Technology-Enhanced CLIL: Quality Indicators for the Analysis of an on-Line CLIL Course

  • Michele Della VenturaEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies book series (SIST, volume 75)


This article is aimed at identifying a set of quality indicators to analyze an on-line learning process referred to one of the methodologies that is currently considered among the most effective to promote language learning in formal contexts, i.e. the CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning). This methodology calls for various activities (speaking, listening, reading and writing) supported by the ICT (Information and Communication Technologies). The main objective of this study is to evaluate the quality of a CLIL practical activity (task) carried out in e-learning mode, using Technologies to support the teacher’s/tutor’s activity and boost students’ learning of the basic aspects of a certain subject matter and their competence in discussing and debating. The indicators are used to analyze cognitive, meta-cognitive and relational aspects, drawing on a content analysis methodology. The model appears to have a wide range of possible applications in other online courses.


CLIL Learning indicators e-learning process On-line CLIL Serendipity 


  1. 1.
    Coonan, M.C.: I principi di base del CLIL. Fare CLIL, I Quaderni della Ricerca, Loescher, Torino (2014)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Coyle, D.: Content and language integrated learning: motivating learners and teachers. Scott. Lang. Rev. 13, 1–18 (2006)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brown, A., Campione, J.: Communities of learning and thinking or a context by other name. Contrib. Hum. Dev. 21, 108–126 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wenger, E.: Communities of Practice – Learning, Meaning and Identity. Cambridge University Press, New York (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Talamo, A.: Apprendere con le nuove tecnologie. La Nuova Italia, Firenze (1998)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Calvani, A., Rotta, M.: Comunicazione e apprendimento in Internet. Erickson, Trento (1999)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Varisco, B.M.: Nuove tecnologie per l’apprendimento. Garamond, Roma (1998)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Coonan, C.M.: La metodologia task-based e CLIL. In: Ricci Garotti, F. (ed.) Il futuro si chiama CLIL. Una ricerca interregionale sull’insegnamento veicolare, Provincia Autonoma di Trento (2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Varisco, B.M.: Costruttivismo socio-culturale. Carocci, Roma (2002)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Swain, M.: Communicative competence: some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In: Gass, S., Maden, C. (a cura) Input in second language acquisition. Newbury House, Rowley (1985)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Swain, M.: Three functions of output in second language learning. In: Cook, G., Seidlhofer, B. (a cura) Principle and Practice in Applied Linguistics. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1995)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Swain, M.: The Output Hypothesis: Theory and Research. In Hinkel, E. (a cura di) Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, pp. 471–483 (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Johnson, D., Johnson, R.T., Smith, K.A.: Active Learning: Cooperation in the College Classroom. Interaction Book Company, Edina (1991)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Oxford, R.L.: Cooperative learning, collaborative learning and interaction: three communicative strands in the language classroom. Modern Lang. J. 81, 4 (1997)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Della Ventura, M.: Problem-based learning and e-learning in sound recording. Int. J. Inf. Educ. Technol. 4(5) (2014)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ellis, R.: Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2003)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Della Ventura, M.: Process, project and problem based learning as a strategy for knowledge building in music technology. In: Proceedings of the Multidiscilinary Academic Conference in Education, Teaching and e-Learning (MAC-Etel 2014), Prague, Czech Republic (2014)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Trentin, G.: Apprendimento in rete e condivisione delle conoscenze. Ruolo, dinamiche e tecnologie delle comunità professionali on-line. Angeli editore, Franco (2004)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Panselinas, G., Komis, V., Scaffolding through talk in groupwork learning. Thinking Skills and Creativity 4(2) (2009)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nikula, T.: The IRF pattern and space for interaction: comparing CLIL and EFL classrooms. In: Dalton-Puffer, C., Smit, U. (eds.) Empirical Perspective on CLIL Classroom Discourse. Frankfurt Am Mein, Peter Lang (2008)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Malamah-Thomas, A.: Classroom Interaction. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1987)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kolloff, M.: Strategies for effective student/student interaction in online courses. In: 17th Annual Conference on Distance Teaching and Learning (2011)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Guazzieri, A.: Clil e apprendimento cooperativo. Studi di Glottodidattica 2, 48–72 (2009). Università Ca’ Foscari, VeneziaGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Brown, G., Yule, G.: Discourse Analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1983)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Menegale, M.M.: Tipi di domande utilizzate durante la lezione frontale partecipata e output degli student. In: Coonan, C.M. (a cura di) La produzione orale in ambito CLIL, sezione monografica di Rassegna Italiana di linguistica applicataGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Music TechnologyMusic Academy “Studio Musica”TrevisoItaly

Personalised recommendations