Stopping the “pendulum effect” in CLIL research: Finding the balance between Pollyanna and Scrooge
-
María Luisa Pérez Cañado
Dr. María Luisa Pérez Cañado is Associate Professor at the Department of English Philology of the University of Jáen, Spain, where she is also Vicedean of the Faculty of Humanities and Education. Her research interests are in Applied Linguistics, bilingual education, and new technologies in language teaching. Her work has appeared in over 80 scholarly journals and edited volumes published by
Elsevier ,Peter Lang ,Cambridge Scholars Publishing ,Multilingual Matters ,Wiley-Blackwell ,Routledge , orSpringer , among others. She is also author or editor of thirteen books on the interface of second language acquisition and second language teaching, and editor or member of the editorial board of eleven international journals. María Luisa has given more than 90 lectures and talks in Belgium, Poland, Germany, Portugal, Ireland, England, Mexico, Brazil, China, The United States, and all over Spain. She has been in charge of the program for the implementation of the European Credit System in English Philology at the University of Jaén and has been granted the Ben Massey Award for the quality of her scholarly contributions regarding issues that make a difference in higher education.
Abstract
This article examines the appearance of the “pendulum effect” in the CLIL research arena and makes a case for a balanced, disinterested, and methodologically sound approach to continue driving the CLIL agenda forward. It is written as a response to the steady stream of criticism to which CLIL research has recently been subjected and which is primarily embodied by Bruton (Is CLIL so beneficial, or just selective? Re-evaluating some of the Research. System 39. 523–532 (2011b), CLIL: Some of the reasons why... and why not. System 41. 587–597 (2013), CLIL: Detail matters in the whole picture. More than a reply to J. Hüttner and U. Smit (2014). System 53. 119–128 (2015)) and Paran (Content and language integrated learning: Panacea or policy borrowing myth? Applied Linguistics Review 4(2). 317–342 (2013), on whose articles it focuses in order to redress the balance on the chief three fronts which these authors explore: CLIL characterization, implementation, and investigation. Within each one, it counters incorrect data and biased interpretations, updates obsolete information which renders certain arguments invalid, and identifies and provides solutions to the main caveats in the CLIL research hitherto conducted. The ultimate aim is to illustrate how we should neither harbor an excessively optimistic view on the way CLIL is playing out nor maintain an overly dismal outlook on the feasibility of its implementation, and to carve out a future research agenda in order to bring the pendulum to a standstill through solid, unskewed, and unbiased CLIL research.
Funding statement: This article is the result of an extensive review of the literature for the research projects FFI2012-32221 and P12-HUM-2348, funded by the Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad and the Junta de Andalucía, respectively.
About the author
Dr. María Luisa Pérez Cañado is Associate Professor at the Department of English Philology of the University of Jáen, Spain, where she is also Vicedean of the Faculty of Humanities and Education. Her research interests are in Applied Linguistics, bilingual education, and new technologies in language teaching. Her work has appeared in over 80 scholarly journals and edited volumes published by Elsevier, Peter Lang, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Multilingual Matters, Wiley-Blackwell, Routledge, or Springer, among others. She is also author or editor of thirteen books on the interface of second language acquisition and second language teaching, and editor or member of the editorial board of eleven international journals. María Luisa has given more than 90 lectures and talks in Belgium, Poland, Germany, Portugal, Ireland, England, Mexico, Brazil, China, The United States, and all over Spain. She has been in charge of the program for the implementation of the European Credit System in English Philology at the University of Jaén and has been granted the Ben Massey Award for the quality of her scholarly contributions regarding issues that make a difference in higher education.
