CLIL As A Way To Multilingualism - ResearchGate
International Journal of Bilingual Education andBilingualismISSN: 1367-0050 (Print) 1747-7522 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rbeb20CLIL as a way to multilingualismJon Ander Merino & David LasagabasterTo cite this article: Jon Ander Merino & David Lasagabaster (2015): CLIL as a way tomultilingualism, International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, DOI:10.1080/13670050.2015.1128386To link to this article: lished online: 31 Dec 2015.Submit your article to this journalArticle views: 6View related articlesView Crossmark dataFull Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found tion?journalCode rbeb20Download by: [Universidad Del Pais Vasco]Date: 04 January 2016, At: 03:42
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION AND BILINGUALISM, 6CLIL as a way to multilingualismJon Ander Merinoa and David LasagabasterbFaculty of Arts, English Studies, University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU), Barakaldo, Bizkaia, Spain; bFaculty ofArts, English Studies, University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU), Vitoria-Gasteiz, SpainDownloaded by [Universidad Del Pais Vasco] at 03:42 04 January 2016aABSTRACTARTICLE HISTORYContent and language integrated learning (CLIL) programmes aremushrooming in many different contexts. However, research has mainlyfocused on their impact on foreign language learning and to a lesserextent on L1 development, whereas the number of studies undertakenin multilingual contexts in which more than two languages coexist isnegligible. In an attempt to fill this gap, the overall aim of this researchstudy was to examine the effect of CLIL on the learning of threelanguages in contact, namely English, Basque and Spanish in the BasqueCountry, Spain. With this objective in mind, two test rounds wereconducted in a longitudinal study spanning one year and in which 285secondary education students took part. The results revealedsignificantly higher scores on the part of the CLIL students in English(which represents the L3 and the foreign language in this context) inboth test rounds, although a similar linguistic development between theexperimental CLIL and the control non-CLIL groups was observed.Additionally, no significant differences were found in the students’ L1and L2 development (Spanish and Basque), despite the fact that CLILstudents had a lower exposure to Basque in the school context.Received 27 July 2015Accepted 25 November 2015KEYWORDSCLIL; English as a foreignlanguage; trilingualism;Basque; SpanishIntroductionMultilingual education practices have been implemented for millennia (Franceschini 2013), althoughfor many centuries those who could enjoy such training belonged only to certain high social status.Nowadays, very distant and diverse societies are well aware of the importance attached to foreignlanguage learning and, consequently, education systems all over the world are committed to improving their students’ foreign language proficiency. The desire to boost multilingualism has led Europeaninstitutions to bolster Content and language integrated learning (CLIL) programmes, defined byCoyle (2007, 545) as ‘an integrated approach where both language and content are conceptualisedon a continuum without an implied preference for either’. The CLIL approach is believed to helpimprove foreign language competence without having any pernicious effect on both students’ L1and content learning (Lasagabaster and Ruiz de Zarobe 2010; Mehisto, Marsh, and Frigols 2008).CLIL experiences have burgeoned throughout Europe in the last two decades and this newapproach is being put into practice from primary education through vocational education to university (Coyle, Hood, and Marsh 2010; Doiz, Lasagabaster, and Sierra 2013; Knapp and Aguado 2015;Lorenzo, Casal, and Moore 2010). Despite the fact that CLIL’s original objective was to spread multilingualism, there is little doubt that in the European context English is the predominant language inmost experiences, to the extent that Dalton-Puffer (2011) argues in her review of the literature that –due to the overwhelming prevalence of English – it effectively means content-and-English integratedCONTACT Jon Ander Merino 2015 Taylor & Francisjon.merinovillar@gmail.com
