Galaczi & Taylor, 2018), nor the various cognitive discourse functions (CDFs), such as the capacity to classify and evaluate (Dalton-​Puffer, 2013).

Assessing content Coyle et al. (2010) put forth the following aspects of content addressed in CLIL (see also Lo & Fung, 2020): • factual recall (detail); • general understanding (major points); • ability to manipulate the content, using higher-​level thinking skills such as interpretation, analysis, synthesis, or application; • ability to research more independently and extend the topic knowledge beyond what has been presented by the teacher (Coyle et al., 2010, p. 116). Several empirical studies have investigated the effectiveness of CLIL in terms of content mastery in subjects like science, history, mathematics, and geography (e.g., Fernández-​ Sanjurjo et al., 2019; Serra, 2007; Xanthou, 2011). Some studies have examined students’ content knowledge using their L1 (e.g., Admiraal et al., 2006; San Isidro & Lasagabaster, 2019). For example, Fernández-​Sanjurjo et al. (2019) implemented a test designed to determine knowledge of curricular content in the natural sciences, using students’ L1. In contrast, Xanthou (2011) examined the knowledge of CLIL students in science, using both L1 and L2. Unfortunately, detailed descriptions of these assessment tasks are lacking. Hence, the degree to which a test requires students to use their L1 and L2 proficiency for displaying content 360

Assessment in CLIL

knowledge is unknown. Furthermore, information on the specific aspects of content that each task is intended to measure is unclear. A central issue in the assessment of content knowledge is the use of students’ L1. Coyle et al. (2010) pointed out that utilising L1 to assess content knowledge could be problematic for practical and philosophical reasons. Students could be unfamiliar with subject-​specific vocabulary in their L1, as conceptual knowledge is learnt in CLIL through the corresponding vocabulary in L2. This could hinder the comprehension of assessment questions and expression of their understanding. Moreover, determining content knowledge using students’ L1 is incompatible with the intention of CLIL, which is to foster the ability to communicate content and develop thinking in L2 (Dale et al., 2011).

Weakly integrated assessment approach While helpful for research purposes, as shown earlier, the separate assessment approach is not always desirable for classroom-​based assessments, as CLIL aims to develop students’ content knowledge and cognition using L2. In other words, a significant limitation of the separate approach is the lack of sufficient and meaningful information on students’ learning in the classroom, wherein content is learnt in L2. Therefore, it is necessary to measure content knowledge using L2, through an integrated assessment approach. However, a limitation of this approach is that students’ L2 proficiency might obstruct the display of their content knowledge. As Coyle et al. (2010, p. 116) mentioned, ‘If the student “failed” to communicate understanding during the assessment process, then the teacher would not be sure whether this was due to limited language competence, or whether the student had really not understood’. For example, students might not be able to respond to the following prompt: ‘Name the products of the combustion of carbon in an adequate supply of oxygen’ (Mehisto & Ting, 2017, p. 218), possibly because the meaning of the term combustion is not known, or the names of the products involved cannot be recalled. A weakly integrated assessment approach mitigates this constraint. It assesses students’ content knowledge using L2, but in a manner that their L2 proficiency does not interfere with the demonstration of content knowledge. It is mostly applicable for making formative and diagnostic decisions. Formative decisions ‘lead to activities that are intended to improve instruction and learning’ (Bachman & Damböck, 2017, p. 11), which involves identifying students who face problems, providing them with feedback, and modifying instructional practices (Hughes & Hughes, 2020). Assessments for making formative decisions are also referred to as formative assessments or assessments for learning (Brown & Abeywickrama, 2019; Green, 2021) and especially highlighted in the CLIL literature (e.g., Ball et al., 2015; Genesee & Hamayan, 2016; Mehisto & Ting, 2017). Assessments for diagnostic purposes identify strengths and weaknesses in students’ knowledge, particularly the latter (Alderson, 2005). An important decision concerns detailed feedback on students’ weaknesses to be beneficial for future learning (Hughes & Hughes, 2020). Thus, assessments for making formative and diagnostic decisions often involve identifying areas of the CLIL course that students have not sufficiently learnt or understood to enhance their learning, and providing feedback to students to point out which areas they should also focus on. The weakly integrated approach is justifiable for certain classroom-​based assessments in the following AUA. Formative and diagnostic assessments help students learn content better in CLIL courses (the intended consequence). To achieve this intended consequence, teachers are required to determine how to tailor instruction for addressing the weaknesses of students (the intended decision). To help teachers make their intended decisions, assessments should 361

Takanori Sato

focus on the extent of content knowledge acquired in class, and identify areas that students are yet to understand or learn sufficiently (the interpretation of students’ ability). The ability assessed in the weakly integrated approach (i.e., acquiring information on content knowledge such that its display is not hampered by students’ levels of L2 proficiency) can provide teachers with relevant, sufficient, and meaningful information for making formative and diagnostic decisions.

Managing language demands to assess content knowledge Evaluating mastery over content acquired through CLIL lessons, and identifying students’ weaknesses, requires assessors to manage the language demands of assessment tasks. Assessment tasks with low language demand can elicit students’ content knowledge without requiring high-​level L2 proficiency and reduce the influence of L2 on their display of content knowledge (Ball et al., 2015; Lo & Fung, 2020). This section introduces two useful methods for controlling language demand, using specific examples. Questioning is a useful way of regularly assessing students’ content knowledge (especially factual recall and content understanding) in a CLIL classroom. Llinares et al. (2012) claim, ‘In many classrooms, the main pedagogical purpose is to exchange already known information and check students’ knowledge’ (p. 77), and ‘it is the role of the teacher to check that knowledge [knowledge about problems that have already been solved], often through the formulation of questions’ (p. 84). Teachers can lower the linguistic demand of questions by adopting scaffolding, which is ‘a teaching strategy used to move students progressively toward stronger understanding and greater independence in the learning process’ (Ball et al., 2015, p. 306). Table 24.3 displays some scaffolding techniques that teachers can incorporate into questioning (Ball et al., 2015; Dale et al., 2011; Genesee & Hamayan, 2016; Llinares et al., 2012; Mehisto & Ting, 2017). The examples are based on my CLIL course on English as a lingua franca (ELF) and World Englishes (for first-​and second-​year university students, aged 18–​19). Specifically, before asking a question, teachers should provide students with its specific context of the question for activating their thoughts (Llinares et al., 2012; Mehisto & Ting, 2017). Llinares et al. (2012) demonstrated that when the question was relevant to a previous group work task, students responded by using complex linguistic structures. Closed

Table 24.3  Scaffolding techniques for helping students demonstrate content knowledge Technique

Example sentence or question

Contextualising

We talked about Kachru’s three concentric circles previously.

Closed questions

Is Japan in the Expanding Circle?

Repetition of nouns

We talked about Kachru’s three concentric circles previously. What are the three circles?

Reformulation

Who proposed the three concentric circles representing English users in the world? Whose ideas are the Inner, Outer, and Expanding Circles?

Comprehensible language

Why do people in the Expanding Circle study English?

Concise statements

Describe the Speak Good English Movement. Then, explain the background of the movement.

362

Assessment in CLIL

Figure 24.1  Blank table to elicit students’ knowledge of the difference between EFL and ELF

questions –​requiring students to answer with either yes or no only –​are also useful for gauging students’ content knowledge, as they are not obliged to produce lengthy L2 sentences and texts (Lo & Fung, 2020). The rest of the techniques listed in Table 24.3 concern making utterances or questions comprehensible for students, such as the repeated use of nouns instead of pronouns (Genesee & Hamayan, 2016), reformulating or rephrasing questions by simplifying lexicogrammatical structures (Llinares et al., 2012), using basic active verbs for making language comprehensible (Ball et al., 2015; Genesee & Hamayan, 2016), and isolating distinct CDFs to make utterances concise, such as describing and explaining (Mehisto & Ting, 2017). Another way to control language demand is by utilising visual aids, including pictures, diagrams, and graphic organisers (e.g., Coyle et al., 2010; Dale et al., 2011; Genesee & Hamayan, 2016; Llinares et al., 2012; Mehisto & Ting, 2017). For instance, the task proposed by Genesee and Hamayan (2016) for low-​proficiency students required students to draw pictures that represented what they had learnt, or merely point at matching pictures. Visual aids elicit students’ content knowledge by asking them to label components in a diagram (e.g., labelling the joints of the human body in a diagram) (Coyle et al., 2010; Lin, 2016). Tasks requiring only keyword responses, or a keyword approach (Lin, 2016, p. 111), are useful for checking students’ acquisition of subject-​specific vocabulary and content knowledge (see also Lo & Fung, 2020). Furthermore, the understanding of learnt content can be assessed by having students fill in a blank table with phrases or sentences (Lin, 2016). Figure 24.1 represents a blank table used in my university-​level CLIL course on ELF and World Englishes. This task allows assessing their understanding of the difference between English as a foreign language (EFL) and ELF. It elicits students’ knowledge by minimising the influence of their L2 proficiency, rather than simply asking them to explain the difference between the two concepts. The language demand of assessment tasks can be controlled by scaffolding the demonstration of students’ content knowledge. However, the scaffolding techniques are not comprehensive, and teachers must familiarise themselves with various methods of mitigating the influence of L2 proficiency when assessing content knowledge.

Strongly integrated assessment approach The weakly integrated assessment approach prevents language from being ‘a stumbling block’ (Mehisto & Ting, 2017, p. 220) for students to display their content knowledge. This suggests that the approach regards language, especially complex linguistic features, as irrelevant to or separable from the demonstration of content mastery to some extent. This 363

Takanori Sato

perspective is problematic for gauging both language and content learning in CLIL lessons, as both are intertwined (Llosa, 2017). Specifically, it fails to provide teachers with sufficient and meaningful information on students’ learning in CLIL, as it does not necessarily address the complex language of learning, or the ‘language needed for learners to access basic concepts and skills relating to the subject theme or topic’ (Coyle et al., 2010, p. 37). Without assessing content knowledge and language of learning in a fully integrated manner, teachers can hardly make appropriate decisions about students’ learning in CLIL lessons, especially for instructing on specific content and language. This principle is especially applicable to CLIL that aims to foster discipline-​specific linguistic forms and subject knowledge. The strongly integrated assessment approach addresses this problem by requiring students to express their content knowledge using the linguistic features learnt in CLIL lessons. The weakly integrated approach is distinctive for requiring teachers to scaffold students in terms of complex linguistic features. In contrast, rather than scaffolding students, in the strongly integrated approach, teachers employ linguistic structures or lexis for teaching the content. For example, in the following prompt, ‘Name the products of the combustion of carbon in an adequate supply of oxygen’ (Mehisto & Ting, 2017, p. 218), the weakly integrated approach could replace combustion with burning, but the original prompt should be given under the strongly integrated approach if combustion is a word learnt and used in the class. The principle of the inseparability of language and content is critical in CLIL as students are expected to acquire subject-​ specific, lexicogrammatical features (Richards & Rodgers, 2014). For example, Avenia-​Tapper and Llosa (2015) identified certain complex lexicogrammatical aspects used in science texts (e.g., multi-​meaning words, passive constructions, and comparatives), claiming that understanding these features is a necessary component of mastering science. The same principle is applicable to CDFs (Dalton-​Puffer, 2013), as language functions are subject-​dependent and domain-​specific. For instance, when learning science, students often engage in arguing, explaining, describing, comparing, hypothesising, and predicting (Avenia-​Tapper & Llosa, 2015; Snow & Katz, 2014). Along with content mastery, these features must also be analysed for an accurate representation of students’ learning in CLIL courses. Another assessment principle that supports the strongly integrated approach is generalisability, defined as ‘the degree of correspondence between a given language assessment task and a TLU [target language use] task in their task characteristics’ (Bachman & Palmer, 2010, p. 117). Target language use (TLU) tasks are assigned in a specific real-​life setting, which concerns assessors directly. For example, the TLU tasks for classroom assessment of a CLIL science course are ones that students engage in there. If there is a large discrepancy between the characteristics of assessment tasks and TLU tasks, students’ performance on the assessment tasks are hardly generalisable to their performance on the TLU tasks. Bachman and Palmer (2010) described an assessment task for summative decisions in an eighth-​g rade science class, in which students are presented a diagram of a laboratory apparatus and asked to choose its correct use from pictures of students using it in multiple ways. This task suffers from low generalisability because, in science class, students learn to use laboratory apparatuses and engage in various tasks involving language use, such as reading a science textbook, explaining the outcome of experiments, and having discussions with peers. Thus, the task cannot provide teachers with sufficient and meaningful information for making the intended decisions. The aforementioned principles have two implications for assessment in CLIL: (1) linguistic features and CDFs that students use to learn content should be regarded as

364

Assessment in CLIL

a necessary component of content mastery, and (2) the dual-​focused characteristics of CLIL tasks should be reflected in assessment tasks. The strongly integrated assessment approach is particularly suitable for making summative decisions. An important purpose of assessment for making summative decisions is certification, which involves grading students’ achievements in a course. Therefore, assessment must be aligned with the learning goals or outcomes specified in the course syllabus (Cheng & Fox, 2017). In many CLIL contexts, assessments for summative decisions must ensure the extent to which students have attained the course’s learning goals, which usually include acquiring both content knowledge and subject-​specific language proficiency or CALP (Coyle et al., 2010; Richards & Rodgers, 2014). At the same time, assessing subject-​specific linguistic forms and content knowledge is not necessarily applicable to CLIL that focuses on general communicative competence or generic CDFs. To summarise, assessment for summative decisions can verify the abilities acquired by students in a CLIL course (the intended consequence). To attain the intended consequence, teachers must grade each student in the course (the intended decision). To make this intended decision, they must gather information on the degree to which students have achieved the learning goals of the course syllabus, and the extent to which they can perform the tasks practised in class (the interpretation of students’ ability).

Assessment task development based on TLU tasks The essential processes of assessment task development in the strong integration approach entail specifying TLU tasks, selecting representative TLU tasks, and modifying them for practical assessment (Bachman & Damböck, 2017; Bachman & Palmer, 2010). First, assessors must specify the tasks used in their CLIL classes to help students achieve their learning goals. The specified TLU tasks serve as the basis for building the assessment tasks. Second, as it is normal for a CLIL class to have a wide range of TLU tasks, assessors must identify the representative tasks that best indicate the success or failure of mastery over learning goals. If the task is an essential and representative sample of classroom tasks, assessors can argue that anyone who performs well on the assessment is likely to perform well in the classroom (Kane, 2013). Third, assessors are required to modify the selected TLU tasks to make them feasible as assessment tasks. For instance, even though a group writing task in which four students co-​construct a summary of short lectures is regarded as an essential task, it cannot be readily used for assessment, especially if the teacher wishes to gauge each student’s writing proficiency. To modify TLU tasks, teachers must analyse and describe their task characteristics in depth (Bachman & Palmer, 2010). This description serves as a template for creating assessment tasks. In my CLIL course on ELF and World Englishes, a frequent task was a discussion among students on what they had learnt from the reading material prior to a lecture. In the task, the students were asked to (1) describe any content that they understood, (2) define terminology appearing in the materials (e.g., dialect mixing or accommodation skills), (3) clarify any point they did not understand, and (4) report on specific content explained in the material in their own words (e.g., lexicogrammatical features frequently employed by non-​native English speakers). While the students chose the content to describe in (1) themselves, I provided them the specific terminology and content to address in (2) and (4) on PowerPoint slides. Although the students were instructed not to refer to the reading materials during the task, they did not always follow the rules. I selected this task as a representative TLU task and

365

Takanori Sato Table 24.4  Task characteristics of a frequently used task in my class Characteristic

Description

Setting

Physical circumstances: students seated together Materials: reading material Participants: four students in groups Time of the task: during the class period (8–​10 minutes)

Input

Form: teacher’s instructions given orally; terminology and content to give definitions and reports presented in PowerPoint slides Language: English; simple lexicogrammar Topical content: ELF and World Englishes (e.g., accommodation skills, non-​ native English speakers’ lexicogrammatical features)

Output

Form: students’ discussion of their understanding of the text, definitions of key terms, and answers to factual questions Language: English; CDFs including describing, reporting, and defining Length: 2–​3 minutes for each student to speak Topical content: ELF and World Englishes (e.g., accommodation skills, non-​native English speakers’ lexicogrammatical features)

examined its characteristics (see Table 24.4). A one-​to-​one interview task was formed based on the task features. It included the following subtasks: 1. Students listen to the explanation of the assessment procedure. 2. Students are asked to provide the definitions of two terms, selected at random from those covered in the course. 3. Students are asked to report on two specific pieces of content about ELF and World Englishes in two minutes. The assessment task prohibits students from referring to any material in order to determine their learnt content knowledge. Note that all the task characteristics were not implemented for assessing individual students’ content knowledge and L2 proficiency.

Conclusion and implications This chapter explored three assessment approaches that can be implemented in CLIL for different purposes. Table 24.5 summarises the characteristics and limitations of the approaches. It should be noted that the purpose of each approach is not restricted to the decisions presented in the previous sections. For example, the separate assessment approach might help diagnose the sources of students’ difficulty and locate their weaknesses (Llosa, 2017). Moreover, it could be suitable in some soft CLIL contexts for measuring general communicative competence as a part of summative assessment. Implementing a particular approach or defining the abilities to be assessed should be considered based on the programme goals in addition to intended decisions to make. Researchers concerned with the development of L2 proficiency and/​or content knowledge should consider the choice and process of assessing the target ability by establishing an AUA (Bachman & Damböck, 2017). Assessment tasks need to be carefully created by specifying each claim in Table 24.1, despite the temptation to use pre-​existing assessment 366

Assessment in CLIL Table 24.5  Three assessment approaches Approach

Description

Separate

Language and content are assessed It is neither compatible with the separately. Content is assessed principle of CLIL, nor addresses using students’ L1. what students learned in CLIL. Content is assessed in students’ It does not necessarily address L2 in a way that language does what students learned in CLIL not intervene in the display of lessons. content knowledge. Content is assessed with L2 linguistic It is difficult to identify sources of features and functions learnt in students’ weaknesses. class.

Weakly integrated

Strongly integrated

Limitation

tasks. Rather than simply accepting assessment tasks used in previous studies, researchers must define the ability to assess for making the intended decisions and justifying the use of the assessment (Bachman & Palmer, 2010). When using existing proficiency tests, they should critically confirm the ability measured by the test and consider its appropriateness for their intended decisions and consequences. Furthermore, to disseminate research findings, researchers should clearly describe the AUA and assessment tasks in detail. This allows readers to judge whether the conclusion derived from assessment tasks is reasonable and appropriate. Finally, researchers should implement multiple assessment tasks for gathering sufficient evidence on L2 proficiency and intended decisions. For instance, to scrutinise overall ability in speaking L2, one-​way and two-​way oral communicative skills should be included; researchers could utilise monologic tasks, such as storytelling or picture description (e.g., Merino & Lasagabaster, 2018) and interactive tasks, such as oral interviews or discussions with peers (see Brown & Abeywickrama, 2019). Alternatively, if a single assessment task is used, it should be acknowledged that it addresses only a limited part of L2 proficiency. CLIL teachers should also specify AUAs before creating assessment tasks and making decisions in their educational settings. Although the CLIL literature introduces numerous assessment tasks (e.g., Ball et al., 2015; Mehisto & Ting, 2017; Sato et al., 2021), teachers should not employ them randomly, without specifying AUA claims. They should closely examine the pre-​existing assessment tasks found in existing literature and identify the assessment approach on which the tasks are based. By doing so, teachers can select the tasks appropriate for their intended decisions and consequences, and if necessary, use the task format as a resource.

Further reading Bachman, L., & Palmer, A. (2010). Language assessment in practice: Developing language assessments and justifying their use in the real world. Oxford University Press. This book introduces the AUA elements in detail and explains what assessors need to consider when developing assessment tasks and justifying their use. Bachman, L., & Damböck, B. (2017). Language assessment for classroom teachers. Oxford University Press. This book provides novices in language testing with practical guides for the application of AUA in a step-​by-​step manner.

367

Takanori Sato Hemmi, C., & Banegas, D.L. (Eds.) (2021). International perspectives on CLIL. Palgrave Macmillan. Chapter 4 of this book addresses the current practices and challenges of CLIL assessment in a Japanese university context. It introduces the tasks and criteria for assessing speaking and writing performance implemented by CLIL practitioners in Japan.

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/​138036​1050​0392​160 Alderson, J.C. (2005). Diagnosing foreign language proficiency: The interface between learning and assessment. Continuum. Avenia-​Tapper, B., & Llosa, L. (2015). Construct relevant or irrelevant? The role of linguistic complexity in the assessment of English language learners’ science knowledge. Educational Assessment, 20(2), 95–​111. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​10627​197.2015.1028​622 Bachman, L.F. (2004). Statistical analyses for language assessment. Cambridge University Press. Bachman, L., & Damböck, B. (2017). Language assessment for classroom teachers. Oxford University Press. Bachman, L., & Palmer, A. (2010). Language assessment in practice: Developing language assessments and justifying their use in the real world. Oxford University Press. Ball, P., Kelly, K., & Clegg, J. (2015). Putting CLIL into practice. Oxford University Press. Brown, H.D., & Abeywickrama, P. (2019). Language assessment: Principles and classroom practices (3rd ed.). Pearson. Carrió-​Pastor, M.L. (2021). CLIL vs EMI: Different approaches or the same dog with a different collar? In M.L. Carrió-​Pastor & B. Bellés-​Fortuño (Eds.), Teaching language and content in multicultural and multilingual classrooms: CLIL and EMI approaches (pp. 13–​30). Palgrave. Chapelle, C.A., & Lee, H. (2021). Understanding argument-​based validity in language testing. In C.A. Chapelle & E. Voss (Eds.), Validity argument in language testing: Case studies of validation research (pp. 19–​4 4). Cambridge University Press. Cheng, L., & Fox, J. (2017). Assessment in the language classroom. Palgrave. Coyle, D., & Meyer, O. (2021). Beyond CLIL: Pluriliteracies teaching for deeper learning. Cambridge University Press. Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge University Press. Cummins, J. (1984). Bilingualism and special education: Issues in assessment and pedagogy. Multilingual Matters. Dale, L., van der Es, W., & Tanner, R. (2011). CLIL skills. European Platform. Dalton-​Puffer, C. (2013). A construct of cognitive discourse functions for conceptualising content-​ language integration in CLIL and multilingual education. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 216–​253. https://​doi.org/​10.1515/​eujal-​2013-​0 011 Davies, A., Brown, A., Elder, C., Hill, K., Lumley, T., & McNamara, T. (1999). Dictionary of language testing. Cambridge University Press. Fernández-​Sanjurjo, J., Fernández-​Costales, A., & Arias Blanco, J.M. (2019). Analysing students’ content-​learning in science in CLIL vs. non-​CLIL programmes: Empirical evidence from Spain. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 22(6), 661–​674. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​ 13670​050.2017.1294​142 Fulcher, G. (2003). Testing second language speaking. Pearson Education. Galaczi, E., & Taylor, L. (2018). Interactional competence: Conceptualisations, operationalisations, and outstanding questions. Language Assessment Quarterly, 15(3), 219–​236. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​ 15434​303.2018.1453​816 Gallardo del Puerto, F. & Gómez Lacabex, E. (2017). Oral production outcomes in CLIL: An attempt to manage amount of exposure. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5(1), 31–​54. https://​doi.org/​ 10.1515/​eujal-​2015-​0 035 Gené-​Gil, M., Juan-​Garau, M., & Salazar-​Noguera, J. (2015). Development of EFL writing over three years in secondary education: CLIL and non-​CLIL settings. The Language Learning Journal, 43(3), 286–​303. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​09571​736.2015.1053​278

368

Assessment in CLIL Genesee, F., & Hamayan, E. (2016). CLIL in context: Practical guidance for educators. Cambridge University Press. Green, A. (2021). Exploring language assessment and testing: Language in action (2nd ed.). Routledge. Hughes, A., & Hughes, J. (2020). Testing for language teachers (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press. Jexenflicker, S., & Dalton-​Puffer, C. (2010). The CLIL differential: Comparing the writing of CLIL and non-​CLIL students in higher colleges of technology. In C. Dalton-​Puffer, T. Nikula, & U. Smit (Eds.). Language use and language learning in CLIL classrooms (pp. 169–​189). John Benjamins. Jiménez Catalán, R.M., & Agustín Llach, M.P. (2017). CLIL or time? Lexical profiles of CLIL and non-​CLIL EFL learners. System, 66, 87–​99. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.sys​tem.2017.03.016 Kane, M.T. (2013). Validating the interpretations and uses of test scores. Journal of Educational Measurement, 50(1), 1–​73. https://​doi.org/​10.1111/​jedm.12000 Leontjev, D., & deBoer, M. (2020). Conceptualising assessment and learning in the CLIL context: An introduction. In M. deBoer & D. Leontjev (Eds.), Assessment and learning in content and language integrated learning (CLIL) classrooms: Approaches and conceptualisations (pp. 1–​27). Springer. Leung, C., & Morton, T. (2016). Conclusion: Language competence, learning and pedagogy in CLIL: Deepening and broadening integration. In T. Nikula, E. Dafouz, P. Moore, & U. Smit (Eds.), Conceptualising integration in CLIL and multilingual education (pp. 235–​248). Multilingual Matters. Lin, A.M.Y. (2016). Language across the curriculum and CLIL in English as an additional language (EAL) contexts: Theory and practice. Springer. Llinares, A., Morton, T., & Whittaker, R. (2012). The roles of language in CLIL. Cambridge University Press. Llosa, L. (2017). Assessing students’ content knowledge and language proficiency. In E. Shohamy, I.G. Or, & S. May (Eds.), Language testing and assessment (3rd ed., pp. 3–​14). Springer. Lo, Y.Y., & Fung, D. (2020). Assessments in CLIL: The interplay between cognitive and linguistic demands and their progression in secondary education. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 23(10), 1192–​1210. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​13670 ​050.2018.1436​519 Mehisto, P., & Ting, T. (2017). CLIL essentials for secondary school teachers. Cambridge University Press. Merino, J.A., & Lasagabaster, D. (2018). CLIL as a way to multilingualism. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21(1), 79–​92. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​13670 ​050.2015.1128​386 Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R.L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 13–​103). American Council on Education and Macmillan. Nashaat-​Sobhy, N. (2017). Investigating pragmatics in CLIL through students’ requests. In A. Llinares & T. Morton (Eds.), Applied linguistics perspectives on CLIL (pp. 67–​88). John Benjamins. Norris, J.M. (2018). Developing and investigating C-​tests in eight languages: Measuring proficiency for research purposes. In J.M. Norris (Ed.), Developing C-​tests for estimating proficiency in foreign language research (pp. 7–​33). Peter Lang. Rallo Fabra, L., & Jacob, K. (2015). Does CLIL enhance oral skills? Fluency and pronunciation errors by Spanish-​Catalan learners of English. In M. Juan-​Garau & J. Salazar-​Noguera (Eds.). Content-​ based language learning in multilingual educational environments (pp. 163–​177). Springer. Richards, J.C., & Rodgers, T.S. (2014). Approaches and methods in language teaching (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press. Roquet, H., & Pérez-​Vidal, C. (2017). Do productive skills improve in content and language integrated learning contexts? The case of writing. Applied Linguistics, 38(4), 489–​511. https://​doi.org/​10.1093/​ app​l in/​a mv​050 Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (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–​209). John Benjamins. Rumlich, D. (2017). CLIL theory and empirical reality: Two sides of the same coin? A quantitative-​ longitudinal evaluation of general EFL proficiency and affective-​motivational dispositions in CLIL students at German secondary schools. Journal of Immersion and Content-​Based Language Education, 5(1), 110–​134. https://​doi.org/​10.1075/​jicb.5.1.05rum San Isidro, X., & Lasagabaster, D. (2019). The impact of CLIL on pluriliteracy development and content learning in a rural multilingual setting: A longitudinal study. Language Teaching Research, 23(5), 584–​602. https://​doi.org/​10.1177/​13621​6881​7754​103 Sato, T., Yokomoto, K., & Mackenzie, G. (2021). Current practice and challenges of assessment in CLIL in a Japanese university context. In H. Chantal & D.L. Banegas (Eds.), International perspectives on CLIL (pp. 63–​84). Palgrave Macmillan.

369

Takanori Sato Serra, C. (2007). Assessing CLIL at primary school: A longitudinal study. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(5), 582–​602. https://​doi.org/​10.2167/ ​beb​461.0 Snow, M.A., & Katz, A.M. (2014). Assessing language and content. In A.J. Kunnan (Ed.), The companion to language assessment: Abilities, contexts, and learners (pp. 230–​247). Wiley Blackwell. UCLES. (2021). A2 Key: Exam format. www.cambr ​idge​engl ​ish.org/​exams-​a nd-​tests/​key/​exam-​ for​m at/​ Xanthou, M. (2011). The impact of CLIL on L2 vocabulary development and content knowledge. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 10(4), 116–​126.

370

371

PART V

CLIL around the world

372

373

25 CLIL IN VARIOUS FORMS AROUND THE WORLD Liss Kerstin Sylvén and Keiko Tsuchiya

Introduction The aspect of language that most strikes the ordinary person is its relevance as a social tool. Hence, many have believed that the most efficacious way of learning it is by using it in real situations. Kelly, 1969, p. 293 The above quote illustrates the essence of what content and language integrated learning (CLIL) is, namely the use of a second/​foreign language (L2) as a social tool in authentic situations with the dual aim of learning the content on which the focus is placed, as well as learning the language used. In most European countries, CLIL started as grassroots initiatives during the 1970s and 1980s, frequently from teachers who saw the need for new approaches to language learning. Many of them were inspired by the Canadian immersion method to revamp L2 instruction, for the benefit of the learners and as professional development. In the mid-​1990s the term CLIL was coined, attempting to rein in the use of another language than the students’ L1 (first language) as the medium of instruction under one umbrella term. Interestingly, the term CLIL still seems to be fairly unknown, and unused by many practitioners, while it is increasingly used in research. Instead, terms such as bilingual education, immersion, or English-​medium instruction (EMI) are used in practice. The fact that CLIL comes in many shapes and forms should thus not be a surprise. The aim of this chapter is to illustrate the range of CLIL models available in various parts of the world mainly focusing on primary and secondary education. This chapter begins with a focus on the European context, before moving on to exploring how CLIL has been taken up in Asian and South American contexts. Before investigating the various types of CLIL implemented around the world, however, some theoretical considerations underpinning CLIL methodology are discussed.

Theoretical underpinnings CLIL is founded on the principles of how an L1 is acquired: being surrounded by the target language will eventually result in a certain level of acquisition of that language. In the CLIL DOI: 10.4324/9781003173151-31

373

Liss Kerstin Sylvén and Keiko Tsuchiya

context, this means that the target language is used in situations where a learner’s L1 is typically used, for instance in the teaching of non-​language subjects, such as history or biology. Teachers use the target language when teaching subject content, employing target language teaching material, and in so doing provide an immersive target language environment. In addition, within CLIL pedagogy the notions of input, output, and interaction (Gass & Mackey, 2006; Krashen, 1985; Long, 1981), the cornerstones of second language acquisition (SLA), are central. Input of the target language, i.e., language data to which the learner is exposed (Ellis, 1985), is imperative in any language learning situation. In CLIL this is afforded among other things by the teachers’ use of the target language as well as by teaching material in the target language. Output, i.e., the productive use of the target language in speech or in writing (Swain, 1985), is created when students themselves use the target language in the classroom. When answering questions from the teacher, posing questions, making comments, or writing texts, students should use the target language as much as possible. According to De Bot (1996), output serves several functions in the language learning process, such as noticing, hypothesis testing, and enhancing fluency. Furthermore, the students’ interaction between themselves should also ideally be in the target language, where linguistic, sociolinguistic, strategic, and discourse competencies are at play (Canale & Swain, 1980). In a classroom situation where all these criteria are fulfilled, a context similar to immersion is created where learners are surrounded with the target language. However, in a typical CLIL classroom, translanguaging, ‘the complex language practices of plurilingual individuals’ and ‘the pedagogical approaches that use those complex practices’ (García & Li, 2014, p. 20), is common for scaffolding purposes. Also, trans-​ semiotising (Lin & Wu, 2015) can be useful in order to facilitate content understanding, incorporating multimodal practices in both languages to support learners’ meaning-​m aking (Lin, 2015; Nikula & Moore, 2019). Another theoretical concept of importance for language learning is motivation. According to Dörnyei (1998, p. 117), ‘[m]‌otivation provides the primary impetus to initiate learning the L2 and later the driving force to sustain the long and often tedious learning process’. There are many claims about CLIL being inherently motivational. Dalton-​Puffer (2011, p. 191), for instance, argues that CLIL classrooms are ‘widely considered as motivating’; Coyle (2011) found out that CLIL students experienced CLIL as more fun than their classes taught in their L1; and Pfenninger (2016, p. 138) argued that ‘CLIL programs should be boosted as they exert a very positive influence on learners’ FL achievement’. Other studies showed CLIL students to be more motivated than their non-​CLIL counterparts already before embarking on CLIL instruction (Doiz et al., 2014; Lasagabaster, 2017; Thompson & Sylvén, 2019). One of the contributing aspects to the apparent motivational attraction of CLIL seems to be the authentic use of language (e.g., Pinner, 2013). Authenticity is defined by Widdowson (1990, p. 45) as ‘natural language behavior’. Using the target language to teach content that students need to understand and internalise, as well as using authentic teaching material contribute to authenticity in the CLIL classroom. Many definitions of CLIL prescribe that language and content play equal roles. According to this view, there should be a dual focus on content as well as on language (Maljers et al., 2007). However, is it really possible to pay an equal amount of attention to the two? The question about the integration aspect has resulted in the proposal of a CLIL continuum (Cenoz, 2015). At one end of the continuum, language is at the core (soft CLIL), and at the other, content (hard CLIL). At the language end, language is what is important and the content through which language is taught plays a lesser role. At the content end, the subject content is at the fore, and not much attention is paid to the language through which it is 374

CLIL in various forms around the world

communicated. Using this continuum, it could be argued, any form of teaching through an additional language can be subsumed under the CLIL acronym. With this as a backdrop, the next section gives examples of CLIL around the world, initially with a specific focus on some European countries, where CLIL first developed.

Implementations of CLIL This section focuses on how CLIL is implemented in formal education, for what reasons it is being used, how the theoretical concepts accounted for above underpin CLIL inform pedagogical practice, and where on the CLIL continuum each country can be placed. The section begins with a country in Europe, Finland, where the term CLIL was coined.

CLIL in Finland Finland is a bilingual country, with Finnish and Swedish as official languages. Although the option of using the two languages in education only became official in 1991, it has been employed since much earlier, especially in vocational education. In that context, Takala (1996) coined the term opportunity to learn (OTL) and said, ‘there is a need for better and more diversified language skills as a tool for coping with the challenges of increasing contacts’ (p. 11), arguing that CLIL would afford OTLs for Finnish learners of English. When CLIL was first implemented in Finland, it was in close collaboration with universities in both Finland and Canada, and researchers have investigated CLIL from various perspectives ever since. The term CLIL was coined at the University of Jyväskylä, and was first defined as ‘the diverse types of educational approach in which the learning of second/​ foreign languages has a joint curricular role’ (Nikula, 1997, p. 5). A decade or so later, the definition was changed to ‘a dual-​focused educational approach in which an additional language is used for the learning and teaching of both content and language’ (Maljers et al., 2007, p. 7), a definition which is still very much in use. Besides creating OTLs for language learning, from the outset, the impetus for CLIL in Finland has been to promote intercultural understanding and international contacts. CLIL teachers need to have university degrees in the target language, and in many cases, they also have taken a special CLIL teacher course. A number of scholars have investigated effects of CLIL on learners’ proficiency levels in the target language, which most commonly is English but Swedish, German, French and Russian are also found as vehicular languages. All studies point to a positive development of both explicit and implicit skills, regardless of age level and target language ( Järvinen, 1999; Laitinen, 2001). In addition, Järvinen (2010) showed how 14–​15-​year-​old students wrote history essays in English with a higher levels of lexical and syntactic complexity than in the essays written in their L1, Finnish, as a result of history being a CLIL subject taught through English. Apart from studies on target language proficiency, other aspects of CLIL have also been investigated in Finland. In a study that compared how students were viewed in CLIL and EFL classes, Nikula (2005) concluded that students in the EFL classroom were seen as language learners, whereas in the CLIL classroom, they were regarded as language users. As regards motivation, Seikkula-​Leino (2007) found CLIL students in general (i.e., across educational levels) to be more motivated than their non-​CLIL peers, but at the same time more concerned about their language progress. Within the CLIL continuum, most instances of CLIL implementation in Finland would be placed towards the content end of the scale. The target language is used in non-​language subjects, and the subject content is very much in focus. Nevertheless, the high requirements 375

Liss Kerstin Sylvén and Keiko Tsuchiya

put on CLIL teachers indicate an awareness of the importance of highlighting subject-​ specific language. Furthermore, a key rationale for implementing CLIL in Finnish schools is the goal to improve language skills as well as increase intercultural understanding. Aspects of successful CLIL implementation include the symmetrical view of students and teachers alike as language users rather than the asymmetry in language learners versus language teachers.

CLIL in Germany Another country where CLIL was adopted widely is Germany. Instead of being modelled on Canadian immersion, as is the case in most other European countries, CLIL in Germany goes back to the late 1960s with the introduction of French as the medium of instruction in one of the Bundesländer (states) bordering on France. This was one, among many, post-​World War II peace initiatives introduced in connection with the German-​ French Treaty of Friendship, signed in 1963. The main aim of CLIL was then, and still is to a large degree, intercultural understanding. Language competence is seen as important, but content knowledge is the main focus. By using an L2 as the medium of instruction, other and additional perspectives of the content may be added as compared to using the L1 only. During the 1990s, English took the lead as the most common target language, while French, Spanish, Italian, Danish, Russian, Polish, Turkish, and Chinese are offered as CLIL languages. CLIL is usually introduced at age 12–​13. In order to prepare students for CLIL, extra lessons in the target language are offered up to seven hours per week (Wolff, 2007). Teachers are expected to have double exams, one in the subject and one in the target language in order to qualify as CLIL teachers. Although studies have shown positive results as regards target language proficiency among CLIL students (Breidbach & Viebrock, 2012; Klippel, 2003) there are doubts as to whether this in fact is a result of CLIL per se. Rumlich (2016), in studies including well over 800 student participants at secondary level, showed that there is a self-​selection bias among the CLIL students. Not only had the CLIL students received extra lessons in English for a year before entering CLIL education, leading to significantly higher proficiency levels from the start, but they were also significantly more interested in English than students opting for other educational alternatives. Rumlich argues that factors such as these need to be considered when evaluating CLIL. On the CLIL continuum, we thus locate Germany towards the content end. CLIL lessons focus primarily on subject content, but attention is also paid to language learning.

CLIL in Spain Spain is divided into autonomous regions, each one of which is responsible for the implementation of CLIL. Therefore, CLIL comes in different forms in the various regions. Two major varieties can be distinguished, however. First, the one found in monolingual regions where CLIL adds an L2 to classroom practices, and second, the one found in bi-​or multilingual regions, where CLIL in reality means that teaching is conducted in three different languages (Ruiz de Zarobe & Lasagabaster, 2010). An example of the first type of CLIL context can be found in the monolingual region of Madrid, where Spanish is the official language. At the end of the 1990s, the Spanish government financed a large number of bilingual CLIL schools around the country, with ten in the Madrid area. In collaboration with the British Council (Dobson et al., 2010), 376

CLIL in various forms around the world

the CLIL schools were developed with the following aims in mind: teaching should be done in English with authentic teaching material in various subjects from a very early age, developing learners’ syntactic structures and metalinguistic awareness as when acquiring an L1, which involves the entire school (students and teaching/​admin staff ), the local community (parents) and an international network (i.e., the twin school system between schools in Spain and the UK). English-​speaking language assistants from Great Britain were initially part of the project, and pre-​and in-​service education was continuously offered. The survival of the project was to be ensured by making all participating teachers bilingual to encourage them to develop content integration at the individual schools, instead of merely relying on teachers initially employed for the project. The presence of language assistants continues to be seen as a motivating and positive factor (Campillo et al., 2019; Dafouz & Hibler, 2013). An example of the second type of Spanish CLIL context, bi-​or multilingual regions, is Andalusia where Basque, Gaelic, and Catalan are indigenous languages and used alongside Spanish as instructional languages. The third language, English, was introduced in Andalusia as well as in many other parts of Spain, as a reaction to the alarmingly low proficiency levels exhibited by Spanish learners in several international comparative studies (Bonnet, 2002; www.ef.com/​w wen/​epi/​). Another example of a bilingual region is the Balearic Islands, where the Language Normalisation Act was introduced in 1986 stipulating that all students at the end of obligatory school are to be able to use both Catalan and Spanish in a correct way. Ever since the introduction of the Act, bilingual education in Catalan and Spanish has been the norm in the Balearic school system. In the Basque region, the third example of a bilingual region, the revitalisation of Basque has been in focus since the 1960s, when the so-​called Ikastolas (schools where Basque is the default language of instruction and communication) were introduced. Also other models and projects are available and ongoing as a means of promoting the use of Basque (Ball & Lindsay, 2010). Since the early 2000s, various programmes have been initiated in the Basque country where also other languages, primarily English, have been introduced as languages of instruction. Research on CLIL in the Spanish context in general is, with some exceptions, quite conclusive in its findings on positive outcomes. In the Madrid area, for example, CLIL students’ higher-​order cognitive abilities seem to have developed and they exhibit a higher degree of concentration and attentiveness (Halbach, 2009; Reilly & Medrano, 2009). In addition, CLIL students are more cooperative, have higher self-​esteem, are better able to tackle challenges, and are more aware of cultural differences than their non-​CLIL peers (Llinares & Dafouz, 2010). Overall, Llinares and Dafouz (2010) conclude that CLIL students reach higher proficiency levels in, above all, the receptive skills (listening and reading), and that their productive skills also improved. These results are mirrored in research from the bi-​ and multilingual regions. Lorenzo et al. (2010) show significant differences between CLIL and non-​CLIL students’ (age 13–​14) results on all four skills, regardless of target language, although those whose target language is English produce the best results. Similar results were obtained in Gené-​Gil et al. (2015), although when hours of contact with English were controlled for, the group difference disappeared, suggesting that amount of target language contact is decisive rather than CLIL instruction per se. A series of studies focused on the impact of CLIL on Spanish students’ motivation. In an investigation (primary, aged 9–​10, and secondary, aged 13–​14, students, N =​1,329, filled out a questionnaire, took a diagnostic test and were interviewed), Lorenzo et al. (2010) concluded that student motivation increased in CLIL classes as students saw the immediate correlation 377

Liss Kerstin Sylvén and Keiko Tsuchiya

between language proficiency and the ability to grasp subject content communicated through the target language. A similar argument was put forward in other Spanish studies, where CLIL students also exhibited a higher level of motivation which they sustained over long periods of time (Doiz et al., 2014; Lasagabaster, 2011). Motivation was also in focus in a study in the Balearic region, showing no statistical difference between CLIL and non-​CLIL. Interestingly, however, the gender difference shown in the non-​CLIL group, and which is normally found in similar studies with girls being more motivated than boys (Kissau et al., 2010), was not found in the CLIL group. This suggests that CLIL might help even out gender differences regarding language learning motivation (Amengual-​Pizarro & Prieto-​A rranz, 2015). In a similar vein, Menezes and Juan-​Garau (2015) investigated learners’ willingness to communicate. At group level, CLIL students were more willing to communicate from the start, and the difference between the groups remained stable over time. Oral proficiency seems to develop at roughly the same pace for CLIL and non-​CLIL students in Spain. This might be explained by the fact that for the majority of students, school is the only place where English is encountered and that teachers typically are not native speakers of English (Rallo Fabra & Jacob, 2015; Ruiz de Zarobe, 2011; Ruiz de Zarobe & Lasagabaster, 2010). In sum, since the 1990s (Madrid Fernández et al., 2019) a significant investment has been made in many of the Spanish autonomous regions in order to improve learners’ English proficiency levels through the implementation of CLIL. In addition, CLIL is being implemented in bi-​and multilingual contexts alongside far-​reaching measures to promote indigenous languages, thus creating favourable language learning possibilities (Bialystok, 2005; Jessner, 2008). Most reported research findings into effects of CLIL are positive. However, much of the Spanish research has met with some criticism, primarily due to the fact that few studies include baseline data about pre-​CLIL EFL knowledge and motivation levels and that a possible selection effect among CLIL students has not been acknowledged (Bruton, 2013, but see Hüttner & Smit, 2014, for a response). On the CLIL continuum, Spain is placed on the content end of the scale. While language learning is focused on, CLIL is found in the non-​language subjects, and content knowledge is at the fore. The lack of English proficiency sometimes identified among the teachers, is in some cases counterbalanced by the presence of native English-​speaking language assistants.

CLIL in Sweden CLIL was introduced at a large scale in the 1990s in Swedish schools, and today 20–​30 percent of all upper secondary schools offer some kind of CLIL tuition (Paulsrud, 2019). It started out as bottom-​up initiatives, often with a teacher having heard about the benefits of the Canadian immersion method wanting to try it out in their own classrooms. Today, there is still no official framework setting standards, teacher requirements, or learning outcomes in order to regulate CLIL (Sylvén, 2013). Thus, idiosyncratic implementations are found across schools (Sylvén, 2019b). At a typical CLIL school, however, English is used as the medium of instruction in one or several non-​language subjects, such as history or biology. Teachers are normally non-​native speakers of English, and the use of English varies, depending on both student and teacher level of proficiency, as well as subject area (Sylvén, 2019a). Research on CLIL was slow to pick up in Sweden, but the recent large-​scale, longitudinal CLISS (Content and Language Integration in Swedish Schools) project took a comprehensive view, 378

CLIL in various forms around the world

investigating CLIL from various perspectives (e.g., teacher, student, L1, L2, monolingual, multilingual perspectives) (Sylvén, 2019b). Early research findings promoted a very positive view of CLIL as regards attitudes and motivation among stakeholders, but less evidence was found for a positive development of English proficiency (Washburn, 1997). There were even studies indicating that CLIL was detrimental for students’ L1 (Lim Falk, 2008). All of these studies, however, were very limited in scope and findings were not generalisable. In the CLISS project, close to 300 informants were involved, baseline data (e.g., on L1 and L2 proficiency, motivation, exposure to English outside of school) were secured before CLIL implementation started, and the study had a longitudinal design, spanning three years. Results indicated that CLIL students outperformed their non-​CLIL peers on most measures already before starting their CLIL education; that both CLIL and non-​CLIL students developed their English proficiency to the same extent with the CLIL group keeping the initial lead throughout the study; and that negative effects on L2 were only found as exceptions rather than as the rule. The initial differences between the two groups were to be expected, as CLIL is optional in Sweden, so students already good at and interested in English are likely to choose an English-​medium environment. However, the same rate of development in English in the two groups is cause for some concern, and likely an indication that not enough attention is paid to language issues in the CLIL class. The negative effects of CLIL on learners’ L1 were shown in a sub-​study consisting of an error analysis of written production, where students in a school with English as the sole medium of instruction in all subjects except language arts, made more errors than CLIL students in schools where English and Swedish were used in parallel (Lim Falk, 2019). In a more recent study including a large number of texts (N =​520) written by CLIL and non-​CLIL students, Ohlsson (2021) found no differences at group level in students’ use of typical academic features such as nominalisations, passive voice, and lexical variation. CLIL in a vocational upper secondary setting was investigated by Kontio and Sylvén (2015). Although CLIL is found at several vocational programmes around Sweden, this is one of few studies looking specifically at that context. Findings indicated that learners used English in innovative and jocular ways, maintaining a relaxed attitude to language in their CLIL classes. To sum up, Swedish stakeholders hold a positive view towards CLIL, and many schools offer it in one way or another. Research has mostly focused on language learning outcomes and effects on L1, concluding that there seems to be room for improvement. One way of achieving better results would be to require specific CLIL teacher training. Swedish CLIL is definitely found at the content end of the CLIL continuum. English is used as the medium of instruction, but without proper training, teachers often find themselves unable to address subject-​specific language issues.

CLIL in Asia1 In the majority of countries in Asia, CLIL, often conjointly with English-​medium instruction (EMI), was introduced and implemented as a means to foster citizens with English abilities to compete in the global economy, localising approaches of European CLIL. As summarised in Thi Thuy (2016), some Southeast Asian countries have incorporated CLIL-​ type classes in EMI in their national curriculum in primary and secondary education since the early 2000s to counterbalance the drill-​based, traditional English classroom, inequalities in teaching and access to material (also see Marsh & Hood, 2008). Examples of these can be found in Malaysia 2 (Yassin et al., 2009) and the Philippines (Dayag et al., 2008; Office 379

Liss Kerstin Sylvén and Keiko Tsuchiya

of the President of the Philippines, 2003), where CLIL-​type education was introduced in 2003, Indonesia (Floris, 2014) and Thailand 3 (Suwannoppharat & Chinokul, 2015), where the policy to teach subjects in English in schools was issued in 2006, and Vietnam, where pilot CLIL programmes were implemented in 2008 (Thi Thuy, 2016; also see Marsh & Hood, 2008). CLIL practice in each region is idiosyncratic. In Vietnam, for instance, pilot CLIL classes in science subjects were implemented in only selected top-​end upper-​secondary schools, and a small-​scale questionnaire survey to the teachers reveals the necessity and potential benefit of CLIL along with the lack of training, materials and language competence to teach content in English (Thi Thuy, 2016). The language policy reform in 2014 enabled other educational institutions to introduce CLIL as elective classes (Nguyen, 2019). In China and other countries and regions in East Asia, CLIL has been initially introduced at tertiary level in the 2010s for internationalisation of their institutions, for example, lectures in EMI in China (Li, 2021), South Korea (Sim & Kim, 2016), and Taiwan (Yang & Gosling, 2014), and English classes in Japan (Watanabe et al., 2011). In Taiwan, the Ministry of Education issued the bilingual education policy in 2018, and CLIL has been integrated in their national school curriculum (Huang, 2020). A study from Taiwanese elementary school reports CLIL lessons to both enrich student vocabulary size and foster student science knowledge (Huang, 2020) although no baseline data and control group information were provided. While, in Japan, a soft CLIL approach has been broadly applied to primary and secondary classrooms at grassroots level (Ikeda, 2013). Yamano (2019) reports results following up on the introduction of CLIL in a primary school in 2011. A comparison was made between regular EFL classes and CLIL classes with classroom observations, teacher interviews, and student surveys. She concludes that a positive and cooperative student attitude was fostered, and the learning environment was enriched in in the latter (see Chapter 32 in this volume for more information about CLIL in Japan). Much research in secondary CLIL in Asia has been conducted in Hong Kong, where Chinese medium instruction (CMI) and EMI schools have coexisted for more than 30 years (Lo et al., 2015). Lin and her colleagues described students and teachers’ translanguaging and trans-​semiotising practice for meaning-​m aking in secondary CLIL classrooms, utilising multimodal and multiple linguistic resources (see Lin & Wu, 2015). CLIL in Asia could be scattered in the content-​language continuum: Southeast Asian countries, Hong Kong, and Taiwan could be placed towards the content end while Japan would be found at the language end.

CLIL in South America In 2008, the Latin American CLIL Journal was launched, marking the official beginning of CLIL research in the region (Banegas et al., 2020). Thus, similar to Asia, CLIL in South America is in its early stages. In other words, while there surely are many schools implementing CLIL in one way or another, research about effects has not yet been published widely in English. Two countries thus far stand out in the number of publications, Argentina and Colombia, while, for example, Brazil, Chile and Mexico are still only represented by a few. Most of the extant literature on CLIL on the South American continent consists of action research papers, where teachers themselves describe their CLIL practices, and literature reviews which for the most part end by concluding that there is a shortage of studies critically investigating CLIL from a theory-​based perspective (Banegas, 2022; Banegas et al., 2020). Even though CLIL was recently introduced on the continent, bi-​and multilingual education has been in effect much longer. Virtually all countries have indigenous languages, which 380

CLIL in various forms around the world

Finland Europe

Sweden Germany Spain Multilingual Regions

Monolingual Regions

Hong Kong

Asia

Southeast Asian countries Taiwan

Latin America

Japan

Latin American countries

Content

Language

Figure 25.1  The CLIL continuum

to varying degrees are being used in education, and schools on the borders to other national languages have implemented bilingual education for cross-​ national purposes (Pimentel Siqueira et al., 2018). The impetus for CLIL where English is the medium of instruction in South America seems to be mainly language driven: the general level of L2 English proficiency is in need of improvement, and CLIL is seen as a way of achieving this. Obstacles encountered in the implementation phase are above all also connected to this fact; both teachers and learners’ levels of English capabilities are often too low for CLIL to be useful. CLIL teacher education is, therefore, one crucial factor in need of attention (Banegas et al., 2020). On the CLIL continuum, South America is placed at the language end. Various types of authentic, subject-​related, materials are used in L2 English class in order to motivate learners and to move beyond traditional, often grammar-​based, teaching methods. Figure 25.1 roughly illustrates where on the CLIL continuum the various countries focused on in this text are placed.

Conclusion and implications Regardless of setting, CLIL is seen as having the potential for ‘improving the quality of foreign language teaching, and increasing the number of successful foreign language learners’ (Marsh, 2002, p. 15). Some reflections are in place as regards the potential of CLIL in various contexts. First, CLIL teachers need to be properly trained. This is something called for wherever CLIL is implemented, but too rarely in place. It may sound an easy task to switch from an L1 to English, or any other FL/L2, to teach a subject, but in order for CLIL to be successful, content teachers need to be trained in how to pay attention to language, scaffolding methods, translanguaging, and other vital parts of CLIL methodology 381

Liss Kerstin Sylvén and Keiko Tsuchiya

Second, when implementing and researching CLIL, contextual factors are vital to take into account. No country offers the same points of departure as another, and CLIL is not to be viewed as ‘one size fits all’, but rather needs to be contextualised and modified in different situations. Contextual differences need to be highlighted in research, because without knowledge about such factors, findings are difficult to evaluate. In addition, results can be misleading concerning the potential of CLIL. Third, and finally, CLIL needs to be researched. Without solid studies evaluating effects of all kinds, there is a risk that CLIL continues to be a grassroots movement, and a ‘one-​m an-​ show’ at individual schools. Foci for such studies could be teacher collaboration, assessment (formative as well as summative), multimodal resources and technology, learner agency, just to mention a few. With a broad range of theoretically sound and critical studies covering various perspectives, CLIL can continue to develop, be improved and used for the benefit of L2 learners in large parts of the world.

Notes 1 We would like to thank Võ Đoàn Thơ Khoa Ngoạ i Ng ữ (University of Economics Ho Chi Minh City), Bong-​g i Song (Simon Fraser University), and Hongtao Jin (Kanto Gakuin University) for sharing their insights and useful references for the section. 2 The policy was abolished in 2012 and since then Malaysian education and language policy has been under the process of reformation (Lavania & Mohamad Nor, 2021). 3 The reform of Ministry of Education in Thailand reinforced English-​medium subjects in schools (Taylor, 2022).

Further reading Rumlich, D. (2016). Evaluating bilingual education in Germany: CLIL students’ general English proficiency, EFL self-​concept and interest. Peter Lang. An in-​ depth illustration of CLIL in Germany, focusing on student factors which should be considered in all CLIL research. Ruiz de Zarobe, Y., & Jimenéz Catalán, R.M. (Eds.). (2009). Content and language integrated learning: Evidence from research in Europe. Multilingual Matters. An edited volume giving insights into CLIL primarily in the Spanish context. Sylvén, L.K. (Ed.) (2019). Investigating content and language integrated learning. Insights from Swedish high schools. Multilingual Matters. An edited collection of studies from the CLISS project, offering findings on language learning outcomes, motivation, assessment, as well as testimonies from teachers and students during three years of CLIL in upper secondary school.

References Amengual-​Pizarro, M., & Prieto-​A rranz, J.I. (2015). Exploring affective factors in L3 learning: CLIL vs. non-​CLIL. In M. Juan-​Garau & J. Salazar-​Noguera (Eds.), Content-​based language learning in multilingual educational environments (pp. 197–​220). Springer. https://​doi.org/​10.1007/​978-​3 -​319-​ 11496-​5 _​12 Ball, P., & Lindsay, D. (2010). Teacher training for CLIL in the Basque country: The case of the Ikastolas –​in search of parameters. In D. Lasagabaster & Y. Ruiz de Zarobe (Eds.), CLIL in Spain. Implementation, results and teacher training. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Banegas, D.L. (2022). Research into practice: CLIL in South America. Language Teaching, 55(3), 379–​ 391. DOI:10.1017/​S0261444820000622

382

CLIL in various forms around the world Banegas, D.L., Poole, P.M., & Corrales, K.A. (2020). Content and language integrated learning in Latin America 2008–​2018: Ten years of research and practice. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 10(2), 283–​305. https://​doi.org/​10.14746/​ssllt.2020.10.2.4 Bialystok, E. (2005). Consequences of bilingualism for cognitive development. In J.F. Kroll & A.M.B. de Groot (Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches (pp. 417–​432). Oxford University Press. Bonnet, G. (Ed.). (2002). The assessment of pupils’ skills in English in eight European countries: A European project. The European Network of Policy Makers for the Evaluation of Education Systems. www. educa​c ion​y fp.gob.es/​i nee/​d am/​jcr:d426c​134-​5c58- ​4 4f0- ​8641-​3b5e4​354e​d 37/​h abili​d ade​sing ​les2​ 002-​1.pdf Breidbach, S., & Viebrock, B. (2012). CLIL in Germany: Results from recent research in a contested field of education. International CLIL Research Journal, 1(4), 5–​16. Bruton, A. (2013). CLIL: Some of the reasons why … and why not. System, 41(3), 587–​597. https://​doi. org/​10.1016/​j.sys​tem.2013.07.001 Campillo, J.M., Sánchez, R., & Miralles, P. (2019). Primary teachers’ perceptions of CLIL implementation in Spain. English Language Teaching, 12(4), 149–​156. https://​doi.org/​10.5539/​elt.v12n4p​149 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/​app​l in/​I.1.1 Cenoz, J. (2015). Content-​based instruction and content and language integrated learning: The same or different? Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28(1), 8–​24. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​07908​ 318.2014.1000​922 Coyle, D. (2011). ITALIC research report. Investigating student gains: Content and language integrated learning. University of Aberdeen. www.abdn.ac.uk/​ita​l ic Dafouz, E., & Hibler, A. (2013). ‘Zip your lips’ or ‘keep quiet’: Main teachers’ and language assistants’ classroom discourse in CLIL settings. Modern Language Journal, 97(3), 655–​669. https://​doi.org/​ 10.1111/​j.1540-​4781.2013.12026.x 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/​S02671​9051​1000​092 Dayag, D.T., Gustilo, L.E., Regala-​ F lores, E., Borlongan, A.M., & Carreon, M.E.C. (2008). Classroom discourse in selected Philippine primary schools: A corpus-​based analysis of language use. In British Council East Asia (Ed.), Primary innovations: Regional seminar, Bangkok (107–​118). British Council East Asia. www.teac​h ing​engl​ish.org.uk/​sites/​teach​eng/​fi les/​downl​oad-​access​engl​ ish-​publi​cati​ons-​proc​eedi​ngs-​bang​kok-​2008.pdf De Bot, K. (1996). The psycholinguistics of the output hypothesis. Language Learning, 46(3), 529–​555. https://​doi.org/​10.1111/​j.1467-​1770.1996.tb01​246.x Dobson, A., Murillo, M., Dolores, P., & Johnstone, R. (2010). Bilingual education project: Spain evaluation report. British Council/​M inisterio De Educacion. www.bri​t ish​coun​cil.es/​sites/​defa​u lt/​fi les/​biling​ ual-​educat​ion-​proj​ect-​spain-​eva​luat​ion-​rep​ort-​suplem​ent-​en.pdf Doiz, A., Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J.M. (2014). CLIL and motivation: The effect of individual and contextual variables. The Language Learning Journal, 42(2), 209–​224. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​09571​ 736.2014.889​508 Dörnyei, Z. (1998). Motivation in second and foreign language learning. Language Teaching, 31(3), 117–​135. https://​doi.org/​10.1017/​S02614​4 480​0 013​15X Ellis, R. (1985). Teacher–​pupil interaction in second language development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 69–​85). Newbury House. Floris, F.D. (2014). Learning subject matter through English as the medium of instruction: Students’ and teachers’ perspectives. Asian Englishes, 16(1), 47–​59. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​13488​678.2014.884​879 García, O., & Li, W. (2014). Translanguaging. Palgrave Macmillan. https://​doi.org/​10.1057/​978113​ 7385​765 Gass, S., & Mackey, A. (2006). Input, interaction and output: An overview. AILA Review, 19, 3–​17. Gené-​Gil, M., Juan-​G arau, M., & Salazar-​Noguera, J. (2015). Writing development under CLIL provision. In M. Juan-​G arau & J. Salazar-​Noguera (Eds.), Content-​based language learning in multilingual educational environments (pp. 139–​162). Springer. https://​doi.org/​10.1007/​978-​3 -​319-​ 11496-​5 _​9 Halbach, A. (2009). The primary school teacher and the challenges of bilingual education. In E. Dafouz & M. Guerrini (Eds.), CLIL across educational levels: Experiences from primary, secondary and tertiary contexts (pp. 19–​26). Richmond Santillana.

383

Liss Kerstin Sylvén and Keiko Tsuchiya Huang, Y-​C. (2020). The effects of elementary students’ science learning in CLIL. English Language Teaching, 13(2), 1–​15. https://​doi.org/​10.5539/​elt.v13n ​2p1 Hüttner, J., & Smit, U. (2014). CLIL (content and language integrated learning): The bigger picture. A response to: A. Bruton. 2013. CLIL: Some of the reasons why … and why not. System, 44, 160–​ 167. http://​d x.doi.org/​10.1016/​j.sys​tem.2014.03.001 Ikeda, M. (2013). Does CLIL work for Japanese secondary school students? Potential for the ‘weak’ version of CLIL. International CLIL Research Journal, 2(1), 31–​43. Järvinen, H-​M. (1999). Second language acquisition through CLIL at primary school level. In J. Masih (Ed.), Learning through a foreign language: Models, methods and outcomes. Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research. Järvinen, H-​M. (2010). Language as a meaning making resource in learning and teaching content: Analysing historical writing in content and language integrated learning. In C. Dalton-​Puffer, T. Nikula, & U. Smit (Eds.), Language use and language learning in CLIL classrooms. John Benjamins. https://​doi.org/​10.1075/​a als.7.08jar Jessner, U. (2008). Teaching third languages: Findings, trends and challenges. Language Teaching, 41(1), 15–​56. https://​doi.org/​10.1017/​S02614​4 480​7004​739 Kelly, G. (1969). 25 centuries of language teaching. Newbury House. Kissau, S.P., Kolano, L.Q., & Wang, C. (2010). Perceptions of gender differences in high school students’ motivation to learn Spanish. Foreign Language Annals, 43(4), 703–​721. Klippel, F. (2003). New prospects or imminent danger? The impact of English medium instruction on education in Germany. Prospect, 18(1), 68– ​81. https://​sea ​rch.infor ​m it.org/​doi/​10.3316/​ aeipt.132​499 Kontio, J., & Sylvén, L.K. (2015). Language alternation and language norm in vocational content and language integrated learning. The Language Learning Journal, 43(3), 271–​285. https://​doi.org/​ 10.1080/​09571​736.2015.1053​279 Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. Longman. Laitinen, J. (2001). English immersion in Finland: Dreams or reality? Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Jyväskylä. https://​jyx.jyu.fi/​han​d le/​123456​789/​11735 Lasagabaster, D. (2011). English achievement and student motivation in CLIL and EFL settings. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 5(1), 3–​18. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​17501​ 229.2010.519​030 Lasagabaster, D. (2017). Language learning motivation and language attitudes in multilingual Spain from an international perspective. The Modern Language Journal, 101(3), 583–​596. www.jstor.org/​ sta​ble/​4 4981​0 07 Lavania, M., & Mohamad Nor, F. (2021) Factors influencing the implementation of differentiated instruction in English language instruction in rural and urban secondary schools of Johor Bahru. Creative Education, 12, 1235–​1246. DOI:10.4236/​ce.2021.126093 Li, S. (2021). The CLIL model of teaching in the college English curriculum in China: Policies, perceptions, and practices. ONOMÁZEIN: Journal of Linguistics, Philology and Translation, 9, 1–​9. https://​doi.org/​10.7764/​onomaz​ein.ne9.01 Lim Falk, M. (2008). Svenska i engelskspråkig skolmiljö: Ämnesrelaterat språkbruk i två gymnasieklasser. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Stockholm University. http://​u rn.kb.se/​reso​lve?urn=​ urn:nbn:se:su:diva- ​8247 Lim Falk, M. (2019). The development of linguistic correctness in CLIL and non-​CLIL students’ writing in the L1 at upper secondary school. In L. Sylvén (Ed.), Investigating content and language integrated learning: Insights from Swedish high schools (pp. 187–​215). Multilingual Matters. Lin, A.M.Y. (2015). Conceptualising the potential role of L1 in CLIL. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28(1), 74–​89. https://​doi.org/​0.1080/​07908​318.2014.1000​926 Lin, A.M.Y., & Wu, Y. (2015). ‘May I speak Cantonese?’ Co-​constructing a scientific proof in an EFL junior secondary science classroom. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 18(3), 289–​305. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​13670 ​050.2014.988​113 Llinares, A., & Dafouz, E. (2010). Content and language integrated programmes in the Madrid region: Overview and research findings. In D. Lasagabaster & Y. Ruiz de Zarobe (Eds.), CLIL in Spain: Implementation, results and teacher training. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Lo, Y., Yi, S., & Lin, A.M.Y. (2015). Designing multilingual and multimodal CLIL frameworks for EFL students. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 18(3), 261–​269. https://​doi. org/​10.1080/​13670​050.2014.988​111

384

CLIL in various forms around the world Long, M.H. (1981). Input, interaction and second language acquisition. In H. Winitz (Ed.), Native language and foreign language acquisition (Vol. 379, pp. 259–​278). Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. Lorenzo, F., Casal, S., & Moore, P. (2010). The effects of content and language integrated learning in European education: Key findings from the Andalusian bilingual sections evaluation project. Applied Linguistics, 31(3), 418–​4 42. https://​doi.org/​10.1093/​app​l in/​a mp​041 Madrid Fernández, D., Ortega-​Martín, J.L., & Hughes, S.P. (2019). CLIL and language education in Spain. In K. Tsuchiya & M.D. Pérez Murillo (Eds.), Content and language integrated learning in Spanish and Japanese contexts: Policy, practice and pedagogy (pp. 11–​35). Palgrave. Maljers, A., Marsh, D., & Wolff, D. (Eds.). (2007). Windows on CLIL: Content and language integrated learning in the spotlight. European Platform for Dutch Education. Marsh, D. (Ed.). (2002). CLIL/​EMILE: The European dimension. University of Jyväskylä. https://​jyx. jyu.fi/​bitstr​eam/​han​d le/​123456​789/​47616/​1/​d avi​d _ ​m a​r sh-​rep​ort.pdf Marsh, D., & Hood, P. (2008). Content and language integrated learning in primary East Asia contexts (CLIL PEAC). In Primary innovations: Regional seminar, Bangkok (43–​50). British Council East Asia. www.teac​h ing​engl ​i sh.org.uk/​sites/​teach​eng/​fi les/​downl​oad-​access​engl ​i sh-​publi​cati​ons-​proc​eedi​ ngs-​bang​kok-​2008.pdf Menezes, E., & Juan-​Garau, M. (2015). English learners’ willingness to communicate and achievement in CLIL and formal instruction contexts. In M. Juan-​Garau & J. Salazar-​Noguera (Eds.), Content-​ based language learning in multilingual educational environments (pp. 221–​236). Springer. https://​doi.org/​ 10.1007/​978-​3 -​319-​11496-​5 _​13 Nguyen, T.B.N. (2019). Content and language integrated learning in Vietnam: evolution of students’ and teachers’ perceptions in an innovative foreign language learning system. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Université Paul Sabatier-​Toulouse III. https://​tel.archi​ves- ​ouver ​tes.fr/​tel- ​02736​0 07 Nikula, T. (1997). Terminological considerations in teaching content through a foreign language. In D. Marsh, B. Marsland, & T. Nikula (Eds.), Aspects of implementing plurilingual education (pp. 5–​8). University of Jyväskylä. Nikula, T. (2005). English as an object and tool of study in classrooms: Interactional effects and pragmatic implications. Linguistics and Education, 16(1), 27–​58. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.lin​ ged.2005.10.001 Nikula, T., & Moore, P. (2019). Exploring translanguaging in CLIL. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 22(2), 237–​249. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​13670 ​050.2016.1254​151 Office of the President of the Philippines. (2003). Executive Order Nos: 201–​300. Manila Malacanang Records Office. www.offi​cial​g aze​t te.gov.ph/​2003/​04/​26/​execut​ive-​order-​no-​201-​s-​2003/​ Ohlsson, E. (2021). Den synliggjorda vokabulären och praktiken. Gymnasieelevers akademiska skrivande på svenska. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Gothenburg. http://​hdl.han​d le.net/​ 2077/​68077 Paulsrud, B. (2019). Mapping CLIL in Sweden. In L.K. Sylvén (Ed.), Investigating content and language integrated learning. Insights from Swedish high schools (pp. 19–​34). Multilingual Matters. https://​doi. org/​10.21832/​978178​8922​425-​0 05 Pfenninger, S. (2016). All good things come in threes: Early English learning, CLIL and motivation in Switzerland. Cahiers de l’ILSL, 48, 119–​147. Pimentel Siqueira, D.S., Landau, J., & Albuquerque Paraná, R. (2018). Innovations and challenges in CLIL implementation in South America. Theory Into Practice, 57(3), 196–​203. https://​doi.org/​ 10.1080/​0 0405​841.2018.1484​033 Pinner, R. (2013). Authenticity of purpose: CLIL as a way to bring meaning and motivation into EFL contexts. Asian EFL Journal, 15(4), 49–​69. Rallo Fabra, L., & Jacob, K. (2015). Does CLIL enhance oral skills? Fluency and pronunciation errors by Spanish-​Catalan learners of English. In M. Juan-​Garau & J. Salazar-​Noguera (Eds.), Content-​ based language learning in multilingual educational environments (pp. 163–​178). Springer. https://​doi.org/​ 10.1007/​978-​3 -​319-​11496-​5 Reilly, T., & Medrano, P. (2009). MEC/​British Council Bilingual Project: Twelve years of education and a smooth transition into secondary. In E. Dafouz & M. Guerrini (Eds.), CLIL across educational levels: experiences from primary, secondary and tertiary contexts (pp. 59–​70). Richmond Santillana. Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (2011). Which language competencies benefit from CLIL? An insight into applied linguistics research. In Y. Ruiz de Zarobe, J.M. Sierra & F. Gallardo (Eds.), Content and foreign language integrated learning: contributions to multilingualism in European contexts. Peter Lang.

