A window on CLIL

1.1 Whllf: is CULl

Content and Language lntesrated Learning (aJL) is a dual-focused educational
approach in which an a.dditimullanpage is used for the learning and teaclling of both con-
tent and language. That is, in the teaching and learning process, there is a focus not only on
content, and not only on language. Each is interwoven, eYI!Il if the emphasis is greater on one
or the other at a givl:n time. aJL is not a new form of language education. It is not a new
form of subject education. It is an innovative fusion of both. aJL is closely related to and
shues some elements of a of educational practices. Some of these pradices - such as
bilingual education and immersion- hm: been in operation for decades in specific countries
and others, such as content-based language teaching or English as an Additional
Language (EAL), may share some bask theories and practia: but are not synoll)'lllous with
aJL since there 11re some fundamental clifferences. aJL is and this is where
it both atends the experience of learning a language, and where it becomes different to
existing language-teaching approaches. Throughout this book. we will clarify the evolving
aJL phenomenon by e><ploring core which permeate clifferent applications.
Whilst aJL is fleDble and can be adapted to different contens, nonetheless, for the approach
to be justifiable and im theoretical basis must be rigorous and transparent in
practice. The term CLIL is indusive in that it binds together the essence of good practice
found in the different environments where its principles been adopted. It involves a
range of models which can be applied in a variety of ways with di'!ne types oflearner. Good
aJL practice is realized through methods which provide a more holistic educational expe-
rience for the learner than may otherwise be commonly achievable.

Iangu.ge is often a learner's 'foreign language'.

but it may also be a second language or some form of heritage
or community language. Throughout the book we will use an
inclusive term 'aJL vehicular language' to refer to the
language(s) used in aJL settings.

The operational sucass of CUL has been in transfi:rability, not only across countries
and continents, but also across types of school. The educatinnal sucass of CLU. is in the
content- and language-learning outcomes realized in classrooms. CLIT.. provides pathways

1
to learning whicll oomplement insightll now emerging from interdisciplinary resean:h
within the neurosciena!S and education (see, fur example, CBRI, Because of itll
potential, CLn. is gaining momentum and atending as an educational approach across
oontinents (see, for example, lluryd.ia!, wo6, or Graddol, It is also one of the reasons
why this book h11S been written fur a broad readership including subject and language spe-
cialists, and those responsible fur educational planning and implementation.

1.2 The development of CLIL

Unks with the past and demands of the present
Education in a language whicll is not the first language of the learner is as old as edu-
cation itself. & individuals from diffi:rent language groups have lived together, some hlm:
been educated in an additional language. This is as true of Ancient Rome as it is of the
increasingly multilingual societies being created through mobility and globalization in the
Cl!Dtury.
Two thousand years ago, provisinn ofan educational curriculum in an additional lan-
guage happened 1IS the Roman Empire apanded and absorbed Greek territory, language
and culture. Families in Rome educated their children in Greek to ensure that they would
have access to not only the language, but also the social and professional opportunities it
would provide fur them in their future lives, including living in Greek-speaking education-
al communities. This historical experiena! has been replicated across the world through the
Cl!Dturies, and is now particularly true of the global uptake of English language learning.
What is signifu:ant here is the way in which language learning, particularly when integrat-
ed with oontent learning or knowiedge oonstruction, h1IS now been opened up fur a broad
range of learners, not only those from privileged or otherwise elite backgrounds. In the
distant past. learning oontent through m additional language was either limited to very
specific social groups, or furced upon school populations fur whom the language of
instruction was a foreign language.
The recent growing interest in CIJL can be understood by examining best practice in
education which suits the demands of the present day. Globalization and the forces of eoo-
nomic and'oc:W oonvergence have had a significant impact on who learns which language,
atwbat stage in their development, and in wbicb way. The drivingfurces fur language learn-
ing diffi:r acoording to oountry and region, but they share the objective of wanting to
achieve the best possible results in the shortest time. This need has often dovetailed with
the need to adapt ccntent-teadting methodologies so as to raise overall levels of proficien-
cy, particularly since the introduction of global comparative measures ranking individual
countries through the Programme fur International Student &sessment (PISA) of the
Organisation fur Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).
This need to be more adaptahle and effuctive h1IS led to attention being given back
to cognitive proa!ssing and how learning successfully occurs. Discussion started in earnest
in the 19505 with the advent of what was termed the 'cognitive revolution' (Broadbent,

2
19S8), Although this was largely a response to behaviourism, focus on cognition and com
munication became ever mcm significant as technologies required insight into the devel-
opment of artificW intelligence. Currently, there is increasing recognition that the
eql!oration ofleaming by cognitive neurosciences provides altmlative insights by which to
inlpnm: overall efficiency.
Correspondingly, landmark work by Bruner (b. 9ls), Piaget (18g6-91lo), and
Vygotsky (1896--1934) led to the devclopment of socio<U!tural, oonstructivist perspectives
on learning. These perspectives have had an inlmense inlpact on educational theory and
practice. Related areas such as multiple intelligences (Gardner, 1983), integration
(Aclcuman, 1996), learner autonomy (Holec, 1981; Gredler, 1997> Wertsch. 1997> Kulda,
woo),laoguage awareness (Hawldns, 1984) and language-learning strategies (Oxfurd,1ggo)
all played a 1cey role in aamining ways to raise 1m1s of curricular relevance, motivation
and involvement of learners in 1heir education. Moreover, the balance between the individ-
ual and the social learning environment lw led to alternative means by which to teach and
learn both content subjects and iaJJauages. Since CLIL straddles these two different but
complementary aspects of learning, parallels between genera! learning theories and second
iaJJauage acquisition (SLA) theories have to be harmonized in practice if both content
learning and language learning are to be suoceasfully achieved. In addition, over the last few
year.s, education hubeen reaching new thresholds as a result of the ability not only to 11:Udy
behaviour and performance, but also to see inside the 'learning brain' (CERI, :1.007). its
these diff=nt elements of learning come together, a of knowledge is consolidat
ing the position of CLIL as an educational approach in its own right (see, fur exarople,
Doidge, :wor. 'Ibkubama-Espinosa, :wo.!l; Marsh,

Deflnlna Content and tJ1nau1e lnte1med Learnln1

The term 'Content and Language Integrated Learning' (CLIL) was adopted in 1994
(Marsh. Maljers and Hartiala. 2o01) within the European context to desaibe and further
design good practice as achieved in different types of school euvinlmnent where teaching
and leaming talce place in an additional language. Schools in very clif'rerent contexts across
the world had been finding their own ways to enrich learnlng, sometimes for many years.
CLIL set out to capture and articulate that not only was there a high degree of similarity
in educational methodologies, but also an equally high degree of educational su=ss.
IdentifYins this success was one major driwr within the education professions; main-
streanting the experience for a wider general public was the other.
CUL is an educational approach in which '1'31'ious language-supportive methodolo-
gies are used which lead to a dual-fucused furm of instruction where attention is given both
to the language and the content:

... [A]chlevlng this twofold aim calls for the development of a spedal approach to teach
lng In that the subject Is not taught In a foreign but with and
through a foreign language.
(l!ucydice, 2006: 8)

3
 This opens up doors on an educational aperience which can be vuy hard to achieve
in a language-learning classroom. There are various reasons fur this which are explored in
Otapter 3. CUL is an approach which is neither language learning nor subject learning, but
an amalgam of both and is linked ID the processes of convergence. Co!M!tgence involves
the fusion of elements which may bave been previously fragmented, such as subjects in the
curriculum. This is where CLIL breaks new ground.

CU Las a form of COIM!IJ!t!nce

To give a parallel aample common in recent times, we can take studie.l on the envi-
ronment In the 196os, Richard Bucbninstec Fuller (1895-1983) warned of climate change
in the publication Opomting MrmlUII ftr SJ>Iltz$hip Eattll (1963), and through his worlr. on
what was then called 'synergetics'. k a visionary and author, his articulated rationale and
conc:erns only entered the public consciousness vuy much later.
Some sa years on, world opinion on climate mange remained divided, ofml because
of socio-economic reasons. HawrvH, in some countries, recognition that human activity
was leading to a degradation of the environment led ID a need to educate young people in
schoob so as to both infurm and, perhaps more crucially, inlluence behaviour. Topics relat-
ing to the environment could already be found in chemistry, economics, geography,
mange
physics, and C\'en psychology. Yet, as climate became increasingly worrying, educa-
tion responded ID the need ID influence change.
This happened during the 198os and 1990s through the introduction of a new subject,
or set of modules, which focused on the environment. 'l!nvironmental studies' is an exam-
ple of a newly emerged 'integrated' subject which can be found in schools throughout the
world. In order to structure this new subject, teachers of different disciplines would have
needed ID climb out of their respective mindsets grounded in physics, cheotistry, geogra-
phy, psychology and so on, to explore ways of building an integrated curriculum, and to
develop alternative methodologies by which to implement it.
Such a process invol- developing professional interronnectedne.ss so as to activate
forma of innovation. Pooling slr.illa and to change aisti.ng practice can lead
to alternative approaches. Climate change is a global and local phenomenon, so the
increasing availability in some countries of information and communication technolo-
gies during the 19901 provided tools by which to make some of these methodologies oper-
ationaL
If m return to languages and CLIL, we have a similar situation. The late 19905 meant
that educational insight was firmly set on achieving a high degree of language awareness.
Appropriate methodologies mre to be used ID attain the best possible results in a way
which accommodated diverse learning styles. The impact of globalization, lilr.e climate
change, was being increasingly in some parts of the world, especially in Europe during
the period of rapid integration from 1990 to This intpact highlighted the need fur
better language and communication educational outcomes.
In order to respond, it was necessary to examine haw more appropriate language
teaching and learning could be achieved, and which might be most suitable for

4
respective age groups. For instance, the \'iew that the hours allocated for teadllng
within the curricuhun were often insufficient to produce satisfactory outcomes was one
i$$\le under frequent discussion. Interest in looking at how some tl!aclling could
be done whilst students were learning other subjects, thus provkling more to the
was then consU!ered. But this was only one of the issues. Others oon-
cerned the need for better linguistic and communicative oompem:>ce, more relevant
methodologies, and higher levels of authenticity to increase learner motivation. This atten-
tion given to the need for improved learning results was also fuund in other subject 1IIeaS
within the curriculum.

CliL In the Knowledge Age

As with Fuller's vi&ion and the development of environmental sciences, CUI. devel-
oped as an innovative funn of education in response to the demands and expectations of
the modern age. Input from diffuent academic fields has oontributed to the reoognition of
this approach to educational practice. In an age charactErized by 'quick fix' solutions, how-
ever, which may or may not lead to any funn of sustainable outoomes, it is important to
contertualise CLIL historically. CLIL is not merely a convenient response to the challenges
posed by rapid globalli.ation; rather, it is a solution which is timely, which is in harmony
with broader social perspectives, and which has proved effecti.e.
Fragmentation was .ery much a charac:terUtic of the Industrial Age. Power blocks
such as countries, societies and even educational systems operatl!d according to tl!rritory,
borders and boundaries. The Industrial Age was marked by strategies of position and phys-
ically based resoun:es. But globalization and the emergence of the new technologies have
moved us into a new era, the Knowledge Age. This has resulted in sm:eping dumges in haw
societies, and the educational systems that serve them, operate. In the Knowledge !ti,e, the
two main are of mo.ement and unlimited resoun:es, because of the significance
of ideas, creativity and intelligence. It is hardly surprisjng that such a seismic change in
global culture pressurizes change within educational systems. Integration, convergence and
participative learning are three lcey characteristics of Knowledge Age organizations which
are influencing decisions on what, and how, we teach young people.
The lcey performance drivers of the Knowledge Age society are commonly cited as the
'Knowledge 'lriangle' (EURAB, This triangle integrates education, research and
innovation, which are the core reatures for managing successful change and adaptation.
These are also core issues influencing how we can reshape the ways in which we teach lan-
guages. When Graddol 86) describes CLIL as the 'ultimate communicative method-
ology, he points to one of the major differences between the communicative language
teaching mo.ement in the 198os and the emergence of CLIL in the 19905. Communicative
language teaching was one step towards providing a more holistic way of teachins and
learning but for various reasons, especially relating to authenticity, has been
insufficient in realizing the high level of authenticity of purpose which can be achieved
through CLIL. Much CLIL classroom practice ilnol.es the learners being active partici-
pants in developing their potl!ntial for acquiring lrnowledge and skills (education) through

5
a process of inquiry (research) and by using compla cognitive processes and means fur
problem solving (innovation). When the teacher pulls back from being the donor ofknowl.-
edge and becomes the facilitator, as ill often found in CLIL practice, forces are unleashed
which empower learners to acquire knowledge whilst actively engaging their awn and peer-
group powers of perception, communication and reasoning.
As CLIL practice often preceded researdl. (although some fundamentally important
research wu available through the 198os and 19901, drawing on the ezperience of Canadian
immersion) it waa some time before scientific validation of the approach could be made. But
as research results became ava.il.able (see Cbapter 7), those involved with forms of CLIL
increasingly came to the view that variants of this could be seen as providing edu-
cation which goes beyond language learning. So, whereas in one situation the language Iru1f
be the dominant focus, in another it may be the content, but in each there is a fusion result-
ing from the metbndologies which can lead to positive educational outcomes. What sepa-
rates CLIL from some established approaches sum as content-based language learning, or
forms of bilingual education, is the planned pedagogic integration of contatualized con-
tent, cngnition, cnmmunication and culture into teaching and learning practice (Coyle,
45). This is explored in detail in Cllapters 3 and 4-

1.3 What are the drivins forces behind CULl

There are two major reasons which underpin the intErest in CLIL within a speciftc
country or region. These involve reactive (responding to situations) and proactive (creat-
ing situations) responses to challenges or problems.