References
Admiraal, Wilfried, Gerard Westhoff & Kees de Bot. 2006. Evaluation of bilingual secondary education in The Netherlands: Students’ language proficiency. English Educational Research and Evaluation 12(1). 75–93.10.1080/13803610500392160Search in Google Scholar
Alonso, Esmeralda, Jesús Grisaleña & Alejandro Campo. 2008. Plurilingual education in secondary schools: Analysis of results. International CLIL Research Journal 1(1). 36–49.Search in Google Scholar
Brown, H. Douglas. 1994. Teaching by principles. An interactive approach to language pedagogy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.Search in Google Scholar
Bruton, Anthony. 2011a. Are the differences between CLIL and non-CLIL groups in Andalusia due to CLIL? A reply to Lorenzo, Casal and Moore (2010). Applied Linguistics 2011. 1–7.10.1093/applin/amr007Search in Google Scholar
Bruton, Anthony. 2011b. Is CLIL so beneficial, or just selective? Re-evaluating some of the Research. System 39. 523–532.10.1016/j.system.2011.08.002Search in Google Scholar
Bruton, Anthony. 2013. CLIL: Some of the reasons why... and why not. System 41. 587–597.10.1016/j.system.2013.07.001Search in Google Scholar
Bruton, Anthony. 2015. CLIL: Detail matters in the whole picture. More than a reply to J. Hüttner and U. Smit (2014). System 53. 119–128.10.1016/j.system.2015.07.005Search in Google Scholar
Cabezas Cabello, José Manuel. 2010. A SWOT analysis of the Andalusian Plurilingualism Promotion Plan (APPP). In María Luisa Pérez Cañado (ed.), Proceedings of the 23rd GRETA Convention, 83–91. Jaén: Joxman.Search in Google Scholar
Carter, Ronald & Michael McCarthy. 1988. Developments in the teaching of vocabulary: 1945 to the present day. In Ronald Carter & Michael McCarthy (eds.), Vocabulary and language teaching, 39–59. London: Longman.Search in Google Scholar
Cenoz, Jasone. 2015. Content-based instruction and content and language integrated learning: The same or different? Language, Culture and Curriculum 28(1). 8–24.10.1080/07908318.2014.1000922Search in Google Scholar
Cenoz, Jasone, Fred Genesee & Durk Gorter. 2013. Critical analysis of CLIL: Taking stock and looking forward. Applied Linguistics 2013. 1–21.10.1093/applin/amt011Search in Google Scholar
Coonan, Carmel Mary. 2005. The natural learning of a foreign language. CLIL as a possible partial solution for the primary school. Scuola e Lingue Moderne 4–5. 4–11.Search in Google Scholar
Coyle, Do. 2002. Relevance of CLIL to the European Commission’s language learning objectives. In David Marsh (ed.), CLIL/EMILE. The European dimension. Actions, trends, and foresight potential, 27–28. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä.Search in Google Scholar
Coyle, Do. 2006. Content and language integrated learning. Motivating learners and teachers. http://blocs.xtec.cat/clilpractiques1/files/2008/11/slrcoyle.pdf (accessed 15 December 2015).Search in Google Scholar
Coyle, Do. 2007. Content and language integrated learning: Towards a connected research agenda for CLIL pedagogies. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 10(5). 543–562.10.2167/beb459.0Search in Google Scholar
Coyle, Do. 2008. CLIL: A pedagogical approach from the European perspective. In Nelleke Van Deusen-Scholl & Nancy H. Hornberger (eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education. Second and foreign language education, Volume 4, 97–111. New York: Springer Science & Business Media.Search in Google Scholar
Coyle, Do. 2009a. Language pedagogies revisited: Alternative approaches for integrating language learning, language using and intercultural understanding. In Jennifer Miller, Alez Kostogriz & Margarte Gearon (eds.), Culturally and linguistically diverse classrooms: New dilemmas for teachers, 172–195. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.10.21832/9781847692184-012Search in Google Scholar
