Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T07:58:08.606Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Content and Language Integrated Learning: A research agenda

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2013

Christiane Dalton-Puffer  and
Ute Smit
Christiane Dalton-Puffer
Affiliation:
University of Vienna, [email protected]
Ute Smit
Affiliation:
University of Vienna, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

While Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) has received a considerable amount of research interest lately, its increasing popularity as an approach to teaching content subjects in a foreign language requires concerted investigation that reflects and recognises its fundamentally contextualised nature. In this contribution, we sketch various tasks that require localised, often action research, covering a range of areas highly relevant to CLIL realities, but so far underrepresented in the literature. These are, firstly, policy issues, comprising policy statements as well as stakeholders’ perceptions of CLIL and its success; secondly, classroom discourse as the prime site for the investigation of CLIL practices and their implications for the learning process; and, thirdly, classroom pedagogy, with the focus on potential differences between CLIL and non-CLIL settings.

Type
Thinking Allowed
Information
Language Teaching , Volume 46 , Issue 4 , October 2013 , pp. 545 - 559
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

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.)

References

Airey, J. (2009). Estimating undergraduate bilingual scientific literacy in Sweden. International CLIL Research Journal 1, 26–35.Google Scholar
Badertscher, H. & Bieri, T. (2009). Wissenserwerb im content and language integrated learning. Bern, Wien: Haupt.Google Scholar
Barcelos, A. M. F. (2003). Researching beliefs about SLA: A critical review. In Kalaja, P. & Barcelos, A. M. F. (eds.), Beliefs about SLA. New research approaches. New York: Springer, 7–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barcelos, A. M. F. & Kalaja, P. (2011). Introduction to beliefs about SLA revisited. System 39, 281–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BMBWK (2003). Gesetzliche Grundlagen schulischer Maßnahmen für SchülerInnen mit einer anderen Erstsprache als Deutsch. Gesetze und Verordnungen (= Informationsblätter des Referats für Interkulturelles Lernen Nr. 1/2003).Google Scholar
Brinton, D. M., Snow, M. A. & Wesche, M. B. (2008) [1989]. Content-based second language instruction. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Burns, A. (2010). Doing action research in English language teaching: A guide for practitioners. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
CLIL Cascade Network (no date). www.ccn-clil.euGoogle Scholar
CLIL Compendium (no date). www.clilcompendium.com/clilcompendium.htmGoogle Scholar
CLIL Consortium (no date). www.clilviu.esGoogle Scholar
Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2011). Research methods in education (7th edn). London: Routledge.Google ScholarPubMed
Comunidad de Madrid, (2010). Los programas de enseñanza bilingüe de la comunidad de Madrid. Un estudio comparado. www.madrid.org/cs/Satellite?c=CM_InfPractica_FA&cid=1142623372595&idTema=1109265604897&language=es&pagename=ComunidadMadrid%2FEstructura&perfil=1273044216036&pid=1273078188154Google Scholar
Coyle, D., Hood, P. & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and language integrated learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dafouz, E., Nuñez, B., Sancho, C. & Foran, D. (2007). Integrating CLIL at the tertiary level: Teachers’ and students’ reactions. In Marsh, D. & Wolff, D. (eds.) Diverse contexts – converging goals: CLIL in Europe. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 91–102.Google Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2007a). Discourse in content and language integrated learning (CLIL) classrooms. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2007b). Academic language functions in a CLIL environment. In Marsh, D. & Wolff, D. (eds.), Diverse contexts – converging goals: CLIL in Europe. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 201–210.Google Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2011). Content and language integrated learning: From practice to principles. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 31, 182–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C., Hüttner, J., Jexenflicker, S., Schindelegger, V. & Smit, U. (2008). Content and language integrated learning an Österreichs Höheren Technischen Lehranstalten. Forschungsbericht. Bundesministerium für Unterricht, Kultur und Kunst, Abt. II/2.Google Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C., Nikula, T. & Smit, U. (eds.) (2010). Language use and language learning in CLIL classrooms. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Graaff, R., Koopman, G. J., Anikina, Y. & Westhoff, G. (2007). An observation tool for effective L2 pedagogy in content and language integrated learning (CLIL). International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 10.5, 603–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
European Commission (1995). White paper on education and training. Teaching and learning: towards the learning society, 1–66. Retrieved from: http://europa.eu/documents/comm/white_papers/pdf/com95_590_en.pdfGoogle Scholar
European Commission (2003). Promoting language learning and linguistic diversity: an action plan 2004–2006, 1–29. http://ec.europa.eu/education/doc/official/keydoc/actlang/act_lang_en.pdfGoogle Scholar
European Commission (2008). Multilingualism: An asset for Europe and a shared commitment. Communication of the European Commission, 1–15. http://ec.europa.eu/education/languages/pdf/com/2008_0566_en.pdfGoogle Scholar
European Framework for CLIL Teacher Education (no date). http://clil.uni.lu/CLIL/Home_files/1_Project_Presentation_en.pdfGoogle Scholar
Europees Platform – internationaliseeren in onderwijs (no date). www.europeesplatform.nlGoogle Scholar
Eurydice Network (2006). Content and language integrated learning (CLIL) at school in Europe. Brussels. http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/thematic_studies_archives_en.phpGoogle Scholar
Fazio, L. & Lyster, R. (1998). Immersion and submersion classrooms: A comparison of instructional practices in language arts. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 19, 303–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
