CLIL in Multilingual and English-Background Contexts

Chapter 1 outlines the peculiarities of language learning in predominantly Anglophone contexts, highlighting the challenges that Anglophone countries face in the teaching of modern languages compared to non-Anglophone countries. Tracing the development of Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) in the United Kingdom and Australia, the chapter explains why CLIL in such contexts is most often taught by language specialists, in contrast to content-area specialists, as is often the case in Europe where CLIL has been established for much longer. The chapter considers how CLIL offers a pedagogic model for mainstream modern language teachers in Anglophone-dominant contexts and how the same professional knowledge base might also have the potential to support the teaching of English as an additional language (EAL). The origins of how CLIL globally has become synonymous with learning English are also traced. A research agenda around the themes of sustainability, pedagogy, and social justice for CLIL in Anglophone-dominant contexts is proposed.

Keywords

origins of CLIL CLIL pedagogy CLIL touchstones EAL social justice sustainability

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: Curriculum Integrated Language Teaching
CLIL in Practice
, pp. 3 - 21
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108687867.003 [Opens in a new window]
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Adamson, B. (2004). ‘Fashions in Language Teaching Methodology’, in Davies, A. and Elder, C. (eds.), The Handbook of Applied Linguistics. Malden, MA: Blackwell, pp. 604–622.Google Scholar

Alexander, R. (2008). Essays on Pedagogy. London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar

Arshad, R. (2018). ‘Decolonisation and Critical Race Theory – What’s the Relevance?’ EAL Journal, 8(Summer), 50–51.Google Scholar

Baker, C., and Wright, W. E. (2017). Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. Buffalo, NY: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

Banegas, D. L. (2011). ‘A Review of “CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning” by D. Coyle, P. Hood, and D. Marsh, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2010’. Language and Education, 25(2), 182–185.Google Scholar

Bell, D. (2004). ‘A New Paradigm for Modern Foreign Languages?’ Language World (Newsletter). London, UK: Association of Language Learning.Google Scholar

Bower, K. (2006). An Analysis of Pupils’ and Teachers’ Views on the Use of ‘Immersion’ Techniques in the Teaching of Modern Foreign Languages at One Secondary School. Unpublished thesis. Hull, UK: University of Hull.Google Scholar

Bower, K. (2019). ‘“Speaking French Alive”: Learner Perspectives on Their Motivation in Content and Language Integrated Learning in England’. Innovation in Language Learning & Teaching, 13(1), 45–60.CrossRef Google Scholar

Bower, K., and Cross, R. (2019). ‘CLIL: Origins, Development and Distinctiveness’. Cross-curricular Language Learning: Putting CLIL into Practice. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Hallam Institute of Education.Google Scholar

Bruton, A. (2011). ‘Is CLIL So Beneficial, or Just Selective? Re-evaluating Some of the Research’. System, 39(4), 523–532.Google Scholar

Cenoz, J., Genesee, F., and Gorter, D. (2014). ‘Critical Analysis of CLIL: Taking Stock and Looking Forward’. Applied Linguistics, 35(3), 243–262.Google Scholar

Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research. (2003). Language Trends. London, UK: CILT.Google Scholar

Clyne, M. (2005). Australia’s Language Potential. Sydney, Australia: UNSW Press.Google Scholar

Coyle, D. (1996). ‘Language medium teaching in Britain,’ in Teaching Content in a Foreign Language: Practice and Perspectives in European Bilingual Education. European Commission.Google Scholar

Coyle, D. (1999). ‘Supporting students in content and language integrated learning contexts: Planning for effective classrooms,’ in Learning through a Foreign Language: Models, Methods and Outcomes. Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research, pp. 46–62.Google Scholar

Coyle, D. (2000). ‘Meeting the Challenge: Developing the 3Cs Curriculum’, in Green, S. (ed.), New Perspectives on Teaching and Learning Modern Languages. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters, pp. 158–182.Google Scholar

Coyle, D. (2004a). ‘Redefining Classroom Boundaries: Learning to Teach Using New Technologies’. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, 32(July), 1–24.Google Scholar

