Encyclopedia of Language and Education

2008 Edition
| Editors: Nancy H. Hornberger

CLIL—A Pedagogical Approach from the European Perspective

Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-30424-3_92

Introduction

The advent of CLIL as an acronym for Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL/EMILE: Enseignement d'une Matière par l'Intégration d'une Langue Etrangère) in the mid‐1990s brought to the fore significant developments in a trans‐European movement focussing on integrating foreign language and subject/thematic content in a wide range of learning and teaching contexts. According to Marsh ( 2002, p. 15) CLIL/EMILE is an umbrella term which refers to ‘any dual‐focussed educational context in which an additional language, thus not usually the first foreign language of the learners involved, is used as a medium in the teaching and learning of non‐language content’. This broad definition serves to differentiate CLIL from bilingual or immersion education and a host of alternatives and variations such as content‐based language teaching, English for Special Purposes, plurilingual education, in two distinct ways: it is based on an integrated approach, where both language and...

Keywords

Foreign Language Language Teaching Bilingual Education Language Teacher Subject Teacher 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Language Learning, ACTFL: 1999, Standards for Foreign Language Learning in the 21st century, Allen Press, Lawrence, KS.Google Scholar
  2. Artigal, J.M.: 1991, The Catalan Immersion Program: A European Point of View, Ablex, Norwood, NJ.Google Scholar
  3. Baetens‐Beardsmore, H. (ed.): 1993, ‘Introduction’, in European Models of Bilingual Education, Multilingual Matters, Clevedon.Google Scholar
  4. Baetens‐Beardsmore, H.: 1999, in Marsh, Marsland, and Maljers, CLIL Initiatives for the Millennium: Report on the CEILINK Think‐Tank, University Jyvaskyla, Jyvaskyla.Google Scholar
  5. Bloom, B.: 1984, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Allyn and Bacon, Boston.Google Scholar
  6. Bruner, J.: 1999, ‘Folk pedagogies’, in J. Leach and B. Moon (eds.), Learners and Pedagogy, Paul Chapman publishing/Open University Press, London.Google Scholar
  7. Bullock, R.: 1975, Languages for Life: The Bullock Report, HMSO, London.Google Scholar
  8. Byram, M., Nicols, A., and Stevens, D. (eds.): 2001, Developing Intercultural Competence in Practice, Multilingual Matters, Clevedon.Google Scholar
  9. Clegg, J.: 2003, The Lingue E Scienze Project: Some outcomes, L'Uso Veicolare della lingua straniera in apprendimenti non linguistici, Centro Diffusione Comunitaire Quaderni 6.Google Scholar
  10. Commission of the European Communities: 1995, White Paper: Teaching and Learning‐ Towards the Learning Society, Objective IV, Council of Europe, DGV, Brussels.Google Scholar
  11. Coonan, C.: 2003, Planning for CLIL: A general outline and thoughts on two micro features, L'Uso veicolare della Lingua Straniera in Apprenimenti non Linguistici, Quaderni 6 Ufficio scolastico Regionale per il Piemonte.Google Scholar
  12. Coste, D.: 1994, L'enseignement bilingue dans tous ses états, Études de Linguistique Appliquée no 96 pp. 9–22, Didier Erudition, Paris.Google Scholar
  13. Council of Europe: 1993, Report on Workshop 12A, Language Learning for European Citizenship: Bilingual Education in Secondary Schools learning and Teaching Non‐Language Subjects through a Foreign Language, Council for Cultural Co‐operation, Strasbourg.Google Scholar
  14. Council of Europe: 1996, Report on Workshop 12B, Language Learning for European Citizenship: Bilingual Education in Secondary Schools Learning and Teaching Non‐Language Subjects through a Foreign Language, Council for Cultural Co‐operation. Strasbourg.Google Scholar
  15. Coyle, D.: 2005, Developing CLIL: Towards a Theory of Practice, APAC Monograph 6, APAC, Barcelona.Google Scholar
  16. Coyle, D.: 2002a, ‘Relevance of CLIL to the European commission's language learning objectives’, in D. Marsh, (ed.), CLIL/EMILE—The European Dimension: Actions, Trends and Foresight Potential Public Services Contract DG EAC European Commission, Strasbourg.Google Scholar
  17. Coyle, D.: 2002b, ‘Against all odds: Lessons from content & language integrated learning in English secondary schools, in D. So and G. Jones (eds.), Education and Society in Plurilingual Contexts, VUB press, Brussels.Google Scholar
  18. Coyle, D.: 1999, ‘Theory and planning for effective classrooms: Supporting students in content and language integrated learning contexts’ in J. Masih, (ed.), Learning Through a Foreign Language: Models, Methods and Outcomes, CILT Publications, London.Google Scholar
  19. Cummins, J.: 2000, Immersion Education for the Millennium: What have we learned from 30 years of research on Second Language Immersion, http://www.iteachilearn.com/cummins/immersion2000.html
  20. de Bot, K.: 2002, ‘Relevance of CLIL to the European commission's language learning objectives’, in D. Marsh (ed.), CLIL/EMILE‐The European Dimension: Actions, Trends and Foresight Potential Public Services Contract, DG EAC: European Commission, Strasbourg.Google Scholar
  21. Eurydice Report: 2006, Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) at School in Europe, Eurydice European Unit, Brussels.Google Scholar
  22. Gajo, L. and Serra, C.: 2000, Acquisition des langues et des disciplines dans l'enseignement bilingue: l'exemple de mathématiques, Etudes de Linguistique Appliquée 120.Google Scholar