2J. A. MERINO AND D. LASAGABASTERlearning (or CEIL). However, ‘the rapid spread of CLIL has outpaced measures of its impact’ (PérezCañado 2012, 316), one of the issues overlooked so far being what impact CLIL has not only onthe foreign language but also on the students’ other languages.Downloaded by [Universidad Del Pais Vasco] at 03:42 04 January 2016Language learning and CLILWhereas research on content learning in CLIL programmes has been largely ignored (Llinares 2015),probably due to the fact that many of the researchers involved in CLIL studies have been applied linguists (Lasagabaster and Ruiz de Zarobe 2010), foreign language learning has drawn much attentionin the last two decades and, as a matter of fact, there is a significant number of studies completed inthis area.Studies into CLIL stakeholders’ beliefs have generally gathered positive views on foreign languagelearning (Lorenzo, Casal, and Moore 2010; Pladevall-Ballester 2015), even in rather unstructured anddisorganised CLIL schools involving non-selected students (Dalton-Puffer and Smit 2013; Hüttner,Dalton-Puffer, and Smit 2013). However, in this section we will centre exclusively on those studiesin which language tests were administered, with a view to narrowing down the literature andpaying heed to studies related to our own research, since in our study participants’ foreign languageproficiency in the four language skills was also measured through language tests.As far as speaking is concerned, the general trend indicates that CLIL students are significantlybetter (Admiraal, Westhoff, and de Bot 2006; Lasagabaster 2008, 2011; Lorenzo, Casal, and Moore2010; San Isidro 2010; Wiesemes 2009), which is usually put down to the more active role of CLIL students when it comes to using the foreign language and to their increased participation in class (Mariotti 2006; Nikula 2007). Different researchers have observed a greater ability to express ideas, betterdescriptions and higher degrees of precision and consistency in CLIL students’ oral discourse (Hüttnerand Rieder-Bünemann 2010; Mewald 2007), and they also tend to be better at negotiaging meaningwhen interacting in the foreign language (Mariotti 2006; Moore 2009; Stohler 2006). Nikula (2007)points out that CLIL students’s pragmatic competence is also higher due to the authenticity ofCLIL classes, although some pragmatic weaknesses and a rather informal register have also beendetected. It should also be noted that pronunciation does not seem to benefit as much as otheroral aspects (Admiraal, Westhoff, and de Bot 2006; Varchmin 2010).In the case of listening, the results are not as clear-cut and the need for further research turns outto be evident. Whereas some studies reveal better results on the part of CLIL students (Lasagabaster2008, 2011; Lorenzo, Casal, and Moore 2010; San Isidro 2010; Serra 2007), other studies have found nosignificant differences (Navés 2011; Roquet 2011). The findings in reading comprehension are alsofavourable to CLIL students (Admiraal, Westhoff, and de Bot 2006; Hellekjær 2008; Lasagabaster2008; Loranc-Paszylk 2009), although the limited number of studies focused on this skill also urgeto carry out further investigation.Together with speaking, writing is the skill which seems to make the most of the CLIL experience.In fact, the majority of the studies mentioned so far in this review bear out that CLIL has a very positive impact on students’ writing ability, such as those by Lasagabaster (2008), Järvinen (2010),Lorenzo, Casal, and Moore (2010), and Navés (2011). Dalton-Puffer (2011, 186) highlights that CLILstudents take advantage of their wider range of lexical and morphosyntactic resources, while theydisplay a higher degree of accuracy in inflectional affixation, tense use and spelling (unexpecteddue to the larger focus on meaning than on form in CLIL classes), as well as a greater pragmaticawareness which allows them to better fulfill the communicative intention of the requestedwriting tasks. However, there are some dimensions of writing on which CLIL has little or no effect(p. 187).In the case of foreign language learning, it can therefore be concluded that, broadly speaking, CLILstudents tend to outperform their non-CLIL counterparts (Dalton-Puffer 2011; Pérez-Cañado 2012). Itis worth remembering that CLIL students are more exposed to the foreign language as their CLILcontent lessons are delivered in addition to the regular foreign language classes. The results obtained
