CLIL as a Pedagogical Approach

Abstract

The term content‐and‐language integrated learning (CLIL) was coined in Europe in the 1990s to label a pedagogical approach where mainstream, school‐level learners study curricular subjects, such as history, sports, or chemistry, through a second language while continuing to attend traditional foreign language classes in that same language. Although foreign language teaching and learning had long had a firm place in European school curricula, it was hoped that CLIL would significantly enhance its effectiveness in terms of motivating a broader range of learners to become effective and confident communicators. Despite significant variation in its implementation, the defining characteristics of CLIL, the dual teaching/learning goals from content and language, remain constant across contexts. Since the “content” originates in a broad range of curricular subjects, all with their own pedagogical traditions, it is impossible to stipulate one unified CLIL pedagogy. A number of firm principles for CLIL pedagogy, however, have been formulated: content and language integration in planning and classroom practice, bi/multilingualism and translanguaging, scaffolding, and keyness of subject literacy. Questions regarding the language learning outcomes of CLIL programs have been answered positively by a first generation of studies, but recent results have been more mixed. Important mediating factors seem to be type of program, learner age, and general proficiency levels in the CLIL language. Interestingly, contexts where outcomes of traditional foreign language classes are widely considered unsatisfactory show clearer positive effects of CLIL. In a similar vein, the jury is still out on content learning outcomes.