Coyle, Do. 2009b. Promoting cultural diversity through intercultural understanding: A case study of CLIL teacher professional development at in-service and pre-service levels. In María Luisa Carrió-Pastor (ed.), Content and language integrated learning: Cultural diversity, 105–124. Frankfurt-am-Main: Peter Lang.Search in Google Scholar
Coyle, Do. 2010. Foreword. In David Lasagabaster & Yolanda Ruiz de Zarobe (eds.), CLIL in Spain: Implementation, results and teacher training, vii–viii. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.10.1017/9781009024549Search in Google Scholar
Coyle, Do & Hugo Baetens Beardsmore. 2007. Research on content and language integrated learning (CLIL). International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 10(5). 541–542.10.2167/beb459.0Search in Google Scholar
Coyle, Do, Philip Hood & David Marsh. 2010. CLIL. Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781009024549Search in Google Scholar
Cummins, Jim. 1999. BICS and CALP: Clarifying the distinction (Report No. ED438551). Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics.Search in Google Scholar
Cummins, Jim. 2000. Immersion education for the millennium: What we have learned from 30 years of research on second language immersion. http://www.iteachilearn.com/cummins/immersion2000.html pdf (accessed 15 December 2015).Search in Google Scholar
Czura, Anna, Katarzyna Papaja & Magdalena Urbaniak. 2009. Bilingual education and the emergence of CLIL in Poland. In David Marsh, Peeter Mehisto, Dieter Wolff, Rosa Aliaga, Tuula Asikainen, María Jesús Frigols-Martín, Sue Hughes & Gisella Langé (eds.), CLIL practice: Perspectives from the field, 172–178. Finland: University of Jyväskylä.Search in Google Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, Christiane, Ana Llinares, Francisco Lorenzo & Tarja Nikula. 2014. You can stand under my umbrella. Immersion, CLIL and Bilingual Education. A response to Cenoz, Genesee & Gorter (2013). Applied Linguistics 35(2). 213–218.10.1093/applin/amu010Search in Google Scholar
Darn, Steve. 2006. Content and language integrated learning. http://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/think/articles/content-language-integrated-learning (accessed 15 December 2015).Search in Google Scholar
Denzin, Norman K. (ed.). 1970. Sociological methods: A source book. Chicago: Aldine.Search in Google Scholar
Dickey, Robert J. 2004. Content (adj) or content (n) with your English classes? Education International 1(3). 10–15.Search in Google Scholar
Dueñas, María. 2004. The whats, whys, hows and whos of content-based instruction in second/foreign language education. IJES 4(1). 73–96.Search in Google Scholar
Fernández Fernández, Raquel, Carmen Pena Díaz, Antonio García Gómez & Ana Halbach. 2005. La implantación de proyectos educativos bilingües en la Comunidad de Madrid: las expectativas del profesorado antes de iniciar el proyecto. Porta Linguarum 3. 161–173.10.30827/Digibug.29128Search in Google Scholar
Fernández, Raquel & Ana Halbach. 2011. Analysing the situation of teachers in the Madridautonomous community bilingual project. In Yolanda Ruiz de Zarobe, Juan Manuel Sierra & Francisco Gallardo del Puerto (eds.), Content and foreign language integrated learning: Contributions to multilingualism in European contexts, 241–270. Frankfurt-am-Main: Peter Lang.Search in Google Scholar
García Jiménez, Francisco & Domingo Cobo López. 2009. El proyecto bilingüe en infantil y primaria: Reflexiones desde el tercer año. In Antonio Bueno González, Jesús Manuel Nieto García & Domingo Cobo López (eds.), Atención a la diversidad en la enseñanza plurilingüe. I, II y III Jornadas Regionales de Formación del Profesorado (CD-ROM). Jaén: Delegación Provincial de Educación de Jaén y Universidad de Jaén.Search in Google Scholar
García López, Miguel & Anthony Bruton. 2013. Potential drawbacks and actual benefits of CLIL initiatives in public secondary schools. In Christian Abello-Contesse, Paul M. Chandler, María Dolores López-Jiménez & Rubén Chacón-Beltrán (eds.), Bilingual and multilingual education in the 21st century. Building on experience, 256–272. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.10.21832/9781783090716-016Search in Google Scholar