385

Liss Kerstin Sylvén and Keiko Tsuchiya Ruiz de Zarobe, Y., & Lasagabaster, D. (2010). CLIL in a bilingual community: The Basque autonomous community. In D. Lasagabaster & Y. Ruiz de Zarobe (Eds.), CLIL in Spain. Implementation, results and teacher training (pp. 12–​29). Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Rumlich, D. (2016). Evaluating bilingual education in Germany: CLIL students’ general English proficiency, EFL self-​concept and interest. Peter Lang. Seikkula-​L eino, J. (2007). CLIL learning: Achievement levels and affective factors. Language and Education, 21(4), 328–​341. https://​doi.org/​10.2167/​le635.0 Sim, J., & Kim, E. (2016). Exploring the potential of CLIL: Focusing on local culture. English Language & Literature Teaching, 22(3), 167–​191. Suwannoppharat, K., & Chinokul, S. (2015). Applying CLIL to English language teaching in Thailand: Issues and challenges. Latin American Journal of Content and Language Integrated Learning, 8(2), 237–​254. https://​doi.org/​10.5294/​lac​l il Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. Input in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 165–​179. Sylvén, L.K. (2013). CLIL in Sweden –​why does it not work? A metaperspective on CLIL across contexts in Europe. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16(3), 301–​320. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​13670 ​050.2013.777​387 Sylvén, L.K. (2019a). CLIL, CLISS and the Swedish context: An overview. In L.K. Sylvén (Ed.), Investigating content and language integrated learning. Insights from Swedish high schools (pp. 3–​ 18). Multilingual Matters. https://​doi.org/​10.21832/​978178​8922​425- ​0 04 Sylvén, L.K. (Ed.). (2019b). Investigating content and language integrated learning: Insights from Swedish high schools. Multilingual Matters. https://​doi.org/​10.21832/​978178​8922​425 Takala, S. (1996). Introduction. In D. Marsh, P. Oksman-​R inkinen, & S. Takala (Eds.), Mainstream bilingual education in the Finnish vocational sector (pp. 9–​16). Finnish National Board of Education. Taylor, P. (2022). Perceptions of in-​service teachers towards CLIL and CLIL teachers’ target language and intercultural competences: The context of English-​medium instruction schools in Thailand. LEARN Journal: Language Education and Acquisition Research Network, 15(1), 565–​587. https://​so04. tci-​tha​ijo.org/​i ndex.php/​LEARN/​a rti​cle/​v iew/​256​738 Thompson, A.S., & Sylvén, L.K. (2019). CLIL and motivation revisited: A longitudinal perspective. In L.K. Sylvén (Ed.), Investigating content and language integrated learning: Insights from Swedish high schools (pp. 76–​97). Multilingual Matters. https://​doi.org/​10.21832/​978178​8922​425- ​0 09 Thi Thuy, L.N. (2016). Reconsidering the first steps of CLIL implementation in Vietnam. European Journal of Language Policy, 8(1), 29–​56. Washburn, L. (1997). English immersion in Sweden: A case study of Röllingby High School 1987–​1989. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Stockholm University. http://​u rn.kb.se/​reso​lve?urn=​ urn:nbn:se:su:diva-​152​882 Watanabe, Y., Ikeda, M., & Izumi, S. (2011). CLIL (content and language integrated learning): New challenges in foreign language education at Sophia University. Volume 1: Principles and methodologies [in Japanese]. Sophia University Press. Widdowson, H.G. (1990). Aspects of language teaching. Oxford University Press. Wolff, D. (2007). CLIL in Europe. Goethe Institut. www.goe​the.de/​ges/​spa/​dos/​i fs/​ceu/​en2751​ 287.htm Yamano, Y. (2019). Utilizing the CLIL approach in a Japanese primary school: A comparative study of CLIL and regular EFL lessons. In K. Tsuchiya & M.D. Pérez Murillo (Eds.), Content and language integrated learning in Spanish and Japanese contexts: Policy, practice and pedagogy (pp. 91–​124). Palgrave. https://​doi.org/​10.1007/​978-​3 -​030-​27443-​6 _​5 Yang, W., & Gosling, M. (2014). What makes a Taiwan CLIL programme highly recommended or not recommended? International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 17(4), 394–​409. https://​ doi.org/​10.1080/​13670​050.2013.808​168 Yassin, S.M., Marsh, D., Tek, O.E., & Ying, L. Y. (2009). Learners’ perceptions towards the teaching of science through English in Malaysia: A quantitative analysis. International CLIL Research Journal, 1(2), 54–​69.

386

387

26 CLIL IN THE NORDIC COUNTRIES Sotiria Varis and Anssi Roiha

Introduction Nordic countries (i.e., Iceland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and Finland) are traditionally known for their somewhat similar education systems, often referred to as the Nordic model of education. However, this uniformity has been challenged by Lundahl (2016), who questioned whether such a Nordic model still exists, as more differences in the education systems between the countries can be identified nowadays than in the late 20th century, when social cohesion and equality guided the reforms in Nordic compulsory education. Lundahl (2016) proposes that particularly Swedish education is nowadays starting to be characterised by ‘extensive marketization and privatization practices’ (p. 3). Nonetheless, language education in the Nordic countries is considered to be very similar, with approximately the same amount of foreign language teaching in compulsory education and with English being the dominant foreign language (e.g., Björklund et al., 2013). Moreover, by international standards, the Nordic countries have been active in providing English-​ medium instruction (EMI) in tertiary education (Airey et al., 2017; Arnbjörnsdóttir, 2020a, 2020b; Hellekjær, 2010). Despite some of their similarities, the Nordic countries differ in the way content and language integrated learning (CLIL) is taken up in compulsory education. The Nordic countries have, to a certain degree, followed the European trend of offering CLIL education as a strategy to increase multilingualism and respond to the challenges of migration. However, CLIL has received fluctuating attention in the primary and lower secondary schools of each country and its implementation varies considerably, whether it be the result of grassroots initiatives (i.e., initiated by individual teachers) or of a more top-​ down, coordinated approach funded by education authorities. Further differences relate to how CLIL is understood (Björklund et al., 2013). For example, CLIL is commonly defined as a form of language education in which content is taught and learned using a foreign or additional language (Coyle et al., 2010). In Sweden, the term språk-​och innehållsintegrerad inlärning och undervisning (SPRINT) is equivalent to CLIL and is used to describe most bilingual education. However, it has also been argued that EMI might be a more accurate term for Swedish bilingual education, as Swedish pupils are exposed to extramural English while using English at school (Toth, 2018; Yoxsimer Paulsrud, 2014). DOI: 10.4324/9781003173151-32

387

Sotiria Varis and Anssi Roiha

Against this backdrop, this chapter explores CLIL curricular implementations with a twofold aim. First, the chapter analyses whether and how CLIL has informed the design of national curricula for compulsory education in Iceland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and Finland. Compulsory education (i.e., primary and lower secondary education) in the Nordic countries is understood as the mandatory years of education starting at the age of six/​seven and ending at the age of 16/​17. The chapter then provides a descriptive review of CLIL research on pupils’ language and content learning in each Nordic country between 2010 and 2020. After reviewing this work, we argue that CLIL as such is absent in the educational curricula of Nordic countries, except for Finland, and this is evident in irregular CLIL implementation. We further argue that clearer curriculum-​level guidelines for language-​enriching educational approaches like CLIL can help to unify and increase the use of CLIL. The chapter concludes with implications for CLIL practice and research in the Nordic countries. To address the first topic, we analysed national curricula and relevant materials for each of the examined contexts from the corresponding national education authorities.1 To address the second topic, we identified empirical studies in English through electronic database searches. The databases included the Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), Elsevier, Google Scholar, ProQuest, ScienceDirect, Taylor and Francis, and Wiley Online Library. The search terms were a combination of three strings related to compulsory education, CLIL, and national Nordic contexts (see Table 26.1). Quotation marks were used for each term and Boolean operators, like AND and OR, were placed between the terms for a more refined search, for example “elementary education” OR “elementary school” AND “CLIL” AND “Iceland” OR “Icelandic”. The majority of the search results were in English, and the titles, abstracts, and keywords of the retrieved studies were manually screened for relevance. The final selection of nine relevant empirical studies was based on the predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria presented in Table 26.2.

Table 26.1  Search terms used in literature search String 1a

String 2b

String 3

elementary education elementary school primary education primary school lower secondary education lower secondary school compulsory education

content and language integrated learning, CLIL språk-​och innehållsintegrerad inlärning och undervisning, SPRINT English-​medium instruction, EMI bilingual education multilingual education plurilingual education, plurilingualism

Nordic education Nordic countries Nordic area Iceland, Icelandic Denmark, Danish Norway, Norwegian Sweden, Swedish Finland, Finnish

a The search terms ‘elementary education/​school’ and ‘primary education/​school’ were used to identify publications written in British and American English. At the time of this review, primary education in the Nordic countries may refer to Grades 1–​6 (Finland and Sweden; children aged 6–12) or Grades 1–7 (Denmark, Iceland, and Norway; children aged 6–13). Lower secondary education may refer to Grades 7–9 (Finland and Sweden) or Grades 8–10 (Denmark, Iceland, and Norway). b Because the terms språk-​och innehållsintegrerad inlärning och undervisning, SPRINT, English-​medium instruction, and EMI are used to describe bilingual education and CLIL in Swedish secondary education (Yoxsimer Paulsrud, 2014), they were included as search terms to increase chances of retrieving more studies from the Swedish context.

388

CLIL in the Nordic countries Table 26.2  Inclusion and exclusion criteria Inclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria

Studies explicitly focusing on CLIL in the title, abstract, or keywords; or on multilingualism and bilingualism through CLIL

Studies on formal foreign language learning, content-​based learning, and full immersion education

Studies focusing on the Icelandic, Danish, Norwegian, Swedish, and Finnish contexts

Studies focusing on any other European context

Studies on primary or lower secondary education

Studies on pre-​primary, upper secondary, vocational, and tertiary education

Studies on CLIL pupils’ learning of content or language

Studies focusing on CLIL stakeholders other than pupils (e.g., teachers, pre-​service teachers and teacher education, parents, school principals)

Studies published as doctoral dissertations or international, peer-​reviewed empirical research

Studies published as editorials or bachelor’s and master’s theses

Studies published in English, or studies including an English abstract or extended summary in English

Studies published in languages other than English

Although it is challenging to distinguish between the different forms of bilingual education (e.g., Somers & Surmont, 2012), we differentiated CLIL from language immersion mostly based on whether the language used as the medium of instruction has an official status in the country (e.g., Lasagabaster & Sierra, 2010). Moreover, immersion tends to follow a more structured programme and aims at functional bilingualism, whereas CLIL is more flexible in its implementation and language goals (e.g., Nikula & Mård-​M iettinen, 2014). For instance, we regard Swedish-​medium bilingual education in Finland as immersion and have thus left it outside the scope of this chapter. The nine selected studies are presented in the following section, after a description of curricular affordances, or lack thereof, for CLIL in each of the examined contexts.

Overview of language curricula in the Nordic countries This section provides an overview of language curricula in compulsory education in the Nordic countries, focusing in particular on how these national documents support (or not) CLIL implementation. Although Nordic curriculum documents could support CLIL programmes in compulsory education, such programmes either encounter resistance or are only recently being developed in Denmark, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden (see Eurydice, 2006; Hilmarsson-​Dunn & Kristinsson, 2010; Lialikhova, 2018a; Mahan, 2020; Taylor, 2019). On the other hand, the Finnish curriculum directly addresses different forms of bilingual education and corresponding regulations. The following subsections elaborate on each Nordic context.

Iceland The most recent national curriculum for the ten-​year compulsory education in Iceland was published in 2014 by the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture (2014) and is known as 389

Sotiria Varis and Anssi Roiha

the National Curriculum Guide for Compulsory Education. This document comprises two guides including the general section and the guide with subject areas. The general section constitutes a frame for ‘the common objectives for learning and teaching’ premised on the six fundamental pillars of ‘literacy, sustainability, health, and welfare, democracy and human rights, equality and creativity’ (Ministry of Education, Science and Culture, 2014, pp. 5–​7). The curricular guide with subject areas details the purpose, rationale, goals, and assessment guidelines for each subject taught in compulsory education. It provides general criteria that are adapted in more detail in municipal school curricula and operation plans approved by school councils (see Guide and operation plan, section 12). According to the Icelandic national curriculum, foreign language learning is encouraged in compulsory education and recommended at 10.27% of the weekly timetabled hours (see section 8.5, Reference timetable). While the curriculum clearly refers to the teaching of English, Danish, Swedish, and Norwegian as foreign languages, there is no mention of teaching through a foreign or additional language. Moreover, bilingualism is not defined and does not seem to extend beyond learning Icelandic Sign Language in tandem with Icelandic as a mother tongue in school contexts. The curriculum acknowledges the various benefits of active bilingualism for children whose language at home is one other than Icelandic, yet suggests that it be developed through teaching Icelandic as second language at school and that there be parental encouragement for mother tongue development at home. Despite the lack of guidelines on instruction of curricular subjects through a foreign or additional language, the curriculum discusses subject integration as a means to meaningful and interdisciplinary education for pupils, but also the use of different subject-​specific methodologies and techniques for learning (see section 8.4, Subjects and subject areas). It further stipulates that the timetabling and organisation of subject areas and subjects be left to the discretion of each school and its school community, so long as they follow the fundamental pillars, emphases, and key competences described in the national curriculum. This flexibility, in conjunction with the structure provided through the described main objectives, teaching methods, study assessment, competence criteria, and other issues (e.g., connection with interdisciplinary factors, integration), could afford room for CLIL implementation in Icelandic schools, although it would depend on school initiative.

Denmark The most recent national curriculum for the nine-​year compulsory education in Denmark was published in 2019 by the Ministry of Children and Education. The national curriculum comprises the subject-​specific indicative curricula and teaching guides, which are compiled in individual subject booklets along with a stipulation of the Common Objectives and the subject’s purpose, areas of competence, and focus areas (Ministry of Children and Education, 2019, p. 3). According to the Danish national curriculum (Ministry of Children and Education, 2018a), compulsory education includes three subject areas (i.e., subjects in the humanities, practical/​creative subjects, and science subjects), with primary education further including three compulsory topics (i.e., road safety; health and sexual education, family studies; and educational and employment-​related orientation). Languages belong to the subject area of humanities, and schools are obligated to provide teaching in Danish as a mother tongue and English as a foreign language throughout compulsory education. German and French are offered as elective subjects in Grades 5–​9, Spanish is offered as an experimental elective, and common immigrant languages are offered for one year as elective subjects in Grades 7–​9. 390

CLIL in the Nordic countries

The Danish national curriculum defines pupils’ mother tongue as the language learned at home from birth, thus forming foundations of linguistic knowledge and language experiences, bearing emotional significance, and having implications for identity. Denmark is obliged by a European Directive to provide instruction in pupils’ mother tongue when they come from an EU/​E EA country, the Faroe Islands, or Greenland. Thus, a limited number of bilingual children attending compulsory education can be taught Danish as a second language and can receive instruction in their mother tongue, the subject of which is optional and divided into three stages (i.e., Grades 1–​3, Grades 4–​6, and Grades 7–​9). The Danish national curriculum stresses the importance of teaching common immigrant languages in a manner that promotes linguistic performance, and communication for critical and reflective participation in school and society. The selected teaching content and ways of working in common immigrant language classes can be closely linked to language and other subjects. Moreover, the shared central features of foreign language subjects enable linguistic and cultural interdisciplinarity, and common immigrant language course content can form the basis for external interdisciplinarity with other curricular subjects. The subject-​specific teaching guides prepared by the Ministry include cross-​cutting topics that serve as inspiration for teaching a particular subject. Although the Danish national curriculum does not define or explain curricular subject instruction through a foreign or additional language, it advocates language awareness and linguistic development through curricular subjects. The curriculum also acknowledges previous language start, and encourages multimodality in linguistic expression and the use of linguistic repertoires for knowledge sharing. In 2015, new legislation passed by the Danish Parliament enables municipalities to establish municipality-​f unded international compulsory education schools. These schools follow the national education guidelines and provide foreign –​and in some cases, Danish –​pupils instruction in English, German, or French (Ministry of Children and Education, 2018b).

Norway The most recent national curriculum for the ten-​year compulsory education in Norway was published in 2019 by the Ministry of Education and Research (2019) and comprises four parts, i.e., the core curriculum, the quality framework, the distribution of teaching hours per subject in compulsory education, and the subject curricula. The core curriculum outlines the foundational interconnected values, which are realised by the subject curricula through their corresponding content and goals (Ministry of Education and Research, 2019). Language is described as a vehicle to theoretical development (e.g., higher-​order thinking and concise expression of oneself in argumentation, disputation, or demonstration) and cultural tradition (e.g., empathetic ability, expression, and creative powers). Since 2006, language education has been approached as an education and humanities subject, and compulsory education has been offering foreign language classes in languages that vary widely in linguistic origin and geographical area, classes in certain languages as a second language (e.g., Finnish), and programmes for further specialisation in certain foreign languages (Utdanningsdirektoratet, 2006). Textual references to multilingualism in subject curricula for foreign language teaching do not conceptualise or explicitly describe bi-​or multilingualism. Rather, they suggest that pupils are already multilingual because they have had contact with foreign language-​related subjects at school. Such textual references advocate multilingualism as a resource for pupils at and outside of school, and argue that pupils draw on language 391

Sotiria Varis and Anssi Roiha

learning skills developed in different contexts, helping them to make language learning at school more effective and meaningful (Utdanningsdirektoratet, 2020). Foreign languages are connected to the interdisciplinary theme of democracy and citizenship, but the subject curricula for foreign languages do not address further interdisciplinarity and teaching through a foreign language, or what constitutes bilingual education in compulsory education. In her account of CLIL in Norway, Mahan (2020) clarifies that using a language other than Norwegian or Sámi as the principal language of instruction requires permission from the Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research, which is something usually only private schools –​following their own curricula and typically teaching through English –​apply for. Indeed, the 2017 governmental policy stipulated that the language of instruction in public schools be only Norwegian and Sámi, consequently restricting CLIL programmes, which were supported by the grassroots initiative of small teacher and pupil groups (Mahan, 2020).

Sweden The current national curriculum outlining the nine-​year compulsory education in Sweden was launched in 2011 and revised in 2018 (Swedish National Agency for Education, 2018). It notes the close relationship among language, learning, and personal identity, provides specifications on mother tongue instruction when other than Swedish, and promotes certain ethical values and an international perspective throughout (Tinsley & Comfort, 2012). Despite this focus on the aspect of language, the Swedish curriculum does not explicitly mention CLIL or any other type of bilingual education. This is corroborated by Sylvén (2013), who observed that CLIL is not mentioned in any official document in the Swedish education system, excluding a brief definition of CLIL being ‘the teaching of a subject in another language than the student’s first language’ (Skolverket, 2010, as cited in Sylvén, 2013, p. 304). Yoxsimer Paulsrud (2014) argues that ‘content instruction through a foreign language was then [in 2000] and remains now a broad concept that had not been defined clearly in the Swedish school system’ (p. 56). Nonetheless, curricular elements, like the clear subject knowledge requirements, language development through content subjects, culture, and task-​based learning, may indirectly encourage the use of CLIL. Despite the claims that CLIL has increased in Sweden in more recent years, the author notes that there are no recent official national statistics on the status of CLIL in Sweden, but the Swedish National Agency for Education has somewhat monitored English-​medium schools in compulsory education. Until 2009, a regulation was that the teaching of each subject had to be at least 50% Swedish-​medium. This was then changed so that the overall teaching time in the curriculum cannot be more than 50% of English-​ medium, which enabled the teaching of individual subjects predominantly in English (Yoxsimer Paulsrud, 2019).

Finland The current national curriculum for the nine-​ year compulsory education in Finland, known as the National Core Curriculum for Basic Education, was reformed in 2014 by the Finnish National Agency for Education and taken into use in 2016 (Finnish National Agency for Education, 2014). Similar to the previous curriculum, the current curriculum has a section dedicated to bilingual education, which is divided into large-​scale (i.e., at least 25% of the entire syllabus) and small-​scale (i.e., less than 25% of the entire syllabus) bilingual 392

CLIL in the Nordic countries

education. Large-​scale bilingual education is further divided into early total immersion in national languages (i.e., Swedish or Sámi), in which at least 50% of the teaching has to be in the immersion language, and other large-​scale bilingual education, in which at least 25% of the overall teaching has to be carried out in the target language. Small-​scale bilingual education, in turn, is alternatively labelled language-​enriched education. The term CLIL is not mentioned in the curriculum. However, based on our distinction between CLIL and immersion (see also Lasagabaster & Sierra, 2010; Nikula & Mård-​M iettinen, 2014), the other large-​scale bilingual education and small-​scale bilingual education could also be labelled CLIL. The curriculum provides a flexible space for implementing CLIL. It states that bilingual education can start already in pre-​primary education and continue throughout compulsory education or just parts of it. It also specifies that ‘in addition to the actual language of instruction in a school (i.e., Finnish, Swedish or in some cases Sámi, Roma, or sign language), another language may also be used if it is estimated that this will not risk the pupils’ ability to follow the instruction’ (Finnish National Agency for Education, 2014, section 10). The national curriculum does not stipulate the language objectives for bilingual education, which are to be determined by the education provider (i.e., the municipality), nor does it specify which subjects can be taught in the target language. Rather, it states that ‘it is important to consider which subjects or contents it would be meaningful to instruct in the target language’, and that ‘it must be ensured that the pupils’ command of concepts in Finnish/​Swedish, and their ability to understand and produce demanding non-​fiction texts, also read a good level in the instruction of various subjects’ (Finnish National Agency for Education, 2014, section 10.1.1). Finally, the curriculum does not specify the languages in which CLIL could be offered. However, Mustaparta’s (2011) survey showed that the most common language for bilingual education (i.e., immersion and CLIL) was English (58% of municipalities). Swedish, the most common language in immersion education, was used as a language of instruction in 26% of the municipalities organising bilingual education. In addition, 9% of municipalities offered bilingual education in German, 8% in Sámi, and 7% in French and Russian. Peltoniemi et al.’s (2018) more recent survey further substantiates English as the dominant CLIL language in Finland.

Observations on the Nordic curricula The examined curricula share support for foreign language learning, yet include mostly vague references to bilingualism or multilingualism, and possibilities for CLIL implementation, when present, are indirectly addressed. Although Icelandic curricular documents note bilingualism as a domestic affair, except for Icelandic sign language and Icelandic as a mother tongue, they afford schools freedom in decision-​m aking as to subject integration for interdisciplinary learning, and regard integration as meaningful to Icelandic learners’ education. The Danish and Norwegian curricula acknowledge language development through curricular subjects and involve several foreign language subjects. While the Danish curriculum acknowledges the personal and societal significance of languages for the pupils as individuals, the Norwegian curriculum suggests that pupils are already multilingual, with linguistic resources that facilitate language learning. The Danish curriculum makes no provisions for CLIL as such, but it addresses language awareness and mentions that shared language content can support external interdisciplinarity with other curricular subjects. The Norwegian curriculum, however, does not give a definition of bilingualism nor does it describe interdisciplinarity between foreign languages and other subjects, except for the 393

Sotiria Varis and Anssi Roiha

general themes of democracy and citizenship. In the Swedish curriculum, bilingualism is not defined and, but for a brief definition elsewhere, CLIL is absent. However, its curricular features, supported by later legislation about English-​medium instruction, could possibly afford educators space to try CLIL. In contrast, our analysis shows that the Finnish curriculum, which distinguishes between large-​scale and small-​scale bilingual education, explicitly supports bilingual education that adheres to subject content objectives, and gives educational providers the flexibility to determine the language objectives for bilingual education. These curricular elements may make CLIL possible in Nordic educational contexts. The following section elaborates on studies of CLIL programmes from the perspective of pupil learning.

CLIL pupils’ content and language learning in the Nordic countries This section presents a selection of studies on pupils’ content and language learning outcomes in CLIL conducted between 2010 and 2020. Our search for empirical research on this topic yielded only a small number of studies, which suggests that recent empirical studies focusing on this research area are scant in the Nordic context. In Finland, for instance, despite several CLIL studies in the past (for a review, see Ringbom, 2012), the continued interest in and practice of CLIL in compulsory education was not reflected in the number of recent studies. This also seems to be the case for Norway and Sweden. The nine selected studies are presented under their respective national context. In each of the following subsections, we first present the reviewed studies on primary education and then the reviewed studies on lower secondary education.

CLIL in Iceland and Denmark Because Iceland and Denmark are two of the few European countries that do not provide CLIL instruction (Eurydice, 2017), this subsection rather explains the little to no research on CLIL within these contexts. In Iceland, although learning Danish and English is compulsory (Eurydice, 2017), neither extramural conversational English uptake nor traditional English language teaching pedagogies in upper secondary education is sufficient preparation for academic study in English-​mediated university programmes (Arnbjörnsdóttir, 2020a, 2020b). In conjunction with out-​of-​sync policies that hinder language support to students (Arnbjörnsdóttir, 2020b), this situation suggests that a CLIL approach could be beneficial for pupils’ foreign language learning in compulsory education. However, despite Icelanders’ very positive attitudes towards learning English, (upper secondary) pupils have expressed disagreement with being taught through English, and Iceland avoids implementing bilingual (CLIL) programmes due to fears that English will threaten or compromise the Icelandic language in the long run (Hilmarsson-​Dunn & Kristinsson, 2010). In Denmark, English is highly valued and the Danish Ministry of Education is invested in the development of English competences in compulsory education, while international schools may offer instruction in English, French, or German (Taylor, 2019). However, earlier considerations about the high financial cost of introducing CLIL (e.g., teacher training, preparing and distributing appropriate teaching materials, pupils’ official certification) and aspects of the national context have deterred education authorities and schools from experimenting with CLIL initiatives in Danish primary and secondary education (Eurydice, 2006). Consequently, CLIL (in English) is not widespread in Denmark nowadays (Taylor, 2019). 394

CLIL in the Nordic countries

CLIL in Norway Initial interest in CLIL in the early 1990s was sparked by Glenn Ole Hellekjær’s research on upper secondary school pupils, and the subsequently created CLIL projects resulted in reports on teachers’ and school leaders’ experiences (Mahan, 2020). These initiatives later encouraged research on CLIL pupils’ receptive skills (i.e., reading and listening proficiency) (see Mahan, 2020), although the development of productive skills remains underexplored (Lialikhova, 2018a). This product-​oriented CLIL research demonstrated the positive influence of CLIL on pupils’ language outcomes, yet the results could be ‘explained by CLIL students’ extra willingness and interest in English or their socioeconomic background’ (Mahan, 2020, p. 43). Moreover, although CLIL projects in Norwegian schools seldom select pupils based on academic ability (Brevik & Moe, 2012), some CLIL programmes require that pupils have high grades in English (Mahan, 2020). Another contextual factor bearing on CLIL research in Norway is the absence of an official policy on CLIL teaching, rendering CLIL classes dependent on local school and teaching initiatives (Lialikhova, 2018a; Svenhard et al., 2007). Hence, CLIL teaching is voluntary, suggesting that schools and teachers that participate in CLIL studies are especially committed and motivated (Brevik & Moe, 2012). CLIL projects in Norway have been primarily implemented in upper secondary schools (Drew, 2013), where most CLIL research has focused (e.g., Svenhard et al., 2007), as well as higher education (e.g., Hellekjær, 2010). Lialikhova (2018a) attributes this to practical possibilities allowing for more than the short-​term CLIL projects introduced in compulsory education. In this section, we present the few studies conducted on CLIL in Norwegian compulsory education. Brevik and Moe (2012) reported their findings from a CLIL project in 2007–​2009 that involved Norwegian schools interested in applying CLIL to their curriculum. Their study particularly focused on lower secondary schools that wanted to implement social science teaching in English (1.5/​hours per week for two years), and suggested CLIL methods or approaches in a manner that offered pupils participation and teachers decision-​ m aking power. Concerning the 10th graders, Brevik and Moe (2012) found that pupils’ experience of CLIL transitioned from acceptance to enthusiasm and, then, from scepticism to satisfaction. The small quantitative part of their study with 7th graders, who received between 30 and 35 CLIL lessons, suggested that CLIL pupils early in their CLIL classes performed better than their non-​CLIL control group counterparts, although the reasons accounting for this result are unknown. The authors further found that, as anticipated, both groups improved their receptive skills, i.e., listening and reading, and that the pupils in the weakest CLIL group showed the most progress. While the authors caution about limitations due to the small number of participants, they argue that all pupils may benefit from a CLIL approach, contrary to some political arguments made against pupils’ exposure to more than one foreign language. Lialikhova (2018a) quantitatively examined 9th graders’ oral skills during a six-​week CLIL intervention, where three 45-​m inute CLIL lessons replaced one history and two English lessons per week. She found that the impact of the intervention on pupils’ oral language competence was significant for the high-​achiever group, whose fluency, vocabulary, and pronunciation improved greatly. For the mid-​achiever group, the impact of the intervention was marginally significant, also seen in their fluency and vocabulary development. The lack of substantial progress in listening comprehension and grammar were partly aligned with other European studies, but were attributed to pupils’ fairly well-​developed comprehension skills before the project. 395

Sotiria Varis and Anssi Roiha

Comparing the same intervention context to English language classes, Lialikhova (2018b) explored pupils’ willingness to communicate orally in English and factors motivating or demotivating pupils’ engagement in oral activities in CLIL. The findings indicated that most pupils’ motivation and willingness to communicate orally had been reinforced in CLIL, which the author ascribed to the more naturalistic oral communication offered by CLIL in comparison to the prepared oral presentations in EFL lessons. The findings further indicated that pupils’ willingness to communicate was not increased in the low-​achiever group, which might be explained by the linguistically and cognitively demanding activities. Motivating factors were extrinsic motivation at school, intrinsic motivation in out-​of-​class English-​ mediated activities, peer communication in groups, pupils’ topic familiarity, and class discussions after group preparations. Demotivating factors were long subject-​specific texts, difficult or boring texts or topics, and, potentially, negative attitudes towards the topic. In addition, the teacher repeatedly resorting to Norwegian and pupils automatically switching to Norwegian, when used by their classmates, were demotivating factors for frequently using English in the CLIL lessons. Finally, shyness and nervousness, reported by nine pupils, were also demotivating factors. Lialikhova (2019) investigated pupils’ construction of content and language knowledge through peer interaction, and the extent to which homogeneous grouping affects pupils’ co-​ construction. The results suggested that pupils with high-​level and mid-​level L2 proficiency successfully built content, rather than language, knowledge. Moreover, collaborative dialogue and promoting cognitive development contributed to pupils’ co-​construction. Pupils in the low-​achiever group, however, encountered difficulties in collaborating and avoided performing cognitively demanding activities, unless supported by teacher scaffolding.

CLIL in Sweden Despite research in Swedish upper secondary education (e.g., Sylvén, 2013; Yoxsimer Paulsrud, 2019), there seems to be very little research on CLIL in primary and lower secondary education. Toth’s (2018) article-​based dissertation addresses the paucity of research on CLIL in Swedish primary education. Toth’s diverse data from grades 4–​6, collected over three years, revealed the stated and practised language policies at the examined primary school, stakeholder beliefs about its CLIL programme, and language choices made in science and mathematics CLIL lessons. Her research highlighted how Swedish was valued as a language of instruction, but assigned a secondary position as a source of support for pupils in CLIL classes. The other valued language of instruction was English, which was privileged at the expense of other languages and supported by local bilingual policies that marginalised multilingual pupils’ linguistic resources. Alongside a native-​speaker ideal and the dominant belief that pupils learn English naturally through ‘forced’ communication with their native English-​speaking CLIL teachers, Toth highlighted stakeholders’ concerns about CLIL pupils’ development of subject-​specific Swedish. Content instruction was not informed by second language perspectives, and content and language subjects barely collaborated. Moreover, although staff and pupils believed that CLIL classes improved their oral proficiency, some CLIL pupils struggled with the content in English, despite translanguaging and peer support in Swedish, and pupils’ opportunities to demonstrate their content knowledge were hindered. Terlević Johansson’s (2011) article-​based dissertation, on the other hand, concerns lower secondary education in Sweden and investigates whether CLIL has a positive impact on German as a second foreign language (L3 German). Terlević Johansson longitudinally 396

CLIL in the Nordic countries

examined 8th-​and 9th-​g rade Swedish pupils in German-​mediated CLIL (N =​8), comparing them to Swedish non-​CLIL peers and German native speakers (L1) (N =​16). She specifically focused on spoken lexicon (vocabulary size and frequency) and communicative strategies. Terlević Johansson found that although there was no direct link between progress in the L3 and L1 proficiency, the L3 German CLIL pupils exhibited greater lexical richness, producing longer and more varied narratives than pupils in the non-​CLIL controls. Because of similar positive results observed in their L2 English, Terlević Johansson argued that CLIL may enhance skills in other foreign languages. These CLIL pupils also developed a higher level of proficiency in L3 German and used L3-​based communication strategies more frequently than their non-​CLIL peers when they experienced communication problems in their L3 German. According to Terlević Johansson (2011, 2013), CLIL had a positive impact on all examined aspects of real-​t ime oral communication, and this impact possibly extended to motivation for foreign language learning, since no CLIL pupil dropped out compared to pupils in the controls, where the drop-​out rate was approximately 35%.

CLIL in Finland Since its inception in Finland in 1991, CLIL has been widely studied from various perspectives. However, although there have been studies on assessment (e.g., Wewer, 2013), and conversation and discourse analysis studies on language use in CLIL classrooms (e.g., Kääntä & Kasper, 2018; Nikula, 2015), few studies in Finland have investigated pupils’ content and language learning outcomes in the past decade. Merisuo-​Storm and Soininen (2014) studied pupils’ L1 development in CLIL education during the first six years of schooling. Their study looked at three CLIL classes in which subjects were studied in English and Finnish, and three classes without any CLIL teaching. The CLIL pupils outperformed their non-​CLIL peers in literacy skills already at the end of Grade 2, and their creative writing skills were more developed at the end of Grade 4. Moreover, they had a more positive attitude towards reading, writing, and foreign language learning. The measurement done at the end of Grade 6 revealed that the CLIL pupils’ spelling was significantly better and their reading skills significantly higher. The difference between boys and girls in the non-​CLIL classes was notable and in favour of the girls, whereas in the CLIL classes boys and girls performed relatively similarly. Aro and Mikkilä-​Erdmann (2015) examined the English language competence of 6th-​ grade CLIL pupils (N =​122) and how school-​external factors correlated with it. The language competence was measured by a standardised test for 9th graders consisting of reading and listening comprehension, dialogue, and text production exercises. The results revealed that the CLIL pupils’ command of English was very high since their average score was 78.8/​ 100, whereas for non-​CLIL 9th graders it was only 68.4/​100. The study also showed that there was a positive correlation between the test results and the CLIL pupils’ parents’ involvement (i.e., English-​related activities done together with the pupil) and parental expectations regarding their child’s future. Merikivi and Pietilä (2014) studied the vocabulary development of 6th-​and 9th-​g rade CLIL pupils (N =​163) and that of their non-​CLIL peers (N =​167). The CLIL pupils had received English-​medium CLIL instruction from Grade 1 onwards, whereas the non-​CLIL pupils had received only formal English language instruction starting from Grade 3. The study found that the CLIL pupils’ receptive and productive vocabularies were significantly larger than those of the non-​CLIL pupils in both grades. More specifically, in Grade 6, CLIL pupils’ receptive vocabulary size was 4,500 word families and their productive vocabulary 397

Sotiria Varis and Anssi Roiha

size was 2,300 word families. Non-​CLIL pupils’ corresponding vocabulary sizes were 1,800 and 800 word families. In Grade 9, CLIL pupils’ receptive vocabulary size was 6,400 word families and their productive vocabulary size was 5,200 word families, whereas the non-​ CLIL pupils’ vocabulary sizes were 3,700 and 2,600 word families, respectively.

Observations on Nordic CLIL research The reviewed studies illustrate several important points for CLIL research. First, English dominates as the language of CLIL instruction, which is reflected in the corresponding research in the Nordic countries (see also Sylvén, 2019; Toth, 2018). Even though Terlević Johansson’s (2011, 2013) studies on German-​medium CLIL are notable exceptions to this trend, more visibility should be given to CLIL in languages other than English in the research field (e.g., for Russian, see Kaunisto, 2019) to better uncover the potential benefits of the approach. Increasing CLIL in other languages than English might likely also increase the corresponding research. Second, there is terminological variation in CLIL (see also Toth, 2018; Yoxsimer Paulsrud, 2014, 2019), suggesting conceptual differences that might complicate cross-​professional and cross-​national research relevant across Nordic compulsory education contexts (Björklund et al., 2013). Third, the reviewed CLIL research indicates the need for pre-​tests with CLIL pupils and non-​CLIL control groups to determine initial differences and whether language learning or overall performance in CLIL might rather be attributed to extramural exposure to the CLIL target language. Especially with English, which has a prevalent status as a foreign language in the Nordic countries, this is likely to play a role in the learning process. Fourth, the reviewed studies show the benefit of comparative and longitudinal study designs (e.g., Merisuo-​Storm & Soininen, 2014; Terlević Johansson, 2011; Toth, 2018), rather than cross-​sectional ones (e.g., Aro & Mikkilä-​Erdmann, 2015; Merikivi & Pietilä, 2014), in evaluating learning outcomes in CLIL, although this is challenging when CLIL programmes are short-​lived. More importantly, however, the reviewed studies indicate the need for further research on pupils’ learning through CLIL in Nordic compulsory education if research is to respond to the sustained efforts to provide CLIL education and support independent CLIL developments in schools in the absence of clear curricular guidelines.

Conclusion This chapter explored CLIL in compulsory education in the Nordic countries between 2010 and 2020. First, it examined whether national curricula provided possibilities for CLIL in ­primary and lower secondary education. Second, it presented CLIL research conducted within the examined national and educational contexts, focusing on pupils’ content and language learning. Our descriptive review included relevant publications including or written entirely in English, thus excluding CLIL-​related studies pertaining to Nordic compulsory education written in regional or national languages of the examined contexts (e.g., for Russian-​medium CLIL in Finnish, see Kaunisto, 2019; for content and language learning in CLIL in Finnish, see Markkanen, 2012). Moreover, our research design accounted for only some alternative terms of CLIL, and most of the studies retrieved using the search terms ‘bilingual’, ‘multilingual’, and ‘plurilingual’ education did not concern CLIL as such (e.g., for bilingval undervisning in Norway, see Svenhard, 2010). Finally, we included published peer-​reviewed studies at the expense of the many bachelor’s and master’s theses –​especially

398

CLIL in the Nordic countries

from Norwegian, Swedish, and Finnish universities –​which further substantiate CLIL implementation in compulsory education and could offer a more rounded description of the CLIL landscape in the Nordic context. Our analysis of educational curricula shows that CLIL continues to be a grassroots initiative in the Nordic countries (Lialikhova, 2018a; Svenhard et al., 2007) which results in mostly short-​term, restricted, and widely varied projects (e.g., Lialikhova, 2018a; Mahan, 2020). Moreover, indirect, or vague references to bilingualism or interdisciplinary learning in official curricular documents complicate the integration of content and language, as well as the assessment of pupils’ proficiency in the language used as the medium of instruction. Since language objectives are not explicitly determined, teachers assess students’ language learning based on their impressions (Wewer, 2013). A lack of language objectives further complicates our understanding of the actual effect of CLIL on pupils’ language development. Given the predominance of English-​mediated CLIL, this is especially challenging when CLIL pupils are exposed to extramural English (Sylvén, 2019), or when pupils are particularly interested in or good at English (Lialikhova, 2018a, 2018b; Mahan, 2020). CLIL implementation is further complicated by the unsuccessful combination of material and instructional approaches related to both subject and second language teaching (Nikula, 2015; Toth, 2018), such as translanguaging (Toth, 2018). While the observed positive effects of CLIL on motivation for language learning and language development support CLIL as an adjunct to pupils’ education and multilingual development (Merikivi & Pietilä, 2014; Merisuo-​Storm & Soininen, 2014; Terlević Johansson, 2011, 2013), the optimal conditions for these benefits have yet to be created and the continuation of CLIL programmes is hampered. Nonetheless, CLIL continues to attract the interest of teachers and pupils alike, suggesting a lasting trajectory and promising future developments in Nordic compulsory education.

Note 1 For Iceland, Ministry of Education, Science and Culture; for Denmark, Ministry of Children and Education; for Norway, Ministry of Education and Research; for Sweden, Swedish National Agency for Education; and for Finland, Finnish National Agency for Education.

Further reading Dalton-​Puffer, C., Nikula, T., & Smit, U. (Eds.). (2010). Language use and language learning in CLIL classrooms. John Benjamins. This book presents CLIL research on secondary and tertiary education from when CLIL was spreading in Europe. Because of its time of publication and its range, this is a useful book for learning about earlier concerns surrounding theory, practice, and empirical research in CLIL as a dynamic instructional approach. Nikula, N., Dafouz, E., Moore, P., & Smit, U. (Eds.). (2016). Conceptualising integration in CLIL and multilingual education. Multilingual Matters. This book argues for the inherent connectedness of content and language, and focuses on the conceptualisation and investigation of integration concerning curriculum and pedagogic planning, perceptions, and classroom practices in CLIL. Sylvén, L.K. (Ed.). (2019). Investigating content and language integrated learning: Insights from Swedish high schools. Multilingual Matters. This book provides background information on CLIL in Sweden and presents the findings of a three-​ year research project on science and economics CLIL programmes in Swedish upper secondary schools, centring mostly on the language side of CLIL.

399

Sotiria Varis and Anssi Roiha

References Airey, J., Lauridsen, K.M., Räsänen, A., Salö, L., & Schwach, V. (2017). The expansion of English-​ medium instruction in the Nordic countries: Can top-​down university language policies encourage bottom-​up disciplinary literacy goals? Higher Education, 73, 561–​576. https://​doi.org/​10.1007/​s10​ 734-​015-​9950-​2 Arnbjörnsdóttir, B. (2020a). Transitioning EAL students from EFL classes to EMI programs at the university of Iceland. In S. Dimova & J. Kling (Eds.), Integrating content and language in multilingual universities (pp. 97–​ 113). Springer. https://​doi.org/​https://​doi.org/​10.1007/​978-​3 - ​030-​ 46947-​4 _​6 Arnbjörnsdóttir, B. (2020b). English at the university of Iceland: Students’ perceptions and practices. In M. Kuteeva, K. Kauf hold, & N. Hynninen (Eds.), Language perceptions and practices in multilingual universities (pp. 245–​265). Palgrave Macmillan. https://​doi.org/​https://​doi.org/​10.1007/​978-​ 3-​030-​38755-​6 _​10 Aro, S., & Mikkilä-​Erdmann, M. (2015). School-​external factors in Finnish content and language integrated learning (CLIL) programs. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 59(2), 127–​142. https://​doi.org/​http://​d x.doi.org/​10.1080/​0 0313​831.2014.894​937 Björklund, M., Björklund, S., & Sjöholm, K. (2013). Multilingual policies and multilingual education in the Nordic countries. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 6(1), 1–​22. Brevik, L.M., & Moe, E. (2012). Effects of CLIL teaching on language outcomes. In D. Tsagari & I. Csépes (Eds.), Collaboration in language testing and assessment (pp. 213–​227). Peter Lang. Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge University Press. Drew, I. (2013). Linking readers theatre to CLIL in foreign language education. Nordic Journal of Modern Language Methodology, 2(1), 1–​13. https://​doi.org/​10.46364/​njmlm.v2i1.69 Eurydice. (2006). Content and language integrated learning (CLIL) at school in Europe. www.ind ​i re.it/​luca​ bas/​l kmw_​f​i le/​euryd​ice/​CLIL​_ ​EN.pdf Eurydice. (2017). Key data on teaching languages at school in Europe –​2017 edition. https://​doi.org/​ 10.2797/​62028 Finnish National Agency for Education. (2014). National core curriculum for basic education 2014. Finnish National Agency for Education. Hellekjær, G.O. (2010). Language matters: Assessing lecture comprehension in Norwegian English medium higher education. In C. Dalton-​Puffer, T. Nikula, & U. Smit (Eds.), Language use and language learning in CLIL classrooms (pp. 233–​258). John Benjamins. Hilmarsson-​Dunn, A., & Kristinsson, A.P. (2010). The language situation in Iceland. Current Issues in Language Planning, 11(3), 207–​276. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​14664​208.2010.538​0 08 Kääntä, L., & Kasper, G. (2018). Clarification requests as a method of pursuing understanding in CLIL physics lectures. Classroom Discourse, 9(3), 205–​226. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​19463​ 014.2018.1477​608 Kaunisto, M. (2019). ‘Saako mustan tussin?’ Oppilaiden pyynnöt venäjänkielisessä CLIL-​ alkuopetuksessa [‘Can I have a black marker?’ Pupils’ requests in Russian-​medium CLIL in primary education]. Puhe ja Kieli, 39(1), 99–​118. https://​doi.org/​10.23997/​pk.69132 Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J.M. (2010). Immersion and CLIL in English: More differences than similarities. ELT Journal, 64(4), 367–​375. https://​doi.org/​10.1093/​elt/​ccp​082 Lialikhova, D. (2018a). The impact of a short-​term CLIL intervention project on Norwegian different ability ninth graders’ oral development. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 24(5), 671–​692. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​13670 ​050.2018.1509​055 Lialikhova, D. (2018b). Triggers and constraints of lower secondary students’ willingness to communicate orally in English in a CLIL setting in the Norwegian context. Journal of Immersion and Content-​ Based Language Education, 6(1), 27–​56. https://​doi.org/​10.1075/​jicb.16013.lia Lialikhova, D. (2019). ‘We can do it together!’ But can they? How Norwegian ninth graders co-​ constructed content and language knowledge through peer interaction in CLIL. Linguistics and Education, 54, 100764. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.lin​ged.2019.100​764 Lundahl, L. (2016). Equality, inclusion and marketization of Nordic education: Introductory notes. Research in Comparative & International Education, 11(1), 3–​12. https://​doi.org/​10.1177/​17454​9991​ 6631​059 Mahan, K.R. (2020). Teaching content and language integrated learning (CLIL): Classroom practices and student perspectives in three Norwegian classrooms [Doctoral dissertation, University of South-Eastern

400

CLIL in the Nordic countries Norway]. USN Open Archive. https://​open​a rch​ive.usn.no/​usn-​x mlui/​bitstr​eam/​han​d le/​11250/​ 2654​544/​phd_ ​20​20_​7​1_ ​Ma​han.pdf ?seque​nce=​1&isAllo​wed=​y Markkanen, M. (2012). ‘Hei, mä opin tän ASIAN enkuks!’ Toimintatutkimus ympäristötiedon ainesisältöjen ja vieraan kielen oppimisesta sekä opettamisesta englanninkielissä oppituokioissa [‘Hey, I learned this thing in English!’ An action research on learning and teaching content] [Doctoral dissertation, University of Turku]. UTUPub. https://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-951-29-5154-3. Merikivi, R., & Pietilä, P. (2014). Vocabulary in CLIL and in mainstream education. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 5(3), 487–​497. https://​doi.org/​10.4304/​jltr.5.3.487-​497 Merisuo-​Storm, T., & Soininen, M. (2014). Students’ first language skills after six years in bilingual education. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 5(22), 72–​81. https://​doi.org/​10.5901/​jesr.2014. v4n2p​122 Ministry of Children and Education. (2018a). Municipal international basic schools. https://​eng.uvm.dk/​ prim ​a ry-​a nd-​lower-​second ​a ry-​educat ​ion/​munici​pal-​i ntern​atio​nal-​basic-​scho​ols Ministry of Children and Education. (2018b). Subjects and curriculum. https://​eng.uvm.dk/​prim​a ry-​ and-​lower-​second ​a ry-​educat ​ion/​the-​fol ​kesk​ole/​subje​cts-​a nd-​cur ​r icu ​lum Ministry of Children and Education. (2019). Engelsk –​Faghæfte 2019 [English –​Subject booklet 2019]. https://​emu.dk/​sites/​defa​u lt/​fi les/​2020- ​09/​GSK_ ​F​a gh%C3%A6f​te_ ​E​ngel​sk_ ​2​020.pdf Ministry of Education, Science and Culture. (2014). The Icelandic national curriculum guide for compulsory schools –​with subject areas. www.stjorn​a rra​d id.is/​media/​menn​t ama ​lara​dune​y ti-​media/​media/​r itogs​ kyrs​lur/​ada​l nrs​k _​g r​eina​sk_​e​n s_​2​014.pdf Ministry of Education and Research. (2019). Core curriculum: Values and principles for primary and secondary education. www.regj​erin​gen.no/​conten​t ass​ets/​53d21​ea2b​c3a4​202b​86b8​3cfe​82da​93e/​core-​ cur ​r icu ​lum.pdf Mustaparta, A.K. (2011, May 11). Vieraskielinen opetus yleissivistävässä opetuksessa [CLIL in general education]. Kieli, Koulutus ja Yhteiskunta. www.kieliv​erko​sto.fi/​fi /​journ​a ls/​k ieli-​koulu​t us-​ja-​yhte​ isku​nta-​touko​kuu-​2011/​v ie​rask​ieli​nen-​ope​t us-​yleiss​ivis​t ava​ssa-​opet​u kse​ssa Nikula, T. (2015). Hands-​on tasks in CLIL science classrooms as sites for subject-​specific language use and learning. System, 54, 14–​27. https://​doi.org/​doi:10.1016/​j.sys​tem.2015.04.003 Nikula, T., & Mård-​M iettinen, K. (2014). Language learning in immersion and CLIL classrooms. In J.O. Östman & J. Verschueren (Eds.), Handbook of pragmatics (pp. 1–​24). John Benjamins. Peltoniemi, A., Skinnari, K., Mård-​M iettinen, K., & Sjöberg, S. (2018). Monella kielellä Suomen kunnissa 2017. Selvitys muun laajamittaisen ja suppeamman kaksikielisen varhaiskasvatuksen, esiopetuksen ja perusopetuksen tilanteesta [In many languages in Finnish municipalities 2017. A report on the state of other large-​scale and small-​scale bilingual early childhood education, pre-​school and basic education]. University of Jyväskylä. https://​jyx.jyu.fi/​bitstr​eam/​han​d le/​123456​789/​57577/​978-​951-​ 39-​7391-​9.pdf ?seque​nce=​5&isAllo​wed=​y Ringbom, H. (2012). Review of recent applied linguistics research in Finland and Sweden, with specific reference to foreign language learning and teaching. Language Teaching, 45(4), 490–​514. https://​doi.org/​10.1017/​S02614​4 481​2000​225 Somers, T., & Surmont, J. (2012). CLIL and immersion: How clear-​cut are they? ELT Journal, 66(1), 113–​116. https://​doi.org/​10.1093/​elt/​ccr ​079 Svenhard, B.W. (2010). CLIL –​engelsk og fremmedspråk i andre fag [CLIL –​English and foreign languages in other subjects]. Fremmedspråksenteret. www.hiof.no/​f ss/​sprakv​a lg/​fokus-​pa-​sprak/​f ull​sten​d ig-​ publik​a sjo​n sli​ste/​2010-​5/​f ps24 ​_ ​cli ​l _ ​ne​t t_ ​2​010.pdf Svenhard, B.W., Servant, K., Hellekjær, G.O., & Bøhn, H. (2007). Norway. In A. Maljers, D. Marsh, & D. Wolff (Eds.), Windows on CLIL: Content and language integrated learning in the European spotlight (pp. 139–​146). European Platform for Dutch Education. Swedish National Agency for Education. (2018). Curriculum for the compulsory school, preschool class and school-​age childcare. www.sko​lver​ket.se/​getF​i le?file=​3984 Sylvén, L.K. (2013). CLIL in Sweden –​why does it not work? A metaperspective on CLIL across contexts in Europe. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16(3), 301–​320. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​13670 ​050.2013.777​387 Sylvén, L.K. (Ed.). (2019). Investigating content and language integrated learning: Insights from Swedish high schools. Multilingual Matters. Taylor, S. (2019). Learning English in Denmark. Language Issues: The ESOL Journal, 30(2), 49–​52. Terlević Johansson, K. (2011). Erfolgreiches Deutschlernen durch CLIL? Zu Lexikon und Kommunikationsstrategien in mündlicher L3 schwedischer Schüler mit bilingualem Profil [Successful German

401

Sotiria Varis and Anssi Roiha learning through CLIL? A study of lexicon and communication strategies in Swedish students’ oral L3] [Doctoral dissertation, Gothenburg University]. Gothenburg University Publications Electronic Archive. http://​hdl.han​d le.net/​2077/​26560 Terlević Johansson, K. (2013). Successful learning in L3 German through CLIL? Findings from a study on the oral production of Swedish pupils in lower secondary school. Zeitschrift Für Interkulturellen Fremdsprachenunterricht, 18(2), 15–​26. Tinsley, T., & Comfort, T. (2012). Lessons from abroad: International review of primary languages. Cf BT Education Trust. www.educat ​iond​evel​opme​nttr ​ust.com/​Educat ​ionD​evel​opme​ntTr ​ust/​fi les/​cc/​ ccead​869-​2418-​4cad-​b04a-​d4ae9​8097​4 48.pdf Toth, J. (2018). English-​medium instruction for young learners in Sweden: A longitudinal case study of a primary school class in a bilingual English-​Swedish school [Doctoral dissertation, Stockholm University]. www. diva-​por ​t al.org/​smash/​get/​d iva2:1205​724/​F UL​LTEX​T01.pdf Utdanningsdirektoratet. (2006). Læreplan i fremmedspråk –​programfag i utdanningsprogram for studiespesialisering [Curriculum in foreign languages –​subject programme in educational programme for study specialisation]. Ministry of Education and Research. http://​d ata.udir.no/​k l06/​ PSP1-​01.pdf Utdanningsdirektoratet. (2020). Læreplan i fremmedspråk [Curriculum in foreign languages]. Ministry of Education and Research. https://​d ata.udir.no/​k l06/​v201​906/​laer​epla​ner-​l k20/​FSP01-​ 02.pdf ?lang=​nob Wewer, T. (2013). English language assessment in bilingual CLIL instruction at the primary level in Finland: Search for updated and valid assessment methods. Zeitschrift Für Interkulturellen Fremdsprachenunterricht, 18(2), 76–​87. Yoxsimer Paulsrud, B. (2014). English-​medium instruction in Sweden: Perspectives and practices in two upper secondary schools [Doctoral dissertation, Stockholm University]. http://​du.diva-​por ​t al.org/​smash/​ get/​d iva2:727​238/​F UL​LTEX​T01.pdf Yoxsimer Paulsrud, B. (2019). Mapping CLIL in Sweden. In L.K. Sylvén (Ed.), Investigating content and language integrated learning: Insights from Swedish high schools (pp. 19–​34). Multilingual Matters.

402

403

27 CLIL IN THE NETHERLANDS Three decades of innovation and development Tessa Mearns, Evelyn van Kampen, and Wilfried Admiraal

Introduction This chapter opens with a brief introduction to the broader educational setting in the Netherlands, and a description of how content and language integrated learning (CLIL) and bilingual education are organised and implemented within that setting. It then presents a review of published research on CLIL in the Netherlands, aiming to bring into focus the scope and main findings of research thus far and consider implications for practice and further research. In the Netherlands, CLIL as a pedagogy is an essential aspect of the organisational paradigm of bilingual education (Mearns & de Graaff, 2018a) within which most CLIL teaching in the Netherlands takes place. Therefore, this chapter will take the same attitude as Morton and Llinares (2017), addressing CLIL on both organisational/​institutional and pedagogical/​classroom levels.

CLIL within the Dutch educational context Figure 27.1 provides an overview of the Dutch education system, including the stages at which bilingual education is offered alongside mainstream programmes. In Figure 27.1, we paraphrase the title of each educational programme in English as well as providing the Dutch title and the commonly used abbreviations. We will continue to use these abbreviations throughout this chapter. CLIL in the Netherlands is most common at secondary level, although there are now also CLIL programmes offered at primary and vocational tertiary level. While English-​medium instruction (EMI) programmes are common in higher education (universities and universities of applied sciences, known in Dutch as ‘HBO’), these degree programmes generally do not involve explicit attention for language development, and are therefore not addressed in this chapter.

Bilingual secondary education (TTO) We begin by addressing bilingual secondary education (tweetalig onderwijs, henceforth TTO) as this was the first context in which CLIL began to take hold in the Netherlands. TTO began in 1989 as a grassroots movement, initiated by parents, teachers, and school boards (Maljers, DOI: 10.4324/9781003173151-33

403

Tessa Mearns, Evelyn van Kampen, and Wilfried Admiraal

EMI programmes

TTO MBO 43 programmes; 6 accredited Standard for TTO MBO

Vocational education

(Middelbaar beroepsonderwijs / MBO)

T-VMBO 34 accredited departments Standard for T-VMBO

Pre-vocational, 4 years (Voorbereidend middelbaar beroepsonderwijs / VMBO)

TPO 17 pilot schools

EMI programmes

University

University of Applied Sciences

(Hoger beroepsonderwijs / HBO)

Pre-academic, 6 years

Pre-professional, 5 years

(Voorbereidend wetenschappelijk onderwijs / VWO)

T-HAVO 90 accredited departments TTO Standard

T-VWO 126 accredited departments TTO Standard

(Hoger algemeen voortgezet onderwijs / HAVO)

Primary education

(Primair onderwijs / PO)

8 years (2 years’ kindergarten)

T E R T I A R Y

S E C O N D A R Y

P R I M A R Y

Figure 27.1  Overview of Dutch education system, including bilingual streams; figures as of October 2021 Source: Nuffic, 2021a.

2007), but was quickly institutionalised and expanded rapidly, in particular in the 2000s. At the time of writing, 134 of the 648 (Statline, 2021) secondary schools in the Netherlands (see Figure 27.1) run an accredited Dutch-​English bilingual programme (Nuffic, 2021a). All accredited bilingual secondary schools belong to the Network of Bilingual Schools. Accredited schools must comply with a TTO Standard and a quality assurance process in the form of an accreditation framework in order to make use of the trademarked TTO logo and the label TTO school. The current TTO Standard (Nuffic, 2019) allows room for the individual development of TTO schools in terms of three domains: English language proficiency, global citizenship, and personal development. TTO programmes are funded through voluntary parental contributions. Some schools offer TTO only in the first three years, switching fully to Dutch in senior years. Pre-​vocational TTO schools and schools that continue with TTO in the senior years reduce the English-​medium programme to a limited number of subjects in the final two or three years, in preparation for the final examinations, which are in Dutch. They offer an international diploma programme for English in the upper forms, such as the International Baccalaureate. Other subjects taught through English in the senior years vary per school, but often include physical education and social studies.

Bilingual primary education (TPO) A subsidised pilot project for bilingual primary schools (tweetalig primair onderwijs –​henceforth TPO) has been running since 2014 ( Jenniskens et al., 2020). All 17 pilot schools 404

CLIL in the Netherlands

employ CLIL pedagogy in 30–​50% of the curriculum from kindergarten (age 4–​5) until the end of primary school (age 11–​12). Some of the schools use a ‘one teacher, one language’ approach (where one teacher speaks English and the other Dutch); some use a ‘one situation, one language’ approach (where the teacher speaks both languages, but they are offered at different times); and others offer both languages during the whole week in a mixed approach. All of the primary schools currently participating in the pilot teach in Dutch and English.

Bilingual vocational education (TTO MBO) A small but growing number of vocational education colleges offer bilingual programmes. TTO MBO has its own quality standard and professional network (Nuffic, 2021b). Vocational TTO programmes are in many ways similar to secondary TTO programmes, but also have features that are unique to the vocational context and its learners. At least 50% of teaching and learning time should be in the target language (TL), teachers are expected to be competent in CLIL, and there is emphasis on international orientation, for example through work placement in an international environment. One accredited vocational TTO college has chosen German as the language of instruction, while the most common TL is English.

Teacher education for bilingual education Most teacher education for bilingual education is aimed at in-​service teachers. Many teachers working in bilingual education have been recruited from the non-​bilingual stream of their school, are native speakers of Dutch and have experienced the same initial teacher education as their colleagues in the Dutch-​medium departments (de Graaff et al., 2007a). Professional development for these teachers largely focuses on English language proficiency and CLIL. A growing minority of TTO teachers have completed pre-​service teacher education focusing specifically on CLIL or bilingual education. As will be illustrated in the review of research, the diversity in approaches to and quality of CLIL training available to teachers is accompanied by diverse understandings of what good CLIL practice should look like.

Research on CLIL in the Netherlands The reviewed literature consists of published peer-​reviewed research papers, research-​based book chapters, official reports, and PhD theses, focusing on empirical research into CLIL in the context of bilingual education in the Netherlands. The list of publications for review was compiled from PhD theses’ reference lists, the existing databases of the authors and of colleagues from the Dutch CLIL research community, and exhaustive searches in Web of Science and Google Scholar. The resulting corpus includes 62 works published between 2000 and 2021.1 For the ongoing TPO pilot, only the most recent measurement is included, as it refers back to data from the earlier measurements. No publications were found that related to either vocational education or teacher education in CLIL settings. In what follows, we report on four broad thematic areas we identified in our review of the literature, synthesising research on learner profiles, affective factors, learning outcomes, teacher perspectives, and teaching practices in the Dutch CLIL context.

405

Tessa Mearns, Evelyn van Kampen, and Wilfried Admiraal

Learner characteristics Weenink (2005) purports that TTO was originally intended to cater for an emerging cosmopolitan elite. While Dutch CLIL has evolved since then, TTO learners still have a reputation for being more academically inclined and more motivated than mainstream learners (Oattes et al., 2018b; Verspoor et al., 2013). This impression has been confirmed in studies that took baseline measurements of motivation (e.g., Mearns et al., 2020; Oattes et al., 2022), confidence (e.g., Goris et al., 2017), initial level of English (e.g., Admiraal et al., 2006), or standardised test results (e.g., Verspoor et al., 2010b). Beginning TTO learners generally scored higher in these aspects when compared to mainstream learners from the same school, suggesting that TTO was a conscious choice of more motivated or higher-​achieving learners. Sieben and Van Ginderen (2014) and Mearns et al. (2020) explored the choice for TTO in more detail. In Sieben and Van Ginderen’s study, the fact that TTO was a conscious choice was reflected in the fact that TTO learners generally commuted further to school and were more likely than mainstream learners to be the only pupil from their primary class to choose that secondary school. Mearns et al. found that TTO learners appeared to have been attracted largely by the instrumental value of learning English to a high level, but also by the additional challenge and the appeal of international school trips. Non-​TTO learners in the same study indicated that TTO would have been ‘too difficult’, suggesting lower self-​ confidence and a perception that TTO requires a higher level of academic ability. A possible factor influencing such differences between learners in bilingual and non-​ bilingual streams could be their family background. Although the studies were separated by a decade, both Weenink (2005, 2007, 2008) and Sieben and Van Ginderen (2014) identify differences in the family backgrounds of learners in TTO when compared to those in non-​TTO, although their findings do not entirely align with each other. Sieben and Van Ginderen’s smaller study suggested that learners in TTO had a higher socio-​economic status (SES) than those in the mainstream programme, while Weenink (2007) found that TTO learners stood out more for their cosmopolitan upbringing than for their SES, and that it was more likely that one or both of their parents were expatriates. The latter was also noted in Jenniskens et al.’s (2020) ongoing exploration of the Primary CLIL (TPO) pilot. Goris et al.’s (2017, 2020) baseline measurement of international orientation supports the view of TTO learners as relatively cosmopolitan. While Weenink’s (2008) interviews with parents of TTO learners suggested that they had high ambitions for their children, Sieben and Van Ginderen did not find evidence that parents in TTO were more actively involved with their children’s schooling than parents of learners in mainstream programmes. Contrary to the above findings in more academic streams, Denman et al. (2018) note that pre-​vocational learners’ attitudes towards English were not more positive at the start of the TTO programme. Nevertheless, the CLIL experience appeared to support their growth in both affective and linguistic terms. Denman et al.’s research in this context is the first of its kind due to a tendency for TTO research to focus on the most academic streams.

Learner affect As mentioned above, several studies report more positive attitudes and higher levels of motivation among CLIL learners in secondary TTO when compared to those in mainstream programmes. In most cases, however, there was little concrete evidence of a connection between the TTO experience and these affective factors. In studies by Mearns et al. (Mearns, 2015; Mearns & de Graaff, 2018b; Mearns et al., 2020) and by Elzenga and de Graaff (2015), 406

CLIL in the Netherlands

the difference in L2 motivation between younger and older years of TTO was not greater than in mainstream contexts. Goris et al. (2017) observed a similar trend with regard to L2 self-​confidence and international orientation. As observed by Mearns et al. (2020), the lack of causal connections in the quantitative data from such studies prevents us from drawing concrete conclusions that CLIL is or is not experienced positively. Again, the work of Denman and colleagues stands out in this regard. The pre-​vocational learners in their 2018 longitudinal study of attitudes towards learning English showed a positive effect after one year of pre-​vocational CLIL. Positivity fell again in third year, when less of the curriculum was taught in English (Denman et al., 2018). This, together with qualitative evidence from related studies (e.g., Tanner & de Graaff, 2011) suggests that these learners found TTO to be an enjoyable and motivating experience due to the challenges and opportunities it offered, the instrumental value of improving their English, the authentic approach to language learning and the emphasis on international orientation. Similar findings were revealed in Mearns’ (2015) study of learners in pre-​professional bilingual education, as well as among the Dutch respondents in Papaja et al.’s (2016) international study of learner motivation in CLIL programmes in four European countries. These researchers also observed that the gap between TTO boys’ and girls’ motivation was narrower than in mainstream (Papaja et al., 2016), and that TTO boys were the most motivated group (Mearns & de Graaff, 2018b). In their study of various sub-​g roups within TTO, Mearns and De Jong (2021) identified similar trends, as well as refuting the assumption that learners in the pre-​university stream were most motivated. A further finding in this study was that older TTO learners were not necessarily less motivated, but that they were motivated in different ways. A less positive finding with regard to affective factors is Papaja’s (2019) observation that learners in bilingual programmes in the Netherlands, Poland, and Germany appeared to experience more anxiety in CLIL subject lessons than in English language lessons, although that anxiety appeared to decrease over time. A small number of studies have explored TTO learners’ motivation to learn languages other than English (LOTE). Elzenga and de Graaff (2015) observed higher motivation for French among third-​year TTO learners when compared to mainstream and first-​year TTO learners, which the authors suggest could indicate a positive effect of TTO on L3 motivation. Mearns et al. (2020) observed higher motivation among TTO learners to learn foreign languages in general, although there was no evidence that this increased over time. Subsequent analyses of the same data suggested that this difference was only present among girls (Mearns & de Graaff, 2018b).

Learning outcomes The earliest findings regarding the academic outcomes of bilingual education for Dutch learners have been cited largely as evidence in support of its effectiveness in supporting the learning of English or to dispel fears that it could have a detrimental effect on the learning of subject content or the development of learners’ Dutch. Later studies have aimed to explore the interactions between CLIL and learning in more depth and from different perspectives.

