and contexts differed from many bilingual programmes across Europe.Luxembourg, for example, has no special designation for its trilingualeducation system as in the home context it is embedded in the regularcurriculum (Baetens Beardsmore, 2007). A second reason was to do with thediverse origins and varied purposes of different bilingual programmesthroughout Europe
some seeped in tradition and heritage, others focussingon responses to complex problems, or to promote future thinking in terms of curriculum design and globalisation. One size does not fit all. A third reasonwas that as newer initiatives became more widely disseminated in the 1990s, agroup of pioneers began to advocate alternative terminology to account foremerging models and pedagogies.
Content and Language Integrated Learning: EuropeanModels
CLIL is an umbrella term adopted by the European Network of Adminis-trators, Researchers and Practitioners (EUROCLIC) in the mid 1990s. Itencompasses any activity in which ‘a foreign language is used as a tool inthe learning of a non-language subject in which both language and the subjecthave a joint role’ (Marsh, 2002: 58).The adoption of a ‘label’ was indeed an essential step not only to encouragefurther thinking and development, but also to position CLIL alongside bilingual education, content-based instruction, immersion and so on. WhilstCLIL shares some elements with many of these approaches, in essence itsdistinctiveness lies in an integrated approach, where both language andcontent are conceptualised on a continuum without an implied preference foreither. CLIL has its roots in European contexts where sociolinguistic andpolitical settings are rich and diverse. CLIL relates to any language, age andstage
not only in the compulsory education sector but inclusive of kindergarten, vocational and professional learning. It encapsulates lifelonglearning. In this sense, contextual and situational variables determine theposition of CLIL models along the continuum.Usage of this term allows us to consider the myriad variations
. . .
without imposing restrictions which might fail to take account of schoolor region-specific implementation characteristics
. . .
It does not giveemphasis to either language teaching or learning, or to content teachingand learning, but sees both as integral parts of the whole. (Marsh, 2002:59)The 2006 Eurydice Survey,
Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) atSchool in Europe
, provides data on CLIL provision in 30 European countries,and concludes that different terminology is used to describe models indifferent contexts depending on the emphasis given to either the subject-basedcomponent or the language of CLIL. Grin (2005) suggests there are 216 types of CLIL programmes based on variables such as compulsory status, intensity,starting age, starting linguistic level and duration. Clegg (2003: 89) differ-entiates between language-led CLIL, which ‘imports parts of subjects [and]highlights language development’, and subject-led projects, which ‘may
Towards a Connected Research Agenda for CLIL Pedagogies