Teaching CLIL?

Yes, but with a pinch of SALT

Erwin Maria Gierlinger

University of Education Upper Austria

CLIL (content and language integrated learning) is an educational approach

where a classroom subject is taught through a second language. However, its
core features are ambiguously interpreted. Research on CLIL teaching has
consistently shown that teachers focus their methodological efforts on the teach-
ing of subject matter concepts and take any language related aspects mostly as
by-products of such an approach. This has led to only sparsely planned meth-
odological efforts when it comes to the teaching of language. Contrary to this,
it is argued in this hermeneutical study that thinking and language acquisition
are inextricably intertwined and CLIL teachers are therefore by definition also
language teachers. Following this, the author reports on a pedagogical CLIL
model, named SALT, that was devised for and successfully implemented in CLIL
training courses to support subject teachers on their way to becoming language-
aware CLIL teachers. Pedagogical procedures of the model's principles and
concepts are also presented.
German abstract at end.

Keywords: CLIL, language awareness, academic language, literacies, multi-

modality, languaging, language learning strategies, code-switching

1. Introduction

Within the last 20 years, Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) as a
balanced approach for the teaching of curriculum subjects through the medium
of a second or additional language has become an accepted feature in mainstream
education systems in Europe and is becoming increasingly popular in other places,
notably Latin America and Southeast Asia. Notwithstanding its high attraction
(Mehisto, Marsh, & Frigols, 2008), criticism has been raised for its lack of con-
ceptual clarity (Cenoz, 2015). Further criticism has been levelled at CLILs lack of

Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education 5:2 (2017), 187213. doi 10.1075/jicb.5.2.02gie
issn 22128433 / e-issn 22128441 John Benjamins Publishing Company
188 Erwin Maria Gierlinger

a cohesive pedagogy and didactical concepts which drive content and language
advancement (Brning, Isabel & Purrmann, 2014; Donato, 2016).
Taking the pedagogical criticism into account, this paper introduces SALT
(Strategic languaging; All languages available in the classroom; multimodal
Literacies; Topic-relevant language), a language-aware pedagogical model for the
teaching of CLIL. This model has been developed over several years in coopera-
tion with teachers and trainee teachers and additionally through a careful analysis
of the major literature on CLIL to support and inspire teachers in the complex
world of teaching content lessons in a foreign language (Dalton-Puffer, Llinares,
Lorenzo, & Nikula, 2014). It is guided on the one hand by an understanding of the
pervasive role of language and multimodal literacies in learning disciplinary con-
tent (Love, 2010) and on the other hand, by the role of explicit language awareness
in this process. The latter according to the Association for Language Awareness1
will be defined as explicit knowledge about language, and conscious perception
and sensitivity in language learning, language teaching and language use (para 1).
When investigating CLIL methodology one is faced with the dilemma of
CLILs lack of methodological cohesion and also its unbridled grass roots diver-
sity of local CLIL interpretations (Dalton-Puffer, 2011; Prez-Caado, 2012). Even
though teachers personal beliefs at carrying out CLIL in their classrooms need to
be taken seriously it was decided to critically juxtapose and evaluate these reflec-
tions with course book writers beliefs and research results on CLIL methodology.
In order to reach a sound data basis for the latter I drew on my own bibliography of
CLIL teaching and research2 and supplemented it by researching the major CLIL-
related journals. The search process was limited to publications in English from
2010 up to 2016. In this way, a total of 28 sources of CLIL theoreticians and re-
searchers, and 31 sources of CLIL trainers and course book writers contributions
to CLIL teaching principles and beliefs were identified.
These data were analysed through a comparative coding process by using
MAXQDA.3 The initial categorising of the data through MAXQDA was guided by
the question, what pedagogic roles do writers assign to the teaching and learn-
ing of languages in CLIL? The data (articles, scanned materials, written notes)
were scanned into the program and by manually coding everything related to the

1. Association for Language Awareness. Definition of language awareness. Retrieved from

http://www.languageawareness.org

2. Complete bibliography can be found at my blog: Clilingmesoftly: https://clilingmesoftly.

wordpress.com.

3. MAXQDA is a professional software for qualitative and mixed methods data analysis. For
more information see www.maxqda.com.
 Teaching CLIL? 189

issue of language teaching in CLIL, an extensive data set was constructed. In a sec-
ond data session the coding was refined and key words were fed into the program
for some further data processing. In a further process of qualitative analysis and
through several comparative data sessions and theoretical samplings, following
methods for grounded research (Corbin, & Strauss, 2008), four core categories
were identified. It was expected that through this analytic process of examining and
interpreting the data that the plausibility, credibility, and relevance (Hammersley,
2008) of a pedagogical CLIL model would be increased. However, I am fully aware
that this interpretive process reflects the standpoint of the inquirer or as Denzin
and Lincoln (2011) put it, we live in an age of relativism. In the social sciences
today, there is no longer a Gods eye view that guarantees absolute methodological
certainty (p.564). The categories considered to be of particular importance for a
language-aware CLIL teaching model were language integration, pedagogical lan-
guage knowledge, subject genres and registers, and language pluralism. This led to
four questions guiding the design of this teaching model for CLIL. Firstly, what is
the models standpoint towards the integration of content and language? Secondly,
what is the models position towards pedagogical language knowledge? Thirdly,
what is the role of language as a tool for critical communication and advanced
academic thinking skills in CLIL? Fourthly, what is the role of other languages
present in the classroom?
Of course, other issues were raised, most notably, structural and target lan-
guage proficiency aspects, and subject specific issues such as subject pedagogies
and teachers subject knowledge. However, for the purposes of a more generalis-
able and pragmatic CLIL teaching model, these were considered second order for
the following reasons. The effects and the interplay of contextually diverse factors,
such as (a) the amount of actual CLIL contact hours, (b) the number and nature of
CLIL support lessons, (c) CLIL entry age, (d) learners and teachers language pro-
ficiency, (e) the role of CLIL within school policies, (f) the amount of CLIL materi-
als and INSET (in-service training) available, and (g) numerous other often highly
localised CLIL factors, can only be factored into any outside model through teach-
ers knowledge of and experiences with these particular local circumstances. For
example, a case in point may be that the intensive discussion on soft/weak versus
hard/strong CLIL led by CLIL theoreticians, which emphasises whether language
objectives are the main driving force in the CLIL classroom (soft/weak version)
or rather content objectives with a certain language focus (hard/strong version)
(Lyster & Ballinger, 2011; Met, 1998; Paran, 2013) is not actually regulated by lo-
cal constraints or national constraints beyond the teachers immediate influence.
The central challenges, which were also voiced in numerous CLIL interviews
and INSET seminars (Gierlinger, 2007), remained firstly, how to harmonise the
gap between students foreign language proficiency and the subjects literacy
190 Erwin Maria Gierlinger

demands, and secondly, how to utilize the inherent learning potential of every
language present in the CLIL classroom. Nevertheless, the model was not con-
ceived to answer the grand theory of everything pedagogical in CLIL. For reasons
indicated in more detail below this would have gone far beyond the scope of this
article and in my experience, also led to counterproductive resistance behaviour
by many CLIL teachers. I will now elaborate on the four core language aspects and
discuss their potential as guiding concepts for the SALT model.

