See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/331228220

An Introduction to Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) for

Teachers and Teacher Educators

Article  in  CLIL Journal of Innovation and Research in Plurilingual and Pluricultural Education · February 2019
DOI: 10.5565/rev/clil.21

CITATIONS READS

27 6,558

1 author:

Cristina Escobar Urmeneta

Autonomous University of Barcelona
26 PUBLICATIONS   283 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

PATHWAY: Evaluation of the Internationalization Project of the English-Medium Primary Education Bachelor's Degree at the UAB: Process and Product View project

Pathway. Evaluation of the internationalization Project of the EMI Primary Teacher Education Bachelor’s Degree in the UAB: process and product. View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Cristina Escobar Urmeneta on 15 April 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 CLIL Journal of Innovation and Research
in Plurilingual and Pluricultural Education

To cite this article:

Escobar Urmeneta, C. (2019). An Introduction to Content and Language Integrated Learning DOI: https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/clil.21
(CLIL) for Teachers and Teacher Educators. CLIL Journal of Innovation and Research in e- ISSN: 2604-5613
Plurilingual and Pluricultural Education, 2(1), 7-19. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/clil.21 Print ISSN: 2605-5893

An Introduction to

Content and Language

Integrated Learning
(CLIL) for Teachers and Teacher Educators

CRISTINA ESCOBAR URMENETA

UNIVERSITAT AUTÒNOMA DE BARCELONA
cristina.escobar@uab.cat

T E
his paper provides a presentation to Content and ste artículo aspira a familiarizar a cualquier persona
Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) aimed at any reader interesada –ya sea docente, profesional de la formación del
who needs a basic understanding of this approach, be profesorado, o persona con responsabilidades educativas
they teachers, teacher educators or education stakeholders in –con el enfoque Aprendizaje Integrado de Contenidos y Lengua
general. The article contextualises CLIL within the European (AICLE). El artículo sitúa el AICLE en el contexto de la política
Union (EU) policy intended to promote effective plurilingualism lingüística de la Unión Europea (UE) encaminada a promover un
for all, offers a rationale for CLIL and warns policy makers and plurilingüismo activo para toda la ciudadanía, presenta algunos
practitioners of certain practices commonly observed in CLIL principios teóricos que fundamentan este enfoque, y advierte
settings that may undermine its effectiveness. sobre prácticas observadas en aulas AICLE que pueden amenazar
su potencial educativo.

KEYWORDS: PALABRAS CLAVE:

CLIL; Classroom Interaction; Democratic CLIL; Dual-focused AICLE; Interacción en el aula; AICLE democrático; Enseñanza con
Instruction; Language Policy; Plurilingual Education; Teacher doble focalización; Política lingüística; Educación plurilingüe;
Education. Formación del profesorado.

CLIL Journal of Innovation and Research in Plurilingual and Pluricultural Education, 2(1), 2019: 7-19 7
Escobar Urmeneta, C. An Introduction to Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) for Teachers and Teacher Educators

1. The Plurilingual European Citizen contexts. The fact that learners’ contact with the target

T
language (L2) is usually restricted to two to four slots per
his paper provides a presentation to Content and week in the school timetable of traditional grammar-based
Language Integrated Learning (CLIL). The article instruction largely explains the limited results obtained. It is
is organized into eight sections as follows. Section not uncommon to find that students in schools which limit
1 contextualises CLIL within the European Union (EU) themselves to the minimum exposure time guaranteed by
policy intended to promote effective plurilingualism, and law fail to reach the threshold level of competence needed
section 2 provides a rationale for CLIL. Section 3 describes for effective communication in an L2, let alone two L2s.
several of the key characteristics of CLIL classroom This is particularly the case, for example, of countries such
interaction, whereas section 4 warns us of certain practices as Spain, France or the United Kingdom, whose languages
commonly observed in CLIL settings that may undermine its are learnt and spoken by millions around the globe, whether
effectiveness. Section 5 identifies common features found in by native speakers or otherwise.
CLIL programmes around Europe, and in section 6 the CLIL
approach is related and compared to a number of alternative On the other hand, throughout Europe, students coming
approaches to plurilingual education. Section 7 concludes from affluent families can usually benefit from costly extra-
the article by advocating in favour of a critical approach to curricular activities, private lessons and travel-abroad
CLIL and underscoring the need for high standards in CLIL programmes to advance their FL learning, leading to a
teacher education. situation where language resources—parallel with economic
resources—are unevenly divided across societies. It is clear,
Since the Summit of Heads of State Europe that took therefore, that the democratization of plurilingual education
place in Barcelona in 2002, Europe has been promoting requires the adoption of educational policies that make
the notion that all EU citizens should be competent in at enriched foreign language learning experiences available
least two foreign languages (FL), in addition to their native to all types of students, regardless of socioeconomic status.
language(s). The desired result is a Europe consisting Content and Language Integrated Learning or CLIL is
of multilingual societies—where multiple languages are one approach to FL education which may help to promote
spoken side by side—made up of plurilingual citizens— effective plurilingualism across wide sectors of society
citizens who speak two or more languages. This policy within a reasonable span of time.
will lead, it is expected, to a higher degree of European
cohesion and economic benefits for the resulting plurilingual
speakers and European society as a whole (European Union
2. Why CLIL?
2002; European Commission 1995, 2008). At present, the

C
percentage of Europeans who are monolingual, that is, able LIL is an umbrella term which became popular
to speak only one language, is high, even when they live in Europe in the 1990s in reference to any sort of
in multilingual neighbourhoods or travel frequently to areas educational programmes in which a non-native,
where their language is not spoken, which means that they second language (or L2) is used to teach disciplinary content
are unable to communicate efficiently with anyone who does to learners with developing competences in the language
not belong to their own linguistic community. This is exactly used as a means of instruction. This would be the case, for
the problem that the European Commission seeks to address. instance, when Spanish-speaking students learn music in
In the words of a 2008 Commission report, French, French-speaking students learn science in German
or Catalan-speaking students learn mathematics in English.
“This communication concentrates on people: their ability to
use several languages, their opportunity to access culture and CLIL fits well with powerful language learning theories
participate as active citizens, to benefit from better communication,
and, in general, with theories that acknowledge the role
inclusiveness and wider employment and business opportunities.
that language plays in all learning. In this respect, Halliday
The main objective is therefore to raise awareness of the
value and opportunities of the EU’s linguistic diversity and (1993) presents a complex perspective of learning in general,
encourage the removal of barriers to intercultural dialogue. and language learning in particular, which consists of a
A key instrument in this respect is the Barcelona objective— continuum of three main interdependent processes: learning
communication in mother tongue plus two languages. More language, learning through language and learning about
effort is needed towards achieving this objective for all citizens”. language (see Figure 1):
(European Commission 2008:5 bold in original)