English language acquisition (ELA) A relatively large number of studies address learning outcomes for English. Nearly all of them agree that learners in bilingual education acquire English to a higher level and faster than their mainstream counterparts (Admiraal et al., 2006; De Bree & Unsworth, 2014; 407

Tessa Mearns, Evelyn van Kampen, and Wilfried Admiraal

Goris et al., 2013; de Graaff & Costache, 2020; Huibregtse, 2001a, 2001b; Huibregtse et al., 2000; Jenniskens et al., 2020; Verspoor et al., 2007, 2010a, 2010b). This finding was obtained through a variety of measures of proficiency (e.g., vocabulary tests, reading tests, speaking tests, grammar tests, writing tasks, classroom interaction) and was the case also when controlled for learner variables such as scholastic aptitude, starting level, extramural exposure to English, motivation, and attitude. Gains appear to be greatest at the beginning of the bilingual programme (Huibregtse, 2001a; Huibregtse et al., 2000; Verspoor et al., 2010b), although a ‘sustainable advantage’ has been observed into later years (Verspoor & Edelenbos, 2011, p. 3). In addition to exploring quantitative gains, researchers have also explored qualitative differences in learners’ use of English. Findings from such studies helped counteract concerns that CLIL learners would quickly become fluent but lag behind in terms of accuracy (Verspoor et al., 2010b). These fears appeared unfounded. TTO learners’ English did develop differently to that of mainstream learners, although not in a negative sense. Their written English was more idiomatic and contained more chunks (Gustafsson & Verspoor, 2017; Verspoor & Edelenbos, 2011; Verspoor et al., 2010b). In the initial stages, increased output and greater risk-​t aking led to more inaccuracies among TTO learners, but these inaccuracies disappeared in later measurements. This was interpreted as an indication of a more natural process of language acquisition which could only be observed over a longer period. Contrarily, Bulté and Housen (2019) found no significant differences between TTO and mainstream groups, although their study was limited by the very small number of participants and the short gap between measurements. Less commonly researched are factors contributing to English language acquisition (ELA) among CLIL learners. There is some indication that scholastic aptitude, motivation, confidence, and initial English proficiency may play a role, although the studies published do not explain all of the additional gain (Goris et al., 2020; Verspoor et al., 2015). Some studies have indicated a causal link between bilingual education and ELA. For example, Verspoor, De Bot and Van Rein (2010a) suggested that TTO contributed to closing the gap in English proficiency between learners with higher and lower extramural exposure to English. Furthermore, De Bree and Unsworth (2014) found that dyslexic learners appeared to benefit from TTO as much as non-​dyslexic learners in terms of English language and literacy, suggesting that CLIL is beneficial for a broad range of learners. Less apparent is whether it is the quantity of exposure, the quality of exposure, or the quality of teaching that contributes to such gains. The only studies that address this question directly are those regarding Primary CLIL. There, it appeared that the quality of the teacher’s use of English had greater impact on learner ELA than quantity of exposure or the teacher’s English proficiency (de Graaff & Costache, 2020; Jenniskens et al., 2020).

Dutch and/​or content learning In spite of anecdotal concerns regarding the effects of increased exposure to English on learners’ Dutch, there has been little attention for this aspect of CLIL. Initial explorations of TTO (Admiraal et al., 2006; Huibregtse, 2001a, 2001b; Huibregtse et al., 2000) and TPO ( Jenniskens et al., 2020) have confirmed that learners do not score lower on national exam or test scores for Dutch following several years of CLIL. Indeed, in a study by De Bree and Unsworth (2014), it appeared that both dyslexic and non-​dyslexic learners in TTO performed better in some indicators of literacy and language proficiency in Dutch than their peers in mainstream education. 408

CLIL in the Netherlands

The basic picture with regard to the learning of subject content is very similar. Huibregtse (Admiraal et al., 2006; Huibregtse, 2001a, 2001b; Huibregtse et al., 2000) found that secondary CLIL learners’ final examination results in geography and history were not significantly different when compared to mainstream learners in the same schools. Likewise, Jenniskens et al. (2020) saw no negative differences in primary CLIL learners’ scores on numeracy tests. For primary, the pilot and accompanying research are still ongoing and may provide further insights in this regard. The lack of attention for learning in other content areas such as science, mathematics, or physical and creative subjects in secondary education, suggest that this is an area of TTO in need of more investigation. Oattes et al. (2022) have provided some insights into the relationship between language and content learning and assessment. TTO learners in first and third year completed one history test in English and one in Dutch, while mainstream learners completed identical tests but both in Dutch. TTO third years outperformed those in the mainstream regardless of the language of assessment. TTO first years, however, performed better in Dutch but less well when assessed in English. While this confirms that learning through English does not ultimately have an adverse effect on content learning, it does suggest that, in the initial stages, the CLIL context could affect learner performance in assessments of content knowledge. This could have implications for assessment, which has not yet been researched in the Dutch CLIL context.

CLIL learners as language learners A few studies have explored the ways in which learners who follow a Dutch/​English bilingual curriculum learn other modern languages (French and German), which are not taught through CLIL. Rutgers and Evans’ (2015) study of metalinguistic awareness in German suggested that TTO learners were better language learners, were more intuitive and took more risks when learning German than mainstream learners, a finding also observed by Verspoor et al. (2010b) with regard to TTO learners’ performance in English. This could indicate that CLIL contributes not only to the acquisition of the CLIL language, but also to learners’ development as language learners more generally Other studies exploring effects on non-​ CLIL languages investigated cross-​ l inguistic transfer. Specifically, multiple syntactical studies by Stadt revealed greater cross-​linguistic transfer from English to French among TTO learners (Stadt et al., 2016, 2018a, 2018b, 2018c), although significantly less transfer was observed between English and German (Stadt et al., 2020). The heightened role of English as a background language in French acquisition appeared to be related to exposure to rather than proficiency in English, suggesting that the amount of time spent using English in TTO influenced the way they used French (Stadt et al., 2018a). As Stadt concludes, increased transfer from English need not be viewed as a disadvantage, although knowledge of this difference could help French teachers to better understand and cater for the needs of TTO learners (Stadt et al., 2016). Alongside the L3 motivation findings discussed earlier, these studies suggest that CLIL plays a role in learners’ broader development as language learners. It should be noted, however, that while rigorous, these studies were small-​scale and limited in scope.

Teacher perspectives Studies on CLIL teachers have focused on how teachers experience teaching in bilingual programmes and on how they perceive their role. 409

Tessa Mearns, Evelyn van Kampen, and Wilfried Admiraal

The teaching experience Only a handful of studies explore how teachers feel about teaching in bilingual education; those that do, paint a largely positive picture. History teachers in Oattes, Oostdam, de Graaff, and Wilschut (2018b) mentioned that teaching in CLIL had helped them bring more variety into their teaching and increased their awareness of the role of language in history, and that they appreciated the motivation of TTO learners. Likewise, an interview study in pre-​vocational programmes (Denman et al., 2013; Tanner & de Graaff, 2011) revealed that teachers appreciated the opportunities CLIL offered to both staff and pupils, for example to explore the linguistic demands of vocational courses and to engage in international projects. This was contradicted by Van Dongen’s (2017) finding that teachers in two pre-​vocational schools were disappointed with TTO. He observed that the schools had embarked on TTO in the hope that it would be a ‘remedy’ (p. 118) to waning results for English and dropping pupil numbers without realising the extent of CLIL’s pedagogical implications. The differences between these findings could reflect the observation by Van Beuningen et al. (2021) that CLIL contexts and the needs of teachers differ significantly, even within the Netherlands. In terms of experienced support and readiness to teach in a CLIL programme, findings have been limited and mixed. Teachers in various studies felt that their own level of English was sufficient for CLIL teaching (e.g., Jenniskens et al., 2020; Oattes et al., 2018b; Verspoor et al., 2010b), but while some considered themselves well-​equipped in terms of pedagogical knowledge and skills (de Graaff & Koopman, 2006; Verspoor et al., 2010b), others –​even within the same study –​expressed a need for more professional development (de Graaff & Koopman, 2006). It should be noted that these findings are from the early years of Dutch CLIL research in secondary (early 2000s) and primary education (from 2012) respectively, and may thus not reflect the current situation. This was highlighted by participants in Tanner and de Graaff’s (2011) study of the then newly introduced pre-​vocational CLIL departments, who expressed the view that it was too early to think about professional development beyond teachers’ English language proficiency. The only study to report directly on teachers’ experience in professional development was Van Beuningen et al. (2021). Their results indicated that teachers in primary CLIL settings benefited from the opportunity to collaborate, to apply theory and to reflect explicitly on their practice.

The role of the teacher Based on the reviewed studies, it appears that CLIL teachers in the Netherlands are conscious that the role of a CLIL teacher is different to that of a teacher in mainstream education (Van Beuningen et al., 2021; de Graaff & Koopman, 2006; de Graaff et al., 2007a, 2007b; Van Kampen et al., 2018a; Koopman et al., 2014; Oattes et al., 2018b; Verspoor et al., 2010b). That is not to say, however, that they identified more as CLIL teachers than as teachers of their own discipline. As highlighted by Dale (2020) and by Van Kampen, Admiraal, and Berry (2018a), English teachers experience a special role in Dutch bilingual schools, due to the demands of the TTO Standard. As evident from Dale’s research, disciplinary identity is important to English teachers working in a CLIL context, although they are also prepared to collaborate with and support colleagues from other disciplines, and to support learners’ development of subject-​ specific language. Challenging for these English teachers was that their own disciplinary identity was not always recognised by colleagues or in policies. 410

CLIL in the Netherlands

In studies involving teachers of other CLIL subjects, it appears they view themselves first and foremost as subject teachers, not language teachers (e.g., Busz et al., 2014; de Graaff & Koopman, 2006; Oattes et al., 2018b; Verspoor et al., 2010b). Van Beuningen et al. (2021) underscore teachers’ primarily disciplinary identity in their conclusion that CLIL teachers need not deviate significantly from their usual practice, provided they remain actively conscious that language is an essential aspect of subject learning. This leads to questions regarding the frames through which we examine the practice of CLIL teachers (Van Kampen et al., 2020a; Oattes et al., 2018a), a topic addressed in the next section.

Conceptualisations of CLIL teaching practice Reviewing the literature on teaching practices in Dutch CLIL highlighted the variety in the frames of reference employed in exploring and evaluating teachers’ CLIL practices. This may reflect one of the challenges expressed by teachers in Van Dongen’s (2017) study, who revealed that they were unsure about what constituted good practice in CLIL. We therefore begin this section by exploring the standards against which CLIL teachers’ practice has been measured, before addressing researchers’ findings regarding classroom practice. Many of the features used to examine CLIL teaching practice are taken or adapted from theories of foreign language teaching or second language acquisition (SLA). Common elements include: • Use of rich, comprehensible input, including extensive target language use and accessibility of teachers’ language. • Stimulation of output for authentic communication and interaction. • Focus on meaning and inductive learning. • Focus on form. • Corrective feedback on language (with emphasis on explicit correction rather than recasts). Recent studies have drawn specifically on theory from CLIL literature. For example, in her series of studies of CLIL practice in the Netherlands, Van Kampen drew on different areas of CLIL theory to design new frameworks for analysis based on, among others, an elaborated version of Coyle’s (2010) 4Cs (Van Kampen et al., 2018b) and Dalton-​Puffer’s (2013) cognitive discourse functions (Van Kampen et al., 2020b). Van Beuningen et al.’s (2021) study involving a professional learning community (PLC) of primary CLIL teachers took as its starting point six basic principles drawn from existing literature on CLIL and other forms of language-​focused content teaching, including the use of home languages. Dale’s series of studies of English teachers in CLIL (Dale, 2020; Dale et al., 2018a, 2018b) made use of an original model that classifies the English teacher’s role into four quadrants according to the level of focus on content or language, in either a subject-​oriented or culture-​ oriented context (Dale et al., 2017). This framework can help to explore the teaching and collaborative practices of English teachers, who in the Dutch bilingual secondary education system are expected to not only support learners in their own subject lessons, but also to support colleagues from other English-​medium subjects. Other than Van Kampen et al.’s (2020b) study and Dale’s work with English teachers, the only other example of a subject-​specific model for classroom practice is in Oattes (2021). His observation tool was not specifically designed to evaluate CLIL practice, but to explore the impact of language of instruction on history teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge (PCK). 411

Tessa Mearns, Evelyn van Kampen, and Wilfried Admiraal

Rather than starting from a theoretical perspective, three studies (Denman et al., 2013; Van Kampen et al., 2020a; Rutgers et al., 2020; Tanner & de Graaff, 2011) sought to explore good CLIL practice using a grounded approach. They drew conclusions based on the views of teachers (all studies) and learners (Tanner/​Denman). Van Kampen et al. set these views against those of CLIL specialists (trainers, academics, researchers). The conclusions drawn from these studies reflected to differing degrees elements also valued in language teaching, as mentioned above (input, output, focus on meaning, and corrective feedback on language), with the exception of focus on form, which was not identified in this study as being important for CLIL. Other elements are not specifically language-​related, such as opportunities for active learning, practical and creative tasks, real-​life relevance, variety of materials and approaches, learner-​centredness, differentiation, formative assessment and diagnostic strategies, and supporting learner confidence. This is reinforced by Van Beuningen et al.’s (2021) conclusion that good CLIL teaching may be more a question of linguistic awareness and a shift in mindset than a significant adjustment to existing good practice. The complex picture revealed by these studies suggests that teachers and learners in Dutch CLIL classrooms may be well-​positioned to provide a rich view of effective CLIL practice without deferring to more generic SLA models.

Strengths and weaknesses in CLIL teaching A common finding across all of the studies addressing teaching practices in CLIL was that CLIL teachers of both English and other subjects appeared to be aware of the need to approach teaching differently in CLIL classes than in mainstream classes, although their practices varied significantly both between and within studies. As the previous section highlighted, however, there is not one model of ‘good CLIL teaching’ in the Netherlands. The line we will take here in considering ‘successes and weaknesses’ in Dutch CLIL practice is to consider the areas that do and do not appear to fit with the frameworks employed by researchers. In the studies that placed CLIL practice against concepts from SLA, examples were observed of nearly all elements, although to varying degrees. Teachers generally provided rich linguistic input (Huibregtse, 2001a, 2001b; Huibregtse et al., 2000; Jenniskens et al., 2020; Oattes et al., 2018a; Verspoor et al., 2010b), although in some cases quantity of input was prioritised over comprehensibility (Huibregtse, 2001b; Huibregtse et al., 2000; Jenniskens et al., 2020; Koopman et al., 2014). Elsewhere, teachers adjusted their language and resources to increase accessibility, for example by providing visual support or adapting materials (de Graaff & Koopman, 2006; de Graaff et al., 2007a; Van Kampen et al., 2018a). Learners were usually provided with opportunities and encouraged to communicate in English, either with each other or with the teacher (de Graaff et al., 2007a; Huibregtse, 2001b; Jenniskens et al., 2020; Verspoor et al., 2010b). In English lessons, Verspoor et al. (2010b) observed that teachers employed higher-​order questioning to elicit richer responses than with mainstream classes, although other researchers commented that rich, idiomatic language use was not supported in subject lessons (e.g., Koopman et al., 2014; Schuitemaker-​ King, 2013). Feedback on language was observed in both content and language lessons, although content teachers tended to favour oral feedback methods such as recasts, which are known to be less effective than more explicit methods (Huibregtse, 2001b) and to provide only simple, word-​level feedback on written work rather than focusing on subject-​ specific conventions and language use (Busz et al., 2014). In some cases, it was not clear whether the feedback given was referring to the language or the content in learner output (Schuitemaker-​K ing, 2013). 412

CLIL in the Netherlands

Focus on form produced a less defined picture, in part due to the varying expectations of the researchers. Generally, content teachers paid little explicit attention to language form, either because they did not feel confident doing so or because they did not feel this was their responsibility (de Graaff & Koopman, 2006; Koopman et al., 2014; Oattes et al., 2018b). Whether or not this aligned with the ‘ideal’ depended on the interpretation of the researcher: while some believed that focus on form was the responsibility of every CLIL teacher (e.g., Huibregtse, 2001b), others believed that focus on form should take place in the language classroom (e.g., Verspoor et al., 2010b). Another area in which researchers did not always agree was with regard to the use of Dutch in the CLIL classroom. Many earlier studies comment that exclusive use of English was among the most successful elements of teachers’ CLIL practice (e.g., Denman et al., 2013; Huibregtse, 2001b; Schuitemaker-​K ing, 2013; Verspoor et al., 2010b). Teachers in Oattes, Oostdam, de Graaff and Wilschut’s (2018b) study, however, were implicitly aware of the value of translanguaging as has been addressed in CLIL literature internationally (Van Kampen et al., 2018b). Teachers implied that they felt they were breaking the rules in using Dutch to support the learning process. Only in the most recent publication reviewed (Van Beuningen et al., 2021) was learners’ multilingualism actively positioned as a pedagogical tool. Teachers found this to be a valuable enrichment to their practice. Other areas in which teachers were seen to succeed in terms of effective CLIL practice, but which did not fall directly under the standard models from SLA, were encouraging learner engagement (Denman et al., 2013; Verspoor et al., 2010b), conducting cross-​curricular projects (Denman et al., 2013), emphasis on international orientation, intercultural competence, and global citizenship (Denman et al., 2013; Van Kampen et al., 2020b), creating a supportive and positive atmosphere (Denman et al., 2013), providing context and structure, recycling and applying language and content in different ways (Van Beuningen et al., 2021; Denman et al., 2013), and collaboration and team-​teaching (Dale, 2020). Some recent studies have provided more detailed insights into the practical side of CLIL from a subject-​specific perspective. Oattes (2021) observed that history teachers’ PCK was as strong in English as in Dutch, although their more limited linguistic repertoire led to less thorough explanations in TTO than in mainstream. In their exploration of the integration of language and content through cognitive discourse functions in the subject Global Perspectives, Van Kampen et al. (2020a) observed that teaching practices varied significantly, not only in terms of pedagogy, but in the application of subject content and its associated language. Similarly, Dale’s (2020) examination of how the four roles of the English teacher in CLIL were enacted in practice provides valuable practical examples but also highlights discrepancies in how teachers interpreted language and content.

Conclusion It is clear that Dutch CLIL has come a long way in little more than three decades, and also that it is continuing to grow and evolve. Important at this stage is to nurture that growth by allowing practice and research to continue to learn from each other. With its expansion into different tracks and levels of education, CLIL is reaching more Dutch learners than ever. It is also evolving to contribute to learners’ development beyond their mastery of English, by placing equal emphasis on personal development and engagement with the wider world. Learners and teachers feel the benefits of this, and learning outcomes and evaluations are generally positive. However, we also saw that learners in bilingual streams appear to differ to those in mainstream programmes. Recent research has not 413

Tessa Mearns, Evelyn van Kampen, and Wilfried Admiraal

given us a clear picture of which learners opt in or out of bilingual programmes, nor of which factors can influence that decision. For example, it is not clear to what extent the voluntary financial contribution requested from parents acts as a barrier to learners from a variety of socio-​economic backgrounds. Furthermore, except for a single study, there is no published research regarding the learning and experiences of cognitively, socially, culturally, neurologically, or linguistically diverse learners in this CLIL setting. In an era where the international CLIL community is becoming increasingly active in exploring questions of diversity, equity, and social justice, this appears to thus far be something of a blind spot in the Dutch context. In terms of CLIL pedagogy, research is moving in exciting new directions. A small number of recent studies have demonstrated the possibility to deviate from traditional SLA-​ based models and develop more contextualised understanding of CLIL teaching as a specialism in itself. As highlighted by Dale (2020) and Van Kampen (2019), an important aspect of this exploration will be to seek clearer definitions of what we mean by ‘content’, ‘language’, and ‘integration’. Coupled with Van Beuningen et al.’s (2021) approach to CLIL as a mindset rather than a specific pedagogical model, this could aid the development of CLIL teacher education in a direction that is relatable to teachers and transferable to practice in a range of contexts and disciplines. This could go hand-​in-​hand with research into pre-​and in-​service teacher education for CLIL, which is notably underrepresented in the studies reviewed here. In addition to the suggestions already made, the above discussion points could be addressed at least in part by a single solution: more structural funding and opportunities for CLIL research. The first publication stemming from the special appointment of a Professor in Bilingual Education and Global Citizenship Education (Duarte & Robinson-​Jones, 2022) appeared too late to be included in this review, but will hopefully be the beginning of a wave of research exploring the non-​linguistic aspects of bilingual education. However, this is not the only unanswered question. Dutch CLIL research thus far has been broad, although many studies have been relatively isolated, with limited impact. A clearer and more focused research agenda, based on the practical needs of educators and learners as well as on theoretical gaps, could help to create balance and to ensure that key areas, such as inclusion, assessment and teacher education, are not overlooked. More thorough and consistent research could help shed better light on challenges and potential solutions, provide more substantial evidence to support changes in policy, and allow us to continue developing CLIL pedagogies appropriate to our learners and teachers.

Note 1 For a full overview of the reviewed publications, please access https://​docs.goo​g le.com/​sprea​d she​ ets/​d /​1Q8Cwq​x se6​F 9MV ​DJkT ​SF8y​ekX9​F COJ​Czf/​e dit?usp=​s har ​i ng&ouid=​107272​9 963​7189​ 8626​0 02&rtpof=​t rue&sd=​t rue

Further reading European Platform. (2010). A sustainable advantage: The findings of a study into bilingual education [English summary of Verspoor et al., 2010b]. www.nuf​fi c.nl/​en/​publi​cati​ons/​sust ​a ina​ble-​advant​a ge-​fi ndi​ ngs-​study-​biling​ual-​educat​ion. Research report documenting some of the first key explorations of the effects and workings of Dutch bilingual education (TTO).

414

CLIL in the Netherlands Mearns, T. & de Graaff, R. (Eds.). (2018). Special issue: CLIL and bilingual education in the Netherlands. Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics, 7(2). https://​doi.org/​10.1075/​dujal.7.2. Special issue dedicated to the Dutch CLIL context, including a number of articles reviewed here as well as editorial, discursive and contextual accounts. Van Kampen, E. (2019). What’s CLIL about bilingual education? A window on Content and Language Integrated Learning pedagogies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Leiden University. https://​hdl.han​ dle.net/​1887/​77223. Thesis addressing pedagogies used in the Dutch secondary education CLIL context through a series of four studies: (1) A review study in which trends revealed by research into CLIL subject pedagogies in the Netherlands and abroad were considered; (2) An interview study with CLIL practitioners and specialists, investigating these stakeholders’ perceptions about the ideal goals and practices of CLIL pedagogies; (3) A questionnaire study exploring Dutch CLIL teachers’ self-​reported pedagogical practices; (4) An in-​depth observational study of pedagogies used by CLIL teachers of the subject Global Perspectives.

References *Included in review of research. *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. DOI:10.1080/​13803610500392160 *Bulté, B., & Housen, A. (2019). Beginning L2 complexity development in CLIL and non-​C LIL secondary education. Instructed Second Language Acquisition, 3(2), 153–​ 180. DOI:10.1558/​ isla.38247 *Busz, M., Helleman, J., DeVincent, D., Verwoerd-​Sowariraj, S., & Tonsberg Schlie, K. (2014). De praktijk van feedback op Engelstalige profielwerkstukken. Levende Talen Tijdschrift, 15(4), 26–​37. https://​lt-​t ijdsc​h rif ​ten.nl/​ojs/​i ndex.php/​ltt/​a rti​cle/​v iew/​903. Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge University Press. *Dale, L. (2020). On language teachers and CLIL: Shifting the perspectives. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Amsterdam. https://​d are.uva.nl/​sea ​rch?ide​ntif​i er=​98c15​569-​9e2f- ​4542- ​8472-​ 9515a​a7ba​c7d Dale, L., Oostdam, R., & Verspoor, M. (2017). Searching for identity and focus: Towards an analytical framework for language teachers in bilingual education. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21(3), 366–​383. DOI:10.1080/​13670050.2017.1383351 *Dale, L., Oostdam, R., & Verspoor, M. (2018a). Juggling ideals and constraints: The position of English teachers in CLIL contexts. Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics, 7(2), 177–​202. DOI:10.1075/​ dujal.18002.dal *Dale, L., Oostdam, R., & Verspoor, M. (2018b). Towards a professional development tool for teachers of English in bilingual streams: The dynamics of beliefs and practices. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 24(9), 1288–​1305. DOI:10.1080/​13670050.2018.1556244 Dalton-​Puffer, C. (2013). A construct of cognitive discourse functions for conceptualizing content language integration in CLIL and multilingual education. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 216–​253. DOI:10.1515/​eujal-​2013-​0 011 *De Bree, E., & Unsworth, S. (2014). Dutch and English literacy and language outcomes of dyslexic students in regular and bilingual secondary education. Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics, 3(1), 62–​ 81. DOI:10.1075/​dujal.3.1.04bre *de Graaff, R., & Costache, O. (2020). Current developments in bilingual primary education in the Netherlands. In F. Li, K.E. Pollock, & R. Gibb (Eds.), Child bilingualism and second language learning (pp. 137–​165). John Benjamins. DOI:10.1075/​bpa.10.08gra *de Graaff, R., & Koopman, G.J. (2006). Didactische richtlijnen bij tweetalig onderwijs. https://​d sp​ace.libr​ ary.uu.nl/​han​d le/​1874/​18896 *de Graaff, R., Koopman, G.J., Anikina, Y., & Westhoff, G. (2007a). An observation tool for effective L2 pedagogy in content and language integrated learning (CLIL). International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(5), 603–​624. DOI:10.2167/​beb462.0

415

Tessa Mearns, Evelyn van Kampen, and Wilfried Admiraal *de Graaff, R., Koopman, G.J., & Westhoff, G. (2007b). Identifying effective L2 pedagogy in content and language integrated learning (CLIL). Vienna English Working Papers, 16(3), 12–​19. *Denman, J., Van Schooten, E., & de Graaff, R. (2018). Attitudinal factors and the intention to learn English in pre-​vocational secondary bilingual and mainstream education. Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics, 7(2), 203–​226. DOI:10.1075/​dujal.18005.den *Denman, J., Tanner, R., & de Graaff, R. (2013). CLIL in junior vocational secondary education: challenges and opportunities for teaching and learning. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16(3), 285–​300. DOI: 10.1080/​13670050.2013.777386 Duarte, J., & Robinson-​Jones, C. (2022). Bridging theory and practice: Conceptualisations of global citizenship education in Dutch secondary education. Globalisation, Societies and Education. https://​ doi.org/​10.1080/​14767​724.2022.2048​800 *Elzenga, A., & de Graaff, R. (2015). Motivatie voor Engels en Frans in het tweetalig onderwijs. Zijn leerlingen in het tweetalig onderwijs gemotiveerdere taalleerders? Levende Talen Tijdschrift, 16(4), 16–​26. www.lt-​t ijdsc​h rif​ten.nl/​ojs/​i ndex.php/​ltt/​a rti​cle/​v iew/​1531 European Platform. (2010). A sustainable advantage: The findings of a study into bilingual education. www. nuf​fi c.nl/​sites/​defa​u lt/​fi les/​2 020-​0 8/​a-​sust​a ina​ble-​advant​a ge-​the-​fi ndi​ngs-​of-​a-​study-​i nto-​biling​ ual-​educat​ion.pdf *Goris, J. (2019). Content and language integrated learning in English as a Foreign Language: A European perspective. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen. https://​rep​ osit​ory.ubn.ru.nl/​bitstr​eam/​han​d le/​2066/​207​520/​207​520.pdf *Goris, J., Denessen, E., & Verhoeven, L. (2013). Effects of the content and language integrated learning approach to EFL teaching. Written Language & Literacy, 16(2), 186–​207. DOI:10.1075/​ wll.16.2.03gor *Goris, J., Denessen, E., & Verhoeven, L. (2017). The contribution of CLIL to learners’ international orientation and EFL confidence. The Language Learning Journal, 47(2), 246–​256. DOI:10.1080/​ 09571736.2016.1275034 *Goris, J., Denessen, E., & Verhoeven, L. (2020). Determinants of EFL learning success in content and language integrated learning. The Language Learning Journal, 1–​ 16. DOI:10.1080/​ 09571736.2019.1709886 *Gustafsson, H., & Verspoor, M. (2017). Development of chunks in Dutch L2 learners of English. In J. Evers-​Vermeul & E. Tribushinina (Eds.), Usage-​based approaches to language acquisition and language teaching (pp. 235–​262). DeGruyter. *Huibregtse, I. (2001a). Effecten en didactiek van tweetalig voortgezet onderwijs in Nederland. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Universiteit Utrecht. *Huibregtse, I. (2001b). Onderwijs in twee talen. Levende Talen Tijdschrift, 2(1), 11–​20. *Huibregtse, I., Admiraal, W., De Bot, K., Westhoff, G., & Coleman, L. (2000). Effecten en Didactiek van Tweetalig Voortgezet Onderwijs. Toegepaste Taalwetenschap in Artikelen, 64(1), 9–​20. DOI:10.1075/​t twia.64.02hui *Jenniskens, T., Leest, B., Wolbers, M., Bruggink, M., Krikhaar, E., de Graaff, R., Spätgens, T., et al. (2020). Evaluatie pilot Tweetalig Primair Onderwijs Vervolgmeting schooljaar 2018/​2019. www.rijkso​verh​ eid.nl/​doc​u men​ten/​rappor ​ten/​2020/​03/​31/​evalua​t ie-​pilot-​t weeta ​l ig-​prim​a ir-​onderw ​ijs *Koopman, G.J., Skeet, J., & de Graaff, R. (2014). Exploring content teachers’ knowledge of language pedagogy: A report on a small-​scale research project in a Dutch CLIL context. The Language Learning Journal, 42(2), 123–​136. DOI:10.1080/​09571736.2014.889974 Maljers, A. (2007). The Netherlands. In A. Maljers, D. Marsh, & D. Wolff (Eds.), Windows on CLIL (pp. 130–​138). European Platform for Dutch Education. *Mearns, T. (2015). Chicken, egg or a bit of both? Motivation in bilingual education (TTO) in the Netherlands. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen. http://​ethos.bl.uk/​Order​ Deta​i ls.do?uin=​u k.bl.ethos.646​095 Mearns, T., & de Graaff, R. (2018a). Bilingual education and CLIL in the Netherlands: The paradigm and the pedagogy. Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics, 7(2), 122–​128. DOI:10.1075/​ dujal.00002.int *Mearns, T., & de Graaff, R. (2018b). Bucking the trend? Motivational differences between boys and girls who opt in or out of bilingual education. Journal of Immersion and Content-​Based Language Education, 6(1), 1–​26. DOI:10.1075/​jicb.17003.mea *Mearns, T., de Graaff, R., & Coyle, D. (2020). Motivation for or from bilingual education? A comparative study of learner views in the Netherlands. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 23(6), 724–​737. DOI:10.1080/​13670050.2017.1405906

416

CLIL in the Netherlands *Mearns, T., & De Jong, N. (2021). Sketching a motivational landscape: Motivational variation within bilingual secondary education in the Netherlands. Journal of Immersion and Content-​Based Language Education, 9(1), 85–​111. DOI:10.1075/​jicb.19010.mea Morton, T., & Llinares, A. (2017). Content and language integrated learning (CLIL): Type of programme or pedagogical model? In A. Llinares & T. Morton (Eds.), Applied linguistics perspectives on CLIL (pp. 1–​18). John Benjamins. Nuffic. (2019). Kwaliteitsstandaard tweetalig onderwijs 2.0. Nuffic. www.nuf​fi c.nl/​publ ​icat ​ies/​k wal ​itei​t sst​ anda​a rd-​t weeta​l ig-​onderw​ijs-​20/​ Nuffic. (2021a). Numbers of TTO departments –​personal communication. Nuffic. (2021b). Standaard voor tweetalig mbo. www.nuf​fi c.nl/​onde​r wer ​pen/​t weeta ​l ig-​onderw ​ijs/​ standa​a rd-​voor-​t weeta​l ig-​mbo *Oattes, H. (2021). Teaching history in bilingual secondary education in the Netherlands: Perceptions, classroom practice and learning outcomes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Amsterdam. *Oattes, H., Fukkink, R., Oostdam, R., de Graaff, R., & Wilschut, A. (2022). A showdown between bilingual and mainstream education: The impact of language of instruction on learning subject content knowledge. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 25(2), 756–​769. DOI:10.1080/​13670050.2020.1718592 *Oattes, H., Oostdam, R., de Graaff, R., Fukkink, R., & Wilschut, A. (2018a). Content and language integrated learning in Dutch bilingual education: How Dutch history teachers focus on second language teaching. Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics, 7(2), 156–​176. DOI:10.1075/​ dujal.18003.oat *Oattes, H., Oostdam, R., de Graaff, R., & Wilschut, A. (2018b). The challenge of balancing content and language: Perceptions of Dutch bilingual education history teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 70, 165–​174. DOI:10.1016/​j.tate.2017.11.022 *Papaja, K. (2019). To fear or not to fear CLIL: Some remarks on the role of anxiety in a CLIL classroom. Konin Language Studies, 7(2), 171–​196. *Papaja, K., Can, C., & Rojczyk, A. (2016). An insight into CLIL motivation: A questionnaire study in Austria, Poland, Turkey and the Netherlands. In K. Papaja & A. Świątek (Eds.), Modernizing educational practice. Perspectives in content and language integrated learning (CLIL). Cambridge Scholars Publishing. *Rutgers, D., de Graaff, R., Van Beuningen, C., & Fisher, L. (2020). The knowledge base of CLIL teaching in multilingual primary education settings. www.teac​h ing​engl​ish.org.uk/​a rti​cle/​k nowle​d ge-​ base-​clil-​teach​i ng-​multi​l ing ​ual-​prim​a ry-​educat​ion-​setti​ngs *Rutgers, D., & Evans, M. (2015). Bilingual education and L3 learning: Metalinguistic advantage or not? International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 20(7), 788–​806. DOI:10.1080/​ 13670050.2015.1103698 *Schuitemaker-​K ing, J. (2012). Teachers’ strategies in providing opportunities for second language development. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Groningen. *Schuitemaker-​K ing, J. (2013). Giving corrective feedback in CLIL and EFL classes. Levende Talen Tijdschrift, 14(2), 3–​10. www.lt-​t ijdsc​h rif​ten.nl/​ojs/​i ndex.php/​ltt/​a rti​cle/​v iew/​246/​240. *Sieben, I., & Van Ginderen, N. (2014). De keuze voor tweetalig onderwijs. Mens en Maatschappij, 89(3), 233–​255. DOI:10.5117/​M EM2014.3.SIEB *Stadt, R. (2019). The influence of Dutch (L1) and English (L2) on third language learning. The effects of education, development and language combinations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Amsterdam. *Stadt, R., Hulk, A., & Sleeman, P. (2016). The influence of L2 English and immersion education on L3 French in the Netherlands. Linguistics in the Netherlands, 33, 152–​165. DOI:10.1075/​avt.33.11sta *Stadt, R., Hulk, A., & Sleeman, P. (2018a). The influence of L1 Dutch and L2 English on L3 French: A longitudinal study. Journal of the European Second Language Association, 2(1), 63–​71. DOI:10.22599/​ jesla.42 *Stadt, R., Hulk, A., & Sleeman, P. (2018b). The influence of L2 English on L3 French acquisition in bilingual education. Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics, 7(2), 227–​245. DOI:10.1075/​dujal.18006. sta *Stadt, R., Hulk, A., & Sleeman, P. (2018c). The role of L2 exposure in L3A: A comparative study between third-​and fourth-​year secondary school students in the Netherlands. In J. Berns, H. Jacobs, & D. Nouveau (Eds.), Romance languages and linguistic theory (Vol. 13, pp. 279–​297). John Benjamins.

417

Tessa Mearns, Evelyn van Kampen, and Wilfried Admiraal *Stadt, R., Hulk, A., & Sleeman, P. (2020). L2 influence in L3 acquisition: The role of the L3. In A. Trotzke & T. Kupisch (Eds.), Formal linguistics and language education: New empirical perspectives. Springer. Statline. (2021). Onderwijsinstellingen; grootte, soort, levensbeschouwelijke grondslag. https://​opend​ ata.cbs.nl/​#/​CBS/​n l/​d ata​set/​03753/​t able?dl=​55979. *Tanner, R., & de Graaff, R. (2011). Proud to be tvmbo. www.yumpu.com/​en/​docum​ent/​v iew/​13946​ 967/​proud-​to-​be-​t vmbo-​kor ​t lop​end-​ond​erwi​json​derz​oek/​21 *Van Beuningen, C., Rutgers, D., & de Graaff, R. (2021). CLIL in het basisonderwijs: Versterking van zaakvakdidactiek door focus op taal. www.hu.nl/​onderz​oek/​projec​ten/​eff​ecti​eve-​d idact ​iek-​voor-​enge​ lsta​l ig-​z aakv​a kon​derw​ijs *Van Dongen, H. (2017). Issues in the implementation of CLIL in pre-​vocational education in the Netherlands. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Exeter. https://​ore.exe​ter.ac.uk/​rep​osit​ory/​han​ dle/​10871/​31162 *Van Kampen, E. (2019). What’s CLIL about bilingual education? A window on content and language integrated learning pedagogies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Leiden University. https://​schola​ rlyp​ubli​cati​ons.uni​vers​itei​t lei​den.nl/​han​d le/​1887/​77223 *Van Kampen, E., Admiraal, W., & Berry, A. (2018a). Content and language integrated learning in the Netherlands: Teachers’ self-​reported pedagogical practices. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21(2), 222–​236. DOI:10.1080/​13670050.2016.1154004 *Van Kampen, E., Mearns, T., Meirink, J., Admiraal, W., & Berry, A. (2018b). How do we measure up? A review of Dutch CLIL subject pedagogies against an international backdrop. Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics, 7(2), 129–​155. DOI:10.1075/​dujal.18004.kam *Van Kampen, E., Meirink, J., Admiraal, W., & Berry, A. (2020a). 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, 23(8), 855–​871. DOI:10.1080/​13670050.2017.1411332 *Van Kampen, E., Meirink, J., Admiraal, W., & Berry, A. (2020b). Characterising integrated content-​ language pedagogies of global perspectives teachers in Dutch bilingual schools. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 34(1), 18–​34. DOI:10.1080/​07908318.2020.1732999 *Verspoor, M., De Bot, K., & Van der Heijden, F. (2007). Engels in het voortgezet onderwijs, de rol van buitenschools taalcontact. Levende Talen Tijdschrift, 8(3), 3–​10. *Verspoor, M., De Bot, K., & Van Rein, E.M.J. (2010a). Binnen-​en buitenschools taalcontact en het leren van Engels. Levende Talen Tijdschrift, 11(4), 14–​19. *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. DOI:0.1075/​ jicb.3.1.01ver *Verspoor, M., & Edelenbos, P. (2011). Tweetalig onderwijs zorgt voor een duurzame voorsprong. Levende Talen Tijdschrift, 12(4), 3–​13. *Verspoor, M., Schuitemaker-​K ing, J., Van Rein, E. M. J., De Bot, K., & Edelenbos, P. (2010b). Tweetalig onderwijs: vormgeving en prestaties. www.nuf​fi c.nl/​sites/​defa​u lt/​fi les/​2020- ​08/​t weeta ​l ig-​ onderw ​ijs-​vor ​mgev​i ng-​en-​pre​stat​ies.pdf *Verspoor, M., Xu, X., & De Bot, K. (2013). T-​V WO en T-​H AVO. Even effectief? Verslag OTTO-​2 aan Europees Platform. Europees Platform. *Weenink, D. (2005). Upper middle-​class resources of power in the education arena: Dutch elite schools in an age of globalisation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Universiteit van Amsterdam. *Weenink, D. (2007). Cosmopolitan and established resources of power in the education arena. International Sociology, 22(4), 492–​516. DOI:10.1177/​0268580907078010 *Weenink, D. (2008). Cosmopolitanism as a form of capital. Sociology, 42(6), 1089–​1106. DOI:10.1177/​ 0038038508096935

418

419

28 CLIL IN ITALY Jacqueline Aiello and Emilia Di Martino1

The Italian education system The Italian school system is primarily financed by the national government, and the national Ministry of Education is responsible for the supervision and coordination of the system as a whole, while regional school authorities called Uffici Scolastici Regionali (USR) oversee compliance with minimum performance requirements, effectiveness of training actions, and observance of provisions in general (INDIRE, 2014). The role of USRs was crucial in the course of initial CLIL implementation, with more than 100 projects launched in the country at the end of the 1990s (Eurydice, 2006). At a national level, the Consiglio Superiore della Pubblica Istruzione (CSPI) [Higher Council for Public Education] guarantees the unity of the national education system, acting as an advisory body which provides the Minister with assistance in the planning and supervision of education policies (Eurydice, 2006); the National Institute for the Evaluation of the School and Vocational System (widely known by the acronym INVALSI), coordinates the national evaluation system, preparing tests for the nationwide external assessment of all pupils’ learning outcomes, storing the related data, soliciting questionnaire feedback on the overall system performance from students, teachers and families, and producing a report for the Ministry of Education every three years (Eurydice, n.d.). In turn, the National Institute of Documentation, Innovation and Research in Education, usually referred to with the acronym INDIRE, encourages and accompanies processes of improvement and innovation within the education system, soliciting continuous professional teacher development and ensuring documentation and research in education (Eurydice, n.d.). This body has been involved in CLIL implementation, carrying out research and launching experimental projects. School attendance, from kindergarten to the final year of upper secondary education examinations, is free of charge to guarantee that everyone has a right (and a duty or diritto/​ dovere) to receive education and training for at least 12 years or until they have obtained a three-​year vocational qualification by the age of 18 (INDIRE, 2014). The age range of compulsory education is six to 16. Overseeing student attendance is the responsibility of head teachers. The Ministry of the University and Research is in charge of coordination with the European community. Schools are also encouraged to create networks with other DOI: 10.4324/9781003173151-34

419

Jacqueline Aiello and Emilia Di Martino

schools, with universities, as well as with private corporations and associations, to engage in curriculum innovation, exchange pedagogical strategies and resources, generate collaborative research opportunities, and encourage teacher exchanges of information and resources (Pacino, 2002). This collaboration has proved crucial for the success of CLIL initiatives in the country and, in turn, CLIL has encouraged a positive convergence of stakeholders, generating a real community of people ‘working collaboratively in assisting, guiding and supporting headteachers and teachers in developing CLIL vertical curricula from primary to upper secondary schools’ (Langé, 2021, p. 224). The school system is divided into three tiers: first, second, and third cycle. In the first cycle, pre-​primary schools are for children between three and six years of age, primary schools for children between six and 11; in the second cycle, lower secondary schools, for students between 11 and 14. The upper secondary path, designed for students from 14 to 19, is offered by licei –​arts-​based upper secondary schools which specialise in a number of areas: art (liceo artistico), classical studies (liceo classico), science (liceo scientifico), languages (liceo linguistico), music and dance (liceo musicale e coreutico), human sciences (liceo delle scienze umane) (INDIRE, 2014); technical institutes; and vocational institutes. At the end of each school cycle, students sit for a final exam called the state examination (Esame di Stato). Students who pass earn a certificate which grants entrance into the workforce or access to higher education.

An overview of CLIL implementation The European Union began to proffer CLIL as an effective approach in both general and vocational education to boost students’ employability, mobility, and job readiness and to foster linguistic inclusivity and students’ communicative competence soon after the supranational organisation was formally established (Marsh & Langé, 2013 [2000]). For instance, the Council of the European Union Resolution (1995) on improving and diversifying language learning and teaching of the education systems within the Union promoted innovative methods including ‘the teaching of classes in a foreign language for disciplines other than languages’ (p. 3). In 2003, the Commission of the European Communities featured CLIL within its action plan to promote language learning and linguistic diversity and assessed that it ‘has a major contribution to make to the Union’s language learning goals’ (p. 8). The implementation of CLIL in Italy, in line with the European endorsement of the approach, began roughly three decades ago as a series of hybrid, grassroots phenomena. These gained a foothold in northern Italian regions where favourable language attitudes and policies have bolstered multilingualism, such as Valle d’Aosta in which French and Italian share official language status and Bolzano, inhabited by people of German, Italian, and Ladin heritage (Agolli, 2015; Cinganotto, 2016). The onset of the autonomy reform and Progetto Lingue 2000, advanced in 1997 by the Italian Ministry of Education to fund innovations in foreign language teaching and to enhance communicative competence at each level of schooling, paved the way for an increase in CLIL initiatives launched by actors at different levels –​from regional and provincial education authorities to individual schools and teachers (Infante et al., 2008). Yet these initiatives were also unevenly spread across the Italian peninsula and again took hold primarily in the north. One notable example is the Progetto Lingue Lombardia which instituted a five-​year CLIL experience beginning in 2001 for hundreds of primary and secondary schools across the Lombardy region. The promising results of these local projects propelled the official introduction of CLIL as a mandatory component of select upper secondary schools within a larger School Reform 420

CLIL in Italy

Law issued in 2010 (MIUR, 2010a). This regulation announced a series of stipulations. Licei linguistici were required to offer a first CLIL course in one foreign language from the third year onward and another CLIL course with a different vehicular language from the fourth year onward. All other licei and technical schools were required to offer a CLIL course during the fifth (and final) year of secondary school (see also Cinganotto, 2016). These mandates, which went into effect in licei linguistici in the 2012–​2 013 school year and in all licei and technical schools in 2014–​2 015, called for the instruction of a non-​l inguistic content area in a foreign language; however, they specified neither the content area nor the vehicular language of the CLIL courses. The non-​specific nature of the law both afforded latitude and presented challenges to the nationwide advent of CLIL. Despite challenges such as lacking teaching materials, a ministerial report monitoring CLIL experiences at this critical initial stage enumerates positive aspects of the innovation, including the co-​ planning of teaching activities and the application of new teaching techniques (Langé et al., 2014). During the transitory period after the Reform Law was announced but before CLIL was officially mandated in Italian schools, a pre-​CLIL phase was implemented in select schools. This precursory phase involved the partnership of the content and the language teacher in which the content teacher provided input to students in the first language (L1), while the language teacher mediated the content into the vehicular language (L2). Indeed, the recommendation to create cooperative CLIL teams constituted by content-​a rea teachers and other professionals was included within the Norme transitorie [Transitory norms] issued by the Ministry in 2013 and 2014 to provide guidance for putting CLIL into practice in licei and technical schools (MIUR, 2014). Other suggestions listed in these documents included the use of a foreign language in roughly half of the content-​a rea instruction, the adoption of digital tools, and the development of interschool support networks (Cinganotto, 2016). A second ministerial report that explored the implementation of CLIL during the 2014–​2015 school year revealed increased willingness among teachers ‘to share and capitalise their skills to such an extent that they felt compelled to make their materials and experience available to the community’ (Zanola & Pasquariello, 2016, p. 72, our translation). A critical specification put forth by a 2012 Italian Ministerial Decree detailed the profile of CLIL teachers in Italy in terms of the linguistic, content-​based, and pedagogical competences. Specifically, this profile depicted CLIL teachers as having a C1 level of proficiency in the vehicular language, the ability to integrate language and content appropriately, and the ability to develop and utilise assessment schemes adept to the CLIL approach. This profile governed many of the on-​the-​g round decisions related to CLIL. At the onset of CLIL implementation, the subject and language of CLIL courses across schools in Italy were primarily determined by the existing foreign language proficiency of content area teachers. That is, for instance, if at a given school a teacher had a high CEFR level in English, that teacher would be selected to teach his or her subject via CLIL with English as the vehicular language. However, before beginning CLIL instruction, these identified teachers underwent teacher training to build the linguistic and methodological skills necessary for successful CLIL implementation. The Ministry of Education established the criteria for CLIL training aimed at content-​ area teachers in decrees published before the official onset of CLIL. First, the teachers eligible for these courses were defined as in-​service content-​a rea teachers who have attained at least a B1 level in the vehicular language (MIUR, 2010b). The Ministry also specified the number of hours and the duration of language instruction at either language learning centres or local universities required for teachers to progress from a B1 to a C1 level in their vehicular 421

Jacqueline Aiello and Emilia Di Martino

language (i.e., 520 hours and at least four years). Then, a 2012 decree outlined specifications concerning methodological CLIL courses, taught solely at universities and launched in 2013. It mandated that these courses amount to 20 credits, comprise instruction covering transversal theoretical and methodological skills and tools, and conclude with a final exam. To incentivise teachers to participate in this training programme, the Ministry of Education granted 150 hours of paid leave and credits that could be used to obtain Comenius grants. Informed by the pioneering work of Carmel Coonan on CLIL, the implementation of these methodology courses in Italian universities across the peninsula was truly a noteworthy feat. Since the official adoption of CLIL as a national mandate, further measures have been enacted to support and even expand the use of the approach in Italian schools, often influenced by language policy at the European level. For instance, the 2014–​2020 Erasmus+​ programme of the European Commission welcomed proposals and funded Italian CLIL-​ focused projects. Although the focus of its 2021–​2027 iteration has shifted slightly, CLIL projects will likely benefit from this funding in the foreseeable future. Moreover, a 2014 report prepared for the European Commission foregrounded CLIL and computer-​a ssisted language learning as key measures to improve the effectiveness of language learning. The report advanced that it is critical for the success of CLIL that policymakers ‘permit schools at all ages and of all types to organise and [deliver] CLIL tailored to their needs and in a flexible way’ (Scott & Beadle, 2014, p. 29) and suggested that the European Commission use ‘available funding instruments to support large scale projects which will increase the effective take up and implementation of CLIL and [computer-​a ssisted language learning] in Member States’ (p. 30). In response to this recommendation and call to action, the 2015 La Buona Scuola [The Good School] reform included provisions to introduce CLIL starting at primary schools in Italy, which amplified existing foreign language programmes and CLIL interventions already implemented autonomously and spontaneously in many pre-​primary and primary schools (Mair, 2018). Additionally, influenced by the promising outcomes of the 2011–​2012 project E-​CLIL per una didattica innovativa (see Langé & Cinganotto, 2014), subsidies were provided in the 2015–​2016 and 2016–​2017 school years for primary and secondary school CLIL programmes that included innovative components such as the use of digital resources. This funding has spawned several projects that strive to strengthen the role of technology in CLIL. One such example is ClassLabs, in which classrooms transform into laboratories featuring the use of technology, hands-​on activities, and CLIL (Tavernise, 2020). Another example was Read On! for eCLIL, an extensive reading project that aimed to develop the content-​a rea knowledge, target language knowledge, and digital savoir faire of its participating students and involved 51 schools nationwide over three school years beginning in 2012 (MIUR, n.d.). In summary, supported both in terms of favourable policies and funding from supranational organisations such as the European Commission, the implementation of CLIL in Italy began with decentralised, bottom-​up initiatives to become a nationwide program that has the full support of the Ministry of Education. For almost ten years government mandates have required upper secondary schools to offer CLIL courses. Although closely regulated, the development of CLIL in Italy has nonetheless remained heterogeneous, as it was at its inception, due to latitude provided in mandates and the existing differences inherent across the Italian peninsula, about which more will be said later in this chapter. Furthermore, CLIL provisions have been more limited at the pre-​primary level and less established at the primary and lower secondary levels. Some more recent developments have targeted these levels, as discussed in the following section.

422

CLIL in Italy

Recent advancements in CLIL implementation The aforementioned La Buona Scuola [The Good School] reform (Law 107/​2015) included provisions to introduce CLIL starting at primary school level. However, whereas CLIL provision, still ‘marginal’ (Eurydice, 2006) at pre-​primary at the turn of the century, is growing at this educational level, with gradually more schools entering the ‘Rete CLIL’ network (an agreement among educational institutions to coordinate activities of common interest), according to teachers’ perceptions, it only amounts to roughly 0.2% of CLIL implementation (Cinganotto et al., 2022, p. 71). On the other hand, CLIL is by now a ‘valuable practice in primary and lower secondary schools’ (Cinganotto et al., 2022, p. 70), and a fully implemented initiative at upper secondary level, with CLIL activities being mandatory in English (the only compulsory foreign language from primary school onwards) but also in another foreign language2 in licei linguistici. Such activities are even assessed in the state examination in those cases in which the CLIL teacher is a member of the exam committee. In turn, CLIL has proved to be a driver for the internationalisation of schools, double/​joint diplomas (ESABAC, DSD) and subject certificates (IGCSE) exams currently mushrooming in the country (Langé, 2021). To locally regulate, implement and coordinate ordinary teaching activities, each school draws up its own Piano triennale dell’offerta formativa (PTOF), a document which spells out the school’s educational offer for the coming three years. While the Piano must be consistent with the objectives laid down at the national level, this strategic document –​which sets out the cultural identity of the school –​is drawn up by the Teachers’ Council operating at each school. This body makes sure that national objectives are properly adjusted to the local reality and stimuli. A copy of the PTOF is handed out to students and their parents on enrolment. It is within this document that CLIL activities first emerged unambiguously, as explicitly stated in the provision and officially and formally based in school practices. Indeed, Note 4969/​25 July 2014 (MIUR, 2014) issued by the Department of Education invited those schools with no subject teachers possessing the linguistic and methodological competences necessary to teach CLIL to realise cross-​curricular projects in a foreign language within the POF. Such activities were expected to benefit from collaboration among same-​class teachers coordinated through the synergy between non-​language teachers, the language teacher and, where feasible, other experts of the specific foreign language. It is indeed to be emphasised that the Italian Ministry’s choice was for CLIL to be implemented by non-​language subject teachers, following the lead of other countries, which were faced with the need to teach language learners alongside subject learners earlier on, realising it is crucial to foster in all teachers the development of knowledge of classroom discourse and awareness that recourse to ‘variation in discourse structure is necessary’ (Cazden, 2001 [1988], p. 76) when interacting in a natural way. Previous experiences in content learning in vehicular languages also demonstrated it is crucial to raise teachers’ consciousness to ‘the dynamics of language in children’s lives and communities’ (García et al., 2010, p. 132). The Italian focus on non-​language subject teachers came about precisely as the demonstration of this lesson having been learnt: only if subject teachers are made sensitive to the significance of language in teaching tout court and made aware that they are experts of the language of the specific subjects they teach, will they be able to help students understand and recognise that language is embedded in all learning. As Coonan explained, the CLIL teacher becomes ‘acutely aware of the issues associated with this [the significance of language in all teaching] as soon as teaching and learning must pass through a non-​native tongue’ (Coonan, 2011, p. 7). 423

Jacqueline Aiello and Emilia Di Martino

A specific CLIL certification is now fully recognised within the educational system for those teachers who did not have a chance to attend one of the Ministry-​f unded CLIL training courses or do not intend to attend training courses organised by other institutions: CeCLIL (Certificazione CLIL) (see the syllabus laid down for primary school teachers in Serragiotto, 2015, which demonstrates the strong academic interest in granting the primary school teacher full participant status in CLIL provision activities). The CeCLIL includes both theoretical and practical components while assessing the actual competences of CLIL teachers. The exam can be taken by subject or foreign language3 teachers with at least two years of CLIL practical experience, either at primary or secondary level. It consists of a written test, lasting approximately four hours, and a practical oral test of approximately 40 minutes. The written test includes four sections, and carries 90% of the exam weight: (1) is aimed to assess the candidate’s knowledge of the methodological approach through multiple choice and short answer questions; (2) requires the candidate to design a CLIL module from their specific professional (subject or language) perspective; (3) expects the candidate to turn an authentic text into a learning object through the creation of ad hoc teaching activities, again from their specific professional (subject or language) perspective; (4) invites the candidate to critically reflect on CLIL good practice, particularly with reference to their own personal experience. The second component of the exam (10% weight in terms of assessment) requires the candidate who passes the first component of the exam to engage in a short critical discussion of an observed CLIL lesson (in the case of foreign language teachers) or of a CLIL lesson taught (in the case of subject teachers). More specifically, primary school teachers are asked to perform a 20–​25-​m inute-​section of a mock lesson (two/​three practical activities) carried out in a foreign language of their choice, interacting with a simulated class, made up of examiners and other observers, who can ask questions regarding the contents of the activities presented or focusing on linguistic aspects. At the end of the lesson, each candidate has a chance to explain and support the choices made, discussing them critically and contextualising them. Subject teachers are expected to perform similarly, focusing on the presentation of the mock lesson, developing a specific activity and then justifying/​supporting/​contextualising the choices made. Foreign language teachers are invited to observe a simulated CLIL lesson and then engage in critical discussion on such aspects as the CLIL teacher’s foreign language competence; the class before, during and after the lesson (Laboratorio itals, 2022).

Contextual factors impacting CLIL and trade union perspectives Before examining the research that has focused on CLIL in Italy, it is necessary to underscore two factors that have had a significant impact on the implementation of CLIL in this context: the country’s political instability and trade unions. With reference to the former,4 an unfortunate result of the constant changes in the Italian government over relatively short periods of time is that initiatives taken by one government are put on hold if not permanently revoked when the government changes. The occasions for change may be later reformulated, however the risk of any innovation project put forth by a previous government being discontinued when the next government arrives is always high (Blöchle, 2015 [2007]). One aspect of CLIL that has suffered from this instability is CLIL teacher training. Langé (2005) has identified it as ‘undoubtedly an Achilles’ heel’. Indeed, during a February 2021 meeting, the most recent exchange on CLIL among stakeholders at the time of writing, ministerial delegates and trade union representatives discussed a bill on non-​compulsory CLIL training courses for upper secondary school teachers agreeing on the need ‘to tackle the issue of CLIL teacher training at a relaxed pace in the face of the current government crisis, from 424

CLIL in Italy

which new indications regarding the education sector may emerge’ (FGU, 2021, our translation; see also Snals, 2021; orizzontescuola.it, 2021). Some trade union representatives, in particular, contend that focusing on methodology is pointless when most teachers lack the fundamentals of foreign language competence: ‘True training must start from dedicated language courses, and not just English, for teachers, to then approach CLIL methodology (remember that a C1 level of knowledge would be required by law for the teachers involved, something practically impossible with current resources)’ (FGU, 2021, our translation). From this (however minor5) perspective, CLIL activities would only appear to work ‘on paper’, with the exception of some elite schools, hence the call for an overall assessment of the actual reach and impact of CLIL activities in Italy. The union claim is that CLIL implementation promises those involved that they will attain learning objectives which the current school organisation is simply unable to deliver (FGU Napoli, 2021). Considering that it takes time for a school reform to achieve differential effects, one cannot ignore that ‘in spite of the many political changes within Italian governments, new laws or regulations have not changed the status of CLIL within the educational system. This is one of the rare situations where policy cycles and political cycles have converged’ (Langé, 2021, p. 224). Indeed, notwithstanding the detrimental effects of the country’s high political turnover rate on education reform, CLIL stands strong almost ten years since it became a mandated component of the school curriculum. This can certainly be attributed to the excellent pioneering work done by Coonan and Langé who, in distinct but complementary ways, have enhanced both the educational framework of CLIL for both language and subject teachers (in the case of the former) and the institutional initiatives for the implementation of CLIL (the latter). Moreover, the enthusiasm and energy that Italy-​based passionate supporters of the CLIL approach worldwide such as Langé, Cinganotto, and Cuccurullo keep investing in CLIL continue to feed expectations and trust in the possibilities of CLIL in this country, even though the road to generalised acceptance remains long and bumpy.

A review of CLIL research This section provides a critical overview of research that has been conducted on CLIL in the Italian context. It begins by discussing research done chiefly before the onset of CLIL that investigated the views of students and teachers on the approach, before turning to a brief account of research into CLIL teacher training. The final two subsections are devoted to research that has focused on CLIL outcomes in both in-​and out-​of-​school contexts.

Teachers and students’ perspectives on CLIL Research conducted at the early stages of CLIL implementation uncovered some apprehension towards the approach among key actors. These findings emerged most poignantly in a series of studies that delved into CLIL perceptions of teachers and students in the southern Italian city of Naples. The study reported in Di Martino (2011) was carried out in the year before CLIL mandates went into effect in licei linguistici and it revealed that teachers had mixed opinions on CLIL. Specifically, teachers acknowledged that CLIL had the potential to improve linguistic and content-​based competences but they also perceived that they were unprepared to properly enact CLIL. Di Martino and Di Sabato (2012) provided additional evidence of concerns about the forthcoming roll-​out of CLIL. The Neapolitan teachers in their study expressed unease about insufficient teacher L2 competence for successful 425

Jacqueline Aiello and Emilia Di Martino

CLIL instruction, inability to cover the content-​based programme using CLIL, and discord between traditional teaching approaches and CLIL. Aiello et al. (2017) zeroed in on future CLIL teachers whose vehicular language proficiency was being assessed before embarking on their CLIL methodology training courses to find that these teachers’ actual and perceived proficiencies were not statistically significantly different. Notwithstanding this awareness of their language knowledge, teachers perceived their language proficiency as unsatisfactory and displayed low levels of willingness to communicate in the vehicular language, which has indisputable implications for CLIL practice. Similar themes emerged when the focus shifted to student perceptions. For instance, centring on the attitudes of Neapolitan students who had not yet experienced CLIL, Di Martino’s (2015) analysis of questionnaire data collected from 226 participants suggests enthusiasm towards CLIL among this cohort, particularly among students of licei linguistici who looked to CLIL as a tool for improving their linguistic proficiency. However, students also shared profound scepticism rooted in whether CLIL could be enacted effectively in Neapolitan schools. They deemed that teachers lacked the skills to adequately apply the approach and students lacked the linguistic skills to excel in a content-​a rea course taught in another language. Together, by giving voice to teachers and students who would be directly involved in CLIL, this research laid bare some of the issues (e.g., lagging L2 knowledge among teachers and students) and benefits (e.g., the potential of CLIL to enhance L2 knowledge) that the roll-​out of CLIL could occasion in contexts characterised by unfavourable socio-​economic conditions and lagging language competence.

CLIL teacher training Another strand of research has examined CLIL teacher training in Italy. In light of the heterogeneity of CLIL training courses arising from the autonomy that universities nationwide have held in adopting training models, many studies have detailed experiences with CLIL methodological courses in specific settings. Some examples of these studies include Barana and Marchisio’s (2018) focus on training for problem-​based activities implemented at the University of Turin; Lopriore’s (2020) survey of training in the Lazio region; Rasulo et al.’s (2017) description of a CLIL-​for-​Science Diploma Course held at a university in the Campania region; and Tommaso’s (2019) discussion of training of in-​service teachers in the Molise region. These studies, which mainly present discrete ‘best practices’ in CLIL training, are indicative of the great variability in the organisation and nature of CLIL training courses in Italy. They therefore suggest the need both for more exhaustive institutional training guidelines and for cooperation and dialogue among training institutions across the country (Tommaso, 2019). Coonan (2017), one of the foremost CLIL scholars in Italy, provides additional insights in this vein with a snapshot of the outcomes of the Venice model adopted in the training courses targeted at in-​service teachers in the Veneto and Friuli-​Venezia Giulia regions. The Venice model employs an experiential, constructivist learning approach to the instruction of linguistic, methodological, and ICT content. It aims at convincing CLIL teachers to incorporate diversification, learning tasks, and effective delivery of foreign language input. The descriptive study of the implementation of this innovative training model unveiled a series of significant findings. First, the CLIL approach is perceived by some teachers as ‘a form of colonisation or take-​over of the traditional, well-​established ex cathedra mode of delivery which typically characterises teaching in Italian high schools’ (Coonan, 2017, p. 12). This belief has resulted in teachers being resistant to change their teaching practices 426

CLIL in Italy

and embrace CLIL methods. Second, some of the assumptions of the existing knowledge of CLIL trainees enrolled in the training courses proved to be unmet, and gaps needed to be filled in varied domains including in the classroom applications of ICT, cooperative learning, and higher-​order thinking skills. Third, in the conclusion to the study, Coonan (2017) raises valid questions about the profile of the CLIL teacher trainer and importantly claims that ‘in no situation whatsoever have the trainers received any training for CLIL teacher training’ (p. 14). These findings concerning teacher beliefs, existing skills, and trainer training provide important food for thought in terms of what is needed to refine CLIL training courses in the Italian context.

CLIL education outcomes Another significant research thread has explored CLIL outcomes. Several of these studies report on outcomes of pre-​m andate modular projects. One such example is Goris et al. (2019), who collected data in 2013 from a northern Italian school (among others) and found non-​significant pre-​post-​CLIL changes in EFL confidence and non-​significant differences in international orientation between the CLIL and control groups. Then, Gallagher and Colohan (2017) report on a 2012 treatment-​control group study that showed promising results of using the students’ L1 as a language teaching tool in a CLIL classroom in a secondary school in northern Italy. Another example is Grandinetti et al. (2013), which describes a three-​hour module on the anatomy of the human heart implemented by a language and content teacher at a southern Italian secondary school. While these studies provide anecdotal evidence of CLIL outcomes, this research on modular projects speaks more to isolated CLIL implementation by select motivated teachers rather than the impacts of a nationwide innovation. Cinganotto’s extensive production on different ways in which CLIL has been and can be implemented in the Italian context has contributed to depicting a positive image of CLIL. She has argued, for instance, in favour of a game-​based immersive approach to CLIL (Cinganotto, 2017), the use of debates in CLIL instruction (Cinganotto, 2018), and remote CLIL teaching and learning during the Covid-​19 pandemic (Cinganotto, 2020). Overall, this research has chiefly presented case studies and isolated best practices that may be adopted by eager CLIL educators. The most developed research strand on the outcomes of CLIL in Italy reports on its application in scientific disciplines, likely because scientific subjects are most frequently selected to be taught through CLIL in Italy. For instance, Rosi (2018) studied the impact of a single one-​month physics unit implemented with a secondary school class by analysing pre-​test, post-​test, and delayed post-​test data of both a treatment (CLIL) and a control (non-​CLIL class) group. A greater content-​specific competence increase transpired in both the post-​test and delayed post-​test results of students in the CLIL class than those in the non-​CLIL class (Rosi, 2018). Yet, because the treatment was a single, standalone unit with a small number of participants, positive results may be attributed to the novelty of CLIL and/​or the enthusiasm of the teacher. While much of the aforementioned research did not aim to and/​or failed to provide robust evidence of gains attained from CLIL, a study distinctive for its methodological rigour and its selected participants is reported in Virdia (2020). This study sought to explore differences in content-​subject and cognitive achievement between CLIL and non-​CLIL primary school classrooms. Specifically, it compared the pre-​post outcomes on an internationally standardised test of three groups of primary school students in Trento who experienced 427

Jacqueline Aiello and Emilia Di Martino

year-​long science courses in English (CLIL treatment group 1: 21 schools and 394 students), in German (CLIL treatment group 2: 19 schools and 318 students), and in Italian, their L1 (control group: 16 schools and 276 students). Results revealed a small, negative effect of CLIL on science learning for both treatment groups on average, and poignantly displayed that the least advantaged students fared worse. Based on the findings, Virdia (2020) discusses a series of implications and explanations including that longer-​term exposure to CLIL may be necessary before benefits transpire; the student-​centred nature of CLIL may negatively impact on the attainment of content-​related knowledge (and favour the development of other skills); CLIL may give rise to difficulty in the simultaneous processing of content and language; and CLIL might engender content-​learning inequality, or ‘the positive effect of CLIL programmes on inequality of opportunity in terms of language learning […] may come at the cost of content learning’ (p. 1888).

CLIL in out-​of-​school contexts Another area of research worthy of mention is the unique perspective of CLIL implemented in out-​of-​school contexts, and specifically in museums, explored by Fazzi (2020) and Fazzi and Lasagabaster (2021). According to Fazzi (2020), the adoption of CLIL in the learning provisions of museums emerged as a uniquely Italian experience and it is becoming increasingly popular in Italy. The researcher conducted an action research project at the Civic Museums of Venice that investigated the affordances and issues surrounding the implementation of CLIL museum programs for secondary school students over a three-​year period. Fazzi (2020) studied the perceptions of stakeholders, including museum staff, while Fazzi and Lasagabaster (2021) investigated student attitudes and perceived outcomes. In the former, Fazzi (2020) uncovered that museum staff are motivated to implement CLIL to support the delivery of the school curriculum, to help teachers face the challenges of CLIL training and delivery, and to address their mission of promoting lifelong learning. However, although the profile of the CLIL teacher has been clearly established by legal precedents and the CLIL literature, no such indications are provided for museum educators. Fazzi and Lasagabaster (2021) analysed quantitative and qualitative questionnaire data from 284 upper secondary students to reveal positive attitudes towards the integration of CLIL and museum-​based pedagogies grounded in the fascinating and unique nature of museum artefacts, and the use of English in more authentic contexts. Given these promising results and the widespread presence of cultural and artistic sites within Italy, museums may provide fertile ground for the development of CLIL nationwide. Excluding some noteworthy exceptions, as a whole, the research on CLIL in Italy describes some very compelling examples of CLIL implemented across different schools and contexts, oftentimes providing fascinating springboards that educators can use when implementing this approach. Yet, in light of the profound scepticism exhibited by teachers and students detailed by aforementioned studies, it is surprising that now, years removed from the implementation of CLIL as a mandatory component of the curriculum, very few rigorous studies exist that provide generalisable, comprehensive, and convincing evidence that the implementation of CLIL nationwide has lived up to its promises. Some recent studies (particularly Virdia, 2020) are certainly trying to fill this gap, but a dearth of rigorous, systematic research on CLIL outcomes characterises the Italian context. More concrete research is needed to fill this lacuna, to offset scepticism and to substantiate the claim that there are many benefits for Italian schools to reap by fully investing in CLIL.