2. Four core language aspects

2.1 Content and language integration

The intricate relationship between content and language is arguably the most im-
portant, and for many teachers the most controversial aspect of any CLIL teach-
ing. The integration discussion centres around the continuum of a more explicit
versus more implicit language teaching focus which is typically mirrored in CLIL
continuum models with soft/weak/language oriented versus hard/strong/content
oriented endpoints (Ball, Kelly, & Clegg, 2015; Cenoz, 2015). However, notwith-
standing the entry point on this continuum, a principled distinction between con-
tent as a different cognitive form of knowledge and language as a linguistic one is
the guiding concept for all didactic considerations in any of these models.
Contrary to this clear-cut distinction between language and content, a grow-
ing number of CLIL specialists (Dalton-Puffer, Nikula, & Smit, 2010; Llinares,
2015; Nikula, Dalton-Puffer, & Lorenzo, 2016; Morton & Jakonen, 2016), and lin-
guists (Cook, 2011; Tyler, 2012), see content and language either as inseparable
or the two sides of a coin as Halliday and Matthiessen rather vividly maintain by
staing, the relationship between the two is analogous to that between the weather
and the climate (2014,p.28). Some cognitive scientists such as Boroditsky (2012)
claim that, what we normally call thinking is in fact a complex set of collabora-
tions between linguistic and nonlinguistic representations and processes (p.630)
and the language we speak actually shapes the way we think.
This mediating process of language on cognition and affect was introduced for
bilingual education by Morton and Jakonen (2016) and Swain and Lapkin (2013)
through the concept of languaging. According to Swain and Lapkin,
When one languages, one uses language, among other purposes, to focus at-
tention, solve problems, and create affect. language is not merely a means of
communicating what is in one persons head to another person. Rather, language
serves to construct the very idea that one is hoping to convey. It is a means by
which one comes to know what one does not know. (p.105)
 Teaching CLIL? 191

This assertion will be taken as one of the central concepts for this paper as it paves
the way for a methodological reconceptualization of the current artificial separa-
tion between content and language which will result in a much more unified status
of learning. This issue will now be addressed more thoroughly within the category
of pedagogical content knowledge.

2.2 CLIL pedagogical language knowledge

Classroom content knowledge is driven by culturally sensitive and ideologically

motivated curricula and methodologies and is thus already a complex teaching
challenge. However, it becomes even more complex through the mediation of
knowledge through another language. The enormous challenge for any general
CLIL methodological model is in addressing the demands and needs that go be-
yond established local expertise and how these general affordances can be har-
monized with this context to support and encourage the local CLIL teaching and
learning. The survey, as described above, indicated three broad themes concerning
CLIL pedagogical language knowledge.
Firstly, researchers have consistently reported that teachers expressed their re-
grets about a lack of methodological training for CLIL in general, which has been
considered a significant challenge for any local implementations (Bovellan, 2014;
McDougald, 2015). Secondly, researchers have maintained that most immersion
(considered by some an extreme form of CLIL) teachers lack pedagogical content
knowledge when it comes to target language awareness (Cammarata & Tedick,
2012). This sentiment has been reiterated by other researchers who noticed a sig-
nificant lack of methodological concepts (Bonnet, 2012), who could only see scant
evidence of any balanced pedagogical integration of content and language in CLIL
(Cenoz, Genesee, & Gorter, 2014), or who deplored teachers lack of an under-
standing about how language works to create meaning (Tan, 2011). Rather con-
sistently authors also have noticed a lack of any specific or pre-specified foreign-
language targets (Dalton-Puffer, 2011). Thirdly, most authors have pointed out
that CLIL teachers do not want to see themselves as language teachers in the first
place and consider the foreign language competence achieved by learning con-
tent rather as an incidental by-product (Bovellan, 2014; Httner, Dalton-Puffer,
& Smit, 2013; Tan, 2011; Wegner, 2012). Therefore, teachers identity transforma-
tions (Cammarata & Tedick, 2012) from reshaping themselves as primarily subject
teachers to becoming subject and (foreign) language teachers was considered a
key aspect in SALTs methodological framework. It will be argued that this trans-
formation process is vital to the learning and teaching of concepts in CLIL, as
these are inextricably intertwined with the learning of forms and their networks
as lexicalised content. Consequently, any successful mediation of content needs
192 Erwin Maria Gierlinger

to be considered both on a what and a how plane. The what plane defines the
languaged aspects of the content, for example lexical meanings, genres and reg-
isters, collocations, colligations, cultural and metaphorical uses of concepts, etc.
This apparent focus on lexical meanings is not to disregard any other features of
subject literacy, such as pragmatic or syntactic ones, it arguably reflects the under-
standing that language instruction in CLIL needs to be conceptualized through
an approach that sees word meanings as the basic units of global thoughts and
the foundation of instructional interactions, concept formation, and cognitive de-
velopment (Donato, 2016,p.24) which is, of course, extended through a subject-
specific register and genre understanding and learning (see below, Language as a
tool for academic communication and thinking).
The how level assumes that through instructed language learning implic-
itly and explicitly subject knowledge in CLIL can be incorporated more deeply
and efficiently. While strong empirical evidence in CLIL research is still scarce
(Gierlinger, 2015; Lyster, Quiroga, & Ballinger, 2013; Llinares & Nikula, 2016) and
more pronounced on a conceptual level (Cammarata, Tedick & Osborn, 2016;
Dalton-Puffer, 2016; Lightbown, 2014; Llinares, 2015; Lorenzo & Dalton-Puffer,
2016), recent research on instructed second language acquisition (Ellis & Shintani,
2013; Loewen, 2015; Long, 2011; Ortega, 2014) advocates an important role to
the explicit learning and teaching of the target language in the communicative
classroom. Leow (2015) sums it up by maintaining that, there is really no argu-
ment or debate concerning the beneficial role of awareness in L2 development
or the fact that explicit learning does promote L2 development, while the jury is
still out regarding implicit learning (p.198). This appears all the more interest-
ing for the conceptual development of a CLIL teaching model as CLIL and other
representatives of content-based instruction (CBI) have at various times been
named forms of communicative language teaching par excellence (Krashen, 1984;
Morton & Jakonen, 2016; Spada, 2007). SALT as a model for the advancement
of CLIL methodology, therefore, stipulates that successful CLIL learning needs a
carefully planned methodological interplay between implicit AND explicit lan-
guage-related factors.
This is in no way meant to represent a simplistic causal model in which the
identification of the language problem and its subsequent pre-teaching will lead to
successful conceptual and linguistic learning. Quite the contrary, Barwell (2016),
expounding a Bakhtinian perspective of meaning-making through dialogic het-
eroglossia for CLIL and Donato (2016), problematizing the frontloading of vo-
cabulary, have made it clear that this process of linguistic expropriation entails
careful, joint negotiaton to gradually merge scientific concepts with everyday con-
cepts. Moreover, this familiarization with subject literacy needs to be respected as
an ability evolving over time (Lorenzo & Dalton-Puffer, 2016). Following Llinares
 Teaching CLIL? 193

and Nikulas (2016) distinction of language and content integration on a curricu-

lum, institutional, or classroom level, SALT will concentrate on the classroom.