García, O. (2009). Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global perspective. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Grin, F. (2001). English as economic value: Facts and fallacies. World Englishes 20.1, 65–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatch, E. M. (1992). Discourse and language education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hornberger, N. (ed.) (2008). Encyclopedia of language and education (2nd edn). Boston, MA: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hüttner, J., Dalton-Puffer, C. & Smit, U. (2013). The power of beliefs: Lay theories and their influence on the implementation of CLIL programmes. International Journal of Bilingualism and Bilingual Education 16:3, 267–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hynninen, N. (2012). ICL at the micro level: L2 speakers taking on the role of language experts. In Smit, U. & Dafouz, M. (eds.), Integrating content and language in higher education: Gaining insights into English-medium instruction at European universities. AILA Review 25, 13–29.Google Scholar
Kidd, R. (1996). Teaching academic language functions at the secondary level. Canadian Modern Language Review 52, 285–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lasagabaster, D. (2009). The implementation of CLIL and attitudes towards trilingualism. ITL-International Journal of Applied Linguistics 157, 23–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lasagabaster, D. & Sierra, J. M. (2009). Language attitudes in CLIL and traditional EFL classes. International Journal of CLIL Research 1.2, 4–17.Google Scholar
Lilley, T. (2011). Bloom's taxonomy. In Hoffman, B. (ed.), Encyclopedia of educational technology. http://eet.sdsu.edu/eetwiki/index.php/Blooms_taxonomyGoogle Scholar
Little, D. (2006).The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Content, purpose, origin, reception and impact. Language Teaching 39.3, 167–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Llinares, A., Morton, T. & Whittaker, R. (2012). The roles of language in CLIL. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lorenzo, F. & Moore, P. (2010). On the natural emergence of language structures in CLIL: Towards a theory of European educational bilingualism. In Dalton-Puffer, C., Nikula, T. & Smit, U. (eds.), 23–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lose, J. (2007). The language of scientific discourse: Ergebnisse einer empirisch-deskriptiven Interaktionsanalyse zur Verwendung fachbezogener Diskursfunktionen im bilingualen Biologieunterricht. In Caspari, D., Hallet, W., Wegner, A. & Zydatiß, W. (eds.), Bilingualer Unterricht macht Schule: Beiträge aus der Praxisforschung. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 97–107.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. (2007). Learning and teaching languages through content: A counterbalanced approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Massler, U. (2012). Primary CLIL and its stakeholders: What children, parents and teachers think of the potential merits and pitfalls of CLIL modules in primary teaching. International CLIL Research Journal 4, 36–46.Google Scholar
Negueruela-Azarola, E. (2011). Beliefs as conceptualizing activity: A dialectical approach for the second language classroom. System 39, 359–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nikula, T. (2010). On effects of CLIL on a teacher's language use. In Dalton-Puffer, C., Nikula, T. & Smit, U. (eds.), 105–123.Google Scholar
Norton, L. S. (2009). Action research in teaching and learning: A practical guide to conducting pedagogical research in universities. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norton, B. & Toohey, K. (2011). Identity, language learning and social change. Language Teaching 44, 412–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
OECD-PISA. OECD Programme for International Student Assessment. www.oecd.org/pisa/Google Scholar
Pavlenko, A. & Norton, B. (2007). Imagined communities, identity, and English language teaching. In Cummins, J. & Davison, C. (eds.), International handbook of English language teaching. New York: Springer, 669–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearson, P. D. E., Moje, E. & Greenleaf, C. (2010). Literacy and science: Each in the service of the other. Science 328, 459–463.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pérez Vidal, C. (2011). Language acquisition in three different contexts of learning: Formal instruction, stay abroad, and semi-immersion (CLIL). In Ruiz de Zarobe, Y., Sierra, J. M. & Gallardo del Puerto, F. (eds.), Contributions to multilingualism in European contexts. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 103–128.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (2008). CLIL and foreign language learning: A longitudinal study in the Basque Country. International CLIL Research Journal 1.1, 60–73.Google Scholar
Shohamy, E. (2006). Language policy: Hidden agendas and new approaches. London: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smit, U. (2010). English as a lingua franca in higher education: A longitudinal study of classroom discourse. Berlin: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spada, N. & Fröhlich, M. (1995). COLT: Communicative orientation of language teaching observation scheme. Coding conventions and applications. Sydney: National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research.Google Scholar
Spolsky, B. (2004). Language policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Spolsky, B. (2009). Language management. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stoller, F. L. (2004). Content-based instruction: Perspectives on curriculum planning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 24, 264–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ting, T. (2011). CLIL. . . not only not immersion but also more than the sum of its parts. ELT Journal 65.3, 314–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Lier, L. (2004). The ecology and semiotics of language learning: A sociocultural perspective. Boston; Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vollmer, H. J., Heine, L., Troschke, R., Coetzee, D. & Küttel, V. (2006). Subject-specific competence and language use of CLIL learners: The case of geography in grade 10 of secondary schools in Germany. Paper presented at the ESSE8 Conference, London, UK.Google Scholar
Wegner, A. (2012). Seeing the bigger picture: What students and teachers think about CLIL. International CLIL Research Journal 4, 29–35.Google Scholar
Wolff, D. (2007). CLIL: Bridging the gap between school and working life. In Marsh, D. & Wolff, D. (eds.), Diverse contexts – converging goals. CLIL in Europe. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 15–25.Google Scholar