428

CLIL in Italy

Conclusion Highly centralised by tradition, Italy’s school system has only partly decentralised, and CLIL has served as a catalyst for cooperation among the different components of the system. At a national level, CLIL is financed, supervised, and coordinated by the Ministry of Education, with regional school authorities playing a crucial role at initial CLIL implementation stage and INDIRE carrying out CLIL-​related research and launching CLIL experimental projects. CLIL activities first emerged in clear, practical form in school practices through the local, school-​based documents which spell out each school’s educational offer. Over the years, they have become a driving force in the internationalisation of schools and in the spread of the awareness that all teachers are language teachers, generating a proper ‘cultural change’ (Serragiotto, 2017, p. 85). What can other countries gain from the Italian CLIL experience? CLIL has certainly proved to be a change agent in this country in terms of educational institutions’ own progress and growth: it has been a driver for the internationalisation of schools and for the emergence of collaborating networks (schools, universities, trainers, teachers) at regional and inter-​regional level, which have become virtuous communities of practice assisting and supporting those directly involved in CLIL practice (Langé, 2021). Hence the European institutions’ appreciation of Italy’s language policies whenever comparative studies are carried out (Langé, 2021). This means that the mandatory status of CLIL in the school curriculum does make a difference from the perspective of the schools’ own capacity for development. Since Italy is the only European country and may be, to our knowledge, the only country to date where CLIL is a compulsory companion to some school subjects, this statutory condition would appear to have proved a crucial asset. This is surely the most relevant takeaway from CLIL implementation in Italy for readers located in other countries. And yet, despite this pioneering experience and the related adamantly positive take on CLIL from institutional sources, there are some aspects that we cannot ignore. First, the overview of the research into CLIL in Italy provided in this chapter has unveiled that there is a dearth of rigorous studies to date. Thus, evidence of the benefits of the nationwide implementation of CLIL is lacking. We are confident of the potential advantages inherent in this approach but more than mere ‘best practices’ are necessary to uncover how CLIL functions within the diverse student populations across Italy. Second, there is validity in the belief that CLIL is an elite phenomenon which the school administration is unable to fully implement and deliver (FGU, 2021). It comes as no surprise that one of the current strands of international CLIL research stems indeed from the urgency to address issues of power and inequality which would appear to be still ‘overlooked by the dominant paradigms in the field’ (Codó & Patiño-​Santos, 2018, p. 480; see also Llinares & Evnitskaya, 2020; Virdia, 2020), despite the fact that CLIL was already labelled as a form of elite bilingual education some 20 years back (de Mejía, 2002) and the questions of whether it increases rather than decreases inequality (Bruton, 2011) have cropped up since its onset. The heterogeneity that has characterised the implementation of CLIL since its inception in Italy risks exacerbating this situation, with areas of the country that are more developed both linguistically and socio-​economically reaping the greatest benefits of the approach. It is therefore necessary to undertake ethnographic fieldwork aimed at exploring CLIL at the intersection of such variables as gender, class, culture, and ethnicity in this country. In addition to the value of the mandatory status of CLIL in the school curriculum, the lessons learned in Italy would also appear to be that full accessibility (Italian students are not streamed into CLIL versus non-​CLIL classes) is an asset. Indeed, from an institutional 429

Jacqueline Aiello and Emilia Di Martino

perspective the absence of specific recommendations on admission criteria to CLIL classes is certainly a ‘democratic and inclusive choice made at the political level’ (Langé, 2021, p. 224). However, in order to reliably assess the significance and impact of this accessibility and decide on its value as a model of good practice (as for the issue of its mandatory status), the priority of future CLIL implementation and research in Italy should be on how it can be used to further reduce inequality.

Notes 1 Although this article was a collaborative effort, the first author was primarily responsible for the sections entitled ‘An overview of CLIL implementation’ and ‘A review of CLIL research’, while the second author was primarily responsible for the sections entitled ‘The Italian education system’, ‘Conclusion’, and ‘Further reading’, and the subsections ‘Recent advancements in CLIL implementation’ and ‘Contextual factors impacting CLIL and trade union perspectives’. 2 There is not much flexibility in terms of language choice, with the most frequently represented other-​than-​English languages on the curriculum being French, German, and Spanish. However, because some schools offer ‘more languages, including non-​European ones, either on the curriculum or as extra-​curricular activities’ (Cinganotto et al., 2022, p. 90), this means that in a few cases CLIL activities may be carried in such languages, too. This possibility is demonstrated by a Study Day initiative organised on 16 December 2021 at Università degli Studi di Urbino Carlo Bo on ‘CCLIL. Chinese Content and Language Integrated Learning. Innovations in the teaching of Chinese: School and University’. 3 English, French, German, Spanish, and Italian as a foreign language. 4 The Economist Intelligence Unit rated Italy a ‘flawed democracy’ when assessing the democracy index of 167 countries in 2019 (Economist, 2020). 5 But consider Namuth’s consideration that (1) a 2012 survey carried out by market research institute IPR demonstrates the unions’ popularity among the general public; (2) Italian trade unionists are amongst ‘the most active at European level’ (Namuth 2013, p. 6).

Further reading Cinganotto, L., & Cuccurullo, D. (2019). Techno-​CLIL. Fare CLIL in digitale. Loescher. This book is representative of the country’s perspective on CLIL, illustrating the current trend emphasising the primacy of a virtuous connection between technology and CLIL. Giordano, C., & Maurizio, C. (2021). Il CLIL nella scuola primaria e dell’infanzia. Teoria e pratica di una risorsa per l’apprendimento delle lingue. Carocci. This is the latest book on CLIL to our knowledge, fully authored by Italians. It opens a window into the ongoing developments of CLIL in previously marginal environments. Graziano, A., Turchetta, B., Benedetti, F. & Cinganotto, L. (Eds.) (2021). Pedagogical and technological innovations in (and through) content and language integrated learning. Cambridge Scholars. In addition to being one of the most recent Italian publications on CLIL, this volume provides evidence of the fruitful exchange between academics and schoolteachers. It features, as a finale, a contribution by Langé which summarises ‘The good, the bad and the future [of CLIL] in a global context’. Ricci Garotti, F. (Ed.). (2020). Dialogo sul CLIL tra scuola e università: Studi di caso in content and language integrated learning. Studium. This book examines the significance and reality of network relationships in encouraging CLIL innovation.

References Agolli, R. (2015). Content and language symbiosis in a maieutic, translanguaging pattern. Latin American Journal of Content and Language Integrated Learning, 8(1), 43–​54.

430

CLIL in Italy Aiello, J., Di Martino, E., & Di Sabato, B. (2017). Preparing teachers in Italy for CLIL. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 20(1), 69–​83. Barana, A., & Marchisio, M. (2018). Teacher training to the use of CLIL methodology in problem based activities. In L. Incalcaterra McLoughlin & A. Villarini (Eds.), E-​learning, MOOCs and foreign languages (pp. 83–​92). UniorPress. Blöchle, S-​J. (2015 [2007]). Italy. In W. Hörner, H. Döbert, L.R. Reuter & B. von Kopp (Eds.), The education systems of Europe (pp. 403–​424). Springer. Bruton, A. (2011). Is CLIL so beneficial, or just selective? System, 39, 523–​532. Cazden, C. (2001 [1988]). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Heinemann. Cinganotto, L. (2016). CLIL in Italy. Latin American Journal of Content and Language Integrated Learning, 9(2), 374–​400. Cinganotto, L. (2017). Game-​based immersive approach to EFL and CLIL. HLT, 19(3). Cinganotto, L. (2018). Debating at school in Italy. Journal of Research Institute, 58, 123–​134. Cinganotto, L. (2020). Lessons learnt from remote CLIL and online interaction during COVID-​19 emergency. Conference Proceedings of the Innovation in Language Learning Virtual Conference 2020. Cinganotto, L., Benedetti, F., Langé, G., & Lamb, T. (2022). A survey of language/​teaching with an overview of activities in Italy during the COVID-​19 pandemic. INDIRE. Codó, E., & Patiño-​Santos, A. (2018). CLIL, unequal working conditions and neoliberal subjectivities in a state secondary school. Language Policy, 17(4), 479–​499. Commission of the European Communities. (2003). Promoting language learning and linguistic diversity. Commission of the European Communities. Coonan, C.M. (2011). CLIL in (language) teacher training. Studi di Glottodidattica, 2, 1–​14. Coonan, C.M. (2017). CLIL teacher education. LTE, 4(2), 1–​16. Council of the European Union. (1995). Council Resolution of 31 March 1995 on improving and diversifying language learning and teaching within the education systems of the European Union. OJEC, 207, 1–​5. de Mejía, A-​M. (2002). Power, prestige and bilingualism. Multilingual Matters. Di Martino, E. (2011). CLIL: Resoconto di un’indagine sulle preoccupazioni e le attese dei docenti. Studi di Glottodidattica, 1, 72–​90. Di Martino, E. (2015). CLIL: la voce dei più giovani. EL.LE, 4(1), 85–​114. Di Martino, E., & Di Sabato, B. (2012). CLIL implementation in Italian schools. Latin American Journal of Content and Language Integrated Learning, 5(2), 73–​105. Economist. (2020). Global democracy has another bad year. www.econom ​ist.com/​g rap​h ic-​det​a il/​ 2020/​01/​22/​g lo​bal-​democr​acy-​has-​a not​her-​bad-​year Eurydice. (2006). CLIL at School in Europe. www.ind ​i re.it/​luca​bas/​l kmw_​f​i le/​euryd ​ice/​CLIL ​_​ EN.pdf Eurydice. (n.d.). Italy: Quality assurance in early childhood and school education. https://​eacea.ec.eur​opa. eu/​n atio​n al-​p olic​ies/​euryd​ice/​cont​e nt/​qual​ity-​a ssura​nce-​e arly-​childh​o od-​a nd-​s ch​o ol-​e ducat​ ion-​33_​en Fazzi, F. (2020). Stakeholders’ perceptions over the integration of CLIL and museum education and methodological implications. EL.LE, 9(3), 407–​436. Fazzi, F., & Lasagabaster, D. (2021). Learning beyond the classroom: Students’ attitudes towards the integration of CLIL and museum-​based pedagogies. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 15(2), 156–​168. FGU –​Gilda degli insegnanti. (2021). CLIL, incontro con il MI sulla bozza di decreto per la formazione. www.gilda ​i ns.it/​news/​dettag ​l io.asp?id=​10600 FGU Napoli –​Gilda degli insegnanti di Napoli. (2021). Novità dal MI-​CLIL, incontro con il MI sulla bozza di decreto per la formazione. www.gild​a nap​oli.it/​?p=​17766 Gallagher, F., & Colohan, G. (2017). T(w)o and fro. LLJ, 45(4), 485–​498. García, E., Arias, M., Murri, N., & Serna, C. (2010), Developing responsive teachers: A challenge for a demographic reality. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1–​2), 132–​142. Goris, J., Denessen, E., & Verhoeven, L. (2019). The contribution of CLIL to learners’ international orientation and EFL confidence. LLJ, 47(2), 246–​256. Grandinetti, M., Langellotti, M., & Ting, Y-​L . (2013). How CLIL can provide a pragmatic means to renovate science education. IJBEB, 16(3), 354–​374. INDIRE. (2014). The Italian education system. I Quaderni di Eurydice 30. www.ind ​i re.it/​luca​bas/​ lkmw_ ​i mg/​euryd​ice/​quade​r no_​eury​d ice​_ ​30_​per_​web.pdf

431

Jacqueline Aiello and Emilia Di Martino Infante, D., Benvenuto, G., & Lastrucci, E. (2008). Integrating content and language at primary school in Italy. International CLIL Research Journal, 1(1), 74–​82. Laboratorio itals. (2022). CeCLIL (Certificazione CLIL) Università ‘Ca’ Foscari’ di Venezia. www.itals. it/​cer ​t ifi​cazi​one/​cec​l il Langé, G. (2005). Taking teacher training online in Lombardy. The Guardian, April 20. Langé, G. (2021). CLIL/​E MILE: The good, the bad and the future in a global context. In A. Graziano, B. Turchetta, F. Benedetti & L. Cinganotto (Eds.), Pedagogical and technological innovations in (and through) CLIL (pp. 219–​242). Cambridge Scholars. Langé, G., & Cinganotto, L. (Eds). (2014). E–​CLIL per una didattica innovativa. I Quaderni della Ricerca, 18. Langé, G., Benvenuto, G., Cinganotto, L., & Vacca, M. (2014). L’introduzione della metodologia CLIL nei Licei Linguistici. www.miur.gov.it/​monit​orag​g io-​sulla-​meto​dolo​g ia-​clil-​nei-​l icei-​l ing​u ist​ici-​ anno-​sco​last​ico-​2012-​13 pdf Llinares, A., & Evnitskaya, N. (2020). Classroom interaction in CLIL programs. TESOL Quarterly, 55(2), 366–​397. Lopriore, L. (2020). Reframing teaching knowledge in CLIL. LTR, 24(1), 94–​104. Mair, O. (2018). Four seasons of CLIL at two Italian pre-​schools. In F. Costa, C. Cucchi, O. Mair, & A. Murphy (Eds.), English for young learners from pre-​school to lower secondary (pp. 21–​54). Universitas Studiorum. Marsh, D., & Langé, G. (2013 [2000]). CLIL. In M. Byram & A. Hu (Eds.), Routledge encyclopedia of language teaching and learning (pp. 147–​149). Routledge. MIUR. (2010a). Decreto del Presidente della Repubblica 15 marzo 2010, n. 89. MIUR. (2010b). Avvio delle attività per la formazione dei docenti di disciplina non linguistica secondo la metodologia CLIL. Nota MIUR Direzione Generale per il personale scolastico 10872 del 9 dicembre 2010. MIUR. (2014). Norme transitorie CLIL. www.ist ​r uzi​one.it/​a lleg ​ati/​2014/​Norme_​Transitorie_​CLIL_​ Lic​ei_​I​stit​uti_​Tecn​ici_​Lug2​014.pdf MIUR. (n.d.). Progetto read on! https://​m iur.gov.it/​proge​t to-​read-​on-​for-​eclil Namuth, M. (2013). Trade unions in Italy. EFQM. https://​l ibr​a ry.fes.de/​pdf-​fi les/​id-​moe/​09590.pdf orizzontescuola.it. (2021). Formazione CLIL docenti primo ciclo. www.oriz​zont​escu​ola.it/​for ​m azi​ one-​clil-​doce​nti-​primo-​c iclo-​i l-​m i-​spi​n ge-​per-​l a-​sper​i men​t azi​one-​m a-​i-​sindac​ati-​f ren​a no-​a sp​ etti​a mo-​i l-​nuovo-​gove​r no/​ Pacino, M.A. (2002). Italy. In World education encyclopedia (pp. 656–​ 671). Gale Group/​ Thomson Learning. Rasulo, M., De Meo, A., & De Santo, M. (2017). Processing science through CLIL. In A.W. Oliveira & M.H. Weinburgh (Eds.), Science teacher preparation in content-​based second language acquisition (pp. 305–​322). Springer. Rosi, F. (2018). Content-​specific learning in CLIL. EL.LE, 7(1), 27–​49. Scott, D., & Beadle, S. (2014). Improving the effectiveness of language learning. ICF Consulting Limited for the European Commission. Serragiotto, G. (2015). Syllabus di competenze del docente CLIL per la scuola primaria. IPRASE. Serragiotto, G. (2017). The problems of implementing CLIL in Italy. International Journal of Linguistics, 9(5), 82–​96. Snals. (2021). Corsi di aggiornamento per l’insegnamento di una disciplina in lingua straniera con metodologia CLIL. www.snals.it/​2991​8 _​Co​r si+​d i+​a ggior ​name​nto+​per+​l-​i nseg ​name​nto+​d i+​u na+​d is​cipl ​i na+​ in+​l in​g ua+​strani​era+​con+​meto​dolo​g ia+​CLIL.snals Tavernise, A. (2020). CLIL approach and educational technologies. In E. Podovšovnik (Ed.), Examining the roles of teachers and students in mastering new technologies (pp. 224–​239). IGI Global. Tommaso, L. (2019). Content teachers’ perspectives from a CLIL methodology training course. EL. LE, 8(3), 655–​674. Virdia, S. (2020). The (heterogeneous) effect of CLIL on content-​subject and cognitive acquisition in primary education. IJBEB, 25(5), 1877–​1893. Zanola, M. T., & Pasquariello, M. (2016). Azioni a supporto della metodologia CLIL nel licei linguistici. https://​s elda.unic​a tt.it/​m il​a no-​a zioni_ ​a _ ​s upporto_​d ella_​metodologia ​_​cli​l _​ne​i _ ​l i​cei_ ​l ing​u ist​ ici._​a nno_​scol​a sti​co_ ​2​0142​015._​rapp​orto​_​fi n​a le.pdf

432

433

29 CLIL IN ECUADOR Juanita Argudo-Serrano, Tammy Fajardo-​Dack, and Mónica Abad-Célleri

Introduction Content and language integrated learning (CLIL) involves the interplay of three core dimensions: content, language, and procedures or skills, in which both the conceptual content and linguistic content are considered vehicles for the development of cognitive skills or competences, which are contained in the procedural content (Ball et al., 2015). In CLIL, it cannot be assumed that learners already have the necessary language skills to learn subject content. In fact, learners need to develop these language skills through explicit teaching, which consists of making learners aware of the type of language they need in order to perform a task as well as supporting learners when producing that type of language (Ball et al., 2015). In order to achieve a systematic integration of language and content that contributes to the development of CLIL pedagogies, Coyle (2007) developed the 4Cs Framework that integrates ‘content (subject matter), communication (language), cognition (learning and thinking), and culture (social awareness of self and “otherness”)’ as a complex relationship (p. 550). Due to the substantial benefits that learners can reap from CLIL such as enhanced motivation, higher levels of cognitive engagement and related cognitive development, enhanced communication skill development, deeper language progress, meaningful interaction, and intercultural awareness, among others (Dale & Tanner, 2012), CLIL has expanded rapidly, especially in Europe and Latin America. Empirical studies have focused mainly on teachers’ and learners’ beliefs (Corrales et al., 2016), pedagogy (McDougald, 2018), teacher education (Banegas & del Pozo Beamud, 2022), global citizenship (Porto, 2016), and language development (Torres Martinez, 2013); nevertheless, data-​d riven studies that show how CLIL has been operationalised in Latin America are scant (Banegas et al., 2020), Ecuador being no exception to this reality. This chapter reviews the current status of research in CLIL in the Ecuadorian context.

Context According to the Ecuadorian Ministry of Education (Ministerio de Educación del Ecuador, 2016), taking EFL classes in all educational levels is mandatory and is based on the canons of DOI: 10.4324/9781003173151-35

433

Juanita Argudo-Serrano, Tammy Fajardo-Dack, and Mónica Abad-Célleri

the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR). Although students are expected to reach a B1 proficiency level when finishing high school, they are far from meeting this requirement, as shown in the Education First (EF) index (2020), which ranks Ecuador in position 93 out of 100 countries and in the last position out of 19 countries in Latin America. Some have speculated that these results could be the consequence of the insufficient number of English teachers and low proficiency levels of some of the in-​ service teachers. In order to address this identified need to improve English as a foreign language (EFL) teaching and learning, as of 2016 the Ecuadorian educational authorities have implemented CLIL in the national English curriculum with the goal of enhancing students’ English learning through the use of CLIL pedagogies (Ministerio de Educación del Ecuador, 2016, 2019a). Similarly, in higher education, CLIL has been used in some undergraduate programmes such as EFL teaching, international relations, and tourism for teaching subject matters. However, despite these key recent changes in Ecuadorian education, very few studies on CLIL implementation and its effects have been published. In this chapter we address this issue and aim to make a contribution by summarising the state-​of-​ the-​a rt research conducted on CLIL implementations in Ecuador. Through this analysis, our aim is to examine the literature and present here how CLIL has been operationalised and implemented in Ecuadorian educational settings and help to determine trends and omissions, which can contribute to improve and advance research in this area. The chapter begins with a review of the research methodologies used in the corpus of studies examined; it then focuses on factors that seem to have either contributed to or hindered CLIL implementation in Ecuador, and in the last section, we report on findings about the effects of CLIL on language and cognitive development.

The review For this review, a literature search was conducted in order to identify and analyse how teachers and researchers have implemented CLIL in Ecuador since it was adopted in 2016. For this purpose, the following criteria for selecting the studies were considered: The studies had to be conducted in Ecuador; only peer reviewed publications were selected to ensure only high-​quality research was included. In addition, as the focus of this chapter is on empirical studies, this was also a criterion for inclusion in our corpus of articles on CLIL studies that were carried out in Ecuador. Our search was conducted by accessing several academic databases. The search terms, keywords, and phrases in their various combinations were the following: (1) CLIL in Ecuador; (2) language development; (3) content development (4) cognitive skills; (5) language learning; and (6) content learning. The search was done for research articles in Spanish and English published since 2016 as this is the year the government included CLIL in the curriculum. Our search strategy also specifically included publication venues that focus on research in Latin American, such as Latin American Journal of Content and Language Integrated Learning (LACLIL), Revista Pertinencia Académica, Revista Boletín Redipe, Ciencia Digital, among others. After a thorough search, only eight articles reporting on empirical studies conducted in the Ecuadorian context meeting all our search criteria were found: Andrade Mendoza et al. (2020), Argudo et al. (2018), Benalcázar-​Bermeo and Ortega-​Auquilla (2019), Dahik Solis et al. (2017), Ortega-​Auquilla et al. (2021), Palma (2020), Recino et al. (2019), and Vega and Moscoso (2019). We analysed each of the eight studies following these categories: (1) the research methodology used for the study; (2) the factors that enhance and hinder the application of CLIL 434

CLIL in Ecuador

in educational contexts; and (3) the learners’ development of language and cognitive skills. This process followed the two coding levels described by Creswell (2014); in other words, a holistic procedure to organise information into categories and a thematic analysis to look for issues that responded to the purpose of the analysis (Wolcott, 1994 as cited in Creswell, 2014). After the first round of coding, there was a comparison process to solve any disagreements among the three researchers/​authors of this chapter.

On research methods and contexts Educational research provides teachers with the essential tools to analyse and make important and necessary decisions about how to improve their teaching methodologies (Mertens, 2015). In this regard, examining the different research methodologies used by Ecuadorian EFL teachers and researchers to carry out studies on the implementation of CLIL can contribute to shed light on the current situation to upgrade the use of this approach, which can also bring about positive effects on students’ performance.

Participants and setting Both a wide age range and various levels of education and occupation of participants were found in the different studies, including primary and secondary school students (Andrade Mendoza et al., 2020; Benalcázar-​Bermeo & Ortega-​Auquilla, 2019), university students (Dahik Solis et al., 2017; Ortega-​Auquilla et al., 2021; Vega & Moscoso, 2019), EFL student teachers (Argudo et al., 2018; Recino et al., 2019), and EFL teachers (Andrade Mendoza et al., 2020; Palma, 2020). The majority of studies were carried out with high school students, probably because of the requirement to follow this approach in the national curriculum. Most of the studies were conducted in public institutions and only two studies in private settings (Andrade Mendoza et al., 2020; Vega & Moscoso, 2019). The studies were carried out in the following cities of Ecuador: Cuenca (Argudo et al., 2018; Benalcázar-​ Bermeo & Ortega-​ Auquilla, 2019; Vega & Moscoso, 2019), Azogues (Ortega-​Auquilla, et al., 2021; Recino et al., 2019), Ambato (Andrade Mendoza et al., 2020), Babahoyo (Dahik Solis et al., 2017), and Manta (Palma, 2020). It is worth mentioning that no studies were found in the most populated cities in Ecuador (Quito and Guayaquil) nor in any rural setting.

Research design Different types of research designs were used: descriptive, quasi-​experimental, exploratory, and non-​experimental. For example, Dahik Solis et al. (2017) worked with both a control and an experimental group, which were not selected randomly; thus, a quasi-​experimental study (Creswell, 2014) was adopted. Recino et al. (2019) used a qualitative approach while Benalcázar-​Bermeo and Ortega-​Auquilla (2019) and Vega and Moscoso (2019) used a mixed-​ method approach; nevertheless, these papers can be also classified into action research studies as the authors implemented the CLIL approach in their classes with their own students. Benalcázar-​ Bermeo and Ortega-​ Auquilla (2019) and Ortega-​ Auquilla et al. (2021) reported using a mixed-​method approach. The data obtained was analysed by using a quantitative approach. However, the research approach chosen depends more on the researchers’ method of data analysis than on the approach of data collection (Eyisi, 2016); therefore, even though data was obtained with a qualitative instrument, these studies may be considered 435

Juanita Argudo-Serrano, Tammy Fajardo-Dack, and Mónica Abad-Célleri

to be quantitative because they were analysed using a quantitative approach. Some authors also employed only a quantitative approach to draw their conclusions (Argudo et al., 2018; Palma, 2020). As can be observed, mixed methods seem to be the preferred approach; nonetheless, the most common data analysis approach is quantitative, making the latter the most common one in the Ecuadorian CLIL studies. Additionally, the action research methodology was identified (Andrade Mendoza et al., 2020; Benalcázar-​Bermeo & Ortega-​Auquilla, 2019; Dahik Solis et al., 2017; Ortega-​Auquilla et al., 2021; Recino et al., 2019; Vega & Moscoso, 2019); nevertheless, none of the researchers reported considering students’ needs to plan their classes. According to Ball et al. (2015), identifying students’ language needs is a step that has to be taken into account when implementing CLIL in order to plan strategic class activities to teach the content, considering that students learn more effectively when they have to produce spoken and written language and personalise the learned material.

Instruments A variety of instruments were used to collect the data in the studies. The most common instruments applied were either a questionnaire or a survey (Andrade Mendoza et al., 2020; Argudo et al., 2018; Benalcázar-​Bermeo & Ortega-​Auquilla, 2019; Ortega-​Auquilla et al., 2021; Palma, 2020; Vega & Moscoso, 2019). Vega and Moscoso (2019) made the participants complete the survey after the intervention; however, this instrument was not used with their control group. It would have been interesting to make students in the control group, who were taught through English for specific purposes (ESP), complete the survey to compare answers. Another important aspect to consider is the fact that some studies asked students about their knowledge of CLIL (Andrade Mendoza et al., 2020; Benalcázar-​Bermeo & Ortega-​Auquilla, 2019; Vega & Moscoso, 2019); however, students do not need to be aware of the specific methodological features the teacher uses in class, and it is not necessary to ask them about these issues (Dörnyei, 2003). Another common instrument used to collect data was a test, either a placement test (Argudo et al., 2018), a proficiency test (Vega & Moscoso, 2019), or a pre-​and post-​test (Benalcázar-​Bermeo & Ortega-​Auquilla, 2019). In addition, other sources of information to evaluate students’ language proficiency level were also used, such as the analysis and evaluation of written assignments (Argudo et al., 2018; Dahik Solis et al., 2017) and the evaluation of oral production through dramatisation (Dahik Solis et al., 2017). As Creswell (2014) states, researchers need to be careful when working in the different stages of the experiment since measuring the variables incorrectly could threat the statistical conclusion validity; however, in Dahik Solis et al.’s (2017) study, these authors compared data collected by using an instrument with one group (written text) and a different instrument with the other (oral production), which compromises the validity of the study. It was also found that in situ observations were used in some research studies (Andrade Mendoza et al., 2020; Dahik Solis et al., 2017); however, information about the observation protocols as well as the implementation of the CLIL approach was not provided. Crucial details about the procedures, materials, tasks, language scaffolding, and activities used when implementing the CLIL approach were not found in the studies, which constitutes a research pitfall since as stated by Block and Kuckertz (2018), a complete and detailed description of the procedures used is necessary in the case of a future replication study. This omission may have happened due to teachers’ lack of knowledge about the CLIL approach and the duties

436

CLIL in Ecuador

that CLIL teachers need to fulfil (Andrade Mendoza et al., 2020; Dahik Solis et al., 2017; Palma, 2020). From the above analysis it could be said that training in research protocols is crucial for Ecuadorian CLIL researchers if reliable findings are to be achieved. In the same vein, training in the CLIL approach seems urgent to improve teaching practices and reach the learning outcomes determined by the Ecuadorian educational authorities.

Influential factors Although none of the research articles set out to directly examine factors that can enhance or hinder the application of CLIL, they were determined based on the analysis of their research contexts and results. Regarding the factors that can promote CLIL implementation, two main categories were identified: curriculum requirement and motivation and attitude. The first category refers to the fact that CLIL has been endorsed by educational policies, which can foster its implementation since the sustainability of a programme is more likely to occur when education authorities support it (Ball et al., 2015). In this light, the studies carried out in high school contexts mention CLIL as a curriculum core principle (Andrade Mendoza et al., 2020; Benalcázar-​ Bermeo & Ortega-​ Auquilla, 2019; Palma, 2020). In fact, since 2016, the Ecuadorian national English curriculum has enforced the use of a language-​d riven CLIL approach, in which language and language use are more emphasised than content knowledge, and the development of content, communication, cognition, and culture are highlighted as well (Ministerio de Educación del Ecuador, 2016). Furthermore, in university contexts, Recino et al. (2019) indicated that CLIL is the pedagogical approach to teach subjects in English at the EFL teaching major, while Argudo et al. (2018) reported that, even though CLIL is not established as the approach to teach at the EFL teaching programme, a content-​led approach, hard CLIL (Ball et al., 2015), has been used for many years for teaching most of the subject matters. As can be seen, the CLIL approach has engaged the attention of Ecuadorian educational authorities, EFL teachers, and researchers at the three levels of education: primary, secondary, and university, which can contribute to advance research in this area, which, according to Banegas (2022), is still exiguous in South America. The motivation and attitude category subsumes positive learners’ perceptions towards the CLIL approach, which can positively influence its implementation. For instance, enthusiasm when doing tasks (Benalcázar-​Bermeo & Ortega-​Auquilla, 2019), stress release, more confidence, and class participation (Ortega-​Auquilla et al., 2021) have been reported. Likewise, Vega and Moscoso (2019) pointed out that learners perceived that learning through CLIL was easier since they did not have to take grammar and vocabulary quizzes, and thus, had more time to focus on the content, which demands more effort. As a consequence, the learners reported they were more engaged in learning since meaningful content related to their future careers was used instead of the tedious textbook. These findings are in line with the view that authenticity of tasks, materials, content, and communication in the target language as well as their direct connection with the learners’ interests promote learner motivation (Fazzi & Lasagabaster, 2020). On the other hand, concerning the factors that can hinder CLIL implementation, three categories were identified: low English proficiency level, insufficient CLIL knowledge, and time-​consuming lesson planning. Regarding low English proficiency level, some studies acknowledge that both learners’ and teachers’ low English proficiency can be an obstacle when learning and teaching through

437

Juanita Argudo-Serrano, Tammy Fajardo-Dack, and Mónica Abad-Célleri

CLIL. For instance, Vega and Moscoso (2019) found that some low English proficient learners admitted that their self-​a ssessed low English level hampered content understanding and comprehension, so they did not perceive they benefited from CLIL. In fact, one student in the CLIL group even wished to have taken some grammar lessons, which shows that these low English proficient students did not perceive the value of not having to learn grammar in CLIL classes, since their lack of grammar knowledge hindered content understanding. This finding supports the need of a threshold level of proficiency for taking CLIL lessons (Ball et al., 2015). Nevertheless, it is not clear whether the learners’ low proficiency level or the lack of scaffolding, since nothing is mentioned about language scaffolding in Vega and Moscoso’s (2019) study, are to be blamed for the lack of understanding. In relation to scaffolding language development, Mariño (2014) noted that without the provision of language-​focused tasks that make the language prominent, the student participants’ accuracy and academic vocabulary did not improve in a content-​d riven CLIL class in Colombia. Concerning teachers’ L2 proficiency, Palma (2020) pointed out that the majority of the EFL teacher participants do not meet the national standard English proficiency level (B2), while Argudo et al. (2018) reported that the majority of the student teachers exhibit A1 and A2 English proficiency levels, and even some seventh-​semester students, A1 minus and A1. This fact is a hurdle for CLIL implementation since, as stated by Ball et al., (2015), even though teachers’ CLIL pedagogical ability has been given more importance than teachers’ proficiency level, a teacher at A1 or A2 levels is very unlikely to teach CLIL in a meaningful way. The next category, insufficient CLIL knowledge, encompasses the lack of CLIL knowledge and training as well as some omissions found in relation to CLIL practice. Some studies reported EFL teachers’ lack of CLIL knowledge (Andrade Mendoza et al., 2020; Palma, 2020). Palma (2020) indicated that the majority of EFL teachers have none or little knowledge of CLIL and that only 10% of the teachers have received CLIL training. As mentioned above, methodological awareness is crucial for CLIL teachers to the extent that it can compensate for the lack of linguistic competence (Ball et al., 2015). Consequently, CLIL programmes will not succeed without the provision of enough training for teachers. Some omissions were identified in the studies. For instance, Benalcázar-​Bermeo and Ortega-​Auquilla (2019) affirmed that in the high school where their study was conducted ‘students are not being exposed to an authentic CLIL approach’ because ‘there is a greater focus on the knowledge of content than [on] language use’ (p.122–​123). However, the Ecuadorian English curriculum guidelines recommend the use of soft CLIL (which is language-​d riven), and thus, the mandatory resources feature this principle (Ministerio de Educación del Ecuador, 2019b). Therefore, it is not clear if the EFL teachers at this high school decided not to use the national textbooks and developed their own resources. If that was the case, it is also unclear what teaching approach and resources they implemented instead, and how they differed from the ‘authentic’ CLIL approach that the authors claimed was used for their study. Another missing aspect that most of the studies feature is related to language scaffolding, which, according to Ball et al. (2015), is a crucial factor in CLIL and thus, CLIL teachers have to make the language prominent and explicit and provide learners with the necessary scaffolding when speaking and writing. However, the studies do not specify how language was made salient and how language scaffolding was offered (Andrade Mendoza et al., 2020; Benalcázar-​Bermeo & Ortega-​Auquilla, 2019; Dahik Solis et al., 2017; Ortega-​Auquilla et al., 2021; Recino et al., 2019; Vega & Moscoso, 2019). Lastly, some studies stress the category of time-​consuming lesson planning because they indicate that teaching through CLIL demands more preparation, and thus, more planning 438

CLIL in Ecuador

time (Palma, 2020; Vega & Moscoso, 2019). In the words of Palma (2020), the majority of EFL teachers are reluctant to content teaching since they believe that the lack of resources would force them to spend more time to design materials and plan lessons; besides, they perceive school authorities do not realise the extra effort needed for teaching CLIL. These findings are similar to the ones reported by González and Barbero (2013) in which CLIL teachers in Spain expressed their dissatisfaction about their excessive workload and responsibilities which did not positively affect their wages in comparison to the non-​CLIL teachers. Accordingly, it can be said that Ecuadorian educational authorities interested in CLIL have just made schools adopt this approach without realising the extra burden it entails for teachers. As Banegas (2022) wonders, how fair is it ‘to expect quality CLIL provision by increasing the pressure on EFL teachers’ workload and duties without professional support or improvement of working conditions?’ (p. 384).

The development of language and cognitive skills Language skills Focusing on language in CLIL involves making an interaction between basic interpersonal communication skills (BICS) and cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP) in terms of grammar, vocabulary, discourse markers, thinking skills, and the four language skills (Ball et al., 2015). Cummins (2008) argues that while BICS could be practised and developed in one to two years through social interaction, CALP might take up to seven years to fully develop, and it needs to be instructed with suitable methods and techniques to allow students to complete context-​reduced communication tasks positively. It is necessary to highlight that CALP is a requisite to use language in the cognitively demanding tasks of context-​reduced academic situations where higher-​order thinking skills (HOTS) are needed (Baker, 2006). It is also imperative to provide students with the necessary contextual and extensive instructional scaffolding (Ball et al., 2015; Chamot, 2009); in the words of Cummins (2008), the construct of academic language proficiency refers not to any absolute notion of expertise in language but to the degree to which an individual has access to and expertise in understanding and using the specific kind of language that is employed in educational contexts and is required to complete academic tasks. Thus, in the context of schooling, discussions of greater or lesser degrees of language proficiency or adequacy of an individual’s proficiency refer only to the extent to which the individual’s language proficiency (CALP) is functional within the context of typical academic tasks and activities. Cummins, 2008, p. 67 Therefore, practising the language in CLIL should involve principles such as (1) mediating language between the learner and the subject knowledge; (2) developing awareness of the language of the subject; (3) planning with language in mind; (4) making academic language explicit; and (5) sequencing language practice activities from personal oral expression, in groups, in plenary, to finally reach written production (Ball et al., 2015). CLIL research in Ecuador has given special attention to the study of how language skills are developed and/​or improved; however, it seems that teachers and researchers have taken for granted that learners can listen, speak, read, or write fluently in the target language, and have not provided, or at least it is not shown in the studies, the language support needed 439

Juanita Argudo-Serrano, Tammy Fajardo-Dack, and Mónica Abad-Célleri

while learning the new content (Benalcázar-​Bermeo & Ortega-​Auquilla, 2019; Dahik Solis et al., 2017; Recino et al., 2019; Vega & Moscoso, 2019), which, as aforementioned, must be done through explicit instruction (Ball et al., 2015; Chamot, 2009; Cummins, 2008). The main concern thus seems to be methodological as the researchers do not provide enough information about the teaching dimension of the study. For instance, the quasi-​ experimental study conducted by Vega and Moscoso (2019), which collected data through tests and interviews, portrays a minimal improvement, in fact not significant, in language proficiency when direct grammar instruction was provided only to university students in a non-​CLIL versus a CLIL group. Both groups were taught content in tourism through the use of the same coursebook; while the CLIL group received instruction with a focus on content, the non-​CLIL group was an English for specific purposes (ESP) course that emphasised vocabulary and language functions. The authors report that participants in the CLIL group felt their oral production, vocabulary, and reading and listening comprehension improved. However, even though language production, oral and written, should be scaffolded, and encouraged as a sequence (Ball et al., 2015), there is no evidence of how the researchers provided scaffolding or made language salient to achieve oral or written production. Similarly, Benalcázar-​Bermeo and Ortega-​Auquilla (2019) sought to examine the impact of CLIL in oral production through a mixed-​methods study conducted in an Ecuadorian university. From pre-​and post-​tests and surveys, gains in oral production were found; however, as procedures, materials, tasks, and activities they used to provide strategic and planned language scaffolding –​which according to Ball et al. (2015) is imperative –​ were not presented nor explained, the reported gains could have happened as a result of instructing students with any language teaching approach. Another example is that of Dahik Solis et al. (2017) who conducted an action-​research study in which they compared the results of using the Direct Method and CLIL for developing reading skills. The participants were two groups of students of a language centre at a tertiary education institution. Through observing participants during the development of tasks, researchers collected and analysed data, reporting findings that students in the CLIL group outperformed students in the Direct Method group when expressing sentences and phrases more clearly, applying the vocabulary of the course content, answering comprehension questions about the content correctly, and improving their reading comprehension skills; nonetheless, the process followed to apply CLIL and provide language support is not explained. While the researchers reported that the results were positive, favouring CLIL as a potential approach to foster reading comprehension skills, it is necessary to acknowledge certain omissions in the design, data collection, and data analysis stages of the study which could have influenced the reported findings. It is mentioned in the article that 30 students participated in the group instructed by CLIL, but it is not made explicit how many students were in the group taught using the Direct Method. Even though the study sought to analyse and communicate positive results regarding the impact of CLIL and the Direct Method on reading comprehension, the researchers did not assess this skill; instead, they evaluated speaking in the CLIL group and writing in the Direct Method one. While learners in the latter had to write a paragraph at the end of the intervention, which rather is the last stage in CLIL to develop CALP (Ball et al., 2015), the group taught by CLIL had to perform a dramatisation based on the content of the reading activities. The comparison made between two different tasks completed by the two groups after the treatments, producing written and spoken texts respectively, could have had a major effect on the results obtained. Correspondingly, another action research study interestingly performed three cycles to analyse the use of CLIL in the training process of language teachers (Recino et al., 2019). 440

CLIL in Ecuador

Each application phase implemented different CLIL frameworks. The first integrated Coyle’s (2007) 4Cs Framework; the second phase applied the 5Cs framework of Attard et al. (2014) which integrates content, communication, cognition, community, and competence. During the third phase of the study, the researchers introduced five essential elements of CLIL also proposed by Attard et al. (2014): scaffolding, learner autonomy, interaction, evaluation, and scenario to complete the methodological tool. The analysis of the data collected through classroom observations confirmed the development of linguistic skills and the enhancement of their communicative competence; however, it is not clear how the CLIL process took place and how the language gains were measured. Studies drawn on the perceptions of students toward the use of CLIL for improving overall language proficiency are found in the published CLIL research in Ecuador. For example, in a study conducted with 171 university students from four different undergraduate education programmes (Ortega-​Auquilla et al., 2021), participants’ self-​reported reflections showed that their English proficiency level improved when content subjects were used as vehicles for learning. Although learners reported a feeling of language proficiency improvement, only perceptions about reading and listening skills were observed. However, the objective of CLIL is to practise the language through oral activities to ultimately achieve written production (Ball et al., 2015). These student teachers also expressed that learning English through content subjects improves their language and course content learning, their in-​service performance, and their academic opportunities to pursue graduate degrees. Furthermore, in a survey-​based study with ten English teachers of a public school, Palma (2020) aimed at determining participants’ knowledge and understanding of CLIL. After measuring teachers’ answers by means of a Likert scale, findings illustrated the lack of knowledge participants had of the basic features and principles of CLIL and the guiding role teachers have in helping students respond to the demands of input and the development of the skills necessary to complete a task in the target language, which, according to Palma (2020), results in the infrequent implementation of CLIL in Ecuadorian classrooms. Conversely, some studies reported participants’ positive perceptions (Andrade Mendoza et al., 2020; Argudo et al., 2018) regarding the development of content, communication, cognition, and culture through the English language (Andrade Mendoza et al., 2020). In Andrade Mendoza et al. (2020), participants (students and teachers) mentioned they felt motivated to learn and teach, respectively, through the CLIL approach. Furthermore, Argudo et al. (2018) reported that even though participants felt they were not developing the language at the same time as content, they were ‘acquiring the necessary subject knowledge’ (p. 82).

Cognitive skills CLIL programmes are effective for learning content and improving language proficiency, bearing in mind that language and content are vehicles for acquiring abilities in the target language and developing thinking skills (Ball et al., 2015; Cummins, 2013), especially HOTS. Ball et al. (2015) state that the interplay between the three dimensions of CLIL, concepts, procedures, and language, allow students to understand content by doing something and using language as a tool. As with language proficiency, it cannot be assumed that thinking skills develop automatically through CLIL; instead, tasks and activities that engage the use of lower-​and higher-​order thinking skills are needed. Another assumption that needs to be deconstructed regarding the development of thinking skills in the L2 is that learners, due to their interlanguage, will not be able to use HOTS and therefore cognitive demanding tasks have to 441

Juanita Argudo-Serrano, Tammy Fajardo-Dack, and Mónica Abad-Célleri

be modified (Ball et al., 2015). Therefore, teachers’ guiding role becomes crucial to train students ‘to use problem solving skills, to engage them interculturally, to develop their sense of initiative, and to ground them in an awareness of the ethical consequences of their action’ (Ball et al., 2015, p. 32); in other words, to help them increase their range of thinking to expand their range of language (Ball et al., 2015). Banegas (2022) stated that CLIL research in South America fails to describe how thinking skills (LOTS and HOTS) are developed, and in the specific case of Ecuador, this tendency is not different as the studies analysed highlight the importance of content and thinking skills, but do not provide information about processes where scaffolding and taxonomy are used to progress from LOTS to HOTS (Bruno & Checchetti, 2015; Kusuma et al., 2017). For instance, Argudo et al. (2018) discuss that most of the learners in their study somehow developed HOTS throughout the undergraduate programme; however, there were students who had difficulties when examining and breaking information into pieces, identifying causes and effects, making inferences, analysing, evaluating, and creating. These challenges that students faced show that teachers might not be using suitable and enough learning strategies to foster in students the use or development of HOTS (Bruno & Checchetti, 2015), which can predict academic success or failure. Andrade Mendoza et al. (2020) and Recino et al. (2019) agree that content courses can help students improve language and cognitive skills. For instance, during the second action research cycle of Recino et al.’s (2019) study, it was observed that as student teachers learned the content of the mainstream subjects of their teaching programme, they integrated language skills with higher-​order thinking skills while explaining, diagnosing, and evaluating what they observed in their practicum teaching framed within the content of the courses. However, the study does not provide detailed information on the process of developing HOTS. In regards to cognitive development, the perceptions of participants have been of the interest of CLIL researchers. The conclusions provided in the study conducted by Ortega-​ Auquilla et al. (2021) relied on the students’ self-​reflections about learning language and content in their mainstream courses. These students report they felt content courses had positive effects and influence on their academic training, critical thinking, and cognition. Similarly, Palma (2020) draws on teachers’ perceptions to acknowledge that a reduced number of teachers use activities that involve discussions, projects, and problem-​solving. The majority of her participants do not spend enough time on developing students’ thinking skills. These findings are similar to those reported by Savić (2012) who discussed that teachers were not ready to implement CLIL as they lack experience or interest in ‘applying appropriate pedagogical practices involving problem-​solving, negotiations, discussions and classroom management’. As it was aforementioned, the development of cognitive skills in CLIL in Ecuador has been scarcely analysed which suggests that it may be neglected in teaching pedagogical practices and research.

Conclusions and implications The aim of this chapter was to provide a state-​of-​the art review on how CLIL has been implemented and researched in Ecuador. One of our goals was to identify trends in implementation as well as in the types of studies conducted; we also aimed to identify omissions, gaps, and aspects that require investigation. Despite the small number of published and available empirical studies, this research synthesis sought to raise critical understanding of the issues within Ecuadorian classrooms where content and language are being taught, which 442

CLIL in Ecuador

could lead to informed actions being taken to benefit student populations with the many advantages this approach could offer. CLIL has gained prominence at all educational levels in this country as it is one of the core principles of the Ecuadorian curriculum for the teaching of EFL in schools and high schools (Ministerio de Educación, 2019a). Some research on the implementation of CLIL has been conducted reporting, among other positive effects, the optimistic views of researchers, teachers, and students about the benefits it could bring to learning the language. However, information about the procedures that the studies that implemented CLIL in classrooms followed were not detailed; this might constitute a starting point for conducting further studies in the area of CLIL research and practice at the primary, secondary, and higher educational levels in the country. Even though CLIL has been implemented and studied in most of the educational levels in Ecuador, research studies conducted with elementary school students were not found. It is clear that this area needs to be explored in order to have a thorough understanding of CLIL implementation and face the challenges the use of this approach involves. According to Mertens (2015), conducting research at all educational and psychological levels can help to enhance the comprehension and management of any situation under study. As for the implications, they are presented in this section at two levels: (1) practice and (2) research, which should not be treated as two entirely separate activities, because when creating a link between them teaching practices are enhanced, a research culture is strengthened, and students’ learning experience is improved. At the practice level, the basic conditions needed for any (language) teaching experience to succeed should be (re)considered and given its due importance. First, the English language has to be practised by teachers to keep or even achieve higher proficiency levels to prevent hurdles when trying to teach CLIL in meaningful ways. Second, the lack of teacher training in regards to CLIL theory and practice was a common thread in all the studies. It is a responsibility of the Ecuadorian Ministry of Education to offer ongoing training, with special emphasis on scaffolding, activities to develop thinking, and assessment, if teachers are expected to adopt and successfully implement this new approach, still unknown by many practitioners. In the same light, there is an urgent need for support at the national and institutional level. National educational authorities should support the implementation of CLIL by providing teachers with the resources and material required to teach CLIL lessons, or at least offer assistance for creating such material to somehow ameliorate the time-​consuming task it represents. Third, EFL teaching programmes for pre-​service teachers ought to undertake curriculum updates to include CLIL as one of their essential courses to work in accordance with what the Ministry of Education expects from future English teachers. At the research level, it is evident, by the reduced number of published studies found, that teachers and researchers should be encouraged to closely observe and examine what is happening in English classrooms, where CLIL is supposed to be the main teaching approach according to the language teaching policies in the country. Through the analysis conducted, gaps in the literature and, as a result, opportunities for future research were identified. Several aspects of language and content acquisition and learning could be researched. For instance, it would be interesting to know how the dimensions of CLIL are connected in lesson planning and in the actual class. Also, it would be important to increase the existing research by examining contextual, instructional, and language scaffolding processes and their impact on cognition and language learning. Last, but not less important, teachers and researchers must be aware and up to date on research methodologies and processes to avoid omissions and misleading results. 443

Juanita Argudo-Serrano, Tammy Fajardo-Dack, and Mónica Abad-Célleri

Further reading Ball, P., Kelly, K., & Clegg, J. (2015). Putting CLIL into practice. Oxford University Press. This book contains a complete model for the successful implementation of CLIL with practical examples and explicit instructions to help both experienced and novice teachers. Carrió-​Pastor, M., & Bellés, B. (Eds.). (2021). Teaching language and content in multicultural and multilingual classrooms: CLIL and EMI approaches. Palgrave Macmillan. This book discusses the similarities and differences between CLIL and EMI and explains how they are implemented and exert an influence on language and content acquisition. deBoer, M. & Leontjev, D. (Eds.). (2020). Assessment and learning in content and language integrated learning (CLIL) classrooms: Approaches and conceptualizations. Springer. This book provides teachers with a wide range of activities to carry out assessment in a CLIL classroom. Hemmi, C. & Banegas, D. (Eds.). (2021). International perspectives on CLIL. Palgrave Macmillan. This book provides current information on the implementation of CLIL in different educational contexts as well as practical details of the challenges, implications, and opportunities this approach offers. Mehisto, P. (2017). CLIL essentials for secondary school teachers. Cambridge University Press. This work delineates the underlying principles of CLIL and provides scaffolding techniques to foster content and language learning and formative assessment strategies as well.

References Andrade Mendoza, J.L., Padilla Padilla, Y.N., & Padilla Padilla, N.M. (2020). Educación bilingüe en un contexto CLIL, una propuesta de intervención en Ecuador. Ciencia Digital, 4(1), 321–​333. https://​doi.org/​10.33262/​cie​ncia​d igi​t al.v4i1.1060 Argudo, J., Abad, M., Fajardo-​Dack, T., & Cabrera, P. (2018). Analyzing a pre-​service EFL program through the lenses of the CLIL approach at the University of Cuenca-​Ecuador. Latin American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning, 11(1), 65–​86. DOI:10.5294./​laclil.2018.11.1.4 Attard, S., Walter, L., Theodorou, M., & Chrysanthou, K. (2014). The CLIL guidebook. CLIL4U. Baker, C. (2006). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism. Multilingual Matters. Ball, P., Kelly, K., & Clegg, J. (2015). Putting CLIL into practice. Oxford University Press. Banegas, D. (2022). Research into practice: CLIL in South America. Language Teaching, 55(3), 379–​391. http://​doi.org/​10.1017/​S02614​4 482​0 000​622 Banegas, D.L., & del Pozo Beamud, M. (2022). Content and language integrated learning: A duoethnographic study about CLIL pre-​service teacher education in Argentina and Spain. RELC Journal, 53(1), 151–​164. DOI:10.1177/​0 033688220930442journals.sagepub.com/​home/​rel Banegas, D.L., Poole, P., & Corrales, K. (2020). Content and language integrated learning in Latin America 2008–​2018: Ten years of research and practice. Studies in Second Language Learning & Teaching, 10(2), 283–​305. Benalcázar-​Bermeo, J., & Ortega-​Auquilla, D. (2019). Effects of the CLIL approach in oral production of English students in the second year of the united general baccalaureate at a high school in Cuenca, Ecuador. Revista Boletín Redipe, 8(12), 117–​128. Block, J., & Kuckertz, A. (2018). Seven principles of effective replication studies: Strengthening the evidence base of management research. Management Review Quarterly, 68, 355–​359. https://​doi.org/​ 10.1007/​s11​301-​018-​0149-​3 Bruno, M.C., & Checchetti, A. (2015). CLIL & IBSE methodologies in a chemistry learning unit. European Journal of Research and Reflection in Educational Science, 4(8), 1–​12. Chamot, A. (2009). CALLA handbook: Implementing the cognitive academic language learning approach. Pearson Education. Corrales, K.A., Rey, L.A., & Escamilla, N.S. (2016). Is EMI enough? Perceptions from university professors and students. LACLIL, 9(2), 17–​36. https://​doi.org/​10.5294/​lac​l il.2016.9.2.6 Coyle, D. (2007). Content and language integrated learning: Towards a connected research agenda for CLIL pedagogies. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(5), 543–​562.

444

CLIL in Ecuador Creswell, J. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Sage. Cummins, J. (2008). BICS and CALP: Empirical and theoretical status of the distinction. In B. Street & N.H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education (pp. 71–​83). Springer Science. Cummins, J. (2013). Bilingual education and content and language integrated learning (CLIL). Padres y Maestros, 349, 6–​10. Dahik Solis, C., Càneppa Muñoz, C., & García León, E. (2017). Applying CLIL Method for a Comprehensible Input in Reading Skill. Revista Pertinencia Académica, 5, 11–​18. http://​revis​t aac​ adem ​ica.utb.edu.ec/​i ndex.php/​pertac​ade/​a rti​cle/​v iew/​101 Dale, L., & Tanner, R. (2012). CLIL activities: A resource for subject and language teachers. Cambridge University Press. Dörnyei, Z. (2003). Questionnaires in second language research: Construction, administration, and processing. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Eyisi, D. (2016). The usefulness of qualitative and quantitative approaches and methods in researching problem-​solving ability in science education curriculum. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(15), 91–​100. Fazzi, F., & Lasagabaster, D. (2020). Learning beyond the classroom: Students’ attitudes towards the integration of CLIL and museum-​based pedagogies. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 15(2), 156–​168. DOI:10.1080/​17501229.2020.1714630 González, J., & Barbero, J. (2013). Building bridges between different levels of education: Methodological proposals for CLIL at university. Language Value, 5(1), 1–​23. https://​educac​ion.gob.ec/​w p-​cont​ent/​ uplo​ads/​downlo​ads/​2017/​02/​Acue​rdo-​M ini​ster ​ial-​Nro.-​M INE​DUC-​M E-​2016- ​0 0020-​A.pdf Kusuma, M.D., Rosidin, U., Abdurrahman, A., & Suyatna, A. (2017). The development of higher order thinking skills (HOTS) instrument assessment in physics study. Journal of Research & Method in Education, 7(1), 26–​32. Mariño, C.M. (2014). Towards implementing CLIL at CBS (Tunja, Colombia). Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal, 16(2), 151–​160. McDougald, J. (2018). CLIL across the curriculum: Benefits that go beyond the classroom. LACLIL, 11(1), 9–​18. DOI:10.5294/​LACLIL.2018.11.1.1 Mertens, D. (2015). Research and evaluation in education and psychology. Sage. Ministerio de Educación del Ecuador. (2016). Acuerdo Ministerial MINEDUC-​M E-​2016-​0 0020-​A. https://​educac ​ion.gob.ec/​w p- ​cont​ent/​uplo​ads/​downlo​ads/​2 017/​02/​Acue​rdo- ​M ini ​ster ​i al-​Nro.-​ MINE​DUC-​M E-​2016-​0 0020-​A.pdf Ministerio de Educación del Ecuador. (2019a). Currículo de los niveles de educación obligatoria. Ministerio de Educación del Ecuador. https://​educac​ion.gob.ec/​curric​u lo-​len​g ua-​ext​ranj​era/​ Ministerio de Educación del Ecuador. (2019b). Libros de texto. Ministerio de Educación del Ecuador. https://​educac​ion.gob.ec/​l ib​ros-​de-​texto/​ Ortega-​Auquilla, D., Siguenza-​Garzón, P., Cherres-​Fajardo, S., & Bonilla-​Marchán, A. (2021). An overview of undergraduate students’ perceptions on content-​based lessons taught in English: An exploratory study conducted in an Ecuadorian university. Revista Publicando, 8(29), 65–​78, https://​ doi.org/​10.51528/​r pv​ol8.ide2​183 Palma, S. (2020). Content and language integrated learning in Ecuadorian public schools: An analysis of the teachers’ reality. Revista Cognosis, 5(2), 83–​102, https://​doi.org/​10.33936/​cogno​sis.v5i2.2017 Porto, M. (2016). Intercultural citizenship education in the English language classroom in higher education: Does it lead to language learning? In D. Banegas, M. López-​Barrios, M. Porto, & M.A. Soto (Eds.), ELT as a multidisciplinary endeavor: Growing through collaboration. Selected papers from the 41st FAAPI Conference (pp. 125–​138). ASJPI. Recino, U., Cajas, D., & Acosta, H. (2019). The use of CLIL to teach English and subjects related to teaching practice at UNAE, Ecuador. https://​wefla2​019.scien​cesc​onf.org/​d ata/​58.pdf Savić, V. (2012). Effective CLIL lesson planning: What lies behind it? Content and language integrated learning (CLIL) in teaching English to young learners, conference proceedings, 11, 35–​45. Torres Martinez, S. (2013). A role for lexical bundles in the implementation of content and language integrated learning programs in Colombian universities. English Today, 29(2), 40–​45. Vega, M.V., & Moscoso, M. de L. (2019). Challenges in the implementation of CLIL in higher education: From ESP to CLIL in the tourism classroom. Latin American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning, 12(1), 144–​176. https://​doi.org/​10.5294/​lac​l il.2019.12.1.7

445

446

30 CLIL IN COLOMBIA Kathleen A. Corrales and Paige M. Poole

Introduction Content and language integrated learning (CLIL) emerged in the 1990s in Europe with the term being officially coined in 1994 (Pérez-​Cañado, 2012). Since then, this educational approach has spread across Europe and around the world. While there is no definitive date as to when CLIL was first implemented in Colombia, in 2009 McDougald reported that CLIL was spreading and becoming a more widely used language teaching approach and CLIL professional development courses for teachers were being offered. One important indicator of the growing interest of CLIL in Colombia was the creation of the Latin American Content and Language Integrated Learning (LACLIL) Journal by the Universidad de la Sabana and the CLIL Symposium by the Universidad del Norte, Universidad de la Sabana, and Pearson Colombia in 2008 (McDougald & Anderson, 2015). Since that time, the journal and the symposium have shifted from garnering mainly national attention to receiving greater international recognition. In an effort to highlight the importance of CLIL, Banegas et al. (2020b) carried out a critical review of CLIL in Latin America between 2008 and 2018 and found that Colombia had the second highest number of publications in the region related to CLIL. This suggests that Colombia is an important source of CLIL research reporting on CLIL implementations and innovations in that country. Given the aforementioned, the purpose of this chapter is to provide a review of CLIL in Colombia between 2010 and 2020 by analysing 24 relevant items found in national, regional, and international publications. Through this analysis, the authors describe how CLIL has been implemented and researched at the primary, secondary, and tertiary levels of education and in various contexts across the country. The topics that emerged from the articles are highlighted, as are common findings and conclusions. In the conclusion and implications section, we address what the findings mean and how they may be useful not only for researchers, educators, and policy-​m akers working in the Colombian context but also for those interested in CLIL more generally or currently involved in its implementation or research.

446

DOI: 10.4324/9781003173151-36

CLIL in Colombia

The Colombian educational system: a concise summary The Colombian educational system is divided into five levels: initial, preschool, basic, middle, and higher education that constitute 12 years of obligatory schooling for students. Table 30.1 presents each level and its duration (in years). Schools that offer basic and middle education are further divided based on how foreign languages are incorporated (or not) into their curriculum and how many foreign or Colombian bilingual teachers make up the teaching staff (Ministerio de Educación Nacional, 2018). Thus, these schools have been termed as international bilingual (with mainly international teachers), national bilingual (with principally Colombian bilingual teachers), emphasis in foreign languages (usually English), and no emphasis in foreign languages. Over the past 200 years, Colombia has established several national policies related to education in general and language learning specifically. According to Bonilla and Tejada-​ Sánchez (2016), one of the earliest policies was passed in 1826 to require Spanish, Latin, Greek, French, English, and an indigenous language (in areas where one was spoken) as compulsory subjects in state schools. A little more than a century later, the Colombian Constitution of 1991 decreed Colombia to be a pluricultural and multilingual nation, spurring the nation to focus, once again, on language education. The National Ministry of Education (MEN) then created a ten-​year plan to support the principles of a more open and global society espoused in the constitution (Rodríguez Bonces, 2011). Tied to this was a project between the MEN and the British government through the British Council called the Colombian Framework for English (COFE), which ran from 1991 until 1997. This project worked to improve university language teaching programs (Bonilla & Tejada-​Sánchez, 2016). A few years later, one of the most influential laws, the General Education Law of 1994, established the need to develop conversation and reading skills in at least one foreign language in schools (Colombian Congress, 1994). In the 20 years following the General Education Law, several other initiatives have been essential to the strengthening of language teaching and learning, especially English. In 2004, Colombia launched the National Bilingualism Programme (NBP). Spanning 15 years, this programme comprised a series of initiatives to support the teaching and learning of English Table 30.1  Summary of levels of Colombian educational system Levels of education

Description

Initial

Birth to preschool (0–​2 years)

Preschool

Preschool (3 years with kindergarten being obligatory)

Basic

Primary, Grades 1 to 5 (5 years) Secondary, Grades 6 to 9 (5 years)

Middle

Secondary, Grades 10 and 11 (2 years) Secondary, Grade 12 (1 year; only offered by certain private, international bilingual schools)

Higher

Technical professional (2-​year programme) Technological (3-​year programme) University undergraduate (4–​5 years) Graduate (master-​and doctoral-​level of 2–​5 years each)

Note. Information retrieved from Ministerio de Educación Nacional (2014) and Corrales et al. (2015).

447

Kathleen A. Corrales and Paige M. Poole

including creating, socialising, and implementing standards for English at the basic and middle education level in 2006; evaluating and strengthening English teachers with both language and methodology; adopting the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) and aligning national tests with it; and reviewing and aligning teacher education programmes. This programme also established goals for students to achieve at the end of each level of education: students finishing middle education should have a B1 level, university students should reach a B2, and future English teachers should have a C1 (Corrales et al., 2015). In short, in conjunction with the Bilingualism Law of 2013, which modified the General Education Law of 1994, this programme focused the nation’s attention on the learning of English. However, as Bonilla and Tejada-​Sánchez (2016) mention, the NBP was found to be overly ambitious, so a new programme was initiated in 2014: Colombia Very Well! 2015–​2025. Yet, after only five months in place, the plan was cancelled and replaced by the Bilingual Colombia programme (2014–​2018). Since 2018, there has been little information publicised related to the Bilingual Colombia programme. Currently, the national government continues to support initiatives through the National Bilingualism Plan, part of the National Development Plan of 2018–​2022. The impact of these educational and language policies and programmes has been somewhat hindered by several aspects. First, many of them, especially those implemented during the past 20 years, have been harshly criticised by national scholars for equating bilingualism with the learning of English and ignoring other foreign and native indigenous languages (Gómez Sará, 2017; Usma Wilches, 2009a); for basing the learning of English on economic needs and linking it to ideas such as competitiveness (Quintero Polo, 2009 as cited in Bonilla & Tejada-​Sánchez, 2016); and for importing standards, models, materials, and support for teachers from foreign institutions instead of contextualising these to Colombia and using the knowledge and experience of Colombian scholars and teacher-​trainers (Usma Wilches, 2009b). Another obstacle relates to the fact that when a new government comes into power, there is very little continuity of policies and programmes. For example, when a new president begins their four-​year term in office, new government ministers are appointed and most replace previous agendas with new ones. Despite these obstacles, there is no denying that ‘the declaration of bilingualism as a national policy has been fundamental for the future of education in Colombia’ (Rodríguez Bonces, 2011, p. 80). Several positive aspects have resulted from these programmes. These include establishing a common curriculum of both language proficiency and assessment standards along with several textbooks series published by the MEN, which have contributed to a more cohesive and coordinated approach to English teaching and learning in Colombia (McDougald, 2009). However, while Colombia currently has a set of standards, a suggested English curriculum, and Basic Learning Rights that guide basic and middle education, these are not considered mandatory. As stated in the General Education Law of 1994, schools have a high level of autonomy to make curricular decisions (see Chapter 2, Article 77–​79). Thus, each school can implement language teaching in the most appropriate way for its context, which is assessed and monitored by the Local Education Authorities (LEAs) through the review of their Institutional Educational Project (PEI). In higher education, each university is free to design its own curriculum. Nevertheless, national standardised exams at the end of secondary school and undergraduate programmes include a component that assesses English proficiency, implying the need to teach students at least foundational knowledge in English. Colombia updated its educational system through a process of decentralisation and reorganisation. LEAs were created to make curricular decisions and manage the resources 448

CLIL in Colombia

of each department (e.g., state), following the general guidelines dictated by the MEN. However, this applies principally to state schools; private schools are more autonomous. While private schools are regulated by LEAs, because they use private funds, they are often able to hire teachers who are more qualified and offer students better learning environments, which frequently results in a higher quality of education. Since 2004, the focus on learning English has been a catalyst for actions at all levels of education, one of these being the growth of CLIL. In part, this growth has been encouraged by British Council initiatives, which have supported the implementation of CLIL-​based curriculums. It is important to note that while many state and private K-​12 schools have included and/​or intensified the hours devoted to English, the majority of those that ascribe to CLIL are private bilingual and international schools. In these schools, CLIL is implemented in a variety of ways including the teaching of core content areas (such as science) in English and/​or implementing cross-​curricular projects in English (Rodríguez Bonces, 2011), with anywhere from 50% to 90% of their curricular time devoted to teaching subjects in English. Frequently, CLIL schools begin in preschool with ‘language awareness activities, project-​ based instruction, and a high number of hours of instruction in English, and, in many cases, immersion programs’ (Rodríguez Bonces, 2011, p. 83). Then in a deliberate, systematic way, institutions raise the number of subjects taught in English as children move from grade to grade. According to McDougald (2016), 175 officially registered bilingual schools in Colombia had reported implementing CLIL with at least 50% of the subjects at the primary or secondary level taught through English, French, Italian, or German. Of these, he states that many are using CLIL as a buzzword and are actually offering programmes where subjects are taught through the medium of a foreign language. In a sense, then, CLIL in Colombia is both a language-​d riven as well as a content-​d riven approach, as described by Banegas et al. (2020a). Often, it falls in the content-​d riven end of the continuum in bilingual schools and certain higher education programmes and on the language-​end of the spectrum in other institutions. Finally, it is important to point out that, especially at the tertiary level, while not catalogued officially as CLIL, a lot of English language education is carried out through English-​medium instruction (EMI) or with the use of textbooks and other bibliography in English. While these activities may be part of an internationalisation at home initiative, often there is a lack of clear planning or purpose behind these decisions.

Review process For this chapter, we used a review process put forth by Banegas et al. (2020b). To be included in the review, the publications analysed had to: (1) be in the public domain; (2) be available online and set in the 2010–​2020 period; (3) be focused on Colombia, regardless of authors’ nationality and affiliation; (4) be research or implementation accounts; and (5) be peer reviewed. Publications in both English and Spanish were included. While conference proceedings, editorial type publications, and descriptive articles were found with an emphasis on Colombia, these were not included in the total publications analysed. It is important to note that some articles may not appear to be related to CLIL. However, because their authors explicitly referred to ‘CLIL’ in the abstract or in their keywords, and they had ‘elements’ of CLIL that contributed to an overall picture of CLIL in Colombia, they were included in this review. In total, 24 items were identified: three implementation articles and 21 research articles. When analysing the research articles, three major topics emerged. While some articles focused on more than one, they were categorised based on their primary topic. 449

Kathleen A. Corrales and Paige M. Poole

A review of CLIL implementation Three articles were identified as ‘implementation’ because they focus on reporting on how CLIL has been applied and are summarised in Table 30.2. Granados Beltrán (2011) presents a two-​year experience at a private university in Bogota where he used project work as a way to include content through an ESP component in a communicative English syllabus. The experience focused on three different levels of English in which students completed projects related to their area of study. In general, students found these activities useful and said this type of work helped them realise the importance of English in their area(s) of study. The author suggested the need to have a better connection between the language departments and other departments at universities to make these types of activities successful. While this study presented an example of integrating content into an English class, it appears to be more connected to project-​based learning (PBL) and ESP than CLIL. In turn, Barragán Parra and Moreno Sanguino (2014) reported on a CLIL implementation carried out in an Electromagnetism II course at a public university in Bogota. The 96-​hour course was co-​taught by an English and subject-​a rea teacher over 16 weeks. Ten sessions of the course (18 hours) were carried out in English using CLIL to learn about Faraday’s Law. In this experience, students were observed developing their oral communicative competence in English –​asking questions, giving opinions, arguing, and justifying their answers related to topics covered in the class. As the sessions advanced, they relied less on the English teacher. The authors suggested that CLIL allows lecturers/​tutors to teach content and reach their class objectives while providing a less-​controlled environment in terms of the language that students use, produce, and learn. García-​Herreros (2017) describes the creation and implementation of a bilingual programme used in a private K-​ 11 school. In designing the programme, the school used understanding by design, content based instruction, the CEFR, elements of CLIL, and the 21st Century Skills Framework. Within this model, classes were more meaning-​focused, and materials were adapted to students’ context and needs to make them more authentic. Given that 11th-​g rade students achieved the B2 or C1 level on the IELTS and the school placed 20th in Colombia in 2017 on the national standardised test scores, this model was presented as a successful bilingual immersion programme. The author argued that part of its success related

Table 30.2  Summary of implementation articles Authors

Type of Course

Setting

Focus

Granados Beltrán (2011)

English as a foreign language (EFL) +​ English for specific purposes (ESP)

Private university

Projects as a way to introduce ESP into an EFL course

Barragán Parra & Moreno Sanguino (2014)

Electromagnetism II: Faraday’s Law

Public university

Communicative competence +​ Faraday’s law

Private K-​11 bilingual school

Successful experience of a bilingual immersion programme

García-​Herreros (2017) Bilingual programme

450

CLIL in Colombia

to combining different elements of various methodologies, theories, and approaches rather than only using one in its design and implementation. These three implementations represent CLIL at all levels of education, giving a general snapshot without providing specific details regarding how CLIL influenced the implementation (but see Barragán Parra & Moreno Sanguino, 2014). In general, the authors did not include critical comparisons or references to how these experiences related or compared to others within or outside of Colombia. Overall, it is important to highlight that there is a lack of publications of implementations focused on CLIL in Colombia within the 2010–​2020 timeframe.