2.3 Language as a tool for academic communication and thinking

The analysis also revealed that most authors consider language teaching in CLIL
as complex and problematic because subject teachers do not see themselves as
language teachers. Moreover, in order to learn and communicate academic con-
tent, the learner needs to master a topic and task appropriate register. In the class-
room this will be an amalgam of rather more general and more specific registers,
couched in the respective cognitive discourse functions, such as classifying, defin-
ing, describing, evaluating, etc. (Dalton-Puffer, 2016). Broadly speaking, learners
and teachers alike have to deal with three different lexical registers. Core, academ-
ic, and technical vocabulary are meshed together in the learning of new content
in CLIL classrooms with each representing a potential challenge for teachers and
learners alike. Although this clear distinction appears pedagogically convenient,
the boundaries between these lexical registers are fuzzy and often depend on the
context (Paquot, 2010). Nevertheless, there is broad agreement that proficiency in
this complex fusion of vocabularies and registers is the most important factor for
students' academic success (Anstrom etal., 2010).
As briefly mentioned above, the concept of academic language learning has
also encouraged conceptual research towards academic thinking in the classroom
in general (Littleton & Mercer, 2013). As a matter of fact, CLIL conceptual re-
search has recently addressed this issue through Dalton-Puffers (2016) work on
cognitive discourse functions which she considers to be the observable linguistic
analogues of learning in the content classroom. Since these, according to her, can
be picked up implicitly from the teacher or taught explicitly by the teacher, it ap-
pears vital for a pedagogical CLIL model such as SALT to exploit and encourage
the close relationship between academic language use and academic or higher-
order thinking.

2.4 The power of all languages in the CLIL classroom

Using all languages present in the classroom, rather than only the target language,
as tools to further the learning and understanding of content emerged as a fur-
ther prominent issue from the CLIL analysis. Historically, however, both in CLIL
and foreign language learning in particular, this issue has been argued with con-
troversy (Corcoll Lpez & Gonzlez-Davies, 2015; Author, 2015; Levine, 2011).
Only in recent years has the mainstream second language acquisition (SLA) com-
munity opened up towards a more multilingual turn (Cenoz & Gorter, 2015)
194 Erwin Maria Gierlinger

which is critically questioning the isolation of languages within educational con-

texts. Pedagogically motivated code-switching (Li, 2013) and translanguaging as
a discursive practice that includes all the language practices of all students in the
classroom (Garcia & Li, 2013) are increasingly investigated for their potential in
the language learning process. Macaro (2013), for example, leaves no doubt about
the importance of this issue when contending that, the question of whether the
first language (L1) should be used in the oral interaction or the written materials
of second or foreign language (L2) classrooms is probably the most fundamental
question facing second language acquisition (SLA) researchers, language teach-
ers and policymakers in this second decade of the 21st century (p.10). By the
same token, Gottlieb and Ernst-Slavit (2014) unambiguously demand that all
educators must be aware of the importance of teaching academic discourses to all
students (p.24). The challenge for a CLIL teaching model such as SALT will be
answering how teachers can best exploit and support the multilingual context in
their classrooms.
This brief survey has staked out the broader parameters for a language-aware
model of CLIL teaching. In the following sections I will now describe how these
were integrated into SALT.

3. SALT a pedagogical and language-aware model for the teaching of

CLIL

Taking the core areas as described above as an important guiding force, then pro-
posing a CLIL teaching model is a daunting task which needs to primarily clarify
its stance towards the roles of the languages involved in the CLIL classroom. If, as
was pointed out above, it is acknowledged that languages play a constitutive part
within general cognitive processes (Tyler, 2012) rather than just assuming a vehic-
ular role in content learning, then a complex mixture of broad general educational
factors, subject-specific didactics, language learning didactics, subject knowledge,
language knowledge, and contextual diversity has to be taken into account in or-
der to allow for a maximally efficient learning process in CLIL.
Notwithstanding all of this, it appears necessary to state three more prem-
ises that strongly influenced the design of SALT to become accepted as a suitable
tool for the daily grind of teaching and not to be immediately dismissed as an
ivory tower oddity. Firstly, CLIL teachers are typically well trained subject spe-
cialists with a thorough subject-specific methodological and didactic background.
Secondly, CLIL teachers are typically not language specialists with training in lan-
guage didactics and methodology. Thirdly, the learning of subject knowledge is
key in CLIL classes strongly affected by national or regional curricula.
 Teaching CLIL? 195

SALT acknowledges and respects these forces and their influence on any CLIL
practices but treats them as a priori conditions that need to be considered by every
CLIL teacher for their particular situation to be factored into practical procedures.
Resulting from this, SALT sees its central driving force in CLIL teachers need to
become language-aware mediators of their content area. According to Cammarata
and Tedick (2012), teachers pass through a stage of awakening where they begin to
develop an increased awareness of the interdependence of content and language.
This leads them into a stage of trial and error, in their words a stab in the dark
(p.261), with respect to what language to focus on and how to mediate it in order
to scaffold content learning. Metaphorically, SALT will help teachers to make in-
formed stabs and eventually help them turn the lights on.
Furthermore, SALT emphasises the pedagogical consequences of languaging
for learning in CLIL because CLIL teachers often regard the language learning
side of CLIL as an immersive, implicit, and natural phenomenon which does not
really necessitate any explicit instructional interventions (Httner, Dalton-Puffer,
& Smit, 2013). Contrary to this, more and more CLIL researchers emphasise the
role of language awareness as a key aspect for the teaching of subject knowledge
(Baecher, Farnsworth, & Ediger, 2014) but leave it open to how language can be
systematically and meaningfully integrated into CLIL teaching.
Therefore, and especially for beginning CLIL teachers, I devised this language-
aware and pedagogical CLIL model. Since its first inception in 2011 in teacher ed-
ucation courses, it has by way of reflective cycles gone through various adaptations
and changes. In this respect, it followed Vygotskys (2004) concept of a dialectical
and reciprocal unity of theory and practice in which, practice sets the tasks and
serves as the supreme judge of theory, as its truth criterion (p.304) and has gone
through intensive reflective feedback processes, which hopefully has helped its
street credibility.

3.1 SALT and its four dimensions

SALT was designed as a pie chart with four different dimensions representing
four key areas of instructed CLIL languaging (Figure1). The single letters S-A-
L-T were attached to colours to provide a visual hook for each dimension which
can be attended to selectively in any order of preference or used as point of refer-
ence for further methodological interventions. Since the four dimensions address
the broad language issues in the CLIL classroom, it is recommended that all of
them are taken into consideration by the teacher. However, in the specific class-
room context with its different subjects, curricula, clients, and pedagogical culture
(Llinares & Nikula, 2016), each dimensions potential needs to be put into peda-
gogical procedures by the teacher as the local expert. Furthermore, SALT was not
196 Erwin Maria Gierlinger

conceived as a set of techniques and activities that CLIL teachers should simply
add to their already crowded toolbox, but primarily as a reflection tool to inspire
local CLIL implementations. I will now briefly lay out the overall design of SALT
and then describe every dimension in more detail.
SALTs first dimension S focuses on the teaching and learning of content
through strategic languaging in the CLIL classroom. This is based on SLA and
educational research findings that agency and self-regulation, expressed through
strategic behaviour are two powerful forces in the language learning and language
use of content (Cohen, 2011; Littleton & Mercer, 2013).
The second dimension A investigates the use of all languages available in the
classroom for the benefits of CLIL. This is based on second language acquisition
SLA research into multilingual language practices and translanguaging (Garcia
& Li, 2013).
The third dimension L considers the different literacies of knowledge rep-
resentation and meaning-making in CLIL. The major concepts considered are
multimodal literacy, visual literacy, and digital literacies. According to Hockly,
Dudeney, and Pegrum (2013), language and literacy are tightly bound to each
other because all literacies are involved with the communication of meaning.
The fourth dimension T focuses on the topic-relevant language in CLIL
which encompasses the target language and its crucial role in the learning of sub-
ject knowledge (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2014). Its main emphasis is on a sys-
tematic encouragement by the CLIL teachers to develop their students academic
target language awareness.
Figure1 shows a visual representation of this CLIL teaching model with the
key concepts attached to each dimension.

