Abstract
This chapter describes an online teacher-training program addressed to EFL and content subject teachers, which aims at raising awareness of the potential of Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) in Greek public education. At first, the identity of CLIL teachers is studied through the lens of activity theory. The disciplines involved in CLIL (i.e., language & content) are conceptualized as distinct activity systems, which enter each other’s unfamiliar territory, interact, and meet at a third space, where the identity of the CLIL teacher can be created. This boundary crossing is theoretically examined with a view to going beyond a temporary collaboration and forming a CLIL community of practice. Following that, an online professional development program is outlined that aims to develop a CLIL identity and a community of practice. In addition, exploratory data regarding the implementation of CLIL in Greece, which fed into the needs analysis of the program, are presented in order to demonstrate the need for the program.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Akkerman, S. F., & Bakker, A. (2011a). Boundary crossing and boundary objects. Review of Educational Research, 81(2), 132–169.
Akkerman, S. F., & Bakker, A. (2011b). Learning at the boundary: An introduction. International Journal of Educational Research, 50(1), 1–5.
Akkerman, S. F., & Meijer, P. C. (2011). A dialogical approach to conceptualizing teacher identity. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(2), 308–319.
Bri, D., García, M., Coll, H., & Lloret, J. (2009). A study of virtual learning environments. WSEAS Transactions on Advances in Engineering Education, 6(1), 33–43.
Bruton, A. (2015). CLIL: Detail matters in the whole picture: More than a reply to J. Hüttner and U. Smit (2014). System, 53, 119–128.
Cañado, M. L. P. (2016). From the CLIL craze to the CLIL conundrum: Addressing the current CLIL controversy. Bellaterra Journal of Teaching & Learning Language & Literature, 9(1), 9–31.
Cañado, M. L. P. (2017). Stopping the “pendulum effect” in CLIL research: Finding the balance between Pollyanna and Scrooge. Applied Linguistics Review, 8(1), 79–99.
Cenoz, J., Genesee, F., & Gorter, D. (2013). Critical analysis of CLIL: Taking stock and looking forward. Applied Linguistics, 35(3), 243–262.
Coyle, D. (2008). CLIL—A pedagogical approach from the European perspective. In N. Hornberger (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and education (pp. 1200–1214). Cham: Springer.
Coyle, D., Holmes, B., & King, L. (2009). Towards an integrated curriculum—CLIL national statement and guidelines. London: The Languages Company.
Coyle, D. (2018). The place of CLIL in (bilingual) education. Theory into Practice, 57(3), 166–176.
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.
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2008). Outcomes and processes in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL): Current research from Europe. In W. Delanoy & L. Volkmann (Eds.), Future perspectives for English language teaching (pp. 139–157). Heidelberg: Carl Winter.
Dalton-Puffer, C., Llinares, A., Lorenzo, F., & Nikula, T. (2014). You can stand under my umbrella: Immersion, CLIL and bilingual education. A response to Cenoz, Genesee & Gorter (2013). Applied Linguistics, 35(2), 213–218.
Devos, N. J. (2016). Peer interactions in new content and language integrated settings. Cham: Springer.
Engeström, Y. (2009). The future of activity theory: A rough draft. In A. Sannino, H. Daniels, & K. D. Gutiérrez (Eds.), Learning and expanding with activity theory (pp. 303–328). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Engeström, Y., Engeström, R., & Kärkkäinen, M. (1995). Polycontextuality and boundary crossing in expert cognition: Learning and problem solving in complex work activities. Learning and Instruction, 5(4), 319–336.
Engeström, Y., Miettinen, R., & Punamäki, R. L. (Eds.). (1999). Perspectives on activity theory. Cambridge University Press.
Eurydice. (2006). Content and language integrated learning (CLIL) at school in Europe. Brussels: European Community Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture.
Eurydice. (2012). Key data on education in Europe. Brussels: Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency.
European Commission. (2003). Promoting language learning and linguistic diversity: An action plan 2004–2006. Brussels: European Unit. Accessed from http://www.saaic.sk/eu-label/doc/2004-06_en.pdf.
Fay, R., Lytra, V., & Ntavaliagkou, M. (2010). Multicultural awareness through English: A potential contribution of TESOL in Greek schools. Intercultural Education, 21(6), 581–595.