A review of CLIL research When reviewing the 21 empirical research articles on CLIL in Colombia, three primary topics emerged: teacher education, language and content development, and interculturality. Two articles, one focused on assessment and the other on technology in CLIL, were not related to the primary topics and are discussed under the subheading miscellaneous.

Teacher education The area researchers explored the most in Colombia during the 2010–​2020 timeframe related to teacher education with a total of 12 articles. These were subdivided into three subtopics: CLIL theory, methodology, and professional development.

CLIL theory The articles exploring CLIL theory are studies that focus on pre-​and in-​service teachers’ theoretical and practical knowledge of CLIL as an educational approach. First, Curtis (2012a, 2012b) wrote a two-​part article analysing the questions that state-​school teachers in a MA TESOL course ask when implementing CLIL. He categorised the questions into three areas: (1) CLIL in the Colombian context, (2) CLIL implementation in general, and (3) basic concepts of CLIL. From this analysis, he concluded that there was an overall lack of familiarity with CLIL in Colombia. Similarly, McDougald (2015) also studied in-​service teachers’ perceptions of CLIL through a survey of 140 participants who taught content classes in English from various disciplines, levels (i.e., pre-​school, primary, secondary, tertiary), and sectors (i.e., public and private). The findings demonstrated that many teachers were not aware of the CLIL approach even though they teach content courses in English. The teachers also felt a need for more support in CLIL teaching methodology and material design. Torres-​R incon and Cuesta-​Medina’s (2019) study explored aspects that impacted CLIL implementation in five private schools with six primary school teachers. Results showed that while teachers understand the CLIL approach at the basic level, it was difficult for them to see beyond just working with content in the L2 or teaching content vocabulary. Teachers also lacked the use of appropriate strategies for scaffolding the integration of language and content in the classroom, relying mainly on the sequence of the textbook with little lesson planning to support content and language integration. Finally, McDougald and Pissarello (2020) studied 26 in-​service teachers’ knowledge and perceptions of CLIL and bilingual education before and after a professional development programme. Results showed that while the teachers felt comfortable teaching content in English, they either lacked knowledge of CLIL, even though their schools ascribe to this 451

Kathleen A. Corrales and Paige M. Poole

approach, or knew very little about how to translate their theoretical knowledge into practice. The authors suggested collaboration among teachers and support from their schools is essential for effective CLIL implementation. Finally, after the sessions, teachers perceived CLIL and bilingualism positively and reported learning about similarities and differences of both concepts.

CLIL methodology Within the topic of teacher education, four studies relate to CLIL methodology (i.e., how CLIL is used in the classroom). First, Lasagabaster (2013) focused on teachers’ use of the L1 and L2 in CLIL contexts at all levels of education. He found that while the amount of L1 that teachers used in their CLIL contexts varies, the vast majority of participating teachers felt that some use of the L1 was helpful, especially for scaffolding content and language learning. Teachers reported they used the L1 to support student understanding, make comparisons between the L1 and L2, help students feel comfortable in the CLIL classroom, encourage discussions, and manage student behaviour. Based on this, the author argued for the use of L1 in a way that supports learning both language development and content learning. Mariño’s (2014) study aimed to examine whether and how CLIL was being used in a fifth-​g rade class where subjects were taught in English. The author found the following characteristics of CLIL to be evident in the class: code-​switching, the use of English to teach and work with content, and strategies including non-​verbal communication and activation of prior knowledge. However, Mariño categorised the classes as content-​led, which lacked both a balance and integration of language and content and systematic CLIL-​based lesson planning. This finding led the author to argue for both institutional leadership and teachers to create a shared vision of CLIL, to hold professional development sessions on CLIL, and for teachers to use CLIL principles such as the 4Cs (Coyle et al., 2010) to plan classes. Morales Osorio et al. (2017) examined whether CLIL is a viable approach to implement in Colombia by surveying 30 educators at four bilingual schools where CLIL is implemented. Results revealed these teachers consider this approach could be implemented in Colombia in the future, citing the main benefit of doing so as raising student international competitiveness. They also mentioned the need for a more structured and dynamic set of government policies to support high-​impact CLIL initiatives. Lastly, Martínez and Domínguez (2018) compared the amount of attention CLIL mathematics teachers paid to language or content in two secondary education classrooms, one in Colombia and one in the US. The findings showed that teachers integrated math and language along a continuum, according to the needs of students. While there were some moments that showed a balanced focus, the majority tended towards one aspect or another, with both classes paying more attention to content (maths). Since teachers focused on the oral aspect in class, the authors suggested that maths teachers include multi-​semiotic resources in their teaching and called for professional development for CLIL teachers to incorporate an awareness of these aspects.

CLIL professional development Three articles focused on professional development (PD). Chaves and Guapacha (2016) carried out a study describing the creation of a PD programme for state-​school English teachers and measured its impact. After analysis of the diagnostic data, a programme was designed to develop four main areas: knowledge of teaching methodology (CLIL and task-​based) and 452

CLIL in Colombia

language; planning of the learning process; awareness through reflection and research, and image, including rapport, values, and attitudes. Twelve state-​school teachers participated in the pilot version of this programme using a CLIL-​like teaching method. Findings showed that the PD programme was successful as participants grew in their knowledge and application of CLIL and improved their English language skills. Alvira and González (2018) aimed to determine what EFL metalanguage and other pedagogical concepts a group of early childhood pre-​service teachers learned through a course taught using a CLIL approach. Through the course, teachers successfully learned both metalanguage and concepts, allowing the researchers to infer that this approach permitted the course professor to scaffold the weaker students and allowed them to catch up with their classmates, despite their lower language level. In turn, Banegas et al. (2020a) focused on analysing whether creating materials for university CLIL courses encourages teachers to develop professionally. The researchers found that engaging teachers as materials developers boosted their professional knowledge (linguistic, content, and pedagogical), motivation, identity, and agency as CLIL teachers and material designers. To summarise the research presented about this topic, researchers in CLIL tend to focus most on teacher education in both pre-​service and in-​service contexts. Within this area, there is a variety of subtopics, demonstrating the diversity of research being carried out. In general, teachers and teacher educators are putting CLIL into practice in different contexts and at different levels of education. However, the authors’ conclusions suggest that a lack of knowledge of CLIL may affect teachers’ ability to put this approach into practice. This most likely occurs because of a lack of attention to CLIL in pre-​service teacher education programmes and ineffective CLIL professional development for in-​service teachers, as mentioned by McDougald (2015) and McDougald and Pissarello (2020), to name a few.

Interculturality Out of 22 research articles, two deal with interculturality. Montoya and Salamanca (2017) investigated whether using CLIL as a teaching-​learning methodology could be useful as an internationalisation strategy for universities. To address this question, they carried out a needs analysis with teachers as well as observed classes, gave teachers CLIL training, and helped them design CLIL-​based lessons. After the training, results showed an overwhelming majority of teachers and students perceived CLIL supported their content learning while also improving their communicative competence in a foreign language. The researchers considered this study the first step of many for researching the use of CLIL as an internationalisation strategy. Garzón-​Díaz (2018) examined the effects of technology-​enhanced, CLIL-​based environmental projects with local and global impact on 10th-​and 11th-​g rade students’ learning outcomes as well as how the cultural dimension of CLIL is perceived in science lessons through projects. He found students were motivated to do the projects, which empowered them to use English to communicate what they had researched. The author concluded that these projects allowed students to increase their awareness of environmental issues and to become agents of change in their communities. Both articles highlight how CLIL can serve as a window to bringing culture into the classroom whether it be through scientific citizenship, or internationalisation. Interestingly, even though culture is one of the essential components of CLIL (see Coyle et al., 2010), we have found it to be an understudied area in Colombia. This could be because either 453

Kathleen A. Corrales and Paige M. Poole

the culture component is not emphasised in the classroom or because researchers are not interested in this area. Even so, these studies could serve as models or experiences from which other national or international institutions could benefit.

Language and content development Five articles focused on skill and content development within a CLIL classroom. In the first, Spies (2012) began by examining two courses related to intercultural studies, both taught in English, that students could take instead of an advanced English course at a private university. Neither of the courses used CLIL methodology as such, but the article explored how CLIL could be used to strengthen them. The researcher then compared the learning objectives of one of the courses with those of the highest English level course. Spies found the objectives from the English course and the intercultural studies course to be almost entirely different and noted that the intercultural studies course lacked specific objectives related to language. The author suggested redesigning the intercultural studies course using CLIL and adding language objectives, as it would allow lower-​level students to improve their English skills while permitting higher-​level students to focus on the course content. Salamanca and Montoya’s (2018) article explored the effectiveness of CLIL for improving students’ English proficiency when used in academic subjects offered in a nursing programme. Comparing results from an experimental and control group on an English language pre-​and post-​test after a CLIL intervention, the researchers found that both groups had similar averages on the post-​test. However, the experimental group had lower means on the pre-​test than the control group, which the researchers argued demonstrates the benefits of using CLIL-​based lessons. They also highlighted the usefulness of having content teachers accompanied by a CLIL specialist following the LOCIT (lesson observation followed by a critical incident) model. Mancipe Triviño and Ramírez Valenzuela (2019) analysed the cognitive-​linguistic abilities evidenced in oral and written explanations related to ecosystems made by students in 6th-​and 7th-​g rade bilingual science classes. The results were analysed through four phases within the unit taught: configuration of event, delimitation of event, comprehension of the phenomenon, and forming of explanations. The authors found that for students to construct meaning, they needed to go through different levels of validation: teacher-​student, student-​student, and student-​outside information. Results also showed that students who had higher levels of proficiency in the L2 were able to construct more complex and elaborate explanations. Quintana Aguilera et al. (2019) carried out a study looking at the effect of CLIL on 11th graders’ reading comprehension development. After implementing eight weeks of soft-​CLIL activities focused on building reading comprehension strategies, the researchers compared the reading results on a pre-​and post-​test. They found a marked improvement in students reading comprehension skills. Finally, Zhyrun (2016) presented a model for designing in-​house audio-​v isual materials for listening comprehension in a CLIL English for international relations course. The videos involved 15 foreigners from seven different countries and aimed at providing input to develop language skills and content knowledge. In her study, she analysed students’ perceptions post-​implementation of the in-​house materials, contrasting these with a playlist of videos from YouTube. Overall, students reported that both types of videos were relevant to the course and their major of study but considered the in-​house videos to be better connected 454

CLIL in Colombia

to Colombia. The researcher also found that students perceived the in-​house videos easier to understand than those from YouTube. While all the aforementioned articles in this section are linked to language and content development, only two actually assessed this development. The other three analysed student perceptions or curricular aspects of content courses. Given this, we recognise that these articles give some insight into this area but do not provide the whole picture. The reality is that CLIL is being used in hundreds of classrooms at all levels of education in Colombia, but research on students’ development of language and content through CLIL in these contexts is very limited. Thus, through current research, it is not possible to empirically conclude whether students in Colombia are improving their language and content development because of CLIL.

Miscellaneous The last two articles in this review do not fit into the topics previously presented since their focus is on technology and assessment. In the first, Keogh (2017) explored how WhatsApp could be useful for English language learners in a CLIL-​based course within an English for international relations programme, specifically looking at interaction, learning scaffolding, participation, sense of community, and students’ perceptions. After four months, the researcher found that the app offered opportunities for learner-​to-​learner, teacher-​to-​ student, and content-​k nowledge scaffolding. The WhatsApp group also served as an effective community of practice and, overwhelmingly, students perceived the experience as positive, highlighting the app’s practicality, their comfort and ease with using the app, and a greater sense of affinity with their class and what they learned from what they and their classmates had shared. Leal (2016) looked at how an assessment grid developed by the researcher that maps content and language demands can serve as a guide for assessment creation. After analysing three tests created by a content teacher and an EFL teacher, the researcher found that content knowledge was assessed with a low demand on language. He considered this might be because creating assessment items with low content demand and high language demand can be difficult. Overall, the researcher proposed this grid as a useful tool for analysing assessments in the CLIL classroom and encouraged alternatives for enriching multiple-​choice assessments. The analysis of these articles shows that assessment and technology in CLIL are underdeveloped areas of research in Colombia. Both of these areas could be important for future researchers to explore.

Conclusion and implications The analysis presented demonstrates that the CLIL approach for teaching and learning has been implemented at all levels of education in Colombia including preschool, primary, secondary, and higher education for both language and content learning. Likewise, the articles show that teachers and students of different contexts, backgrounds, and sectors use CLIL; however, most of the studies were conducted in the private sector. This is not surprising, given that CLIL has typically been associated with private institutions that traditionally use bilingual and international education curricula and have more access to resources, funding, and professional development for their faculty in order to adopt and/​or strengthen their skills in ‘new’ approaches. While CLIL is used in certain government-​funded institutions, it has not been adopted on the same scale as it has in the private sector. This trend is a part of what 455

Kathleen A. Corrales and Paige M. Poole

Colombian and other Latin American academics have termed as ‘elitist bilingualism’ (see De Mejía, 2002 and Liberali & Megale, 2016, for example) and is a challenge that Colombian education currently faces, along with many Latin American countries. Thus, there is clear need for a broader, more equitable extension of CLIL into the public sector in Colombia, in line with what Pimentel Siqueira et al. (2018) suggest for Brazil. Related to the abovementioned, it is important to highlight that, while this chapter gives a snapshot of CLIL in Colombia, it is difficult to ascertain exactly what is happening in both the private and public sector as there are very few studies that quantify the number of institutions nationally that have adopted the CLIL approach. Additionally, there is a lack of publicly available information regarding data on CLIL in general across all levels of education (i.e., number of institutions using CLIL, or number of teachers trained in CLIL). There is a clear need for a government database detailing this information about public and private institutions in the nation. Compiling and analysing this data could be an area of focus for future research that would greatly contribute to creating a more detailed picture of CLIL in Colombia. Additionally, as has been criticised by scholars in Colombia, bilingualism has been equated with the teaching of English at the expense of the development of another foreign language or indigenous languages. This same phenomenon can be observed with CLIL research in Colombia, which emphasises the use of CLIL to teach English over other languages. It would be interesting to know if CLIL is being used with other languages and there is no research carried out on its use with these languages or whether CLIL is primarily an English-​language teaching-​ learning approach in Colombia. This is another area that future research could examine. As most high-​ i mpact journals prioritise empirical research articles over descriptive ones, it is not surprising that we identified substantially less implementation articles. What is interesting is that the empirical articles mostly concentrate on teacher education. Additionally, we found that the majority of the articles were small-​scale, qualitative, singular classroom studies that tend to look at what the teacher does or what the teachers’ perceptions are. Very few of the studies focus on actual language or content development within the CLIL classroom or evaluating the outcomes of CLIL implementation. Banegas (2022) draws this same conclusion when he discusses CLIL research in South America and calls for more studies that show the possible positive and negative effects of CLIL on language development in that region. Another area lacking in Colombia is large-​scale, longitudinal, quantitative, or mixed-​methods research studies in CLIL. These types of studies can broaden the scope of CLIL research and add credibility to the national research being carried out. Overall, all of these are areas future research could explore to bridge the current gap. Furthermore, many of the authors cited in this chapter argue for more professional development related to CLIL. In general, they call for two types of professional development: (1) pre-​service teacher education programmes, especially those related to language education, and (2) in-​service development for teachers who work with content taught in English or who teach content in their EFL classes. This is similar to what other authors on the continent have espoused (for example see Banegas, 2019, in Argentina, and Pimentel Siqueira et al., 2018, in Brazil, to name a few). Likewise, some of the articles reviewed highlight the need for CLIL PD because teachers, administrators, and other authorities seem to be using ‘CLIL’ as a buzzword without actually understanding what CLIL is and whether what they are doing is CLIL. This lack of understanding is also apparent in several articles where authors mention CLIL in their title, keywords, or theoretical framework but do not actually explain how their research directly incorporates or relates to CLIL. ESP, project-​based learning, or the simple inclusion of content in the English language classroom was also sometimes considered CLIL. In the same way, it appears that some continue to equate EMI to CLIL, implying that merely 456

CLIL in Colombia

teaching content in English is CLIL. Based on these results, we believe that professional development in this area is essential for the effective growth and implementation of CLIL in Colombia. We also consider that research on all of the aforementioned would not only strengthen the understanding of CLIL within the Colombian context but could also add to the global conversation concerning the differences between these approaches and methodologies and how they may be used in conjunction to strengthen each other (i.e., using PBL to strengthen language skills in the CLIL classroom or using CLIL classes in a given curriculum to prepare students for later EMI courses). Another important observation is that, while many authors cite international sources within their theoretical frameworks or literature reviews, they do not include critical comparisons or reference to how their studies relate or compare to other studies outside of Colombia. This gives a vision of Colombian CLIL that tends to be centred locally and nationally rather than connected to the regional and international CLIL communities. We suggest including comparisons or reference to studies outside of Colombia to better situate research within the global conversation around CLIL. Overall, this chapter shows that CLIL is not only present but also that it is an important object of study as well as a popular teaching-​learning approach in Colombia. It is also clear that in the Latin American region, Colombia is an important hub for CLIL research and implementation; nevertheless, we feel there are still many areas within CLIL that need to be further explored and researched to continue improving CLIL within Colombia and strengthening Colombia’s contributions to international CLIL networks and dialogues. We foresee that CLIL will only continue to grow in Colombia as bilingual, multilingual, and intercultural education becomes more of a necessity to prepare students for the globalised world we live in.

Further reading Corrales, K.A., Ferrer Ariza, E., & Rey Paba, L. (2015). Perspectives on teaching English at the university level in Colombia. TESOL Press. This book provides an overview of English language teaching in higher education in Colombia exploring how it has transformed over the past 30 years as well as providing ideas for what it could look like in the future. Garzón-​Díaz, E. (2021). Translanguaging in science lessons: Exploring the language of science in L2 low achievers in a public school setting in Colombia. In C. Hemmi & D.L. Banegas (Eds.), International perspectives on CLIL (pp. 85–​106). Palgrave Macmillan. This chapter provides insights into how CLIL is being used in Colombian public schools to develop scientific competencies and literacy through both English and Spanish. It also presents one example of the role translanguaging can play in a CLIL classroom. Keogh, C., Poole, P., & McGarry, C. (2020). Fusing PBL and CLIL for an international relations English program in Colombia. In I. Papadopoulos, E. Griva, & E. Theodotou (Eds.), International perspectives on creativity in the foreign language classrooms (pp. 207–​232). Nova Science Publishers. This chapter looks at one programme in Colombia that uses PBL and CLIL to allow international relations students to develop not only communicative competence in English but also professional competences and 21st-​century skills related to their academic programme.

References Alvira, R., & González, Y. (2018). Content-​and language-​integrated learning-​based strategies for the professional development of early childhood education pre-​service teachers. Íkala: Revista De Lenguaje Y Cultura, 23(1), 45–​64. https://​doi.org/​10.17533/​udea.ikala.v23n01​a05

457

Kathleen A. Corrales and Paige M. Poole Banegas, D.L. (2019). Teacher professional development in language-​d riven CLIL: A case study. Latin American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning, 12(2), 242–​264. https://​doi.org/​10.5294/​ lac​l il.2019.12.2.3 Banegas, D.L. (2022). Research into practice: CLIL in South America. Language Teaching, 55(3), 379–​ 391. DOI:10.1017/​S0261444820000622 Banegas, D.L., Corrales, K., & Poole, P. (2020a). Can engaging L2 teachers as material designers contribute to their professional development? Findings from Colombia. System, 91, 1–​14. https://​doi. org/​10.1016/​j.sys​tem.2020.102​265 Banegas, D.L., Poole, P., & Corrales, K. (2020b). Content and language integrated learning in Latin America 2008–​2018: Ten years of research and practice. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 10(2), 283–​305. http://​d x.doi.org/​10.14746/​ssllt.2020.10.2.4 Barragán Parra, J.E., & Moreno Sanguino, L.A. (2014). El bilingüismo en la Universidad Pedagógica Nacional, Colombia: Experiencias pioneras en la clase de ciencias con estudiantes de pregrado [Bilingualism at the National Pedagogical University, Colombia: Pioneering experiences in a science class with undergraduate students]. Nodos y Nudos, 4(36), 57–​64. https://​doi.org/​10.17227/​ 01224​328.3112 Bonilla, C., & Tejada-​Sánchez, I. (2016). Unanswered questions in Colombia’s foreign language education policy. Profile: Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development, 18(1), 185–​201. https://​doi.org/​ 10.15446/​prof​i le.v18n1.51996 Chaves, O., & Guapacha, M. (2016). An eclectic professional development proposal for English language teachers. Profile: Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development, 18(1), 71–​96. https://​doi.org/​ 10.15446/​prof​i le.v18n1.49946 Congreso de Colombia [Colombian Congress]. (1994). Ley 115 de Febrero 8 de 1994: Por la cual se expide la ley general de educación [Law 115 of February 8, 1994: Whereby the general education law is issued]. www.mined​ucac​ion.gov.co/​1621/​a rtic​les- ​85906_ ​a rch ​ivo_ ​pdf.pdf Corrales, K.A., Ferrer Ariza, E., & Rey Paba, L. (2015). Perspectives on teaching English at the university level in Colombia. TESOL Press. Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, P. (2010). CLIL: Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge University Press. Curtis, A. (2012a). Colombian teachers’ questions about CLIL: Hearing their voices –​in spite of ‘the mess’ (Part I). Latin American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning, 5(1), 1–​8. https://​doi. org/​10.5294/​lac​l il.2012.5.1.1 Curtis, A. (2012b). Colombian teachers’ questions about CLIL: What can teachers’ questions tell us? (Part II). Latin American Journal of Content and Language Integrated Learning, 5(2), 1–​12. https://​doi. org/​10.5294/​lac​l il.2012.5.2.6 De Mejía, A-​M. (2002). Power, prestige, and bilingualism: International perspectives on elite bilingual education. Multilingual Matters. García-​Herreros, C.A. (2017). The road to bilingualism: Cases of success. Latin American Journal of Content and Language Integrated Learning, 10(2), 297–​307. https://​lac​l il.unisab​a na.edu.co/​i ndex.php/​ LAC​LIL/​a rti​cle/​v iew/​8666 Garzón-​Díaz, E. (2018). From cultural awareness to scientific citizenship: Implementing content and language integrated learning projects to connect environmental science and English in a state school in Colombia. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 24(2), 242–​259. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​13670 ​050.2018.1456​512 Gómez Sará, M.M. (2017). Review and analysis of the Colombian foreign language bilingualism policies and plans. HOW, 24(1), 139–​156. http://​d x.doi.org/​10.19183/​how.24.1.343 Granados Beltrán, C. (2011). Facing CLIL challenges at university level. HOW: A Colombian Journal for Teachers of English, 18(1), 24–​42. https://​how ​jour ​nalc​olom​bia.org/​i ndex.php/​how/​a rti​cle/​v iew/​50 Keogh, C. (2017). Using WhatsApp to create a space of language and content for students of international relations. Latin American Journal of Content and Language Integrated Learning, 10(1), 75–​104. https://​doi.org/​10.5294/​lac​l il.v10i1.7543 Lasagabaster, D. (2013). The use of the L1 in CLIL classes: The teachers’ perspective. Latin American Journal of Content and Language Integrated Learning, 6(2), 1–​21. https://​doi.org/​10.5294/​3148 Leal, J.P. (2016). Assessment in CLIL: Test development at content and language for teaching natural science in English as a foreign language. Latin American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning, 9(2), 293–​317. https://​doi.org/​10.5294/​6978

458

CLIL in Colombia Liberali, C.F., & Megale, A.H. (2016). Elite bilingual education in Brazil: An applied linguist’s perspective. Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal, 18(2), 95–​108. http://​d x.doi.org/​10.14483/​calj. v18n2.10022 Mancipe Triviño, M., & Ramírez Valenzuela, C. (2019). El papel del lenguaje en la construcción de explicaciones en la clase de ciencias en contextos bilingües a través del enfoque CLIL. Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal, 21(1), 105–​122. https://​doi.org/​10.14483/​22487​085.13095 Mariño, C.M. (2014). Towards implementing CLIL (content and language integrated learning) at CBS (Tunja, Colombia). Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal, 16(2), 151–​160. https://​doi.org/​10.14483/​ udi​stri​t al.jour.calj.2014.2.a02 Ministerio de Educación Nacional. (2014). Sistema nacional de indicadores educativos para los niveles de preescolar, básica y media en Colombia [National system of educational indicators for the preschool, basic and middle levels in Colombia]. www.mined​ucac​ion.gov.co/​1759/​a rtic​les-​329021_ ​a rchivo_​ pdf_ ​i ndica​dore​s _​ed​ucat​ivos ​_​ene​ro_ ​2​014.pdf Ministerio de Educación Nacional. (2018, January 9). Lengua Extranjera [Foreign language]. www. mined​ucac​ion.gov.co/​1759/​w3-​a rti​cle-​364​450.html?_ ​nor​edir​ect=​1 McDougald, J.S. (2009). The state of language and content instruction in Colombia. Latin American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning, 2(2), 44–​48. https://​lac​l il.unisab​a na.edu.co/​i ndex. php/​LAC​LIL/​a rti​cle/​v iew/​lac​l il.2009.2.2.15 McDougald, J.S. (2015). Teachers’ attitudes, perceptions and experiences in CLIL: A look at content and language. Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal, 17(1), 25–​41. https://​doi.org/​10.14483/​udi​stri​ tal.jour.calj.2015.1.a02 McDougald, J.S. (2016). CLIL approaches in education: Opportunities, challenges, or threats? Latin American Journal of Content and Language Integrated Learning, 9(2), 253–​266. https://​doi.org/​ 10.5294/​7374 McDougald, J.S., & Anderson, C.E. (2015). CLIL and education coming together: The crossroads for multilingualism. Latin American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning, 8(2), 73–​83. https://​doi.org/​10.5294/​5976 McDougald, J.S., & Pissarello, D. (2020). Content and language integrated learning: In-​service teachers’ knowledge and perceptions before and after a professional development program. Íkala: Revista De Lenguaje Y Cultura, 25(2), 353–​372. https://​doi.org/​10.17533/​udea.ikala.v25n02​a03 Montoya, S., & Salamanca, C. (2017). Uso del enfoque CLIL como estrategia de internacionalización del currículo en una institución de educación superior colombiana [The use of the CLIL approach as a strategy for the internationalisation of the curriculum in a Colombian higher education institution]. Latin American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning, 10(1), 105–​131. https://​doi. org/​10.5294/​lac​l il.v10i1.7368 Morales Osorio, J.M., Cabas Vásquez, L., & Vargas Mercado, C. (2017). Proyección de la enseñanza del bilingüismo a través del método AICLE en Colombia [Projection of the teaching of bilingualism through the CLIL method in Colombia]. Revista LaSallista de Investigación, 14(1), 84–​92. https://​ doi.org/​10.22507/​rli.v14n​1a7 Pérez-​ Cañado, M.L. (2012). CLIL research in Europe: Past, present, and future. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 15(3), 315–​341. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​13670​ 050.2011.630​0 64 Pimentel Siqueira, D.S., Landau, J., & Albuquerque Paraná, R. (2018). Innovations and challenges in CLIL implementation in South America. Theory Into Practice, 57(3), 196–​203. https://​doi.org/​ 10.1080/​0 0405​841.2018.1484​033 Quintana Aguilera, J.A., Restrepo Castro, D., Romero Martínez, G., & Cárdenas Messa, G.A. (2019). The effect of content and language integrated learning on the development of English reading comprehension skills. Lenguaje, 47(2), 427–​452. https://​doi.org/​10.25100/​lengu​aje.v47i2.7699 Rodríguez Bonces, M. (2011). CLILL: Colombia leading into content language learning. Íkala: Revista De Lenguaje Y Cultura, 16(28), 79–​89. https://​revis​t as.udea.edu.co/​i ndex.php/​i kala/​a rti​cle/​ view/​9912 Salamanca, C., & Montoya, S. (2018). Using the CLIL approach to improve English language in a Colombian higher educational institution. English Language Teaching (Toronto), 11(11), 19–​30. http://​doi.org/​10.5539/​elt.v11n11​p19 Spies, K. (2012). Intercultural studies within a CLIL approach. Latin American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning, 5(1), 33–​45. https://​doi.org/​10.5294/​lac​l il.2012.5.1.3

459

Kathleen A. Corrales and Paige M. Poole Torres-​ R incon, J.C., & Cuesta-​ Medina, L.M. (2019). Situated practice in CLIL: Voices from Colombian teachers. GIST: Education and Learning Research Journal, 18, 109–​141. https://​doi.org/​ 10.26817/​16925​777.456 Usma Wilches, J.A. (2009a). Education and language policy in Colombia: Exploring processes of inclusion, exclusion, and stratification in times of global reform. Profile: Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development, 11(1), 123–​141. https://​revis​t as.unal.edu.co/​i ndex.php/​prof​i le/​a rti​cle/​v iew/​10551 Usma Wilches, J.A. (2009b). Globalization and language and education reform in Colombia: A critical outlook. Íkala: Revista De Lenguaje Y Cultura, 14(2), 19–​42. https://​revis​t as.udea.edu.co/​i ndex.php/​ ikala/​a rti​cle/​v iew/​2200 Zhyrun, I. (2016). Culture through comparison: Creating audio-​v isual listening materials for a CLIL course. Latin American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning, 9(2), 345–​373. https://​doi. org/​10.5294/​ 7091

460

461

31 THE CLIL EXPERIENCE IN CAMEROON Innocent Mbouya Fassé and Alain Flaubert Takam

Introduction Cameroon’s linguistic landscape is one of the most complex the world over, with up to 286 local languages and two official languages (English and French), a Pidgin English, an urban slang called Camfranglais, a vehicular language (Fulfulde) spoken mostly in the three northern regions of the country, for some 25 million citizens only (see Eberhard et al., 2022). The two official languages (OLs) were inherited through the presence and ruling of Britain and France over Cameroon from 1916 to 1961 and 1960 respectively. It is noteworthy that Britain and France ruled over two very unequal territories. While France enjoyed almost 80% of the territory, Britain was left with 20%. This imbalance equally led to another, demographic inequality. In fact, it is roughly estimated that 80% of the population are Francophone while 20% are Anglophone Cameroonians.1 Upon independence in 1960, the federal state opted for a language policy of English and French official bilingualism (OB) to facilitate national unity and integration. Indeed, it would have been illusory to hope to build a nation with around 280 speech communities with no commonly shared language(s) across the territory. However, the decision to institute English and French as OLs, through which the government offers public services (e.g., education and healthcare) to citizens, resulted in citizens needing competence in those languages to use such services. In 1972, Cameroon moved from a federal republic to a united republic, making English and French bilingualism a must for every citizen to fare well in the new nation. The teaching and learning of the second official language (SOL) was thus of high priority and necessity, and the education sector was key in the promotion of OB. From 1975 with opération bilinguisme to the present, the government has attempted several initiatives to boost the promotion of OB through education but with very mitigated results. The last of such initiatives is what is officially known as the Special Bilingual Education Programme (SBEP) in secondary education, launched in September 2009, with the inclusion of a content and language integrated learning (CLIL) module following the approach advocated in Fassé (2009) and Takam and Fassé (2020). The purpose of this chapter is therefore to present this CLIL initiative, highlighting its core tenets, and its prospects based on the scrutiny of related official regulatory texts, underscoring its outstanding specificities in comparison to other cases in the literature. DOI: 10.4324/9781003173151-37

461

Innocent Mbouya Fassé and Alain Flaubert Takam

The education system of Cameroon and the teaching of second official languages The education system of Cameroon is as unique as its linguistic landscape. It is a direct reflection of the dual colonial heritage mentioned earlier. This section presents its main aspects and outlines key aspects of the mainstream programme for the teaching of SOLs in Cameroonian secondary education. It is the failure of the mainstream SOL programme to generate English-​French bilingual citizens that led to the development of CLIL programme this chapter explores.

The dual educational system of Cameroon Before their independence, British Cameroon and French Cameroon each had an education system mirroring the British and French systems, respectively. The language of education was English for British or West Cameroon and French for French or East Cameroon. Once independent, government authorities of the Federal Republic of Cameroon decided to maintain both systems as quasi-​autonomous entities in a bigger whole. Thus, the education system of Cameroon comprises two subsystems: the Anglophone subsystem of education (ASE) and the Francophone subsystem of education (FSE). Each subsystem runs from nursery (4–​5 years) to higher education with its own specificities. However, it should be noted that even though each subsystem is run with some specificities, both are under the same ministerial departments: the Ministry of Basic Education for the nursery and primary cycles (MINEBASE), the Ministry of Secondary Education (MINESEC) for secondary and high school and the Ministry of Higher Education, for the tertiary. Given that the focus of this study is secondary education, we will leave aside other levels and start with the ASE. At the end of primary education in Cameroon which lasts six years after an optional nursery cycle of two to three years, a child is either oriented towards general education or towards technical education, except for parents who opt for professional training centres for apprenticeship or vocational training institutions. In this last case, the child gets out of the mainstream education system which is the focus of this chapter. In general education, the ASE at the secondary level comprises two cycles: the first cycle which lasts five years and culminates in an official national examination called the General Certificate of Education (GCE) ‘Ordinary’ Level and the second cycle which lasts two years with a terminal certificate called the GCE ‘Advanced’ Level. It should be noted here that schools that run the ASE are not found exclusively in the two Anglophone regions, i.e., the north-​west and south-​west regions, but rather spread all over the territory with, of course, a high concentration in those two regions. Also, it is worth underscoring that the choice between ASE and FSE is not dictated to parents even though one may think that a child born to Anglophone parents and whose first official language (FOL) is English must join ASE schools while a child born to Francophone parents will automatically join FSE schools. It happens that in major cities today, many children born to Francophone parents are rather sent to ASE schools for the sake of developing good English language competence and thereby a good level of OB. Such children today may count in the thousands (no official figures available) and many studies have focused on this phenomenon (Anchimbe, 2005; Echu, 2003; Mforteh, 2006). This trend of immersing one’s children in the other education system is less observed in the FSE for children born to Anglophone parents for ideological reasons (see Simo Bobda & Fassé, 2005). 462

The CLIL experience in Cameroon Table 31.1  Distribution of classes in Cameroon’s secondary general educational subsystems Year

1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th

Anglophone subsystem of education

Francophone subsystem of education

Class name

Class name

National exam taken

6ème 5ème 4ème 3ème Seconde Première Terminale

BEPC

Form 1 Form 2 Form 3 Form 4 Form 5 Lower Sixth Upper Sixth

National exam taken

GCE ‘Ordinary’ Level GCE ‘Advanced’ Level

Probatoire Baccalaureate

The FSE on its part equally comprises two cycles but of different durations. While the first cycle in the FSE lasts four years instead of five and ends with a national examination called BEPC (Brévet d’Etudes du Premier Cycle), the second cycle runs through three years with two national examinations, i.e., the Probatoire examination for the penultimate class and the Baccalaureate examination for the last year. Table 31.1 below summarises both educational subsystems’ class distributions. Such are the two subsystems of education briefly presented. It is important to note that, in Cameroon, three categories of schools exist: public, lay private, and private confessional. The most recent statistics (2018–​2019) from the website of the Ministry of Secondary Education indicate a total of 2,763 public secondary schools and 1,364 private schools, making a total of 4,127 schools nationwide. These schools host a student population estimated in the 2018–​ 2019 academic year at 1,778,384 students (820,024 girls and 958,360 boys). To promote its OB language policy, the government of Cameroon has since independence relied mostly on the teaching of SOLs in schools to produce English and French bilingual citizens to guarantee national unity and integration. As per article 3 of Law No 98/​ 004 of 14 April 1998: ‘the State enshrines bilingualism at all levels of education as a factor of national unity and integration’. The next subsection reviews initiatives taken by the government for over half a century before the launching of the SBEP which is the prime focus of the study.

The teaching of SOLs in Cameroon secondary education The teaching of SOLs refers to the teaching of SOLs as subjects in all classes of secondary education, i.e., English to Francophones and French to Anglophones. This mainstream SOL teaching and learning has yielded very mitigated results according to many linguists who have carried out several studies on the issue (Fassé, 2012; Kouega, 1999, 2003, 2005; Nguimatsa, 2010; Simo Bobda & Tiomajou, 1995; Takam, 2007; Takam & Fassé, 2018, 2020). A team of national pedagogic inspectors set up by the then Ministry of National Education (MINEDUC) to assess the teaching/​learning of SOLs in the education system produced a landmark report (MINEDUC, 2000) equally highlighting the numerous ills of SOL teaching/​learning in the education system of Cameroon. Overall, the major ills reported were the following: • Lack of a well-​designed and explicit language policy (Nguimatsa, 2010; Simo Bobda & Tiomajou, 1995). 463

Innocent Mbouya Fassé and Alain Flaubert Takam

• Lack of qualified teachers in sufficient number (Fassé 2012; Kouega, 1999; MINEDUC, 2000). • Lack of enough and/​or appropriate didactic materials (Fassé, 2012; MINEDUC, 2000). • Lack of motivation on the part of learners/​teachers (Fassé, 2012; Takam & Fassé, 2018). • Large class sizes (MINEDUC, 2000). • Lack of follow-​up (MINEDUC, 2000). • Absence of up-​to-​d ate syllabuses (Fassé, 2012; Kouega, 2003; MINEDUC, 2000). • Lack of bilingualism promotion incentive for teachers (MINEDUC, 2000). This report was a key element that prompted changes in the practice of SOL teaching and learning, changes incorporated in the April 1998 education orientation law. Owing to the new law, the teaching of SOLs was generalised to all levels of the education system, the teaching load and the weighting of English and French as subjects were equally increased. However, to translate some of the recommendations of the team of inspectors and many linguists into reality, the government developed an innovative programme called the SBEP which encompasses a CLIL module, the focus of the present chapter.

The CLIL experience in Cameroon The CLIL approach was started in the 1990s and involves teaching a second or foreign language, especially English, through the teaching of a content subject (Banegas, 2012; Coyle & Meyer, 2020; Díaz Pérez et al., 2018; Šulistová, 2013). CLIL includes two core components: the language and the content subject. Teachers of content subjects are not language educationists and as such need language teaching fundamentals. Similarly, a language teacher will lack content knowledge to be able to intervene in a CLIL programme. Coyle et al. (2010) distinguish between hard CLIL and soft CLIL, the first dealing with the case where the prime objective of using a second or foreign language to teach is to pass content knowledge whereas with the second, i.e., soft CLIL, the focus is on getting learners to develop second/​foreign language competence. It is the ‘soft’ CLIL that will be discussed in the Cameroon experience. Considering the peculiarities of Cameroonian realities, we consider that there are two types of CLIL in Cameroon: a light and a heavy CLIL. The light CLIL is the very classical soft CLIL, and the other is what we will henceforth call heavy CLIL, details of which are provided subsequently.

The heavy CLIL in Cameroon In the early years of independence, specifically in 1963, the government of the young Federal Republic of Cameroon which had instituted English and French as OLs of equal status realised that one of its major challenges would be to get Cameroonians to develop full English/​French bilingual competence through simple SOL classes. The government launched a unique experimental and elitist programme in the ‘Man O War Bay’ Bilingual School later transferred to the Bilingual Grammar School of Buea (BGSB). This programme consisted in admitting a selected but equal number of pupils graduates of primary education from the ASE and FSE subsystems in the same classroom and teach them all content lessons in both English and French with Francophone teachers handling subjects in French and Anglophone teachers handling subjects in English. The aim was to produce fully bilingual students at the end of the first cycle (Ekane, 1992; Fassé, 2009; Yaro, 2020). The programme 464

The CLIL experience in Cameroon

succeeded in yielding very competent bilingual citizens, the only yardstick to measure this bilingual competence being the fact that most of the students succeeded in passing both BEPC and GCE “O” Level national exams. Because the prime objective was the development of competence in official languages, we consider this programme a case of CLIL even though at that time the concept of CLIL had not been coined and it was rather a case of bilingual education, though very atypical. Indeed, CLIL usually involves a few subjects in a curriculum taught using a second or foreign language while the remaining ones are taught with the L1 of students. However, in the case of the BGSB, it was the totality of subjects that was taught in the first and second official languages. We thus consider it to be heavy CLIL (H-​CLIL). Unfortunately, this programme, which yielded very laudable results (Echu & Grundstrom, 1999; Ekane, 1992; MINEDUC, 2000), was halted by the government for several reasons: its high selectiveness –​few citizens could meet the selection criteria; its high cost –​the programme actually meant two curricula, and two sets of school materials to purchase. There was also no proper follow-​up of the experiment by education authorities. The programme was stopped in 1967, just six years after its launch. In 1972, at the reunification of the two federal states into a united republic, the government opted for a different approach. Instead of the complex bilingual education, the idea of bilingual schools came up, but these schools were simply a juxtaposition of ASE and FSE schools, each operating its own programme with its own teaching and administrative staff, pupils or students, and classrooms, the only common thing being the school yard. More on this initiative can be found in Fassé (2009). Despite the spread of the bilingual high schools or lycées bilingues as they are called in French, most Cameroonians still graduated from high school with limited knowledge of their SOL. It is noteworthy that the success of the BGSB motivated two Cameroonian primary school teachers to launch a similar programme at the primary level at the end of the 1980s. This very demanding and costly dual curriculum and dual-​language educational programme is currently operated by several schools in major cities of the country. Their organisation and operation modes are thoroughly presented and assessed by Fassé (2009) and Takam and Fassé (2020), respectively. Both studies conclude that strong English and French bilingualism can be attained through a less demanding programme, in this case, the soft CLIL which we propose should be considered in the context of Cameroon, as light CLIL (L-​CLIL), as opposed to the heavy CLIL exemplified by dual-​curriculum and dual-​language programmes. A third CLIL type in the context of Cameroon is what we will call Extra-​Light CLIL (EL-​CLIL) which was called the bilingual game and instituted through a circular letter from the Minister of Secondary Education dated 9 September 2009. The L-​CLIL and EL-​CLIL experiences, which have been operational for more than a decade now, constitute the core of the Cameroon CLIL experience subsequently presented.

The L-​CLIL in Cameroon The L-​CLIL was officially put in place by the ministerial decision No. 28/​08/​MINESEC/​ IGE of 2 December 2008 as a component of what was termed the SBEP and made operational a year later by the ministerial circular letter No. 98/​03 of September 2009. The ministerial circular letter distinguishes between the overall aim of the project and its objective. As per the former, the letter states that the SBEP ‘aims ultimately to produce perfectly bilingual students, who master English and French no matter their subsystem of origin’ (MINESEC, 2009, p. 1, our translation). It is true that the word ‘perfectly’ here can be considered too ambitious or unreal given current notions of bilingualism (e.g., Garcia, 2010). Nonetheless, such an aim may be more a motivating push than a realistic goal. Besides 465

Innocent Mbouya Fassé and Alain Flaubert Takam Table 31.2  Components of the SBEP in Cameroon No Modules

General content

Detailed content

Weekly time allocation

Comments

1 Intensive French/​ intensive English

Intensive French classes to Anglophones and intensive English classes to Francophones

Language and literature awareness

5 hours

Detailed syllabuses available for SBEP classes

2 Transversal immersive

Teaching of non-​ linguistic content in English or French

Subjects taught include citizenship, creative arts, sport and physical education

5 hours

L- ​CLIL No specific syllabuses for SBEP students

3 Co-​curricular activities

Non-​academic activities like the bilingualism day, youth clubs, choir, outings, debates, etc. carried out in the SOL

The types of clubs actually operating may not be the same in all schools but there must be language clubs in every SBEP school

2 hours

EL- ​CLIL Each school elaborates their own club activity content.

these lofty ultimate aims, the letter specifies that the SBEP would give students a bigger opportunity of using the other OL, contributing thereby to its mastery. The objective of the SBEP thus seems more attainable than the overall aim. The SBEP aims to solve a key issue mainstream SOL learning has always faced: lack of productive skills (speaking and writing) practice in SOL classes due, most of the time, to large class sizes in high schools. The SBEP programme comprises three compulsory modules as shown in Table 31.2. As Table 31.2 shows, the SBEP with its three modules is indeed a tough programme which seeks to overcome the shortcomings of the mainstream SOL classes. The first module from its title looks like a mere language course but has a very dense content with speaking, reading, and writing tasks all geared towards practical life issues using the competence-​based approach (CBA).2 Learners are the centre of the teaching, and they must use English or French to address multiple life issues. As stated in the syllabus of intensive English of the first class of the programme (the 6ème class in FSE), the Special Bilingual Education Syllabus is unique because the three modules take into consideration, even at the elementary level, all the 5 areas of life identified in the curriculum of secondary education, i.e., Family and Social Life; Economic Life and Occupations; Environment, Well-​being and Health; Citizenship; Media, Communication and Technology. MINESEC, 2014, p. 18 Therefore, the language competence developed in Module 1 is tested, reinforced, and extended through Modules 2 and 3, which imply using the SOL to learn other subjects or better still reinforcing SOL through using it to learn other subjects. Module 1 takes no less than five hours a week. The syllabus book focuses only on the intensive English module 466

The CLIL experience in Cameroon

because the syllabuses of Modules 2 and 3 are the same as those of other classes and need not be drafted again. The transversal immersive module which we consider L-​CLIL equally covers a minimum of five hours per week. The co-​curricular module, plus the ‘bilingual game’ constitute what we consider in this chapter EL-​CLIL. It should be emphasised, however, that the CBA recommended in the SBEP programme is yet to yield the expected results to be fully implemented, as Belibi (2018) underscores: [D]‌espite shifts from Communicative Language Teaching to the Eclectic Approach and CBA, very little had changed in the Cameroonian English language classroom. For instance, language is still very often taught out of context, the learner has remained a passive recipient of information whereas the teacher is still the centre of instruction. In addition to those shortcomings, the textbook has remained, in most cases, the only course material, assessment still lacks context and there is hardly any integration of the four language skills. Belibi, 2018, p. 99 It could not have been otherwise because teachers did not receive any training in CBA before being tasked with the new pedagogical approach used in SBEP. As revealed in Nforbi and Siewoue (2015) who investigated the concrete use of CBA by English teachers in some schools in the west region, 45.45% of teachers have never attended a seminar on CBA, 63.64% find the new approach difficult to understand, and 68.18% think that CBA made lesson planning more difficult for teachers. Likewise, 65% of teachers claim that it is virtually impossible to provide student-​centred or personalised instruction due to large classes and insufficient allocation of teaching time (Nforbi & Siewoue, 2015). In a similar study carried out a year later by Njwe (2016) in the English-​speaking part of Cameroon, similar findings were obtained: 82.4% of English teachers did not feel confident implementing the CBA approach which is, quite ironically, at the centre of the SBEP programme. These problems show that the Cameroonian model of CLIL, unlike the other models, relies on unprepared teachers, as most of them, as per field studies mentioned above, acknowledge not having received the necessary training to handle the pedagogical approach that underlie the CLIL model applied in Cameroon. Concerning two subjects of the transversal immersive module, namely sport and physical education and manual labour (one hour a week each), activities in the SOL are seldom conducted and, as a result, the two hours allotted to those two courses are usually lost, reducing ‘the learning period from nine hours a week to seven hours’ (Kouega & Dempowo, 2022, p. 11). One can question the choice of these two subjects, which are very low-​weighted subjects in the curriculum, which are not even assessed in official exams such as the GCE ‘O’ and ‘A’ Levels and which are optional (in the case of physical education) in BEPC, Probatoire, and Baccalaureate exams. Based on such choices, one can also question the importance and the conceptual efficiency of the SBEP. If among other subjects in the transversal immersive module, only manual labour and sport and physical education are not often taught in the framework of the SBEP, it might be because people lack interest in these subjects as they are not vital in the Cameroonian secondary school system.

The EL-​CLIL in Cameroon The peculiarity of the EL-​CLIL is that it concerns all classes in secondary education and not just SBEP classes. The first component, the co-​curricular module presented above takes two 467

Innocent Mbouya Fassé and Alain Flaubert Takam

hours a week and gives participants the opportunity to practise using their SOL in more fun, yet educative activities in the various clubs available in school. The other EL-​CLIL activity is the ‘bilingual game’. In fact, the ‘bilingual game’ was officially launched by the ministerial circular letter No. 31/​09 /​MINESEC/​IGE/​IPBIL/​of 3 September 2009 to start from the 2009–​2010 school year with the objective to increase the capacity of young Cameroonians to express themselves in the two OLs. This game, as the ministerial letter specifies, consists of each teacher of content subjects delivering part of their lesson using the other official language. The ministerial letter indicates that this segment of the lesson should be fun, and the teacher should just act as facilitator (MINESEC, 2009). Because the bilingual game lasts only ten minutes, we have decided to consider it a case of EL-​CLIL just as the co-​curricular activities described in Table 31.2. This ‘bilingual game’ programme goes in line with the CLIL learning in the sense that it is not a language lesson, but it aims at improving language competence of students during content subject lessons. Although the ‘bilingual game’ is considered EL-​CLIL, its implementation is extremely challenging and even risky. One of the authors of this chapter has taken part in the evaluation of student teachers at the Advanced Teacher Training College for Technical Education in many schools across the country and has witnessed the implementation of this ‘bilingual game’ by tens of trainees. The challenge is high for student teachers with poor SOL competence. This pushes them to use wrong language to guide learners who are equally very limited in SOL to pass content knowledge. The result in most cases was chaotic: the teacher gets students to learn what they would have to unlearn later, which is more complicated. In a few cases, some students even proved to have a higher command of the SOL than their teacher and could rectify some of their statements. In cases where the teacher had an acceptable command of the SOL, the game was rather very instructive and students could practise the SOL, although very briefly. The ‘bilingual game’ therefore warrants careful follow-​up and requires that the SOL level of candidates to teacher training be seriously checked before their admission into teacher training colleges nationwide to avoid situations where a teacher with approximate knowledge in English teaches students with equally low proficiency. Unlike EL-​CLIL activities which take place in all schools, L-​CLIL are found only in selected schools nationwide. At the time of writing this chapter, L-​CLIL activities were ongoing in their pilot phase in just 40 schools. These schools, which were designated by the circular letter No. 30/​09/​MINESEC/​IGE/​IPBIL of 3 September 2009, included public, lay private, and private confessional schools in the ten regions of the country, although only in major cities. This programme has been implemented for 13 years and if the ministerial directives have been followed strictu sensu, i.e., 60 students per pilot school in the special bilingual class, it should have reached a minimum of 31,200 students with 2,400 new students coming in every year. It was gathered from national pedagogic inspectors that the number of pilot schools was going to be increased as from the school year 2021–​ 2022 and thereby the number of beneficiaries. The curricular changes brought along by the SBEP led the education authorities to produce a special curriculum for the new bilingual classes and subsequently new national examination contents for the BEPC, the Probatoire and the Baccalaureate examinations respectively now known as BEPC Bilingue, Probatoire Bilingue, and Baccalaureate Bilingue with the corresponding Bilingual GCE ‘O’ Level and Bilingual GCE ‘A’ Level. It would be very interesting to conduct a study to assess the English/​French bilingualism competence of those holding a bilingual baccalaureate or GCE ‘A’ Level. Such a study will help to see if the objective of the state in designing and launching the SBEP is being achieved. The implementation of the SBEP requires joint efforts from its 468

The CLIL experience in Cameroon

key stakeholders who are teachers, students, and education authorities, the roles of whom are worth outlining.

L-​CLIL teachers As was shown above, the L-​CLIL normally requires teachers who have been trained to meet the requirements of the programme because they need a dual competence: content mastery competence and language teaching competence. In the case of Cameroon, teachers of the transversal immersive module do not receive any special training to be included in the programme. They are simply regular teachers of the content subjects involved in the programme like citizenship, creative arts, sport and physical education. Education authorities have simply exploited the dual nature of the education system of the country as presented earlier. Teachers of content subjects of the ASE who are English language literate are selected to teach in the FSE while teachers of those subjects in the FSE are taken to teach them in the ASE. This is certainly one of the peculiarities of the Cameroonian CLIL model. Unlike in many European contexts where the language taught through CLIL is a foreign language, in the case of Cameroon, the languages involved are official languages and their speakers are available. The issue, however, is that not only is their competence in their FOL –​which is the language they use in teaching content subject –​not checked, but they may have no language training capacities at all. In other contexts, CLIL teachers receive pre-​service and/​or in-​service training to be able to handle both content material and language needs of students (see Banegas & del Pozo Beamud, 2022, for the cases of Spain and Argentina). Indeed, there are several challenges levied on the shoulders of teachers by the CLIL to succeed in a CLIL programme (see Banegas & del Pozo Beamud, 2022). But for the case of Cameroon, as mentioned above, teachers have not been prepared or trained to assume their new role as language teachers. In a recently published article by Kouega and Dempowo (2022), surveyed teachers of SBEP reported such issues as lack of adequate didactic materials, of a prescribed textbook and of teaching aids for the programme, low learner motivation, lack of practice due to insufficient time, etc. Some of the strategies teachers used to overcome these difficulties were code-​switching or translation into French, use of general English books and materials drawn from the internet, and encouragement to use English outside the classroom. In the face of such challenges, the authors believe the current SBEP will not help Cameroon achieve large-​scale bilingualism. To better face the challenges reported above, pre-​service or in-​service training of teachers is paramount. The selection of teachers for the programme is done in Cameroon by the authorities of each pilot school. Unfortunately, not only are teachers not provided with any didactic material, but they are also not trained on how to design any.

L-​CLIL students Students involved in the SBEP and thus in L-​CLIL in Cameroon are former pupils who have left primary education. They are supposed to have had SOL classes for six years according to primary school curricula. They are selected through a placement test which is conceived along the lines of the SOL papers they took during their end-​of-​primary education examinations, i.e., First School Leaving Certificate for pupils in the ASE and Certificat d’Etudes Primaires (CEP) for those in FSE (Fossi, 2013). All first-​year students (6ème for the FSE and Form 1 for the ASE) of each pilot school take the test and the 60 top scorers are admitted into the programme. An examination of the test papers of 2018 and 2020 indicates 469

Innocent Mbouya Fassé and Alain Flaubert Takam

that such test papers usually comprise four to five sections: grammar, vocabulary, reading comprehension, writing, and general knowledge, mostly in the form of gap-​fi lling exercises. No speaking or listening exercises are provided in the test papers. Securing admission through a test together with the prestige usually accorded to English/​ French bilingual citizens in the country make the students stand out as special or privileged students in their schools. They follow the SBEP programme for the whole of the first cycle; but at the end of the first cycle, those who choose to do scientific series quit the programme and only those who opt for Arts/​Letters series continue till the Baccalaureate or the GCE ‘Advanced Level’ depending on the subsystem. Each designated school conducts its placement tests independently and releases results. It would have been very interesting to know how many citizens are following or have followed the SBEP since its inception, but such statistics could not be obtained, apart from some questionable findings like those of Kouega and Dempowo (2022). They recently found out in a study of a few selected schools that after the 3ème class, the proportion of those who remain on the programme plunges to 25% of the initial 60% (Kouega & Dempowo, 2022). There is no convincing reason that would explain why science students are excluded from the SBEP. This programme should have been adapted to science series by, for example, lightening its language and literature component and, conversely, laying more emphasis on the transversal immersive module, i.e., the teaching of more non-​linguistic content in the SOL. The exclusion of science-​ inclined students from this L-​CLIL model in Cameroon can be viewed as a conceptual mistake that the designers of the programme made (Kouega & Dempowo, 2022). Therefore, the SBEP needs some amendments, one of which could be the reintegration of science-​ inclined students into the programme. Moreover, it would have been more interesting to include high-​weighted subjects in the curriculum into the transversal immersive models of the SBEP, namely history, geography or philosophy for arts and mathematics, biology, physics, or chemistry for science. That would have been an important signal to all education stakeholders that SBEP is relevant for nurturing current and future citizens not just in OB, but also in non-​language fields.

L-​CLIL follow-​up authorities After the decision to introduce the SBEP in the education system by the Ministry of Secondary Education, the Inspectorate General in Charge of Pedagogy organised a seminar in 2009 whose document entitled Seminar Document, National Seminar of the Inspectorate of Pedagogy in Charge of the Promotion of Bilingualism laid down the foundation of the very innovative SBEP (Fossi, 2013). The implementation of the SBEP is done in each school under the supervision of a designated coordinator chosen by each school principal. Pedagogic inspectors are in charge of supervising the promotion of English-​French bilingualism in and through education, both regional and national inspectors carry out the normal routine checks as with any other programmes in schools. The SBEP is not granted any special attention. It is highly desirable that these authorities plan formative evaluation missions and activities to identify possible hurdles faced by all actors and propose remedial solutions. For instance, teachers of content subjects must pass a language test and be introduced to basic language teaching methodology. As for any novel education programme, follow-​up and assessment are key ingredients to success. After 13 years of implementation of the SBEP, systematic evaluation studies are yet to be done. The peculiarities of the Cameroonian CLIL model indicate its very atypical nature compared to classical CLIL experience in other settings and warrant scrutiny. 470

The CLIL experience in Cameroon

Specificities of the Cameroonian CLIL experience The Cameroonian experience of CLIL is unique in many respects. As discussed above, it is not just an instance of soft CLIL, but it has multiple components: a classical soft CLIL which involves four content subjects taught in the students’ SOL to selected SBEP students, and an additional experience considered in this chapter as a case of EL-​CLIL called the bilingual game. This implies that all students in secondary schools in Cameroon experiment with CLIL in different forms and to varying degrees and all secondary school teachers are now CLIL actors. Another peculiarity is the fact that, of the three modules of the SBEP, only the syllabuses of the intensive English module have been designed. In normal circumstances, the syllabuses of content subjects could have been adjusted to suit the low mastery of the SOL by SBEP students, especially in their early years in the programme. In more concrete terms, teaching the same content material to students using their FOL should not be done the same way as teaching the same content subject to other students through their SOL, at least at the level of the pacing of syllabus coverage. This is even more serious when this teaching is done by teachers who are not prepared to teach content subjects with language development objectives and are therefore not prepared to respond to language issues from their students. As it stands now, L-​CLIL together with its EL-​CLIL component in Cameroon call for many formative evaluation studies. One such study should observe L-​CLIL classes and EL-​ CLIL activities to see how teachers and students fare with them. The bilingual game here is the most preoccupying because of teachers whose level of SOL is not good enough to teach their subject. The consequence is that they may mislead learners despite their good will. It will also be very interesting to really see, on a large scale, how content subject teachers deliver their lessons to satisfy the language learning objective while attaining the content expectations without any prior in-​service training.

Conclusion The purpose of this chapter was to present the CLIL experience of Cameroon which has been chosen by the government as the most appropriate means to achieve OB development through education. CLIL in Cameroon comprises two out of the three modules of the SBEP designed and implemented by education authorities for over 13 years. It should be noted that SBEP with its CLIL component is the government’s answer to the cries of many researchers who advocated its introduction into the school system in the place of another atypical, yet mushrooming education programme, the dual curriculum bilingual education programme (Fassé, 2009, 2012; Takam & Fassé, 2020). The peculiar bilingual education programme which was initiated in 1961 by the state was an instance of what this study calls heavy-​CLIL because not just a few content subjects were taught in the student’s SOL, but all the subjects of the programme. The psychological, social, and economic constraints of this heavy-​CLIL are detailed in Takam and Fassé (2020). However, because they desire English/​French bilingualism, parents continue to send their children in thousands to primary schools operating the dual curriculum programme nationwide in order to have ‘perfectly’ bilingual children later. The chapter has indicated some avenues for further research on SBEP that would permit to check its worth as concerns turning Cameroonians into competent English/​French bilinguals so as to reinforce the national unity and national integration so dear to the country’s rulers.3 Despite loopholes identified in the implementation of the SBEP outlined by this study, this 471

Innocent Mbouya Fassé and Alain Flaubert Takam

programme appears to be the solution that will lead to an efficient development of OB in the country, most especially if it is brought down to primary education as well.

Notes 1 The terms Francophone and Anglophone in Cameroon do not necessarily mean somebody who is literate in French or English, but rather someone who comes from the territory that belonged to French Cameroon and vice versa. See Simo Bobda and Fassé (2005) for more explanation of who is Francophone and who is Anglophone in Cameroon. 2 The CBA (competency-​ based approach) or CBE (competency-​ based education) is a teaching approach which puts the development of new competences by learners in the centre of teaching/​ learning activities. According to Wiysahnyuy (2021) quoting Hodges and Harris (2012), the CBA concept originated in the USA in the 1960s. 3 Kouega and Dempowo’s (2022) study proposes the design of a new bilingual programme in secondary education that must include an economic aspect, among other incentives.

Further reading deBoer, M. & Leontjev, D. (Eds.) (2020). Assessment and learning in content and language integrated learning (CLIL) classrooms. Springer. The first full-​length treatment of the notions of approaches and conceptualisations of formative assessment as a tool for supporting learning in CLIL classrooms, this book shows how the interaction of teaching and learning makes assessment an essential part of this process. The 11 chapters that make up this edited book cover a wide range of assessment contexts in CLIL around the world. Erling, E.J., Clegg, J., Rubagumya, C. M., & Reilly, C. (Eds.) (2022). Multilingual learning and language supportive pedagogies in Sub-​Saharan Africa. Routledge. This edited collection explores the status of multilingual teaching and learning in the Sub-​Saharan African context from pre-​primary and primary education to secondary education, as well as in teacher training colleges. Through a widely different national contexts, with a special emphasis on eastern and central African countries where English is the dominant official language in the state education system, it shows that, despite numerous challenges facing education, it is both possible and necessary to implement multilingual education in such contexts.

References Anchimbe, E.A. (2005). Anglophonism and Francophonism: The stakes of (official) language identity in Cameroon. Alizes: Revue Angliciste de la Réunion, 25/​26, 726. 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. Banegas, D.L., & del Pozo Beamud, M. (2022). Content and language integrated learning: A duoethnographic study about CLIL pre-​service teacher education in Argentina and Spain. RELC Journal, 53(1), 151–​164. https://​doi.org/​10.1177/​0 0336​8822​0930​4 42. Belibi, E.P.R. (2018). Competency-​based English language teaching in Cameroon francophone secondary schools: Peculiarities, challenges and solutions. In L.N. Afutendem, C. M. Nkwetisama, & G. T. Fai (Eds.), Language and literature sciences in contemporary Cameroon and the commonwealth (pp. 99–​126). Independently published. Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge University Press. Coyle, D., & Meyer, O. (2020). Quality assurance in CLIL higher education. In J.D. Martínez Agudo (Ed.), Quality in TESOL and teacher education: From a results culture towards a quality culture (pp. 159–​ 70). Routledge. deBoer, M., & Leontjev, D. (Eds.) (2020). Assessment and learning in content and language integrated learning (CLIL) classrooms. Springer.

472

The CLIL experience in Cameroon Díaz Pérez, W., Fields, D., & Marsh, D. (2018). Innovations and challenges: Conceptualizing CLIL practice. Theory into Practice, 57(1), 177–​184. Eberhard, D.M., Gary, F.S., & Fenning, C.D. (2022). Ethnologue: Languages of the World. 25th edition. SIL International. Retrieved from www.eth ​nolo​g ue.com. Echu, G. (2003). Coping with multilingualism: Trends in the evolution of language policy in Cameroon. PhiN, 25, 31–​46. www.fu-​ber​l in.de/​Phin/​x /​d ir.cgi?ptest. Echu, G., & Grundstrom, A. (Eds.). (1999). Official bilingualism and linguistic communication in Cameroon. Peter Lang. Ekane, W.N. (1992). Summative evaluation of an experimental bilingual program in Cameroun. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 18, 207–​220. Erling, E.J., Clegg, J., Rubagumya, C.M., & Reilly, C. (Eds.). (2022). Multilingual learning and language supportive pedagogies in Sub-​Saharan Africa. Routledge. Fassé, I.M. (2009). An atypical case of dual-​medium education system in multilingual Cameroon: The horizon bilingual complex in Douala. In K. Harrow & K. Mpoche (Eds.), Language, literature and education in multicultural societies: Collaborative research on Africa (pp. 156–​171). Cambridge Scholars Publication. Fassé, I.M. (2012). Revamping school bilingualism in Cameroon primary education: Some strategies to avoid another failure. Sino-​US English Teaching, 9(12), 1754–​1759. Fossi, A. (2013). Programme d’éducation bilingue spécial (PEPS) au Cameroun: État des lieux, opportunités et défis. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education (IJERE), 2(4), 180–​187. Garcia, O. (2010). Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global perspective. Wiley-​Blackwell. Kouega, J.P. (1999). Forty years of official bilingualism in Cameroon. English Today, 15(4), 38–​43. Kouega, J.P. (2003). English in Francophone elementary grades in Cameroon. Language and Education, 17(6), 408–​420. Kouega, J.P. (2005). Promoting French-​ English individual bilingualism through education in Cameroon. Journal of Third World Studies, 22(1), 189–​196. Kouega, J.P., & Dempowo, S. (2022). The implementation of the Cameroon’s French-​E nglish official bilingualism policy: The case of the Special Bilingual Education Programme in secondary level education institutions. Open Access Library Journal, 9, 1–​26. https://​doi.org/​10.4236/​ oalib.1108​2 21. Mforteh, S.A. (2006). Cultural innovations in Cameroon’s Tower of Babel. TRANS Internet-​Z eitschrift für Kulturwissenschaften, 16. www.inst.at/​t rans/​16Nr/​03_ ​2/​m forte​h16.htm. MINEDUC. (2000). Final report on the reinforcement of bilingualism in the Cameroon education systems. An unpublished report produced by experts commissioned by the Ministry of National Education. MINESEC. (2009). Circular letter No 31/​09 /​M INESEC/​IGE/​IPBIL/​of 3 September 2009. Ministry of Secondary Education, Cameroon. MINESEC. (2014). Programme of study: Special Bilingual Education Programme (SBEP). General secondary education (6e and 5e). Ministry of Secondary Education, Cameroon. Nforbi, E., & Siewoue, M.B. (2015). Perspectives for the competence-​based approach with entry through real life situations in the teaching of English in Cameroon francophone secondary schools. Cameroon Journal of Language Education, 1, 1–​18. Nguimatsa, S.F. (2010). Cinquante ans de bilinguisme au Cameroun. Quelles perspectives en Afrique? L’Harmattan. Njwe, A.E.N. (2016). Language models and the teaching of English language to secondary school students in Cameroon. World Journal of Education, 6(2), 50–​67. Simo Bobda, A., & Fassé, I.M. (2005). Revisiting some linguistic concepts and beliefs in the light of the sociolinguistic situation of Cameroon. In J. Cohen, K.T. McAlister, K. Rolstad, & J. MacSwan (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Bilingualism (pp. 2122–​2132). Cascadilla Press. Simo Bobda, A., & Tiomajou, D. (1995). Integrating ESL and EFL: The Cameroon experience. In British Council, Senegal (Ed.), Across the West African divide. Proceedings of the West African English language conference Mbour, Senegal 12-​14 December (pp. 60–​83). British Council in West Africa. Šulistová, J. (2013). The content and language integrated learning approach in use. Acta Technologica Dubnicae, 3(2), 47–​54. Takam, A.F. (2007). Bilinguisme officiel et promotion de la langue minoritaire en milieu scolaire: le cas du Cameroun. Revue Électronique Internationale de Sciences du Langage SudLangues, 7, 26–​48.

473

Innocent Mbouya Fassé and Alain Flaubert Takam Takam, A.F., & Fassé, I.M. (2018). Language policy in education: Second official language in (technical) education in Canada and Cameroon. Journal of Education and Learning, 7(4), 20–​31. Takam, A.F., & Fassé, I.M. (2020). English and French bilingual education and language policy in Cameroon: The bottom-​up approach or the policy of no policy? Language Policy (LPOL) Journal, 19(1), 61–​86. https://​doi.org/​10.1007/​s10​993-​019-​09510-​7 Wiysahnyuy, F.L. (2021). The competency based approach in Cameroon public secondary schools: Modes of appropriation and constrains. International Journal of Humanities Social Sciences and Education (IJHSSE), 8(1), 92–​103. Yaro, L. (2020). Optimising post-​colonial bilingual education in Cameroon’s primary and secondary schools: A critic on school practice. Asian Journal of Education and Social Studies, 9(3), 39–​53.