Gimeno Sanz, Ana M. 2009. How can CLIL benefit from the integration of information and communication technologies? In María Luisa Carrió-Pastor (ed.), Content and language integrated learning: Cultural diversity, 77–102. Frankfurt-am-Main: Peter Lang.Search in Google Scholar
Grabe, William & Fredricka L. Stoller. 1997. Content-based instruction: Research foundations. In Marguerite Ann Snow & Donna M. Brinton (eds.), The content-based classroom: Perspectives on integrating language and content, 5–21. New York: Longman.Search in Google Scholar
Horwitz, Elaine. 2005. Bilingual education: Conceptions and misconceptions. GRETA. Revista para Profesores de Inglés 13(1&2). 23–27.Search in Google Scholar
Hughes, Stephen. 2010. The effectiveness of bilingual education: A case study. Paper presented at the 25th GRETA Convention: Celebrating 25 Years of Teacher Inspiration, University of Granada, Granada.Search in Google Scholar
Hüttner, Julia & Ute Smit. 2014. CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning): The bigger picture. A response to: A. Bruton. 2013. CLIL: Some of the reasons why... and why not. System 41(2013): 587–597. System 44. 160–167.10.1016/j.system.2014.03.001Search in Google Scholar
Infante, Debora, Guido Benvenuto & Emilio Lastrucci. 2009. The effects of CLIL from the perspective of experienced teachers. In David Marsh, Peeter Mehisto, Dieter Wolff, Rosa Aliaga, Tuula Asikainen, María Jesús Frigols-Martín, Sue Hughes & Gisella Langé (eds.), CLIL practice: Perspectives from the field, 156–163. Finland: University of Jyväskylä.Search in Google Scholar
Järvinen, Heini Marja. 2005. Language learning in content-based instruction. In Alex Housen & M. Pierrard (eds.), Investigations in second language acquisition, 433–456. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110197372.3.433Search in Google Scholar
Kumaravadivelu, B. 2001. Towards a postmethod pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly 35(4). 537–560.10.2307/3588427Search in Google Scholar
Langé, Gisella. 2007. Postscript to CLIL 2006 and future action. In David Marsh & Dieter Wolff (eds.), Diverse contexts, converging goals: CLIL in Europe, 350–358. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Search in Google Scholar
Lasagabaster, David. 2008. Foreign language competence in content and language integrated courses. The Open Applied Linguistics Journal 1. 31–42.10.2174/1874913500801010030Search in Google Scholar
Lasagabaster, David & Yolanda Ruiz de Zarobe. 2010. Ways forward in CLIL: Provision issues and future planning. In David Lasagabaster & Yolanda Ruiz de Zarobe (eds.), CLIL in Spain: Implementation, results and teacher training, 278–295. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Search in Google Scholar
Lasagabaster, David & Juan Manuel Sierra. 2010. Immersion and CLIL in English: More differences than similarities. ELT Journal 64(4). 367–375.10.1093/elt/ccp082Search in Google Scholar
Lindstromberg, Seth. 2003. My good-bye to the lexical approach. Humanising Language Teaching 2. http://www.hltmag.co.uk/mar03/mart1.htm. pdf (accessed 15 December 2015).Search in Google Scholar
Llinares, Ana & Roy Lyster. 2014. The influence of context on patterns of corrective feedback learner uptake: A comparison of CLIL and immersion classrooms. Language Learning Journal 42(2). 181–194.10.1080/09571736.2014.889509Search in Google Scholar
Lorenzo, Francisco. 2007. The sociolinguistics of CLIL: Language planning and language change in 21st century Europe. RESLA Vol. Extra 1. 27–38.Search in Google Scholar
Lorenzo, Francisco, Sonia Casal & Pat Moore. 2009. The effects of content and language integrated learning in European education: Key findings from the Andalusian bilingual sections evaluation project. Applied Linguistics 31(3). 418–442.10.1093/applin/amp041Search in Google Scholar
Lorenzo, Francisco, Sonia Casal, Pat Moore & Yeray M. Afonso. 2009. Bilingüismo y educación. Situación de la red de centros bilingües en Andalucía. Sevilla: Fundación Centro de Estudios Andaluces.10.54790/actualidad.0058Search in Google Scholar