Coyle, D. (2004b). ‘Teaching through a Foreign Language’. ALL Language World Conference. Oxford, UK: ALL.Google Scholar

Coyle, D. (2006). ‘Developing CLIL: Towards a Theory of Practice’, in Figueras, N. (ed.), CLIL in Catalonia: From Theory to Practice. Barcelona, Spain: APAC, pp. 5–29.Google Scholar

Coyle, D. (2007a). ‘Content and Language Integrated Learning: Towards a Connected Research Agenda for CLIL Pedagogies’. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(5), 543–562.Google Scholar

Coyle, D. (2007b). ‘United Kingdom, England’, in Maljers, A., Marsh, D., and Wolff, D. (eds.), Windows on CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning in the European Spotlight. The Hague: European Platform for Dutch Education, pp. 172–178.Google Scholar

Coyle, D. (2008). ‘CLIL: A Pedagogical Approach from the European Perspective’, in Van Deusen-Scholl, N. and Hornberger, N. H. (eds.), Encyclopedia of Language and Education. New York, NY: Springer, pp. 97–111.Google Scholar

Coyle, D. (2018). ‘The Place of CLIL in (Bilingual) Education’. Theory into Practice, 57(3), 1–10.Google Scholar

Coyle, D., Halbach, A., Meyer, O., and Schuck, K. (2018). ‘Knowledge Ecology for Conceptual Growth: Teachers as Active Agents in Developing a Pluriliteracies Approach to Teaching for Learning’. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21(3), 349–365.Google Scholar

Coyle, D., Holmes, B., and King, L. (2009). Towards an Integrated Curriculum: CLIL National Statements and Guidelines. London, UK: The Languages Company.Google Scholar

Coyle, D., Hood, P., and Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Cross, R. (2014). Best Evidence Synthesis: Current Approaches to Languages Education (Gesture, Inquiry Learning, and CLIL). Melbourne, Australia: Catholic Education Commission of Victoria.Google Scholar

Cross, R. (2015). ‘Defining Content and Language Integrated Learning for Languages Education in Australia’. Babel, 49(2), 4–15.Google Scholar

Cross, R. (2016). ‘Language and Content “Integration”: The Affordances of Additional Languages as a Tool within a Single Curriculum Space’. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 48(3), 388–408.Google Scholar

Cross, R., and Gearon, M. (2013). Research and Evaluation of the Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) Approach to Teaching and Learning Languages in Victorian Schools. Melbourne, Australia: Victorian Department of Education and Early Childhood.Google Scholar

Cruickshank, K. (2019). ‘Negotiating Content and Language for Quality Learning: What This Means in Secondary EAL and Science Programs’. Cross-curricular Language Learning: Putting CLIL into Practice. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Hallam Institute of Education.Google Scholar

Dale, L., Oostdam, R., and Verspoor, M. (2017). ‘Searching for Identity and Focus: Towards an Analytical Framework for Language Teachers in Bilingual Education’. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21(3), 366–383.Google Scholar

Dalton-Puffer, C. (2018). ‘Postscriptum: Research Pathways in CLIL/Immersion Instructional Practices and Teacher Development’. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21(3), 384–387.Google Scholar

De Swaan, A. (2001). ‘English in the social sciences’, in Ammon, U. (ed.), The Dominance of English as a Language of Science: Effects on Other Languages and Language Communities. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 71–83.Google Scholar

Department for Education and Skills. (2002). Languages for All: Languages for Life – A Strategy for England. London, UK: HMSO.Google Scholar

Department of Education and Science. (1990). Modern Foreign Languages for Ages 11 to 16: Proposals of the Secretary of State for Education and Science and the Secretary of State for Wales. National Curriculum Council. London, UK: HMSO.Google Scholar

Eurydice. (2006). Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) at School in Europe. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission.Google Scholar

Eurydice. (2017). Key Data on Teaching Languages at School in Europe. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission.Google Scholar

Hajek, J., and Slaughter, Y. (2015). Challenging the Monolingual Mindset. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

Hall, G., and Cook, G. (2012). ‘Own-Language Use in Language Teaching and Learning’. Language Teaching, 45(3), 271–308.CrossRef Google Scholar