This policy in favour of plurilingualism is well accepted by learning learning

through
most modern societies, which attribute a high symbolic and language
language
practical value to the ability to speak one or several foreign
languages. However, school-leavers in many European
countries show unsatisfactory competence levels even in a learning
first foreign language by the end of compulsory education about
language
(see, for example, Eurobarometer 2012). Sociolinguistic
factors aside, schooling has traditionally done very little
to boost FL learning in compulsory education in many Figure 1. Halliday’s model of learning

8 CLIL Journal of Innovation and Research in Plurilingual and Pluricultural Education, 2(1), 2019: 7-19
An Introduction to Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) for Teachers and Teacher Educators Escobar Urmeneta, C.

The interdependence and structural continuity of the learning strictly speaking, as there is no such thing as a specific
processes thus is explained by the fact that all ‘learning is inventory of teaching rules, restricted to CLIL, nor a
learning to mean, and to expand one’s meaning potential’ defining list of steps to follow when implementing CLIL in
(1993:113). the classroom (see Dalton-Puffer et al. 2010b on the same
issue). In fact, although many definitions of CLIL have been
Indeed, schools are institutions where teaching languages, proposed, none of the most widespread ones include the
developing educated ways of using them, and focusing on the terms ‘method’ or ‘methodology’, as can be observed in the
use and uses of language are primary interdependent goals. definitions presented below.
However, schooling, with its traditional segmentation of the
syllabus in school subjects with clearly drawn boundaries,
‘[CLIL] is a dual-focused educational approach in
often overlooks the continuity among the axes signalled
which an additional language is used for learning
by Halliday, and their corresponding learning goals. All
and teaching of both content and language. There is
too frequently, the result of this is that teachers of subjects
a focus not only on content and not only on language.
labelled ‘Language’ (be it English, Italian, Russian or Arabic)
Each is interwoven —even if the emphasis is greater
commonly approach language leaning/teaching through the
on one than the other at a given time’
strategy of ‘learning /teaching about language’ whereas
teachers of subjects labelled ‘other-than-language’, such (Coyle, Hood & Marsh 2010: 1)
as Science, History or Music, expect students to absorb the
particular ways of disciplinary literacies simply by teaching ‘CLIL can be described as an educational approach
through language, with little attention paid to the ways in where curricular content is taught through the
which language is employed in meaning-making within the medium of a foreign language, typically to students
field. Mohan (1985) puts it very simply: ‘In research and in participating in some form of mainstream education
classroom practice this relationship is frequently ignored. In at the primary, secondary, or tertiary level’
subject matter learning we overlook the role of language as (Dalton-Puffer 2011:183)
a medium of learning. In language learning we overlook the
fact that content is being communicated’ (p.1).
‘CLIL embraces those educational practices in
Content and Language Integrated learning (CLIL) is a which content subjects—excluding those labelled as
plurilingual approach to learning and teaching in formal ‘language subjects’—are taught and learned through
contexts that creates a space which naturally leads to a language of instruction, second or foreign, in
the implementation of Halliday’s triadic perspective on which a learner has a basic or advanced developing
(language) learning by placing the language learning communicative competence, and which explicitly:
continuum at its very heart.
• Promote the preservation and development
Although the literature recommended in many teacher- of the learner’s first language(s) and the
education courses often employs the collocation ‘CLIL consideration of and mise en valeur of cultural
methodology’, CLIL can hardly be considered ‘a method’ forms attached to that (those) language(s);

• Promote a truly integrated approach, with a dual

“The Content and

focus of pedagogical attention, i.e., language
and content; and
Language Integrated • Provide learners with all the assistance
learning (CLIL) is a needed to comprehend, produce and negotiate
academic messages in the target language
plurilingual approach to adopted as the medium of instruction’
learning and teaching in (Escobar Urmeneta 2011: 203–204)
formal contexts that creates
a space which naturally leads Bilingual programmes are not new in the field of foreign
to the implementation of language learning. In Spain, international schools such as
the Lycée Francais or the Deutsche Schule, for example,
Halliday’s triadic perspective have always taught large parts of the curriculum in a
on (language) learning second language with noteworthy results. Lately, bilingual
programmes for non-bilingual populations have started to
by placing the language overcome their traditionally exclusive character and are
learning continuum at its becoming increasingly popular in many schools throughout

very heart. ”
the European Union (Coyle 2005, Marsh et al. 2001). But
what is it that accounts for the sudden upsurge of interest in
integrating language and content in mainstream schooling?

CLIL Journal of Innovation and Research in Plurilingual and Pluricultural Education, 2(1), 2019: 7-19 9
Escobar Urmeneta, C. An Introduction to Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) for Teachers and Teacher Educators