  23. Glyn‐Lewis, E.: 1976, ‘Bilingualism and bilingual education: The ancient world to the Renaissance’, in J. Fishman (ed.), Bilingual Education: An International Sociological Perspective, Rowley, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  24. Grin, F.: 2005, ‘The value‐added of CLIL: a language policy evaluation approach’, paper at The Changing European Classroom: The potential of plurilingual education, EU Presidency Conference, Luxembourg.Google Scholar
  25. Holmes, B.: 2001, ‘Communal Constructivism: Students constructing learning for as well as with others’, 12th International Conference of the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education (SITE).Google Scholar
  26. Intertalk: Plurilingual Education across Europe Film, 1998, supported by DGXXII Commission of the European Union, University of Jyvaskyla, FinlandGoogle Scholar
  27. Kelly, K.: 2005, ‘Getting Started in CLIL’, paper presented at IATEFL Conference in Budapest, October 2005.Google Scholar
  28. Krashen, S.D.: 1985, The input hypothesis: Issues and implications, Longman, London.Google Scholar
  29. Lantolf, J. (ed.): 2000, Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  30. Lave, J. and Wenger, E.: 1991, Situated Learning. Legitimate peripheral participation, University of Cambridge Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  31. Leat, D.: 1998, Thinking Through Geography, Chris Kington Publishing, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  32. Marsh, D. (ed.): 2002, CLIL/EMILE—The European Dimension: Actions, Trends and Foresight Potential, Public Services Contract DG EAC, European Commission, Strasbourg.Google Scholar
  33. Marsh, D. and Maljers, A.: 2001, CLIL Compendium http://www.clilcompendium.com/supported by Directorate‐General for Education and Culture of the European Commission (Socrates/Lingua).
  34. Marsh, D., Marsland, B., and Maljers, A.: 1999, CLIL Intiatives for the Millenium: Report on the CEILINK Think‐Tank, University Jyvaskyla, Jyvaskyla.Google Scholar
  35. Masih, J. (ed.): 1999, Learning through a Foreign Language: Models, Methods and Outcomes, CILT Publications, London.Google Scholar
  36. McGuiness, C.: 1999, ‘From Thinking Skills to Thinking classrooms: A review and evaluation of approaches for developing pupils' Thinking’, Research Report 115, DfEE, HMSO.Google Scholar
  37. Met, M.: 1998, ‘Curriculum decision‐making in content‐based language teaching’, in J. Cenoz and F. Genesee (eds.), Beyond Bilingualism: Multilingualism and Multilingual Education, Multilingual Matters, Clevedon.Google Scholar
  38. Mohan, B.: 1986, Language and Content, Addison‐Wesley, Reading, MA.Google Scholar
  39. Mohan, B., Leung, C., and Davison, C.: 2000, Mainstreaming English as a Second Language in School: Issues of Pedagogy and Identity, Pearson, London.Google Scholar
  40. Naimen, N., Frohlich, M., Stern, D., and Todesco, A.: 1978, The Good Language Learner, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, Canada.Google Scholar
  41. Nikula, T.: 1997, ‘Terminological considerations in teaching content as a foreign language’, in D. Marsh, B. Marsland, and T. Nikula, (eds.), Teaching Content Through a Foreign Language in Aspects of Implementing Plurilingual Education, University Jyvaskyla Research and Field Reports: 29, Jyvaskyla.Google Scholar
  42. Nuffield, 2000, The Final Report, Nuffield Languages Enquiry Languages: the Next Generation, Nuffield Foundation, London.Google Scholar
  43. Pica, T.: 1991, ‘Classroom Interaction, Negotiation, and Comprehension: Redefining Relationships’, System 19, 437–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ramirez, R. and Serra, T.: 2003, Primary Education Guidelines and Resources, The Integrated Language Project, CEIP Vila Olimpica, Barcelona.Google Scholar
  45. Slavin, R.: 1995, Cooperative Learning: Theory, Research, and Practice, Allyn and Bacon, Boston.Google Scholar
  46. Swain, M.: 2000, ‘The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue’, in J. Lantolf (ed.), Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  47. Van Lier, L.: 1996, Interaction in the Language Curriculum: Awareness, Autonomy & Authenticity, Longman Group Ltd, New York.Google Scholar
  48. Vygotsky, L.S.: 1978, Mind in Society, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  49. Williams, C.: 2000, BBC Cymru Publications: Llythrennedd Deuol: Trawsieithu. (A video film and comprehensive Teachers’ Notes on the development of translanguaging as a bilingual skill; an in‐service pack for KS2 teachers.)Google Scholar
  50. Wolff, D.: 2002, ‘Relevance of CLIL to the European Commission's language learning objectives’, in D. Marsh (ed.), CLIL/EMILE—The European Dimension: Actions, Trends and Foresight Potential Public Services Contract DG EAC: European Commission.Google Scholar
  51. Wolff, D.: 1998, ‘Languages across the curriculum: A way to promote multilingualism in Europe’, in D. Marsh and B. Marsland (eds.), Future Scenarios in Content and Language Integrated Learning, University Jyvaskyla, Jyvaskyla.Google Scholar
  52. Wolff, D.: 1997, ‘Content‐based bilingual education or using foreign languages as working languages in the classroom’, in, D. Marsh, B. Marsland, and T. Nikula (eds.), Aspects of Implementing Plurilingual Education, University Jyväskylä Research and Field Reports:29, Jyväskylä.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of EducationUniversity of NottinghamNottingham NG8 1BBUK