Rnctlve reasons
There are cnuntries in the world where the language of instruction is foreign to the
majority of the 1eamers in schools and colleges. An official language may be adopted as the
medium of instruction fur some part ofachooling. ofb!n at secnnds.ry leYel, which acts as a
language of national unity.
This is typical in some countriec in sub-Saharan Africa. For enmple, Mo%ambique,
which has some w distinct fint languages, has adopted Portuguese, as has Angola.
'I'amania and Ethiopia. likewise having a mosaic of languages amongst their populations,
have adopted Jlnslish. In the past, both South Africa and Namibia adopted Afrikaans,
before widely switching to Englisb. lW!:u though there are some 2,ooo languages in Africa,
three languages are cnmmonplace as medium of instruction: English, French and
Portuguese.
In Mozambique, about six per cent of citizens view Portuguese as their fint language,
and it is estimated that some 27 per !%1lt can speak or otherwise understand the language
(Benson, :1.002). Figures like theae invite the question of how children and young people
manage in their achool years when the language of instruction Iru1f be far removed from
their life experience. An educational language policy, as found in Mozambique, may be one
reason wby achool wastage is sometimes huge. In South Africa alone it ill estimated that

6
somt 75 per of cbildren fail school (Heugh, woo), and part of the reason for this is
widely attributed to language issues and not adapting classroom methodologies to the
demands of learning through an additional language.
Considering that human competence-building is aitical for the social and econotnic
development of any country, such figures make alanning reading. In terms of language
policy, the issue is whether the medium of instruction is instrumental in weakening educa-
tioDa! development. Language policy needs to be implemented with language pragmatism
and CLlL emerges as one solution for achieving this in diffi:rent countries.
Language problems are by no means emush>e to somt oontioents. The sub-Saharan
cases here are extreme eumples, but there are many challenges found elsewhere in relation
to nurturing minority or threatened languages, or accommodating the needs of migrant
dtildren who have low fluency in the major language of instruction. changes in
European classroom demographiC! resulting from migration is one example.
If a country is to convert a language problem into language potential then solutions
have to be identified which are workable in the classroom. Regardless of policy decisions, it
is the social microcosm of the classrooro, and learning practice, which reflect tbe successes
or failures of the community as a whole.
CIJL plays a role in providing a pragmatic response towards o.ercoming linguistic
shortcomings, and in promoting equal acass to education for all school-aged students,
including those with additioDa! support needs. In the rea.ctM the problem of
medium of instruction is recognised, and full owed by methodological and curricula adjust-
ment Methodologies, sometimes calledlanguage-$upportin, or language-sensiti'l't, can be
introduced fur the teaching of subjects across the curriculum. This means that all teachers
need to take responsibility fur language deYclopment through a dual fucus when teaching
other subjects. The type of approach may differ, but any language burden on children or
students can be alleviated if CLlL methodologies are embedded in teaching and learning.

Proactive reasons
Proactively identifying solutions by which to enhance language learning, or some
other aspect of educational, social or personal development, is the other major reason why
attention is given to furms of CLIL
For eumple, French immersion in Canada was developed to strengthen bilingualism in
the country. Accounts di!Ter as to why it became so popular so quiddy. but it is reasonable to
assume that this was due to a simultaneous grassroots and top-ilown pressure. At the grass-
roots, there was frustration at the failure of traditioDa! Prench language teaching, wlrich led
parents to support the 1965 introduction of immersion in a school (St Lambert) in Quebec.
However, at a higher socio-political J.evel, Canadian society was
fur chanse. In July 1967, Charles de Gaulle made his inJiunous statement 'Vin le Quebec
libre', which resulted in heated political debate throughout the country. This was followed,
in 1968, by the appointment of Pierre Ttudeau as Prime Minister. He sought to pre&er'l't
national unity, especially between French and English speakers. This led to the Official
Act which resulted in Canada having two ofliciallanguages and tbe right fur

7
anyone to use either of these languases anywhere in the muntry. One single overarcbing
reason that inunersinn received so mum support and attention was a proactive need to
strengthen national unity. Thus immersinn in schools served as a pragmatic response to a
linguistic and cultural problem. By 2006, the number ofyoung people undertaking immer-
sion education in Canada was in elCCeSS of 30o,ooo.
Another enmple is Europe, where discussion on economic unity during the 19505
included focus on language policies, and the need for greater levels of multilinguaiWn. In
1958, a European Economic Community regulation (EEC, 1958) determined which lan-
guages would be official within the newly forming union of separate countries. From this
point it was clear that the new Europe wuuld be a plurilingual entity, and that educational
systems would need to make greater efforts to provide language education for more young
people. In 1976, the European Education Council (EC,1976) listed language-learning objec-
tives and argued for the promotion oflanguage teaching outside the traditional school sys-
tems. Then, in 1978, the European Commission made a proposal to the member states (EC,
1978) thu enoounged teaching in schools through the medium of more than one language.
This was a landmark point which acted as a catalyst for the development of CUI. across the
continent
In 19114, the European Parliament questioned welknesses in languages education, and
this was followed in the same }'Car by the Education Council, which accepted that there was
a need to give greater inlpetus to the teaching and learning of foreign languages (EP,1984).
From that }'CU on, there were a range of declarations and statcmen1s made about the need
to explore alternative paths in languages education. In addition, as with Canadian immer-
sion, finance was invested in projec1s which led to the development of practical education-
al solutions such as CUI.. From 1990 onwards, CLIT. became increasingly prioritised within
the European Union as a major educational initiative (Eurydice, 2006), culminating in the
2005 European Council recommendations that CLIT. sbould be adopted throughout the
entire European Union (EG, 2005).
In 2006, the first statistical study on where and how CLIL was being inlplementcd in
Europe was published (Eurydioe, 2006). It was now dear that, since the launch of the term
in 1994. there had been exponential uptala: of CUI. across countries. This was due to four
simultaneous major proactive forces: &milles wanting their children to have some compe-
tence in at least one foreign language; govemments wanting to inlprove languages educa-
tion for socio-economic advantage; at the supranationallevel, the European Commisllinn
wanting to lay the foundation for greater inclusion and economic strength; and finally, at
the educational level, language experts seeing the potential of further integrating languages
education with that of other subjec1s.
Looking beyond Europe, changes in the world economy mean that several large
countries (Brazil, Russia, India and China) have encountered rapid growth as their
economies have become interconnected with others around the world. This is one aspect
of global.i2ation which results in a reconfiguration of territory so that enterpri.!es become
increasingly netwurked and dependent on others which may be physically distant. These
major countries and their increasingly borderless economic global dependency means

8
that oommuniration and the ability to me a lingua franca i.5 becoming a prerequuite for
individual SUCJ:ess. There are al510 other C)Untries such as Malaf1ia, Singapi)re and
Thailand, which are in the outer economic circles of substantial change, but which also
wish ro attract various forms of work which is outsourced and which often requires an
English-language-proficient workforce.
Whilst it must be stressed that CLIL is not synonymous with English language learn-
ing and teaching, the potentially huge global demand for learning English means that it is
a popular vehicular language in non-Anglophone areas. Projections are that some one-
third of the world's population will be actively learning the language by 2010 (Graddol,
101). This oorrespondiugly means oorui.derable interest in 'brning oontent subjects
through English' being shown in those oountries where it is a vehicular language. It is like-
ly, but not yet sufficiently documentEd, that such C)UDtries will aplore which melhodolo-
gies best suit education where children learn through English as a fureign or seoond
language. Thus CLIL may be increasingly adoptEd as a proactive means by which to mui-
mize the potential for success. However, whilst fur many countries Bnglish is the targeted
medium, there are other oountries, including Anglophone countries, where the vehicular
language is not English. Obvious examples include the Canadian immersion movement in
French, Basque trilingual programmes involving a heritage language, and CLIL in the UK,
where French, German and Spanish are promotEd.

1.4 Why Is CLIL relevant to contemporary education?

The forces of global change, converging technologies and adaptability to the subse-
quent Knowledge Age present challenges for education. And within education as a whole,
they present c:llallenges fur the teaching and learning of additional languages. This is true
for the learning of Bnglish globaUy, and fur the learning of regional, minority and
heritage languages in different parts of the world. AJi we have previously pointed out,
CLIL is not exclusiYe to the promotion of E.nglish as a world language but is embedded
in the socio-economic, political and cultural traditions of different nations. For example,
some parts of the world such as Australia promote LOTE (Languages Other Than
English), where CLIL vehicular languages include AJiian, European and heritage lan-
guages. In border areas such as between France and Germany, the CLIL language might
focus on mutual sharing of both languages. However, we belieYe that CLIL as a promot-
er of LOTE has yet to reach its potential in the global arena and may not do 10 until after
the 'saturation' of English as the CLIL medium. Pioneering work using a wide range of
languages is gaiuing momentum and making a crucial contribution to developing CLIL
pedagogies- especially in Anglophone countries (Chapter 7 presents one such example).
One c:llange brought about by the new recllnologies and lifest71e change concerns the
learners' mindset Generation" (1981>-1995) and Generation C (aiSIO knawn as Generation
Z, 199.5--W15) have been and are being increasingly exposed to advanced tEchnology at a
Yery young age in the form of game consoles, 010bile communication and entertainment
peraonal computers, the IntErnet and &a on. Sucll technology may be har&r fur

9
older generations tn adapt tn, they having been brought up with different thinking conven-
tions; but young people growing up with this technology are prone tn developing a mind-
set ID which educators need ID respond. This has been described as a desire ID 1earn as you
use, use as you learn' and difl'en from the older aperience of 'learn now for use later.
Much education is stillloclcied into the second of these adages, which may well con-
tinue tn be necessary in certain respects. But educational practice always needs tn adapt tn
the cultural demands of those involved - learners, teachers and communities. Integration
has become a key ooncept in the modern age, alongside immediacy of purpose. Bntb of
these reflect the of i.ncreaaing numbers of young people, and are aa:ommodat-
ed within the CLIL educational approad>.
Socio-economic change is happening now at a faster pace overall than may have been
experienced in the past Although some countries h- undergone very rapid change
because of forms ofspecific pressure, new technologies are also bringing about transforma-
tions throughout the world. This means that educational systems also need to adapt even
more swiftly than they have done in the past Some would argue that education tends tn
adapt slowly, and that, for instance, to change educational practice in the claasroom can
take some 15-lO years to achieve. ri we put this into the contat of technological and sub-
sequent lifestyle change, we can see bow this is too long a period in a world undergoing
rapid tran&itio11- It took 40 years for the radin ID reach an audience of so million, years
for the &x machine ID reach some ten million cusiDmers, under ten years for the mobile
phone, and some five years for the Internet. The acceleration of new technologies is having
an impact on the lives and aspirations of many people now on an unprecedented scale.
'Giobalisation is not incidental ID our lives IDday. It is a shift in our very llii! circwnstances'
(Giddens, 1999), and this means that better access to language learning, and learning meth-
ods for accelerating performance, are now crucial in many communities.

1.5 Why Is CLIL relevant to the teac:hlns professlonl

Putting aside the often-cited advantages which a CLIL approach offers - such as
enabling lea.men; to access subject-specific vehicular language terminology, or otherwise
preparing them for future studies and/or working llii! - there is the issue of advancing a
learner's cogoitive development The ability to tbinlc in different languages, even if ID a
modest extent. can have a positive impact on content learning (Marsh, The need to
regenerate content teaching so that it closely fits the requirements of the modem age has
been closely linlced to the 'leaming brain' (CERI, 2007). Th adtieve this, the content teacher
will need ID adapt subject methods so as to accommodate the additional language
focus. This does not mean adopting the role of a language teacher. What it does is to open
doors on alternative ways of using methodologies which can be mnrding for bntb the
teacher and learners.
From this perspective, CLIL not only promollealinguistic competence, it also serves to
stimulate cognitive flexibility. Different tbinlcing horizon& and pathways which result from
CLIL, and the effective oonstructivist educational practice it promotes, can also have an

10
impact on conceptuafu:ation (literally, bow we think), enriching the understanding of con
c.epts, and broadening conceptual mapping resources. This enables better association of
different concepts and helps the learner advance towards a more sophisticated of
learning in general.
Motivation is also an issue. Ifa learner participates voluntarily in learning through the
medium of an additional language, it can enhance overall motivation towards the subject
itsel There are Ill8lif reasons why this might occur in a specific contat, but it is clear that
there are benefits, both cognitive and motivational. which can enhance content learning,
and the position of the content teacher.
We have already highlighted the importance of authenticity and relevance as key to
successful learning. It is challenging fur language teachers to achieve appropriate levels of
authenticity in the classroom. For eumple, even if'authentic' texts are used, and the sub-
ject matter is highly relevant to the lM!s of the learners, the predominant reason for these
texts being in the lesson remains language learning. And when this is measured by tests
which asseas the learner often acoording to grammatical correctness, then the real fucus of
the lesson will be language itself. If this type of learning tala!s place alonpde forms of
CLIL, then the learner is exposed to two complementary experiences, one of which im>olves
primarily language learning, and the other, language acquisition. Issues such as these are
aplored further in Olaptets s and 6.
There is now greater understanding of the differences between 'acquiring' and
'learning' languages. Intereat in early language learning has been influenced by the view
that children adapt wdl to learning languages if it is integrated into other types oflearn-
ing and carried out in a 'naturalistk' environment This is typical of much good practice
at primary level. But in our education systems. older children and adults are often taught
languages in ianguase-leaming classrooms through the we of a tatbook (although dig-
ital technology is increasingly being wed to supplement this). The amount of time dedi-
cated to language teaming is often constrained of pressure from other subjects
within a curriculum. Successful language learning can be achieved when people have the
opportunity to receive instruction, and at the same time experience real-life situations in
which they can acquire the language more naturalistically. Learning, for aample, a topic
from geography through the vehicular language, in a cognitively supported way, can help
achieve a comparable serue of greater authenticity. The idea of successfully learning con-
tent in m additionallangull!e may appear counter-intuitive to parents and young people
themselves, and greater understanding depends on recognlzinjl; the subtle overlap
between language learning (intentional) and language acquisition (incidental).
The language classroom is essential for the learner to understand the 'nuts and bolts'
of language - the grammar, vocabulary and so on. But there is rarely enough time in the
classroom for the language teacher to go beyond this essential part of the learning process.
Learners need time to build things with these 'nuts and bolts' - to put into practice the
things which they see in theory on paper.
CLll. can oili!r learners of any age a natural situation for language de.-elopmentwhlch
builds on other forms of leaming. This natural use of language can boost a learner's

11
motivation towards, and hunger fur, learning languages: 1t ill this naturalness which
appears to be one of the major platfumll! fur CLII:s importance and success in relation to
both language and other subject learning' (Marsh s).
A new ase has dawned in additionallanguase teaching methodology which directly
re&cts wider changes in the world. In the corresponding sea-dlange in educational philos-
ophy, CLIL pruents an opportunity and a threat to accepted language teaching practice. &
with immersion, formal language instruction remains inregral to most CLIL models. But
fur this to be synchronous to subject teaching through an additional language, curricular
and methodological adjustment ill often required. The extra e>:pOSUil: to the language,
methods used, and attitudes oflearners towards the language, can enhance language teach-
ing and learning fur the benefit of all This offen an opportunity fur language teachen to
regenerate their profession.
This chapter has aplored the broader landscapes which have led to the development
of CLIT. We have seen that there are many factors which led to its introduction, and also
that, because it inwlves the integration of oonb!nt and language, it is not solely a furm of
languase learning. It is an educational approach which is conb!nt-driven, and this is a fun-
damental reuon why it has emerged as an educational phenomenon which oomplements
both conb!nt and language learning, and ill within the domain of each. CUI. is not simply
education in an additional language; it is education through an additional language based
on connected pedagogics and using contextual methodologies which we will explore fur-
ther throughout this book.