Lorenzo, Francisco, Sonia Casal & Pat Moore. 2011. On complexity in bilingual research: The causes, effects, and breadth of content and language integrated learning. A reply to Bruton (2011). Applied Linguistics 32(4). 450–455.10.1093/applin/amr025Search in Google Scholar
Lyster, Roy. 2007. Learning and teaching languages through content: A counterbalanced approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.10.1075/lllt.18Search in Google Scholar
Madrid Fernández, Daniel. 2006. Bilingual and plurilingual education in the European and Andalusian context. International Journal of Learning 12(4). 177–185.Search in Google Scholar
Madrid, Daniel & Antonio Bueno. 2005. Classroom research. In Neil McLaren, Daniel Madrid & Antonio Bueno (eds.), TEFL in secondary education, 641–677. Granada: Universidad de Granada.Search in Google Scholar
Madrid, Daniel & María Elena García Sánchez. 2001. Content-based second language teaching. In María Elena García Sánchez (ed.), Present and future trends in TEFL, 101–129. Almería: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Almería.Search in Google Scholar
Madrid, Daniel & María Luisa Pérez Cañado. 2013. CLIL teacher training. In Juan de Dios Martínez Agudo (ed.), Teaching and learning English through bilingual education, 181–212. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Search in Google Scholar
Marsh, David (ed.). 2002. CLIL/EMILE. The European dimension. Actions, trends, and foresight potential. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä.Search in Google Scholar
Marsh, David. 2006. English as medium of instruction in the new global linguistic order: Global characteristics, local consequences. Finland: UNICOM, Continuing Education Centre, University of Jyväskylä. http://www.metsmac.org./2007/proceedings/2006/Marsh-D-METSMaC-2006.pdf (accessed 15 December 2015).Search in Google Scholar
Marsh, David. 2008. Language awareness and CLIL. In Jasone Cenoz & Nancy H. Hornberger (eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education. Knowledge about language, Volume 6, 233–246. New York: Springer Science & Business Media.Search in Google Scholar
Marsh, David & Gisella Langé (eds.). 2000. Using languages to learn and learning to use languages. Finland: University of Jyväskylä.Search in Google Scholar
Mehisto, Peeter, David Marsh & María Jesús Frigols. 2008. Uncovering CLIL. Content and language integrated learning in bilingual and multilingual education. Oxford: MacMillan Publishers Limited.Search in Google Scholar
Morton, Tom. 2009. Integrating language and content in secondary CLIL History: The potential of a genre-based approach. In María Luisa Carrió-Pastor (ed.), Content and language integrated learning: Cultural diversity, 133–145. Frankfurt-am-Main: Peter Lang.Search in Google Scholar
Muñoz, Camen. 2007. CLIL: Some thoughts on its psycholinguistic principles. RESLA Vol. Extra 1. 17–26.Search in Google Scholar
Navés, Teresa. 2009. Effective content and language integrated (CLIL) programmes. In Yolanda Ruiz de Zarobe & Rosa María Jiménez Catalán (eds.), Content and language integrated learning. Evidence from research in Europe, 22–40. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.10.21832/9781847691675-005Search in Google Scholar
Paran, Amos. 2013. Content and language integrated learning: Panacea or policy borrowing myth? Applied Linguistics Review 4(2). 317–342.10.1515/applirev-2013-0014Search in Google Scholar
Pena Díaz, Carmen & María Dolores Porto Requejo. 2008. Teacher beliefs in a CLIL education project. Porta Linguarum 10. 151–161.10.30827/Digibug.31786Search in Google Scholar
Pérez Cañado, María Luisa. 2011. The effects of CLIL within the APPP: Lessons learned and ways forward. In Rosalía Crespo & María Ángeles García de Sola (eds.), Studies in honour of Ángeles Linde López, 13–30. Granada: Universidad de Granada.Search in Google Scholar