According to Cenoz ‘the basic idea behind the integration of to how successful the communicative exchange is, that is,
content and language is that languages are not learned first the mutual understanding achieved by the interlocutors, the
and then used but that they are learned by being used’ (2015: veracity of the content or the appropriateness of the resources
17). In the following paragraphs I will try to analyse the deployed to the given situation. The learner’s performance in
implications of this very appealing (and intriguing) maxim. terms of the formal correctness of their utterances very much
plays a secondary role. Feedback received from interlocutors
According to language acquisition research theories (e.g.,
in the form of clarification requests or reformulations of the
Lightbown & Spada 2006 or Swain 2000), an L2 can be
learner’s original wording help learners in natural settings
most effectively acquired in conditions which resemble
to develop their capacity to make more precise and context-
those present during the acquisition of the L1. That is,
appropriate statements.
the focus of instruction is on meaning rather than Against all the available evidence on how foreign languages
exclusively on form; are actually learnt, the conventional FL or L2 classroom
usually plans and evaluates students according to a well-
there is abundant language input roughly tuned to the
established—no matter how arbitrary—morphosyntactic
level of the learners;
sequence, as can be observed in a majority of course books,
learners are given every opportunity to engage in where, for example, first the present simple is presented, then
meaningful exchanges; the present continuous, then the regular past and so on. Under
this paradigm, a traditionally-minded teacher would be
learners obtain plenty of support to succeed in inclined to say that a statement that formulates a hypothesis
understanding others and making themselves about ‘what will happen if we do this experiment’ cannot be
understood. used in a science lesson in Grade 7 since ‘conditionals’ is a
‘structure’ that needs to be presented only when the paradigms
These characteristics can be grouped into the two of present, past and future tenses have been mastered (this
characteristic features of CLIL that make this approach being a real-life example reported by Sanmartí, an expert
potentially productive for FL learning in mainstream in science education in a personal communication). Using
education: the quantity and the quality of opportunities for Halliday’s terms, this paradigm equates language learning
L2-medium purposeful interaction. It is precisely these two with learning about language.
qualities that have earned CLIL the favour of EU language
policy-makers (Eurydice 2006), and they therefore deserve By contrast, in CLIL programmes lessons are organized
our closer scrutiny. around the exchange of messages with curricular content, and
the sequencing of the syllabus is conceptual rather than purely
grammatical. In CLIL, the content to be covered is the starting
Increased contact time with the L2 point for planning, and teachers and students work together,
The length of time that students are in contact with the making the most of all the verbal and non-verbal resources at
L2 has been found to be a major predictor of L2 learning hand, to understand one another and be understood in relation
success. If, in addition to ordinary foreign language classes, to the target content. Discussion of subject-matter content
students are taught a non-language subject in that foreign often leads to the emergence of interactional sequences
language, the number of contact hours with the L2 doubles. where mutual comprehension problems are dealt with. Such
A school which offers two CLIL subjects triples the number side-sequences, where meaning comes first, and the form of
of contact hours compared with a school merely offering the message is often problematized in relation to its meaning,
a standard L1-medium programme with foreign language bear a sharp resemblance to what can be observed in natural
classes. This increased contact time with the L2 makes
CLIL a potentially suitable strategy to promote plurilingual
education (see, for example, Artieda et al. 2017; Dalton-
Puffer 2008).On the other hand, a minimal CLIL programme
“In CLIL, the content to
may not be sufficient to make a difference, at least in the be covered is the starting
short run (Pladevall-Ballester & Vallbona 2016).
point for planning, and
teachers and students work
Increased quality of the interaction in L2
First and second language acquisition in natural contexts
together, making the most
such as encounters of daily life differs from instructed of all the verbal and non-
foreign language learning in the classroom in several ways.
One important difference is that in natural settings learners
verbal resources at hand, to
focus primarily on meaning, that is, they try to express understand one another and
what they mean and try to comprehend other people’s
be understood in relation to
the target content.”
messages using whatever verbal and non-verbal resources
they have at hand. In such settings the effectiveness of a
learner’s use of language is judged primarily according

10 CLIL Journal of Innovation and Research in Plurilingual and Pluricultural Education, 2(1), 2019: 7-19
An Introduction to Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) for Teachers and Teacher Educators Escobar Urmeneta, C.

language learning settings and are potentially fecund for Excerpt 1

language learning. It is important to highlight that CLIL does Primary and Secondary Colours. Grade 5.
not altogether discard form-focused instruction (see Coyle
et al.’s definition in section 2, and sample lesson in section 1. TEACHER: Younis?
4 below), but rather embeds attention to discourse and form
within the teaching of the content in meaningful ways. 2. YOUNIS: [Reading from blackboard (BB)].
Is green a primary +pri’mary+
In short, CLIL equates language learning with ‘learning or a secondary +secon’dari+
through language’, without disregarding the added benefits colour?
that may be brought about by the third element of Halliday’s
3. TEACHER: Thank you, Younis. Now, class,
continuum,‘learning about language’. what do you think? Is green
a PRImary or a SEcondary
Therefore, not only is the amount of contact time with the colour [exaggerated correct
L2 higher in CLIL, but the quality of the interactions is also syllable stress, underlining
on BB stressed syllable on BB]?
usually higher, or at least different and complementary to PRImary or SEcondary?
the type that takes place in the standard FL classroom. Thus,
the CLIL teacher focuses on the content of the disciplinary 4. SSs: [Many students at once]
Secondary, secondary, primary.
message, introduces linguistic support in the task design and
builds interactional scaffolding for learners to participate 5. TEACHER: Primary? Secondary? Hmmmm.
in academic discourse, understand what is being discussed Let’s think [finger to forehead
as if thinking] Why? [Writes
and get to say what they mean through the L2. But just huge ‘why’ on BB] WHY is it
as importantly, learners are simultaneously developing primary? WHY is it secondary?
their L2 linguistic resources, so that progressively their
6. SSs: [Many hands go up; Not Luca’s]
contributions to the lesson become not only more in line with
the conventions of the disciplinary discourse, but also more 7. TEACHER: Luca?
fluent and more linguistically precise and complex. 8. LUCA: Yes!
9. TEACHER: [to Luca] Maybe you are right,
Luca. [To whole class] See,
Luca thinks that green is a
3. Interaction in a CLIL classroom SEcondary colour. Why is that?

C
[private turns mostly in L1
lassroom interaction is central to the integrated for 3’] Look at the diagram
(points at diagram and then at
learning of content and language, as it is to learning ‘green’ between ‘blue’ and
in general. I illustrate this here by means of various ‘yellow’). [2’] What makes
examples from the Language and Education (LED)1 data green a SEcondary colour?
corpus, which have been combined and reconstructeLEdd 10. SSs: [Several hands up; Private
in Excerpt 1 below, where the CLIL teacher, is teaching chats in L1] [2’]
science to primary-level students. The reconstruction of
11. TEACHER: Beatriz?
material was deliberately done so that the excerpt would
include a high density of the typical features observed in 12. BEATRIZ: Blue and yellow, green.
CLIL classroom interactions in primary and lower secondary 13. TEACHER: Hmmm. Interesting! [To class]
education in Barcelona, but also in other parts of Spain (See Is that correct? If we mix blue
for example, Escobar Urmeneta 2016a; Escobar Urmeneta and yellow, do we get green?
and Evnitskaya, 2013, 2014). 14. SSs: YES! GREEN!
15. TEACHER: OK. So let’s answer the
“Not only is the amount


question now. Younis, please,
can you read the question
again? [Signals with hand the
of contact time with the part of the text Younis is
about to read].
L2 higher in CLIL, but the
16. YOUNIS: Is green a pri +pri+ primary
quality of the interactions +’primari+ or a secondary
colour?
is also usually higher,
17. TEACHER: Good, Younis! Now. This is to
or at least different and help you just a little bit.
[Talks while writing down
complementary to the type sentence on BB] Green is a
secondary colour because…
that takes place in the
standard FL classroom. ”
18. SSs: [Many hands go up] Teacher!
Teacher!
19. TEACHER: Rosa?