References
Adu!rman, E. (1996) 'Penpec:tm.takiDg and abjoct CODJtruction: 1'wo keys to learning', in Kalili, Y.
and lWnic:k, M. (eds.) (1996) CoMTIU:tio!Usm in Practi<z: Designing Tninkingandlami"'
in "Digila1 Vhrld, Mohwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum A.osodateo,
B01110n, C. (>o<) PASS As:sewnont in thel'rimtKy School in Mozambiqu"' Looking Back, Looking
Maputo: INDE.
Broadbent, D. E. (1958) Pm:.prion llllri Commwnlcgtlon, Oxford:
Buckmiruter Fuller, R. (1963) OJ-ating Mm!IUI! for SptJu:ship Bm1h, Santa Barbora: Buctminster
Full..- Inati-.
CERI (2.007) UnderstatulingtheBrrzin: The Birth oft>. Lotmtinglidena, Para: OBCD.
Coy!o, D. (20o>) 'Against Ill odds: Le&sons from Content and Language Iategrated Learning in
BJJsli.oh Rconduyorhools: in DuJiol, W. C. and Jonos, G. M. (.do.) (:we>) Education and
PlllrilingiUI! ConiExls, Brusoelo: Bruooeli Univeroi.ty Press, PP31'""55
Doidge, N. (2o07) Th Br..m drM Chang!s !mlf.lwldon: Penpi.n.
EC (19711) EdU1Uirm Cormal Raolulion 9 .l1lbru4ty, Brulsclo: EC.
BC (1978) Commissu"' Proposal June, Brulsclo: EC.
w
BC (.cos) EIU!lptall Coundl of Eurrlpt!IUI Uni011, EDUC 69 Rnolution, Btusaels: EC.
EEC (19S8) Iluropoan Bconomlc Commomity Rsgu/taion z/unt; Bruooela: EC.
EF (19114) RaolwlionApril, Bruasels: EF.

12
l!URAB (>007) EMfrising Bur KMwlaige IHangle ofllat:=h, Eduution mtd InnCJ11ation
through tilt Structural Funtk EURAB O]'.o.zo, Brwaela: EC.
l!urydke (:zoo6) Ccmtmt and l.angiUip mlllgniRoll Leaming (CLIL) <rt School in Europe, Brusoelo:
J!urydice.
Gmlner, H. (19113) Fnunts ofMmd: The ThaJry ofMultiple Int!lligena:t. New York: Basic Books.
GiddCD.!, A. (1999) Glo!lalisati<m. .R.it1t Ltchm BBC.
D. (:zoo6) lilglilhNat, London: British Col111cil.
Gredler, M. E. (1997) lAirning IZIJd Insnct>on: Thmry inlll PrActice, Upper Saddle RMr. NJ:
Prenlia: HaD.
Hawlcins, E. (1984) .Awareness of Ltmgu"B"' .An Introdw:ritm. Cambrid!l"' Cambridge Uninrsi.ty
Press.
Heugb, K. (:zooo) V.. eau "B'Jimt Bilinguol and Mllltilinfll<ll Eduaui<m in South Afritt4
Cape Thwn: PRAESA.
Holec, H. (J!18t) .&.lmlomy tu1d Foreign Languop LtrJnUng. O:d'ord: Pergamon.
Xillda, A. (oooo) Social ConstTW:IMsm mtd IMPirilosaphy ofScima, London: Routledge.
Manh, D. (:zooo) 'An introdllCtinn to CUL for puenb and young people: in Manh.D.
G. (eds.) (>ooo) fbing I.anguagos IT> L1lAm lmdlAirning to IbtLtmguaga;
l.Jnivenity of JyYiakyli.
Manb, D. (ed.) (ooog) Report bytlu: Core Scimtific Researdt ll:IIIII, Stauly"" tile Contribution of
MJ.Itili11gua1Um w Crmtivity, EAD!.Aho071399SI'4 BrusselJ: European Commission.
Manb, D., M.alj...., A. and Hartiala.A-K. (:zo01) Profiling Europt:an CLIL Q,wroams, JyvlskylA:
Uui\o:rsity of Jyvlokyll.
Oxford, R. L (1990) Langwop Lttzming Stnategies: What B-r Thldler Slwuld Know, New York:
Harper and Row I Newbury Houoe.
P1SA, OECD, [Online].Awillble at: www.piJa.oecd.OIJ! [Accessed 1B March >DIJ9].
Tolruhama-Eipinosa. T. (>oo8) LMng MultilingwzlimtAatm tilt Lifaptm. Westport:
Praeger.
Wert.c:h, J. V. (1997) Sociocultuml Studies of M;M, Cambrid!l"' Cambridge Uuiv=ity Prc.!o.

13
 In Chapter 1 looked at why and how CLn. has emerged, and the diwne reasons why
il: is implemented. In O!apter 2 examine a range of curricular models which have been
developed in clifrerent amte:xts. These models have been used to achieve one or more of
curs main educational objectives embedded in and responding to amtextual variables. We
would wish to point out that, whilst there are lessons to be learned, ideas to be borrowed and
developed based on existing CLn. models, one size does not fit all- there is no one model for
CUI.. We have seen a range of types wltich depend largely on the reasons for wishing to intro-
duce the approach and the capacity to implement CIJL which is available within an educa-
tional setting. These are now explored. It may be useful to start by summarizing two of the
kry issues which schools need to amsider before de1.eloping any particular model: the oper-
ating factors -IUch as teacher avaiWlility and learner assessment- and the scale of the CLIL
programme.

2.1 Operating fadors

Teacher avU!ability is crucial because it is u.mallythe starting point fur design-
ing a model. How the teachers work together -10ihetber individually or through
teamwork - inlluenoes both planning and implementation.
Tiu! levels of teacher and student target CLIL-language Jlue:ncy determine the
teacher's input and role in the classroom.
The amount of time available is fundamental in setting objectives. Issues such as
when the CUL teaching is to be scheduled within the turriculum, and what
period of time, inlluence the choice of a CLlL model.
Tiu! ways in which content and languaF are integrated inlluence decision-
making on how each is handled within the model. For example, this may be
through preparation before the CLIL course, language learn-
ing embedded in the CLU.. course, or language learning parallel to the CLIL
course.
Linking the CLU.. course to an out-of-school or atra-curricular dimension,
enabling tuk-baed C01111111U1ication with learners in other schools/countries
and networldng with teacherslvisitors from outside the schoollcountry, all
impact on the scale and scope of the model.

14
 Finally, there are issues relating to .....""""'t proraaea - fimnative or sum-
mative, focused on content only, content and language, or language only-
which influence model design (see Chapter 6 for a di.sctusion of assessment in
CLIL).

2.2 Scale
Extenslv. Instruction through the v.hkular language
In this model, the Wricular language is used almost aclusively to introduce, summa-
rize and n:vise topics, with wry limited switches into the first language to explain specific
language upects of the subject or wcabulary items. There is a clear triple focus on
language and cognition. is taught using methods which leaming
and uoderstanding to a or ksser extEnt in lessons. 11tis or scaffulded-
approach is used to introduce new vocabulary and concepts, grammatical usage and 110 on,
in conjuoction with the This may be done by a single teacher, through
cooperation with a language teacher- especially where certain linguistic structures are pre-
taught - or language may be taught parallel to the learning in separate language
classes. language may also be taught by a language teacher who takes
responsibility for teaching the content area.
Bmns.ive instruction in the vehicular language requires that the curriculum be
purpose-designed with objectives that not only kad to high levels of content mastery but
also linguistic prolicie:ncy. In some cases, 50 per cent or more of the curriculum may be
taught in this way. The content taught through CLIL may be drawn from any aet of sub-
jects, depending on the school's individual conte:n. Teachers work together so that generic
study skills, and the language to successfully implement these, are given shared significance
in the different lessons. For context-based reasons (for eumple, an international stream
within the school which may include learners who have little proficiency in the school's first
language) it may be the case that the CLIL language is used very extensively so as to create
an even playing field for all students.

Partial Instruction through the v.hlcular language

In models which invol..e partial instruction through the Wricular language, specific
content, dnwn from one or more subjects, is taught through CLIL acoording to limited
implementation periods - possibly less than five per cent of the whole curriculum will be
taught through CLIL. In this case a project-based modular approach is often used and the
responsibility for teaching may rest with the or language teachers, or both. As with
models where the instruction through the CLIL language is extensive, there is aaain a clear
triple focus on language and cognition.
Quite often partial instruction through the vehicular language is manifested in
bilingual blended instruction invo1ving code-switching between languages. Here the

15
lessons invol\'e I)'Stematic use of both the CLlL language and the first language. For
aample, sometimes one language might be used fur outlining and mmmarizing the
main points, and the other fur the remaining lesson functions. Alternatively, the two
different languages may be used fur specific types of activity. This is a type of code-
switching wbich has been termed and which leads to a dynamic furm of
bilingualism in the classroom. The systematic switch between languages is based on a
planned development of content, language and cognition - for enmple, some learners
may use a textbook in the first language when doing homework in order to build confi-
dence and check comp:rcl>ension; other learners may ask for ez:planations from the
teacher in a particular language; beginner CLIL learners may 1Ue their l.J. to speak to the
teacher when problem solving, but the CLIL teacher will answer questiom and support
learners in the vehicular language.

refi:rs to a systematic shift from one languase

to another fur specific reasons.

One concern of some teachers has been whether learning through an additional lan-
guage can result in learners not understanding lciey terms in the first language.
nanslanguaging may be used to overcome this concern; for enmple, by using first-language
materials (vocabulary and concept ched<lists and so on) to support teaclling in the CLlL
vehicular language.

2.3 Examples of curricular models

We now go on to enmine models of CLIL at pre-school level and in primary, sec-
ondary and tertiary education, including examples of models at the school-level stages.
These models ha\'e developed from a variety of contatual variables which are summa-
rized in li.ble 1 under the headings of Language (communication),
karning (cognition) and Culture.

Pre-llool)-6 years
The most typical models found with pre-school children often involve games and
other play-based activities - a Iodic approach, where the vehicular languase is used to a
greater or lesser enent These models are often called 'immersion' and iovom introducing
sounds, words and structures where the main focus is on stimulating, fun activities.
It is often hard to distinguish CLlL from standard forms of good practice in early
language learning. This is because the learning topic is often hisblY authentic fur the chil-
dren. Whilst they are aware that they are learning to listen to and use sounds and words
from another language, their main focus is on the doing - be it playing, singing, drawing,
building models, or other activities. Often realised as forms of'language clubs', pre-school
CLIL is generally fuund in the private sector (as is mum pre-school provision globally)

16
Table 1: Common reasons for Introducing CUL

eo,_ for gtoballzatlon, e.s. d"""loplng the whole ..:hool throush

the medium of other languages.
Atttssinl inttmational e.s. outsidt a national txamination system
sum aslntematlonal Ba<Xlllaureate.
Enhan<lng school profiles, e.g. offering CUL gives strong messages about
plurilingualeducation.
Content Multiple perspecti..,. for study, e.g. modules in history where authentic texts are
used In different lanpages.
Preportng for future studies, I modules which focus on ICT whim lncorporote
internationallexis.
Skill for working life, e.g. courJOs whim d..l with ocademlc study skills equipping
learnen for further study.
Aaessingubject-pecific knowledge in another language.
Language lmprovins DYI!rall target-longuse competence, e.g. throush extended quolity
oxpo.sure to the CLIL longuage.
Or.IJ mmmunicatJon skJ'Jis,e .. through offerJnl.ill wrder r.iilnp of
outhentic communication routes.
Deepening owarene55 of both flrrt loncuge ond CUL loncuace, I those chools
which offw!r 50" of the curriculum In other liilniU.illps In order to develop il det!per
knowledge nd llnsulrtlc base for their learners.
self--confidence as learner communicator, e.g. pr.acttcal
and authentic lan81Jilll! scen.i1rtos such as voat:lonal settings.
rntroducrns the learning and usrnr of another lanruse. e.r.lessons which are
odlvlty-orlented ore a>mblned with longuage-leomlng BOils, such In
play-oriented 'lanJU.i1ge learners.