S A
Strategic All language
languaging practices

L T
Multi-modal Topic
Literacies relevant
language

Figure1. SALT Model

 Teaching CLIL? 197

Each dimension follows the same structure which starts with the dimensions de-
scription of its underlying foundations and its relationship to teaching in CLIL.
Secondly, key concepts and principles are listed to either allow the individual
teacher or the CLIL training group to delve more deeply into the theoretical back-
ground of this dimension and use them to reflect on their methodological value
for local CLIL implementation. Finally, some languaging procedures are presented
to show possible ways of putting the dimension into CLIL practice. When used
for teacher training, ample space was given to discuss these key concepts and key
principles to allow teachers to reflect on their core CLIL values. However, within
the scope of this article only some representative examples will be presented.

3.2 S learning content through strategic languaging

The first dimension learning content through strategic languaging focuses on the
teaching and practising of strategies for successful CLIL languaging. Languaging,
as pointed out above, is understood as meaning making in which thinking and
speaking are dynamically related. Therefore, strategic languaging is very similar to
language learning strategies which are described by Cohen as consciously chosen
thoughts and actions operationalised by language learners to assist them in carry-
ing out a multiplicity of tasks (2011,p.6). According to this view, strategies can be
classified in various ways, such as, strategies for language learning versus language
use, strategies by language skill area, and strategies according to function.
However, the term learning strategies is a slippery concept which also faces a
considerable amount of criticism. Firstly, learning, strategies like languaging strat-
egies, do not operate in a vacuum but are closely intertwined with learners general
learning beliefs, experiences, and preferences. In this respect, any form of moti-
vated learning may be seen as strategic behaviour. This makes strategy research
suffer from a lack of clarity regarding fundamental definitional matters (Drnyei
& Ryan, 2015,p.143). Secondly, there is also evidence that learners may not be
motivated to use them (Cohen, 2012), and, thirdly, a clear evidence-based answer
to how teachers can help their students become strategic language learners has not
been found yet (Cohen & Griffiths, 2015). These issues prompt Drnyei and Ryan
(2015) to question any value of strategy training for the foreign language class-
room. Contrary to this, Grenfell and Macaro (2007) emphasise that strategies are
important because they are associated with successful learning and can be taught
to learners who then may develop more effective strategic behaviour.
Despite this definitional fuzziness (Drnyei & Ryan, 2015) concede that learn-
ing strategies are alive and kicking and continue to attract scholarly attention.
Furthermore, the term strategies has a clear presence and street credibility for
teachers and students alike, which may be grounded in practitioners demands to
198 Erwin Maria Gierlinger

keep the theory sufficiently imprecise to meet the requirements of actual practice
in varied environments (Drnyei & Ryan, 2015,p.167).
For the purposes of this model some further issues need to be raised. First
and foremost, subject teachers are very likely already familiar with an array of
general cognitive strategies that can be applied to textual decoding skills, collab-
orative learning, and task management skills. In other words, although these strat-
egies represent influential dimensions of L2 learning they may already be used by
teachers in their non-CLIL subject. Furthermore, they may already be part of the
learners toolbox as a result of previous experiences from the foreign language or
mother tongue classroom. Secondly, building a languaging strategy repertoire will
strongly be guided by individual learning experiences and beliefs. It is therefore
of great importance to invite learners to select their own strategies (Cohen, 2011).
Thirdly, using strategies can also be specific to task affordances that either encour-
age or constrain them. Hence the concept of task-appropriate strategies needs to
be worked into any CLIL strategies training. Fourthly, strategies are generally not
used in isolation, but rather in sequences or bundles. Fifthly, although this model
takes a strong view with respect to advocating explicit instructional measures to
support language learning in CLIL, teachers who usually work under heavy time
constraints and extra work load conditions will carefully consider whether an ex-
plicit teaching of languaging strategies is worth walking the extra mile (Gierlinger,
2007). Creating a suitable bank of strategies for subject-specific topics will espe-
cially be a major enterprise entailing close cooperation by local teacher teams and
plenty of opportunities for students.
Since every learning can be turned strategic, potentially resulting in a vast
array of strategies, the leading question for the SALT teacher will be, how can I
enable and encourage my students to exploit and extend their strategic languaging
repertoire for the relevant learning task so that they become more efficient and
autonomous CLIL learners?. This may be utilized through teaching as assisted use
(Lier, 2004; Llinares, 2015) or through more explicit interventions (Philippakos,
MacArthur, & Coker, 2015; Rose & Martin, 2012). Whichever methodological
technique will be chosen, this selection demands a heightened awareness by the
CLIL teacher for the latent strategic potential of the task (Williams, Mercer, &
Ryan, 2015). In the following I highlight some examples of key concepts and prin-
ciples for strategic languaging strategies.

3.2.1 Key concepts and principles for languaging strategies

Language is the most important tool for constructing knowledge, creating
ideas, sharing understanding, and solving problems collectively (Littleton
& Mercer, 2013). Therefore, CLIL teachers need to consider cooperative
 Teaching CLIL? 199

negotiation, thinking strategies (Moate, 2010), and also critical thinking skills
(Cammarata etal., 2016).
Since reading is the crucial mode of learning in formal education, working
with linguistically challenging academic texts is one of CLIL learners most
pressing needs. Therefore, CLIL teachers need to provide and encourage strat-
egies to improve students academic reading (Rose & Martin, 2012).
Academic writing as expressed through its typical genres needs to be ap-
proached strategically (Rose, etal., 2012).
As learners consistently identify a dearth of vocabulary as the primary factor
holding them back from attaining larger linguistic goals, vocabulary learning
strategy instruction should be integrated as a crucial pedagogical component
(Nyikos & May, 2007).
The learning and retrieval of words, syntactic rules, and cognitive concepts
are enhanced by noticing and deep processing strategies. SALT teachers need
to provide and encourage strategies that allow for deeper cognitive processing
through higher-order thinking skills.
Not only learning the new language but also keeping a conversation going to
negotiate the communication of knowledge and automatising ones commu-
nication skills are essential in CLIL. Therefore, SALT teachers need to provide
and encourage language in use strategies (Cohen, 2011) such as paraphrasing,
borrowing, and avoidance.
The following set of languaging procedures will support content teachers in creat-
ing a climate of strategic languaging for their students. Before presenting a task or
text they may consider the categories below and reflect on the questions.