CLIL Journal of Innovation and Research in Plurilingual and Pluricultural Education, 2(1), 2019: 7-19 11
Escobar Urmeneta, C. An Introduction to Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) for Teachers and Teacher Educators

favourite strategy in CLIL (Dalton-Puffer 2007), probably

because they serve to open the floor to language-and-content
learners, thus allowing them to become active participants
20. ROSA: Green is secondary colour in the academic conversation as co-constructors of meaning.
because blue and yellow mix
green.

C
21. TEACHER: Excellent Rosa! [recasting the
sentence and writing it down
on BB] Green is A secondary
colour because … if we mix …
Fostering participation
22. CLASS: blue and yellow
She manages learners’ verbal participation by asking open
23. TEACHER: [echoing and writing down] blue questions (turn 3) and then calling on not only students who
and yellow … we get …
self-select by raising their hands (turns 6, 10, 18 and 19)
24. CLASS: Green. but also on those who do not, as in the case of Luca (7).
The learners’ eagerness to contribute to the conversation can
25. TEACHER: Green. Good! Now, girls, you
ask the question and boys be partially explained by the tolerance the teacher shows of
answer it. Ready? Girls? the learners’ private chatting (turns 9, 10, 21), mostly in the
learners’ L1. However not all contributions are treated in the
26. GIRLS: [chorus] Is green a primary or
a secondary colour? same way by the teacher.
27. BOYS: [chorus] Green is a secondary
colour because if we mix blue

D
and yellow we get green.
28. TEACHER: That was excellent class! One
smiley face for us all!
Shaping the learner’s language
29. SSs: [happy faces and private chats
in L1] The teacher deploys a range of strategies to shape learners’
language, such as using exaggerated emphasis to model
correct pronunciation (turn 9) or form (turn 21); using
recasts (turn 21); using the blackboard (turns 5 and 21) to
officialise important information and help learners to absorb
it, or help them focus on certain difficulties (turns 3 and 9);
For purposes of analysis, let us group the features of the leaving unfinished sentences for the students to complete
interactions we see here into six categories according to the (turn 17); or giving the students an opportunity for controlled
instructional function they pursue. language practice in the form of a chorus drill (turns 25 to
27). These strategies exemplify the abundance and variety of
teachers’ proactive moves and the sort of feedback provided

A to students which can be observed in the LED corpus. This is

consistent with Dalton-Puffer, who reports that the frequency
of feedback has been found to be higher in CLIL settings that
Making the language comprehensible
in traditional foreign language environments (2007).
In the excerpt, we observe how the teacher deploys a set
of multimodal strategies such as the use of gestures (turns

E
5 and 15), the repetition of keywords and concepts (turn
5), or the use of paralinguistic resources, such as the large
‘WHY’ written on the blackboard, in order to help students
Reassuring students—or deliberately leaving them
understand the literal meaning of the messages.
in uncertainty
Evaluative feedback appears at different times (turns 13, 15,

B
17, 21, 25 and 28) and in different degrees, from a luke warm
‘interesting’ (turn 13), to the echoing of the correct answer
(turn 23) or an emphatic ‘excellent’ (turn 28). On the other
Scaffolding leading to conceptualization hand, there are occasions where the teacher opts for delaying
The teacher also uses her turns to provide interactional the reward in order to exploit uncertainty, thus leaving the
scaffolding to favour the appropriation of concepts being matter open for further exploration (turns 5, 9 and 13).
taught through that language (turns 17 and 19 to 24, for
example). Indeed the cycles of Socratic questioning such In short, the sequence of interactions shows a double focus
as those concatenated by the teacher observed here are a on language and content learning, with emphasis alternating

12 CLIL Journal of Innovation and Research in Plurilingual and Pluricultural Education, 2(1), 2019: 7-19
An Introduction to Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) for Teachers and Teacher Educators Escobar Urmeneta, C.

between one and the other (Coyle, Hood & Marsh 2010),

“Students with certain

but with a tendency to attend to content in the first place,
and generate affordances for language learning in relation
to the content by giving students opportunities for language profiles are segregated
practice in side-sequences where specific formal problems
are dealt with. It is also clear that the teacher’s agenda out of the CLIL track in
includes many other concerns apart from purely instructional order to, as it is argued,
ones, such as dealing with the students’ emotional welfare
and maintaining an atmosphere of mutual support. protect these ‘less advanced’
learners from the steep
challenges that CLIL may
F present to them.”
Creating a community of learners
The teacher’s orientation towards creating and maintaining advanced’ learners from the steep challenges that CLIL may
an atmosphere of collaboration and support is noticeable, present to them. In this respect, in some regions, it has been
for example, in her display of face-saving strategies when observed how certain schools disregard official instructions
she pretends to accept Luca’s (failed) contribution and uses in favour of inclusive CLIL. Paradoxically, in other Spanish
it as the starting point for her next step in the interactive regions, tracking students is precisely the direct result of the
explanation. It is also apparent in the way she concludes guidelines provided by educational authorities in relation
the sequence (turn 28) by celebrating and rewarding the to CLIL. It looks like finding arguments in favour of
collaborative success achieved by the class (‘for us’, which segregations is easy peasy. More specifically, different types
includes herself) in a highly explicit way. of practices have been observed which result in some type of
segregation are:

Streaming of students into CLIL or non-CLIL tracks

4. Common pitfalls in CLIL according to L1 achievement test results.

A
lthough the available research provides clear Streaming of students into CLIL and non-CLIL tracks
evidence that carefully designed CLIL programmes according to L2 achievement test results.
are effective when they are sensitive to the emerging
needs of the students the implementation of CLIL does not Streaming of students into CLIL or non-CLIL tracks
always provide the results expected in terms of language according to global academic achievement.
gains, content gains or both. In this respect, Escobar
Urmeneta and Evnitskaya (2013: 160) identify the following Organising support L1 lessons for students of migrant
threats: origin that run parallel to the CLIL lessons, which
often in effect leads to their exclusion from the CLIL
There is a risk that ‘academic standards’ in the content program.
subject will be lowered due to the students’ poor
command of the FL (Escobar Urmeneta 2011). Excluding students of migrant origin from a CLIL track
by default because, it is alleged, being part of it may
Teachers may be insufficiently prepared to teach CLIL involve an added burden that these students will not be
programmes, usually because of inadequate L2 language able to cope with.
skills.
The underlying causes of such segregation are both
Some students may experience specific difficulties ideological and technical.The problem lies, on the one
because of assumptions held by teachers, the institution or hand, in the conception of ‘education’ (even compulsory
students themselves that only those students with above education) as a tool for selecting rather than integrating
average intellectual capacities, prior content knowledge students. On the other, it is not unusual to find schools
and higher levels of communicative competence in whose plan to develop plurilingualism is poorly designed
the foreign language are able to successfully meet the or executed, or absent altogether or teachers in charge of
communicative and cognitive demands imposed by a CLIL classes whose scientific, linguistic or CLIL-specific
CLIL subject. pedagogical qualifications are insufficient or inappropriate.
Lack of adequate training for CLIL commonly results in the
This last threat has been becoming increasingly evident in
inability to deal with the complexities of CLIL settings in
many Spanish contexts, where—ignoring the high symbolic
effective ways.
value that society attributes to these kind of programmes—
students with certain profiles are segregated out of the Other weaknesses identified by the researchers in the LED
CLIL track in order to, as it is argued, protect these ‘less team relate to:

CLIL Journal of Innovation and Research in Plurilingual and Pluricultural Education, 2(1), 2019: 7-19 13
Escobar Urmeneta, C. An Introduction to Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) for Teachers and Teacher Educators

The prohibition or overuse of the L1 in the CLIL 5. Common Features of CLIL Settings
class across Europe

A
• The teacher strictly forbids students to speak in their t the present time, CLIL is a well-established
L1. practice throughout Europe and, although it takes
many forms depending on the context, there are a
• Students do not understand the content because the number of features that most programmes seem to share (see,
teacher speaks almost exclusively in the L2. for example, Cenoz 2015; Cenoz et al. 2014; Dalton-Puffer
2011, 2015; Dalton-Puffer et al. 2010a; Dalton-Pufferet al.
• The teacher speaks mostly in the L1 or uses self- 2014; Escobar Urmeneta 2016b; Nikula et al. 2013; Pérez-
translation as practically the only strategy to make Vidal 2015).
herself understood.
Teacher Profile
Teachers tend to be non-native speakers of the target
Unbalanced treatment of content and language language. In the case of secondary education, CLIL teachers
are usually first and foremost expert teachers of the discipline
• Subject content is trivialized in favour of language in question, and their awareness of language-related issues
practice. may vary according to the amount and quality of the specific
training for CLIL that they have undergone. By contrast, the
• There is insufficient planning to address the special generalist profile of primary teachers equips them with an
challenges usually encountered in CLIL environments. advantage for the teaching of CLIL, provided their language
and specific CLIL teaching skills are firmly grounded.
• Strategies chosen for L2 learning are inappropriate
for a CLIL environment, such as following traditional In the case of English as an L2, the command of English
foreign language teaching methods. shown by teachers in different countries varies from A2 to C2
according to the Common European Framework of Reference
• There is a low density of affordances, that is, of the (CEFR). In the specific case of Spain, the L2 competence
generation of favourable conditions, for the learning of required of CLIL teachers ranges from B2 to C1, depending
the L2. on the legislation of each autonomous region.

• The students’ L2-literacy skills seem to progress at a

very slow pace. Language choice
The term ‘CLIL’ is preferred when the L2 chosen as a means
• Disciplinary literacy in the L2 develops insufficiently of instruction is a European language of international status.
since teachers rarely explicitly work on the subject- English—internationally recognised as the world’s lingua
specific genres/text types which students have to franca of the 21st century—is the preferred target language for
understand and produce in content classes. CLIL, although French, German or Spanish are also used to
a lesser extent in CLIL contexts (Dalton-Puffer et al. 2010a).
On the other hand, the term ‘immersion’ is preferred when
the L2 is a minority language (see section 6). With regard
Insufficient understanding of the stakes of to language use in the typical European CLIL classroom,
plurilingual education and/or low commitment on teachers tend to promote the use of the L2 for all purposes,
the part of the school leadership team. although they may resort to the L1 when they feel there is a
need for it (Escobar Urmeneta 2016b).
• There is insufficient planning and minimal contact with
the target language.
Timetable
• The programme does not accommodate the rhythm and Typically less than 50% of the curriculum is taught in the
personal traits of a large minority of the students. foreign language, and in some contexts this may go down
to 10%. CLIL lessons generally appear in the timetable as
• Content teachers and L2 teachers do not cooperate in ‘content’ lessons, whereas foreign language lessons are
the planning of CLIL teaching units. programmed separately as such. There are of course many
variations to this scheme, particularly in innovative schools,
• Content teachers and L2 teachers do not cooperate in
which encourage language and content teachers to work
the assessment of academic language skills.
hand-in-hand in the planning and co-teaching of subject
• Insufficient information is provided to parents and matter through English. This type of organization favours the
families, leading to unrealistic expectations in terms of transfer of literacy skills from one language to another. Also,
language learning outcomes. schools that value the CLIL approach but do not have the
human resources to implement it often adopt in the foreign

14 CLIL Journal of Innovation and Research in Plurilingual and Pluricultural Education, 2(1), 2019: 7-19
An Introduction to Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) for Teachers and Teacher Educators Escobar Urmeneta, C.

language classroom a variation of standard CLIL that has 6. Commonly Used Terminology Related
been termed ‘content-rich language learning’ (see section 5). to Plurilingual Education