Downloaded by [Universidad Del Pais Vasco] at 03:42 04 January 2016INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION AND BILINGUALISM3in longitudinal studies and those obtained in cross-sectional studies show a similar trend, althoughthe former are less abundant (Dalton-Puffer and Smit 2013). In longitudinal studies CLIL students tendto outstrip their non-CLIL students counterparts (Grisaleña, Alonso, and Campo 2009; Ruiz de Zarobe2008; Sylvén 2010), however, those differences happen not to be remarkable in all language skills(Admiraal, Westhoff, and de Bot 2006; Juan 2010; Roquet 2011). Hence, it can be affirmed that longitudinal results undoubtedly merit further consideration. As mentioned above, the number of studiesthat have examined speaking and writing are more numerous than those focused on reading andlistening, which is why more research is needed especially in the case of the two latter language skills.The effect of CLIL on L1 development has not been so widely researched, as researchers have beenmore interested in foreign language achievement. However, the adequate development of the students’ L1 is one of the fundamental tenets of CLIL, as both the L1 and the foreign language need toevolve adequately so that these programmes can be labelled as successful. The majority of the scarcestudies (Admiraal, Westhoff, and de Bot 2006; Serra 2007; Sylvén 2010) have found no remarkabledifferences when the L1 skills of CLIL and non-CLIL students have been measured and compared,but there are a few studies in which CLIL students did not manage to catch up with their non-CLILcounterparts’ L1 development. The latter studies are usually found in Scandinavia (see Airey (2004)and Seikkula-Leino (2007) for further references).In an interesting study conducted in Finland, Seikkula-Leino (2007) analysed the impact of the useof Finnish (students’ mother tongue) and English (the foreign language) as a means of instruction onstudents’ achievement in both the L1 and mathematics as the content subject. Although the numberof overachievers in both the L1 and mathematics was higher among those taught in their mothertongue, when the results were observed independently and focused solely on Finnish, no differencewas found: in fact, CLIL pupils overachieved more strongly in Finnish, but the differences were notstatistically significant. Seikkula-Leino (2007, 336) interprets this finding as follows: ‘Hence, theresults of this study strongly support the idea that the mother tongue skills of pupils learning in aforeign language were not weaker than the skills of those learning in their mother tongue.’The conclusion to be drawn is therefore that CLIL does not seem to have a detrimental effect onthe L1, as no significant differences emerge when CLIL and non-CLIL groups are compared, butresearch is still sorely needed so that robust conclusions can be arrived at, because some criticalvoices still deem CLIL to be a potential menace to the L1. In the Spanish context Lorenzo, Casal,and Moore (2010, 435) point out that some L1 teachers consider ‘CLIL a competitor to L1 learning,in the belief – nourished by a pedestrian view of bilingualism – that different languages representopposing forces, growing at each other’s expense.’ Since these reluctant attitudes may pose ahurdle to CLIL implementation, researchers should endeavour to provide empirical data to shedlight on this issue.An additional gap of CLIL research can be found in regards to bilingual contexts where theimplementation of CLIL programmes entails that students have to face a multilingual curriculumin which at least three languages are in contact. Most studies have been completed in monolingualcountries or regions, whereas those carried out in bilingual regions are much less numerous. Theimplementation of CLIL programmes in contexts in which two other languages are already used inthe curriculum raises questions about the efficacy of trilingual programmes and, above all, abouthow the increasing presence of English impinges on the normal development of the minority orweakest language (Lasagabaster and Sierra 2009).According to Eurydice (2006), a network that provides information on European educationsystems and policies which is co-ordinated and managed by the EU’s Education, Audiovisual andCulture Executive Agency, seven European countries (Estonia, Spain, Latvia, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Austria and Sweden) provide trilingual CLIL provision combining the national language andtwo foreign languages, or the national language, a foreign language and a minority language.However, the number of studies that have delved into the effects of trilingual CLIL in the threelanguages concerned is very scarce. This study is aimed at providing empirical results from one bilingual region in Spain.