3.2.2 Languaging procedures for learning content through languaging

strategies
Becoming a successful text decoder is one of the primary challenges in a CLIL
classroom. Therefore, creating space for the strategic use of language-learning
tools appears to be of vital importance; for example, how to efficiently use (elec-
tronic) dictionaries, thesauri, web-based translation tools, web-based reference
materials, such as general and academic wordlists, or language visualization tools,
such as graphic organisers, infographics (see also dimension L), etc. These ques-
tions need to be addressed by the SALT teacher.
Learners also need be encouraged to use strategies that are beneficial for the
language learning skills needed to complete their CLIL tasks. The following repre-
sents only a cursory picture of skills-related strategies:
Reading skills: Word inferencing strategies, text organizing strategies, sum-
marizing strategies.
200 Erwin Maria Gierlinger

Listening skills: Note-taking strategies, cooperative listening strategies.4

Writing skills: How best to write a subject/task specific text type (for example
a lab report, a historical recount, instructions or procedures, a comparative
essay, etc.).
Speaking skills: Presentation strategies, interviewing strategies, argumentative
strategies.
The field of language related strategies is broad and covers the efficient use of word
learning, communication, and thinking strategies. Word learning strategies may
include how to use affixes as scaffolding devices; mnemonic tools; cognate aware-
ness raising for academic and subject specific language (see also dimension T),
word retrieval strategies, etc. Communication strategies for successful languaging
will, for example, include cooperative strategies to foster exploratory talking and
thinking collectively in groups (Littleton & Mercer, 2013; Mercer, 2008). Coping
strategies to keep the learning talk going despite word retrieval or word knowl-
edge problems (Cohen, 2011), such as simplification, approximation, and code-
switching strategies (see also dimension A) is another field where SALT teachers
need to undertake the role of languaging strategies providers and scaffolders. In
the following section a closer look will be taken at exploiting the potential of all
languages in the classroom for learning content in CLIL.

3.3 A learning content through using all language practices

The second dimension is learning content through all language practices and its
main theme is to utilise all the languages available in the CLIL classroom for the
benefits of learning subject content. Although there may be considerable variation
in the actual amount of other languages in CLIL, most CLIL pedagogues agree on
the non-target languages legitimate space (Ball etal., 2015; Coyle, Hood, Marsh,
2010; Mehisto etal., 2008). Nevertheless, there seems to be far less agreement on
the actual methodological mediation and ownership of the respective language(s)
of this space by CLIL practitioners, with the typical CLIL paradigm being about
the maximum use of the target language and the use of the L1 or any other lan-
guages as being seen as a deficit tool in the classroom (Gierlinger, 2015).
SALT departs radically from any deficit attitude towards the L1 and any other
classroom languages by regarding the use of all classroom languages to be an es-
sential learning capital in a multilingual society (Cenoz & Gorter, 2015; Garca &
Li, 2013; Kramsch & Huffmaster, 2015). Nikula & Moore (2016) go even further

4. These are strategies that encourage reconstructing a text through listening as a team, for
example, in a dictogloss activity.
 Teaching CLIL? 201

towards a paradigm shift by considering translanguaging to be an essential bilin-

gual strategy and discursive practice. However, they hasten to add that none of
their classroom data show any pre-planned examples of this translanguaging.
To encourage multilingual languaging as a pedagogic and discursive practice,
the following key concepts and principles have been proposed as guiding lines
for the A dimension. The leading question for the teacher needs to be, how can
I put them into practice so that my CLIL classroom encourages and supports the
multilingual potential of my learners most efficiently?

3.3.1 Key concepts and principles for encouraging all language practices
All teachers in the 21st century need to be prepared to be bilingual teachers;
that is, they need to see themselves as building and developing students ad-
ditional languages while educating them (Garca & Li, 2013).
A systematic attention to cognate relationships brings measurable effects on
learners vocabulary (Otwinowska, 2015).
A common underlying proficiency makes possible the transfer of cognitive/
academic or literacy-related skills across languages (Cummins, 2014).
Optimal use of code-switching can enhance second language acquisition bet-
ter than second language exclusivity (Macaro, 2009).
When the going gets tough in the L2, the L1 is an important cognitive tool
which helps learners organize their thoughts, focus their attention, and scaf-
fold their understanding and production of the L2 (Swain & Lapkin, 2013).
The use of the L1 is a very effective way of communicating word meaning, and
explanation of interlingual differences between new L2 words and expressions
and corresponding L1 vocabulary may be more effective than other form-fo-
cused activities (Laufer & Nation, 2012).
These principles and concepts can be realised in numerous learning and awareness
activities, methodological guidelines, and scaffolding measures, some of which are
presented below.

3.3.2 Languaging procedures for learning content through using all language
practices
Bilingual texts: Bilingual texts are laid out side-by-side on the same page and
the CLIL teacher working in the target language encourages students to use
them as resource materials for interlingual comparisons and cognate activities.
Cognate awareness raising tasks: Students are asked to exploit the rich field of
cognates in academic and technical language by highlighting them in bilingual
texts. They could go on and reflect on their conceptual overlap or distance.
202 Erwin Maria Gierlinger

Compare and contrast activities: Similar to the above, students engage in

awareness activities that compare and contrast interlingual differences for
concepts, metaphors, cultural references, etc.
Sandwich techniques: The technique of using an L1>L2/3>L1 or L2/3>L1>L2/3
order of presenting texts, giving instructions, or supporting content or lexical
comprehension can be used for a huge number of CLIL learning situations.
Translation: Translation activities as a way of operating between academic
genres and their registers in different languages will lead to a deeper concep-
tual understanding (Kerr, 2014; Kramsch & Huffmaster, 2015).
The following section will highlight the potential of exploiting multimodal litera-
cies for the learning of content in CLIL.

3.4 L learning content through multimodal and digital literacies

The third dimension learning content through multimodal and digital literacies,
considers the different ways of knowledge representations and forms of meaning-
making. From a learning point of view this means investigating and exploring
other literacies than print literacy. The overall objective will be to maximise the
learning of new content through a foreign language exploiting various media and
having visual literacy, embodied literacy, digital literacy, and linguistic literacy
work in cooperation. As this interplay of media and literacies affects the whole
spectrum of learning in a scholarly environment, a certain knowledge of its poten-
tial through teachers subject trainings and experiences can again be presupposed.
Nevertheless, it raises the vital question as to how the meaning-making potential
of linguistic resources can cooperate most effectively with other modes of com-
munication. To achieve this, SALT teachers need to exploit the affordances of all
modes and media of meaning-making, hence multimodal and multimedia lan-
guaging. The SALT teacher needs to ask herself the question, what potentials for
meaning-making are available in each mode and medium? How do they comple-
ment each other? And how can I exploit them in my classroom?.
However, as multimodality has become a defining feature of digital learning
and virtual learning environments where learning online provides a new discourse
and new ways of thinking, SALT teachers also need to take into consideration the
particular content processing aspects and the social interactions linked to these
environments. Given the complexity of this web of interacting modes and mo-
bile learning environments, any discussion of it within this dimension can only
concentrate on its key aspects in order to serve as a springboard for teachers lo-
cal SALT realisations. The following conceptual statements for multimodal and
multimedia languaging in CLIL highlight its learning potential and will serve as
guidelines for any methodological implementation.
 Teaching CLIL? 203

3.4.1 Key concepts and principles for multi-modal and digital literacies
Textual language is only ever a partial means for carrying meaning, and com-
munication is always multimodal. All modes present in a communicative con-
text make meanings differently, and through this meaning multiplication, the
information that we get from the modes can be worth more than when used
alone (Bateman, 2014).
Embodied cognition is based on the premises that meaning-making through
experiences and actions is a prerequisite for linguistic learning. Performance
before competence, not competence before performance (Gee, 2015).
According to this view of the mind, the manipulative mapping between word
and object plays a crucial role in language learning (Glenberg, Goldberg, &
Zhu, 2011) and will henceforth be called action or embodied learning.
There is also robust evidence that carefully chosen visuals will usefully support
the learning of figurative language and can be facilitative in L2 instruction
(Tyler, 2012).
The combined use of words, images, colours, layout, among other modes,
needs to be considered together with the medium of distribution (e.g. mobile
devices) and the platforms of materialisation (e.g. Facebook, Twitter) involved
in the communication (Domingo, 2016).
Digital literacies, in particular web 2.0, involve social practices and are there-
fore deeply grounded in language (Hockly etal., 2013). SALT teachers need to
make learners aware of the various forms of collaborative and communicative
meaning making.
Multimodal learning can be realised through a combination of textual, visual, and
action-focused sources of information, activities, and tasks. The activities below
were used by CLIL teachers and students during their SALT courses and are meant
to serve as options for participants to choose in their specific CLIL contexts. The
main idea is that the multimodal and digital literacy dimensions will complement
rather than replace existing linguistic knowledge bases and their mindful utiliza-
tion will benefit CLIL learners.