C
Curriculum LIL is just one of the options available in plurilingual
education. It shares several features with other types
The curriculum taught in CLIL lessons must comply with of home-school language-switch programmes and
the national curriculum corresponding to a given content also differs from them in a number of ways. Sometimes the
area. In this respect, CLIL programmes differ from the differences between these approaches lie in the pedagogical
approach taken in what are commonly known as the so- principles that underlie them and the different practices
called ‘international schools’, which typically implement they promote. On other occasions, a different term simply
the curriculum of a different country. For example, because responds to a different tradition or language policy in a given
it is accredited by several US states, the American School of territory. In most cases, a combination of such factors has
Barcelona follows a curriculum consistent with US schools. given rise to the term in question. Below we present some of
the most common.
Assessment
Assessment is mostly carried out in relation to mastery of the
content. At initial stages, as the learner’s capacity to display Language Across the Curriculum
content-related knowledge in a foreign language may be Language Across the Curiculum or LAC (pronounced read
influenced by their incomplete communicative competence ‘L-A-C’). According to Vollmer (2006), LAC acknowledges
in that language, programmes often develop strategies to get the fact that formal language learning does not only take
around this by, for example, allowing students to answer test place in specific timetable slots labelled ‘language class’.
questions in their L1. The learning of language for personal, social and academic
purposes takes place in each and every subject in school, in
School Language Projects each and every activity, across the whole curriculum. LAC
experts warn that schools all too often underestimate the
Typically schools that adopt a CLIL approach develop
linguistic dimension in subject-matter learning activities,
comprehensive language plans or ‘projects’ in order to
and they underscore the need to integrate the development
systematically foster the development of literacy skills in
of language skills and competences into subject-specific
the L2, as well as in the L1, or at least the school’s official
teaching. In short, LAC regards all teachers as language
language(s), since some students may speak a different
teachers, and argues that they should plan and implement
language (or languages) altogether at home. The design
their lessons taking this principle into account. Rather than
of a school language project is mandatory in bilingual
a method for teaching languages, LAC refers to a set of
communities such as the Basque Country or Catalonia in
principles that need be acknowledged in school language
Spain, where CLIL actually entails the use of an L3 as a
projects and implemented in all school subjects, be they
vehicle for learning. Figure 2 summarises the characteristics
language or non-language content areas. According to
shared by CLIL programmes in the EU.
Corson (1990), LAC is grounded on the following principles
(from Vollmer 2006: 6):
• A European foreign language of international status
is used as a language of instruction, English being the • Language develops mainly through its purposeful use
most common.
• Typically between 10% and 50% of the curriculum is • Learning (often) involves talking, writing, shaping
taught in the L2 in CLIL classes. and moving (normally in reaction to perceptions)
• CLIL teachers are usually non-native speakers of the
target language. • Learning often occurs through speaking or writing as
much as through shaping and moving
• CLIL teachers are subject-matter experts.
• The subject-matter curriculum is the same as for the • Language use contributes to/is a pre-requisite for
content subjects taught in the L1. cognitive development
• The culture of the classroom is that of the L1.
• Language is the medium for reflecting on learning, for
• The school language project seeks to guarantee the improving it, for becoming (more or less) autonomous
development of literacy skills in the school’s official
as learners.
L1, as well as in the target L2.
• The school’s official L1 plays an important role in the
CLIL classroom. LAC principles apply as much to the development of first
languages as to the learning of any additional one. In fact,
Figure 2. Some common features of CLIL contexts across Europe. the majority of the approaches for teaching second languages
(Adapted from Dalton-Puffer 2015) described below adhere to the aforementioned tenets.

CLIL Journal of Innovation and Research in Plurilingual and Pluricultural Education, 2(1), 2019: 7-19 15
Escobar Urmeneta, C. An Introduction to Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) for Teachers and Teacher Educators

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE: In the Santissima Annunziata in which learners coming from two different language
primary school (Italy), all teachers in all subjects work communities learn together using both languages as a means
together in subsidiary ways to plan how to help students of instruction.
develop their literacy skills in Italian as an L1 in every
subject in the curriculum. The school is now studying how
ILLUSTRATIVE CASE: In some Boston primary schools
to adapt the traditional methodology hitherto employed
half of students in the classroom are speakers of Spanish
for English instruction to the principles of Content-Rich
and the other half are English speakers. Instruction is
Language Learning (see below) as a preliminary stage
provided in both languages with the goal that students
towards introducing CLIL.
will become bilingual or biliterate (see https://www.
bostonpublicschools.org/Page/5735).

Content-Based Instruction Immersion and dual immersion programmes respond as

much to language learning goals as to social cohesion goals.
Content-Based Instruction or CBI, also known as Content-
Teaching, is an umbrella term used mainly in Canada
and the USA to designate host language programmes
for non-English-speaking students, and the term is often English-Medium Instruction
restricted to programmes addressed to students from a English-Medium Instruction or EMI (pronounced as E-M-I)
migrant background. Immersion (see below) is just one may refer to any kind of programme taught in English, but its
very intensive type of CBI (Cenoz 2015). Planning in CBI use is usually restricted to programmes addressed to adults,
starts by selecting relevant content-related goals, concepts such as a Master’s Degree in Engineering offered in English to
and skills. In a second step, teachers identify the content- international students by a Spanish or Portuguese university.
obligatory language items needed to tackle the content In EMI the L2 is the working language, but the development
and possibly the content-compatible language items which of learner competences in English is not necessarily an
may not be indispensable but fit well within the lesson plan associated goal, the focus being on the learning of content.
(Snow et al. 1989).

Integrating Content and Language in Higher

Sheltered Instruction Education
Sheltered Instruction is an approach to English-medium CBI Integrating Content and Language in Higher Education
(see above) developed in the USA which places a heavy (ICLHE) (Wilkinson, ed., 2004) refers to CLIL programmes
emphasis on how support to comprehension and production offered by tertiary institutions. ICLHE is therefore a
is provided to students of migrant origins in compulsory very specific type of EMI that aims at the development
education. It emphasises both use of the target language for of professional competence in a particular speciality and
all purposes and support for cognitive and communicative simultaneously communicative competence in the L2 in a
development. In line with this approach, Echeverria and specific professional context such as business management
Short developed the Sheltered Instruction Observation or medicine. Sometimes ICLHE programmes are simply
Protocol (SIOP) (pronounced as one single word: /ˈsaɪ. labelled CLIL, as can be inferred from Dalton-Puffer’s
əp/)(http://www.cal.org/siop/), a tool for observing and definition of CLIL (see section 2 above). Elsewhere they
improving the quality of lessons. Its proponents claim that are equated with EMI. My own sense is that programmes in
‘the SIOP Model improves teaching effectiveness and results tertiary education with language development goals deserve
in academic gains for students’(Echeverria et al. 2006). a specific term since university students and professors face
particular challenges not commonly found in compulsory
education (Escobar Urmeneta 2018).
Language Immersion
Language Immersion is the term commonly used when
students coming from families who speak a majority Content-Rich Language Learning
language are schooled in the minority language present in
the social environment of the school. Content-Rich Language Learning (CRLL), also known
as Language-Driven CLIL (LD-CLIL) or soft CLIL. The
evidence provided by research regarding the high quality
ILLUSTRATIVE CASE: This approach was extensively of the interactions that emerge in CLIL classrooms has
tested inFrench language immersion programmes in encouraged many foreign language teachers to plan their
Quebec, Canada, and is currently applied within the lessons according to CLIL pedagogical principles. For
Spanish public education systemfor Catalan language example, a teacher of English as an L2 might plan a teaching
immersion in Catalonia and Basque language immersion unit for Grade 4 students around the myth of Robin Hood,
in the Basque Country. using it as a starting point to explore in the L2 some aspects
of everyday life in the Middle Ages. Or a teacher of French
Two-way or dual immersion is a variant of this approach