LeaminB lncreasinB learner motiVation,e.s. CLIL vcational cour5es whim ""Pii<itlytalflel

confidence-burldlnsthroup the use of the CLIL lanrusewhere learners feel they
hove In tradltlonallnguage-lernlng
Di\lersifyins methods and PP""'<hes to <lassroom pradio!, e.g. <llUr5es integratrnr
learners who a"' h..rlns Impaired, where the slsn lansuse Is the CUL lnruF
DeYeloplng lndlvldull..rnlns otrortegleo, I upper-sea>ndry courses rn science
whi<h attract leamerJ who are confident in the CUL lanauage,but muth less
confident In science, who mlsht not o!henNlse have opted for further rtudy In
theflrstlanpge.
Cultu"' Burldlnr lnten:ultural knowledge, underotandlnrond toleran<e, e.g. module of
psychology on causes of ethnic prejudice.
DeYeloplng lntercultural communication skills, e.g. student collaboration on joint
projects ;across n-1tions.
Learninrabout pec"lfic neipbourins countries/regions and/or minofrt:y groups,
e.g. 'school hopping', which encages rtudents and teomers rn border regions rn
sh41rrn1 resources iilnd currlcuar objectives.
lntroduclns a wider cultural oontext, e.s comparative studies lnvollllns video links
or Internet communlcotion5.

17
with much attention given to use of kindergarten teachers and others who have a high
degree of fluency in the vehicular language. This is because the teacher as a role-model
speaker of the language is especially important when working with children of this age
group, particularly in relation to phonology (Garcia, 348).

Primal}' 5-12 years

CLIL may be used as a rorm of pre-Ianguage-teaching 'primer' at this range of
models are commonplace, from tulr.-based !earniDg, involving simple use of the vehicular
language, through to whole conlent topics taught in the cr.n. language.lncrea&ing motiva-
tion towards language learning and building learner self-confidence are seen as particular-
ly important where the vehicular language is distant from the lives of the learners and has
the status of a foreign language. In other cases, where migrant children may hM limited
access to the majority language of the eovironmeot, CLIL can be used as a 'leveller' to make
both the CLIL language and conlent aca:ssible to all learners, regardless of first language.
This has been the case in North America for many years, and is increasingly round in
European contem where the dernographlcs of classroom participation have tll(M([
towards greater cultural and linguistic diversity.
Whi!&t there is no finite agreement with regard to the age factor in language learn-
ing, nonetheless, as interest in the significance of early language learning continues to
grow, so too does interest in primary-le\'cl CLIL. VleWII which hold that 'earlier is better'
and that the introduction of an additional language should be as 'naturalistic as po.w.ble'
following the framework of'incidentallearning' support the introduction of CLIL at an
early age (see Garcla Mayo and Garda Lecumberri, and Johnstone, for further
discussion).

Model AI
Coofidence..building tmd in!Iududion to by c;oru;epiB
Theme-based module on climaw change. Fifteen hours of
learning time involving class-based rommuni.cation with
learners in another country. Class teacher approaches the
module using CLIL-designed materials and networking system.
Instructions and set-up in first language with language
support provided for key concepts in CLH.Ianguage.
Communication and outcomes through CLIL language.

ModeiAz
Development of by concepts and learner autonomy
Subject-based learning on home economics. Forty hours of
learning time involving translanguaging, where activities are

18
 developed through the CLIL language using bilingual materials.
Subject and language teachers work together.
-t Key concepts provided in fint and CLIL language. Key
thinking skills fer Inquiry-based tasks on aspects of home
life and behavioUL
-t Assessment of key principles in lint language; portfolio
asse&SIIlent in the CLIL language.

Model .tu
Preparation for a long-lerlll C!JL programme
Interdisciplinary approach inwlving a set of subjects from the
natural sciences where the learners ue prepared for in-depth
education through the CLIL language. Subject and language
teadlers work together following an integrated curriculum.
-t CLIL language teaching complemenlll content teaching
with major focus on words and structures which enable
learners to access thinking skills.
-t Assessment of key principles in CLIT.language, with
parallel fint-language aaewnent of major concepts.

These t1rree examples differ principally in terms of objectim and implementation

time. But there are other subtle differences which influence how CLIL may be implemented
at this leveL
Model Al may be carried out by a class teacher with more Umited 8uency in the
CLIL language, and without the support of a language teacher. Such a model is useful in
countries where there is a lack of availability of language teachers or multilingual content
teachers. Using purpose-designed material.B, the class teacher embarks on a Umited expo-
sure to CLIL even if constraints exist. Thi& ellllllple is particularly effective in introduc-
ing the wider world of the vehlcular language to the learners. Use of this model can be
important for most educational contexts, but particularly those in which learners have
little authentic access to languages and cultures beyond their own. It can also be managed
in contexts where fending and rescnuces are Umited, became low technology can be used
fer classroom communication across schools and often countries - fer instance, through
artefacts, pictures, letters and videos sent through postal services. Thi& has taken place, fer
elWllple, between two classes in Rwanda and the UK: the schools worked on a joint eco-
project using French as the vehicular language and excbanaing project data via letters and
video.
But is it worth the effOrt? Can any learner be expected to benefit from such a short
aposure to the CLIT.Ianguage! Can learners really be expected to auoceed in producing
outoames in that language when 1heir own command of the language may be very Umited?

19
These are questions which arise in the minds of educators when they enmine such a
model. In order to answer these, it is necessary to recognise that the confidena!-building
objective is often diflicult to evaluate, other than anecdotally, because it relates to the afrec-
tive dimension of learning. The anecdotal evidence, is widely reported (see, fur
eumple, Genesee, 2004).
Model M suits situations where a language teacher is avallable in the school along-
side a subject reamer who has sufficient proficiency in the CLlL language, and where team-
work is possible given the constraints of the c:urrirulum and teaching schedules. It is
possible that both teachers would be in the classroom for some time, but with most class-
room interaction involving one teacher (if only because it is usually too cost-heavy to haw
two teachers working simultaoeously in a classroom). Eumple A:. is an attempt to cowr
the ground found in Enmple &, and go further, by deepening understanding of content
concepts and developing metalinguistic In addition, it can act as a catalyst to
introduce what may be alternative methodologies, such as formative assessment and
enhanced learner autonomy.
Model A3 depends on a purpose-desjgned support framework if it is to be imple-
mented in a way which ensures that the full potential of learners is realized. It is not feasi-
ble to expect such an spproach to work unless the teachers in the classroom have the full
support of the surrounding educational structures. These include school management,
national/regional administrative structures, and even gate-keeping agencies such as exam-
ination boards.

Secondary 11-1g years

Serondary-Ievel CLlL allows fur more sophisticated models to be implemented. This
is often because the learners have already learnt some of the CLlL language, and have
developed more advanced learning sk:ills than at primary level. However, CLIL can also be
used to introduce a second additinnal language at this level, leading to yet another imple-
llll!ntation type. Secondary-level students are inc:reasingly motivared to use new technolo-
gies for communicating acrou languages and often borders. This is a potential learning
resource which can be exploited by using class time to encourage learners to use the new
technologies in a way which actively supports not only their education overall, but also
their skills in using these media to engage in authentic communication in the CLlL lan-
guage.
Much of the drive for introducing CLIL with this age group relates to parental and
school-based attitudes towards globalization, and this is where English, in particular, has
a dominant position as a CLlL language in many countries. When thinking of future edu-
cation and working life, there is a view that experience of academic and vocationally
based study can help prepare students fur opportunities which may require use of the
CLIL language in later life. Therefore, some of the models found at secondary level place
fairly high demands on cognition. and need to be designed with carefully integrated prin-
ciples. This is also true of vocatinnal educatinn where knowledge building and skills
development require accuracy which cannot be impeded through problems in using the
CLIL language.
20
Mode/BI
Dual-ac:hool education
Schools in dif!i:rent oountries share the teaching of a specific
course or module using VoiP (Voice ewer Internet Protoool,
e.g. Skype"') rechnologies where the Cl.ll.language i& an
additional language in both oontats.
4 Leamen work with input from both language and oonrent
teachers, engage in oollaborative problem-solving tasb using
new media, and work predominantly in the an. language.
--t Sometimes l.inlced to forms of in11!rnational O!rtification,
which provides added value in 1l!rms of learner acx:ess to
formalized usessment systems.

Mode/B2
Bilingtlal education
I.carners study a significant part of the curriculum through the
Cl.ll.language for a number of years with the intention of devel-
oping required oontent-learning goals and advano:d language
skills.
4 Learners participate in 'international streams' and develop
advanced CllL language skills fur these specific subjeclll.
This is oompkmented by language learning which focuses
on interpersonal skills and ccgnitive language proficiency.
--t Often linked to international certification, and national/
reginoal specill status assessment and rerognition.

Mode/B3
Interdi.lciplinary module
A specific module, fur ewnple environmental science or
citizenship, is taught through CLll. invnl.ving teachers of dif!i:r-
ent disciplines (e.g. mathematics, biology, physics, chemistry
and language).
--t Learners engage in an across-the-curriculum moduU!
which is taught in the CLIL language because of the
international dimension of the content learning (e.g. the
environmental respo011bilities of individuals worldwide).
--t Used in international network partnerships between
schools, and often fucwes on formative portfolio-type
assessment. Both of these aspects are seen as oompU!ment-
ing language teaching by providing an extra platfurm fur
authentic language use.
21
 Mode/84
projecta
This type differs from Examples B1-B3 in !hat it is 1he language
teacher who takes primary responsibility fur the CLIL module.
This may be done tluough international partnerships and is an
extension of both CXJntent-bued and CQmmUnic:ame language
teaching. The module involves authentic CXJntent learning and
CXJmmunication lhrough 1he CIJL language, and is scaffolded
lhrough language-teacher input.
Learners view 1his as part of language teaching but see it as
an aulhentic way in which to use 1he language to learn
non-language CXJntent
Content assessment is usually furmative and complemen-
tary to existing language assessment

MorkiBs
Specifio.domain wcational CLIL
Learners develop competence in the CLIL language so !hat they
are able to carry out specific task-based functions which might
range from customer service through to accessing and processing
infOrmation in different languages. Where applicable, 1his is
carried out by conrent and language teachers working in tandem.
It marks a shift away from existing pru:tice such as teaching
language fur specific purposes towards practice which seeks to
achieve 1he same objectives tluough a closer tie to CXJntent teach-
ing and learning.
Learners learn tluough 1he CIJL language and 1he first
language, so !hat they can carry out specific tasks in diverse
CXJntexll.
Assessment is often bilingual and competence-based.

The lower-secondary curriculum often provides a particularly suitable environment

for the introduction of CLIL. Pressures of examinations tend to complicate higher-level
curricula in secondary education. This can occur where 1he educational system fails to
recognise experience of CLIL in compulsory national enmination systems, such as in 1he
Nelherland&.
Vocational curricula are particularly inrere&ting because even if some of 1he students
may not have achieved well in earlier language learning, 1he opportunity to learn content
tluough CIJL can provide a second dlance to access the CLIL language. Vocational fields

22
long =stomed to including language leaxning, such as business studies, are now being
joined by a wide range of othen of globalization and the changing nature of work-
ing life. The added value of being able to use more than one language now permeates voca-
tional sectors in different countries.
Mocld B1 requires institutional cooperation and sufficient school-based recognition
and support Although technology is continuously evoivmg and becoming increasinsly
accessible, this example is fairly sophisticated and needs to be sufficiently resourced But the
benefits may be considerable and different ways of using the mucuJar language can be
found- for example, when students training to be chefs can enpse in interactive work-
based learning with a Mas1r Clef and M or his en1ployees via video conferencing in a
restaurant kitchen where two other laoguages are used There needs to be curricular align-
ment so that each school is fullilling conten-specific objectivl!s, and the mgnitive demands
that learners in each school will need to respond to are balanceci
Mocld lb also requires highly clewloped curricular and institutional support For a
long time this type has been used with the more privileged sections of artain societies
where experience of learning through a specific language has been seen as a mark of status.
However, there are cases (depending on the degree of egalitarianism within a specific edu-
cational system) where it is used in a non-ellie way to provide this specific type of educa-
tional experiena! fur a broad cohort of learners.
Mocld 83 represents what may be considered a knowledge-based-society furm. of
education - one which is marb!d by both OOIWI!rgence (of knowledge and application) and
mmpetences (to know and be ablt to apply specific types of learning). It only really suits
more widely used languages (either globally or regionally), and when inlplemented can act
as a major tool fur re-clewloping existing educational practice across subjects.
Language tncbers bm: been invoMd with Model B4 fur some years, leading to
contEnt-based projects which complement more furmal furms of language instruction.
These oftEn involve contEnt tncbers, and work effectively when the purpose of the
is embedded into the curriculum, as opposed to some furm. of additional (practising
language) task.
Mocld Bs takes us into the vocational and professional education sectors. These have
traditionally had differing status in specific countries, and in some cases the curricula have
not included language teaching at aiL CLIL can act u a means by which to both introduce
languages into the curriculum, and to enhance existing practice. Geared as they often are
to preparation fur working lire, these can be very successful in adrieving higher levels of
motivation towards language learning, and recognition of domain-specific and partial
competences.