3.4.2 Languaging procedures for learning content through multimodal and

digital literacies
Using graphic organisers and infographics to structure writing projects, help
in problem-solving, planning research and revising information, etc., is be-
coming increasingly popular in CLIL teaching.
The web offers a multitude of websites for multimodal learning. For example,
www.e-learningforkids.org; http://schools-wikipedia.org; or metasites such
204 Erwin Maria Gierlinger

as: visual.ly/10-best-educational-websites-kids; or visual search engines for

kids, such as http://www.kiddle.co.
WebQuests offer inquiry-oriented, small-scale, and web-based projects for
subject teaching and have been very well received by CLIL teachers. Of par-
ticular interest are webQuests that provide embodied learning activities such
as role-plays and drama or other playful activities.
Action-based vocabulary or information gathering activities, such as running
dictations/reports/quizzes in which students have to gather information either
exhibited through posters or QR codes somewhere in the class room or school
building successfully exploit the power of embodied learning.
Mobile devices linked to web-based tools such as in https://getkahoot.com/
how-it-works allow for embodied and ubiquitous learning.
Miming and enactment games or activities where students present infor-
mation non-linguistically to be guessed by their fellow classmates have also
proved very popular for all CLIL subjects.
Scaffolding learners linguistic needs when writing hypertext, creating an info-
graphic or using other data visualisation measures, writing a blog, or contrib-
uting to a wiki will improve both their digital literacy and CLIL competence.
The next section will deal with the role of topic-relevant languaging in CLIL.

3.5 T learning content through topic relevant languaging

The fourth dimension, topic relevant languaging, focuses on linguistic aspects

of the target language that mediate the content for the respective topic, project
or field. In particular, it investigates the tool which is used in school to help stu-
dents acquire and use knowledge (Anstrom etal., 2010,p.V) and is referred to
in the literature as academic and technical language. The interplay between sub-
ject-specific registers and vocabulary, and more general scholarly vocabulary that
builds the rhetoric of academic texts appears vital in the learning and teaching of
new content in CLIL. Contrary to any implicit language learning approach, SALT
emphasises that an explicit teaching of this language of schooling will benefit the
learning and understanding of subject content. Studies have shown that learners
difficulties in academic writing include a limited lexical repertoire, lack of regis-
ter awareness, infelicitous word combinations, semantic misuse, sentence-initial
positioning of adverbs, and transfer effects (Paquot, 2010). In this sense, clearly,
every CLIL teacher also has an obligation to be an academic language teacher.
From a pedagogical point of view CLIL teachers are faced with three fun-
damental challenges when supporting learners to become subject-literate. Firstly,
they need to identify the subjects favoured text types with their typical registers
 Teaching CLIL? 205

to help learners cope with the lexico-grammatic language demands involved.

Secondly, they need to provide scaffolding techniques for the decoding and aware-
ness of register variations. Thirdly, they need to lead students into the overall genre
of subject-specific academic work. These three challenges are raised in the key
concepts and principles below and will therefore guide the methodological tech-
niques suggested in this dimension.

3.5.1 Key concepts and principles for topic-relevant languaging

Disciplinary knowledge is constituted in and through language that is realised
in particular ways to represent the discursive practices of a discipline (Donato,
2016).
Keyness: This denotes the specific quality and salience that words have in a
given text or set of texts, suggesting that they are important and that they
reect what the text is really about, avoiding trivia and insignicant detail
(Scott & Tribble, 2006).
Priming: An understanding of texts needs an understanding of the texts key-
words and their complex and typical semantic, pragmatic, cohesive, and gram-
matical associations. Hoey, Mahlberg, Stubbs, and Teubert, (2007) claim that
these features are subconsciously identified each time we encounter a word
and that these encounters prime us. We therefore tend to use a word with one
of its typical collocations, in its usual grammatical function, in the same con-
text or domain we have come to associate it with, with similar pragmatics, and
to similar textual ends.
Transfer of priming: This means that the L1 will have preferred lexico-gram-
matical features which very likely have an effect on the learning of TL words
by priming the lexico-grammatical preferences of the L1 item onto its target
language counterpart (Paquot, 2010). Through carefully orchestrated com-
pare and contrast activities SALT teachers can sensitise their learners towards
the differences of these lexico-grammatical patterns.
A large proportion of academic words (in English) are Graeco-Latin in ori-
gin and this may act as a lexical bar to educational success (Nation, 2008).
Morphological instruction will improve reading comprehension, devel-
op learners vocabulary, and make it easier to become a member of the
academic community.
The next section will discuss procedures relevant for topical languaging.

3.5.2 Procedures for learning content through topic relevant languaging

Computer corpora, especially for English, have made the relevant academic
and domain-specific language more noticeable and accessible for teaching and
206 Erwin Maria Gierlinger

learning purposes. CLIL teachers can use a vast array of net-based resources to
carefully plan their lessons. For example, the Academic Word List, developed and
evaluated by (Coxhead, 2000), represented the first comprehensive attempt of cat-
egorising and making academic vocabulary much more accessible. A further web-
based instrument, the Oxford 3000, offers a carefully selected list of words which
should receive priority in vocabulary studies. Together with its Text Checker, CLIL
teachers can achieve a quick and reliable judgement of a texts general verbal dif-
ficulty. Collocation dictionaries (https://www.ozdic.com) and websites are another
valuable resource for the important field of academic discourse in CLIL. These
databases quickly allow non-language specialist teachers to create highly focused
word learning tasks to help their learners bridge the CLIL gap between their often
more basic linguistic level and the cognitive demands of the subject expressed in
more advanced language.
Because decoding academic language with Greek-Latin origins receptively
through their morphology proves to be a fast access route to their understanding
and production, teaching activities on prefixes and suffixes should be part of the
regular language work in the CLIL classroom. This door opener to the meaning
of unknown words is also beginning to be used by some modern academic vo-
cabulary textbooks, for example McCarthy and ODells (2016) or the extremely
popular Vocabulary in Use series by the same authors.
As academic vocabulary work lies at the heart of every CLIL course the follow-
ing techniques and tools will be highly instrumental:
Deciding on subject relevant vocabulary which needs to be mediated through a
variety of language activities is made easier for the CLIL teacher through web-
based tools such as http://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/oxford_3000_
profiler.html or http://www.wordandphrase.info/academic/analyzeText.asp.
Making a texts keywords noticeable and salient through pre-teaching and
awareness raising exercises will be a gateway to the understanding of CLIL
subject texts. Computer corpora, for example http://www.lextutor.ca/key/,
allow a quick and easy search for a texts keywords. They also allow for quickly
designed and text-specific glossaries.
Vocabulary work with word families: A number of dictionaries on the web, for
example http://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/topic/, provide mini-
dictionaries that are related to common topics and therefore allow focused
vocabulary work for the CLIL teacher. These can be especially valuable in
lower-level CLIL classes.
Vocabulary work with collocations: For example, http://www.ozdic.
com/collocation-dictionary or https://prowritingaid.com/Free-Online-
Collocations-Dictionary.aspx represent some more valuable tools to create
 Teaching CLIL? 207