Pérez Cañado, María Luisa. 2012. CLIL research in Europe: Past, present, and future. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 15(3). 315–341.10.1080/13670050.2011.630064Search in Google Scholar
Pérez Cañado, María Luisa. 2014. Teacher training needs for bilingual education: In-service teacher perceptions. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. doi:10.1080/13670050.2014.980778.Search in Google Scholar
Pérez Cañado, María Luisa. 2016. Invited author article: From the CLIL craze to the CLIL conundrum: Addressing the current CLIL controversy. Bellaterra Journal of Teaching & Learning Language & Literature 9(1). 9–31.10.5565/rev/jtl3.667Search in Google Scholar
Pérez Cañado, María Luisa & Juan Ráez Padilla. 2015. Introduction and overview. In David Marsh, María Luisa Pérez Cañado & Juan Ráez Padilla (eds.), CLIL in action: Voices from the classroom, 1–12. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Search in Google Scholar
Pérez Torres, Isabel. 2009. Las nuevas tecnologías como herramienta para la diversidad en la enseñanza de lengua y contenidos. In Antonio Bueno González, Jesús Manuel Nieto García & Domingo Cobo López (eds.), Atención a la diversidad en la enseñanza plurilingüe. I, II y III Jornadas Regionales de Formación del Profesorado (CD-ROM). Jaén: Delegación Provincial de Educación de Jaén y Universidad de Jaén.Search in Google Scholar
Pérez-Vidal, Carmen. 2007. The need for focus on form (FoF) in content and language integrated approaches: An exploratory study. RESLA Vol. Extra 1. 39–54.Search in Google Scholar
Pérez-Vidal, Carmen. 2013. Perspectives and lessons from the challenge of CLIL experiences. In Christian Abello-Contesse, Paul M. Chandler, María Dolores López-Jiménez & Rubén Chacón-Beltrán (eds.), Bilingual and multilingual education in the 21st century. Building on experience, 59–82. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.10.21832/9781783090716-008Search in Google Scholar
Rennie, Jeanne. 1993. ESL and Bilingual Programs Models. Eric ID <ED362072.www.ericdigeest.org/1994/esl.htm> (accessed 15 December 2015).Search in Google Scholar
Richards, Jack C. & Theodore S. Rodgers. 2001. Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511667305Search in Google Scholar
Rimmer, Wayne. 2009. A closer look at CLIL. English Teaching Professional 64. 4–6.Search in Google Scholar
Román Fernández, Carolina & Javier Moreno Álvarez. 2010. Experiencia en la implantación de una sección bilingüe: Do’s y dont’s. In María Luisa Pérez Cañado (ed.), Proceedings of the 23rd GRETA Convention, 77–82. Jaén: Joxman.Search in Google Scholar
Rubio Mostacero, María Dolores. 2009. Language teacher training for non-language teachers: Meeting the needs of Andalusian teachers for school plurilingualism projects. Design of a targeted training course. Jaén: Universidad de Jaén.Search in Google Scholar
Ruiz de Zarobe, Yolanda. 2008. CLIL and foreign language learning: A longitudinal study in the Basque Country. International CLIL Research Journal 1(1). 60–73.Search in Google Scholar
Ruiz de Zarobe, Yolanda & David Lasagabaster. 2010. CLIL in a bilingual community: The Basque Autonomous Community. In David Lasagabaster & Yolanda Ruiz de Zarobe (eds.), CLIL in Spain: Implementation, results and teacher training, 12–29. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Search in Google Scholar
Ruiz-Garrido, Miguel F. & Inmaculada Fortanet-Gómez. 2009. Needs analysis in a CLIL context: A transfer from ESP. The effects of CLIL from the perspective of experienced teachers. In David Marsh, Peeter Mehisto, Dieter Wolff, Rosa Aliaga, Tuula Asikainen, María Jesús Frigols-Martín, Sue Hughes & Gisella Langé (eds.), CLIL practice: Perspectives from the field, 179–188. Finland: University of Jyväskylä.Search in Google Scholar
Ruiz Gómez, Domingo Ángel & Jesús Manuel Nieto García. 2009. Las secciones bilingües en Secundaria y Bachillerato. Marco organizativo. Dificultades y propuestas. In Antonio Bueno González, Jesús Manuel Nieto García & Domingo Cobo López (eds.), Atención a la diversidad en la enseñanza plurilingüe. I, II y III Jornadas Regionales de Formación del Profesorado (CD-ROM). Jaén: Delegación Provincial de Educación de Jaén y Universidad de Jaén.Search in Google Scholar