Tertiary (hiaher edllc..tion)

The emergence of English as a global lingua franca has bad a significant impact on
higher education throughout the wcrlci English has become the moat dominant adopted
vehicular language in Europe (Wlchb!r andMaiworm, woB), and beyond. as a direct result
of international competitiveness linked to the General Agreement an Trade in Services

23
(GAl'S). There are strong indications that this will continue to be the case for SOIIIJ! years
to come (Graddol, 20o6).
The shift towards adoption of English as a whicular language does not automatically
correlate with the introduction of CLll.. This may be due to the assumption that students
studying through the medium of English as an additional languaae do not require an inte-
grated approach where both content and Ianguaae objective; are included. But the cognitive
demmds of tertiary programmes are often high, and there are examples of CLIL being intro-
duced to both further develop additional language skilla md to accommodate the learning
needs of migrant students who do not a high leYcl of proficiency in the medium of
instruction adopted.
CLIL can act as a professional development cmlyst within &.culties of a higher
education institution. In some countries, higher education teaching and research staff
hom: not been explicitly trained in educational methodolosies. In these cases, hisher edu-
cation has been viewed as characteri2ed by transactional modes of educational delivery
(Jarsely impartins information), rather than the interactional modes Qarsely process-
oriented) characteristic of CLIL. At. the same time, staff have come under to
become i.rn:reasmgly multi-skilled. This is not only in respect of teaching and report-
writing, but also professional reprelelltation and the resourcing of erternaJ. funding.
Therefore interactional skills in widely used languages have become increashlgly relevant
in modernizing the workforces found in certain types of higher education. Training pro-
grammes in CLIL can therefore have a knack-an effect in developing staff in other ways
beyond teaching skills.
The introduction of CLIL in this sector has been inlluenced by discussion over
whether the ability to know and use a specific Ianguaae is a basic competence, or an addi-
tional competence. This, in turn, has opened discussion an whether teaching is a
part of the core of academic life, or a secondary auxiliary science. If languase teaching and
languaae specialists have been viewed as 'auxiliaries' in some countries, then teachers may
have a lower position within hlerardties. And yet the rising importance of a global language
such as English has led to some re-positioning of this specific profession. This is similar to
the way in which certain leYcls of ICl' achieved a high status within organi-
sations which have become dependent on rcr as a bask operating competence.
Finally, the adoption of an additional language such as Englisb in higher education
has put pressure on secondary-leYcl providers to prepare students through CLIL fur future
studies.
Mode/C1
PluriliDpal education
Mare than one language is used through CLIL during different
yeara in related content programmes.
4 Students are expected to master content and the ability to
be sufficiently aldlled in more than one language prior 1n
entering working life or further studies.

24
 -+ Oosely linked to prestigious forms of higher education
where internationalliation is viewed as a key part of
institutional strategy so as to attract and retain high-
performillg students from different countries.

Motk/C2
Adjunct CUI.
Language teaching rum parallel mcontent teaching with specific
focus on devcloping the knowledge and skilla 1D use the language
so as 1D achieYe higher-order thinking.
-+ Language teaching is field-specific (e.g. mechanical
engineering or physics) with language teachers embedded
in departments and not seen as external providers, and
courses complement stage-by-stage higher-education
programmes.
-+ Students successfully learn content and gain the ability to
use the CI.n.language for specific purposes.

Motk/C3
Language-embedded con- counea
Content programmes are designed from the outset with
language development objectives. 'Il:aching is carried out by
content and language specialisb.
-+ Students, even those with less than optimal proficiency in
the CI.n.langusge, lnm: support throughout the educa-
tional process so that dual learning takes place.
-+ Particularly suitable where higher education attracts stu-
dents from diverse linguistic and cultunl bad<grounds, so
that they can both cope with and benefit from learning in
the additional language.

Whereas Model Cl can only be implemented in very specific types of higher-education

institution (for eumple, business and management mculties where students attend courses
with a reasonable level of proficiency in the target languages), Modela <A and C3 are more
commonplace. The position of cr.n. is clearly at an aploramry stage in higher education in
many countries and although there are situational and structural variables whim work
against its introduction, there are also forces which give it considerable potential (cultural
and linguistic diversity. and competence-based leaming).
The risks involved with inappropriate adoption of an additional language as
medium of instruction are considerable at any educational level. The increasing need for

25
higher-education institution& to strengthen international profiles so a.s to achieve com-
petitM advantage entails increasing pressure to ensure a suitably high quality of per-
fonnance. Global competition often means teaching certain degree courses through the
medium of l!nglish. This may involve &imply expecting student& and teaching staff on
tho&e courses to have sufficient command of the language to cope without extra support.
In tho&e cases where support iJ recognised u nece&sary; there are moves towards the
adoption of Clll..
We have now seen example& of curricular models across the educational spectrum.
There are other types. for instance in adult education and wcrkplace training. and these
often replicate the ei:antples found in more formal educational contexts. In Chapter 3 we
will look at theoretical implications for integrating content and language learning. before
ewnining in Chapter 4 how this can be applied to the diverse contexts which we have
begun to aplore in this

References
Grcia, 0. (2009) Bilinpal BdUCIUiDn in the 21" Cmtuty. A GlobGJ hr:rpectiw, Oxford: Wdey-
BlaclcwelL
GardaM&Joo, M. P. and Garda Lecumberri, M. L. (edo.) boo3) Agurul thekljNiJinon ufllnglish"'
a 1bn!ig>t Ltmguage, CieYeclon: Multilingual Matters.
Goneoec, F. (2004) 'What do- know about bilingual cdu<ation for majority language
students!; in Bhstia, T. K. and Ritchie, W. (edo.) {2003) The Hondbook ofBilinplllimJ and
Mwlli<:ultr.rrdi.sm, London: BlacMII.
Groddol, D. English No::ct, London: Britilh Council.
Johnstone, R. (2.002) Addressing "The A,geFtzctor": Som.dmplictltioPIS fur I.tmpgps l'rJ!icy,
Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Mmh, D. Moljer!, A. and Hartiala,A-K. {2.001) Profiling lluropeon CLIL Classrooms, Jyvl.!kylil:
Uniw:rsity of JyvllskyiL
Wllchter, 8. md Maiwunn, F. (zooS) Bnglish-llu.ght Prognunmcs mlluropOAII Higha Bdwcolicm.
The Pit:tlao m2007, Bonn: LemmeDJ.

26
3 CUL as a theoretical concept

Whilst Chapters 1 and hue laid the foundations fur eq>loring the development of
CLll., Olapter3 eq>lores the theoreticalimplicatiom of integrating rontent Ieamingmdlan-
guage lellllling- CLll. is not about 'translating' fust-lmguage teaching and learning intD
another language in the hope that lear=swill be immersed in a bdhu
Ieesly learn i11 another language. Neither is CLll. an attempt tD 'dUguise' traditional language
learning by embedding systematic progression ofthe target: language in a differ-
ent type of mbject content such as dl!forestation, photosynthesis or medieval history:
Teachen; have found that oontent and language lntegnted learning Is about br more
than simply teaching non-language subject matter In an additional language In the
same way as tile mother tongue ... [lt]ls not a motterafslmplychanglngthe language
of Instruction.
(Manb, I!IUicr and Sygmund, 19!)g: 17)

All learning is complelc. and undemanding the potential of integrating rontent and
language demands an exploration of emergent synergies. The word JYII"'XY comes from the
Greek synorgoswbich impliesworkingtDgether 'in a dynamic state' where the whole is greater
than the sum of the puts. Yet CLll. will not autumaticaUy lead to realising this potential.
Instead, cueful analysis of what can be by integrative learning through a second or
additional language is needed, based on a conceptual theoretical framework This chapter
introduces the framework for integration and the theoretical issues surrounding it

3.1 Connecting content learning and language learning

In rNery kind af knowledge-based, progre5sille organization, new knowledge and new
directions are forged through dialogue ... The dlal"'lue In Knowledge Age organizations
Is not pr1ndpally roncemed wllt1 exposition, 'llument, and persuoslon (the
tand-by oftr.ldltlonal rhetorlq but wllt1 solving problems and developing new ideas.
(l!...tt.r and Scarclomolia, zoos)

The content of leamlng

A useful starting point is to consider the rontent oflearning.1be roncept of what con-
stitutes content in a CUL conten is much more flerible than selecting a discipline from a tra-
ditional school =riculum such as geography, music, biology or physics. Whilst curricular

27
subjects such as these might be appropriate for some CLIL programmes, c:ontmual variables
such as teadler availability, language support, age of learners and the social demands of the
learning environment may mean that a different choice of content ill more appropriate. In
other words: what aact1y is meant by 'content' in CLIL will depend on the conteD of the
learning institution - an issue already raised in previous chapters. Content can range from
the delivery of elements taken directly from a statutory national curriculum to a project
based on topical issues drawing together different aspects of the curriculum (fur enmple, the
Olympic Games, global warming, ecosystems). Content in a CUL setting could also be the-
matic, cross-curricular, interdisciplinary or haVl: a fucus on citizeruhlp, fur enmple. Themes
might indude issues-led investigations into climate change, carbon fuotprint or the Internet;
cross-curricular studies might invobe inquiry into health in the community, water or
genocide; interdisciplinary wnrk which encourap collaboration on a common theme
whilst maintaining the integrity of eadJ. subject could, fur c:u.mple, lead to designing an eco-
friendly house; and citizeDsbip mightfucus on global issues such as race, global communica-
tion or learning across continents. CLIL, therefOre, offers opportunities both within and
beyond the regular curriculum to initiate and enrich learning, skill acquisition and develop-
ment The aact nature of these opportunities will depend on the atent to which the CLIL
context demands an approach which ill more content-led, more language-led, or both.
However, the aucial point here ill that, no matter whether issues concerning the content or
the language are more dominant m: a given point, neither must be subsumed or the interre-
lationship between the two ignored.

The leamlng of content: synergles, Kaffoldlng and social interaction

Identifying the type of content invol\>ed does not, automatically address a
fundamental question: what is meant by content learning! It might be useful to start by
considering some issues to do wilh content learning in general. befure identifying specific
challenges presented through using a second or additional language as the medium fur that
learning.
Syllahuses and programmes all their aims and objec!Ms, oftm with articulated
goals and outcomes fur teaching and learning. But these alone do not addless the how of
content learning - only the wlult of content teaching. The impact of general learning
theory and how individuals learn. based on work from eminent theorists such as Bruner,
Vygotsky and Wood (see Bigge and Shermis, 1998, fur an does not always
directly influence classroom practice. But if CLIL is to build on potential synergos, then
considerations of learning is realized must be brought into the equation. In
other words, CLll. demands an analysis of what is meant by efii:cm pedagogi.es in
difii:rent contexts.
Different pedagogic approaches have been debated across continents in recent times
(see Chapter 1). The dominant model in many western societies has emphasized a transmis-
sion of knowledge where the expert (the teacher) depoai.ts infurmation and skiiiJ into the
memory bank of the novice (the learner). Thil has been called a 'banking model' (Freire,
1977-) and tends to be teacher-controlled and teacher-led. aocial-constructivist

28
approaches to learning emphasi%e 'the centnlity of student ezperience and the imporbnce
of encouraging active student learning rather than a passive reception of knowledge'
(Cummins. 2005: 108}. Social-constructivistleaming in essence focuses on interactive. medi-
ated and student-led learning. This kind of scenario requires soc:ial interaction between
learners and teachers and scafJolded (that is, supported) learning by someone or something
more 'eopert'- that miJ!ht be the teacher, other learners or resources. When learners are able
to accommodate cognitive challenge - that is, to deal with new knowledge - they are likdy
to be engaged in interacting with 'expert' others and peers to deYclop their individual think-
ing. Vygotsky (1978) introduced the term 'zone of proximal development' (ZPD) to describe
the kind of learning which is always challenging }'Ct potentially within reach of individual
learners on conditinn that appropriate support, scaffolding and guidance are provided. In
settings shaped by social-conrtructivist approaches, the teacher's role involves fu:ilitating
cognitive challell8'! within an individual's ZPD. This involves the teacher in maintaining a
balance between cognitive cballenge for learners and appropriate and decreasing support as
learners progws.

of content: Cognitiv. enpgement, problem solving

and higher-order thinking
Developing the arguments above leads us to summarize that, for content learning to
be eflective learning, students must be cognitively engaged. CLH. teachers will have to con-
sider how to actively involve learners to enable them to think through and articulate their
own learning. This in turn implies that learners need to be made aware of their own learn-
ing through deYcloping metacognitive skills such as 'learning to learn: Interactive class-
rooms are typified by group work, student questioning and problem solving. If in a CLIL
classroom students are required to cooperate with eac1t other in order to make use of eac1t
other's areas of strength and compensate for w.:aknesses, then they must learn how to oper-
ate collaboratively and wmk effectively in groups. Leaving these skills to deYclop by cltance
is not an option. Instead, m need to support students in deYcloping 116: skills suclt as deal-
ing with the unexpected, observatinnal skills, and constructing knowledge whiclt is built on
their interaction with the wmld, yet purposefully guided by values and convictinns (van

Therefore, for CLIL teac1ting to support effective learning, it has to take into account
not only the knowledge and skills base, but also cognitive engagement by the students. For
emnple, the Queensland Scltool Reform Longitudinal Study reported on the
need to 'shift teaclters' attention and focus beyond basic skills to key aspects of higher-order
thinking ... tuwards more productive pedagogies' (Department of Educatinn, Queensland,
2.002.: 1).1Mdence showed that, to raise achievement leveb, learners had to be intellectually
challenged in order to transform information and ideas, to solYe problems, to gain under-
standing and to discover new meaning. EffectNe content learning has to tllce account not
only of the defined knowledge and skills within the amiculum or thematic plan, but also
bow to apply these through creatiYe thinking, problem solving and cognitive challenge.
Young people not only need a knowledge base whiclt is continually growing and changing,

29
they also need to know how to use it throughout life. They need to know how to think, to
reason, to make informed choices and to respond creatively to challenges and opportunities.
They need to be skilled in problem solving and higher-order, creatiVI! thinking, in order to
construct a framework through wbich to interpret meaning and understanding:
If learning Is to be rmlned and to be readily available for use, then learners must make
their own mnstruction of knowledge - make it their own - and must learn to take
responsibility for the management of their own learning.

TDwalrds a thinking Dimensions and

So what is a thinking curriculwn for CLILf If the previous arguments about the
importance of cogniti\'1! engagement are to the CLIL classroom, it is not enough to
amsider content learning without integrating the development of a range of thinking and
problem-solving skills. Since the publication of Bloom's tuDDomy outlining six different
thinking proce&Ses in 1956, the categorisation of different types of thinking has been the
subject of great debate (McGuinness,1999). In 2001,Anderson and Kratbwohl published an
updated version of Bloom's taJDnomy by adding a 'lmawledge' dimension to Bloom's
'cognitive process' dimension (see Thble 2). This transparent connecting of thinking
proceaes to knowledge construction resonates with conceptualizing content learning in
the CLIL aetting. 'Ihe cognitive process dimension consists of lower-order thinking
(remembering. understanding and applying) and higher-order thinking (analysing, evalu-
ating and creating), both of which are integral to effectiVI! learning. The knowledge
dimension provides a framework for aploring the demands of different types of knowl-
edge: conceptual, procedural and metacognitive.