vocabulary focused activities, such as keyword inventories, puzzles, cross-

words, quizzes, etc.
Morphology work: Prefix and suffix scanning activities include texts and
eliciting their underlying semantic and syntactic meanings are followed by
consolidation activities, such as word building tic-tac-toe, matching, or
fill in exercises.
I will now conclude by reiterating the need for a language-aware model of CLIL.

4. Conclusion

SALT and its focus on language-aware pedagogical procedures developed out of

several years of discussions and reflections with CLIL teachers and novices, and
an analysis of a substantial amount of the relevant literature in CLIL. This process
of qualitative analysis resulted firstly in the reappraisal of language as a power-
ful knowledge mediating tool whose learning and thinking potential needs to be
utilized explicitly and implicitly in the CLIL classroom. Furthermore, four dis-
tinct and yet interlocking core categories for the language-aware teaching of CLIL
were identified. Firstly, the overall relationship between content and language.
Secondly, the various roles of pedagogical content knowledge. Thirdly, the role of
subject genres and registers, and fourthly, language pluralism and heteroglossia.
By taking these language-related aspects as guidelines, a model for deliberate and
systematic language work in the CLIL classroom was designed. This model coined
SALT carefully works out the roles of languages for the subject learning process,
in theory as in practice. SALT describes how processes and different components
of the phenomenon CLIL can be used efficiently. This is done by scaffolding lan-
guaging strategies, by utilizing the potential of all languages in the classroom, by
exploiting the essential concept of literacies, and by investigating the academic
nature of the foreign language used for CLIL purposes. In this way teachers will
use the model like a carefully selected buffet for their various CLIL contexts and
they will pick the principles, tools, and techniques that fit their particular CLIL
situation best. This careful choice and adaptation for their particular context will
help establish a route map for successful CLIL teaching. This cycle of needs reali-
sation or linguistic awakening (Cammarata & Tedick, 2012) followed by a reflec-
tive choice, classroom implementation, and an evaluation of appropriate outcomes
is the models ultimate objective and raison detre. In this respect, it is not a grand
theory of everything CLIL but hopefully still elegant, pedagogically predictive,
and internally consistent enough to satisfy the criteria of a good pedagogical mod-
el (Hawking & Mlodinow, 2012).
208 Erwin Maria Gierlinger

Thirdly, although the necessity for explicit language intervention measures in

CLIL is agreed upon by most CLIL pedagogues, their actual integration needs very
careful planning in a classroom that is often driven by high content learning de-
mands (Morton & Jakonen, 2016). In this respect, CLIL for all and in all contexts,
will be a challenging pedagogical enterprise.
Finally, some more points may be added. Firstly, more empirical research is
definitely needed to move this model towards a more theoretically sound and pre-
dictive basis. Secondly, although the CLIL classroom represents a complex and di-
verse teaching setting, a careful implementation of SALT seems to contribute to a
better understanding of CLIL teaching according to course participants feedback.
By exploring its various scaffolding measures and teaching principles it is hoped
that in particular CLIL novices can increase their pedagogical content knowl-
edge to prevent frustration, isolation, and language deficit beliefs (Cammarata &
Tedick, 2012; Gierlinger, 2015).
Although the necessity for explicit language intervention measures in CLIL
is agreed upon by most CLIL pedagogues, their actual integration is often con-
strained by high content learning demands (Morton & Jakonen, 2016). In this
respect, CLIL for all and in all contexts, will still demand an experienced chef who
knows how much SALT will improve her cooking.

References

Anstrom, K., DiCerbo, P., Butler, F., Katz, A., Millet, J., & Rivera, C. (2010). A review of the litera-
ture on academic English: Implications for K12 English Language Learners. Arlington, VA:
The George Washington University Center for Equity and Excellence in Education.
Baecher, L., Farnsworth, T., & Ediger, A. (2014). The challenges of planning language objectives
in content-based ESL instruction. Language Teaching Research, 18(1), 118136.
Ball, P., Kelly, K., & Clegg, J. (2015). Putting CLIL into practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Barwell, R. (2016). A Bakhtinian perspective on language and content integration: Encountering
the alien word in in second language mathematics. In T. Nikula, E. Dafouz, P. Moore, & U.
Smit (Eds.), Conceptualising integration in CLIL and multilingual education (pp. 101122).
Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Bateman, J. (2014). Text and image: A critical introduction to the visual/verbal divide. New York,
NY: Routledge.
Bonnet, A. (2012). Language, content and Interaction: How to make CLIL classrooms work. In
D. Marsh, & O. Meyer (Eds.), Quality interfaces: Examining evidence and exploring solutions
in CLIL (pp. 175190). Eichsttt, Germany: Eichstaett Academic Press.
Boroditsky, L. (2012). How the languages we speak shape the ways we think. In M. Spivey,
K. McRae, & M. Joanisse (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 615632).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139029377
 Teaching CLIL? 209

Bovellan, E. (2014). Teachers beliefs about learning and language as reflected in their views of
teaching materials for content and language integrated learning (CLIL). Unpublished PhD
dissertation. University of Jyvskyl.
Brning, C.I., & Purrmann, M.-S. (2014). CLIL pedagogy in Europe: CLIL teacher education in
Germany. Utrecht Studies in Language & Communication, 27, 315338.
Cammarata, L., & Tedick, D.J. (2012). Balancing content and language in instruction: The expe-
rience of immersion teachers. The Modern Language Journal, 96(2), 251269.
doi: 10.1111/j.15400026-7902/12/251-269-269
Cammarata, L., Tedick, D.J., & Osborn, A.T. (2016). Content-based instruction and curricular
reforms: Issues and goals. In L. Cammarata (Ed.), Content-based foreign language teaching:
Curriculum and pedagogy for developing advanced thinking and literacy skills (pp. 121).
New York, NY: Routledge.
Cenoz, J. (2015). Content-based instruction and content and language integrated learning: The
same or different? Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28(1), 824.
doi: 10.1080/07908318.2014.1000922
Cenoz, J., Genesee, F., & Gorter, D. (2014). Critical analysis of CLIL: Taking stock and looking
dorward. Applied Linguistics, 35(3), 243262.doi: 10.1093/applin/amt011
Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2015). Towards a holistic approach in the study of multilingual educa-
tion. In J. Cenoz & D. Gorter (Eds.), Multilingual education: Between language learning and
translanguaging (pp. 115). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cohen, A.D. (2011). Strategies in learning and using a second language. New York, NY: Routledge.
Cohen, A.D. (2012). Strategies: The interface of styles, strategies, and motivation on tasks. In S.
Mercer & S. Ryan (Eds.), Psychology for language learning: Insights from research, theory and
practice (pp. 136150). Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
Cohen, A.D., & Griffiths, C. (2015). Revisiting LLS research 40 years later. TESOL Quarterly,
49(2), 414429.doi: 10.1002/tesq.225
Cook, V. (2011). Linguistic relativity and language teaching. In V. Cook & B. Bassetti (Eds.),
Language and bilingual cognition (pp. 509518). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Corbin, J.M., & Strauss, A.C. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures
for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). London: Sage.doi: 10.4135/9781452230153
Corcoll Lpez, C., & Gonzlez-Davies, M. (2015). Switching codes in the plurilingual class-
room. English Language Teaching Journal, 70(1), 6777.doi: 10.1093/elt/ccv056
Coxhead, A. (2000). A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly, 34(2), 213238.
doi: 10.2307/3587951
Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and language integrated learning.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cummins, J. (2014). Rethinking pedagogical assumptions in Canadian French immersion pro-
grams. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 2(1), 322.
doi: 10.1075/jicb
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2011). Content-and-language integrated learning: From practice to prin-
ciples. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 182204.doi: 10.1017/S0267190511000092
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2016). Cognitive discourse functions: Specifying an integrative interdisci-
plinary construct. In T. Nikula, E. Dafouz, P. Moore, & U. Smit (Eds.), Conceptualising inte-
gration in CLIL and multilingual education. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Dalton-Puffer, C., Nikula, T., & Smit, U. (Eds.). (2010). Language use and language learning in
CLIL classrooms. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.doi: 10.1075/aals.7
210 Erwin Maria Gierlinger