4J. A. MERINO AND D. LASAGABASTERDownloaded by [Universidad Del Pais Vasco] at 03:42 04 January 2016The Basque contextThe Basque Autonomous Community (BAC) is a region located in the north of Spain, in which boththe Basque and Spanish languages share official status. In the education system, Basque total immersion programmes have become the most in-demand choice since their emergence in the early 1980s.Given the successful experience of these programmes and the current expansion of the innovativeCLIL educational approach throughout Europe, a new trilingual programme in which both Basque,Spanish and a foreign language – typically English – are vehicular languages of content hasemerged since the late 1990s.The current education system in the BAC (in force since 1983) is divided into three linguisticmodels, that is, Model A, Model B and Model D (Basque Government 1983). Model A has Spanishas the only means of instruction, with Basque being taught only through form-oriented languagelessons, usually three to four hours per week. In Model B both Spanish and Basque are used asmeans of instruction in proportions that vary according to each school. This model has been compared to early partial immersion programmes in Canada. Finally, in Model D all the subjects arelearnt through Basque, while three to four language-focused sessions per week are devoted toSpanish. Although Model D was initially conceived as a programme for Basque native speakers, nowadays most Spanish natives are enrolled together with Basque natives in Model D (Cenoz 2009). ModelD students represent more than 65% of the school population at preuniversity level in the BAC, whilearound 15% and 19% of students are enrolled in Model A and Model B respectively. In fact, Model Dhas become the most popular model (Basque Government 2009, 27) due to the good results inBasque and similar levels of Spanish competence when compared to the other two models.In the Basque education system, as is the case in most European contexts (European Commission2012), English represents the main foreign language. In fact, 98% of Basque students in Primary andSecondary Education study it as the first foreign language (Department of Education 2010). Thecurrent tendency is to offer this language to young learners, a trend also found in other Europeancontexts (Nikolov and Mihaljević Djigunović 2006), and the BAC was one of the precursor regionsin Spain. Since Basque and Spanish are mandatory languages, English represents the third language(L3) for students. Although this L3 condition does not seem to be a disadvantage for its learning incomparison to monolingual contexts (Lasagabaster 1998, 2000; Cenoz 2009), the level of proficiencyreached is still considered to be insufficient by education stakeholders (Lasagabaster 2011), whichhas boosted the implementation of CLIL programmes in an attempt to enhance English learning.The implementation of CLIL in the Basque public schools became popular in the 2000s (Lasagabaster 2008). It varies from school to school in aspects such as the subjects taught through theforeign language, the number of sessions per week and several other characteristics related to itsorganisation, but nowadays it is widely spread in the Basque education system (Lasagabaster andSierra 2010).As has been the case in other contexts, CLIL implementation has sparked controversy in the BAC.Apart from the additional effort demanded from students and teachers and the costs that the lackof CLIL materials normally entails, this challenge is even more noteworthy in a context with two officiallanguages in the curriculum as is the case of the BAC. On the one hand, CLIL can be regarded as a usefulmeans of promoting multilingualism at school and therefore as a beneficial approach to the process ofnormalising minority languages in bilingual contexts such as the BAC (Muñoz and Navés 2007). On theother hand, English is sometimes perceived as an invading language due to its increasing presence inthe curriculum. This perception has brought about some linguistic friction resulting in reluctant viewpoints towards CLIL that warn of a possible negative impact on the Basque language due to thedecreasing room available in the curriculum (Lasagabaster 2015). This controversy is not exclusiveto the BAC and other bilingual areas have gone through the same situation, such as the BalearicIslands (Pérez-Vidal and Juan-Garau 2010) and the Flemish Region in Belgium (Van de Craen, Ceuleers,and Mondt 2007). Moreover, CLIL has caused dissension even in countries with great degrees of acceptance and implementation such as Austria and Finland (Dalton-Puffer and Nikula 2006).