A tuD11omf (from Greek lllXiJ meaning 'arrangement' or 'dM-

sion' aod nomos meaning 'law') is a system of cl.assificalion which
provides a conceptual framework for discussion, analysis, or
information retrieval A useful taJDnomy should be simple, easy
to remember, and easy to apply. Bloom's taiDnomy (1956) is a
good example because it classifies different types of thinking in a
straightforward manner which we are able to apply to content
A more compla but logical framework is provided by Anderson
and Krathwohl (WOl). This classifies different types of thinking
associated with diffi:rent types of construction.

Other theorists have subsequently continued to develop the idea of taJDnomies fur
diffi:rent types of thinking (Marzano, 2000). However, the important point is not the choice
of taJDnomy, but rather the transparent identification of the cognitive and knowledge
processes associated with the Cl.ll. content This is essential not only to ensure that all
learners have access to developing these processes, but crucially that they also have the lan-
guage needed to do so. We discuss how to put this into practice in Chapter 4-
30
Tabla a: BIDom's taxolllllll)', l'1l'll&ed by Andal'liGI'I and Krllthwohl

The Cogn itive Process Dimension

Lower-order processlnq:
Remembering Such .11s producing appropriate Information from memory, e.g.
R:ecognizing
Rr<:alllng
Understanding Meaning-making from o11nd remurces. eg.
lntt>.rpretlng
Exempllfyiog

Summ.arlling
lnfnring
Comparing
Explainlng
Applying Such as using i pcocedute. eg.
Ex!(_utJns
Im
Hlgher-<Jrder processing:
Analysing Brt-<lking down .11 concept into Its parts .11nd explilining how the paru
lo ttle wholt!, e.g.

Organizing
Attrlbuti ng
Evaluating Making critical Judgements, l!.g.
Chec.king
Crltiqulng
Creating Putting together plec.tJ. to constru-Ct somt"thlng ntw or rognlzfng
componeni.J or ill new structure,e.a.
Generating
PlannlnH
Produdng

The Knowledge Dimension

Factual knowledge
Conceptual knowledge
Procedural knowledge
Metacognitive knowledge
B.lslc lnformaUon,e..g.
Terminology
Sptclflc dttails and elemenb
Relationships amonsst pieces of ill l.1rger sttucture that mate tnem part
oft he whole. e,g.
Knowledge of and categories
Knowledge of principle.s, .Jnd
Knowledge of <1nd
How to do something. e.g.
Knowledge of -subjectSpt'ciflc stills and algorlthrns
Knowledge of $ubject techniques o1nd methods
Knowledge of criteria for determining when to use appropri.at e
procedurrs
Knowledge of ttlinkiflg in general and individual thinklng In particular. e.g.
Strategic knowteodse
Knowledge abotJt cognitive ta5-ks
Self-knowledge

31
 The implications of promoting cognitive engagement in learning settings where the
medium of instruction is not the learner's fim language will be considered in section 3.4
on page 4L

3.2 Language learning and language using

[W]e should not let ourselves be trapped inside a dichotomy between rncus on form and
focus on meaning but rather use the term focus on language ... [l]n practice it becomes
impossible to sepame form and function neatly in the interactiona I work that is being
carried out.

Farm versus meaning ar farm as -11 as meaning1

Having considered theoretical aspects of oontent learning, we will now invrstigate wbat
is meant by language learning in CLIL contr:m. Within a traditional foreign language learn-
ing oon1xt,language teuhing has its roots in the learning of grammar and the reading of
texts. However, as noted in Olapter 1, in the latter part of the wtb. century, seoond language
acquisition theories iofl.uencro a range of approaches used for learning foreign languages
(Richards and Rodgers, These theories have led to teaching methods such as
grammar-translation, audio-lingual, input-output and oommunicat:i\'1! approaches. More
recent into general learning theories have also started to impact on reconceptu-
alizing how languagea can be lamwl as well as lmlghteffectively. These include socio-cultural
theory, intm.ctionism and connectionism (de GrWt Kaopman. Anikina and WesthoJt :war,
Ellis, 1997. Lantolf, Mitchell and My!es, :wD4: VanPatten and Willi1111l8, :wo6).
Probably the 11106t well-known approach to language learning in recent history pro-
mote& communication. Communicative approaches are based on theories of language
learning requiring a focus on meaning as Wl!ll as on furm (grammar):
Approaches to foreign language learning have also moved from almost
exdusiYI!Iy directed to grammar and translation to more eclectic approaches gered to
leornlng how to communi cote In a seoond or foreign lnguge.
(..., El<h md St Jolm, >oo;,; :13)

But a focus on oommunication has brought with it notions of oommunicative oom-

petence resulting in tension between focusing on form (grammar) and/or focusing on
meaning. Savignon highlights principles for communicative language learning
which are all relevant for CLIL since language learning is conceptualized within authentic
contexts for use. These can be summarized as follows:
Language is a tool for communication.
Diversity is recognized and accepted as part of language deYI!lopment.
Learner competence is relative in terms of genre, style and oorrectnes&.
Multiple varieties of language are reoognized.
OJ!ture is instrumental.

32
 There is no single methodology fur language learning and oeaching, or set of
prescribed techniques.
The goal is language using as well as language learning.
These principles are fundamental to language learning in a CLIL context Yet in terms
of classroom learning there appears to be a gulf betwl!en theory and practice, where 110
oftEn 'communication' in formal language learning settinss is reduced to language practice
based on grammatical progression rather than meaning-making. Whilst practice is an
important part of language learning- and language learning understanding gram-
matical progreasion - unless learnera are also supported in using language fur content
learning, then CLIL cannot succeed. This brings to the fore the tensions in language learn-
ing between focus on meaning and focus on form.
Savignon's final point, suggming that the goal of language learning encompasses
language using, emphasizes the importance of using language in authentic interactive set-
tings in order tn de\oclop commWlicative skills, rather than fucusmg almost exclusively on
grammar. Students have tn be able tn use the vdlicular language tn learn content other than
grammatical form otherwise this would not be CLIL. But the question remains: bow can
learners use a second or fur this purpose if they do not know how to
use itlln other words, ignoring progressiYe language learning in a CLH. setting is ignoring
the fundamental role played by language in the learning process. It reduces the learning
contlll<t tn teaching in another language:
lt Is obvious thatteadllng a subJect In a foreign language Is not the same as an Integra-
tion of language and content ... Language teachers and subJect teachers need to work
togel:tler ... [to] formulate the new didactics needed fur a real Integration of form and
function In language teadllng.
(de Bot, :IOCD:J>)

Clegg suggests there are two allernative approaches to CLIL - one which is language-
led and which 'imports parts of subjects [and] highlights language de\oclopment' (:1003: 89)
and another which is subject-led and 'may well exclude language teachers and explicit lao-
guage teaching' (ibid.). Perhaps it is more helpful tn see the integration of content and lan-
guage positioned along a continuum which relates to the contlll<ts in which the learning and
teaching take place:
The social situation in eadl count!}' in general and decisions in educational policy in partic-
ular always haw. an effll!ct, so there is no single blueprint of content and language integra-
tion that could be applied in the same way in different count(Jes -no model is fur export.
(lla-.B--199;!:39)

We would argue that in order to adopt a CLIL approach -where language and con-
oent are inregrated in some dearly identified way- certain pedagogical principles must be
addressed. For example, task-based language !eaming, whilst sharing some CLIL features,
is not synonymoua with CLIL. neither ia subject-matter teaching, which traditionally pays

33
little attention m language: 'Content must be manipulated pedagogically if itll potential fur
language learning is ID be realised' (Kiapper, 1996: 70).
In the 1gllos, Mohan, researching Canadian immersion (bilingual) programmes, cri-
tiqued well-known approaches to second language acquisition and learning (such as that of
Krashen, 198S). He argued that they did not take into account content learning. In such
instances content is seen:

... only source of enmples of the language rode. However, If rode Is divorced from
message, rontent Is If form Is divorced from function, there Is no functional
grammar; If language Is divorced from discourse, there Is no account of larger units of
disrourse ... there Is no attempt m account for language as a medium of learning, or for
content learning.
(Mal!an, 1gl6:

In an article published in 1997, Mohan and van Nurssen proposed that a different set
of assumptions was needed 1Xl form the basis of pedagogical thinking relating 1Xl contexts
where language is tued as a mafium of learning as opposed to the objtct of learning. The
authors outline more appropriate assumptions for content-based learning and language
learning as follows:

1 Language is a matter of meaning as well as of form.

2 Dlsrourse does not just express meaning. Discourse creates meaning.
3 Language continues throughout our lives, particularly our
educational lives.
4 As we acquire new areas of knowledge. we acquire new areas of language and meaning.
(MDban and w.n Naoru<D, 1997- >)

We must empbasUe that, whilst Mohan and van Naerssen's first paint reinforce& the
view that language is as much about meaning as form, m a little attention paid 1Xl form will
have negative consequences. Lyster's (9117) work In French immersion prognmmes In
Canada showed that whilst studeats could communicate effEctively, they were not able 1Xl
demonstrate first-language ftuency nor consistent gwnmatical accuracy. & immersion
teachers did not wish 1Xl discourage studeat language use by overcorrection, a type of
'inlmenion interlanguage' ewlved (4oster, 1987: 14). Swain (zooo), also drawing on her
research in Canadian immersion programmes, makes a strong case for there to be a clear-
er emphasis on form in oontent-driven learning contexts. She proposes that learners need
to be aposed 1Xl tasb which require them 1Xl focus on problematic gran=atical forms
which can then be used in meaningful situations. Whilst language-learning theory may be
a dclicient model fur content learning. Swain has also warned that
... content teaching needs to guide students' progressive use of the full functional range
of language, and to support their understanding of how language form Is related to
meaning In subject area material. The Integration of language, subject area knowledge,
and thinking skills requires systematic monitoring and planning.
(Swain, 1981: 61)
34
 These arguments seem to suggest that in CLIL contexts it is not a question of whether
to fucus on meaning orfonn but rather that it is fundamental to addms the balance
of which will be determined by different variables in specific CLIL settings.

An alternative approach for using language to lea m

Assunting that in CLIL settings it is necessary fur learners to progress systematically
in both their content learning and their language learning and using, as argued previously,
then using language to learn is as important as learning to use language- both are require
meats. Yet in many CLIL settings there is likely to be a difference in levels between cogni-
me functioning and linguistic competence - a situation which resonat& with immigrant
learners and the Engli&h as an Additional Language (EAL) agenda. fur example. ln other
words, many CLIL learners have a cognitive m! which is likely to be in advance of the
linguistic ml of the vehicular CLIL language. This assumption becomes more oompla
wben Wl! e>:amine how language using connects with cognit:M proassing.
According to Preire, 'without dialogue there is no communication and without com-
munication there can be no true education' 81). This puts dasrroom communication-
interaction betWI!en peers and teachers - at the rore of learning. There is also growing
recognition that 'dialogic' furms ofpedasogy- that is, where learners are enrouraged to artic-
ulate their learning- are potent tools fur securing learner engasement, learning and under-
standing. Focusing teaching and learning on quality discourse between learners, and between
learners and teachers - where learners have diffm:nt opportunities to discuss their own
learning with others as it progresses, where fEedback is integrated into classro0111 discourse
and where learners are encouraged to ask as well as answer questions - promot& meaning-
ful interaction fundamental to any learning scenario. This is what Wells (1999) terms 'dislog-
ic learning. The importance of interaction and teacher-learner and learner-learner dialogue
is reflectM in seminal work by theoreticians such as Bakhtin, Bruner, Mercer and WoocL The
dtallenge, of course, in the CLIL setting is that learners will need to engage in dialogic
learning using the vehicular language - a language in which !hey are probably unable to
express t:hemselves as well as in their first language.
This presents a pedagogic dilemma. If dialogic learning talres place in a context where
learners are encouraged to construct their own meanings from activities requiring interac-
tion with peers and the teacher in the vehicular language, then learners will need to be able
to access language relating to the learning context. For enmple, if a younger learner needs
to use the past tense in the CLIL language to describe an aperinlent in science, and if
the past tense has not been learned in a formal grammar class, then the CLIL class will need
to provide access to the appropriste use of the tense in !hat context. ln other words, the
language needed in CLIL settings does not nea!ssarily fullow the same grammatical pro-
gression one would find in a language-learning setting. TherefOre, in addition to making
choices about the grammatical funm needed to support language learning in contert, an
altername approach to support language using in CLIL dusrooms ia required.
Still drawing on Canadian immersion experiences, Lyster advocated a new
system for inlmersion to 'combine the progmn's rommunicame agent3 with a more
S)'lltenlatic and graded language component aimed at second language learners' (198(. 715).
35
Moreover, Snow, Met and Genesee (1989: .os) usefully suggesred identifying crmtmt-
abligatory language (essential fur learning the content) and cantmt-campatibk language
(which 'supports the content of a lesson, as well as the linguistic rultural objectives of the
curriculum' (iliid.)) to enable teachers to strategically sequence their language and content
objectives. For strategic planning such as this to tab: place, teachen; need to .make explicit
the interrelationship oou-n content objectives and language objectives. A conceptual rep-
resentation - the Language Triptych - makes these connectiollB. It has been constructed to
tab: account of the need to integrate cognitively denlanding content with language learn-
ing and using (Coy!e, 2000, 2002. and see Figure t). It provides the means to analyse lan-
guage needs across different CLIL contexls and trallSparently differentiates between types
oflinguistic denland which impact on CL!L. It also provides a means to conceptualize lan-
guage using as language 'fur knowledge coMtructinn' (Dal1Dn-l'uffer, wor. 6s). The
"lliptych does not replace grammatical progression but rather enhances it. It supports
learners in language using through the analysis of the CUL vehicular language from three
interrelated perspectives: language ofleaming,language jiJrlearning and language tlmntgh
learning.