16 CLIL Journal of Innovation and Research in Plurilingual and Pluricultural Education, 2(1), 2019: 7-19
An Introduction to Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) for Teachers and Teacher Educators Escobar Urmeneta, C.

as an L2 might follow up a recent school visit with her Content Driven CLIL
Grade 7 class to some nearby Roman ruins by having
Content-Driven CLIL, also known as hard CLIL. This is
student role-play in French a ‘Patrician Roman Dinner’.
usually contrasted with Language-Driven CLIL (Met 1998)
This approach is often referred to as Content-Rich Language
to distinguish the approaches in which CLIL is implemented
Learning (Escobar Urmeneta 2012) or Language-Driven
in a content class (hence ‘content-driven’) from the ‘content-
CLIL. It should be noted that in the case of quality CRLL,
rich’ approaches, which in effect involve implementing
the potential quality of interactions is maintained while the
CLIL in a foreign language class. Content-driven CLIL is
potential benefits of the increase in contact hours with the L2
commonly referred to simply as ‘CLIL’. The differences
present in standard CLIL programmes disappears.
between standard CLIL and Content-Rich Approaches to
foreign language learning are summarised in Figure 3 below.
The CRLL (or LD-CLIL) approach to foreign language
learning excludes classic classroom activities such as ‘one
day in the life of’ or ‘the horoscope’, far-fetched topics 7. To Conclude

D
selected for the repetitive practice of pre-determined specific
language forms (like the present simple or will-future forms) alton-Puffer et al. (2010b: 3) argue that the term
without any real meaningful content. For the same reason, CLIL ‘has acquired some characteristics of a
the CRLL approach also rules out the use of texts on topics brand name, complete with the symbolic capital of
of current social or scientific interest such as ‘acid rain’ positive description: innovative, modern, effective, efficient
or ‘animal experimentation’ when they are merely used and forward-looking’.This glamour must not interfere with
to showpiece certain language items (the passive voice, a commitment to the progressive understanding of the
for instance). Such reading activities illustrate how ‘hot’ intricacies and challenges that the CLIL approach brings
scientific and social issues can be trivialized to serve as the into schools, classrooms and the teaching profession. Nor
context for contrived grammar practice (Escobar Urmeneta must it blind us to the risks for democratic education implied
2012). by certain ways of implementing CLIL which enforce the
Matthew effect by favouring students who already have full
access to foreign language education, to the detriment of
Bilingual (or Trilingual) Education others with few or no opportunities for learning languages
of high symbolic and practical value outside the school.
Bilingual education is a generic term referring to educational
programmes that consistently use two (or more) languages CLIL is not the only approach to plurilingual education, but
as a vehicle for instruction. Immersion, CLIL and ICLHE under certain circumstancesit appears to be a reasonably
are different types of bilingual (or trilingual) programmes. good one. However, one condition is indispensable if CLIL
The main advantage of this term is its transparency for non- programmes are to achieve success, namely that the teachers
experts, which is why some educational authorities prefer who carry it out in the classroom must have appropriate and
it to the more technical ‘CLIL’ (or AICLE, EMILE, etc. sufficient training in not only subject content but also the L2
in its different translations). Its main drawback is that the vehicle they will use to deliver that content. One inexcusable
term ‘bilingual’ (or trilingual) only refers to the number of condition to achieve success through CLIL is the satisfactory
languages, but does not provide information on the purpose linguistic and professional training of content, and language
of the programme or the pedagogical approach adopted. teachers who have learned to work closely together.

CLIL CONTENT-RICH LANGUAGE LEARNING

(or CONTENT-DRIVEN CLIL) (or LANGUAGE-DRIVEN CLIL)

Teachers are
Teachers are content experts
foreign language experts

Lessons are timetabled Lessons are timetabled

as content lessons as foreign language lessons

Assessment is (mainly) conducted Assessment is conducted according to

according to content-related goals language-/communication-related goals

Typically foreign language lessons continue Typically content lessons are taught in the
side-by-side L1

Figure 3
Differences between content-driven and language-driven CLIL

CLIL Journal of Innovation and Research in Plurilingual and Pluricultural Education, 2(1), 2019: 7-19 17
Escobar Urmeneta, C. An Introduction to Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) for Teachers and Teacher Educators

Notes integrated learning’. In C. Dalton-Puffer, T. Nikula, and

U. Smit (eds): Language Use and Language Learning
1 LED refers to the Language and Education Research in CLIL Classrooms (pp. 1–19). Amsterdam: John
team. More information available at: www.http:// Benjamins.
grupsderecerca.uab.cat/led/
Echevarria, J., Powers, K., & Short, D. (2006). School
Reform and Standards-Based Education: A Model for
English- Language Learners. The Journal of Educational
References Research: 195-210.

