Book contents
- Curriculum Integrated Language Teaching
- Curriculum Integrated Language Teaching
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Foreword
- Preface
- Acknowledgements
- Part I The Educational Context for CLIL
- Part II Current Aspects of Practice in CLIL
- 4 What Pupils Say about Transition (KS2–3) and What This Might Mean for CLIL
- 5 Diversity and Transnationalism
- 6 Three Schools, Three Models
- 7 Plurilingualism in the Content and Language Integrated Classroom
- Part III New Knowledge and Future Directions
- Afterword
- Index
- References
6 - Three Schools, Three Models
Senior Leaders’ Views about the Value of CLIL in Their School
from Part II - Current Aspects of Practice in CLIL
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 July 2020
By
Book contents
- Curriculum Integrated Language Teaching
- Curriculum Integrated Language Teaching
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Foreword
- Preface
- Acknowledgements
- Part I The Educational Context for CLIL
- Part II Current Aspects of Practice in CLIL
- 4 What Pupils Say about Transition (KS2–3) and What This Might Mean for CLIL
- 5 Diversity and Transnationalism
- 6 Three Schools, Three Models
- 7 Plurilingualism in the Content and Language Integrated Classroom
- Part III New Knowledge and Future Directions
- Afterword
- Index
- References
Summary
This chapter addresses the book’s questions about how different models of CLIL can be implemented and why school leaders adapt their curriculum to include CLIL projects, set against the absence of a national policy for modern languages and a resulting paucity of cross-curricular language learning in the secondary sector. I begin by reviewing a range of models undertaken in schools before focusing on three more substantial models in this study and exploring school leaders’ rationale for CLIL and how they implemented the approach in their school. It draws on findings from the empirical research study referred to in Chapter 2, which investigated the extent to which CLIL promotes learner motivation in England and explored the transferability of CLIL to other schools. Leaders’ perceptions of, confidence in and professional commitment to CLIL in three contrasting models and settings are explored.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Curriculum Integrated Language TeachingCLIL in Practice, pp. 107 - 123Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2020
References
Baker, C., and Wright, W. E. (2017). Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. Buffalo, NY: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Bauckham, I. (2016). Modern Foreign Languages Pedagogy Review: A Review of Modern Foreign Languages Teaching Practice in Key Stage 3 and Key Stage 4. London, UK: Teaching Schools Council.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. Hull, UK: University of Hull.Google Scholar
Bower, K. (2014). To What Extent Does Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) as a Language-Based Project Approach Promote Pupil Motivation in the Teaching of MFL in Three Secondary Schools in England? Hull, UK: University of Hull.Google Scholar
Bower, K. (2017). ‘“Speaking French Alive”: Learner Perspectives on Their Motivation in Content and Language Integrated Learning in England’. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 13(1), 45–60.Google Scholar
Bower, K. (2019). ‘School Leaders’ Perspectives on Content and Language Integrated Learning in England’. Language, Culture and Curriculum. doi:10.1080/07908318.2019.1667367.Google Scholar
Breidbach, S., and Viebrock, B. (2012). ‘CLIL in Germany: Results from Recent Research in a Contested Field of Education’. International CLIL Research Journal, 1(4), 5–16.Google Scholar
Coyle, C., Holmes, B., and King, L. (2009). Towards an Integrated Curriculum: CLIL National Statement and Guidelines. London, UK: Languages Company.Google Scholar
Coyle, D. (2000). ‘Meeting the Challenge: Developing the 3Cs Curriculum’, in Green, S. (ed.), New Perspectives on Teaching and Learning Modern Languages. Modern Languages in Practice. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters, pp. 158–182.Google Scholar
Coyle, D. (2011). ITALIC Research Report Investigating Student Gains: Content and Language Integrated Learning. Edinburgh, UK: University of Aberdeen, Esmée Fairbairn Foundation.Google Scholar
Coyle, D. (2013). ‘Listening to Learners: An Investigation into “Successful Learning” across CLIL Contexts’. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16(3), 244–266.Google Scholar
Coyle, D., Hood, H., and Marsh, D. (2010). Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Department for Education. (2010). The Importance of Teaching: The Schools White Paper 2010. Norwich, UK: Department for Education, Stationary Office.Google Scholar
Department for Education and Skills. (2002). Languages for All: Languages for Life – a Strategy for England. London, UK: DfES.Google Scholar
Eurydice. (2017). Key Data on Teaching Languages at School in Europe – 2017 Edition. European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice Report. Luxembourg.Google Scholar
Greany, T., and Waterhouse, J. (2016). ‘Rebels against the System: Leadership Agency and Curriculum Innovation in the Context of School Autonomy and Accountability in England’ International Journal of Educational Management, 30(7), 1188–1206.Google Scholar
Hagger-Vaughan, L. (2016). ‘Towards “Languages for All” in England: The State of the Debate’. Language Learning Journal, 44(3), 358–375.Google Scholar
Hargreaves, D. (2011). Leading a Self-improving School System. Nottingham, UK: National College for School Leadership.Google Scholar
Hirsch, D. (2003). ‘The Management of Learning, Schools and Systems’. Networks of Innovation. OECD.Google Scholar
Hunt, M. J. (2011). ‘UK Teachers’ and Learners’ Experiences of CLIL Resulting from the EU-Funded Project ECLILT’. Latin American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning, 4(1), 27–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nuffield Foundation. (2000). Languages: The Next Generation: The Final Report and Recommendations of the Nuffield Languages Inquiry. London, UK: Nuffield Foundation.Google Scholar
Perryman, J., Ball, S., Maguire, M., and Braun, A. (2011). ‘Life in the Pressure Cooker–School League Tables and English and Mathematics Teachers’ Responses to Accountability in a Results-Driven Era’. British Journal of Educational Studies, 59(2), 179–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spielman, A. (2017). Amanda Spielman on the Launch of Ofsted’s Annual Report 2016/17. London, UK: Ofsted.Google Scholar
Tedick, D. J., Christian, D., and Fortune, T. W. (2011). ‘The Future of Immersion Education: An Invitation to “Dwell in Possibility”’, in Tedick, D. J., Christian, D., and Fortune, T. W. (eds.), Immersion Education: Practices, Policies, Possibilities. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters, pp. 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tinsley, T., and Doležal, N. (2018). Language Trends 2018: Language Teaching in Primary and Secondary Schools in England Survey Report. London, UK: British Council.Google Scholar
Tinsley, T., and Doležal, N. (2019). Language Trends 2019: Language Teaching in Primary and Secondary Schools in England Survey Report. London, UK: British Council.Google Scholar
Van Mensel, L., Hiligsmann, P., Mettewie, L., and Galand, B. (2020). ‘CLIL, an Elitist Language Learning Approach? A Background Analysis of English and Dutch CLIL Pupils in French-Speaking Belgium’. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 33(1), 1–14.Google Scholar
Wiesemes, R. (2005). The Final Report for the Content and Language Integrated Project. London, UK: CILT.Google Scholar