Gkaintartzi, A., & Tsokalidou, R. (2011). “She is a very good child but she doesn’t speak”: The invisibility of children’s bilingualism and teacher ideology. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(2), 588–601.
Gorghiu, G., Bîzoi, M., Gorghiu, L. M., & Suduc, A. M. (2009). Aspects related to the usefulness of a distance training course having Moodle as course management system support. World-Wide Web, 5, 7.
Gropas, R., & Triandafyllidou, A. (2011). Greek education policy and the challenge of migration: An “intercultural” view of assimilation. Race, Ethnicity and Education, 14(3), 399–419.
Hansen, A., & Vaukins, D. (2012). Primary mathematics across the curriculum. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Hunter, M., & Parchoma, G. (2012, April). Content and Language Integrated Learning: shifting boundaries and terrain mapping. In V. Hodgson, C. Jones, M. de Laat, D. McConnell, T. Ryberg, & P. Sloep. (Eds.), Proceedings of the eighth International Conference on Networked Learning (pp. 2–4). Lancaster: Lancaster University.
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 Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16(3), 267–284.
Ioannou Georgiou, S. (2012). Reviewing the puzzle of CLIL. ELT Journal, 66(4), 495–504.
Johnson, C. M. (2001). A survey of current research on online communities of practice. The Internet and Higher Education, 4(1), 45–60.
Karavas, E. (2014). Implementing innovation in primary EFL: A case study in Greece. ELT Journal, 68(3), 243–253.
Kostoulas, A. (2018). A language school as a complex system: Complex systems theory in English Language Teaching. Berlin: Peter Lang.
Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. M. (2009). Immersion and CLIL in English: More differences than similarities. ELT Journal, 64(4), 367–375.
Luciak, M. (2004). Minority status and schooling—John U. Ogbu’s theory and the schooling of ethnic minorities in Europe. Intercultural Education, 15(4), 359–368.
Marsh, D., Mehisto, P., Wolff, D., & Frigols Martín, M. J. (2012). European framework for CLIL teacher education. Graz: ECML.
Marsh, D. (2002). CLIL/EMILE—The European dimension: Actions, trends and foresight potential. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä.
Mattheoudakis, M., & Alexiou, T. (2017). Sketching the profile of the CLIL instructor in Greece. Research Papers in Language Teaching and Learning, 8(1), 110–124.
Matusov, E. (2001). Intersubjectivity as a way of informing teaching design for a community of learners’ classroom. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(4), 383–402.
Mehisto, P. (2008). CLIL counterweights: Recognizing and decreasing disjuncture in CLIL. International CLIL Research Journal, 1(1), 93–119.
Mehisto, P., Marsh, D., & Frigols, M. J. (2008). Uncovering CLIL content and language integrated learning in bilingual and multilingual education. Houndmills: Macmillan.
Merino, J. A., & Lasagabaster, D. (2018). CLIL as a way to multilingualism. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21(1), 79–92.
Nikula, T., Dalton-Puffer, C., & García, A. L. (2013). CLIL classroom discourse: Research from Europe. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 1(1), 70–100.
Paran, A. (2013). Content and language integrated learning: Panacea or policy borrowing myth? Applied Linguistics Review, 4(2), 317–342.
Putney, L. G., Green, J., Dixon, C., Duran, R., & Yeager, B. (2000). Consequential progressions. In C. D. Lee & P. Smagorinsky (Eds.), Vygotskian perspectives on literacy research: Constructing meaning through collaborative inquiry (pp. 86–126). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Research Centre for Language Teaching, Testing and Assessment (RCEL). (2011). Ενιαίο Πρόγραμμα Σπουδών για τις Ξένες Γλώσσες (ΕΠΣ-ΞΓ) (Integrated Program of Studies for Foreign Languages). Retrieved from http://rcel.enl.uoa.gr/xenesglosses/sps.htm on November 18, 2018.
Rimmer, W. (2009). A closer look at CLIL. English Teaching Professional, 64, 4–6.
Sasajima, S. (2013). How CLIL can impact on EFL teachers’ mindsets about teaching and learning. International CLIL Research Journal, 2(1), 55–66.