Downloaded by [Universidad Del Pais Vasco] at 03:42 04 January 2016INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION AND BILINGUALISM5As for studies focused on foreign language competence, one of the few longitudinal studies is thatby Grisaleña, Alonso, and Campo (2009) in the BAC, who compared English competence betweenCLIL and non-CLIL students enrolled in the first (12–13 years old) and third (14–15 years old)grades of Secondary Education and in the first grade of post-Secondary Education (16–17 yearsold). Student gender, academic performance and motivation for foreign language learning were controlled for the selection of participants in both the CLIL and the non-CLIL groups. Students wereassessed twice in a 19-month period through Cambridge’s English for Speakers of Other Languagestests (Cambridge ESOL 2008). In the three grades, results showed significantly better results for CLILstudents since initial between-group differences grew in the post-test. Nonetheless, it must be takeninto account that CLIL students had been studying English for more years and also had a greaterexposure to the foreign language outside their school.As mentioned above, a crucial premise of the theories guiding the CLIL approach is that learners’progression in their L1(s) is not weakened when compared to that in non-CLIL environments. In thecase of the BAC, the correct learning of the two co-official languages is a highly topical issue, and thatis why there is a social demand which leads researchers to assess students’ acquisition of the threelanguages in contact in the school curriculum.The goal in this paper is to examine whether CLIL has any effect on students’ general English performance and the different foreign language skills, as well as the impact a CLIL trilingual programmemay have on the development of students’ L1 and L2 (Spanish and Basque). This is an underresearched area, as the vast majority of studies on CLIL programmes have been carried out in bilingual school contexts.Research questionsBased on the previous review of the literature, in this research study the following research questionsare put forward:(1) Are there differences between the CLIL and non-CLIL students’ English proficiency development over a one-year period?(2) Are there differences between CLIL and non-CLIL students in their learning of Basque as L2during the same period of time, despite the former having less exposure to the minority language?(3) Are there differences between CLIL and non-CLIL students in their learning of Spanish over a yearperiod?MethodParticipantsThe sample was made up of students at lower secondary level from eight schools in the GreaterBilbao area, the most densely populated area in the BAC. At time 1 (T1) of the study studentswere enrolled in grade 7 (12–13 years old) and at time 2 (T2), a year later, they were enrolled ingrade 8 (13–14 years old). A total of 285 students completed both stages of the study (T1 and T2)out of the 335 students that were initially tested at T1. The sample was comprised of two researchgroups: a CLIL group with an average of 3.4 CLIL sessions of 50–55 minutes per week and acontrol group consisting of model D students from the same schools as the CLIL participants andwho only learnt English as a foreign language (3/4 sessions per week). CLIL students had voluntarilyenrolled in CLIL programmes and had started receiving CLIL lessons during grade 7. No previousselection criteria was considered. That is, until grade 7 control (non-CLIL) and CLIL groups hadreceived the same amount of input to the foreign language at school. CLIL lessons covered differentschool subjects at the discretion of each school, ranging from typically core academic ones (e.g.science, math and history) to those that usually fall outside the main core areas.