474

475

32 CURRENT PRACTICE AND RESEARCH OF CLIL IN JAPAN Chantal Hemmi

Introduction The past decade has shown a number of developments in foreign language education in Japan. There is a shift from focusing on language to an emphasis on the development of thinking skills and raising awareness of intercultural communication in the curriculum across all levels, elementary, junior, and senior high school, and university. In this chapter, I first summarise the present educational system in Japan and problematise issues related to foreign language education. Second, I describe the emphasis given to the need to the provision of English-​medium instruction (EMI) courses at universities as a governmental aim to foster internationally minded students and staff who will help to build awareness of global issues and facilitate more interactions among Japan and other countries. A review of CLIL implementation in Japan starting from the early projects at private and state elementary schools in the late 2000s will be presented, followed by a short history of CLIL with a focus on how it has spread moderately across education levels. This brief history provides readers with the process in which language education is being transformed from a ‘fish bowl’ model where language instruction was aimed at passing university entrance examinations, to a more global ‘open seas’ model (Yoshida, 2002, p. 201) where the focus is on communication in an intra and international context. The last section of this chapter examines CLIL research conducted at different levels of education. The chapter ends with implications for the future concerning CLIL research and practice.

Present-​day education system and CLIL Present day education in Japan is made up of three levels: elementary, junior, and senior high school, plus higher education at university. Elementary and junior high school are a part of compulsory education, while high school onwards is optional. That said, high school education is considered a necessary life-​belt for employment. Throughout the whole education system, the social expectations for students to get into a prestigious university to be employed for a stable future has a strong impact on all aspects of learning; competition is stiff especially at high school level, where abundant time is spent on memorisation, and acquisition of exam-​t aking techniques. In this context where there is a need for a more holistic way DOI: 10.4324/9781003173151-38

475

Chantal Hemmi

of learning focusing on the development of student thinking and a measure to ensure academic development, CLIL has been briefly mentioned in a 2021 document by the Ministry of Education Culture Sports Science and Technology (MEXT, 2021a) as an approach that encompasses any activity in which both the language and the subject have a joint role (Coyle, 2007).There are moves towards implementing deep learning through dialogic thinking; the three elements in developing ikiru-​chikara (the ability to live) are as follows: (1) A solid academic ability; (2) A rich heart; (3) A healthy body (MEXT, 2021b). The first point is concerned with the acquisition of basic knowledge and skills to be able to think independently while the second and third points are related to developing a rich soul and body, and the aims of compulsory education are targeted at nurturing cognitive, affective, and physical development. If we were to establish commonalities with CLIL, the first point resonates with cognition, one of the 4Cs of CLIL, content, communication, culture, and cognition (Coyle et al., 2010, p. 41). The 4Cs of CLIL are fundamental in establishing the methodology of a CLIL approach as these are the elements in the approach which encourage the integration of content and language. Cognition relates to the ability to learn and think and ‘think for yourself ’ (MEXT. 2021b). Furthermore, MEXT (2018) proposed three important qualities and abilities in the new course of study: 1. Power toward learning, humanity, etc.: this refers to how to interact with society and the world and lead a better life. 2. Knowledge and skills: this is about what is understood by the learners and what they can do. 3. The ability to think, judge and express: this relates to how the learners can process what they understand and use the knowledge to make judgements and express themselves. The above suggest a commonality with the 4Cs of CLIL; the first point matches the concept of community/​culture (Coyle et al., 2010; Mehisto et al., 2008). The idea for students to interact dialogically with the help of the teacher, thinking about the community in the classroom, school, or local area and the world is important in the new course of study. The second point indicates the content and skills to be learnt, and the third resonates with cognition, the ability to understand the content of what students learn, and to apply the knowledge and skills, to think critically about taking action in expressing oneself is advocated. To sum up, even though CLIL is not made explicit in MEXT’s policies, the guidelines somewhat resonate with the basic principles of CLIL.

Developments in language education CLIL started in Europe with the aim of nurturing multilingual citizens who can use more than two languages. Although in the European context CLIL is often content-​d riven, in the context of Japan, CLIL is more often connected to language learning and is therefore language driven, weak or soft CLIL (Bentley, 2010; Ikeda et al., 2021). Ikeda et al. (2021) have been central in the implementation of the soft version of CLIL (language-​d riven CLIL) in Japan through offering continual training based on research: ‘CLIL was introduced in response to the criticism on the previous educational schemes’ (Tsuchiya & Pérez Murillo, 2015, p. 25). CLIL is often implemented in EFL teaching situations rather than in subject teaching. The most common first foreign language learnt at schools is English, as is the case with a number of countries in the world where English is considered as lingua franca, a common language used in communication in linguistically and culturally diverse 476

Current practice and research of CLIL in Japan

global contexts around the world. Some high schools designated as kokusaikoko (International High Schools) offer French, Spanish, German, Chinese, Korean, and Arabic (Yokohama Senior High School of International Studies, 2021), as part of their second foreign language curriculum. These schools follow MEXT curricula and are designed to promote international awareness and competence in the use of English a second foreign language. Another noticeable development can be seen at elementary school level; since 2019, after over a ten-​year period of design, implementation of curricula accompanied by training given to teachers by local boards of education, municipal government, and university specialists, elementary school English has been launched as a compulsory subject at 5th and 6th year with the aims of familiarising students to English and developing students’ communication skills, not only in listening and speaking skills but also in reading and writing. At present, 3rd-​and 4th-​year students also learn English but these are not designated as compulsory subjects yet. At junior and senior high school levels, further development of communication skills is required and it is considered important to understand the culture surrounding the language in connection to interaction with others; it is also important to construct and reconstruct one’s ideas by organising information depending on the aims, situations and surroundings (MEXT, 2021e). In this context, social learning and learning dialogically is emphasised, which resonate with some of the features of CLIL (Llinares et al., 2012; Dalton-​ Puffer, 2007). Furthermore, the aims of MEXT match the idea of ‘developing intercultural understanding and global citizenship’ (Coyle et al., 2010, p. 41), another important aim in CLIL. Thus, some of the key concepts of CLIL may seem to be embedded in present-​ day education, however, they are not explicitly defined nor recognised as CLIL. In terms of English language teaching, the abundant authentic multimodal input seen in the state-​ designated textbooks may suggest that there are features of language used to describe topics related to subjects; however, such development is not yet coined as a CLIL approach. English language teaching is evolving together with the needs of a globalising society where being able to communicate in English is becoming more vital than ever for people to survive and thrive in a competitive market in commerce, governmental or non-​governmental institutions or in education itself. In making a shift from a ‘fish bowl’ (Yoshida, 2002, p. 201) model of education where the learning points are targeted at succeeding in passing exams with an emphasis on accuracy using a native speaker model, one could say that in Japan’s education system at present, development in language and intercultural understanding is slowly being actualised, with fish being farmed out to the ‘open seas’. The aim in English language education is now more focused on the acquisition of language and skills necessary to communicate with the rest of the world, using an English as lingua franca (ELF) model. Despite the obstacles, such as the need to focus on traditional rote-​learning practice targeted at passing the entrance examinations for university, there are measures taken to adopt a holistic approach to language learning that motivates students to learn about the real world, learn subjects and topics, learn the language surrounding the content at the same time that they think and process their learning and express their thoughts using the target language, English.

The introduction of English-​medium instruction (EMI) in higher education EMI can be defined as ‘the use of the English language to teach academic subjects (other than English itself ) in countries or jurisdictions where the first language of the majority of the population is not English’ (Macaro, 2018, p. 1). The Japanese government’s initiative 477

Chantal Hemmi

in internationalising higher education can be seen in schemes such as the Global 30 Project (MEXT, 2021f ) and Top Global University Project which started in 2014 (MEXT, 2021g). Thirty-​seven universities were selected, and the rapid increase of foreign students can be seen as a result of the implementation of EMI. EMI was originally implemented among the graduate schools, through introducing academic subject courses taught in English, but the phenomenal growth in the number of undergraduate degrees is recorded as having increased from 55 in 2009 to 2,900 students in 2017 (Kuwamura, 2018, p. 9). Although more than half of the universities have implemented EMI in Japan, it is uniquely situated as the EMI courses are not taught as mainstream education. According to Pool (2018), even at the top private universities, EMI courses exist separate from mainstream education offered for non-​EMI courses taught using Japanese as a medium of instruction. Although growing in numbers, the spread of EMI can be interpreted as ‘a part of political discourse concerning language policy’ (Morizumi, 2015, p. 119) the objective being twofold, to internationalise Japanese universities and nurture Japanese students to study in English to prepare them to be able to join global workforces in future. EMI is a policy to internationalise Japanese students through English taught subject courses, however, there is no common methodology applied to the practice of EMI. In this context, EMI can be defined as courses that are taught in English by different subject specialists without a specification of a common approach. Separate from EMI, CLIL has been applied as an educational approach by some private universities, but such implementation has been mainly in the area of language-​d riven CLIL. CLIL has not been implemented at a government policy related level, but more on a grassroots level on the basis that employing an approach with a sound theoretical underpinning would add positively to the learning of language in connection to content. In institutions where English for academic purposes (EAP) is taught, CLIL has been applied as an approach in compulsory English subjects taught by Japanese and non-​Japanese instructors who are mostly language teachers, rather than content specialists. Without a shared methodology to teaching in EMI, EMI classrooms have become a site in which students from Japan and abroad can interact to deepen their knowledge of the subjects they are learning. EMI invites students into the ‘open seas’ (Yoshida, 2002, p. 201) where international communication is inevitably facilitated among students with different ethnic, cultural, and linguistic backgrounds. Although some researchers take the view that CLIL and EMI are synonymous and that there is no difference between them, the author takes the view that as it stands in Japan, EMI is a site positioned to enable English taught courses to develop and prosper for the purpose of internationalising Japan while CLIL has been applied at some universities in language-​d riven CLIL contexts and is seldom applied in EMI programmes.

CLIL implementation in Japan In this section, I discuss how CLIL was implemented in Japan. First, although not coined as CLIL, an immersion programme at Kato Gakuen will be introduced. This is followed by a description of developments of CLIL programmes at different levels in Japan. Kato Gakuen has been offering a comprehensive immersion programme in English from kindergarten to high school level (Kato Gakuen, 2021). This programme is not defined as CLIL and is based on the principle that at least 50% of instruction in an academic year is offered in the additional language (Genesee, 1987), which is English. The content to be learnt is based on the MEXT curriculum guidelines and meets the same learning outcomes of expected achievements (Kato Gakuen, 2021). The uniqueness of the programme can be 478

Current practice and research of CLIL in Japan

seen in the recognition of the importance of the students’ first language as well the additional language, English. The school prizes being a part of the local community and places an importance in teachers to ‘adjust to the new culture’ (Kato Gakuen, 2021). An equally important point is that it is not an international school and does not ‘impose Western values nor expectations on the parents or students’ (Kato Gakuen, 2021).This corresponds well with the idea that studying about the cultures surrounding the community of learners is an important aspect of social learning (Llinares et al., 2012), and learning is construed as a ‘social process’ (p. 11) where students learn by interacting with one another, the teacher and the communities surrounding them. Separate from the immersion programme mentioned above, CLIL implementation has been recorded to have taken place since 2007 at an elementary school in Tokyo called Morimura Gakuen where a team of British Council teachers incorporated CLIL in the primary English programme (British Council, 2007). A record of their collaboration in connection to home economics can be found in content and language integrated learning (Sasajima, 2011). In this context, English was introduced from the first year employing a four-​skills (listening, speaking, reading, and writing) integrated approach programme with a grammatical syllabus with relevant vocabulary intertwined to enable students to use English. CLIL at Morimura Gakuen was applied to make learning meaningful by using English in collaboration with the home economics class teacher, focusing on the use of the language in the classroom through a cultural lesson on how to make Welsh cakes, as part of the British Council’s mission to nurture the knowledge of cultures surrounding English and the UK. Other CLIL activities included collaborative lessons with the PE teacher on how to play baseball. In both cases, these were not fully fledged CLIL courses, but they gave students a chance to use English actively. The data from the questionnaire gained from 120 students at 6th-​year level showed that students found the activities ‘Fun and delicious’, ‘A bit unique and attractive and was an opportunity to learn English at the same time [as we learnt how to cook in the home economics class]’ (British Council, 2007, p. 92). This shows that the students who were beginners actually perceived the experience as a content-​d riven activity centred around the home-​economics class. The teacher who gave the language input part of the lesson mentioned that ‘students were able to learn that language is a breathing, living thing’ (p. 92). Students learnt about the importance of gestures and visuality when they learnt how to make the Welsh cakes. This approach resonates with Vygotsky’s (1978, 1986) notion that language is learnt through social interaction. The teacher mediated new content and language through various media such as posters, written texts, gestures, and other semiotic devices to scaffold the points to be learnt at a level that is just above their present threshold.

Elementary school More recent developments can be seen at elementary school level, despite the learners being beginner level at A1, Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR), some cases can be seen where subjects such as social studies are introduced in an integrated way to approach MEXT’s aim to raise student interest in language and culture and employ experiential learning. Nurturing attitudes to actively communicate with others, and familiarise students with the sounds and basic vocabulary in English are also considered as important goals. Subjects dealt with were physical education (Hamamoto et al., 2020) and Japanese traditional crafts (Ito, 2018), and students were able to sustain their interest in the content being taught at the same time that they learnt the vocabulary and language for learning (Coyle et al., 2010). 479

Chantal Hemmi

Junior high school There are some progressive attempts to explore the collaboration between state elementary and junior high school (Kashiwagi, 2021). The lessons in the Year 5 class are all offered in English and there is a description of a lesson where students explore smells and tastes. At elementary school the foci of the learning points are about noticing the importance of eating, and learning about the different categories of food according to their nutrients. At junior high school, they learnt about the human sensory systems and taste bud cells and their longevity and how to construct life habits that will enable the maintenance of a healthy body (p. 10). It is intriguing that such an attempt to integrate the approach to teaching at elementary and junior high school has taken place, as it helps to align the curriculum in order to enhance the learning of content and language at elementary and junior high school levels.

High school At high school level, the oldest recorded is the programme in what used to be a Super Science High School designated by MEXT (Sasajima, 2011). Focusing on the learning of science, in this particular private high school, biology was taught using English, employing team-​teaching where a science teacher and an English teacher taught collaboratively using English in the science lesson. This proved to be successful in raising student motivation and produced good results in students’ understanding about the content being taught. Use of ICT and visual materials were a feature of the teaching of content, and the team-​teaching enabled learning to become dialogic where students were learning from noticing the discourse in the interaction between the two team teachers and student interactions in their pair-​work (Sasajima, 2011). There are prominent developments at Wako-​kokusai High School, a prefectural school where extensive training on CLIL was offered under the supervision of Prof Makoto Ikeda of Sophia University. Since its inception in 2011 (Yamazaki, 2017, 2018) the purpose of the CLIL programme has consisted of the learning of input in specialist areas in order to prepare the students to be able to learn their subjects at university level in the future; the programme was designed to develop the basic foundation of study skills in English (Yamazaki, 2016). Among the noticeable features of the processes of learning included the dialogic inquiry on content taught by the asking of referential questions that could elicit a number of students’ responses without being bound to one answer (Aikawa et al., 2018). Regarding CLIL implementation at high school level in Japan, the dual-​focused nature of CLIL positively affected student motivation and the teaching of subjects such as science and global issues. The core elements of CLIL in relation to the 4Cs, content, cognition, communication, and community/​culture (Coyle, et al., 2010), can be seen clearly in the programmes, and in particular, the language scaffolding process in CLIL can be observed as a feature of the courses.

Higher education From 2008 to 2013, Sophia University, a private university based in Tokyo, conducted an extensive research-​based planning, design, and implementation of a programme for English for academic purposes (EAP) and CLIL courses implemented across the departments in the first-​year compulsory English programme targeted at 2,700 students on average. Upon establishing the programme, needs analysis research, followed by knowledge sharing and 480

Current practice and research of CLIL in Japan

training given by CLIL experts from Europe and North America took place. Pilot courses were rolled out and evaluated by course design, assessment, focus on form, and policy specialists from differing faculties of the university. The CLIL experts who delivered live lectures included David Marsh, Peeter Mehisto, Do Coyle, Rosie Tanner, Christiane Dalton-​Puffer, and Ana Llinares. This was the start of a series of training sessions, discussions and curriculum preparation within the Center for Language Education and Research (CLER), the site of implementation. In 2013, the EAP-​CLIL programme named Academic Communication was introduced in first-​year English courses. Japanese-​led works in principles and methodologies of CLIL (Watanabe, 2011), practice and applications (Izumi et al., 2012), and lesson and materials (Ikeda et al., 2016) have been influential in understanding CLIL underpinnings and implementation. The programme consists of 46.5 hours of direct contact classes focusing on learning the basic study skills in the first 14-​week term, followed by another 46.5 hours of face-​to-​face lessons offered by expert users of English who are holders of an MA or a PhD degree in differing subjects such as English as a second language (ESL), English/​A merican literature, cultural studies, social science subjects, and science. In the second term, the students apply the study skills in learning a subject or topic chosen by the instructor. From 2013 to present, the programme is still producing positive results particularly in the learners’ improvement of the skills related to EAP with instructors offering courses that are linked with the academic subject they are familiar with. The post-​course Test of English for Academic Purposes (TEAP) results showed that students showed a significant improvement in their productive skills, i.e., their speaking and writing (Sato & Hemmi, 2019). A CLIL approach has been shared among the MA TESOL programme, English studies, and English literature departments and CLER. Unique features can be seen in CLIL courses taught in tandem with the economics instructor and Japanese instructor (Sato & Hiyoshi, 2020), and partial CLIL offered to teach culture (Hiroyasu & Kitamura, 2019) in Spanish and French have been implemented to consider possibilities for CLIL in second foreign language education. Universities incorporating CLIL in their programmes include: Gakushuin University, where CLIL is employed in preparation for an EMI course in social sciences; Saitama Medical University, in which specialist medical subjects are taught; Toyo Eiwa University, where an English studies course is offered; and Waseda University, where different subjects are taught in English. What is interesting is the fact that at university level, CLIL has spread moderately in language-​d riven as well as some content-​d riven courses. CLIL, in a number of cases is employed to make the students utilise the language learnt through the learning of new content, in some cases, through actual subject courses taught at undergraduate university level.

CLIL research in Japan CLIL research in Japan will be discussed with special reference to language-​d riven CLIL, since a number of cases in which this specific model has been implemented have been in the teaching of English as a foreign language where the teacher originally is a language teacher, rather than a subject/​content specialist (Ikeda, 2021; Tsuchiya & Pérez Murillo, 2015).

Elementary school The research into CLIL at elementary school level has focused mainly on its implementation and the effectiveness of what was taught, and how the content and language was learnt. 481

Chantal Hemmi

Yamano (2013) examined two control groups with the CLIL class consisting of 35 students, and a non-​CLIL EFL class with 36 students. In this study, Yamano discusses the importance of experiential learning by maintaining a good balance between the level of the students’ cognition and their English. Seventy-​one students in Year 5 who were complete beginners of English participated (Yamano, 2013). In the non-​CLIL class teaching the language was the main focus, and the activities involved ‘games or interviews with students asking each other questions about their favourite colours or animals’ (Yamano, 2013, p. 2). The CLIL class was taught employing an interdisciplinary approach, with art and crafts, and science and social studies. Yamano (2013) discusses each process of the tasks employed, with content which involved the three subjects’ approaches, communication involving the ‘language of learning’ (language required to learn the main concepts of the content), ‘language for learning’ (language required to participate in classroom operations), and the more emergent ‘language through learning’ that appears when teachers and students are interacting with one another (Coyle et al., 2010, p. 36). In terms of cognition, both higher-​order thinking skills (HOTS) and lower-​order thinking skills (LOTS) (Coyle et al., 2010, p. 30) are the focus, as students in both the CLIL and non-​CLIL groups were complete beginners. Yamano (2013) notes that the community of students started from individual output, and it led to a discussion on animals in the world. The unique part of the CLIL lesson was that it involved creation where students had to think of ways to save endangered animals. Data on students’ pictures showing the dos and don’ts on saving the animals from becoming extinct are presented bilingually in the paper. The data on how much more practice/​processing production/​output were observed in comparison to the non-​CLIL class are presented in Yamano’s research. Yamano (2013) concludes that the CLIL approach encouraged vocabulary learning, active interaction between the teacher and the students and the learning of the content facilitated awareness of global issues related to animals. Further development in research concerning elementary school CLIL is in the areas of integrating content and language (English) in physical education (Hamamoto et al., 2020), traditional crafts (Ito, 2018), and partially incorporating CLIL in the teaching of social studies (Ota, 2022). These studies also reveal the effectiveness of a CLIL approach, providing implications that may be relevant in other teaching sites. In the Hamamoto et al. (2020) study, in group interviews with teachers who conducted the classes and their observers, the findings showed that incorporating English in the ‘Vaulting horse with exclamation’ activity worked positively towards building a community between the students and teachers as well as among teachers. This CLIL activity involved using English expressions such as ‘Perfect’, ‘Good’, ‘Close’, and ‘Wonderful’ when the students used the vaulting horses in learning how to jump beautifully using the correct preparation, leg formation, and landing. In this activity, graduate school students acted as teachers whose level of English was fair. Although the activity worked well in community building, there may be a challenge if teachers did not have a sufficient level of English to conduct the activities. In a study involving first year elementary school children, Ikeda (2019) examined two control groups, one, a typical English language teaching (ELT) class employing a ‘Presenting-​ Practising-​Producing (PPP)’ (Hedge, 2000, pp. 164–​167) model of teaching and a content driven model of CLIL with arithmetic taught through word problems. While the PPP class focused on the learning of household words, the goal for the CLIL course was to solve word problems for arithmetic. The PPP class used more words than the CLIL class, and in the CLIL class, there was more processing of thinking through numbers. In the CLIL class, the

482

Current practice and research of CLIL in Japan

learners were exposed to more varied vocabulary, were asked more varied questions, and produced a longer stretch of meaningful language (Ikeda, 2019). Another piece of research that dealt with the teaching of content was conducted in a Year 5 class in Yamanashi prefecture where the subject matter was social studies and the teachers taught about the features of Yamanashi (e.g., Yamanashi is famous for ~ especially in ~) using original ‘Yamanashi English Cards’ (Ota, 2022). These cards were originally designed by the researcher for the students to learn English through chants and games. However, by employing a CLIL approach to teaching content the researcher was able to incorporate authentic communication that involved processing of content and language, creating opportunities for the students to learn the language through learning a subject. By partially incorporating the teaching of a subject through a CLIL approach, Ota observed that students’ motivation was raised through the authenticity of the setting in which the students used English. Since the subject content was taught by the homeroom teacher, such an approach gave an opportunity to consider three points, ‘to what extent, in which setting and how’ (Ota, 2022) in incorporating CLIL into elementary school teaching. According to the studies reviewed in this section, research into elementary school CLIL is taking place in a way to develop an educational approach that would provide deep learning and to create opportunities for students to familiarise students with the phonological, lexical, and structural aspects of English, bearing in mind students’ interests in the content taught to bring about deep thinking in the students.

Junior high school A study on linking elementary and junior high school by Kashiwagi (2021) shows aspects of noticing sentence structures through observing the processing of teacher talk in the CLIL lessons. Comparing 62 students who took the CLIL course and 134 students who took the non-​CLIL course, students’ awareness of sentence structure of the passive voice was observed. In the CLIL course, structured input was conducted using storytelling in connection to eating healthily, asking students questions using the passive form in context, and employing chants to practise the sentences. In the non-​CLIL group, explanations on grammar were made followed by the use of the textbook, and finally presentations were given on which country they wanted to go to. The pre-​and post-​test results showed that the CLIL group were able to incorporate dialogues in their writing activity while the non-​CLIL group’s achievement in learning new vocabulary was lower and the content of their writing lacked expansion of content.

High school At senior high school level, Yamazaki (2019) describes the implementation processes of a CLIL course offered at a public high school where collaborative learning was explored using a knowledge constructive jigsaw method. The author discusses a jigsaw reading activity that encouraged students to be responsible in reading their materials and reporting the content to those who read different content. Based on his observations of having taught the classes, he observes (Yamazaki, 2019, p. 163): • Content and language: if content and language learning are not integrated, students cannot understand content knowledge in English.

483

Chantal Hemmi

• Content language and cognition: if content and language learning are not integrated with cognitive skills, students cannot develop and logically express their opinions based on the knowledge acquired although they may be able to retell what they understand. • Cognition and language: if cognition and language learning are not integrated, learners will first think in Japanese and then translate the thoughts into English. • Content, cognition, and collaborative learning: if collaborative learning is conducted without considering content and cognition, the activity will become just a drill or quiz. It is insightful that Yamazaki (2019) theorises from his experience and knowledge as a practitioner-​researcher about what integration means in CLIL, referring to the 4Cs of CLIL (Coyle et al., 2010). CLIL was implemented in a high school with an emphasis on trying out the approach, reflecting on the outcome, and considering the pedagogical implications on the effects of a CLIL approach.

Higher education In the first stages of implementing CLIL, a fair amount of work in defining CLIL and making explicit the approaches related to CLIL were discussed. Defining the principles of CLIL as ‘Learn as you use, use as you learn’ (Mehisto et al., 2008, p. 1), and learning in CLIL processed through the use of language in connection to tasks that are designed incorporating the 4Cs framework with content, cognition, communication, and culture (Coyle et al., 2010) were highlighted. It is similar to CBI, yet when the 4Cs are used in lesson planning and materials production, it creates a ‘synergy which enables us to envisage a high-​quality education’ (Ikeda, 2011, p. 5). Izumi (2011) compares CLIL principles with approaches taken in English language teaching, which helped practitioners become familiar with the methodological concepts. In the same volume, Izumi (2011) discusses the use of language through focus on form in CLIL where the meaning of language used in context are highlighted. Interaction enhancement through the negotiation of meaning and form are vital in construing the procedures of how language is scaffolded through teaching about content in context. The principles of testing in CLIL are presented by Watanabe (2011), who discusses the importance of analytical testing in CLIL where one is testing not only the language but also the students’ knowledge of the content being taught, skills and the creation of the mutual relationships amongst these items. At university level, classroom-​based research on student-​student interaction in discussions has been conducted where Tsuchiya (2019) observed how students used both Japanese and English as lingua franca (ELF) ‘in relation to its forms and functions in a CLIL classroom at university’. The study focused on translanguaging, ‘the complex language practices of plurilingual individuals and communities, as well as the pedagogical approaches that use those complex practices’ (Garcia & Li, 2014) in Japanese and English and the use of ELF. The results of the study showed that translanguaging from Japanese to ELF was used to regulate participation in the discussion, and also for students’ presentation of themselves as bi-​/​ multilingual individuals (Tsuchiya, 2019). Aikawa et al. (2021) also analysed the discourse of a CLIL class where the use of simple utterances such as ‘And?’ and ‘So?’ under the use of the overarching essential question played a role in bringing about critical thinking in student discussions. Uemura et al. (2019) investigated the applicability of a soft CLIL/​ language driven approach in an undergraduate engineering course at Yamaguchi University in a national 484

Current practice and research of CLIL in Japan

project designed to encourage young Japanese people to overcome their ‘inward tendencies and prosper in a globally competitive environment’ (MEXT, 2021c). It was found that the flexibility of a CLIL approach helped the students to learn about the culture of the subject (Dale & Tanner, 2012, p. 13). Furthermore, increased motivation was observed in taking a CLIL engineering course from 2013 to 2016 where the number of takers of this type of course tripled from 28 to 98 students (Uemura et al., 2019, p. 188). Sato et al. (2021) discuss practitioners’ approaches to assessing productive language performance and learners’ perceptions of being evaluated on language and content, and critical thinking skills at a university where language teachers, not subject specialists are teaching CLIL subjects or topics. The most popular tasks employed by the teachers in assessment were papers and presentations and a questionnaire employed to find out about students’ perceptions of how they were tested and what they were tested on showed that they were assessed both in terms of language and content. Furthermore, students preferred to be tested on their presentations rather than through paper-​a nd pencil tests (Sato et al., 2021). Research at university level show the effectiveness of CLIL, or how the implementation of CLIL has changed student development/​performance in a positive way.

Conclusions and implications Finally, it is clear that CLIL in Japan is still in the stages of being implemented especially in language-​d riven CLIL contexts where the topics/​subject matter is used to provide authentic content to provide a platform for language use. It is noticeable that the practice and research mentioned in this chapter highlight the processing of meaning through content and language integration. In contrast to learning where abundant memorisation for the sake of test-​taking took place, a CLIL approach has put the processing and thinking component of the learning at the forefront. Raising student motivation by providing materials that are authentic/​real to the students’ interest can be seen as a feature throughout the development of CLIL. One can see that CLIL allows for students to make meaning before they produce the language. Thus, the role of the teacher in helping the students think through the integration of content and language is a noticeable element in CLIL practice and research. The research introduced in this chapter mainly show the effectiveness of the CLIL approach with implications on how to apply it at different educational levels. It is evident that Japan’s CLIL is still at a moderate implementation stage in making learning dialogic, placing an importance on communication in English. The existing research show that first, there is much description on how activities were designed and implemented and what was taught through CLIL. The research offers insight into how to teach through a CLIL approach. Second, there is data on how effective CLIL is in the contexts being implemented, with feedback from students and teachers. This implies that the limited cases of CLIL programmes introduced so far have been well received. There is abundant description of the lesson-​g ivers’ reflections, and the research so far has encouraged reflection of the practice of CLIL on the part of the practitioners/​researchers. However, empirical research comparing CLIL, and non-​CLIL control groups is scant. Third, critical thinking is observed in students’ work at different levels of education and the create stage (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001), the highest level of the higher order thinking skills is shown in project work as an end product to the series of tasks set in classes to make meaning of the new content and language presented in classes, showing promising aspects of the processing of information and encouraging thinking and creation in CLIL. 485

Chantal Hemmi

There is little research that problematises CLIL or considers the negative aspects of CLIL. To be able to further develop CLIL programmes effectively in the future, it would be essential to focus on the challenges in CLIL in order to analyse what the shortcomings are, and find solutions to the challenges that may emerge. Indeed, research on CLIL in Japan needs critical accounts to consider issues related to language and the way it is used in connection to the concept of power in a globalising community where the achievement of content and language in education can be seen to be targeted towards the development of the students’ ability to communicate in English. In addition to this, another shortcoming is that much of the research is documented in Japanese, making access difficult for an international readership. Finally, future CLIL research in Japan could examine aspects of CLIL by comparing it with non-​CLIL classes to highlight the differences between the two. Also, critical accounts focusing on empirical findings on teacher preparation, training, and management of CLIL courses would be of benefit to both researchers and practitioners to focus on aspects that could be improved to enhance a quality education in Japan in both content and language driven CLIL.

Further reading Hemmi, C. & Banegas, D.L. (Eds.). (2021). International perspectives on CLIL. Palgrave Macmillan. A useful compilation of CLIL in different contexts around the world from nine countries including Japan. The three chapters from writers in Japan include accounts on authenticity and motivation, current practice on assessment, and critical thinking and classroom interaction. Ikeda, M., Izumi, S., Watanabe, Y., Pinner, R., & Davis, M. (Eds.). (2021). Soft CLIL and English language teaching. Routledge. A precious resource for readers interested in how CLIL has been applied in English language teaching in Japan. This volume contains an up-​to-​d ate account of the state of CLIL in Japanese educational settings. The strength of the volume is that it is grounded in the theory and actual practice of CLIL. Tsuchiya, K., & Pérez Murillo, M.D. (Eds.). (2019). Content and language integrated learning in Spanish and Japanese contexts. Palgrave Macmillan. This book is valuable for those who are interested in CLIL and language policy and CLIL being applied at different levels in education, primary, secondary and in Spain and Japan. It is especially resourceful for those interested in policy, practice, and pedagogy of CLIL in these two countries.

References Aikawa, H., Fukasawa, E. & Hemmi, C. (2021). The role of the essential question in eliciting critical thinking in CLIL classes at a Japanese University. In C. Hemmi & D. L. Banegas, (Eds.). International perspectives on CLIL (pp.107–​127). Palgrave. Aikawa, H., Fukasawa, E., & Yamazaki, M. (2018). Class observation report of CLIL English class at Wako Kokusai High School. Lingua, 29, 111–​118. Anderson, L.W., & Krathwohl, D.R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman. Bentley, K. (2010). The TKT course: CLIL module. Cambridge University Press. https://​doi.org/​ 10.1093/​elt/​ccs​028 British Council. (2007). Cooking up a treat in Japan. British Council Life Magazine (p. 6). British Council. Coyle, D. (2007). Content and language integrated learning: Towards a connected research. agenda for CLIL pedagogies. International Journal of Bilingual Education & Bilingualism, 10(5), 543–​562. https://​ doi.org/​10.2167/ ​beb​459.0 Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge University Press.

486

Current practice and research of CLIL in Japan Dale, L., & Tanner, R. (2012). CLIL activities. A resource for subject and language teachers. Cambridge University Press. Dalton-​Puffer, C. (2007). Discourse in content and language integrated learning. John Benjamins. Garcia, O., & Li, W. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism and education. Palgrave Macmillan. Genesee, F. (1987). Learning through two languages. Newbury House Publishers. Hamamoto, A., Shiraishi, T., Akamatsu, I., Qiqige, A., Shiraishi, A., Tsuji, R., Oshiro, H., Isomura, M., & Iwata, S. (2020). A case study of efforts to introduce ‘CLIL Taiku’ at public elementary school: Practice as ‘Vaulting horse exclamation’. Gakkoukyouiku Jissengakukenkyuu, 26, 47–​58. https://​i r.lib.hirosh​i ma-​u.ac.jp/​fi les/​pub​l ic/​4/​49114/​2 0200​5011​4254​4699​597/​H iro​shim​aJSc​h Edu​ c_​26​_​47.pdf Hedge, T. (2000). Teaching and learning in the language classroom. Oxford University Press. Hiroyasu, Y., & Kitamura, A. (2019). Proposal for introducing CLIL in introductory level foreign language courses. Lingua, 30, 105–​113. Ikeda, M. (2011). CLIL no kihon-​r inen (The basic principles of CLIL). In Y. Watanabe, M. Ikeda, & S. Izumi (Eds.), CLIL (content and language integrated learning): New challenges in foreign language education at Sophia University. Volume 1: Principles and methodologies (pp. 1–​13). Sophia University Press. Ikeda, M. (2019). CLIL in comparison with PPP: A revolution of ELT by competency-​based language education. In H. Reinders, S. Ryan, & S. Nakamura (Eds.), Innovation in language teaching and learning: The case of Japan (pp. 23–​45). Palgrave Macmillan. Ikeda, M. (2021). Introduction. In Soft CLIL and English language teaching –​understanding Japanese policy, practice and implications (pp. 1–​8). Routledge. Izumi, S., Ikeda., M., & Watanabe, Y. (Eds.). (2012). CLIL (content and language integrated learning): New challenges in foreign language education at Sophia University. Volume 2: Practices and applications. Sophia University Press. Ikeda, M., Izumi, S., Watanabe, Y., Pinner, R., & Davis, M. (Eds.). (2021). Soft CLIL and English language teaching. Routledge. Ikeda, M., Watanabe, Y., & Izumi, S. (Eds.). (2016). CLIL (content and language integrated learning). New challenges in foreign language education at Sophia University. Volume 3: Lessons and materials. Sophia University Press. Ito, Y. (2018). CLIL in practice in Japanese elementary classrooms. English Language Teaching, 11(9), 59–​67. DOI:10.5539/​elt.v12n11p42 Izumi, S. (2011). Dai-​n i gengoshuuto kenkyuu kara mita CLIL no shidougenri to jissen. In S. Izumi, M. Ikeda, & Y. Watanabe (Eds.), CLIL (content and language integrated learning). New challenges in foreign language education at Sophia University. Volume 2: Practices and applications (pp.31–​71). Sophia University Press. Kashiwagi, K. (2021, June 28). Gengoshuutoku kara miru shouchuu renkei no eigoshidou-​bunnnoshikumi-​eno-​ kizuki onsei kara moji-​e CLIL. www.celes.info/​m ie2​016/​k ashiw​a gi.pdf Kato Gakuen. (2021, May 5). Katoh Gakuen English immersion/​bilingual program. http://​bi-​l ing ​ual.com/​ about_​us_​0​151.php Kuwamura, A. (2018). The role of English medium instruction (EMI) in Japanese universities: Issues and future directions. Ryuugaku Kouryuu, 91, 9–​27. Llinares, A., Morton, T., & Whittaker, R. (2012). The roles of language in CLIL. Cambridge University Press. Macaro, E. (2018). English medium instruction. Oxford University Press. Mehisto, P., Marsh, D., & Jesús Frigols, M. (2008). Uncovering CLIL. Macmillan. MEXT. (2018). Gakushuu shidou youryou. Retrieved September 24, 2022, from https://​w ww.mext. go.jp/​a _ ​m​enu/​sho​tou/​new-​cs/​1383​986.htm#secti​on4 MEXT. (2021a). Key points of the revised foreign language national curriculum standards (course of study) at elementary and lower secondary school levels. www.nier.go.jp/​Engl​ish/​edu​cati​onja​pan/​pdf/​20210​ 623-​01.pdf MEXT. (2021b). Gimukyouiku-​no-​kouzoukaikaku. www.mext.go.jp/​compon​ent/​a _ ​m​enu/​educat ​ion/​ det​a il/​_ ​_ ​i​csFi​les/​a fi​eldf​i le/​2015/​04/​06/​1222​194_​0 01.pdf MEXT. (2021c). Project of promotion of global human resources development. www.mext.go.jp/​en/​pol​icy/​ educat​ion/​h ighe​red/​t itl​e 02/​detai​l02/​sdetai​l02/​1373​895.htm MEXT. (2021d). Ikusei subeki shishitsu/​nouryoku no mittsu no hashira. www.mext.go.jp/​cont​ent/​142169​ 2_​7.pdf

487

Chantal Hemmi MEXT. (2021e). Shin shougakkou shidouyouryou ni okeru gaikokugokatsudou oyobi gaikokugoka no shidou no arikata no youten: Shin gakushuu shidouyouryou-​ hen No12. www.yout ​ube.com/​watch?v=​ LEq32-​0 xVGo MEXT. (2021f ). Global 30 project-​Establishing university network for internationalization. www.mext.go.jp/​ en/​pol​icy/​educat​ion/​h ighe​red/​t itl​e 02/​detai​l02/​sdetai​l02/​1373​894.htm MEXT. (2021g). Top global university project. www.mext.go.jp/​en/​pol​icy/​educat​ion/​h ighe​red/​t itl​e 02/​ detai ​l02/​sdetai ​l02/​1395​420.htm Morizumi, F. (2015). EMI in Japan: Current status and its implications. Educational Studies, 57, 119–​128. Ota, K. (2022). Shotoukyouiku ni okeru bubunteki CLIL wo toriireta jyugyou jissen. www.edu.yamana​shi. ac.jp/​w p-​cont​ent/​uplo​ads/​2019/​12/​5ea92​721f​11b3​d 297​38f 7​35e8​26c7​140.pdf Pool, G. (2018). Administrative impediments: How bureaucratic practices obstruct the implementation of English-​taught programs in Japan. In English-​Medium instruction in Japanese higher education: Policy, challenges and outcomes. (pp. 91–​107). Multilingual Matters. Sasajima, S. (2011). Nihon deno CLIL jissen (Practice of CLIL in Japan). In S. Sasajima (Ed), Content and language integrated learning (pp. 88–​129). Sanshuusha. Sato, K., & Hiyoshi, S. (2020). The benefits of CLIL team teaching by subject teacher and Japanese language teacher: An empirical analysis based on a questionnaire for students. Lingua, 31, 109–​125. Sato, T., & Hemmi, C. (2019). Development of speaking and writing skills through CLIL. Lingua, 29, 153–​160. Sato, T., Yokomoto, K. & Mackenzie, G. (2021). Current practice and challenges of assessment in CLIL in a Japanese university context. In C. Hemmi & D.L. Banegas (Eds.), International perspectives on CLIL (pp. 63–​83). Palgrave. Tsuchiya, K. (2019). CLIL and language education in Japan. In K. Tsuchiya & M.D. Pérez Murillo (Eds.). Content and language integrated learning in Spanish and Japanese Contexts (pp. 37–​56). Palgrave Macmillan. Tsuchiya, K., & Pérez Murillo, M.D. (2015). Comparing the language policies and the students’ perceptions of CLIL in tertiary education in Spain and Japan. Latin American Journal of Content and Language Integrated Learning, 8(1), 25–​35. Uemura, T., Gilmour, G.J., & Costa, L.F. (2019). Testing the water: Implementing a soft CLIL approach for future global engineers at a Japanese university. In K. Tsuchiya & M.D. Pérez Murillo (Eds.), Content and language integrated learning in Spanish and Japanese contexts. Palgrave Macmillan. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Harvard University Press. Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language. MIT Press. Watanabe, Y. (2011). CLIL no tesuto to hyouka. In Y. Watanabe, M. Ikeda, & S. Izumi (Eds.), CLIL (content and language integrated learning). New challenges in foreign language education at Sophia University. Volume 1: Principles and methodologies (pp. 73–​125). Sophia University Press. Yamano, Y. (2013). CLIL in a Japanese primary school: Exploring the potential of CLIL in a Japanese EFL context. International CLIL Research Journal, 2(1). www.icrj.eu/​21/​a rtic​le2.html Yamazaki, M. (2016). Implementation of CLIL in high school English lessons. Encounters, 4, 121–​125. Yamazaki, M. (2017). CLIL, collaborative learning and oral method. The IRLT Journal, 16, 28–​32. Yamazaki, M. (2018). Collaborative learning through CLIL: From ‘learning English’ to ‘learning through English’. J-​CLIL Newsletter, 1, 7–​10. Yamazaki, M. (2019). Collaborative learning through CLIL in secondary English classrooms in Japan. In K. Tsuchiya & M.D. Pérez Murillo (Eds.), Content and language integrated learning in Spanish and Japanese contexts. Palgrave Macmillan. Yokohama Senior High School of International Studies. (2021, June 15). www.pen-​k anag​awa.ed.jp/​ yoko​hama​koku​sai-​h /​g ai​you/​kokusa​i ka.html Yoshida, K. (2002). Fishbowl, open seas and the teaching of English in Japan. In S.J. Baker (Ed.), Language policy: Lessons from global models (pp. 195–​205). Monterey Institute of International Studies.

488

489

33 CLIL IN TAIWAN Wenhsien Yang

Introduction In 2018, the Taiwan National Development Council (NDC, 2018) officially announced its aim to make Taiwan a bilingual country by 2030, that is, Mandarin Chinese, one of the official and most commonly spoken languages in Taiwan, and English will both be used, which means Taiwanese citizens will have the choice to use either Mandarin Chinese (or other mother tongues) or English for all kinds of situations, including education and work. Becoming a bilingual nation in Mandarin Chinese and English by 2030 is the government’s short-​term goal, while listing English as one of the official languages of Taiwan is a long-​ term aim to compete with its neighbouring countries like Singapore. According to the government’s blueprint, the rationale behind this policy is that first, English language education should be provided on a demand-​d riven basis. That is, it should be carried out on a full-​scale nationwide basis to advance citizens’ soft skills in using English for communication, instead of only by constructing English-​friendly infrastructure such as bilingual signposts or documents. Second, with the help of technology, bilingual education is more likely to be enacted in distant and minority areas. Effectively applying technological devices or platforms, which is also one of the strengths of Taiwan, can help to bridge the language learning gap between urban and rural areas on the island. Third, the implementation of a bilingual policy suggests the equal accommodation of both the mother tongues and English learning. More efforts and resources will be invested to intensify language education (i.e., mother tongues and English) to eliminate the worries of English replacing the first languages and an English-​only future. Finally, young talented Taiwanese should be equipped with high mobility and employability in order to compete with others in the globalised labour market, and people’s proficient English skills are believed to not only be the force to realise this goal but also to help attract international enterprises to invest in Taiwan to enhance its competitiveness. Singapore, India, and Romania are examples of the success of such a policy (NDC, 2018). In other words, differing from improving people’s command of English which tended to be very test-​oriented in the past, this blueprint is proposed with a focus on an extensive and deep base, namely, to enrich Taiwan’s national competitiveness in the global economy. Hence, the current proposal highlights the increment of local students’ overall English DOI: 10.4324/9781003173151-39

489

Wenhsien Yang

competency. To meet this goal, a series of concrete strategies have been proposed by the Taiwan Ministry of Education (MOE), and this is the first time the CLIL (content and language integrated learning) approach has been formally introduced and explicitly promoted by the public sector to be implemented across educational levels to help achieve the aim of a bilingual country (NDC, 2018). Although any language can be the vehicular language of learning in CLIL education, relying on its extensive and successful adoption and diversity in European contexts where English is the most popular language in CLIL designs, with the exception of the United Kingdom (Cenoz, 2013), CLIL in Taiwan also uses English as its target language (L2). Compared to other bilingual educational teaching models such as English-​medium instruction (EMI) or immersion, CLIL is officially encouraged and thus is flourishing in many bilingual programmes and schools across various educational levels in this island nation (Liao, 2020). It is also bringing rapid changes to curriculum design, classroom practices, teacher preparation, and research. The central educational authorities believe that CLIL education is an appropriate measure to assist learners in demonstrating content knowledge with proficient English language skills in the bilingual landscape portrayed by the government in its goal. However, both positive evidence and concerns have been raised.

Overview of CLIL in Taiwan Since the aim of the bilingual policy was established, a series of strategies have been proposed by the government to help achieve that aim. These strategies are of two kinds, namely common and individual strategies (NDC, 2018). The former include the bilingual (i.e., Chinese-​English) governmental websites, legal documents, public services, open data, laws, and technical certifications, developing civil servants’ bilingual skills, and offering bilingual service in societal-​educational venues such as the town halls, schools, or courthouses. The individual strategies are many, of which those related to educational change include extending bilingual education to pre-​school level, implementing full-​scale bilingual education in all experimental high schools (a special type of high school established for students whose parents work in high-​technology industries and empowered to adopt different or non-​traditional educational approaches or systems) at the science-​based Industrial Parks, applying digital resources (ICT, information communication technology) to create popular, personalised learning opportunities, and increasing and expanding educational training opportunities for bilingual teachers, conducting bilingual education training for pre-​and in-​ service teachers or recruiting foreign teachers with high levels of English proficiency (mainly English) to co-​teach with the local teachers (Lin, 2018). In the curriculum reform at both the primary and secondary levels, English language courses will be taught in English only (i.e., EMI), while some of the subject courses will be delivered using the CLIL approach. Besides, at tertiary level, the government also encourages universities delivering English-​ taught content courses, a strong content-​based model of CLIL curriculum with the purposes of recruiting international students and enhancing local students’ English proficiency, to achieve outbound and inbound internationalisation such as integrating overseas internship opportunities, designing international disciplinary programmes, providing degree mobility, or deploying the pedagogical practices of Internationalisation at Home (IaH) (see Beelen & Jones, 2015 for the definition and features of IaH). All of these efforts aim at creating the greatest benefits at the lowest cost (Wu et al., 2018). However, their effectiveness is still unknown as these initiatives are in their early stages and research is in progress.

490

CLIL in Taiwan

Since bilingual education has been legitimised by the Taiwanese government as a driving force to make Taiwan a competitive partner globally, and is seemingly a necessary direction with no return, campaigns for preparing curricula, teachers, and learners for bilingual education are sweeping the country. This ‘for the national good’ notion of implementing Chinese-​English bilingual education has recently led to an upsurge in other Chinese-​ speaking contexts such as Taiwan or China as well (Wei, 2013). In consequence, securing sufficient and qualified CLIL practitioners has become a priority. In 2021, the Taiwan Ministry of Education (MOE) announced its aim of training 1,500 CLIL teachers (including both pre-​and in-​service teachers) annually who are able to teach subject matter in Mandarin Chinese and English (Chen & Hsu, 2021). Working closely with AIT (America Institute Taiwan),1 several Taiwan universities have also set up bilingual education centres to prepare bilingual teachers and develop teaching materials for the local primary and secondary schools (Fan, 2021; Wang & Teng, 2021). And since 2021, some local governments have created job vacancies exclusively for bilingual teachers to motivate the current pre-​service L1 teachers to become bilingual content teachers, something which has never happened before (Chen & Wang, 2021). Although officially newly trained CLIL practitioners may not be fully ready and available soon, some individual school-​based and teacher-​initiated CLIL practices can already be found. At tertiary level, some elite universities have set an aim to turn into bilingual universities where all courses will be taught in the L2 and at least half of the students can reach the CEFR B2 level of English proficiency by 2030 (Chou, 2021; Lin, 2021b). During the transitional period, a number of particular disciplines which involve close connection to internationalisation such as trading, semi-​conductors, finance, law, architecture, technology, or public health will try to deploy the CLIL approach first (Lin, 2021a). It is at Taiwan’s primary school level that CLIL is emerging quickly and is being trialled. The most successful case was its pilot implementations in a local city where it is reported that CLIL learners’ English listening and speaking made significant progress (OESOL, 2018), and interestingly those CLIL or bilingual primary schools enjoy a relatively promising student recruitment rate due to their CLIL education (Storm Media, 2019). Other successful examples include CLIL lessons in art, music, drama, or life sciences in primary schools too (Chien, 2019; Yang, 2020a). Yet, the CLIL approach is much less often employed in secondary schools in Taiwan. Most of the CLIL lessons at this level are temporary and mainly for experiment, teaching demonstration, or observation purposes, and are rarely delivered on a regular basis. To the best of my knowledge, the CLIL approach has been introduced in physical education (PE), chemistry, and physics classes at the secondary level. According to Tagnin and Ní Ríordáin (2021), science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) courses can be more suitable for a CLIL trial. Some schools have also set up bilingual experimental classes and plan to recruit foreign teachers to co-​teach with local teachers (Liao, 2021), although it is still debatable whether foreign teachers can ensure better teaching quality and effectiveness than local teachers while teaching language or content courses. In other words, Taiwan’s general CLIL education, whether it is content-​oriented (e.g., EMI) or language-​based, has laid the first stone at the tertiary and primary levels, and it is expected that it will soon be extended to the secondary level due to the driving force of the bilingual policy. Most of the efforts towards bilingual education in Taiwan are centred on Mandarin-​Chinese and English; however, there are also a few instances of very successful implementations to help preserve some minorities’ L1 such as the indigenous languages of Taiwan and southeast

491

Wenhsien Yang

Asian countries, and to protect their cultures from the invasion or assimilation of the dominant/​hegemonic languages and their associated cultures (Chou, 2016).

Research on CLIL in Taiwan Emerging trends At present, the major research strands of CLIL include: CLIL learners’ outcomes in both content and language, how these outcomes can be measured validly, what the discoursal and pedagogical scenarios in CLIL classrooms are, what good-​quality CLIL materials are and how to secure them, and how the participants experience CLIL. Academic research on CLIL in international contexts can be found across various educational levels, in particular at secondary and primary schools. Since CLIL was not introduced until 2018 to promote bilingual education in Taiwan, international research and evidence has become essential to shed light on local interests and investigations. Most current studies on CLIL or its strong content-​d riven version, EMI, with over 300 degree-​based programmes island-​w ide (MOE, 2021a) have been largely taking place at tertiary level, as teaching disciplinary content via English at universities has been adopted for more than ten years, with the major aims of attracting international students, increasing local students’ English command, encouraging international exchanges, and facilitating graduates’ global competitiveness (Wang, 2019). To meet the aim of becoming a bilingual nation by 2030, at least 40 universities are scheduled to transform into bilingual universities with 80% of their disciplinary courses delivered in English, and the students will be expected to reach the language level of CEFR B2 in English (Pan, 2021). However, not until recently did CLIL, which accommodates dual needs and explicitly designed content and language in classroom instruction, appear as an innovative approach to facilitate local students’ learning in both targets. Research with a focus on CLIL is still is emerging on the island. As the sections below reveal, Taiwanese CLIL or EMI studies mainly focus on the tertiary and primary levels. At the secondary level, similar investigations are still uncommon. This is due to a rather high-​stakes test-​oriented learning environment in secondary schools, where CLIL is less likely to be implemented as a trial.

CLIL research at the tertiary level A series of studies focusing on CLIL education at the tertiary level have shed light on initial CLIL implementation focusing on aspects such as CLIL learners’ achievements on language and content, language learning strategies in CLIL approach, evaluation of CLIL material design, changes of learners’ cross-​cultural awareness or CLIL practitioners’ teaching efficacy. In 2011, Taiwan MOE conducted the first national-​scale appraisal of the 92 degree-​ based CLIL and EMI programmes, mainly focusing on the evaluation of administrative support, teaching resources and facilities, and accredited the programmes with three different verdicts, i.e., a highly recommended, a recommend or a not recommended programme for study. Yang and Gosling (2013) compared and contrasted what led to these degree-​based programmes being recommended or failing to be recommended by analysing the official reports, observing CLIL class teaching and also interviewing both teachers’ and learners’ attitudes and perceptions in the recognised and unsatisfying programmes. The authors warned that (1) qualified CLIL teacher preparation is a crucial need, (2) CLIL most 492

CLIL in Taiwan

likely cannot suit all EFL students, (3) CLIL learners’ language assistance should be explicitly accommodated, and (4) an evaluation of CLIL programmes should be conducted in a systematic and comprehensive manner in order to facilitate learning achievements and management of the programmes. In a related study, Yang and Gosling (2014) compared one successful to one unsuccessful CLIL programme in the same university in order to examine the benchmark of an accredited CLIL programme and found that internal solidarity played a very important role in affecting how appraisers judged the programmes. High-​and low-​achievement learners’ attitudes towards and expectations of the CLIL approach concurred in the recommended programme but diverged in the one that was not recommended. Interviews with CLIL learners in the programmes researched, revealed concerns about CLIL teacher training, the desirable or resistant reaction to foreign teachers with English as their L1 and local teachers, and the additional language support. In the very beginning of CLIL implementation in Taiwan, the concept of CLIL teachers was blurred or even undefined, and many were mainly voluntary content teachers with a doctoral degree conferred in an English-​speaking country but without proper training in language teaching methods. Yang’s (2015, 2017a) investigations focused on how CLIL can help improve learners’ performance in both content and language at a polytechnic university. The results demonstrated positive effects on productive skills, in line with previous findings in other settings (e.g., Aguilar & Rodríguez, 2012; Jiménez-​Catalán & Ruiz de Zarobe, 2009; Lo & Murphey, 2010). In addition, a related series of studies by Yang (2017b) demonstrated that Taiwanese CLIL learners tend to employ indirect language learning strategies such as metacognitive, affective, and social strategies in CLIL classrooms due to the features of frequent collaborative interaction with peers and the differentiated purpose of learning English. However, Yang’s (2018) study found that Taiwanese learners’ choices are very different from CLIL learners in Hong Kong who are, instead, more inclined to depend on the direct learning strategies (i.e., memory, cognitive, and compensatory strategies) to tackle their L2 learning in CLIL classrooms, although both Taiwan and Hong Kong are regarded as Chinese-​speaking contexts. More recently, Yang (2019, 2020b) examined undergraduate students’ level of satisfaction with custom-​produced CLIL coursebooks and the practitioner’s performance of using these coursebooks. These materials were developed by Yang and his research team, addressing the disciplines of hospitality and tourism. The students welcomed the idea of integrating language and content learning in the coursebooks, but were also concerned about the quality of its design for facilitating critical thinking, assessment, meaningful learning, and technology inclusion. In addition, they showed high satisfaction and agreement with the CLIL practitioner’s performance of facilitating exposure to input, meaning-​focused processing, form-​focused processing, opportunities for output production, and use of learning strategies. Yang (2021) further used the CLIL approach to enhance the learners’ intercultural competence to thoroughly prepare them for their one-​year overseas job internship and possible intercultural encounters which may require profound cross-​cultural knowledge from them in order to live successfully abroad. An established cultural quotient survey (Ang & Van Dyne, 2008) was administered to measure learners’ four areas of intercultural competences (including cognitive, metacognitive, behavioural, and motivational dimensions) after an 18-​week intervention of teaching hospitality and tourism industries across cultures with a self-​designed CLIL coursebook. The learners’ intercultural competence revealed significant progress after the training. These studies suggest that the CLIL approach, for the most part, is valuable for enhancing learners’ English language development and intercultural 493

Wenhsien Yang

competence, which can be very useful in helping students move freely across countries for the purposes of travelling, working, or studying. Despite the positive findings summarised above, in a recent study by Yang and Yang (2021), delivering CLIL through online provision seemed to receive rather negative feedback from the learners. The major concerns raised included the relatively fewer chances to collaborate, interact, and communicate with peers and teachers compared to face-​to-​face CLIL instruction. However, another study, in contrast, demonstrated that the online EMI course offers students a blended learning environment and more flexibility in monitoring their learning pace and thus was welcomed by them (Lin et al., 2021). Indeed, more studies on the relationship between online provision and CLIL/​EMI are needed if online schooling will remain in the future due to the continuing pandemic.

CLIL research at the primary school level Although CLIL has been trialled at other levels or in other contexts in Taiwan, unfortunately, conceptual or practical research is still relatively lacking compared to Hong Kong or Japan. Most studies are on self-​reported perceptions or attitudes towards CLIL. The literature includes, for instance, Huang’s (2020) investigation on elementary CLIL pupils’ perceptions of content and language achievements in a science CLIL-​based course with the results of positive attitudes towards the CLIL approach but limited learning of the content. Similarly, Lin, Shih, and Lee’s (2019) study concluded with teachers’ positive attitudes towards the effectiveness of improving primary school students’ writing skills and reading comprehension in L2 with properly designed CLIL materials. Graham et al.’s (2021) large-​scale investigation in a primary school CLIL programme provided evidence that CLIL impacts on pupils’ writing performance in terms of writing genres. Ostensibly, CLIL is more likely to be employed in classrooms where teachers themselves have a wider freedom of controlling the teaching content and pace in Taiwan. For school teachers who may suffer from the pressure of following a unified teaching schedule and preparing learners for senior high-​stake entrance examinations, using CLIL in classrooms would become less likely (Chang, 2020). In particular, when teachers have received no extra administrative support or teaching resources, they even feel it a burden and time-​consuming to implement a CLIL approach (Gamble, 2021). Hence, bilingual education scholars such as Tsou (2018), Kao (2022a), and Luo (2021) would argue that CLIL education could be better implemented in elementary schools if teachers were carefully supported. To conclude this section, CLIL is still relatively new but a quickly emerging approach in Taiwan (Chang, 2020). Most of the discussion still focuses on its feasibility, challenges, difficulties, or initial evaluation of learners’ performance. As CLIL is adopted more popularly across various local educational contexts, it is expected that more classroom-​based and pedagogy-​oriented CLIL investigations will be conducted, and the focus will be expanded to examine other issues such as classroom-​based assessment, discoursal interaction, or teacher preparation.

Concerns and doubts Despite the positive outcomes reported in much of the incipient research on CLIL at the primary and tertiary levels in Taiwan, several concerns have also been raised.

494

CLIL in Taiwan

Is CLIL equivalent to EMI? Since the bilingual policy in Taiwan was proposed, in addition to positive attitudes mainly on the part of the public sector and education providers, concerns have inevitably been raised, in particular from the private sector, language scholars, and the stakeholders, that is teachers, learners, and parents (e.g., Gamble, 2021). Apparently, most of the criticism of the bilingual policy and its approaches stems from worries about the power invasion of Englishism and its associated cultures, the lack of qualified bilingual teachers, depriving students of the chance to master their L1, or the huge gap in learners’ English proficiency (Her & Chiang, 2021). These concerns have, however, been listened to and accommodated by modifying the ‘2030 Bilingual Country’ to the ‘2030 Bilingual Policy’ in 2022 and clarifying that it is not the government’s attempt to make English (L2) as one of Taiwan’s official languages but instead L1 and L2 will be promoted in a balancing way to conform to the needs of increasing citizens’ English proficiency and developing national cultures and languages (NDC, 2022). Yet, one of the major doubts may derive from the misunderstanding of what bilingual education is and how it is implemented in schools. It is likely that bilingual education which encourages using different teaching approaches like ESP (English for specific purposes), CLIL, and EMI interchangeably is mistakenly associated with English-​only classrooms; thus, teachers and scholars are concerned about how subject matter is taught in English-​only classrooms, in particular when most of the learners’ and practitioners’ current entry level of English is assumed to be unable to meet the requirement of all English instruction in the classroom.

Is CLIL compatible with local cultures? Other major suggestions and criticisms include the perception regarding CLIL’s compatibility with local cultures of learning approaches and its dominance over learning the first languages. Some scholars criticise CLIL or bilingual approaches for being too idealistic and not being fit for all owing to the undeniable fact that some learners’ English command is too low to handle content learning via a second language that is very unfamiliar to them. Another argument is that not everyone needs two languages to survive in life (Wang, 2019). Taiwanese students may be resistant to challenges, and in addition their English level displays two extremes (either very high or very low), causing high achievers’ complaints about poor learning quality and low achievers’ demotivation if content is taught in the L2 (Chiu, 2021). They argue that targeting Taiwan as a bilingual nation comes from the public’s anxiety of not knowing English leading to a sense of inferiority and thus a sense of adoration of English as a key to the world. However, Taiwan is hardly like Hong Kong or Singapore as it never underwent an English colonial period and is in fact already a multilingual country. Respecting diversity and choice is more important than the domination of a single foreign language (Lin & Wu, 2020; Hsu, 2019) and indeed has been realised at each educational level. A deeper and implicit layer of learning an L2 is not about communication and competitiveness solely, but the capability of delivering unique national features of art, cultures, or life in that language (NDC, 2018). Thus, Taiwan’s bilingual education also connects to the notion of human rights, peace, and democracy, positioning its final aim to encourage learners to participate in public affairs (Lin, 2021a). In other words, improving language skill is never an ultimate goal of the bilingual policy, but is rather a mediator to convey a nation’s uniqueness.

495

Wenhsien Yang

Is CLIL an accessible and affordable approach? More concerns have been raised due to worries about unequal socio-​economic status, the inconsistency of the policy, and discontinuity of supports. Some researchers have pointed out that bilingual education is more accessible to students from privileged socio-​economic backgrounds, resulting in a disadvantage for those from less privileged households (Lin & Li, 2019). Beyond Taiwan, CLIL has been criticised as an elite and selective approach (Fernández-​Sanjurjo et al., 2019; Van Mensel, 2020) although some scholars have asked for further re-​examination of this issue (Pérez Cañado, 2020). A particular concern comes from the worry about whether a budget can be secured (Pon, 2021) to continuously recruit fluent L2 speakers as co-​teachers, and whether the policy would be modified or even terminated if the party in power changes and political factors intervene in the implementation of the policy (Lin & Li, 2019). In other words, educational changes would definitely bring uncertainty, anxieties, doubts, and questions, and these responses can be well accommodated with increased understanding of the rationale underlying bilingual and CLIL education and hard evidence verifying its effectiveness and efficacy.

Ways forward for promoting bilingual education in emerging CLIL contexts We have to admit that it is eminently demanding for Taiwan to become an entirely bilingual country by 2030 with such a relatively short period of time available. Yet, judging from the responses and criticisms from the public and the stakeholders in Taiwan, I still propose the following directions for the future of Taiwan and other settings which are considering promoting bilingual education by using the CLIL approach to make it more feasible and a likely success.

Connecting the CLIL approach to pluriliteracies teaching for deeper learning In addition to the bilingual policy, literacy education aiming to educate leaners to understand oneself and the world is also deemed as one significant curriculum goal in school education across various Taiwan educational levels. It targets not only developing students’ content knowledge and skills, but also facilitating their competency, values, and life realisation. Literacy education is currently a key educational focus in many countries that wish to achieve a more equitable distribution of social and economic goods (Freebody, 2007). Taking the Taiwan curriculum (MOE, 2021b) for example, three basic dimensions composing literacy education are autonomous action, interactive communication, and societal participation. Rather than executing CLIL and literacy education separately, we argue that both educational aims can be combined as one to facilitate learners’ deeper learning and to ease parents’ worries and scholars’ concerns about implementing the bilingual policy and CLIL education. According to Coyle and Meyer (2021; Coyle, 2021), and their Language Learning Futures Lab (LLFL, 2019), pluriliteracies teaching for deeper learning involves a four-​d imension model, namely, (co)constructing knowledge, demonstrating understanding, learner mindset, and mentoring learning. By this, they further explained that deep learning and the development of transferable knowledge do not happen separately from learning academic content; on the contrary, mastering discipline specific 496

CLIL in Taiwan

ways of constructing and communicating knowledge is the most effective way for learners to develop transferable knowledge and problem-​solving skills. LLFL, 2019 Language and learning are interwoven and cannot be isolated from one another, and progression on both sides can be apparent when learners can communicate knowledge and substantiate their skills and understanding, which requires their mastery of both content and language. We assume that their latest four-​d imensional model can be the measure to facilitate the development of Coyle’s (2007) CLIL 4Cs (i.e., communication skills corresponding to demonstrating understanding, cognition to develop learners’ mindsets, content to (co)-​ construct knowledge, and culture to contextualise mentoring of learning). For instance, one aim of the CLIL approach is to help construct learners’ cognitive thinking skills, and when learners develop their thinking skills from concrete to abstract concepts, they are able to process content knowledge at a more complex level.

Promoting translanguaging pedagogy in CLIL classrooms One of the major doubts and worries of implementing the CLIL approach in emerging bilingual or CLIL settings is that many teachers, in particular content specialists, misunderstand it as being equivalent to EMI. Thus, I propose to apply the notion of adopting translanguaging pedagogy in bilingual education in response to those worries. Translanguaging acknowledges learners’ inner full language repertoire. Thus, bilingual or multilingual learners can navigate different languages for making meaning, and negotiating and communicating in a meaningful way. Translanguaging pedagogy privileges bilingual rather than monolingual performances and thus endorses diverse and dynamic language practices in teaching and learning (Vogel & García, 2017). Furthermore, these teaching practices are flexible, strategic, and transformative in allowing a natural flow of different language structures, systems, and personal identities deployed and demonstrated by learners in classrooms (Li, 2011). Translanguaging pedagogy is frequently associated with CLIL in bilingual education because the use of the L1 usually serves as a potential resource in CLIL classroom practices (Moore & Nikula, 2016; Nikula & Moore, 2019) and it naturally flows from the dynamic interactions and activities in the CLIL classroom as both practitioners and learners are engaged in making meaning of the teaching content (Lin & He, 2017). Indeed, translanguaging practices are commonly utilised in different content subjects of CLIL classrooms with very positive evidence in Chinese-​speaking CLIL contexts. For instance, Lin and Lo (2017) showed how everyday L1 speaking can assist CLIL learners in connecting their point of view of science between colloquial ways of speaking/​thinking and the scientific ways, further co-​constructing their content knowledge and also mastering academic L2 in the science courses. Also, Wu and Lin (2019) analysed classroom activities and interactions, using translanguaging/​trans-​semiotising practices in a high school biology CLIL class in Hong Kong, and they found that those practices led to a positive impact on the students in the continuous flow of jointly making sense of knowledge. In Taiwan, Ke and Lin (2017) also found that pedagogical translanguaging helps English learners blend newly acquired linguistic resources with their personal repertoire and linguistic identities. Kao (2022b) argues that although the concept of translanguaging is rather relatively new for many Taiwan in-​ service teachers, its practices may have, indeed, commonly been carried out in classrooms like using L1 to foster subject teaching. 497

Wenhsien Yang

To alleviate the public’s doubts about ‘English colonialism replacing L1’, I argue for raising local teachers’ awareness of translanguaging pedagogy and integrating it to allow for the natural flows of different linguistic structures, systems, repertoires, or resources used in CLIL classrooms. This orientation will scaffold content and language learning (Doiz et al., 2013; Karabassova & San Isidro, 2020) and most importantly, develop an open attitude towards using L2 together with L1 for global communication and a positive identity towards seeing oneself as a legitimate L2 user (Ke & Lin, 2017).

Diversifying assessment for CLIL Successful CLIL learners would usually be expected to demonstrate their competency of exploring, discussing, and constructing meaningful concepts in CLIL classrooms. This means that they should be able to classify, define, describe, evaluate, explain, explore, and report subject content through engaging in communication and interaction with their peers, making learning visible (Dalton-​Puffer, 2016) and also assessable. Under these circumstances, how to verify if our CLIL learners will be fully equipped with the above visible skills and develop assessment for learning practices will become crucial for educators. Thus, CLIL assessments should be purposefully designed to facilitate CLIL learners’ declarative and procedural knowledge, and also their authentic language performance in successful task completion (Espinar, 2021). CLIL assessment may very lead to both learners’ and parents’ deep concerns regarding validity and fairness. It is, indeed, very difficult to assess both content and language at the same time in CLIL classrooms (Heine, 2014). On the one hand, due to the diverse focuses and strengths of content and language a CLIL lesson may be situated in, how to fairly assess the two aspects can be demanding and questionable. On the other hand, CLIL learners may be disadvantaged if they are taught in an L2 and need to have their content knowledge assessed in the L2, a language which is less familiar to them, leading to the worry of fairness (Luk & Lin, 2015). In Taiwan, studies on CLIL assessment mainly focus on measuring learners’ linguistic achievements without addressing how teachers design proper assessments (e.g., Beaudin, 2021; Huang, 2020; Yang, 2015). Hence, I argue that to ensure its success, CLIL teachers are advised to build up their assessment literacy beforehand as it is the core of successful educational assessment (Xu & Brown, 2016). It is suggested that CLIL teachers firstly align their lesson objectives, classroom instruction, and assessment (Lo et al., 2019). Then, Lo and Fung’s (2020) conceptual framework is recommended to help guide CLIL practitioners to gradually identify their views of teaching and learning, realising values and principles of CLIL assessment, and finally implementing tasks and strategies of assessment in their classroom practices.