Sierra, Juna Manuel, Francisco Gallardo del Puerto & Yolanda Ruiz de Zarobe. 2011. Good practices and future actions in CLIL: Learning and pedagogy. In Yolanda Ruiz de Zarobe, Juan Manuel Sierra & Francisco Gallardo del Puerto (eds.), Content and foreign language integrated learning. Contributions to multilingualism in European contexts, 317–338. Frankfurt-am-Main: Peter Lang.10.3726/978-3-0351-0171-3Search in Google Scholar
Smit, Ute. 2007. Introduction. Vienna English Working Papers 16(3). 3–5.Search in Google Scholar
Somers, Thomas & Jill Surmont. 2011. CLIL and immersion: How clear-cut are they? ELT Journal 66(1). 113–116.10.1093/elt/ccr079Search in Google Scholar
Swan, Michael. 1985. A critical look at the communicative approach (2). ELT Journal 39(2). 76–87.10.1093/elt/39.2.76Search in Google Scholar
Tejada Molina, Gabriel, María Luisa Pérez Cañado & Gloria Luque Agulló. 2005. Current approaches and teaching methods. In Neil McLaren, Daniel Madrid & Antonio Bueno (eds.), TEFL in secondary education, 155–209. Granada: Universidad de Granada.Search in Google Scholar
Tobin, Nicole A. & Christian Abello-Contesse. 2013. The use of native assistants as language and cultural resources in Andalusia’s bilingual schools. In Christian Abello-Contesse, Paul M. Chandler, María Dolores López-Jiménez & Rubén Chacón-Beltrán (eds.), Bilingual and multilingual education in the 21st century. Building on experience, 231–255. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.10.21832/9781783090716Search in Google Scholar
Van de Craen, Piet, Katrien Mondt, Laure Allain & Ying Gao. 2007. Why and how CLIL works. An outline for a CLIL theory. Vienna English Working Papers 16(3). 70–78.Search in Google Scholar
Wolff, Dieter. 2002. On the importance of CLIL in the context of the debate on plurilingual education in the European Union. In David Marsh (ed.), CLIL/EMILE. The European dimension. Actions, trends, and foresight potential, 47–48. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä.Search in Google Scholar
Wolff, Dieter. 2003. Integrating language and content in the language classroom: Are transfer of knowledge and of language ensured? ASP: Pratiques et Recherches en Centres de Langues 41–42. 35–46.10.4000/asp.1154Search in Google Scholar
Wolff, Dieter. 2005. Approaching CLIL. In David Marsh (coord.), The CLIL quality matrix. Central workshop report <http://www.ecml.at/mtp2/CLILmatrix/pdf/wsrepD3E2005_6.pdf> (accessed 15 December 2015).Search in Google Scholar
© 2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- An intercultural analysis of the use of hedging by Chinese and Anglophone academic English writers
- Investigating the lexico-grammatical resources of a non-native user of English: The case of can and could in email requests
- Accent stigmatization as a moderator of the relationship between perceived L2 proficiency and L2 use anxiety
- Stopping the “pendulum effect” in CLIL research: Finding the balance between Pollyanna and Scrooge
- Adult learners’ acquisitional patterns in L2 pragmatics: What do we know?
- The multilingual turn as a critical movement in education: assumptions, challenges and a need for reflection
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- An intercultural analysis of the use of hedging by Chinese and Anglophone academic English writers
- Investigating the lexico-grammatical resources of a non-native user of English: The case of can and could in email requests
- Accent stigmatization as a moderator of the relationship between perceived L2 proficiency and L2 use anxiety
- Stopping the “pendulum effect” in CLIL research: Finding the balance between Pollyanna and Scrooge
- Adult learners’ acquisitional patterns in L2 pragmatics: What do we know?
- The multilingual turn as a critical movement in education: assumptions, challenges and a need for reflection