6J. A. MERINO AND D. LASAGABASTERTable 1. School languages in amount of lessons per week per group.BasqueDownloaded by [Universidad Del Pais Vasco] at 03:42 04 January ntrol students had 11.3% of English in their curriculum. The exposure to English for the CLILgroup was almost twice that of the control group, namely 22.5%. Both groups had English as alanguage subject for an average of 3–4 sessions per week (the only exposure in the case of thecontrol group). Table 1 shows the number of lessons per week each research group received ineach school language, that is, Basque, Spanish and English both through language lessons(columns on the left side) and as instrumental/means-of-instruction languages (on the right). The percentage that each language represents both in the Control and CLIL groups is included in the lowerrows.As for gender, the percentages of males and females were fairly similar in both groups. Specifically,in the CLIL group 50.5% of the participants were females and 49.5% males. In the control group, thepercentage of females was 45.5%, whereas males represented the remaining 54.5%.InstrumentsA longitudinal study spanning one year was carried out to answer the three aforementioned researchquestions. Two test rounds were conducted during that time, the first test round (T1) taking place inthe final term of the academic year 2010–2011 and the second one (T2) after a full year, at the end of2011–2012. Students were assessed in English, Basque and Spanish.As for the English tests, both test rounds assessed the four language skills and the overall competence in English. Listening, reading and writing were evaluated through adapted versions of the wellknown Key English Test (University of Cambridge). These standardised tests have been administeredby researchers in studies undertaken in different European contexts and are highly regarded due totheir reliability (Grisaleña, Alonso, and Campo 2009).In order to assess the speaking skill, the participants were requested to describe a series of 24 pictures with no written text on them (Mayer 1974), a test which has been widely used in studies notonly in the BAC (Lasagabaster 2008; Martínez Adrián and Gutiérrez Mangado 2009; Villarreal andGarcía Mayo 2009) but also in many other contexts (Berman and Slobin 1994; Hüttner and RiederBünemann 2010; Strömqvist and Verhoeven 2004, to name but a few). In the evaluation of the speaking ability, five scales were considered: Coherence, Grammar, Fluency, Pronunciation, and Vocabulary.The assessment for the first four scales was carried out by two independent evaluators and the correlation coefficients were found to be higher than .70 in the five scales both at T1 and T2. Vocabularywas assessed through a checklist of specific key items – and synonyms – that the participants wereexpected to include in their production. The global competence was calculated by adding togetherthe results obtained in the four language skills, that is, reading and writing (50%) listening (25%) speaking (25%) global competence (100% 100 points).In the case of Basque and Spanish, reading comprehension was assessed through standardisedtests. These tests were based on those previously used by the ISEI-IVEI (Basque Institute for Researchand Evaluation in Education) (ISEI-IVEI 2012a, 2012b). The tests consisted of one or two texts followedby comprehension questions of several kinds with different values according to their complexity, thatis, multiple choice, true or false, or those which required a short written answer.Written production in Basque and Spanish was assessed by means of an essay about a given topicthat participants had to develop. The ‘profile’ technique (Jacobs et al. 1981) was applied to evaluate
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION AND BILINGUALISM7the written tests, which consists of five scales referring to the different aspects under consideration:Content, Organization, Vocabulary, Language Use and Mechanics. Within each of these scales thereare four bandings (‘excellent to very good’, ‘good to average’, ‘fair to poor’, and ‘very poor’) which givethe person marking a series of key words on which to base the specific evaluation criteria. The overallwritten score is arrived at by adding the scores for each of the scales, which varies from a minimum of34 points to a maximum of 100. The students’ writings were assessed by two independent evaluators,the correlation coefficients between both being higher than .70 in all the five scales both at T1 and T2.Both evaluators were bilingual in Spanish and Basque, had completed their English Studies degree,and had previously been advised and guided on the procedure to assess the writings.Downloaded by [Universidad Del Pais Vasco] at 03:42 04 January 2016ProcedureAll the tests were carried out in class and one of the researchers was always present during theirimplementation. The results were recorded on answer sheets, which, after having been markedand codified, were statistically treated. The statistical analyses were carried out by means of theSPSS 20.ResultsThe results concerning English proficiency in both test rounds are shown in Table 2. With the aim ofchecking between-group differences at T1, results on the dependent variables reading and writing,listening, speaking and global competence were analysed. At the beginning of the study the averagescore was higher for the CLIL group in all these language skills. In order to check whether those differences were significant, t-test analyses were carried out for each dependent variable. The analysesrevealed significantly higher results in all the dependent variables: reading and writing (t(312) 15.52, p .001), listening (t(303) 14.84, p .001), speaking (t(256) 12.58, p .001), and global competence (t(239) 13.82, p .001). This difference represented a large-effect size in all the competences (r .68 in reading and writing, r .66 in listening, r .63 in speaking, and r .68 in globalcompetence).Figure 1 below reflects the development of each group from T1 to T2. In order to check thebetween-group development, first of all, the effect of time on each dependent variable wasmeasured and compared between both groups. A one-tailed analysis of variance (ANOVA) wascarried out with a view to checking whether those differences were statistically significant and theresults revealed a significant effect of time on the dependent variable (see Table 3). This meansthat, regardless of the study group, results were significantly better at T2 than at T1. Nonetheless,no statistically significant interaction was observed between the time and group variables in anyTable 2. Results in English as a foreign language.Mean (SD)CompetenceGroupNT1T2Difference(T2–T1)Reading and writing (35 510.18 (4.19)18.48 (7.37)16.56 (7.61)7.87 (3.93)13.73 (4.06)12.54 (4.67)3.31 (2.62)7.01 (3.52)6.00 (3.68)30.35 (12.71)52.83 (19.02)47.99 (20.08)12.46 (6.31)21.21 (7.02)19.19 (7.78)8.25 (4.60)13.93 (4.52)12.78 (5.08)4.82 (3.47)8.44 (3.40)7.46 (3.77)35.97 (17.49)58.41 (19.32)53.58 5.59Listening comprehension (20 pts.)Spoken production (20 pts.)Global competence (100 pts.)