Conclusion If CLIL is used as an important mediator to successfully assist any context in promoting bilingual education, CLIL not only needs to borrow international experiences with proper contextual adaptation, but it also has to consider carefully integrating the three dimensions of pluriliteracies education, translanguaging, and assessment. It is apparent that educational change usually causes uncertainty, anxiety, doubts, and even opposition from stakeholders. CLIL does indeed impose higher expectations on both teachers and learners, and all other stakeholders have to work together as co-​agents to jointly engage, support, cooperate, and 498

CLIL in Taiwan

agree on its effects on progress and impacts of teaching and learning. It is hoped that a well-​integrated synergy of bilingual education, CLIL, and pluriliteracies education can help develop students’ deeper learning ability to apply what they have learnt in one situation to another (Coyle, 2021; Pellegrino & Hilton, 2012). A genuine dialogic process with trust among the stakeholders would help bring significant clarity and precision to bilingual policy and CLIL practices in classrooms and improve learners’ achievement (Genesee & Hamayan, 2016; Hattie, 2015; Mehisto, 2021; Mehisto & Genesee, 2015), leading to greater success in the adoption of CLIL for developing bilingual education.

Note 1 AIT is the official US government representative in Taiwan and is also experienced at promoting English language education in Taiwan.

Further reading Fenton-​Smith, B., Humphreys, P., & Walkinshaw, I. (Eds.). (2017). English medium instruction in higher education in Asia-​Pacific: From policy to pedagogy. Springer. This book, as the first one focusing on EMI at the Asia-​Pacific tertiary level, addresses the emerging global phenomenon of English as a medium of instruction. Different from other works, this book, in particular, critiques the national policies of EMI without considering other languages and without appropriate and adequate planning and preparation. However, it also offers indications as how to overcome some of them. Ikeda, M., Izumi, S., Watanabe, Y., Pinner, R., & Davis, M. (Eds.). (2021). Soft CLIL and English language teaching: Understanding Japanese policy, practice, and implications. Routledge. The book’s eight chapters address the issues of language learning in the soft CLIL model, specifically in the Japanese context, which could be more suitable for Asian CLIL settings where language proficiency is relatively focused in the CLIL programmes. Tsou, W., & Baker, W. (Eds.). (2021). English-​medium instruction translanguaging practices in Asia: Theories, frameworks and implementation in higher education. Springer. This edited book investigates translanguaging pedagogy of EMI at tertiary level across several Asian contexts, where an overview of concepts and common issues and case studies of EMI are presented.

References Aguilar, M., & Rodríguez, R. (2012). Lecturer and student perceptions on CLIL at a Spanish university. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 15(2), 183–​197. Ang, S., & Van Dyne, L. (2008). Conceptualization of cultural intelligence: Definition, distinctiveness, and nomological network. In S. Ang & L. Van Dyne (Eds.), Handbook of cultural intelligence: Theory, measurement, and applications (pp. 3−15). M.E. Sharpe. Beaudin, C. (2021). A classroom-​based evaluation on the implementation of CLIL for primary school education in Taiwan. English Teaching & Learning, 46(2), 133–​156. Beelen, J., & Jones, E. (2015). Redefining internationalisation at home. In A. Curaj, L. Matei, R. Pricopie, J. Salmi, & P. Scott (Eds.), The European higher education area: Between critical reflections and future policies (pp. 59–​72). Springer Nature. Cenoz, J. (2013). Discussion: Towards an educational perspective in CLIL language policy and pedagogical practice. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16(3), 389–​394. Chang, Y.F. (2020). On the policy of 2030 bilingual nation. Taiwan Educational Review Monthly, 9(10), 19–​21. Chen, CC., & Hsu, E. (2021, March 17). Education ministry plans to train 1,500 bilingual teachers annually. Focus Taiwan. https://​focu​stai​wan.tw/​cult​u re/​20210​3170​020

499

Wenhsien Yang Chen, Y.Y., & Wang, Y.L. (2021, May 6). New directions for recruiting teachers: Bilingual education and experimental education. Parenting. https://​fl ip​edu.parent​i ng.com.tw/​a rti​cle/​6548 Chien, Y.C. (2019). The myth of designing a CLIL course. Hello E.T. Bimonthly, 115, 3–​5. Chiu, Y.H. (2021, April 21). Campaign of 2030 bilingual nation starts: How bilingual education can be implemented when university students drop English courses? Global Views Monthly. www.gvm. com.tw/​a rti​cle/​79082 Chou, I.C. (2016). The review and futures of immersion programmes in teaching kindergarten children tribal languages. Taiwan Educational Review Monthly, 5(9), 25–​30. Chou, Y.F. (2021, May 5). Ahead of 2030 bilingual policy: NSYSU developing professionals equipped with skills of content and language. Global Views Monthly. www.gvm.com.tw/​a rti​cle/​79376 Coyle, D. (2007). Content and language integrated learning: Towards a connected research agenda for CLIL pedagogies. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(5), 543–​562. Coyle, D. (2021, May 20–​22). Teachers as designers of learning: Fundamentals of task design and sequencing. Keynote speech delivered at the 3rd International Conference on English across Curriculum, Hong Kong. Coyle, D., & Meyer, O. (2021). Beyond CLIL: Pluriliteracies teaching for deeper learning. Cambridge University Press. Dalton-​Puffer, C. (2016). Cognitive discourse functions: Specifying an integrative interdisciplinary construct. In T. Nikula, E. Dafouz, P. Moore, & U. Smit (Eds.), Conceptualising integration in CLIL and multilingual education (pp. 29–​54). Multilingual Matters. Doiz, A., Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J.M. (2013). Future challenges for English-​medium instruction at the tertiary level. In A. Doiz, D. Lasagabaster & J.M. Sierra (Eds.), English-​medium instruction at universities (pp. 2213–​2221). Multilingual Matters. Espinar, M. (2021, June 19). Authentic learning and assessment in CLIL: Analysis and discussion of a primary education case study from Spain. Keynote delivered at the 26th J-​CLIL Research Meeting. Fan, C.H. (2021, March 29). Education initiative between Taiwan and the US. Liberty Times Net. https://​news.ltn.com.tw/​news/​l ife/​break ​i ngn​ews/​3482​4 49/​print Fernández-​Sanjurjo, J., Fernández-​Costales, A., & Arias Blanco, J.M. (2019). Analysing students’ content-​learning in science in CLIL vs. non-​CLIL programmes: Empirical evidence from Spain. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 22(6), 661–​674. Freebody, P. (2007). Literacy education in school: Research perspectives from the past, for the future. Australian Council for Educational Research, BPA Print Group. Gamble, J.H. (2021). Teacher perspectives on content and language integrated learning in Taiwan: Motivations, implementation factors and future directions. In B. Morrison, J. Chen, L. Lin & A. Urmston (Eds.), English across the curriculum: Voices from around the world (pp. 127–​147). University Press of Colorado. Genesee, F., & Hamayan, E. (2016). CLIL in context: Practical guidance for educators. Cambridge University Press. Graham, K.M., Kim, H., Choi, Y., & Eslami, Z.R. (2021). CLIL as a balance for female–​m ale differences? The effect of CLIL on student writing outcomes. Journal of Immersion and Content-​Based Language Education. https://​doi.org/​10.1075/​jicb.20007.gra Hattie, J. (2015). What works best in education: The politics of collaborative expertise. Pearson. Heine, L. (2014). Models of the bilingual lexicon and their theoretical implications for CLIL. The Language Learning Journal, 42(2), 225–​237. Her, O.S., & Chiang, W.Y. (2021). 2030 bilingual country: The misleading rationale and values. In Proceedings of Conference of Taiwan Bilingual Education: Challenges and Strategies (pp. 67–​95). Professor Huang Kun-​huei Education Foundation. Hsu, Y.R. (2019, October 11). Linguists: Why they oppose to bilingual policy and English benchmark for graduation. Mirror Media. www.mirr​orme​d ia.mg/​story/​201​9100​4cul​0 05/​ Huang, Y.C. (2020). The effects of elementary students’ science learning in CLIL. English Language Teaching, 13(2), 1–​15. Jiménez-​Catalán, R.M., & Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (2009). The receptive vocabulary of EFL learners in two instructional contexts: CLIL versus non-​CLIL instruction. In Y. Ruiz de Zarobe & R.M. Jiménez-​Catalán (Eds.), Content and language integrated learning: Evidence from research in Europe (pp. 81–​92). Multilingual Matter. Kao, Y.T. (2022a). Understanding and addressing the challenges of teaching an online CLIL course: A teacher education study. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 25(2), 656–​675.

500

CLIL in Taiwan Kao, Y.T. (2022b). Exploring translanguaging in Taiwanese CLIL classes: An analysis of teachers’ perceptions and practices. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 1–​22. Karabassova, L., & San Isidro, X. (2020). Towards translanguaging in CLIL: A study on teachers’ perceptions and practices in Kazakhstan. International Journal of Multilingualism. DOI:10.1080/​ 14790718.2020.1828426 Ke, I.C., & Lin, S. (2017). A translanguaging approach to TESOL in Taiwan. English Teaching & Learning, 41(1), 33–​61. Li, W. (2011). Moment analysis and translanguaging space: Discursive construction of identities by multilingual Chinese youth in Britain. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(5), 1222–​1235. Liao, S.R. (2021, May 13). Two bilingual experiment classes to be set up in 2021. Liberty Times Net. https://​news.ltn.com.tw/​news/​l ife/​break ​i ngn​ews/​3530​788/​print Liao, W.M. (2020). On promoting bilingual education at Taiwan public primary schools. Taiwan Educational Review Monthly, 9(9), 90–​96. Lin, A.M., & He, P. (2017). Translanguaging as dynamic activity flows in CLIL classrooms. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 16(4), 228–​244. Lin, A.M., & Lo, Y.Y. (2017). Trans/​languaging and the triadic dialogue in content and language integrated learning (CLIL) classrooms. Language and Education, 31(1), 26–​45. Lin, A.N., & Li, C.P. (2019, March 13). Are we ready for a bilingual nation? United Daily News. https://​ money.udn.com/​SSI/​d igi​t al-​news/​2019/​biling ​ual-​coun​t ry/​i ndex.html Lin, H.Y. (2018, December 6). Towards a bilingual country: MOE proposes five strategies. Liberty Times Net. https://​news.ltn.com.tw/​news/​l ife/​break ​i ngn​ews/​2634​896 Lin, H.Y. (2021a, February 25). Using English as a medium of instruction: Four elite universities picked up to go first. Liberty Times Net. https://​ec.ltn.com.tw/​a rti​cle/​paper/​1433​340 Lin, H.Y. (2021b, April 13). New measures of universities on the way to reach bilingual nation. Liberty Times Net. https://​news.ltn.com.tw/​news/​l ife/​paper/​1442​630/​print Lin, H.Y., & Wu, B.H. (2020, October 4). Toward 2030 bilingual nation: Four elite universities picked up to go first. Liberty Times Net. https://​news.ltn.com.tw/​news/​l ife/​paper/​1403​690/​print Lin, S.L., Wen, T.H., Ching, G.S., & Huang, Y.C. (2021). Experiences and challenges of an English as a medium of instruction course in Taiwan during COVID-​19. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(24), 12920. Lin, T.Y., Shih, W.H., & Lee, M.S. (2019). The effectiveness of tailor-​m ade content and language integrated learning materials for Taiwanese primary school students’ literacy development. In B.L. Reynolds & M.F. Teng (Eds.), English literacy instruction for Chinese speakers (pp. 75–​93). Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore. LLFL (Language Learning Futures Lab). (2019, March 10). Beyond CLIL: Pluriliteracies teaching for deeper learning (Graz Group) [Video]. www.yout ​ube.com/​watch?v=​QSQi​sLoO​cQE Lo, Y.Y., & Fung, D. (2020). Assessments in CLIL: The interplay between cognitive and linguistic demands and their progression in secondary education. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 23(10), 1192–​1210. Lo, Y.Y., Lui, W.M., & Wong, M. (2019). Scaffolding for cognitive and linguistic challenges in CLIL science assessments. Journal of Immersion and Content-​Based Language Education, 7(2), 289–​314. Lo, Y.Y., & Murphy, V.A. (2010). Vocabulary knowledge and growth in immersion and regular language-​learning programmes in Hong Kong. Language and Education, 24, 215–​238. Luk, J., & Lin, A. (2015). Voices without words: Doing critical literate talk in English as a second language. TESOL Quarterly, 49(1), 67–​91. Luo, W.H. (2021). Challenges facing teachers in implementing bilingual instruction in Taiwan and implications for teacher professional development. Jiaoyu Yanjiu Yuekan/​Journal of Education Research, 321, 78–​97. Mehisto, P. (2021). Foreword. In M. DeBoer & D. Leontjev (Eds.), Assessment and learning in content and language integrated learning (CLIL) classrooms. Springer. Mehisto, P., & Genesee, F. (Eds.). (2015). Building bilingual education systems. Cambridge University Press. MOE (Ministry of Education). (2021a). Statistics of English-​ taught degree-​ based programmes in Taiwan. https://​udb.moe.edu.tw/​Detai​l Rep​ortL​ist/​%E6%A0%A1%E5%8B%99%E9%A1%9E/​ SirdSchoolEstabl​ishF​orei​g hnL​a ngu​a geT​each​i ng/​Index MOE (Ministry of Education). (2021b). The 12-​ year basic education. https://​12ba​sic.edu.tw/​12ab​ out-​3 -​1.php

501

Wenhsien Yang Moore, P., & Nikula, T. (2016). Translanguaging in CLIL classrooms. In T. Nikula, E. Dafouz, P. Moore, & U. Smit (Eds.), Conceptualising integration in CLIL and multilingual education (pp. 211–​234). Multilingual Matters. NDC. (2018, December 10). Blueprint for developing Taiwan into a bilingual nation by 2030. www.ndc.gov. tw/​Conte​nt_ ​L​ist.aspx?n=​F B2F9​5FF1​5B21​D4A NDC. (2022, June 2). A better life for the next generation: The equal importance of bilingual policy and national languages. www.ndc.gov.tw/​nc_ ​2​7_ ​35​859 Nikula, T., & Moore, P. (2019). Exploring translanguaging in CLIL. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 22(2), 237–​249. OESOL. (2018). Test results of GEPT kids indicate success of the content and language integrated learning project. https://​oea​sol.tai​nan.gov.tw/​i ndex.php?inter=​achie​veme​nts&id=​1&did=​5&itid=​70 Pan, N.H. (2021, April 20). 40 bilingual universities and 80% of English-​ t aught courses to be established by 2030. United Daily News. https://​udn.com/​news/​story/​6928/​5401​550 Pellegrino, J.W. & Hilton, M.L. (Eds.). (2012). Education for life and work: Developing transferable knowledge and skills in the 21st century. National Academies Press. Pérez Cañado, M.L. (2020). CLIL and elitism: Myth or reality? The Language Learning Journal, 48(1), 4–​17. Pon, S.E. (2021, May 7). Can bilingual nation be realised? An experience from Kinmen. Global Views Monthly. www.gvm.com.tw/​a rti​cle/​79428 Storm Media. (2019, September 5). Bilingual schools, a promising recruitment rate of new students. www. storm.mg/​l ifest​yle/​1672​167?page=​1 Tagnin, L., & Ní Ríordáin, M. (2021). Building science through questions in content and language integrated learning (CLIL) classrooms. International Journal of STEM Education, 8(1), 1–​14. Tsou, W. (2018). Implementing content language integrated learning (CLIL) in Taiwan a review study. Panyapiwat Institute of Management. Van Mensel, L., Hiligsmann, P., Mettewie, L., & Galand, B. (2020). CLIL, an elitist language learning approach? A background analysis of English and Dutch CLIL pupils in French speaking Belgium. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 33(1), 1–​14. Vogel, S., & García, O. (2017). Translanguaging. https://​academ ​icwo​rks.cuny.edu/​cgi/​v iew​cont​ent. cgi?arti​cle=​1448&cont​ext=​gc_ ​p​ubs Wang, L.C. (2019). Developing students with international mobility: Measures of using EMI. Taiwan Educational Review Monthly, 8(6), 63–​66. Wang, S.F. & Teng, P.J. (2021, March 29). MOE to launch bilingual education centre in Kaohsiung. Focus Taiwan. https://​focu​stai​wan.tw/​cult​u re/​20210​3290​022 Wei, R. (2013). Chinese-​English bilingual education in China: Model, momentum, and driving forces. Asian EFL Journal, 15(4), 184–​200. Wu, C.Y., Chen, M.Y., & Cheng, C.F. (2018, December 17). Commissioner of NDC: Dismissing the thoughts of testing to become a bilingual country. Liberty Times Net. https://​news.ltn.com.tw/​ news/​polit​ics/​paper/​1254​555/​print Wu, Y., & Lin, A.M. (2019). Translanguaging and trans-​semiotising in a CLIL biology class in Hong Kong: Whole-​body sense-​m aking in the flow of knowledge co-​m aking. Classroom Discourse, 10(3–​ 4), 252–​273. Xu, Y., & Brown, G.T. (2016). Teacher assessment literacy in practice: A reconceptualization. Teaching and Teacher Education, 58, 149–​162. Yang, W.H. (2015). CLIL next In Asia: Evidence of learners’ achievement in content and language integrated learning (CLIL) education from a Taiwan tertiary degree-​programme. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 18(4), 361–​382. Yang, W.H. (2017a). Tuning university undergraduates for high mobility and employability under the content and language integrated learning approach. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 20(6), 607–​624 Yang, W.H. (2017b). From similarity to diversity: The changing use of language learning strategies in CLIL (content and language integrated learning) education at the tertiary level in Taiwan. English Teaching & Learning, 41(1), 1–​33. Yang, W.H. (2018). The deployment of English learning strategies in the CLIL approach: A comparison study of Taiwan and Hong Kong tertiary level contexts. ESP Today, 6(1), 46–​67.

502

CLIL in Taiwan Yang, W.H. (2019). Evaluating contextualised CLIL (content and language integrated learning) materials at tertiary level. Latin American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning, 11(2), 236–​274. Yang, W.H. (2020a). Towards a bilingual Taiwan by 2030: How can CLIL help? The Journal of the Japan CLIL Pedagogy Association, 2, 15–​21. Yang, W.H. (2020b). The development, adoption, and evaluation of a CLIL textbook: Perspectives from the users. ESP Today, 8(1), 68–​89. Yang, W.H. (2021). Designing a CLIL-​based cultural training course to enhance learners’ cultural quotient (CQ) by Introducing Internationalisation at Home (IaH). Taiwan Journal of TESOL, 18(1), 99–​131. Yang, W.H., & Gosling, G. (2013). National appraisal and stakeholders’ perceptions of a tertiary CLIL programme in Taiwan. International CLIL Research Journal, 2(1), 67–​81. Yang, W.H., & Gosling, M. (2014). What makes a Taiwan CLIL programme highly recommended or not recommended? International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 17(4), 394–​409. Yang, W.H., & Yang, L.Z. (2021). Evaluating learners’ satisfaction with a distance online CLIL lesson during the pandemic. English Teaching & Learning, 46, 179–​202. https://​doi.org/​10.1007/​s42​ 321-​021-​0 0091-​5

503

504

505

PART VI

Looking forward

506

507

34 CLIL: CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES Bong-​gi Sohn

Introduction Content and language integrated learning (CLIL) originated from a motivation among educators in Europe in the 1990s in response to the European Union’s experience of pressures of integration, expansion, and modernisation. Globalisation, migration, and growing diversity were the drivers of changes in the EU both in policy and at the grassroots level to find an educational approach that would not only respond to challenges in the 21st-​century knowledge economy but also facilitate European integration, employment, and growing capacities of the next generation (European Commission, 2004). CLIL has been created, justified, rationalised, and spread throughout Europe, Asia, and other parts of the world alongside discourses that emphasise the production of competitive citizens in the new global market (Codó, 2018). As a European alternative to French immersion programmes in Canada, CLIL has since been perceived as an approach that aims to enhance the knowledge and intercultural competency of the young generation by focusing on the integration of language learning with content learning (Marsh & Frigols Martín, 2013). While CLIL is a relatively new educational approach, most of the CLIL research agenda has centred on matters concerning implementation and evaluation of educational effectiveness (Cenoz et al., 2014; Morton, Chapter 35, this volume). Consequently, some cautionary accounts of CLIL have pointed out that it is celebrated with an evangelical tone and have called for a critical approach to CLIL that attends to social and critical issues with a commitment to questioning as well as transforming normative practices of power and inequality (Codó, 2020; Darvin et al., 2020; Relaño-​Pastor, 2018). With these goals in mind, this chapter invites CLIL researchers and teachers to draw from critical perspectives to identify, examine, and address issues that otherwise are either not even brought up or are treated from a perspective that further aggravates and perpetuates them. In particular, viewing CLIL as a social practice rather than merely as an educational programme or pedagogical approach allows for exploring a number of critical issues that arise from various (language) ideologies and discourses but also violate CLIL’s official emphasis on democratic principles and social cohesion. In what follows, a critical approach will be introduced that presents CLIL as a social practice rather than as an educational model, and its socio-​political origin and development will DOI: 10.4324/9781003173151-41

507

Bong-gi Sohn

be discussed. Next, questions and issues that arise from recent ethnographic, sociolinguistic studies that critique the CLIL model and its applications will be presented, with common themes highlighted. Finally, this critical approach is discussed in relation to recent work on translanguaging and trans-​semiotising approaches to CLIL. Potential applications of critical CLIL for curriculum development and instruction will be discussed, and considerations for developing a more sustainable CLIL model will be put forward.

Critical CLIL as a social practice As CLIL has become an established educational approach worldwide, there has been growing advocacy for critical perspectives on CLIL (Codó & Patiño-​Santos, 2018; Lin, 2016; Llinares & Evnitskaya, 2020; Relaño-​Pastor, 2018; Sakamoto, 2022). As several CLIL researchers have pointed out, the majority of CLIL research has been acritical, albeit with educational goodwill, and the call for a critical turn in CLIL has not been at the centre of the CLIL discussion (Cenoz et al., 2014; Codó, 2018; Relaño-​Pastor, 2018). Viewing CLIL as a historically and culturally constructed educational model, Darvin et al. (2020) offered one critical discussion on CLIL by presenting how it can be seen as a social practice in various parts of the world. CLIL as a social practice explicitly acknowledges that CLIL’s conceptualisation, design, and practice are socio-​culturally constructed, and its policy and actions are bound to a particular local educational context. They argued that CLIL is not an autonomous educational approach but rather a contested field, and supported this argument by noting that debates about CLIL’s scope, models, and methods are predominantly about cultural and political struggles. In doing so, they demonstrated that CLIL is bounded by power relations and underpinned by various ideologies of language and learning. Relaño-​Pastor’s (2018) argument that CLIL is a type of bilingual education policy and practice nicely complements Darvin et al.’s (2020) claim, demonstrating that CLIL is not just a pedagogic innovation but can inadvertently become a facilitating force of social inequality and marginalisation in (bilingual) education. Therefore, approaching CLIL as social practice not only acknowledges but also emphasises the importance of developing a critical CLIL perspective. Moving away from a narrow and normative agenda focused on educational effectiveness, critical CLIL engages with broader social and political concerns that are linked to questions of class, gender, race, and/​or mobility. In addition, by relating critical aspects of CLIL to broader social, cultural, and political domains, critical CLIL can adopt different angles, including critical, feminist, postcolonial, or queer discourse studies, to critical language testing and pedagogy (Kubota & Miller, 2017; Pennycook, 2021). With this in mind, the next section addresses the unique socio-​h istorical situatedness of origin and development of CLIL.

Socio-​historical development of CLIL Since the 1990s, there has been a sense of urgency in Europe to prepare future generations for the 21st-​century knowledge economy as well as growing pressure to increase the employment and competencies of young people, who are increasingly expected to communicate effectively in at least two languages other than their mother tongue (European Commission, 2004). The European Commission (2007) and the Council of Europe (2014) have promoted CLIL as an effective way of developing ‘intercultural competences and multilingual comprehension’ (European Commission, 2007, p. 11) and strengthening plurilingualism, 508

CLIL: Critical perspectives

linguistic diversity, mutual understanding, democratic citizenship, and social cohesion (Council of Europe, 2014). This was done with the aim to ‘motivate and produce a highly skilled plurilingual, pluricultural workforce’ (Coyle, 2008, p. 99). Subsequently, CLIL has been ‘embraced quickly and enthusiastically by stakeholders: Parents, students, language/​ educational policy-​m akers all over the world, but especially in Europe’ (Lasagabaster & Doiz, 2016, p. 1), where English language education has been a central focus in CLIL bilingual education (Baetens Beardsmore, 2009). By and large, then, CLIL’s development in Europe illustrates how CLIL has been spread in tandem with neoliberal policies and associated discourses, particularly around the value of English, that espouse mobility and internalisation. CLIL has also undergone debate as to its terminology and legitimacy as it has developed as a social practice. When CLIL was first introduced, it was widely welcomed because it was considered unique to Europeans. It constituted a move away from other types of bilingual education, including an earlier form of Canadian French immersion, in which English-​ speaking children were taught content subjects in their L2, French. Resonating with the educational needs of Europeans, who value plurilingualism (Coyle, 2007) –​as exemplified in the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR, Council of Europe, 2001) –​it has been argued that CLIL contributes to foster key European values such as social cohesion, democratic citizenship, and intercultural dialogue. Whether CLIL is independent from other similar approaches or is seen as a rebranding of North American content-​based instruction (CBI) or immersion has been discussed at length in an effort to distinguish its core principles from those of other bilingual programmes and emphasise its potential for educational inclusivity, social cohesion, and intercultural development. Cenoz and Gorter (2015) noted that although CLIL was introduced as a new approach to use academic content in teaching English and other languages in Europe, the combination of language and content has a longstanding tradition. For example, there is a history of teaching minority languages in Europe and in many other educational contexts outside Europe, including bilingual education in Canada and the United States. Cenoz (2015) noted when comparing examples of CLIL and CBI in Basque education, where content knowledge is taught through both English and Spanish to students whose L1 is Spanish, that CLIL and CBI programmes share similar features –​for example, the use of an L2 as the medium of instruction, the language of instruction (e.g., a socio-​economically powerful L2 such as English), societal and educational aims, and types of students (Cenoz, 2015). This led to suggestions that while CLIL can be considered historically unique in origin, pedagogically it shares many similarities with other types of (bilingual) education programmes (Cenoz et al., 2014; Morton & Llinares, 2017). Dalton-​Puffer et al. (2014) and others (e.g., Nikula et al., 2016), on the other hand, have argued against treating CLIL and CBI/​immersion as interchangeable terms. Emphasising the integration between language and content teaching, Dalton-​Puffer et al. (2014) argued that before the development of CLIL, the integration of content and language was not the core of the educational research agenda. In their view, since CLIL’s development and implementation, the ‘research interest has gone beyond balancing language and content pedagogies’ (2014, p. 216, italics in original). Instead, integration between content and language has been viewed as a unique characteristic that distinguishes CLIL from other bilingual programmes (Coyle et al., 2010; Sohn et al., forthcoming). Yet, acknowledging a variety of programmes that could exist under the CLIL umbrella term, Dalton-​Puffer et al. (2014) admitted that CLIL has been conceptualised so as to welcome plurality and diversity and that can encompass various bi-​/​multilingual tradition and approaches. 509

Bong-gi Sohn

More recently, during the 2020s, the debate has moved away from the terminological concern towards a focus on diversification of CLIL programmes and approaches, including translanguaging in CLIL (Lin & Lo, 2017; Nikula & Moore, 2019). The shift in focus is paralleled by as well as a consequence of the wide expansion of CLIL across geographical areas. Although the development of CLIL seems neutral –​creating a sound pedagogical frame which guides educators and teachers to design and implement content and language integrated learning in their programs and classrooms –​the neutrality of CLIL is deeply ideological (Park, 2016; Wee, 2010). This contradiction has created much anxiety and concern among teachers who are using English as an additional language (Bae, 2015; Chen & Tsou, 2021; Relaño-​Pastor & Fernández-​Barrera, 2019; Relaño-​Pastor & Poveda, 2020). It is crucial to pay attention to CLIL as a social practice to reflect as well as respond to the development of CLIL critically.

Critical views of CLIL The previous section addressed the socio-​h istorical situatedness of CLIL’s origin, showing how CLIL is a social practice at the level of its emergence and pedagogical expansion. This understanding urges both researchers and educators to pay attention to the complex relationship between policy and practice in CLIL programmes and schools, including the links between CLIL as a type of education policy, stakeholder discourses, and classroom practices. With this in mind, this section surveys a number of critical issues particularly derived from ethnographic and sociolinguistic perspectives uncovering CLIL practices that inadvertently exacerbated inequality and marginalisation of students, teachers, and non-​ CLIL programmes. In doing so, it aims to rearticulate CLIL’s original premise of fostering inclusivity, interculturality, and democratic citizenship.

Privileging monolingualism and native-​speakerism in neoliberalised bilingual institutions In theory, ‘language’ in CLIL refers to ‘an additional’ language, including any foreign, second, or minority language. However, CLIL is often associated with teaching through the medium of English specifically (Cenoz & Gorter, 2015; Dalton-​P uffer, 2011) and adherence to the one-​language one-​classroom principle. Cenoz and Gorter (2013) argued that although CLIL programmes encourage the integration of language and content, CLIL does not aim to integrate languages ‘because CLIL isolates the teaching of English from the teaching of other languages in the curriculum’ (p. 593; also see Llinares et al., 2012). This implicit principle has influenced earlier research studies that have generally remained monolingual (Moore & Nikula, 2016), focusing on the development of skills in the instructional and target language rather than the nurturing of learners’ bi-​and multilingual meaning-​m aking potential ( Jalkanen & Nikula, 2020; Nikula & Moore, 2019). This segregation of languages in CLIL exacerbates a monolingual and monoglossic ideology, which ‘encourages teachers and students to perform as if they were monolingual speakers of English and to achieve the unreachable goal of speaking English as if they did not know other languages’ (Cenoz & Gorter, 2013, p. 593). This is not new and has long been the dominant ideology of English language teaching (Lin, 2015). Nonetheless, the presence of the monolingual and monoglossic ideology in neoliberalised CLIL programmes has led to idealisations of native speakers of English and has worked to delegitimise minoritised plurilingual students. 510

CLIL: Critical perspectives

In the case of Spain, where this is coupled with broader ideologies of English as linked to excellence and internationalisation, only select students who demonstrate a set of linguistic proficiencies in both English and Spanish can enter CLIL-​inspired bilingual schools. Those who are learning Spanish as their additional language are often seen as failing to master ‘proper’ linguistic competencies and skills and thus are not ready to learn to be part of a CLIL-​t ype English-​Spanish bilingual programme (Martín Rojo, 2013; Sabaté Dalmau, 2020). Instead, those minoritised students enter remedial Spanish language programmes and tend to encounter lower academic demands and expectations (Codó & Patiño-​Santos, 2014) that endorse the deskilling of minoritised students (Martín Rojo, 2013). This case demonstrates how relying on native-​speakerism not only reinforces linguistic prestige but also guarantees educational elitism (Relaño-​Pastor & Fernández-​Barrera, 2019) and the educational exclusion of those who do not align with a particular bilingual ideal (Codó & Patiño-​Santos, 2018; Relaño-​Pastor, 2015; yet, there is an oppositional claim; see Pérez Cañado, 2020). Such findings present ways in which, rather than contributing to equitable, inclusive, and diverse access to education, CLIL becomes a driving force in creating different hierarchies among students, teachers, and programmes. In other words, it leads to constructions of new identities of students as academic/​good or non-​academic/​bad based on their demonstrated competencies and positioning in their two languages (Codó & Patiño-​ Santos, 2014; Pérez-​M ilans & Patiño-​Santos, 2014).

Promoting insecure educational subjectivities in CLIL As articulated by the European Commission (2004), English is seen as the basis for connectivity, contributing to the development of plurilingualism as well as integration and mobility among student populations across the continent and beyond. The choice of English as the first foreign language locates English as a ‘basic’ skill based upon economic prosperity, modernisation, and internationalisation (Phillipson, 2007), positioning it ‘as a neutral and useful language for international mobility’ (Lorente, 2017, p. 493). This rationale also supports competency-​d riven English CLIL policy and practices that endorse a particular individual ‘who assumes most of the responsibility … to accumulate language competencies, in the understanding that this creates economic value for the person concerned, for employers and for the community’ (Martín Rojo, 2019, p. 162; also discussed in Codó, 2018; Relaño-​ Pastor, 2018). This politically grounded dimension of CLIL shapes educators as particular kinds of selves (Kramsch, 2009; Ortner, 2005). Codó and Patiño-​ Santos (2018) identified three neoliberalised worker subjectivities within a government-​funded plurilingualism initiative in Catalan through CLIL that aims to nurture two official languages –​Spanish and Catalan. First is the ‘entrepreneurial head teacher’, who anticipates pathways for school transformation before they are implemented; second, the ‘activised civil servants’, who construct themselves as exemplary moral agents; and third, the ‘maximally flexible temporary teachers’, who endure their participation in the CLIL programmes with anxiety and a sense of burden yet, nonetheless, are also aware of the many opportunities that the programme offers. Focusing on CLIL in South Korea, Park (2017) discussed how CLIL/​EMI implementation is part of the drastic neoliberalisation of higher education. In the case of South Korea, many universities have undergone aggressive educational reform since introducing EMI in the early 2000s (Kim, 2017). More recently they have gradually shifted to CLIL as part of a drive toward globalisation and in pursuit of competitiveness (Kim & Lee, 2020). Park (2017) explained that first, the government facilitated greater competition among universities to 511

Bong-gi Sohn

push them to develop as global research universities that could contribute to the advancement of South Korea in the global economy. There was greater pressure to publish in English and recruit foreign staff and students, which required greater use of English both in and out of classrooms. Second, as Park pointed out, changing job market conditions resulted in a different conceptualisation of what counts as an ideal worker. Increasing competition in the job market led to unpredictability, and this meant the creation of a more flexible and precarious workplace where an ideal worker had to continuously engage in projects of self-​ development to foster new skills and adapt to the changing demands of the workplace. In this context, Koreans had to continuously develop their skills in English as the language of global competition. Work examining interdisciplinary collaboration in some settings has shown that CLIL programmes can put language faculty in a position of insecurity. CLIL implementation in higher education that encourages collaboration between content faculty and language faculty can be troubled by institutional hierarchies that place content faculty higher in status than language faculty (Kim & Lee, 2020; Wallace et al., 2020). Although CLIL is flexible and can generally be depicted on a continuum between language-​oriented and content-​oriented (Coyle, 2007), in practice content-​d riven courses are usually taught by content teachers, while language-​d riven courses are mainly taught by language teachers (Kim & Lee, 2020). This differentiation creates different levels of work, responsibilities, and legitimacy for language educators and content faculty. Language in CLIL programmes is typically considered the responsibility of language educators and not of content faculty (Airey, 2012), and language teachers’ knowledge and expertise are frequently treated as inferior to those of content faculty (however, there are exceptional examples; see Zappa-​Hollman, 2018). Often, language educators are in a position to provide supplementary support to multilingual students as they transition to mainstream content courses, rather than being more equally distributed between language and content faculty. The creation of insecure teacher subjectivities is also discussed with an acknowledgement that CLIL requires resource-​intensive interdisciplinary collaboration. In other words, the academic language and literacy requirements needed for successful CLIL implementation are costly, and are carried out by language and literacy specialists outside the standard curriculum in a form of ‘soft’ CLIL (Airey, 2012, 2016) to reduce costs and commitment, which can cause the importance of content and language integrated learning to be neglected. Often, content faculty are overwhelmed by the degree of commitment that they need to put into collaboration with language faculty (Heringer, 2019). They may also be reluctant to collaborate, as their hours of collaboration are not considered part of teaching and are therefore considered ‘hidden’ labour (Wallace et al., 2020). Although CLIL encourages interdisciplinary collaboration between language educators and content experts, without acknowledging the degree of labour and commitment involved, creation of insecure teacher subjectivities will continue.

CLIL as an educational brand and commodity The expansion of CLIL in Asia and South America illustrates how CLIL has become an additional form of English imperialism in education. This has been the case of top universities in South Korea and Japan, for example, where CLIL/​EMI has been instrumental for attracting international students from around the world. Such students tend to pay higher tuition fees, advancing host universities’ global university rankings through internationalising their institutions (Hashimoto & Glasgow, 2019; Kim, 2017). And speaking of the Brazilian 512

CLIL: Critical perspectives

context, Landau et al. (2021) noted that with the rapid growth of English immersion/​CLIL programmes, a private business branding its foreign language teaching approach as CLIL has entered the country to provide public educational support and provisions, growing CLIL into a multimillion-​dollar industry. Their CLIL curriculum and learning materials foreground CLIL as an advanced, up-​to-​d ate learning approach that is exported from the West (Landau et al., 2021). These examples show how CLIL can become an engine for neoliberalising foreign language education in (post-​)colonial contexts like Brazil and South Korea. As CLIL has expanded to other parts of the world, imperialist ideas that privilege a Western epistemology of learning and teaching that is mediated through English have come to warrant re-​examination from a critical lens. Sakamoto (2022) noted that CLIL in Japan tends to emphasise ‘a liberalist/​modernist stance that expects similar, unitary effects on all learners’ (p. 2429), in which native speakers of English become the models to emulate. Similarly, Park (2017) warned that uncritical implementation of CLIL/​EMI can engender controversies and raise issues ranging from the potential danger of academic dependence on the English-​speaking West to inequalities that can be caused by privileging Eurocentric epistemic ways of knowing and thinking. As CLIL has spread to education systems in other (post-​)colonial and/​or former shadow colonies such as South Korea and Japan, it has worked to reinforce social and educational inequalities (Codó & Patiño-​Santos, 2014, 2018), even though Pérez Cañado (2020) adamantly advocated CLIL not as a driving force for social inequality and divide but as an inclusive educational approach that would allow working-​class students from ethnically diverse backgrounds to access the valuable linguistic resources that more privileged schools offer. Given CLIL’s emphasis on the integration of academic content and language, language in CLIL programmes often coincides with academic language and registers, where English as the additional language is often used for instruction. Although students with diverse backgrounds engage in different genres and registers (language of learning) and ways of constructing knowledge (language for learning; Wu & Lin, 2019), the type of language that is often valued and emphasised in CLIL programmes is the Anglocentric academic mode and registers that are often logocentric (e.g., written mode). Thus, the possibilities that folk/​a lternative knowledge and other semiotic modes (e.g., visuals and gestures) enable for learning (Liu & Lin, 2021) are frequently overlooked. Liu and Lin (2021) highlighted the importance of making disciplinary conventions visible to decolonise CLIL from this Eurocentric epistemology. For example, inspired by Halliday’s systemic functional linguistics (SFL), Zappa-​Hollman and Fox (2021) and Lin (2016) advocated genre-​based pedagogies that make language explicit by presenting learners with a view of language as a system of choices and giving them the tools to analyse how language is used in real life situations –​academic and non-​academic. This is one of the novel approaches that is advocated by language educators, aiming to nurture students to self-​empower themselves and to critically use language and other semiotic resources. By making disciplinary conventions explicit and revealing to students who use English as an additional language where the English-​language dimension of CLIL expands to the multimodal dimension, programmes that apply CLIL principles could support plurilingual immigrant students’ learning, instead of marginalising their language and knowledge system.

Moving forward: translingual and critical approaches to CLIL As explicated in the previous sections, although CLIL’s official emphasis aims to value democratic principles and social cohesion through including linguistic diversity and minoritised 513

Bong-gi Sohn

populations, recent ethnographic, sociolinguistic studies have revealed that CLIL can become a key player in reinforcing social and educational inequalities in the current highly neoliberalised educational climate. However, it must be addressed that CLIL, at least in its conceptualisation, is designed to provide a more balanced, integrated, open-​m inded view toward diversity and difference, including students’ L1s (Lin, 2015). As Gupta and Lin (forthcoming) note, since one of the goals of a CLIL approach is the acquisition of an additional language, it is possible to draw from earlier critical approaches from relevant fields such as teaching English to speakers of other languages (TESOL; e.g., Pennycook, 1999), English for specific purposes (ESP; e.g., Master, 2000), English for academic purposes (EAP; e.g., Benesch, 2001), and ELT (e.g., Crookes, 2013). Applications of criticality in second language education include problematising taken-​for-​g ranted assumptions and practices; questioning inequality and injustice; focusing on the broader social, ideological, colonial milieus; questioning social categories and boundaries such as gender, race, class, and sexuality; transcending fixed knowledge and seeking transformation; and practicing self-​reflexivity and praxis. Kubota & Miller, 2017, p. 4; also see Pennycook, 2021 Domains of critical CLIL can be understood in two aspects: critical awareness in target language lessons and in content lessons (Gupta & Lin, forthcoming; Lin, 2020a). First, inspired by Freire (1972) and Luke (2004), critical pedagogy attempts to move away from an individualistic cognitive paradigm that values critical thinking –​‘higher order reading comprehension and sophisticated personal response to literature’ (Luke, 2004, p. 21) –​to a more socially and culturally attuned critical thinker who continues to develop critical awareness of ideologies in society. Such a shift is necessary because criticality in language means ‘how people use texts and discourses to construct and negotiate identity, power, and capital’ (Luke, 2004, p. 21). Criticality in content lessons and curriculum allows both educators and students to imagine a space that moves away from the banking model that views students as containers where teachers deposit knowledge and towards problem-​solving education (Gupta & Lin, forthcoming) that acknowledges students as individual, inquisitive beings who not only crave knowledge but also construct knowledge. Echoing the principles of critical pedagogy, critical CLIL promotes an epistemologically sound, critical view towards information, knowledge, and discourse. Second, critical approaches to English language teaching (Benesch, 1993; Janks, 2004) attempt to move away from the dominance of English to more pluralistic approaches to CLIL implementation (Lin, 2020a, 2020b). One way to move away from English dominance is to embrace and incorporate students’ L1s in the classroom, although the use of students’ L1s in English language classrooms has been controversial, as it is heavily influenced by monoglossic and monolingual principles (Lasagabaster, 2017; Lin, 2015). Lin (2020a) emphasised that use of students’ L1 and English is not merely a code-​switching between two named languages but is more pluralistic and dynamic, where language is seen as a verb, languaging, and beyond languaging, translanguaging. This translanguaging perspective not only acknowledges a dynamic view of language but also highlights the importance of other modalities beyond language. Translanguaging, therefore, means that learning through language in CLIL programmes requires higher-​order thinking and argumentation, which are not achieved through language alone but also through engagement of sophisticated semiotic resources that mediate as well as construct logic of thinking and argumentation (Lin, 2016).

514

CLIL: Critical perspectives

In this regard, translanguaging in CLIL is worthy of attention to understand critical CLIL. Li and Lin (2019) noted that translanguaging ‘is a practice that involves dynamic and functionally integrated use of different languages and language varieties, but more importantly a process of knowledge construction that goes beyond language(s)’ (p. 211). Translanguaging is therefore seen as a way to acknowledge and appreciate the value of all languages represented in classrooms with multilingual, multicultural, and minority background learners and in doing so, as contributing to their educational equality ( Jalkanen & Nikula, 2020). Nonetheless, Li and Lin (2019) suggested that translanguaging pedagogy ‘cannot and should not be reduced to allowing the pupils to use their non-​language-​of-​instruction L1s in class, nor to mixing and switching between linguistic codes only’ (p. 211). Instead, they argue ‘[i]‌t is an action to transform classroom discourses, including both the discourses by the participants of the classroom activities and the discourses about the classroom’ (p. 211). Based on this view, there has been growing interest in exploring translanguaging and trans-​semiotising possibilities in CLIL programmes (Cheng et al., 2020; Lin & Lo, 2017; Wu & Lin, 2019). Despite the recent popularity of translanguaging, Li and Lin (2019) have cautioned that translanguaging pedagogy alone cannot solve the larger underlying issues of racism, classism, colonialism, dominance of standard codes, and unequal power relations that stigmatise students’ communicative repertoires (see also Kubota, 2016). However, they argued that it nonetheless has a good chance of disrupting the hierarchy of languages, and it has potential to change teachers’ and students’ attitudes towards their diverse meaning-​m aking resources and to facilitate students’ full participation in knowledge co-​construction. Li and Lin’s (2019) work indicates a need for more critical and systemic collaboration and localised curriculum design, planning, and implementation.

Conclusion and implication In this chapter, a critical lens was adopted to examine the socio-​cultural contexts of CLIL’s emergence and expansion, as well as challenges and potentials. As a response to the rapidly changing knowledge economy of the 21st century, CLIL has been developed by collective efforts of educators, policymakers, and parents in Europe, where English has predominantly been the medium of instruction. As the number of English programmes in CLIL grows exponentially, CLIL is fraught with conflicting ideals, deeming pluralism and diversity the goal on one hand while imposing a singular, myopic, neoliberal ideology for globalisation on the other (Sakamoto, 2022). Although CLIL is acknowledged to be an umbrella term rather than a unique educational approach that is different from other bilingual programmes and pedagogies, CLIL should be understood in a more nuanced, situated, and critical manner. A call to critical CLIL can open to shifting intellectual currents, to new questions for investigation, and to new ways of thinking, understanding, and feeling with attention to the larger politics at play. Identifying social inequalities engendered by CLIL programmes from a critical perspective helps to develop a more situated, nuanced CLIL curriculum, policy, and programmes for students, teachers, and educational institutions. It is not only important to refine and develop CLIL models but also to understand and examine the situatedness of CLIL policy and practice. Each educational context has its unique historicity, needs, and demands, and it is crucial to sensitively reflect on as well as (re)act on the various issues that may keep students developing their knowledge, expertise, and awareness but also focusing on nurturing their empathy, emotion, and compassion.

515

Bong-gi Sohn

In particular, CLIL necessitates more critical, pluralistic, and translingual approaches to CLIL. CLIL as a social practice points to new directions, encouraging not only an ethnographic lens to disentangle the messiness of everyday classrooms against the backdrop of the global politics of language that permeates CLIL practices, but also the co-​design of a critical CLIL curriculum with various stakeholders that embraces translanguaging and trans-​ semiotising approaches in learning and teaching (Lin, 2019, 2020b). It has been argued that learning is developing not just sets of skills but new ways of learning, approaching, and understanding the world (Lin, 2020a), which requires a set of plurilingual and multimodal resources in the highly information-​driven, digitised, multimodal 21st century. Some possibilities for creating an alternative classroom include (1) helping students to access the dominant discipline-​specific literacies to develop both disciplinary knowledge and language (Lin, 2020b) and (2) fostering critical literacies to raise critical awareness and seek transformation (Janks, 2004; Lau, 2019) by actively incorporating students’ plurilingual and semiotic resources. A critical CLIL approach that mobilises students’ trans-​linguistic and trans-​cultural resources could mitigate tensions arisen from the neoliberalisation of CLIL programmes (such as devaluation of students’ plurilingual and pluricultural repertoires) to support them to become critical and legitimate citizens in their world.

Further reading Lau, S.M.C., & Van Viegen, S. (Eds.). (2020). Plurilingual pedagogies: Critical and creative endeavors for equitable language in education. Springer International Publishing. As with the ‘multilingual turn’ in applied linguistics, this edited volume explored arrays of plurilingualism and extends the notion of the ‘(multi-​/​pluri-​/​trans-​)language(ing)’ construct that CLIL has overlooked. In doing so, this book provides how critical perspectives can be applied in CLIL research and teaching. Lin, A.M.Y. (2016). Language across the curriculum and CLIL in English as an additional language (EAL) contexts: Theory and practice. Springer. Providing a sound research-​based account and classroom examples and scenarios, this user-​friendly book introduces teachers, teacher educators, students, and researchers to methods for integrating (academic) content and language for English language learners. Llinares, A., & Morton, T. (Eds.). (2017). Applied linguistics perspectives on CLIL. John Benjamins. www. jbe-​platf​orm.com/​cont​ent/​books/​978902​7266​101 This is the first collection of studies on CLIL with a range of theoretical and methodological approaches through which CLIL has been explored in applied linguistics.

Acknowledgement I would like to express my sincere appreciation to Dr Angel M.Y. Lin at Simon Fraser University for her continued mentorship and Dr Sandra Zappa-​Hollman and Dr Darío Banegas for their extensive comments and feedback throughout various versions of this manuscript. I also thank Nina Conrad for her extensive feedback and careful editing throughout the various stages of this paper. This work is supported by Tier 1 Canada Research Chair in Plurilingual and Intercultural Education (950-​231629, GT# 21961).

References Airey, J. (2012). ‘I don’t teach language’: The linguistic attitudes of physics lecturers in Sweden. AILA Review, 25(1), 64–​79. https://​doi.org/​10.1075/​a ila.25.05air

516

CLIL: Critical perspectives Airey, J. (2016). EAP, EMI or CLIL? In K. Hyland & P. Shaw (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of English for academic purposes (pp. 71–​83). Routledge. www.taylor ​f ran​cis.com/​chapt​ers/​edit/​10.4324/​978131​ 5657​455-​15/​e ap- ​e mi- ​c lil-​john- ​a irey?cont​e xt=​u bx&ref Id=​cb3d4​b24-​1d7c- ​4 630-​9d08-​57241​ 1c62​c8b Bae, Y. (2015). The influence of native-​speakerism on CLIL teachers in Korea. In A. Swan, P. Aboshiha, & A. Holliday (Eds.), (En)countering native-​speakerism: Global perspectives (pp. 75–​90). Palgrave Macmillan UK. Baetens Beardsmore, H. (2009). Language promotion by European supra-​national institutions. In O. García (Ed.), Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global perspective (pp. 197–​217). Wiley-​Blackwell. Benesch, S. (1993). Critical thinking: A learning process for democracy. TESOL Quarterly, 27(3), 545–​548. https://​doi.org/​10.2307/​3587​485 Benesch, S. (2001). Critical English for academic purposes: Theory, politics, and practice. Routledge. https://​ doi.org/​10.4324/​978141​0601​803 Cenoz, J. (2015). Content-​based instruction and content and language integrated learning: The same or different? Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28(1), 8–​24. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​07908​ 318.2014.1000​922 Cenoz, J., Genesee, F., & Gorter, D. (2014). Critical analysis of CLIL: Taking stock and looking forward. Applied Linguistics, 35(3), 243–​262. https://​doi.org/​10.1093/​app​l in/​a mt ​011 Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2013). Towards a plurilingual approach in English language teaching: Softening the boundaries between languages. TESOL Quarterly, 47(3), 591–​599. https://​doi.org/​10.1002/​ tesq.121 Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2015). Minority languages, state languages, and English in European education. In W.E. Wright, S. Boun, & O. García (Eds.), The handbook of bilingual and multilingual education (pp. 473–​483). John Wiley & Sons. https://​doi.org/​10.1002/​978111​8533​406.ch28 Chen, F., & Tsou, W. (2021). Empowering local bilingual teachers through extending the pedagogy of multiliteracies in Taiwan’s primary education. OLBI Journal, 11, 79–​103. https://​doi.org/​10.18192/​ olbij.v11i1.6177 Cheng, M.M.W., Danielsson, K., & Lin, A.M.Y. (2020). Resolving puzzling phenomena by the simple particle model: Examining thematic patterns of multimodal learning and teaching. Learning: Research and Practice, 6(1), 70–​87. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​23735​082.2020.1750​675 Codó, E. (2018). Language policy and planning, institutions and neoliberalisation. In J.W. Tollefson & M. Pérez-​M ilans (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of language policy and planning (pp. 467–​484). Oxford University Press. Codó, E. (2020). The dilemmas of experimental CLIL in Catalonia. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 43(4), 341–​357. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​01434​632.2020.1725​525 Codó, E., & Patiño-​Santos, A. (2014). Beyond language: Class, social categorisation and academic achievement in a Catalan high school. Linguistics and Education, 25, 51–​63. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​ j.lin​ged.2013.08.002 Codó, E., & Patiño-​Santos, A. (2018). CLIL, unequal working conditions and neoliberal subjectivities in a state secondary school. Language Policy, 17(4), 479–​499. https://​doi.org/​10.1007/​s10​ 993-​017-​9451-​5 Council of Europe. (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge University Press. www.coe.int/​t/​d g4/​Lin​g uis​t ic/​Sou​rce/​Frame​work ​_​ EN.pdf Council of Europe. (2014). Languages for democracy and social cohesion: Diversity, equity and quality. Sixty years of European co-​operation. Council of Europe, Language Policy Division. Coyle, D. (2007). Content and language integrated learning: Towards a connected research agenda for CLIL pedagogies. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(5), 543–​562. https://​ doi.org/​10.2167/ ​beb​459.0 Coyle, D. (2008). CLIL: A pedagogical approach from the European perspective. In N. Van Deusen-​ Sholl & N.H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education (2nd ed., Vol. 4, pp. 97–​111). Springer. Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge University Press. Crookes, G. (2013). Critical ELT in action: Foundations, promises, praxis. Routledge. 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/​S02671​9051​1000​092

517

Bong-gi Sohn 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/​app​l in/​a mu​010 Darvin, R., Lo, Y.Y., & Lin, A.M.Y. (2020). Examining CLIL through a critical lens. English Teaching & Learning, 44(2), 103–​108. https://​doi.org/​10.1007/​s42​321-​020-​0 0062-​2 European Commission. (2004). Promoting language learning and linguistic diversity: An action plan 2004–​ 06. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. https://​op.eur​opa.eu/​en/​publ​ icat ​ion- ​det​a il/​-​/​publ ​icat ​ion/​b3225​824-​b016- ​42fa- ​83f6- ​43d9f​d 2ac​96d European Commission. (2007). Report on the implementation of the action plan ‘Promoting language learning and linguistic diversity’ (COM 554, SEC 2007, 1222). Commission of the European Communities. https://​op.eur​opa.eu/​en/​publ ​icat ​ion- ​det​a il/​-​/​publ ​icat ​ion/​fe825​168- ​6946- ​4cb0-​ 964b-​46dc2​2554​cba/​langu​a ge-​en Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Trans. M.B. Ramos. Continuum. Gupta, K.C-​L ., & Lin, A.M.Y. (forthcoming). Adopting translanguaging pedagogies in content and language integrated learning (CLIL) lessons to foster students’ critical awareness of social issues: A teacher-​researcher collaborative approach. Hashimoto, K., & Glasgow, G.P. (2019). CLIL for who? Commodification of English-​medium courses in Japan’s higher education. In I. Liyanage & T. Walker (Eds.), Multilingual education yearbook 2019: Media of instruction and multilingual settings (pp. 103–​119). Springer International. Heringer, R. (2019). ‘It’s a lot of homework for me’: Post-​secondary teachers’ perception of international students and internationalization in Canada. Teaching in Higher Education, 26(2), 211–​226. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​13562​517.2019.1653​274 Jalkanen, J., & Nikula, T. (2020). Redesigning the curriculum to develop multilingual academic literacies: An analysis of language conceptualizations. In M. Kuteeva, K. Kauf hold, & N. Hynninen (Eds.), Language perceptions and practices in multilingual universities (pp. 113–​135). Palgrave Macmillan. Janks, H. (2004). The access paradox. English in Australia, 139, 33–​42. Kim, E.G. (2017). English medium instruction in Korean higher education: Challenges and future directions. In B. Fenton-​Smith, P. Humphreys, & I. Walkinshaw (Eds.), English medium instruction in higher education in Asia-​Pacific: From policy to pedagogy (pp. 53–​69). Springer. Kim, H.K., & Lee, S. (2020). Multiple roles of language teachers in supporting CLIL. English Teaching & Learning, 44(2), 109–​126. https://​doi.org/​10.1007/​s42​321-​020-​0 0050-​6 Kramsch, C.J. (2009). The multilingual subject: What foreign language learners say about their experience and why it matters. Oxford University Press. Kubota, R. (2016). The multi/​ plural turn, postcolonial theory, and neoliberal multiculturalism: Complicities and implications for applied linguistics. Applied Linguistics, 37(4), 474–​494. https://​doi.org/​10.1093/​app​l in/​a mu​045 Kubota, R., & Miller, E.R. (2017). Re-​ examining and re-​ envisioning criticality in language studies: Theories and praxis. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 14(2–​3), 129–​157. https://​doi.org/​ 10.1080/​15427​587.2017.1290​500 Landau, J., Albuquerque Paraná, R., & Siqueira, S. (2021). Sistemas educacionais (SE) and CLIL developments in Brazil: From promises to prospects. In C. Hemmi & D.L. Banegas (Eds.), International perspectives on CLIL (pp. 259–​ 279). Springer. https://​doi.org/​10.1007/​978-​3 - ​030-​ 70095-​9_​13 Lasagabaster, D. (2017). ‘I always speak English in my classes’: Reflections on the use of the L1/​L2 in English medium instruction. In A. Llinares & T. Morton (Eds.), Applied linguistics perspectives on CLIL (pp. 251–​267). John Benjamins. Lasagabaster, D., & Doiz, A. (2016). CLIL students’ perceptions of their language learning process: delving into self-​perceived improvement and instructional preferences. Language Awareness, 25(1–​2), 110–​126. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​09658​416.2015.1122​019 Lau, S.M.C. (2019). Convergences and alignments between translanguaging and critical literacies work in bilingual classrooms. Translation and Translanguaging in Multilingual Contexts, 5(1), 67–​85. https://​doi.org/​10.1075/​t tmc.00025.lau Li, W., & Lin, A.M.Y. (2019). Translanguaging classroom discourse: Pushing limits, breaking boundaries. Classroom Discourse, 10(3–​4), 209–​215. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​19463​014.2019.1635​032 Lin, A.M.Y. (2015). Conceptualising the potential role of L1 in CLIL. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28(1), 74–​89. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​07908​318.2014.1000​926

518

CLIL: Critical perspectives Lin, A.M.Y. (2016). Language across the curriculum and CLIL in English as an additional language (EAL) contexts: Theory and practice. Springer. Lin, A.M.Y. (2019). Theories of trans/​languaging and trans-​semiotizing: Implications for content-​ based education classrooms. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 22(1), 5–​16. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​13670 ​050.2018.1515​175 Lin, A.M.Y. (2020a). From deficit-​based teaching to asset-​based teaching in higher education in BANA countries: Cutting through ‘either-​or’ binaries with a heteroglossic plurilingual lens. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 33(2), 203–​212. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​07908​318.2020.1723​927 Lin, A.M.Y. (2020b). Academic languages and literacies in content-​based education in English-​a s-​a n-​ additional-​language contexts. In Oxford research encyclopedia of education. Oxford University Press. Lin, A.M.Y., & Lo, Y.Y. (2017). Trans/​languaging and the triadic dialogue in content and language integrated learning (CLIL) classrooms. Language and Education, 31(1), 26–​45. https://​doi.org/​ 10.1080/​09500​782.2016.1230​125 Liu, J.E., & Lin, A.M.Y. (2021). (Re)conceptualizing ‘language’ in CLIL: Multimodality, translanguaging and trans-​semiotizing in CLIL. AILA Review, 34(2), 240–​261. https://​doi.org/​ 10.1075/​a ila.21002.liu Llinares, A., & Evnitskaya, N. (2020). Classroom interaction in CLIL programs: Offering opportunities or fostering inequalities? TESOL Quarterly, 55(2), 366–​397. https://​doi.org/​10.1002/​tesq.607 Llinares, A., & Morton, T. (Eds.). (2017). Applied linguistics perspectives on CLIL. John Benjamins. Llinares, A., Morton, T., & Whittaker, R. (2012). The roles of language in CLIL. Cambridge University Press. Lorente, B.P. (2017). Language-​i n-​education policies and mobile citizens. In S. Canagarajah (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of migration and language (pp. 486–​501). Routledge. Luke, A. (2004). Two takes on the critical. In B. Norton & K. Toohey (Eds.), Critical pedagogies and language learning (pp. 21–​29). Cambridge University Press. Marsh, D., & Frigols Martín, M.J. (2013). Content and language integrated learning. In C.A. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics (pp. 911–​920). Blackwell. Martín Rojo, L. (2013). (De)capitalising students through linguistic practices: A comparative analysis of new educational programmes in a global era. In D. Alexandre, M. Melissa, & R. Celia (Eds.), Language, migration and social inequalities: A critical sociolinguistic perspective on institutions and work (pp. 118–​148). Multilingual Matters. Martín Rojo, L. (2019). The ‘self-​m ade speaker’: The neoliberal governance of speakers. In L. Martín Rojo & A. Del Percio (Eds.), Language and neoliberal governmentality (pp. 162–​189). Routledge. Master, P. (2000). Responses to English for specific purposes. Office of English Language Programs, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs. Moore, P., & Nikula, T. (2016). Translanguaging in CLIL classrooms. In T. Nikula, E. Dafouz, P. Moore, & U. Smit (Eds.), Conceptualising integration in CLIL and multilingual education (pp. 211–​234). Multilingual Matters. Morton, T., & Llinares, A. (2017). Content and language integrated learning (CLIL): Type of programme or pedagogical model? In A. Llinares & T. Morton (Eds.), Applied linguistics perspectives on CLIL (pp. 1–​18). John Benjamins. 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. Nikula, T., & Moore, P. (2019). Exploring translanguaging in CLIL. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 22(2), 237–​249. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​13670 ​050.2016.1254​151 Ortner, S.B. (2005). Subjectivity and cultural critique. Anthropological Theory, 5(1), 31–​52. https://​doi. org/​10.1177/​14634​9960​5050​867 Park, J.S-​Y. (2016). Language as pure potential. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 37(5), 453–​466. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​01434​632.2015.1071​824 Park, J.S-​Y. (2017). English as medium of instruction in Korean higher education: Language and subjectivity as critical perspective on neoliberalism. In M-​C. Flubacher & A. Del Percio (Eds.), Language, education and neoliberalism: Critical studies in sociolinguistics (pp. 82–​ 100). Multilingual Matters. Pennycook, A. (1999). Introduction: Critical approaches to TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 33(3), 329–​ 348. https://​doi.org/​0.2307/​3587​668

519

Bong-gi Sohn Pennycook, A. (2021). Critical applied linguistics: A critical re-​introduction (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://​ doi.org/​10.4324/​978100​3090​571 Pérez Cañado, M.L. (2020). CLIL and elitism: Myth or reality? The Language Learning Journal, 48(1), 4–​17. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​09571​736.2019.1645​872 Pérez-​M ilans, M., & Patiño-​Santos, A. (2014). Language education and institutional change in a Madrid multilingual school. International Journal of Multilingualism, 11(4), 449–​470. https://​doi.org/​ 10.1080/​14790​718.2014.944​532 Phillipson, R. (2007). English, no longer a foreign language in Europe? In J. Cummins & C. Davison (Eds.), International handbook of English language teaching (pp. 123–​136). Springer. Relaño-​ Pastor, A.M. (2015). The commodification of English in ‘Madrid, comunidad bilingüe’: Insights from the CLIL classroom. Language Policy, 14(2), 131–​152. https://​doi.org/​ 10.1007/​s10​993-​014-​9338-​7 Relaño-​Pastor, A.M. (2018). Bilingual education policy and neoliberal content and language integrated learning practices. In J.W. Tollefson & M. Pérez-​M ilans (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of language policy and planning (pp. 505–​525). Oxford University Press. Relaño-​Pastor, A.M., & Fernández-​Barrera, A. (2019). The ‘native speaker effects’ in the construction of elite bilingual education in Castilla-​La Mancha: Tensions and dilemmas. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 40(5), 421–​435. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​01434​632.2018.1543​696 Relaño-​Pastor, A.M., & Poveda, D. (2020). Native speakerism and the construction of CLIL competence in teaching partnerships: Reshaping participation frameworks in the bilingual classroom. Language and Education, 34(5), 469–​487. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​09500​782.2020.1762​633 Sabaté Dalmau, M. (2020). Neoliberal language policies and linguistic entrepreneurship in higher education: Lecturers’ perspectives. Language, Culture and Society, 2(2), 174–​196. https://​doi.org/​ 10.1075/​lcs.19018.dal Sakamoto, M. (2022). The missing C: Addressing criticality in CLIL. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 25(7), 2422–​2434. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​13670 ​050.2021.1914​540 Sohn, B-​G., dos Santos, P., & Lin, A.M.Y. (2022). Translanguaging and trans-​semiotizing for critical integration of content and language in plurilingual educational settings. RELC Journal, 53(2), 355–​370. https://​doi.org/​10.1177/​0 03368​8222​1114​480 Wallace, A., Spiliotopoulos, V., & Ilieva, R. (2020). CLIL collaborations in higher education: A critical perspective. English Teaching & Learning, 44(2), 127–​148. https://​doi.org/​10.1007/​ s42​321-​020-​0 0052-​4 Wee, L. (2010). Neutrality in language policy. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 31(4), 421–​434. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​01434​632.2010.489​951 Wu, Y., & Lin, A.M.Y. (2019). Translanguaging and trans-​semiotising in a CLIL biology class in Hong Kong: Whole-​body sense-​m aking in the flow of knowledge co-​m aking. Classroom Discourse, 10(3–​ 4), 252–​273. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​19463​014.2019.1629​322 Zappa-​Hollman, S. (2018). Collaborations between language and content university instructors: Factors and indicators of positive partnerships. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21(5), 591–​606. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​13670 ​050.2018.1491​946 Zappa-​Hollman, S., & Fox, J.A. (2021). Engaging in linguistically responsive instruction: Insights from a first-​year university program for emergent multilingual learners. TESOL Quarterly, 55(4), 1081–​1091. https://​doi.org/​https://​doi.org/​10.1002/​tesq.3075

520

521

35 CLIL: FUTURE DIRECTIONS Tom Morton

Introduction In this final chapter, some tentative predictions are made about where CLIL research and practice may be heading in the next few years. The chapter begins with a broad-​brush sketch of the historical development of CLIL, tracing how it has evolved from being firmly positioned within foreign language learning and second language acquisition, through an ever-​broadening focus on language as a meaning-​m aking resource for learning subject matter, to an educational approach which aims to enhance the quality of the learning experience and outcomes for all learners, regardless of the language(s) used for instruction. The argument is that this current expansive phase of CLIL presents opportunities for its future development, but also some challenges. The four central sections of the chapter drill down into each of the components of the CLIL acronym, tracing developments over time, identifying current trends, and suggesting possible future directions. After this rather artificial breaking up of the acronym, the concluding section returns to a holistic view of CLIL, pointing out some conflicts and tensions which may affect its future development as a field of research and practice.