Hawkins, E. (1996). ‘Language Teaching in Perspective’, in Hawkins, E. (ed.), 30 Years of Language Teaching. London, UK: Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research, pp. 15–32.Google Scholar

Holliday, A. (1994). Appropriate Methodology and Social Context. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Ito, Y. (2018). ‘CLIL in Practice in Japanese Elementary Classrooms: An Analysis of the Effectiveness of a CLIL Lesson in Japanese Traditional Crafts’. English Language Teaching, 11(9), 59–67.Google Scholar

Kirkpatrick, A. (2011). ‘English as an Asian Lingua Franca and the Multilingual Model of ELT’. Language Teaching, 44(2), 212–224.CrossRef Google Scholar

Leathes, S. (1918). Modern Studies: Being the Report to the Committee on the Position of Modern Languages in the Educational System of Great Britain. London, UK: HMSO.Google Scholar

Lo Bianco, J., and Cross, R. (2010). Melbourne Collaborative Research Grant: Sustainable Models of Content and Language Integrated Learning in Asian Languages. Melbourne, Australia: University of Melbourne and Xavier College, Kew.Google Scholar

Macaro, E., Curle, S., Pun, J., An, J., and Dearden, J. (2018). ‘A Systematic Review of English Medium Instruction in Higher Education’. Language Teaching, 51(1), 36–76.Google Scholar

Marsh, D. (2002). CLIL/EMILE – the European Dimension: Action, Trends and Foresight Potential. Brussels, Belgium: European Union Public Services Contract.Google Scholar

May, S. (2013a). ‘Introducing the “Multilingual Turn”’, in May, S. (ed.), The Multilingual Turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL, and Bilingual Education. London, UK: Routledge, pp. 1–6.CrossRef Google Scholar

May, S. (2013b). The Multilingual Turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL, and Bilingual Education. London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar

Meyer, O., and Coyle, D. (2017). ‘Pluriliteracies Teaching for Learning: Conceptualizing Progression for Deeper Learning in Literacies Development’. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5(2), 199–222.Google Scholar

Nikula, T., Dafouz, E., Moore, P., and Smit, U. (2016). Conceptualising Integration in CLIL and Multilingual Education. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

Nuffield Foundation. (2000). Languages: The Next Generation – The Final Report and Recommendations of the Nuffield Languages Inquiry. London, UK: Author.Google Scholar

Riddlebarger, J. (2013). ‘Doing CLIL in Abu Dhabi’. Asian EFL Journal, 15(4), 413–421.Google Scholar

Rojo, L. M. (2013). ‘(De)Capitalising Students through Linguistic Practices: A Comparative Analysis of New Educational Programmes in a Global Era’, in Duchene, A., Moyer, M., and Roberts, C. (eds.), Language, Migration and Social Inequalities: A Critical Sociolinguistic Perspective on Institutions and Work. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters, pp. 118–146.Google Scholar

Seidlhofer, B. (2011). Understanding English as a Lingua Franca. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Siqueira, D. S. P., Landau, J., and Paraná, R. A. (2018). ‘Innovations and Challenges in CLIL Implementation in South America’. Theory into Practice, 57(3), 196–203.Google Scholar

Smala, S. (2012). ‘CLIL programmes in Australia: Multilingual schooling contexts’. The European Journal of Applied Linguistics and TEFL, 1(1), 115–128.Google Scholar

Smala, S., Paz, J. B., and Lingard, B. (2013). ‘Languages, Cultural Capital and School Choice: Distinction and Second-Language Immersion Programmes’. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 34(3), 373–391.CrossRef Google Scholar

Turner, M. (2013). ‘CLIL in Australia: The importance of context’. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16(4), 395–410.Google Scholar

Yang, W. (2015). ‘Content and Language Integrated Learning Next in Asia: Evidence of Learners’ Achievement in CLIL Education from a Taiwan Tertiary Degree Programme’. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 18(4), 361–382.Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

Accessibility compliance for the HTML of this chapter is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.

Book contents

1 - CLIL in Multilingual and English-Background Contexts

Summary