Artieda, G., Roquet, H.,& Nicolás-Conesa, F. (2017). The Escobar Urmeneta, C. (2011). Colaboración interdisciplinar,
impact of age and exposure on EFL achievement in Partenariado y Centros de Formación Docente: Tres ejes
two learning contexts: formal instruction and formal para sustentar la formación del profesorado AICLE. In C.
instruction + content and language integrated learning Escobar Urmeneta & L. Nussbaum (coords.), Aprendre en
(CLIL). International Journal of Bilingual Education and una altra llengua / Learning through another language
Bilingualism, DOI: 10.1080/13670050.2017.1373059 / Aprender en otra lengua (pp. 203-230). Bellaterra:
Servei de Publicacions de la Universitat Autònoma de
Cenoz, J. (2015). Content-based instruction and content Barcelona.
and language integrated learning: the same or different?
Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28(1), 8-24. Escobar Urmeneta, C. (2012). Content-Rich Language
Learning in Context-Rich Classrooms. APAC, 74, 39-47.
Cenoz, J. Genesee, F., & Gorter, D. (2014). Critical analysis
of CLIL: Taking stock and looking forward. Applied Escobar Urmeneta, C. (2016a). Conversación educativa
Linguistics, 35, 243–262. y aprendizaje integrado de competencias lingüísticas y
curriculares: las muchas tareas de la maestra AICLE.
Coyle, D. (2005). Developing CLIL: Towards a theory of e.AESLA, 2, 42-55.
practice. In: CLIL in Catalonia. From Theory to Practice.
APAC Monographs 6, 5-29. Escobar Urmeneta, C. (2016b). Aprendizaje integrado de
contenidos y lengua. In D. Masats & L. Nussbaum (eds.),
Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and Enseñanza y aprendizaje de las lenguas extranjeras en
Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge. Cambridge educación secundaria obligatoria (pp.85-111). Madrid:
University Press. Síntesis.
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2007). Discourse in Content-and- Escobar Urmeneta, C. (2018). Docencia Universitaria
Language-Integrated Learning (CLIL) classrooms. en Inglés (DUI) en el grado de Educación Primaria:
Amsterdam: John Benjamins. fundamentación, contexto y toma de decisiones. In: C.
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2008). Outcomes and processes in Escobar Urmeneta y L. Arnau (Eds). Los retos de la
Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL): internacionalización de los Grados Universitarios en el
current research from Europe. In Werner Delanoy and Contexto del Espacio Europeo de Educación Superior
Laurenz Volkmann, (eds.) Future Perspectives for (EEES) (pp. 33-59). Madrid. Ed. Síntesis.
English Language Teaching (pp. 139-158). Heidelberg: Escobar Urmeneta, C., & Evnitskaya, N. (2013). Affording
Carl Winter. Students Opportunities for the Integrated Learning
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2011). Content and Language Integrated of Content and Language. A Contrastive Study on
Learning: From Practice to Principles? Annual Review of Classroom Interactional Strategies Deployed by Two
Applied Linguistics, 31, 182-204. CLIL Teachers. In J. Arnau, (Ed.), Reviving Catalan at
School: Challenges and Instructional Approaches (pp.
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2015). Policy and practice of CLIL 158-182) Multilingual Matters LTD/ Institut d’Estudis
in Europe and beyond. Workshop given at Sophia Catalans.
University Tokyo on 221 Feb 2015.
Escobar Urmeneta, C. & Evnitskaya, N. (2014). ‘Do you
Dalton-Puffer, C., Llinares, A., Lorenzo, F., & Nikula, T. know Actimel?’ The Adaptive Nature of Dialogic
(2014). You can stand under my umbrella: Immersion, Teacher-led Discussions in the CLIL Science classroom:
CLIL and bilingual education. A response to Cenoz, a Case Study. Language Learning Journal: 42(2), 165-
Genesee & Gorter. Applied Linguistics, 35, 213–218. 180.

Dalton-Puffer, C., Nikula, T., & Smit, U. (2010a). Language Eurobarometer (2012). Europeans and their languages:
use and language learning in CLIL: Current findings and Eurobarometer 386 report. Retrieved from: http://
contentious issues. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_386_
en.pdfec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_386_
Dalton-Puffer, C., T. Nikula, and U. Smit. (2010b). ‘Charting en.pdf
promises premises and research on content and language

18 CLIL Journal of Innovation and Research in Plurilingual and Pluricultural Education, 2(1), 2019: 7-19
An Introduction to Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) for Teachers and Teacher Educators Escobar Urmeneta, C.

European Commission (1995). White Paper on Education Vollmer, H.J. (2006). Language Across the Curriculum.
and Training. Teaching and Learning: Toward a Learning Preliminary study. Languages of Schooling: towards a
Society. Framework for Europe Intergovernmental Conference.
Strasbourg. https://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Source/
European Commission (2008). Multilingualism: an asset for Vollmer_LAC_EN.doc
Europe and a shared commitment.
Wilkinson, R. (Ed.) (2004). Integrating Content and
European Union (2002). Presidency Conclusions. Barcelona Language. Meeting the Challenge of a Multilingual
European Council. 15-16 March 2002. (Barcelona Higher Education. Proceedings of the ICL Conference,
Summit). Retrieved from: http://ec.europa.eu/invest-in- October 23-25 2003. Maastricht: Universitaire Pers
research/pdf/download_en/barcelona_european_council.
Maastricht.
pdf

Eurydice. (2006). Content and language integrated learning

(CLIL) at school in Europe. Retrieved from: http://
bookshop.europa.eu/en/content-and-language-integrated- 9. Appendix
learning-clic-at-school-in-europe-pbNCX106001/ Transcription Conventions
Halliday, M.A.K. (1993). Towards a Language-Based
Theory of Learning. Linguistics and Education 5, 93-
+word+ Word pronounced approximately
116.
in that way
Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2006). How Languages Are ‘word Stressed syllable
Learned (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University.

Marsh, D., Maljers, A., & Hartiala, A-K (eds.) (2001). WORD Louder speech
Profiling European CLIL Classrooms. UNICOM:
University of Jyväskylä & European Platform for Dutch word Emphasis on word or syllable
Education: den Haag.
[word or phrase] Comment from transcriber
Met, M. (1998). Curriculum decision-making in content-
based language teaching. In J. Cenoz & F. Genesee (Eds.),
Beyond bilingualism: Multilingualism and multilingual wo::rd Prolonged sound
education (pp. 35-63). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
BB Blackboard
Mohan, B.A. (1985). Language and Content. Reading-Mas.
Addison-Wesley. 2’ 2-second pause
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.

Pérez-Vidal, C. (2015). Languages for all in education:

CLIL and ICLHE at the crossroads of multilingualism,
mobility and internationalisation. In M. Juan-Garau &
J. Salazar-Noguera (pp.31-51). Content-based language
learning in multilingual educational environments.
Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.

Pladevall-Ballester, E. & Vallbona, A. (2016). CLIL in

minimal input contexts: A longitudinal study of primary
school learners’ receptive skills. System 58, 37-48.

Snow, M.A., Met, M., & Genesee, F. (1989). A Conceptual

Framework for the Integration of Language and Content
in Second/ Foreign Language Instruction. TESOL
Quarterly, 23(2), 201-217.

Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond:

Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue.
In J.P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second
language learning (pp. 97-114). Oxford: OUP.

CLIL Journal of Innovation and Research in Plurilingual and Pluricultural Education, 2(1), 2019: 7-19 19

View publication stats