Figure 1: The Lansuase Triptyc:h

Language
of
learning

CLIL linguistic
progression
Language learning
and language using

Language Language
for through
learning learning

36
 ofl=ning is an of langu3ge needed for leamen to aa:ess basic
concepts and skills relating to the subject theme or topk. There is a growing research interest
in the role of genre analysis as it rev1W the need to acquire language specific to subject and
thematic contalt, fur eumple, tbe language of science, or curriculum distxlurse. Drawing on
systemic functional linguistics (Halliday, 2004), genre is seen as 'a social activity in a particular
culture, the linguistic realisat:io.ru of which mala: up a regimr' (Liinares and Whittala:r, zoo6:
2.8). For the language teacher this means shifting linguistic progression from a dependency on
grammatiallevds of difficulty towards functional and notional levels of difficulty demanded
by the contnt. For e:wnple, returning to tbe learner needing to use the past tense in a science
lesson, in the CLll. setting the learner needs to be supported in understanding the concept of
'pastness' and past This can be adlieYed through using certain rather than
having to learn paradigms of '11!1-bs conjugated in the past time. Mon!IM!r, the selection of
used will depend on the txlntmt Using the past time for autbentic purposes in a CLll.
class arguably enables the leamen to use language appropriate to the txlntmt in a meaningful
way, which can then be further ezplored for grammatical cohesion in the language class.
Howm!r, this doe! not imply that second or additional language lessons should be reduced to
grammar lessons, but that a more varied menu can be created to provide a richer diet For the
subject teacher it requires greater e.p1icit awareness of the linguistic demands of the subject or
contmt to take aa:ount ofliteracy and oracy in the ..ehicular Jansuage.
Language for learning focuse& on the kind of language needed to operate in a foreign
language environment. Learning to use the language is challenging for both the teamer and
the learner- each lw a role to play. Learners need stra.tegia to enable them to use the fur-
eign language efli:ctively. For many researchers (Mohan, 1986; Nunan, 1990; Snow, Met and
Genesee. 1989; van Lier, 1996) planning is a prerequisite fur efh:tive scsffolding. and in
CLll. settings this means that the learner will need to be supported in developing skills such
as those required fur pair work, tx!operative group work, asking questions, debating, chat-
ting, enquiring, thinking, memorizing and so on. Unless learners are able to understand
and use language which enables them to learn, to support each other and to be supported,
quality learning will not take place. Developing a repertoire of speech acts which relate to
the content, such as describing, eVIluating and drawing conclusions, is essential fur tasks to
be carried out efli:ctively. Strategies fur enabling learners to discuss, debate, get into groups
and use the CLll. language independently will have to be transparent in both the planning
(teaching) and the learning process.
Language fhrauglt learning is based on the principle that efrective learning cannot
take place without active involVI!lllent of language and thinking. When learners are enoour-
aged to articulate their understanding. then a deeper level of learning takes place. The CIJL
classroom demands a level of talk, of interaction and dialagic activity which is difli!rent to
that of the traditional language or content classroom. Th return to Mohan and van
Naerssen's point: 'Discourse aeates meaning .. . As we acquire new areas of knowledge, we
acquire new areas of ... meaning' (1.997: 2). In CLIL settings. new meanings are likely to
require new language. This emerging language needs to be captured, rec:ycled and de.oel-
oped strall:gically by teadlers and learners. In other words, learners need language to

37
,...-....... . . . . .- - I lc ......u...
Sl:l.lf.antt tD CI:IWT\1 *"'ltlllti: 1M Cle fl orlltf
Of' .. ns. ttw ........ dil*t madltntl *' al
ftqljllll:t
IIJ'I'It!l!lr-.,-.,""""""''1:1"1\d......,..lI
iLU'flll"'*4""' ftlollnil ... -
ltlmi"''Nll'l'lll:ft.
"""1i't"'""""' 111<1-.-

38
3-3 From cultural awareness to lntercultural understanding
For CUL to promote effective learning there is another consideration which should
not be overlooked. lnterconnecllldness between the different elemenll of CLlL strengthens
when linb between language, rognitive processing and culture are explored. So what is
meant by and what role does it play in CLIU
Haw we define is highly contested and open to debate (Eagletan, 2000).
Brawn provides a useful explanation which links culture with thinking and language:

C:ultural patterns, customs, and ways of life are expressed In language: culture spedflc
world views are reflected In language ... [L]anguage and culture Interact so that world
view5 among cultures ditli!r, and that language used to express that world view may be
relative and spectllc to that view;

In the 19705, Halliday defined language devl!lapment u a 'sociological event, a semiotic

encounter through which meanings that constitute the social system are exdlanged' (1978:
139). If this social interactivity is transfuTed to learning settings where a foreign language is
used, then language, cultural understanding, cognitive engagement and thinking are all con-
nected to the content and context of CLIL. Ifwe follow the idea that rultnre determines the
way we interpret the world, and that we use language to this interpretatinn, then CLlL
open& an intercultural door. where learners can hll\'e experiences which they could not hll\'e
had in a monolingual setting- meaning. for enmple, that it provides a rich calalyst for 'liv-
ing' intercultural experiences whidt are fundament11 to a deeper understanding of global
citizenship. However, this puts responsibility on CLlL teadters to be proactive in deYcloping
whole-school partnerships and in using a range of teclmologies to malQ: these connections.
Olapter 4 provides some ideas for doing this.
Developing the discussion begun in the previous section and in line with socio-
cultural theorists such as Vygotsky and Bakhtin, language, thinking and culture are con-
structed through interaction. In first-language settings, meanings and values are learned in
situ alongside language development; that is, social interaction is integral to deep learning.
This means that language i& not only part of haw we define culture, it also reflects culture.
Qlltnre associated with a language cannot be 'learned' in a D:w lessons about celebrations,
fulk songs, or costumes of the area in which the language is spoken. Cultural awareness may
fucus on blowkdp about different cultures, but the mave towards intercultural under-
standing involves diflmnt experiences.

Deep laming involves the critical analysis of new ideas, connect-

ing them to already-known concepts, and leads to undentanding
and loll8-term retention of those concepts sa that they can be
used far problem salving in unfiuniliar contexts. Surface learning
is the a=ptance of infurmation u isolated and unlinla:d facts. It
leads to superficial retention only.

39
 At a micro leYel in CLIL am11!m, cultural understanding demands meaningful inter-
activity in the classroom with peen, teache!s and resOUICeS in and through the vehicular
language. At a macro level, extending social intEraction beyond the classroom is also essen-
tial if interculturallearning is to consist of collaborative meaning-making (Byram. 1989;
Donate, 1994). In essence, intercultural skills and understanding need to be developed
through intEraction with a range of people in a range of contats, so that new situations
enable learners to adjust meaningfully in order to expand their own understanding. The
European Commission's policy European for Cultw"e in a GloblllUing World outlines
ways in which the European Union supports the promotion of cultural diversity and inter-
cultural dialogue:
Culture and <te3tiVitytouch the daily lifl!afcitizens. They are important drivers for personal
development, social cohesion and economic growth. But they mean much more, they are
the core elements ... which ... recognize and respect dlw!rslty. Today's str.rteay promoting
lnten;ultural undershnding confirms culture's place at the heart af our polities.
(IJonooo, >DD7)

Inrercultural dialogue involves using skills to mediate between one's own and other
cultures. It starts with rai&ing awareness about one's own cultures, including culturally
learned attitudes and behaviours. It embraces the development of learners' cultural knowl.-
edge, skills and attitudes in interactive settinJ!S. It invests in the development ofcompetence
building for learners to criticaliy apply and analyse social processes and outcomes. The
argument we are making is that. from a holistic perspective, CLIL has an inlportant contri-
bution to malcie to learners' intercultural understandins by developing:
... an ability to see and manage the relationship between themselves and their own OJI-
tural beliefs, behaviours and meanings, as expressed in a foreign language, and those of
their interlocutors, expressed in the same language- or even a combination of languages.
(Byram. 19!17' u)

But in order for CLIL to have a cultural inlpact,learners need to engage in interactive
and dialogic learning within the classroom and beyond. CLIL potentially offers a wide range
of opportunities for intercultural interaction and has a fundamental role to play. The emnt
to which CLIL is successful will depend on the intercultursl ethos of the classroom.

40
 llllo+iilli18-*'tftt ...... p........,.AIIolldk-.i'IW
Stl.r6lr!tt......t........... .....
.......i:Mt........_.I'J.,......,dhae.... ...........(ll.u.,.
llaf*'f awl'llft.
.........,
........
tA 'cbe icatwt.t:ltia

1bo..CO-CI'II=tll
(djoo1.-),
--feet . . . c tttt .taJl.&A4 'cbdt la'&a
' m ' 1CLil.
'INIIIIoa _ _
a.-. ........ '"""....,..,..._ (loom;q...t
' c...t!loW-
.. -.,a .... ....-.t....,..._._......t..._......,.
! "
- - -......
1 & leekth:c 1 &fltt.Dd ' d.,_oftbto:tl:dlll:l:l!;

-lllo!w -
Jro; Jttf CL plae .....
-"rlh<l tl "'lofldlaod-

..... Jtl'h4D .....""

Contet

8 41 Context
 From this perspecti\>e, CLIL involvn learning to use language appropriately whilst
using language ID learn effi!ctively. It is built on the fOllowing principles:

1 Content matter i& not only about acqlllring knowledge and skills, it i& about the
learner m!atingtheir own lmawledge and understanding and devtlopingskills
(personalized learning).
Content i& related to learning and thinking (cognition). 1b enable the learner to
aeate their own interpretation of oontent, it muat be analysed for its linguistic
denlands.
3 Thinking processes (cognition) need to be anai}'Sed fur their demands.
4 Language needs to be learned whic:h i& related to the learning context, to learning
through that language, to the content, and to related cognitive
pro=ses. This language needs to be transparent and aca:ssible.
5 Interaction in the learning oontext is fundamental ID karning. This has impli-
when the learning context operates through the medium of a fureign
language.
6 The relationship between cultures and languages is complex. aware-
ness is fundamental to CLIL.
7 CLIL is embedded in the wider educational context in which it is developed and
therefOre mWit take account of contextual variable! in order to be effi!ctively
realized.
In the 4Cs Framework, the terms 'language' and 'communication' are used inter-
c:hangeably. This is not only a syntactiW devke fur promoting the C ooncepts, but also a
strategy for promoting genuine communication in the vehi.cular language if learning is to
take place. It is an attempt to redress the criticism made by Donato that poorly conceived
language 'educate learners towards communkatift incompetence rather than
competence' (1996).

lmpllc;rilons for lntesratlon: Clarlflc;rilon, contextuallz;rilon and Inquiry

We will close this chapter by suggesting there are three key implkations for inte-
gration whkh need to be considered. The firtt focuses on the need fur educators in ea.ch CLIL
setting to identify and justify the means by which integratiog content learning
will be the atenttowhich this is po551ble a=rdingto individual learning oon-
texts and learning outcomes. Whilst this might seem obvious, the faa remains that
integrating content leamiog and language learning is complex. It requires planning
as wcll as reBective enluations. There are no quidc-fu: solutions or formulae for how this
might be In this chapter m have a oonceptual map whic:h provides a
theoretical basis from which to start. However, building on principles developed in the pre-
vious chapter, it must be emphasized that this is a sinlple outline map whim needs to be pop-
ulated by rigorous discussion and clarifu:mon of purpose. Fractical suggestions for doing
this are contained in the following c:h1pter. Inevitably, Chapter 4 will revi&it fundamental

42
..... ...
- tbm
Tlot.....S' ;ti' .. 'llllllllla*> ...
Cbt . . . . . . _ ......
clebt_......,
...,._ad
.,..,,.,......,.
____. . CUI._

2
Wtlllfld'ktitdt
6tll""' Mjca......,. tl:llo ono1
I

- ud trnl'l"""'
..,._nl-.la_.,...,..,..IMI.
- . h ,_.,llnQohfiP - h !-"'""""''""" -
-..too-..........,-.......* ---...
ln<lll
... I
t.lloe

I
cm-
qoillot lord.lllbt. . . _ ln<lll
t&ml,.,..:tilr_koalof _ _ _ lllbt__.lno:lll
l l a l o a l q l l --
tl<loell ,....
kwdlodldh" '
a-Jid\ ... 4w:Minttat ..t, told\1t
wheftiMt'lt rt ftdt or m mmat ta fii..WCII'! 1'\ r.at C!fllhll'loCf a..,...
...........
Q'l:lll:lnJ
Apl.lltte llttlll
...........-.,........._h_""
f:lr klmtn Clfl*'t ft
tD I llfl'Cifdltt .........

.... '*""""
--dollop:"""'*"" ....,..""'*"'........mdJ!doc!l!lol o<ao!!y_... ..
dop1h Cbt'JPO .... . . , _ _Ao -
..... tl.d"'oiopood-1'4o-m/1JI&C--1MCLIL
..... - ("" ...... 4).