Downloaded by [Universidad Del Pais Vasco] at 03:42 04 January 20168J. A. MERINO AND D. LASAGABASTERFigure 1. Progress in English as a foreign language by study group and language skill.of the dependent variables. This indicates that both groups had a similar development from T1 to T2,and although the starting measure in T1 was higher for the CLIL group, the intragroup progress wassimilar in both groups.The next step was to analys
CLIL as a way to multilingualism Jon Ander Merinoa and David Lasagabasterb aFaculty of Arts, English Studies, University of the Basque Coun
1 CLIL projects 221 2 Types of projects 222 3 Advantages of CLIL projects for bilingual learners 222 4 Advantages of CLIL projects for teachers 225 5 Disadvantages of CLIL projects 226 APPLICATIONS IN CLIL 226 1 Characteristics of good cross-curricular CLIL project
CLIL: A Lesson Plan Adelia Asunción Hernández Ramírez 2013 - 2014 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Rationale 2. Objectives of the research 3. Content and Language Integrated Learning 3.1. Definition 3.2. CLIL vs CBLT 3.3. CLIL vs Immersion Programmes 3.4. The Canadian model 3.5. Aims of CLIL 3.6
CLIL and ELT, looking at their respective aims, syllabus, methodologies, language and contexts of operation, taking a brief look at some CLIL materials, and finally examining research findings.We start by defining CLIL and ELT. Definitions CLIL (content and language integrated learning) is an approach toFile Size: 2MB
CLIL and ELT, looking at their respective aims, syllabus, methodologies, language and contexts of operation, taking a brief look at some CLIL materials, and finally examining research findings.We start by defining CLIL and ELT. Definitions CLIL (content and language integrated learning) is an approach to
This research considers CLIL lesson planning and delivery as a key factor influencing the quality of teaching and learning processes (López Hernández, 2016; Llull et al., 2016; . Marsh, 2012; Marsh et al., 2010). Hence, due to the complexity of teaching through CLIL, the ability to plan and deliver a lesson is a pivotal CLIL teacher .
COME COSTRUIRE IL PORTFOLIO DIGITALE prof.ssa C. Paglialonga. 1 ANELLI MARIA CARMELA Didattica CLIL 2 Caldara Nunzio Didattica CLIL 3 Caleprico Valentina Didattica CLIL 4 Capobianco Leonardo Didattica CLIL 5 Ciavarella Roberto
CLIL science project. The study provides insight into the learners’ experience, and draws conclusions as to whether CLIL has a role to play in heritage language teaching and learning. Apart from contributing to the broader body of UK research on CLIL, which is currently limited
in CLIL; that is, the language of academic subjects and the role of language in CLIL classroom interaction (see Llinares, Morton, & Whittaker, 2012). Coyle et al. (2010) include a sample CLIL lesson plan that con-sists of two parts. The topic is ecosystems and it is targeted at 4 th-grade learners in primary education.
