CLIL Education

  • Agnieszka BorowiakEmail author
Part of the Second Language Learning and Teaching book series (SLLT)


There is a growing pool of evidence casting doubt on the assumption that traditional model of teaching both a foreign language and a content subject is still efficacious. For this reason, a large body of research focuses on analysis of various educational settings which may be conducive to the success of foreign language learners. Content and Language Integrated Learning may be perceived as a good example of such an educational framework. The main aim of this article is to discuss some benefits of CLIL taking into consideration learner’s gains. However, before presenting those arguments, a brief survey of the literature in the area of CLIL will be considered. As a point of departure a definition of Content and Language Integrated Learning will be provided. The subsequent part will touch upon an issue of CLIL development over the years. Given the fact that the implementation of CLIL in schools is usually seen as a very difficult venture, some part of this paper will be devoted to the brief analysis of core features of CLIL methodology. The discussion will be finished with the presentation of some advantages of CLIL education focusing on benefits for learners. Concluding remarks will include some practical considerations concerning issues related to the system of education regarding school leaving exams and also to a CLIL teacher professionalization process.


Content and language integrated learning Definition Benefits A CLIL learner 


  1. Ackerman, P. L. (1996). A theory of adult intellectual Development: Process, personality, interests, and knowledge. Intelligence, 22, 229–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Benson, P. (2007). Autonomy in language teaching and learning. Language Teaching, 40, 21–40. Scholar
  3. Bently, K. (2009). Primary curriculum box. CLIL lessons and activities for young learners. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: David McKay Company.Google Scholar
  5. Calviño, M. A. M. (2012). Content and language integrated learning. Retrieved from:
  6. Coyle, D. (2006). Content and language integrated learning: Motivating learners and teachers. Scottish Languages Review, 13, 1–18.Google Scholar
  7. Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL. Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Czura, A. (2009). CLIL—The European and the polish perspective. Anglica Wratislaviensis, XLVII, 105–114.Google Scholar
  9. Dale, L., & Tanner, R. (2012). CLIL activities. A resource for subject and language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Deller, S., & Price, C. (2007). Teaching other subjects through English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Eurydice. (2006). Content and language integrated learning (CLIL) at school in Europe. Brussels: Eurydice. Retrieved from
  12. Gardner, R. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. NewYork, USA: Basic.Google Scholar
  13. Hanesová, D. (2015). CLIL history. In Pokrivčáková, S. et al. (Eds.), CLIL in Foreign language education: E-textbook for foreign language teachers (pp. 7–16). Scholar
  14. Harrop, E. (2012). Content and language integrated learning (CLIL): Limitations and possibilities. Encuentro, 21. Retrieved from:
  15. Hawkins, E. (1984). Awareness of language: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy and Foreign Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  17. Lasagabaster, D. (2008). Foreign Language competence in CLIL courses, The Open Applied Linguistics Journal, 1, 31–42. Retrieved from Scholar
  18. Marsh, D. (2002). CLIL/EMILE—The European dimension: Actions, trends & foresight potential. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  19. Marsh, D. (2012). Content and language integrated learning: A development trajectory. Córdoba: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Córdoba.Google Scholar
  20. Mehisto, P., Marsh, D., & Frigols, M. J. (2008). Uncovering CLIL. Content and Language Integrated Learning in bilingual and multilingual education. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  21. Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.Google Scholar
  22. Seikkula-Leino, J. (2007). CLIL learning: Achievement levels and affective factors. Language and Education, 21(4), 328–341. Retrieved from Scholar
  23. Surmont, J., Struys, E., Noort, M. D., & Craen. P. (2016). The effects of CLIL on mathematical content learning: A longitudinal study. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 6, 319–337. Retrieved from Scholar
  24. Wolf, D. (2011). CLIL and learner autonomy: Relating two educational concepts. Education et Sociétés Plurilingues. Retrieved from:
  25. Zielonka, B. (2007). CLIL in Poland. In A. Maljers, D. Marsh, & D. Wolff (Eds.), Windows on CLIL—Content and language integrated learning in the european spotlight (pp. 147–153). Netherlands: European Platform for Dutch Education.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.State University of Applied SciencesKoninPoland
  2. 2.I Liceum Ogólnokształcące im. T. Kościuszki w KoninieKoninPoland

Personalised recommendations