Sifakis, N. C. (2014). Asking the right questions in “new school” EFL curriculum design. In N. Lavidas, T. Alexiou, & A. M. Sougari (Eds.), Major trends in theoretical and applied linguistics (Vol. 1, pp. 121–140). London: Versita.
Skinnari, K., & Bovellan, E. (2016). CLIL teachers’ beliefs about integration and about their professional roles: Perspectives from a European context. In T. Nikula, E. Dafouz, P. Moore, & U. Smit (Eds.), Conceptualising integration in CLIL and multilingual education (pp. 145–167). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Somers, T., & Surmont, J. (2012). CLIL and immersion: how clear-cut are they? ELT Journal, 66(1), 113−116.
Sparks-Langer, G. M., & Colton, A. B. (1991). Synthesis of research on teachers’ reflective thinking. Educational Leadership, 48(6), 37–44.
Stoof, A., Martens, R. L., Van Merrienboer, J. J., & Bastiaens, T. J. (2002). The boundary approach of competence: A constructivist aid for understanding and using the concept of competence. Human Resource Development Review, 1(3), 345–365.
Tan, M. (2011). Mathematics and science teachers’ beliefs and practices regarding the teaching of language in content learning. Language Teaching Research, 15(3), 325−342.
Walker, D., & Nocon, H. (2007). Boundary-crossing competence: Theoretical considerations and educational design. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 14(3), 178–195.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wenger, E. (2000). Communities of practice and social learning systems. Organization, 7(2), 225–246.
Wolff, D. (2007). CLIL: Bridging the gap between school and working life. In D. Marsh, & D. Wolff. (Eds.), Diverse contexts—converging goals: CLIL in Europe (pp. 15–25). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendix
Appendix
Overview of the CLIL teacher professional development program
Theory & reflection (Modules 1–2) | Practice & input design (Modules 3–5) | Implementation (Modules 6–7) | Feedback & discussion (Modules 8–9) |
---|---|---|---|
Week 1 & 2, Module 1 Participants: ∙ Complete a pre-teacher training questionnaire ∙ Watch selected videos from CLIL classrooms ∙ Answer a series of open-ended questions ∙ Write a journal in which they reflect on their teaching practices | Week 6, Module 3 Participants: ∙ Study examples of CLIL material ∙ Discuss with co-trainees and share ideas about the importance of input quality ∙ Focus on the issue of cooperation between the EFL teacher and the content subject teacher | Week 9 & 10, Module 6 Participants: ∙ Conduct an in-class survey in order to investigate their learners’ needs and expectations ∙ Use the CLIL tasks they have prepared ∙ Answer a questionnaire ∙ Write a journal | Week 13 & 14, Module 8 Participants: ∙ Create a questionnaire for their learners to gather feedback ∙ Discuss results with their peer trainees |
Week 3, 4 & 5, Module 2 Participants: ∙ Study CLIL theory through texts and videos ∙ Study a variety of curricula through Eurydice together with the European Framework for Lifelong competences ∙ Write a journal on the possibility of integrating CLIL in their current teaching situation | Week 7, Module 4 Participants: ∙ Study content subject that is relevant to their teaching context ∙ Create CLIL tasks (EFL teachers & content subject teachers) and upload them ∙ Get involved in self and peer evaluation processes | Week 11 & 12, Module 7 Participants: ∙ Implement the CLIL lesson plan in their current teaching context ∙ Answer a questionnaire ∙ Write a journal | Week 15 & 16, Module 9 Participants: ∙ Reflect on the outcomes ∙ Answer a questionnaire ∙ Are interviewed by the program coordinator |
Week 8, Module 5 Participants: ∙ Choose content material ∙ Create a CLIL lesson plan (EFL teachers & content subject teachers ) ∙ Get involved in self and peer evaluation processes |
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Vourdanou, K. (2019). Challenging Curricular Boundaries and Identities Through CLIL: An E-learning Professional Development Program for CLIL Teachers. In: Kostoulas, A. (eds) Challenging Boundaries in Language Education. Second Language Learning and Teaching. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17057-8_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17057-8_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-17056-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-17057-8
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)