-;G l

.r
i
I
'
lOW HIOH

43
The CLIL teacher's own awareness of the \'Chirular language and the need to analyse the
language carefully and systematically cannot be underestimated. The need to appreciate
the learning demands in the vebi.cular language requires either an in-depth understanding
of tbat language by the CLIL teacher or collaboration between the CLIL teacher and a
language teacher. How the Matrix might help in stratEgic planning will be discussed
further in Chapter 4- For the moment, it might be useful to take the CLll. Matrix and
consider the impli.cation ofeach of the four quadrants for effective learning. To ensure that
the language of the learner does not impede learning, we need to focus on quadrant
Targeted progression in language learning whilst maintaining cognitive challenge will
lllO\'e the learner systematically over a period of time to quadrant 3 High linguistic
demands in quadrant 4 are appropriate only during elements of CLIL where linguistic
practice and focus on form is essential to progress learning.
In pedagogic terms, whilst quadrant 1 might build init:W confidence in learners, in
CLIL it is lihlyto be a transitory step on the way towards quadrant 2.. However, the transi-
tion from quadrant to quadrants 3 or 4 focuses on progression of indMduallearners and
the realization of their potential OVl:r time. The Matrix provides a useful audit for CLIL
teachers to track this progress in terms of planning and evaluatiog activities to extend stu-
dent learning. Practical applications of the Matrix will be explored further in Chapter 4-
The third and final implication fur integration is the need fur those ilmllved in CLIL
to adopt an inquiry-based approach to classroom teaching and learning. Where CLll. is led
by language practitioners, there are dangers tbat specific content demands are ignored or
weakened. Where CLIL is led by content teachers, linguistic demands may be under threat
h Dalton-Puffu comments:
At present, at leilst In Austria, a CLIL currlrulum Is defined entirely through the curricula
of the mntent subjects, wlltl the tacit assumption that there will be Incidental language
gains. But why should we be doing CUL at all If there are no language goals present?
{DoltDn-Pulrer, :100]: 295)

This reinforces the point yet again that there is no single model for CLIL and tbat its
theoretical as well as practical basis has to take account of the context in which it is being
developed. We suggest that this demands an inquirybased approach to practice. Chapter 4
provides a model for bmllving both teachers and their learners so that, as the CLIL
dynamic evolves, so too will our collectM: understanding. Professional learning in this sense
is wbat van Lier (1996) calls articulating a theoryofpru:tice, where teachers construct their
own theories of learning based on evidence from their own classrooms. According to Wong,
when students are put at the centre of curriculwn desisn and teaching:
... the search for guiding principles to support their learning can be seen as a way of
reclaiming methodology, from a series of narrow codified prescriptions, to an evaluation
of which tools and resources will enable us to better understand how to support our
students' lnguage learning.

44
 Working in professional learning conununities (\'knger, 1998) means working
towards the time when CLIL is no longer an 'either/or' in of and language
teaching and learning, but rather an integrated whole.
A thf!ory of practke emerges when the begins to
articulate his or her implicit knowledge and understanding
about teac::bing and learning. The teacher's implicit knowledge
becomes through this process- that is, the teacher is
aware of his or her awn knowledge (theory of practice) and
can begin to develop this. The starting paint fur a
theory of practice is the teacher's own professional beliefs.

References
Aackroon, LW. ond KIJ.Ihwohl, D. R. (edo.) (:uun) A T"""""""y for 1Amri1lg. T11101ring; lltldAsHssing;
..1.1/nision of ll=nomy ofBih<auitnttll O!rj<ctivts, New York: Longmaa.
Bae!ml Beardunore, H. (ed.) (1993) E1110pom Models ofBilingual Oevedon:
Multilingual Matten.
Barr0010, J. M. Prelident of tlu! European ComnWaion. on 10 May 2t>07 [Online press release].
A..nable at: [A=ued
"'April>009].
Beteitor, C. and 5cudomalia, M. (>oos) 'Technology and limacies: From print limacy to dialogic
literaq', in Bucia, N., Cumming. A., Dotnow, A., Ll:ithwood, K. and Livinptooe, D. (eels.)
(2oos) blflmr<ltitmal Handboo1c ofl!illlCJJtioPIIIl Dordrecbt, Netherlands: Springer,
P!'74g-<!L
Bigge, M. L m:! Shermis, S. S. (1998) I.arning 'I?rtori05 for 7lw:hm, New York: Longman.
Bloom. B. 5. (ed.) (1956) 1l=110my Objeaivts, I: CDg>ti!M Dotnllin,
Now York: Longmon.
Brown. H. D. (1980) Prindp/<S ofLtlngwlge IamillgiUfd TI!IIChillg. Englewood OiftJ, NJ:
Prentir:z Hall
Byram. M. (1989) Odltmll Sludi<S i" Pordgn Langlulgo &l"cation, Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters.
Byram.M. (1997) 7lw:hmg 1trtt:n:ultlmll CDmm""lcati!lo Cl>mpetena, O...don:
Multilingual Matters.
ClesiJ, j. (2t>o3) 'The Jblsue E Scienu Project: Sonte Outcmnes', in Qwadmri Pllbllcad 6: L'IISO
"VOicDIre de/la siTtuliml ill "PJ>mltlimonli non UngWtki, Thrino: Ullicio Sa>lastico
Rogionale per nPienoonte.
CO)'II!, D. (2DOO) 'Moeting tlu! cbollongt: Dowloping tlu! 3(A c:urriculurn', in <it-, 5. (ed.) (2000)
Now Pmpoc:rivos cm :n.u:hing wul Looming Modem Llltlpops, Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters, ppt58-l!2.
CO)'Ie, D. (2002) 'From litde acorns', in So, D. and Jonco, G. M. (eds.) (2Do>) &lNCtlticm lltld Society
ill Plurilillpal Contom, Brussolo: Brwsels Uni.wrsity Prw, PP3H5
Crandall, J. (1994) 'Silatogic integration: Preparing lOftll18&l! and content teachers fur linguiatically
and cultunlly dh:rse cluoroomi, in Alatil, J. E. (ed.) (1994) lhlivomly

45
 Roundtablt! on Lmgu"f'511111l Linguisria. .strat.gic Intmu:tion tmd lmlgrulgt Acqarisition:
Prrzct1a, Wuhington. DC: G""'lJ"l"Wll UnMrmy Press. PP"-55-74-
CummiDS, J. (1984) Bilingurdism l1llll Sptdal Education: I..- in Aso...mmt tmd Prdllgogy,
Clovedon: Multilingual Matters.
Cwnmino, J. (:1005) 'u.ing infunnation llcbnology tc ant< a zono of pro>Wna1 cltvolopment fur
academic la.nguqe learning: A critical perspectiw on trends and po..ibilities', in Davioon. C.
(od.) (>oos) Information Tl!dmoJogy..,.dinnOWitiOII in L""f"''''"EdiiCilrion, Hon(KmJs: Hong
Kong Uoivmity PRoo, pplDS-'.16.
Dalton-Puffor, C. (:1007) Discoum in C011tmt and Lont""B" Integraltd Lrtlming (CLIL) Classrooms,
Amsterdam: John Benjamina.
de Bot, lC. (>oa>) 'Rdevmce ofCLIL 1IJ the l!uropem Commillion'slaoguage learning objectivei,
in Marsh. D. (ed.) CUUBMJLB- n...&.rop11111 Diml!tuitm: Adimu, 7Tmds l1llll Fon:right
PomntW, Public Servia:a Conlnct DG EAC: l!uropOIIIl Commiolion, Sln!bourg, PP31->.
de Graatf, R., Koopman, G. J., Anildna, Y. and Westhoft G. (>DO]) :An oboemltion tool for effcaive
u pedagogy in Content and Languqe Integrated Learning (CLIL): Bilingual Edu<11tion tmd
Bilingualism, 10. 5 603->4-
Department of llducation, Queenaland (>oa>) .A Gvidolfl Productivo
kjl<ion Manual. llduation Qu=obnd.
Dooato, R. (1994) 'Collective ocaffolding in octond language learning', in Lmtolt J. and Appel, G.
(eds.) (1994) Vnotokian.Apptwdl .. tt> s..,nd Lmgu.,. Norwood, NJ: Abla,
pp3J-"36.
Dooato, R. (1996) 'Sociocultunl p=pectM:o on foreign laoguage teacbiDg pnctice and
rosem:h', Paper deliftred at the u World Congress of Applied Linguistics, AILA conf<rmce,
Jyollaky!ll. Finland, August 1996.
llagleton, T. (>Ooo) T/lo Idea ofCIIlM'O, Ozfotd: B1ackwoll.
ll11is, R. (1g97) socond LmfU"'' &qarisition, onord: Ozford Univtraty Pre,g.
Freire, P. Podrzgogy oflh ()ppresssl, New York: Herder and Herder.
Halliday. M. A. lC. (19;>11) lmlgrulgt as Social Semiatic: n... Social Interpretrllion of Lmzu"''llllll
London: Arnold.
Halliday. M. A. !C. (>004) .An Introdlleti0111fl FamctiOIIGI Grtlmmar, London: Arnold.
Klappot, J. (1996) l.tm'ning lhrough Immmian:
Schools, The Edwin Melleni'Rss.
Krulu:n, S. D. (1g85) Tho InputHypothais, LoDdon: Longman.
Lantolf; J, (ed.) (ooo) Sodoadtural Thmry l1llll Second L....guagol.tm'ning, Oxfmd: Ozford
Uni-.ity Press.
Ilinares, A. and Whitt&Ur, R. (>ao6) 'linguistic analysis of oetondiiy school students' oral and
writtm production in CLIL contem: Stadying Social Science in English', VWw[zj
Hnglish Working Pap<n, 3o 2&--32.
Lyst8. R. (1987) 'Speoking immenioO: Ctzrwlian Modmt Lmgu.,. Rmtw, ..,, 4o J0>-17.
Marsh. D.llonot, C. and Sygmund. D. (1ggg) 1'ltrntlr\r PlitrlUngu.dlsm. J)'\'bkyljl: lJni\ol!rsity of
Jyollaky!l.
Matt.mo, R. J, (zooo) lJ<:ri&ning a New lll:wnomy of EducatlotJal Thousmd Oab, CA:
CorwinPreas.
McGuinness, C. (199g) Prom Thiniing Skills to Thmrdng a.u.roonu: .A Review tuul E.Wwuitm of
AJ1prrKM:hes for ne../oplng P..pils' Thinking. Rqort n.s. London: Department for
lldU<ation and llmployment.
46
Met, M. {1998) 'Curriculum decision-making in c:ontmt-bued lansuage teachin(. in Cenoz, C. and
Geneaee, F. {eds.) {1998) Beyond Bilingu.Wm: MJdtilinplJ/imt lltlll MJdtilitlplll Hducatio11,
Cl...don: Multilinl!""l Matter.
Mitchell, R. and Myles. F. (2.1104) Socrmd l.Gnguap Leamirlg TlteoriiiS, London: Hodder Amold.
Mohan, B. (1986) ImlpJge IUid Reading. MA: Addi.son-Wesley.
Mohan, B. md vm Nacnscc. M. {1997) "Under.standing Learning through language:
Fonmr, [Online]3.5, +AIIlilable at: http://eca.state.gavlfurumJvolsiYDil5/no.41pnhtm
[A=ssed 15 Aprilzoog].
N"mbet, J. (1991) 'Projects, theories ond methods: 1'11< intemati<malscme', in Cole&, M. and
Robiruon, W. D. (eds.) (1991) Tmchirlg Thinking (Second edition), Bristol: Bristol Classical
Press.
Nunan, D. (1990) 'Action rueorch in the language clwroom', in Riehlrds,J. C. and Nunon, D. (ed.)
(1990) Socrmd T..,cher lltlllaltiolr, ambridge: Combridge Univmity l're>s, pp6>-iL
Otteo, E. ""rbhop uA: BilUtptd lltluaJtion in Secorulruy Sclrools: Leamirlg IUid :n..clring
Sul7ja throl<gh A Foreign lmtgr<Age. CDCC European Commission.
Ricbarcls, J. c. and Rodps. T. s. (:wm) Approad!.. IU!d Mediad. 7<adlmg (Second
edition), Cambridge: Cambridge Uniwrsity Preoo.
SAvisnon. s. (:zo04) 'Lanl!""l! identity. and curriculum deoisn: Communica1ivl! language tradDng
in the 21 century', in vm Esch, C. md St John, 0. (eds.) (>oO<f) Nf!W Insig#lts in Foreign
l.onglulge I..tmting tmd 7<adling; Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. PP71-U
Smith. J. and l'IWnon, R (1998) A>Jiliwfy Bilingual: Cltwroom smu.gi<! *>Promote t"-
AI:/Mwlment ofBilingllllllAtmlm, Nottingham: Nottingham Education Authority.
Snow, M., Met, M. and Gcnesec, P. (1989) 'A c:onccptual framework for the inll:gration of language
and oontent in seamdJfor<ign languqe inlllructiolf, TBSOL Quarwly, 23, :z, pp>m.-17.
Swain. M. (191111) 'Manipulating and complemmting conll:nt ll:adting to muimize second
languqe learning', THSL Ctu!adR Jollnllll. 6, t. pp61h'13.
Swoin, M. (zooo) 'The tput bn>otbotis and boyond: Modiating aoqnisition thrgh collobonli""
dialogue', in Lantolf, J. P. (ed.) Sodocultwral Thotn)' and Socrmd r....rnitlf, llifcrd:
llifcrd lJnM!rsity Preas. PP91-ll+
YIID Escb, K. ond St John, 0. (2003) A Pramowork for Prrledom: lamer Aulo"""'J' in Rm:ign
Teacher lltluaJtimJ, Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Vlll Lier, L. (1996) In12N<iim! in Ihz Imtgr<..,. Cllrricldum: Au!lmomy,.,, Aut"-ntit:ily,
Now YoU: Longmm.
Vanl'atll:n, B. and WJI!iams, J. (eels.) (:zoo6) Tll<ria in Sllt:Otld I.rulguagtAajwisition: All
llltroductio11, Mahwab. NJ: lAwrmce Erlbaurn &oo<iates.
L. S. (1978) Mmd in Society, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wdls, G. (1999) Dirdogic Inquiry: 7bw<lrds SodocultJmd Prtlditz tm<l Thmry oflld-fiofl.
Combridge: Cambridge Unm:nity Pn:a.
Wqer, E. (1998) Commwtilits ofPttlcria: Ltmniltg, At...ning; IJitd Idmtity, Combddge:
Combridge Uni..,raity Pr....
Won& S. (20o6) Dilllogic Approw:ha Ill TBSOL: Wlrao 1hz Ginlqju 1hz London: Routledge.

47