Historical sketch: from a foreign language to an educational approach In the 1990s, CLIL emerged as a solution to perceived inadequacies in the teaching and learning of foreign languages, especially in European contexts. There was a perception that communicative approaches to language learning were failing to motivate learners and were not achieving the desired outcome of producing a plurilingual and pluricultural workforce (Coyle, 2008). CLIL was seen as an umbrella term which could accommodate the myriad approaches to bilingual education, providing common reference points without imposing any specific models (Marsh, 2002). While differing in emphases from North American bilingual education approaches such as content-​based instruction and immersion, there was a shared theoretical underpinning in second language acquisition theory (Coyle, 2005). In the 2000s, CLIL moved away from a dependence on second language acquisition as a theoretical base, and there was a growing awareness of the implications of learning content in an additional language both at an individual (cognitive) level, and at the level of culture. DOI: 10.4324/9781003173151-42

521

Tom Morton

In Coyle’s (2002, see also Coyle et al., 2010) 4Cs Framework, CLIL was conceptualised as taking in the dimensions of content, cognition, communication, and culture. The communication dimension was further developed as the language triptych of language of, for, and through learning (Coyle et al., 2010). There was also growing interest in how classroom processes unfolded in CLIL contexts. This was seen in work which used discourse analysis techniques to focus on more functional and pragmatic uses of language (Dalton-​Puffer, 2007; Dalton-​Puffer & Nikula, 2006). By the beginning of the 2010s, there was a further shift towards seeing language in CLIL as the meaning-​m aking resources deployed by teachers and learners for the purposes of knowledge-​building in the respective disciplines in which CLIL was used. Llinares et al. (2012) combined socio-​cultural theory and systemic functional linguistics (SFL) to elucidate the different roles of language in CLIL in classroom communication, and in the registers and genres through which knowledge is construed in different CLIL subjects. Dalton-​ Puffer (2013) proposed the construct of cognitive discourse functions as a link between thinking processes and content learning objectives and their linguistic realisations in predictable patterns in classroom discourse. Later in that decade, the Graz group developed a pluriliteracies approach to CLIL (Meyer et al., 2015), in which conceptual and communication continua were combined to trace pathways towards deeper understanding of subject-​m atter content. The mid-​2010s could also be seen as an era when CLIL went through a rather introspective phase. As Pérez Cañado (2016) put it, CLIL had gone from being a ‘craze’ to being a ‘conundrum’. The enthusiastic, or even ‘evangelical’ tone (Banegas, 2011; Harrop, 2012) of the earlier phase gave way to terminological debates about the similarities and differences between CLIL and other bilingual education contexts, and some researchers began to express doubts about the validity of claims being made about the effectiveness of CLIL and to point out the dangers of it being an elitist project (Bruton, 2011, 2013). Although research on CLIL in European contexts had mushroomed, as Pérez Cañado (2012, p. 329) pointed out, few studies were ‘robust accounts of outcome-​oriented research where pertinent variables are factored in and controlled for’. This ‘introspective’ period also saw an intense theoretical interrogation of what CLIL was about, a notable example being the ConCLIL project in which the concept of integration was thoroughly examined from the three intersecting perspectives of curriculum and pedagogic planning, participant perceptions, and classroom practices (Nikula et al., 2016). Later in the decade, Llinares and Morton (2017), brought together a range of leading researchers from different sub-​fields in applied linguistics (second language acquisition, systemic functional linguistics, discourse analysis, and sociolinguistic approaches) to cast light on different aspects of CLIL from their theoretical perspectives. In terms of the different language learning programme types that the acronym CLIL was considered to cover, Mehisto et al. (2008) had taken a rather expansive view, with CLIL covering everything from language showers, student exchanges, work or study abroad to a range of types of immersion. However, Lasagabaster and Sierra (2010) claimed that there were clear differences between CLIL and immersion programmes. Taking a different view, Somers and Surmont (2012), Cenoz et al. (2014), and Cenoz (2015) argued that CLIL should not be seen as essentially distinct from other approaches such as content-​based language instruction and immersion. Dalton-​Puffer et al. (2014) highlighted the nature of CLIL as an ‘umbrella’ term, under which a variety of specific programme types could exist. As CLIL moved into the new decade of the 2020s, it seemed to have emerged from its introspective phase, with less emphasis on attempts to pinpoint what makes it different from other bilingual and multilingual educational approaches. In retrospect, it was probably an 522

CLIL: Future directions

impossible task to pin down CLIL in this way, and it led to confusion between seeing CLIL as a set of theoretical, conceptual, and practical tools for the integration of content and language, and as a descriptive label for any particular bilingual or multilingual educational programme (Morton & Llinares, 2017). Overcoming terminological debates has helped to create the conditions for increasing cross-​fertilisation between different bilingual and multilingual educational contexts, with researchers from different settings including world languages education, dual language/​immersion, and English-​medium instruction working together to solve issues and problems relevant to all aspects of content and language integration. Almost a decade ago, Cenoz (2013) pointed out that while CLIL understandably had a strong focus on language learning in its early days, it was time for a shift in focus towards seeing it as a wider educational approach. By 2018, Coyle was arguing that, because CLIL ‘straddled’ content and language learning, it could be reframed as a pedagogic, rather than a linguistic phenomenon. Building on the earlier work of the Graz group on pluriliteracies, Coyle and Meyer (2021) argue that the knowledge gained about the interface between content and language enables the field to move ‘beyond CLIL’. They argue that deeper learning and enabling students to become responsible global citizens can be facilitated through an explicit focus on disciplinary literacies, textual fluency, and cross-​cultural communication. CLIL can thus be seen as currently in expansive mode, as it moves beyond an exclusive concern with language(s) education towards presenting itself as a catalyst for providing higher quality deeper learning experiences for all learners, regardless of the language(s) of instruction. Whether extending the remit of CLIL in this way will bear fruit or turn out to be an example of overreach, only time will tell. In order to assess in more detail where we are now, and which new developments may await in the more immediate future, the following sections break down CLIL into its constituents, examining trends in how content, language and literacy, integration and learning/​learners are conceptualised.

Content in CLIL Content has been something of a poor relation in CLIL research and practice. As Coyle and Meyer (2021, p. 19) put it, ‘very little has been written in CLIL research about subject or thematic content in comparison with language-​related issues’. Villabona and Cenoz (2021) point out that, as most CLIL research has been carried out by applied linguists, the main concern has been to identify a lack of language focus by content teachers. They note that the opposite problem, that of language teachers not focusing enough on content, has not been given much attention. This lack of attention to content is surprising because content is the cornerstone of any planning for teaching and assessment in CLIL, as seen in Coyle et al.’s (2010, p. 115) clear position that content ‘should always be the dominant element in terms of objectives’. Coyle and Meyer (2021, p. 24) argue that ‘without clear definition and visibility of the kind of conceptual demands and related skills required by the subject content, deeper quality learning will not happen’. They identify three types of ‘content’ which can be the driving force in CLIL: the knowledge and skills as laid down by established curricula; flexible content as in project-​based or phenomenon-​based approaches; non-​specified content as in themes or topics decided by teachers and sometimes with learners. As yet, there are relatively few studies on content-​learning outcomes in CLIL, and those that do exist provide some rather contradictory results, with some studies reporting possible negative effects on content learning outcomes for CLIL learners, and others pointing to either no effect or even a positive effect. Anghel et al. (2016) found a significant negative effect on performance on a general knowledge test by 6th-​g rade primary students in Madrid 523

Tom Morton

who had been taught in English, and whose parents had less than upper secondary education. In a study of science learning outcomes of CLIL and non-​CLIL 6th-​g rade primary learners, Fernández-​Sanjurjo et al. (2019) found a slight advantage in content learning for the non-​ CLIL group over the CLIL group, with pupils of lower socio-​economic status performing at a lower level than their counterparts from more advantaged backgrounds. On the other hand, some studies show possible advantages in content learning for CLIL students. In a longitudinal study of first year CLIL secondary pupils in Flanders, Surmont et al. (2016) found a possible beneficial effect of CLIL on mathematics learning after even a relatively short period of exposure, with a CLIL group outperforming a control group on a mathematics test after only three months of the programme. Hughes and Madrid (2020) compared the science learning results of students in primary and secondary education in Andalucía (Spain). They found no significant difference between the science scores of CLIL and non-​CLIL primary pupils, although the non-​CLIL group had slightly higher mean scores. At the secondary level, the CLIL students significantly outperformed the non-​CLIL students in natural science. Commenting on this study, Rumlich (2020, p. 117) remarks that ‘the fact that CLIL students at secondary level even outperformed their non-​CLIL counterparts in content knowledge exceeds expectations and can be considered remarkable in the light of the (little) research that exists on this topic’. As CLIL continues to move into expansive mode as a catalyst for deeper learning across the curriculum, it is to be expected that there will be ever greater engagement with the key issues regarding content learning identified in this section. To date, there has been relatively little involvement of content specialists in thinking and scholarship on CLIL, even among researchers with a strong interest in language and discourse within their respective subjects. One future direction for CLIL research and practice, then, is that issues of content learning processes and outcomes will gain much more prominence, and this will require intense interdisciplinary collaboration for the development of new conceptual tools and rich theories of practice.

Language and literacy in CLIL Dale et al. (2018) describe three ‘lineages’ which influence many CLIL contexts, especially where L2 learning comes to the fore, and language teachers are the main protagonists. These are foreign language (FL) teaching, second language (SL) teaching, and mother tongue or first language (L1) teaching. They argue that CLIL, CBI, and immersion derive from both FL and SL lineages, EAL (English as an additional language) and sheltered instruction come from an SL lineage, and language and literacy across the curriculum are built on an L1 lineage. However, as seen in the historical trend described above, it seems to be that the influence of the FL lineage on CLIL may be weakening, and the L1 lineage strengthening. As CLIL has evolved over the past two decades, the ‘language’ component has extended beyond the initial concern with FL learning. Already, with Coyle’s (2002) 4Cs framework, there was a widening of the lens to encompass ‘communication’, and the language triptych (Coyle et al., 2010) marked out three ways in which ‘language’ could be understood in CLIL. Language of learning referred to the language needed for construing subject matter content, language for learning was the language used to enable participation in learning activities, and language through learning was new language developed through engaging in more advanced thinking processes. From there, it was a short step to recognise that a fuller understanding of language in CLIL entailed engagement with what Schleppegrell (2004) described as ‘the language of schooling’. Learning curriculum content could not be 524

CLIL: Future directions

seen as simply a communicative context for the development of general language skills. It was necessary to see language as a set of resources for meaning-​m aking in the context of learning different subjects on the school curriculum. Schleppegrell (2004) proposed that systemic functional linguistics (SFL) could provide the tools to describe, and support learners in acquiring, the academic literacies that enable them to access the powerful knowledge embedded in different subjects across the curriculum. In the context of CLIL, Llinares and McCabe (2020) argue that SFL is the ‘perfect match’ for integrating content and language learning. Llinares et al. (2012) applied tools from SFL to focus on subject literacies in CLIL, combining it with a Vygotskian socio-​cultural approach to learning. They set out a framework for describing and analysing the roles of language in CLIL in three dimensions: (1) classroom registers and communication patterns; (2) the registers and text types (genres) through which subject-​specific meanings are construed; (3) how learners’ spoken and written language develops in CLIL contexts and how it can be assessed in the context of content learning. This shift of perspective towards seeing CLIL as essentially concerned with the development of subject literacies was intensified by the Graz group’s pluriliteracies model (Meyer et al., 2015), which proposes that for deeper learning to occur, learners need to engage with the conceptual content and thinking processes involved in subject learning through increasing mastery of the text types (genres) through which they carry out the operations of doing, organising, explaining, and arguing. Around the same time (2013), Dalton-​Puffer posited the construct of cognitive discourse function, as a ‘zone of convergence’ between the kinds of thinking operations often listed as learning objectives (e.g., explaining, describing, defining, classifying, reporting, evaluating) and their verbalisations in recurring linguistic patterns in educational activity. Recently, work on cognitive discourse functions is being combined with systemic-​functional linguistics to provide new insights on meaning making processes in CLIL (e.g., Evnitskaya & Dalton-​Puffer, 2020). However, if cognitive discourse functions as a construct are to have an impact on practice they need to be, as Coyle (2018, p. 171) points out, ‘normalized into classroom processes’. This will entail intensive work between researchers, teacher educators, and practitioners to develop ways of making the construct meaningful and applicable in everyday classroom teaching and for assessment. Further evidence of the growing strength of the L1 lineage is the recent interest in the effect of CLIL on L1 attainment/​performance. In general, the little research that has been carried out on L1 performance in CLIL programmes has suggested that there are no detrimental effects. However, a recent study by Navarro-​Pablo and López Gándara (2020) provides evidence that participating in CLIL may even have a beneficial effect on students’ L1 skills and knowledge. They found that CLIL primary and secondary students significantly outperformed non-​CLIL students in Spanish language and literature in an end-​of-​ year assessment. As CLIL continues to be conceptualised as an educational rather than just a foreign language learning approach, it is to be expected that studies will focus on students’ language and literacy attainment in the round, and this will necessarily entail attention to L1 skills and knowledge. However, these trends in the evolution of CLIL do not mean that the FL and SL lineages are no longer relevant. These strands can be clearly seen in Lyster’s (2007) proposal for a ‘counterbalanced’ approach, which seeks to maintain a focus on linguistic form in the context of content learning as meaning-​focused activity. This approach posits that neither an exclusive focus on form isolated from meaningful activity nor a focus on meaning without attention to form are conducive to second language development. This line of thinking 525

Tom Morton

about language in CLIL, with its roots in the FL and SL lineages, has developed towards providing CLIL practitioners with sets of tools based on the socio-​cultural notion of scaffolding (Tedick & Lyster, 2019) with which to enhance language development in the context of content-​based language education. Another way in which the FL and SL lineages have manifested themselves has been in the research effort to investigate the effects of CLIL on L2 proficiency. Research studies on language learning outcomes in CLIL programmes have generally shown that learners in CLIL classrooms outperform their non-​CLIL counterparts. However, in spite of the overall picture of L2 proficiency advantages for CLIL over non-​CLIL learners, the results are not homogeneous across different areas of linguistic competence, with mixed results in receptive skills (reading seems to improve more than listening) and overall positive results in speaking and writing (Ruiz de Zarobe, 2015). In terms of grammar and vocabulary, Ruiz de Zarobe (2015) describes the results of participating in CLIL as more mixed, with receptive vocabulary faring better than productive vocabulary, and with inconclusive evidence on the effects on morphosyntax. Positive findings on the effects on L2 competence could be seen as rather unsurprising given that participation in CLIL programmes usually entails more exposure to the FL. There may also be selection effects with already more proficient or highly motivated students opting for CLIL programmes, or failure to control for starting levels of English in control and experimental groups (Bruton, 2011). More recently, some researchers have taken more methodological care to ensure the homogeneity of CLIL and non-​CLIL groups. One example is Martínez Agudo’s (2020) longitudinal study in the ‘monolingual’ context of Extremadura (Spain). The study found that, within state schools, CLIL groups outperformed non-​CLIL groups in English language competence, and this effect was still in evidence a year after completing the CLIL programme. However, there were no statistically significant differences between the English language attainment of state school CLIL pupils and non-​ CLIL students in semi-​private fee-​paying schools. Studies such as this point to the crucial importance of context when looking at possible effects of CLIL on L2 competence, in this case whether the study takes place in a mono-​or multi-​lingual context, or whether the schools are state or private. Rumlich (2020) notes that the results on L2 competence seem to be more positive in Spain than in northern European countries. Perhaps the most interesting trend regarding the conceptualisation of ‘language’ in CLIL, and one which transcends the FL, SL, and L1 lineages, is the growing interest in the construct of translanguaging. The term has its origins in the pedagogical approach developed in Wales by Cen Williams (trawsieithu in Welsh) in which the two languages (English and Welsh) could be used systematically in classroom activities. However, the use of the term has been developed by researchers such as Li Wei and Ofelia García (García & Li, 2014) into a ‘practical theory of language’ (Li, 2018). Translanguaging shifts the focus from ‘languages’ as political or territorial constructs existing separately from each other in an individual’s linguistic repertoire to seeing ‘language’ as the deployment of all of a user’s linguistic and other meaning-​m aking resources in acts of communication. It is a theory of language with wide implications for all language education programmes, as it calls into question the separation of ‘languages’ into silos sealed off from each other. This is particularly relevant for CLIL, as it has been accused of being ‘a notable manifestation of diehard monolingualism’ (Hall & Cook, 2012, p. 297). Not surprisingly, the surge of interest in the construct of translanguaging has been felt in CLIL research. Nikula and Moore (2019) use a translanguaging lens to examine classroom data from CLIL classrooms in Austria, Finland, and Spain. They provide evidence that 526

CLIL: Future directions

bilingual practices are common in CLIL classrooms, and can be used for a range of purposes, among which are orienting to learning content or language, making sure that the interaction flows along, or simply treating the classroom as a bilingual space. Lin and He (2017) conceptualise translanguaging in CLIL classrooms in Hong Kong as ‘dynamic activity flows’, seen in ‘naturally occurring speech/​action events during which participants of multilingual/​ multicultural backgrounds deploy their multilingual/​multicultural resources’ (p. 242). They see this as challenging what they describe as the ‘monolingual pedagogical principle’ in traditional education, which advocates that one language should be used in one classroom. Instead, translanguaging is valued as providing pedagogical resources and allowing students to affirm their identities. Studies such as these, which affirm the value of translanguaging in CLIL contexts, may serve to reinforce teachers’ confidence in encouraging the use of all linguistic resources at their learners’ disposal, and may reduce the need for ‘language policing’ or enforcing monolingual norms ( Jakonen, 2016). Recent work on translanguaging has extended the concept to trans-​semiotising (Wu & Lin, 2019). This approach sees meaning-​m aking as the deployment of a combination of semiotic resources, including language (L1, L2, ‘everyday’, ‘scientific’), drawings and other diagrams, and the teacher’s voice and gestures. This approach ties in with what can be seen as a multimodal turn in research on multilingual (including CLIL) classrooms, as seen in work such as Evnitskaya and Jakonen (2017) or Forey and Polias (2017). In this perspective, ‘language’ or ‘communication’ in CLIL transcends the three lineages of FL, SL and L1 to take in a much wider range of meaning-​m aking resources. Such views challenge the idea of CLIL as a solution to the learning of officially demarcated ‘languages’ such as English or Spanish and broadens its purview to see it as framework for understanding and developing multilingual and multi-​semiotic practices to engage students in deeper learning of curriculum content while affirming their multilingual identities. It is a fairly safe prediction that such work will continue to be developed, and any remaining vestiges of CLIL as ‘diehard monolingualism’ will hopefully fade into the distant past.

Conceptualising integration in CLIL It is integration that makes CLIL a distinctive educational approach, distinguishing it from both foreign language teaching and the teaching of other subjects across the curriculum. As Coyle (2018, p. 168) puts it, integration ‘lies at the heart of CLIL’. A major advance in thinking about integration in CLIL was made with the publication of Nikula, Dafouz, Moore and Smit’s (2016a) edited volume which conceptualised integration from three perspectives: curriculum and pedagogy planning, participant perspectives, and classroom practices. Distinguishing these three perspectives allows us to get a firmer grasp on the ‘complexity of integration’ (Nikula et al., 2016b), and we can begin to ask questions about how we can plan for integration at the curriculum level, how participants see integration as a concern, and how it emerges in classroom practices. From a participant perspective, the key protagonists are the teachers who are expected to carry out the complex task of integration. Studies on CLIL teachers often focus on their beliefs, and these beliefs may not always be conducive to successful content and language integration, at least in its more explicit forms. In a study on CLIL teachers’ beliefs on integration in Finland, Austria, and Spain, Skinnari and Bovellan (2016) found that the teachers saw content and language integration happening in their classrooms ‘in a natural and dynamic way’ (p. 165), and that separating them would be artificial. CLIL teachers who have a content teaching background may eschew an explicit focus on language as they feel it may be 527

Tom Morton

detrimental to having a relaxed classroom atmosphere. For example, the content teacher in Villabona and Cenoz’s (2021) study believed that students should know that they will not be punished for language errors, and that it was important to keep ‘a relaxed atmosphere in class without language pressures’ (p. 9). This study reflects earlier findings by Hüttner et al. (2013), who found that the teachers in their study were keen to de-​emphasise any explicit integration of language with content teaching, as it might have a negative effect on the relaxed atmosphere in their classes. Successful integration in CLIL, then, depends not only on clarity of aims and priorities concerning the model of integration, but also crucially on teachers having beliefs which are consistent with the advocated approach. However, they need to not only believe that integration is possible and desirable, but also have the knowledge and skills to bring it about. For many teachers, acquiring a new identity as a content and a language teacher is a long and painful struggle, as vividly depicted by Cammarata and Tedick (2012) in a study of immersion teachers in North America. These authors argued that the teachers in the study lacked pedagogical content knowledge for integration of content and language. Given that, as we have seen, integration is such a complex issue, it is hardly surprising that many teachers will lack this kind of knowledge. Troyan et al. (2017) posit that there is a special kind of knowledge for integration, which they call integration pedagogical content knowledge (I–​PCK), which teachers need to effectively integrate content and language. In terms of future trends, there is still a need to make progress on conceptualising the kind of pedagogical content knowledge that teachers need for successful integration. The first steps are being taken in this area, as seen in the work of Troyan, Cammarata, and Martel cited above, but more work needs to be done, perhaps in the context of the pluriliteracies approach as advocated by Coyle and Meyer (2021) or through working with teachers on constructs such as cognitive discourse functions (Morton & Llinares, forthcoming). In this context, a promising new line of research shifts the focus from teachers to teacher educators, such as the study by Cammarata and Cavanagh (2020), which examines immersion teacher educators’ (ITEs) knowledge base for the integration of content, language, and literacy in curriculum planning and teaching. One area in which integration comes to the fore, and which has suffered from neglect until recently, is that of assessment. Assessment has long been seen as a thorny issue in CLIL, with teachers unsure about how to assess content and language in an integrated way, and which are the most appropriate assessment methods to use (Otto & Estrada, 2019, p. 32). However, the most notable recent advance in conceptualising and considering practice in assessment in CLIL is the publication of deBoer and Leontjev’s (2020) edited volume which presents a conceptual basis for assessment in CLIL along with practical approaches and activities for classroom application. This is a long-​needed advance and is sure to stimulate a new wave of interest in assessment in CLIL at both the theoretical and the practical levels.

Conceptualising learning and learners in CLIL From relatively early in the development of CLIL, leading proponents took a position regarding models of learning compatible with the approach. Coyle (2002) argued that ‘more traditional transmission models for content delivery which conceptualise the subject as a body of knowledge to be transferred from teacher to learner may no longer be appropriate’ (p. 27). There was a trend towards seeing CLIL as advocating a constructivist approach to learning, with Harrop (2012, p. 58) noting that ‘CLIL also regenerates content teaching by fostering cognitive development and flexibility in the learner through its constructivist 528

CLIL: Future directions

approach’. In this sense, then, CLIL advocates were not neutral when it came to taking a stance about the models of learning that teachers of non-​language academic subjects in CLIL programmes should espouse. This was irrespective of any debates about approaches to learning that may have been going on within the subject areas themselves, for example the vigorous debates about the role of constructivism in science education (Taber, 2019). Other CLIL proponents and researchers have positioned themselves within a more socio-​cultural perspective on learning, which sees individual development as mediated through dialogue and social interaction (Mercer & Howe, 2012). For example, Llinares et al. (2012) draw on Mortimer and Scott’s (2003) Vygotskian socio-​cultural and Bakhtinian dialogic approach to knowledge-​building in classroom interaction. Coyle and Meyer’s (2021) pluriliteracies approach is designed to foster what the authors describe as ‘deeper learning’. This is a conceptualisation of learning that strongly emphasises subject-​specific ways of building and communicating about knowledge, and the ability to transfer this knowledge to other domains. It is an approach that recognises that the acquisition of knowledge and skills is deeply contextualised in the cultures and practices of different educational settings and communities. It is only with deep engagement with these practices, both in terms of conceptual domains and patterns of communication, that learners will be able to truly adapt and transfer such learning to solve problems in other domains. Turning from learning to learners, two cross-​cutting dimensions can be identified –​individual cognitive and affective factors (such as motivation), and social factors, such as how socio-​cultural and socio-​economic background affect learner attainment and opportunity in CLIL programmes. Lasagabaster (2019) points out that the limited research so far on motivation in CLIL broadly supports the findings in EFL research based on the three components of Dörnyei’s (2009) L2 motivational self-​system. That is, motivation in CLIL relates to the learner’s vision of a future self who is proficient in the L2 (the ideal L2 self ), the sense of an obligation to learn due to social pressure (the ought-​to L2 self ), and positive experiences of participating in CLIL (the L2 learning experience). However, Lasagabaster warns that CLIL research on motivation suffers from methodological shortcomings, such as the wide variety of constructs for motivation used by researchers, the overuse of ad hoc questionnaires, and a failure to collect baseline data for studies which compare CLIL and non-​CLIL groups (2019, p. 358). One possible weakness in CLIL research on motivation is that it tends to focus on motivation to learn the L2, rather than motivation for CLIL as such. Somers and Llinares (2021) address this gap by addressing CLIL learners’ motivation not only to learn the L2, but for content and language learning as an integrated construct, which they term ‘CLIL motivation’. They show variations in CLIL motivation in a context where students are placed in higher or lower density CLIL streams, and suggest that future studies could focus on how CLIL motivation and attitudes evolve in different contexts, as well as looking at relations between a number of factors, such as different proficiency levels, CLIL motivation, and students’ classroom participation. Turning to the social dimension of the effect of CLIL on diversity and equity for learners, there is growing interest in how the benefits of CLIL can be brought to all learners, and in examining in a more rigorous and critical fashion who benefits and who may lose out, especially in large-​scale CLIL programmes. Misgivings about possible elitism in CLIL are not new (Bruton, 2011, 2013), with the suspicion that CLIL programmes tended to cream off the higher-​achieving and more motivated learners. The large-​scale roll out of CLIL in countries such as Spain has been seen as contributing to social hierarchisation processes. Martín-​ Rojo (2013) argued that immigrant pupils who spoke languages other than the languages of instruction (Spanish and English) at home, were ‘de-​capitalised’ in CLIL programmes, 529

Tom Morton

as their language resources were not seen as legitimate in classroom interactions. Relaño-​ Pastor (2018) argues that the large-​scale roll-​out of CLIL programmes such as those seen in Spain needs to be seen in the context of how the global spread of English is tied in with neoliberalism and the commodification of the language. While these studies, and others, may lead to misgivings about the effects of CLIL on learners in terms of winners and losers, there is still a long way to go to gain a better understanding of the effects of CLIL on learner equity, and the possibility of selection and elitism. As Pérez Cañado (2020) points out, the research on elitism in CLIL is still at an ‘embryonic stage’, and the results are ‘mixed, if not contradictory’ (p. 7). At the policy level, issues of selection may be eased where bilingual education is offered to all children in schools, without selection. Pérez Cañado notes that this offers promising possibilities for future research, allowing researchers to ‘look at how learners with different levels of L2 achievement and aptitude function in mainstream CLIL programmes and to identify optimal ways to cater for learner diversity within CLIL’ (2020, p. 15). She highlights the possibility that CLIL may mitigate the effect of socio-​cultural and socio-​economic differences on L2 attainment (p. 15). Hidalgo-​McCabe and Fernández-​González (2019) argue that CLIL research ‘has moved in the direction of incorporating approaches that support content and language learning for all learners in order to promote greater inclusivity’ (p. 85). Madrid and Pérez Cañado (2018) provide examples of approaches which can be used to encourage better attention to diversity and inclusivity in CLIL programmes, particularly for learners with special educational needs. However, there is still much room to broaden the focus on equity, diversity, and inclusivity in CLIL research to include a wider range of equity issues, such as gender identification, religious and other cultural factors, and other types of language hierarchies. Future research from a more critical perspective could disentangle the effects of large-​scale policies, which indeed may be involved in social hierarchisation effects, from the application of CLIL as a set of pedagogical resources for the integration of content, language, and literacy for all learners, regardless of ability, socio-​economic status, or other individual or cultural factors.

Conclusion This chapter has presented an historical overview of the main stages in the evolution of CLIL from being an approach to language education to being a pedagogical proposal for enhancing learning across the curriculum. As CLIL moves out of its introspective period and into a more expansive mode, consolidating the trend towards being an educational approach, this will have implications for future priorities for policymakers, practitioners and researchers. Summarising the key issues in each of the four sections on the parts of the CLIL acronym, it is likely that some future trends in CLIL will be: 1. Increasing interdisciplinary collaboration between applied linguists and content specialists, at the levels of research, teacher education, and classroom practice. 2. Further intensification of functional and semiotic perspectives on ‘language’ in CLIL, with increasing emphasis on the use of multilingual and multimodal resources. The idea of translanguaging has yet to be fully explored at the levels of research and practice, so work based on this construct is likely to gather pace. 3. Growing interest in the teachers’ and teacher educators’ knowledge-​base for the integration of content, language, and literacy, with a view to developing models and frameworks for CLIL teacher education. 530

CLIL: Future directions

4. Increasing interest in the conceptual bases and practical approaches to assessment in CLIL. 5. Increasing interest in questions of elitism, equity, and diversity in CLIL. As CLIL expands into an educational solution across the curriculum, there will be increased emphasis on ensuring that its benefits are available to all learners regardless of ascribed ability levels, socio-​economic status or other social and cultural factors. Critical perspectives on CLIL which turn the spotlight on possible hierarchisation effects and commodification (particularly of English) are likely to gain more importance. As CLIL is seen more and more as a broadly educational approach rather than as a solution to perceived problems in FL learning, this will bring opportunities and challenges. The insights which have accumulated from over 20 years of CLIL indeed have much to contribute to the betterment of learning opportunities for all learners, particularly with the greater understanding of the roles of language and literacy it has brought. CLIL may find new adepts beyond the confines of applied linguistics and FL education. In order to make sure that all benefit from this, particularly learners, there will need to be an intensification of interdisciplinary collaboration –​not just between teachers of languages and those of other content, but also between researchers. It is something of a pity that CLIL has not engaged as much as it could have with those across other disciplines with a strong interest in language and discourse in the pedagogy of their subjects. Hopefully, this will change in the near future. However, as CLIL moves away from its original focus on L2 learning, it may leave behind those whose key interest is in bringing the benefits of learning meaningful content to second, foreign, or world language education. There is still plenty to understand about how learning non-​language content can benefit L2 development, and the roles of implicit learning and more/​less focus on form and meaning. It may be that the distinction between ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ CLIL will widen, with the softer version being seen as a solution to language learning problems in some contexts, such as in Japan (Tsuchiya & Pérez-​Murillo, 2019). CLIL is very much a contextual phenomenon, understood in different ways in different places. It may be that some will want to go down the road that takes us ‘beyond’ CLIL, while others may be just starting out on the journey and see CLIL as being the answer to some of the questions it was designed to respond to in its earlier versions.

Further reading Coyle, D., & Meyer, O. (2021). Beyond CLIL: Pluriliteracies teaching for deeper learning. Cambridge University Press. This book presents a framework for ‘deeper learning’ that goes beyond CLIL as a solution to language-​ learning problems or even simply the integration of content and language. It offers an approach to learning based on explicit teaching of disciplinary literacies that can be applied right across the curriculum. Leontjev, D., & DeBoer, M. (Eds.). (2020). Assessment and learning in content and language integrated learning (CLIL) classrooms: Approaches and conceptualisations. Springer Nature. A much needed and timely book-​length treatment of what has for long been seen as a thorny issue in CLIL: assessment. A strength of this book is its focus on formative, classroom assessment. Tedick, D.J., & Lyster, R. (2019). Scaffolding language development in immersion and dual language classrooms. Routledge. This book has a strong theoretical base yet has a very practical orientation and reflects the authors’ wide-​ ranging and extensive experience in the fields of immersion and content-​based language education.

531

Tom Morton

References Anghel, B., Cabrales, A., & Carro, J.M. (2016). Evaluating a bilingual education program in Spain: the impact beyond foreign language learning. Economic Inquiry, 54(2), 1202–​1223. Banegas, D.L. (2011). A review of ‘CLIL: Content and language integrated learning’. Language and Education, 25(2), 182–​185. Bruton, A. (2011). Is CLIL so beneficial, or just selective? Re-​evaluating some of the research. System, 39(4), 523–​532. Bruton, A. (2013). CLIL: Some of the reasons why … and why not. System, 41(3), 587–​597. Cammarata, L., & Cavanagh, M. (2020). In search of immersion teacher educators’ knowledge base. In L. Cammarata & T.J. Ó Ceallaigh (Eds.), Teacher development for immersion and content-​based instruction (pp. 39–​66). John Benjamins. Cammarata, L., & Tedick, D.J. (2012). Balancing content and language in instruction: The experience of immersion teachers. The Modern Language Journal, 96(2), 251–​269. Cenoz, J. (2013). Discussion: Towards an educational perspective in CLIL language policy and pedagogical practice. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16(3), 389–​394. Cenoz, J. (2015). Content-​based instruction and content and language integrated learning: The same or different? Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28(1), 8–​24. Cenoz, J., Genesee, F., & Gorter, D. (2014). Critical analysis of CLIL: Taking stock and looking forward. Applied Linguistics, 35(3), 243–​262. Coyle, D. (2002). Relevance of CLIL to the European Commission language learning objectives. In D. Marsh (Ed.), CLIL/​EMILE European Dimension: Actions, Trends and Foresight Potential. European Commission, Public Services Contract DG 3406/​0 01-​0 01. Coyle, D. (2005). Developing CLIL: Towards a theory of practice. APAC Monograph 6. APAC Barcelona. Coyle D. (2008). CLIL: A pedagogical approach from the European perspective. In N.H. Hornberger (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and education (pp. 1200–​1214). Springer. Coyle, D. (2018). The place of CLIL in (bilingual) education, Theory into Practice, 57(3), 166–​176. Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge University Press. Coyle, D., & Meyer, O. (2021). Beyond CLIL: Pluriliteracies teaching for deeper learning. Cambridge University Press. Dale, L., Oostdam, R., & Verspoor, M. (2018). Searching for identity and focus: Towards an analytical framework for language teachers in bilingual education. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21(3), 366–​383. Dalton-​Puffer, C. (2007). Discourse in content and language integrated learning (CLIL) classrooms. John Benjamins. Dalton-​Puffer, C. (2013). A construct of cognitive discourse functions for conceptualising content-​ language integration in CLIL and multilingual education. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 216–​253. 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. Dalton-​Puffer, C., & Nikula, T. (2006). Pragmatics of content-​based instruction: Teacher and student directives in Finnish and Austrian classrooms. Applied Linguistics, 27(2), 241–​267. deBoer, M., & Leontjev, D. (2020). Assessment and learning in content and language integrated learning (CLIL) classrooms: Approaches and conceptualisations. Springer. Dörnyei, Z. (2009). The L2 motivational self system. In Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp. 9–​42). Multilingual Matters. Evnitskaya, N., & Dalton-​Puffer, C. (2020). Cognitive discourse functions in CLIL classrooms: eliciting and analysing students’ oral categorizations in science and history. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. Evnitskaya, N., & Jakonen, T. (2017). Multimodal conversation analysis and CLIL classroom practices. In A. Llinares & T. Morton (Eds.), Applied linguistics perspectives on CLIL (pp. 201–​220). John Benjamins.

532

CLIL: Future directions Fernández-​Sanjurjo, J., Fernández-​Costales, A., & Arias Blanco, J.M. (2019). Analysing students’ content-​learning in science in CLIL vs. non-​CLIL programmes: Empirical evidence from Spain. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 22(6), 661–​674. Forey, G., & Polias, J. (2017). Multi-​ semiotic resources providing maximal input in teaching science through English. In A. Llinares & T. Morton (Eds.), Applied linguistics perspectives on CLIL (pp. 145–​164). John Benjamins. García, O., & Li, W. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism and education. Palgrave Macmillan. Hall, G., & Cook, G. (2012). Own-​language use in language teaching and learning: state of the art. Language Teaching, 45(3), 271–​308. Harrop, E. (2012). Content and language integrated learning (CLIL): Limitations and possibilities. Encuentro, 21, 57–​70. Hidalgo-​McCabe, E.A., & Fernández-​González, N. (2019). Framing ‘choice’ in language education: The case of freedom in constructing inequality. In L. Martín-​Rojo & A. Del Percio (Eds.), Language and neoliberal governmentality (pp. 69–​90). Routledge. Hughes, S.P., & Madrid, D. (2020). The effects of CLIL on content knowledge in monolingual contexts. The Language Learning Journal, 48(1), 48–​59. Hüttner, J., Dalton-​Puffer, C., & Smit, U. (2013). The power of beliefs: Lay theories and their influence on the implementation of CLIL programmes. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16(3), 267–​284. Jakonen, T. (2016). Managing multiple normativities in classroom interaction: Student responses to teacher reproaches for inappropriate language choice in a bilingual classroom. Linguistics and Education, 33, 14–​27. Lasagabaster, D. (2019). Motivation in content and language integrated learning (CLIL) research. In M. Lamb, K. Csizér, A. Henry, & S. Ryan (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of motivation for language learning (pp. 347–​366). Palgrave Macmillan. Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J.M. (2010). Immersion and CLIL in English: More differences than similarities. ELT Journal, 64(4), 367–​375. Li, W. (2018). Translanguaging as a practical theory of language. Applied Linguistics, 39(1), 9–​30. Lin, A.M.Y., & He, P. (2017). Translanguaging as dynamic activity flows in CLIL classrooms. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 16(4), 228–​244. Llinares, A., & McCabe, A. (2020). Systemic functional linguistics: the perfect match for content and language integrated learning [Special issue]. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 1–​6. Llinares, A., & Morton, T. (Eds.). (2017). Applied linguistics perspectives on CLIL. John Benjamins. Llinares, A., Morton, T., & Whittaker, R. (2012). The roles of language in CLIL. Cambridge University Press. Lyster, R. (2007). Learning and teaching languages through content: A counterbalanced approach. John Benjamins. Madrid, D., & Pérez Cañado, M.L. (2018). Innovations and challenges in attending to diversity through CLIL. Theory into Practice, 57(3), 241–​249. Marsh, D. (Ed.). (2002). CLIL/​EMILE –​The European dimension: Actions, trends and foresight potential. Public Services Contract DG EAC, European Commission, Strasbourg. Martínez Agudo, J.D.D. (2020). The impact of CLIL on English language competence in a monolingual context: A longitudinal perspective. The Language Learning Journal, 48(1), 36–​47. Martín-​Rojo, L. (2013). (De)capitalizing students through linguistic practices: A comparative analysis of new educational programmes in a global era. In A. Duchêne, M. Moyer, & C. Roberts (Eds.), Language, migration and social inequalities: A critical sociolinguistic perspective on institutions and work (Vol. 2). Multilingual Matters. Mehisto, P., Marsh, D., & Frigols, M.J. (2008). Uncovering CLIL content and language integrated learning in bilingual and multilingual education. Macmillan. Mercer, N., & Howe, C. (2012). Explaining the dialogic processes of teaching and learning: The value and potential of sociocultural theory. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 1(1), 12–​21. 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-​m aking. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28(1), 41–​57.

533

Tom Morton Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. McGraw-​H ill Education. Morton, T., & Llinares, A. (2017). Content and language integrated learning (CLIL): Type of programme or pedagogical model? In A. Llinares & T. Morton (Eds.), Applied linguistics perspectives on CLIL (pp. 1–​16). John Benjamins. Morton, T., & Llinares, A. (forthcoming). Building teachers’ knowledge of cognitive discourse functions to integrate content and language: A semantic analysis. In S. Ballinger, R. Fielding, & D.J. Tedick (Eds.), International perspectives on teacher education for immersion and content-​based contexts. Multilingual Matters. Navarro-​Pablo, M., & López Gándara, Y. (2020). The effects of CLIL on L1 competence development in monolingual contexts. The Language Learning Journal, 48(1), 18–​35. Nikula, T., Dafouz, E., Moore, P., & Smit, U. (Eds.). (2016a). Conceptualising integration in CLIL and multilingual education. Multilingual Matters. Nikula, T., Dalton-​Puffer, C., Llinares, A., & Lorenzo, F. (2016b). 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–​25). Multilingual Matters. Nikula, T., & Moore, P. (2019). Exploring translanguaging in CLIL. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 22(2), 237–​249. Otto, A., & Estrada, J.L. (2019). Towards an understanding of CLIL assessment practices in a European context: Main assessment tools and the role of language in content subjects. CLIL: Journal of Innovation and Research in Plurilingual and Pluricultural Education, 2(1), 31–​42. Pérez Cañado, M.L. (2012). CLIL research in Europe: Past, present, and future. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 15(3), 315–​341. Pérez Cañado, M.L. (2016). From the CLIL craze to the CLIL conundrum: Addressing the current CLIL controversy. Bellaterra Journal of Teaching and Learning Language and Literature, 9(1), 9–​31. Pérez Cañado, M.L. (2020). CLIL and elitism: myth or reality? The Language Learning Journal, 48(1), 4–​17. Relaño-​Pastor, A.M. (2018). Bilingual education policy and neoliberal content and language integrated learning practices. In J.W. Tollefson & M. Pérez-​M ilans (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of language policy and planning (pp. 505–​525). Oxford University Press. Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (2015). The effects of implementing CLIL in education. In M. Juan-​Garau & J. Salazar-​ Noguera (Eds.), Content-​ based language learning in multilingual educational environments (pp. 51–​68). Springer. Rumlich, D. (2020). Bilingual education in monolingual contexts: A comparative perspective. The Language Learning Journal, 48(1), 115–​119. Schleppegrell, M.J. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective. Routledge. Skinnari, K., & Bovellan, E. (2016). CLIL teachers’ beliefs about integration and about their professional roles: Perspectives from a European context. In T. Nikula, E. Dafouz, P. Moore, & U. Smit (Eds.), Conceptualising integration in CLIL and multilingual education (pp. 145–​167). Multilingual Matters. Somers, T., & Llinares, A. (2021). Students’ motivation for content and language integrated learning and the role of programme intensity. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 24(6), 839–​854. Somers, T., & Surmont, J. (2012). CLIL and immersion: How clear-​cut are they? ELT Journal, 66(1), 113–​116. Surmont, J., Struys, E., Van Den Noort, M., & Van De Craen, P. (2016). The effects of CLIL on mathematical content learning: A longitudinal study. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 6(2), 319–​337. Taber, K.S. (2019). Constructivism in education: Interpretations and criticisms from science education. In Information Resources Management Association (Ed.), Early childhood development: Concepts, methodologies, tools, and applications (pp. 312–​342). IGI Global. Tedick, D.J., & Lyster, R. (2019). Scaffolding language development in immersion and dual language classrooms. Routledge. Troyan, F.J., Cammarata, L., & Martel, J. (2017). Integration PCK: Modeling the knowledge(s) underlying a world language teacher’s implementation of CBI. Foreign Language Annals, 50(2), 458–​476.

534

CLIL: Future directions Tsuchiya, K., & Pérez-​Murillo, M.D. (Eds.). (2019). Content and language integrated learning in Spanish and Japanese contexts: Policy, practice and pedagogy. Springer Nature. Villabona, N., & Cenoz, J. (2021). The integration of content and language in CLIL: A challenge for content-​d riven and language-​d riven teachers. Language, Culture and Curriculum. DOI:10.1080/​ 07908318.2021.1910703. Wu, Y., & Lin, A.M. (2019). Translanguaging and trans-​semiotising in a CLIL biology class in Hong Kong: Whole-​body sense-​m aking in the flow of knowledge co-​m aking. Classroom Discourse, 10(3–​ 4), 252–​273.

535

536

36 CODA Carpe diem Do Coyle

Introduction The inherent complexities of learning and teaching and the role played by language(s) are well documented across an increasingly wide range of global contexts. Specific achievements, goals, challenges, and turns in plurilingual education transcend boundaries and resonate throughout this volume. While the evolution of content and language integrated learning (CLIL) over several decades has gone through distinct phases of development –​enacting, experimenting, and responding to diverse pedagogical, socio-​political, and economic exigencies, I wish to offer just two wicked learning provocations relating to CLIL, which may contribute to futures thinking for integrated, sustainable learning across a broad range of contexts. These provocations are built on the premise that legitimising practices that create inclusive learning spaces or learnscapes across ages, stages, and communities, is fundamental for CLIL to adapt to uncertainties on a global, national, and local basis. As seascapes and landscapes are dynamic and in a state of constant change, so too the concept of learning spaces or learnscapes. When educators promote principled adaptation and pedagogic reflexivity, they explore with learners the potential of plurilingual spaces for creating transformative experiences. Big rhetoric! And yet… If plurilingual education is to become legitimised as inclusive learnscapes, it will require: 1. Investment in reconceptualising professional learning across curricula boundaries; 2. Radical rethink of internationalisation in tertiary education.

Learning provocation 1: focusing on reconceptualising professional learning At a time of unprecedented social, technological, and ecological change, confronting global concerns through localised priorities has become a reality. We are familiar with reactive change; yet transforming change into responsible pedagogic activism presents familiar and unfamiliar challenges which break away from siloed thinking and embrace uncertainty. Tauritz (2016) in her insightful and now lived-​through model of Pedagogies of Uncertainty, redefines life skills in terms of learning to cherish, tolerate, and reduce uncertainty offering 536

DOI: 10.4324/9781003173151-43

Coda: Carpe diem

a catalyst for creative action, risk taking, reflexivity, and connected, shared thinking. It is through connecting with and significantly contributing to holistic learning agendas, that CLIL becomes truly integrated. In other words, CLIL is not detached from any other context for learning –​given that contextual variables such as linguistic status and language(s) medium are fundamental to any learning design. Take, for example, diversity. Unravelling issues of accessibility, inclusion and social justice define how we might enable all students to experience learning relevant to and appropriate for our multicultural, multilingual world. The expediency of responsiveness brought about through ever-​increasing mobility of peoples is not enough. So-​called monolingual classrooms also require the careful inclusion of multilingual, multicultural experiences. Diversity is not a pedagogic inconvenience but a fundamental human condition that embraces multiple ethnicities, cultures, languages, abilities, sexuality, ages, and so on. This positioning defines integrated CLIL approaches to ‘curriculum’ as inclusive involving moves such as decolonising educational experiences, critically exploring phenomena from alternative perspectives, promoting sustainability and assuring health and wellbeing of all learners. These principles require extensive pedagogic rethinking. Phipps (2021, p. 9) argues that the decolonisation agenda promotes: principles for action and approaches, focuses on praxis, on the need to experiment, and try out approaches, not least to devise and improvise. It offers a prospect of enhanced creativity and a breadth of learning contexts outside traditional institutions in future, together with technological and community resourcing of languages. Normalising the plurality of practices that inclusivity demands, however, disrupts mainstream educational thinking –​CLIL is no exception. Morreira et al. (2020, p.2) describe the proliferation of theoretical debates that ‘cut across individual disciplines … taken up in multiple ways from varying contextual and disciplinary perspectives’. They also identify gaps in what is referred to as pluriversal implementation i.e., through practices that embrace many worlds, nurture respect and reciprocity, and value different ways of community building. While at its core, teaching is a moral profession (Fullan, 1993, p. 1), familiarisation with discourses that value diversity and inclusion and their transformation into pedagogical practices relies on transformative modes of teacher cognition and professional learning that build professional confidence, criticality, and agentic opportunities to do some things differently. Notwithstanding increasing awareness by CLIL teachers of the classroom implications and potential of working in plurilingual and pluricultural domains, some underlying principled and practice-​led issues remain unresolved. Take, for example, repositioning language in the CLIL classroom –​the ‘elephant in the room’. The need to redefine the roles of language and languages as tools not only for communication but essentially as resources for deepening learning through developing interculturality and criticality in CLIL classrooms, is a priority. Over a decade ago, Dalton-​Puffer’s plea to ‘transcend such an understanding that conceptualizes language and curricular content as separate reified entities and instead think of them as one process’ (Dalton-​Puffer, 2011, p. 196) has not transparently impacted professional learning in ways that significantly challenge teacher cognition, identities, responsibilities and power struggles. Wicked questions about bounded subject teaching or language competences and practices sustain binary thinking and remain unanswered. The gap between dynamic theoretical thinking and critical pedagogic action is increasing as the ‘busyness’ of teaching and learning intensifies. 537

Do Coyle

Consider the more recent literacies turn in plurilingual education, described by Morton in Chapter 35 of this volume. Another opportunity opens for CLIL teachers to find their voice in exploring and being supported in shifting from the legacy of siloed monolingual education and language learning to fit-​for-​purpose pedagogies; to find their voice in a radical rethink of teacher education; to build spaces that legitimise uncertainties; and to experiment and apply shifting theoretical models and frameworks. The bottom-​up voice predicated on practitioner-​researcher alliance is critical. Developing CLIL teacher-​learner shared understanding of language(s) as a means to embedding content-​related critical literacies and pluriversal competences is evolving as a means of opening dialogue beyond CLIL-​ specific learning communities and connecting with mainstream educational agendas. More recent plur iliteracies moves (Coyle & Meyer, 2021) suggest that bringing learner competencies such as textual fluency and translanguaging into the mix can align and connect with first language education to support refocusing both teacher and student linguistic competences and subject discipline advancement. While a call for greater investment in professional learning across curricula boundaries may seem at odds in current global economies, educational institutions are expected to engage in continuous renewal, and change expectations are constantly swirling around them … the way teachers are trained, the way schools are organized, the way the educational hierarchy operates, and the way political decision makers treat educators, results in a system that is more likely to retain the status quo. Fullan, 1993, p. 3 However, when investment in reconceptualising professional learning for CLIL teachers at both pre-​and in-​service levels, promotes disruptive thinking and experiments what transformative plurilingual and pluricultural pedagogies might look like, then ‘society’s (and teaching’s) great untapped resources for radical and continuous improvement’ (Fullan, 1993, p.11) are brought into the frame. These spaces provide a platform for CLIL teachers to be supported in engaging in necessary adjustments to learning-​design thinking and engaging in collaborative classroom research. In a similar vein, Molla and Nolan (2020, p. 83) emphasise the need for professional learning spaces that value bottom-​up thinking and encourage teachers to be agents of change: Transformative professional learning experiences that support teacher agency capitalise on dialectical interactions of subjective conditions of teachers and objective contexts of teaching … Transformative professional learning is not a detached pedagogic event. It is situated within the context of practice. This provocation calls for CLIL teachers to connect with other educators and researchers to build respectful, reciprocal, active learning spaces which position global challenges in the here-​a nd-​now and merge pedagogical uncertainties with classroom realities.

Learning provocation 2: focusing on internationalisation in higher education revisited The second provocation turns attention to the role of plurilingual integrated learning in tertiary education. In so doing, it challenges the enactment of internationalisation and opens 538

Coda: Carpe diem

up disruptive questions which until recently have remained invisible. As the neoliberal marketisation of higher education on a global scale has led to increasing international student populations, the quality of plurilingual learning experiences is brought into question. A recent OECD study conducted by van Damme and Zahner (2022) reports a paucity of students in higher education proficient in critical thinking with limited learning gains between the start and end of their studies. Addressing such issues, hinges on the concept of quality teaching in higher education. Yet, achieving equal status between teaching and research excellence in universities is embedded in what might be called epistemological deficiencies using metrics-​d riven frameworks. Promoting teaching excellence through appropriate high status professional learning is secondary to foregrounding research capacity and impact. As more universities publish their EDI (equality, diversity, and inclusion) policies, they appear to neither address nor build on opportunities offered by a plurilingual and pluricultural paradigm in ways that open genuine dialogic activism with students and educators alike. Despite the increase in universities that offer courses in multiple languages to attract a wider range of students, the hegemony of English(es) in academia persists. Consequently, the learning potential of connecting students from different parts of the world through space-​ and place-​based education is not being realised in terms of promoting interculturality, pedagogic futures-​thinking and plurilingualism. Abrar-​u l-​Hassan (2021, p. 9) notes: plurilingualism affords both a theoretical lens for language use and policy as well as a pedagogical approach to teaching practices. From this perspective, multiple linguistic resources in educational settings are viewed as a strength … [but] considerable work is needed to re-​envision linguistic capital in the university through curricular innovations as well as pedagogical frameworks. More recently, there has been increasing attention paid to unravelling what quality CLIL means in tertiary contexts (for example, Martínez Agudo, 2020; Rubio-​A lcalá & Coyle, 2021). Volumes highlight complex linguistic and pedagogic issues associated with subject experts being faced with educating students whose first language is not the vehicular language or who themselves are required to teach through the medium of a language which is less familiar in terms of academic discourse. The focus on changing attitudes towards student learning that is fit-​for-​purpose alongside the digitisation of student experience, brings professional learning by educators increasingly under the microscope. Lam (2022, p. 51) reports on the urgent need to foster learning communities amongst university staff to create ‘abundant opportunities for open and professional dialogue which are precursors to continuous pedagogical experimentation and innovation’. Similarly, Middleton’s (2018) volume Reimagining Spaces for Learning in Higher Education confronts the hybridity of learning places and spaces. Mindful of how the Covid-​19 pandemic brought about unprecedented rapid responses to the familiar, especially in educational settings, has opened up a Pandora’s box. Student experiences during the pandemic have unleashed debate critiquing teaching and learning practices and now focus on the potential of more holistic, technology-​enabled, equitable interpretations of learning spaces. These cut across linguistic, cultural, physical, and accessible boundaries which lead the way to rethinking plurilingual and pluricultural learning spaces. Such changes signify not only sharing and using physical, social, digital, and virtual spaces more appropriately but more crucially rethinking what happens in them from more ecological and inclusive perspectives (i.e., as students and educators enter into genuine learning partnerships and EDI principles are brought into being and doing.) 539

Do Coyle

So where lies CLIL in these debates? The second provocation notes that educators involved in plurilingual integrated learning in tertiary education are already familiar with the complexities, challenges and opportunities afforded by the internationalisation agenda particularly in terms of plurilingual, pluricultural learning spaces. However, the question remains as to how far this potential can be and is being realised. Where does student voice impact in terms of pluricultural learning expectations, plurilingual experiences, and life skills? How can educators as experts in their field faced with unprecedented plurilingual demands, make explicit the challenges faced and pedagogic realities shared? This provocation suggests an imperative in bringing together those voices, to join forces in making quality teaching and learning visible. The focus lies in those spaces where ethnicity and social justice interconnect with policies of equality, diversity, and inclusion; and where deeper understanding within and across subject disciplines develops critical thinking informed by plurilingual and pluricultural dialogue. Growing dynamic student–​educator partnerships across higher education contexts offers CLIL communities a voice in unravelling pedagogic power dynamics and sharing unfathomable practices.

Final words Both provocations are based on a vision underpinned by experimenting ways of legitimising ecological, shared learning spaces. Both provocations position CLIL students and teachers as change agents and designers of learning. Both provocations are based on the premise that exercising values-​d riven pedagogic power lies in genuine learner–​teacher plurilingual and pluricultural ‘disruptive’ partnerships where students, educators, academics, and researchers work together. In working towards these educational goals, embracing uncertainty and diversity –​anyone, anytime, anywhere –​through actively building plurilingual, pluricultural learnscapes, CLIL communities will be participating in and actioning ‘the future-​to-​come and thus realizing it in the here and now. This is the process of inventing the future, rather than merely expecting or anticipating its “automatic arrival” ’ (Stetsensko, 2019, p. 10).

References Abrar-​u l-​Hassan, S. (2021). Linguistic capital in the university and the hegemony of English: Medieval origins and future directions. Sage Open, 11(2). Coyle, D., & Meyer, O. (2021). Beyond CLIL: Pluriliteracies teaching for deeper learning. Cambridge University Press. Dalton-​Puffer, C. (2011). Content-​and-​language integrated learning: From practice to principles? Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 182–​204. Fullan, M.G. (1993). Why teachers must become change agents. Educational Leadership, 50(6), 1–​13. Lam, A.M-​H. (2022). How to foster learning communities among university staff. Times Higher Education, 2, 50. Martínez Agudo, J.D.D. (Ed.). (2020). Quality in TESOL and teacher education: From a results culture towards a quality culture. Routledge. Middleton, A. (2018). Reimagining spaces for learning in higher education. Palgrave. Molla, T., & Nolan, A. (2020). Teacher agency and professional practice. Teachers and Teaching, 26(1), 67–​87. Morreira, S., Luckett, K., Kumalo, S.H., & Ramgotra, M. (2020). Confronting the complexities of decolonising curricula and pedagogy in higher education. Third World Thematics: A TWQ Journal, 5(1–​2), 1–​18. Phipps, A. (2021). Decolonising the languages curriculum: Linguistic justice for linguistic ecologies. In T. Beaven & F. Rossell-​A guilar (Eds.), Innovative language pedagogy report (pp. 5–​10). Research-​ publishing.net.

540

Coda: Carpe diem Rubio-​A lcalá, F., & Coyle, D. (Eds.). (2021). Developing and evaluating quality bilingual practices in higher education. Multilingual Matters. Stetsenko, A. (2019). Radical-​t ransformative agency: Continuities and contrasts with relational agency and implications for education. Frontiers in Education, 4(148). Tauritz, R. (2016). A pedagogy for uncertain times. In W. Lambrechts & J. Hindson (Eds.), Research and innovation in education for sustainable development: Exploring collaborative networks, critical characteristics and evaluation practices (pp. 90–​105). ENSI, ZVR-​Zahl. van Damme, D., & Zahner, D. (2022). Does higher education teach students to think critically? OECD report. www.oecd-​i libr​a ry.org/​educat​ion/​does-​h ig​her-​educat​ion-​teach-​stude​nts-​to-​think-​crit​ ical​ly_​c​c9fa​6aa-​en

541

542

INDEX

Note: Page numbers in bold refers to figures/tables. 4Cs 2, 104, 142–​3, 228, 315, 476 activities 4, 13–​15, 45–​6, 314–​5, 336–​7; awareness-​raising 78; controlled 51; focus on form 301; interactional 51, 309; instructional 162, 309, 343; multimodal 185; object-​based 232; reflection 233; speaking 135; think-​pair-​ share 228; Total Physical Response 229; see also exercises additional language 43, 57, 60, 71, 102–​5, 141, 160, 182, 196–​7 affective factors 32, 131–​2, 243–​4, 248, 270–​1, 404–​7 Africa 472 applied linguistics 13–​14 appraisal 276, 278, 302 Argentina 135, 147–​8, 348, 380 Asia 30, 70, 239, 241, 347, 379–​80, 492, 512 assessment 355; approaches 358; formative 63, 276, 331, 361, 412; summative 276, 279; 357, 365; task 162, 355–​6 assessment use argument 356 attitudes 20, 268; see also affective factors Audiolingual Method 45 autonomy 22; learner autonomy 63, 163, 226, 234, 285, 293, 314, 331; teacher autonomy 329; school autonomy 448 basic interpersonal communication skills see BICS beliefs 77, 100, 160, 167, 186, 226, 255–​6 BICS 36, 129, 178, 227–​9 bilingualism 30–​2, 132, 136, 203, 390 bilinguality 29 bilingual behaviour 28–​30, 33

bilingual education 1, 13, 28, 46, 58, 75, 89, 132, 156, 160, 212–​3; learners 218, 116, 129; policy 489–​90, 495–​6 biliteracy 325 Brazil 380, 456, 512–​3 CALP 129–​31, 137, 178, 227, 230, 234, 360, 439–​40 Cameroon 461 case studies 92–​3, 167, 245 citizenship development 141–​3; primary school students 130 classroom interaction 14–​15, 119, 134, 299: cognitive 301; critical 305–​7; socio-​cultural 302–​4 CLIL: definition 1, 58, 196; epistemology 513; history 329, 507; co-​teaching 61, 180; teacher education 6, 160, 162, 164, 262, 324, 328, 414, 530 cognition 3, 30, 105, 127–​8, 145, 228, 318–​9; research 130 cognitive academic language proficiency see CALP cognitive development 90, 127; classroom discourse 133–​4; materials 135; teachers’ perspectives 132–​3 cognitive discourse functions 19, 21, 92, 134, 162, 319, 522 cognitive skills 105, 130–​2, 318, 434, 439 collaboration 72–​7, 145, 180–​1, 261; cross-​ curricular 61, 167; teacher 161, 177–​8, 187, 217, 278 Colombia 32, 167, 257, 260, 446 communication 3, 12, 18, 45, 50, 64, 73, 85, 104, 128, 134, 141, 143, 150, 186, 228, 238, 285, 299–​300, 341, 439, 522, 524, 526

542

543

Index community engagement 144, 147, 153–​5 community languages 196–​7, 210, 218 competence 45, 50, 64, 70–​1, 76, 79, 84, 100–​2, 113, 119, 148, 162, 260 compulsory education 387–​9, 419, 475–​6 content and language integrated learning see CLIL content, cognition, communication, culture see 4Cs context 76, 193 continuity 77–​8 creative co-​construction 180 critical CLIL 306–​7, 508, 514–​5 critical pedagogy 514–​5 cross-​sectional see research curriculum 58, 103, 142, 166, 182–​3, 203, 301; Nordic: 389–​90, 393; primary: 226–​30 data collection 61, 86, 117, 132, 435, 440 deeper learning 104, 141, 218, 228, 230, 285, 314, 496, 499, 523–​5, 529 definitions 15–​16, 23 Denmark 210, 387, 390–​1, 394 disciplinary content 73–​5, 317, 492 disciplinary literacies 61, 141, 315–​7, 522 diversity 144, 204, 217, 232, 275, 513, 530; cultural 101, 234; linguistic 37, 99, 101, 420, 509; pedagogical 73 educational policy 3, 70, 99, 103, 107, 200, 202, 216; makers 509 EFL 86–​7, 134, 145, 239, 291, 390, 481 elementary 75, 156, 201, 260, 380, 466, 479–​80 elitism 6, 511, 529–​31 EMI 59, 69, 71, 76, 258; China 380; curriculum 379; Japan 477–​8; schools 169; South Korea 511; teachers 161 English as a foreign language see EFL English dominance 514 English-​medium instruction see EMI English for specific purposes see ESP ESP 57, 69; curriculum 61; needs analysis 333 origins 58 European Union 23, 71, 99–​100, 196, 420, 507 evaluation: academic content 20; discourse function 16; intercultural 148; language 21; materials 328; measures 46, 78; parameters 247; programme 201, 269–​70; scales 86; student 276; tools 163 exercises 44, 90, 142, 397, 470 factors: affective 243–​4; contextual 80, 130, 382, 424; curriculum 437; ecological 33; individual 105; (de)motivating 396; organisational 322; political 496; research 87; school-​based 216; social 529 Finland 58, 84–​5, 93, 130, 375–​6, 392–​3 foreign language education 141, 475, 481, 513

genre(s) 14, 17–​18, 21, 35, 58, 72, 78, 145, 288, 318, 513, 525; and register(s) 14, 17, 23, 513 genre-​based approach 61, 162 Germany 376 grammar: direct instruction 440; errors 17; inductive 44; knowledge 241, 438; language forms 15; performance 11; system 114 grammar-​translation method 35, 44 heritage languages 195, 197, 210, 218; language learners 197; UK 211 high school: Cameroon 462; Ecuador 434; Japan 475; junior 480; Sweden 118 Taiwan 490; see also secondary school higher education CLIL 59, 434, 484, 511–​12, 540 see also university CLIL higher-​order thinking skills 20, 128–​9, 241, 303, 319, 323, 329, 336, 439, 441 hybridity 202, 204, 539 Iceland 387, 389–​90, 394–​5 immersion 14; 46–​7, 50; Canadian 46, 90, 116, 200–​2; 212–​13, 342, 373, 376, 378, 509; two-​way 200 interaction see classroom interaction intercultural development 168, 242, 317, 509 interculturality 451–​3, 510, 537, 539 internationalisation 59, 69–​72, 380, 423, 453, 490, 511 Italian school system 419 Italy 215, 346, 419 language development 75, 77, 90, 113, 177, 289, 348, 399, 434, 493, 525 language learning 11, 13, 30, 44–​6, 59, 75, 84–​5, 99, 143, 164, 195, 199, 230 language policy 99–​100, 107, 108n, 215, 380, 422, 461, 463 language teacher 23, 32, 47, 59, 61, 75, 77, 178, 184, 212, 317–​8, 348, 481, 512 language teaching approach 1, 43–​4, 328, 440, 513 language triptych 128, 178, 522, 524 languages other than English see LOTE Latin America 59, 275, 380, 433–​4, 446, 456 learning provocation(s) 6, 536, 538 learning strategies 130–​1, 260, 337, 442, 492–​3 learning theory 47, 53 legitimation code theory 21 lesson planning 104, 258, 331, 438, 443 lexicogrammar 14–​15, 21, 116, 293, 366 linguistic repertoire(s) 2, 30–​1, 38, 49, 59, 195, 198, 279, 306, 391, 413, 526 listening 44, 85–​6, 89, 114, 116–​7, 135, 359, 395, 397, 454, 470, 477, 526 LOTE 197, 202, 210, 398

543

544

Index LOTS 128–​9, 135, 314, 329, 331, 442, 482 lower-​order thinking skills see LOTS lower secondary 203, 359, 387–​8, 394, 398, 422–​3 materials 93, 216, 276, 288, 328–​9, 332; analysis 145; authentic 320, 332; cognitive 242; design 57, 60, 63–​4, 313, 333–​4, 350, 439; implementation 335; local 144 selection 63; teacher-​made 5, 166 mediation 35–​6, 49, 289, 292, 304 metacognition 127, 234, 288, 303 metafunctions 14, 18–​19, 23 methodology: CLIL 106, 244, 275, 332, 425–​6, 452; communicative 46; English for specific purposes 61; interactive 163; qualitative 90; see also research; research 257, 434–​6; teaching 104, 451, 477 mixed methods 84–​5, 239, 241, 244–​5 monoglossic: ideology 510; principles 514 monolingual 28–​30, 50, 102, 106, 185, 199, 214, 218, 274, 376, 510, 514, 527, 537–​8 motivation 36, 63, 85–​6, 105, 113, 127, 214–​5, 226, 243–​4, 248, 259–​60, 268, 270–​3, 289, 336, 374, 377–​8, 396, 406–​7, 437, 485, 529 multilingual classroom 37, 205, 256 multilingualism 37, 50, 53n, 72, 93, 99–​03, 107, 108n, 165, 199, 206, 420; as a pedagogical tool 413; as a resource 324, 391 multiliteracies 205; skills 232, 234 multimodality 4, 218, 261, 289, 292–​4, 333–​4, 391 Natural Approach 30, 45, 48, 50 neoliberalism 530; neoliberal policies 509; neoliberalised bilingual institutions 510–​11 Norway 103, 210, 242, 387, 390–​91, 394–​6, 398 official languages 92, 375, 461, 465, 469, 489, 495, 511; co-​official 274, 279; teaching 462 oral corrective feedback 342, 344 pedagogy 11, 14, 141–​2, 144–​5, 279; classroom 113; CLIL 2, 4, 62, 259–​61, 285, 318–​9, 374, 403–​5; critical 6, 65, 307, 514; drama 232; EMI 70–​1, 79; genre-​based 18; integration 527; linguistic 78; literacy 23; post-​method 46; Reading to Learn 18; second language 91, 301; SFL 22–​3; teachers’ knowledge 167 perceptions 256; learners’ 5, 93, 119, 227, 244, 268–​9, 274, 280, 406, 426, 437, 454–​5, 485, 494; parents’ 337; specialists’ 11; stakeholders’ 336, 428; teachers’ 5, 12, 48, 130, 132–​3, 255, 257–​8, 261, 423, 442, 451, 456 plurilingual 1, 2, 143, 211, 218, 232, 374, 484, 510, 513, 516, 521, 536–​8, 540

pluriliteracies 4, 44, 50, 104, 141–​2, 144, 146–​8, 152–​3, 155, 217, 226, 230, 314, 324, 496, 498–​9, 522, 525, 528–​9 primary education 117, 133, 234, 247, 274, 278, 344–​5, 349, 388, 390, 394, 396, 404, 410, 462, 464, 469; learners 225, 234; pupils 234, 524 professional development 255, 258, 261–​2, 373, 405, 410, 446, 451–​3, 455–​7 project-​based learning 200, 203, 217, 275, 450, 456 reading 85, 89, 117; abilities 118; comprehension 59, 118, 440, 454, 470, 492, 514; material(s) 365–​6; project 422; skill(s) 59, 78, 114, 240, 377, 395, 397, 440, 477, 479; test 118, 408 register(s) 14, 35, 163, 304, 307, 522; academic 19, 22; classroom 14, 20, 525; features 17; instructional 20; regulative 20, 178; variables 17; see also genre(s) and register(s) research: cross-​sectional 3, 84–​5, 87, 130, 132, 269–​70, 273; longitudinal 3, 19, 20, 34, 87–​8, 116–​7, 119, 131, 201, 219, 240–​1, 247, 269, 273, 407, 524, 526 scaffolding 48, 62, 91–​2, 128–​9, 163, 218, 229, 231, 275, 277–​8, 302, 319, 329–​33, 436; balanced 333; conceptualising 288; features 287; historical overview 290–​4; instructional 5, 284, 288, 334, 439; interactional 284–​5, 288, 292; metaphor 286; peer 33, 292; research 284–​5, 289, 291; strategies 91, 242, 289, 303, 451; teacher 242, 304–​5, 308, 349, 396; technique(s) 289, 362–​3; types of 286–​8; see also translanguaging SFL 15–​18, 20–​4, 51–​2, 92, 513, 522, 525; see also Systemic Functional Linguistics South America 380–​1, 512 speaking: skill(s) 59, 86, 89, 114, 119, 214, 240, 313, 342, 438, 440, 466, 477, 479, 481, 491; activities 135; exercises 470; test 86 speech functions 15, 20, 119 subject teachers 93, 160–​1, 167–​8, 175, 178, 181, 186, 260, 263, 317, 322, 329, 335–​7, 411, 423–​5, 471 Sweden 33, 59, 118, 261, 271, 378–​9, 381, 387–​9, 392, 394, 396 Systemic Functional Linguistics 2, 12–​14, 51, 92; see also SFL Taiwan 380, 489–​98 teacher collaboration see collaboration teacher competency 261–​2 teacher education see CLIL teacher knowledge 169, 308 teacher learning 160, 168 teacher training 73, 80, 217, 261, 278–​9, 350, 379, 394, 421, 424–​7, 468, 493; lack of 259,

544

545

Index 443; need 137, 213, 308, 346; programmes 101, 106, 164 teaching resources 314, 332, 494 translanguaging 2, 28–​9, 32, 35, 50, 205, 225, 292–​3, 307, 317, 508, 514; lens 30, 526; pedagogic(al) 36–​7, 51, 275, 279, 316, 374, 396, 413, 484, 526, 538; pedagogy 37–​8, 497–​8, 514; planned 31, 34, 316; and scaffolding 293; as scaffolding 316; vocabulary 34 trans-​semiotising 34–​5, 226, 307, 374, 380, 497, 508, 515–​16, 527 university CLIL 453; see also higher education CLIL uptake 14, 91, 212, 341–​5, 347, 349–​50, 394

validity 168, 356, 436, 498, 522 vocabulary 11, 13, 44, 58, 87, 118, 132, 142, 161, 180, 213, 216, 227, 232, 239–​4, 247, 260, 314, 332, 334, 350, 360, 437, 439–​40, 451, 470, 479; academic 115, 438; challenge 161; development 90, 395, 397; disciplinary; ESP 58; learning strategies 114; receptive 87, 114–​15, 240, 397, 526; subject-​specific 115, 229, 242, 361, 363; size 114–​15, 240–​1, 380, 397–​8; system 114–​6; productive 115, 397–​8, 526; test(s) 87, 90, 408; translanguaging 34 writing: as a skill 34, 59, 114, 118, 120–​1, 225, 239–​40, 313–​4, 438, 470, 483, 494; academic 78, 218, 356–​7; accuracy 240; assessment 359–​60; creative 85, 397; feedback 342 written corrective feedback 5, 343, 349

545

546