Dalton-Puffer, C., Llinares, A., Lorenzo, F., & Nikula, T. (2014). You can stand under my um-
brella: Immersion, CLIL and bilingual education. A response to Cenoz, Genesee & Gorter
(2013). Applied Linguistics, 35(2), 213218.doi: 10.1093/applin/amu010
Denzin, N.K., & Lincoln, Y. (Eds.). (2011). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research. London:
Sage.
Domingo, M. (2016). Multimodality in virtual learning environments: Exploring traces of
the page in designs of screens. In C. Haythornthwaite, R. Andrews, J. Fransman, & E.M.
Meyers (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of e-learning research (pp. 152170). London: Sage.
doi: 10.4135/9781473955011
Donato, R. (2016). Sociocultural theory and content-based foreign language instruction: theo-
retical insights on the challenge of integration. In L. Cammarata (Ed.), Content-based for-
eign language teaching: Curriculum and pedagogy for developing advanced thinking and lit-
eracy skills (pp. 2450). New York, NY: Routledge.
Drnyei, Z., & Ryan, S. (2015). The psychology of the language learner revisited. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Ellis, R., & Shintani, N. (2013). Exploring language pedagogy through second language acquisition
research. New York, NY: Routledge.
Garcia, O., & Li, W. (2013). Translanguaging. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
doi: 10.1057/9781137385765
Gee, J.P. (2015). Literacy and education. New York, NY: Routledge.
Gierlinger, E.M. (2007). Modular CLIL in lower secondary education: some insights from a
research project in Austria. In C. Dalton-Puffer & U. Smit (Eds.), Empirical perspectives on
classroom discourse (pp. 79118). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Gierlinger, E.M. (2015). You can speak German, sir: On the complexity of teachers L1 use in
CLIL. Language and Education, 29(4), 347368.doi: 10.1080/09500782.2015.1023733
Glenberg, A.M., Goldberg, A.B., & Zhu, X. (2011). Improving early reading comprehension
using embodied CAI. Instructional Science, 39(1), 2739.doi: 10.1007/s11251-009-9096-7
Gottlieb, M., & Ernst-Slavit, G. (2014). Academic language in diverse classrooms: Definitions and
contexts. Thousand oaks: Corwin.
Halliday, M., & Matthiessen, C. (2014). An introduction to functional grammar. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Hammersley, M. (2008). Questioning qualitative inquiry: Critical essays. London: Sage.
doi: 10.4135/9780857024565
Hawking, S., & Mlodinow, L. (2012). The grand design. London: Bantam.
Hockly, N., Dudeney, G., & Pegrum, M. (2013). Digital literacies. New York, NY: Routledge.
Hoey, M., Mahlberg, M., Stubbs, M., & Teubert, W. (2007). Text, discourse and corpora. London:
Continuum.
Httner, J., Dalton-Puffer, C., & Smit, U. (2013). The power of beliefs: Lay theories and their
influence on the implementation of CLIL programmes. International Journal of Bilingual
Education and Bilingualism, 16(3), 267284.doi: 10.1080/13670050.2013.777385
Kerr, P. (2014). Translation and own-language activities. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Kramsch, C., & Huffmaster, M. (2015). Multilingual practices in foreign language study. In J.
Cenoz & D. Gorter (Eds.), Multilingual education: Between language learning and translan-
guaging (pp. 114136). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Krashen, S. (1984). Immersion: Why it works and what it has taught us. Language and Society,
12, 6164.
 Teaching CLIL? 211

Laufer, B., & Nation, I. (2012). Vocabulary. In S.M. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge
handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 163176). Oxon: Routledge.
Levine, G.S. (2011). Code choice in the language classroom. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Leow, R.P. (2015). Explicit learning in the L2 classroom: A student-centered approach. New York,
NY: Routledge.
Li, W. (2013). Whos teaching whom? Co-learning in multilingual classrooms. In S. May (Ed.),
The multilingual turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL, and bilingual education (pp. 167190).
London: Routledge.
Lier, L.V. (2004). The ecology and semiotics of language learning: A sociocultural perspective.
Dordrecht: Kluwer.doi: 10.1007/1-4020-7912-5
Lightbown, P.M. (2014). Focus on content-based language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Littleton, K., & Mercer, N. (2013). Interthinking: Putting talk to work. New York, NY: Routledge.
Llinares, A. (2015). Integration in CLIL: A proposal to inform research and successful pedagogy.
Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28(1), 5873.doi: 10.1080/07908318.2014.1000925
Llinares, A., & Nikula, T. (2016). Teacher and student evaluative language in CLIL across con-
texts: Integrating SFL and pragmatic approaches. In T. Nikula, E. Dafouz, P. Moore, & U.
Smit (Eds.), Conceptualising integration in CLIL and multilingual education (pp. 189210).
Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Loewen, S. (2015). Introduction to instructed second language acquisition. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Long, M.H. (2011). Methodological principles for language teaching. In M.H. Long & C.J.
Doughty (Eds.), The handbook of language teaching (pp. 373394). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Lorenzo, F., & Dalton-Puffer, C. (2016). Historical literacy in CLIL: Telling the past in a second
language. In T. Nikula, E. Dafouz, P. Moore, & U. Smit (Eds.), Conceptualising integration in
CLIL and multilingual education (pp. 5572). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Love, K. (2010). Literacy pedagogical content knowledge in the secondary curriculum.
Pedagogies: An International Journal, 5(4), 338355.doi: 10.1080/1554480X.2010.521630
Lyster, R., & Ballinger, S. (2011). Content-based language teaching: Convergent concerns across
divergent contexts. Language Teaching Research, 15(3), 270288.
doi: 10.1177/1362168811401150
Lyster, R., Quiroga, J., & Ballinger, S. (2013). The effects of biliteracy instruction on morphologi-
cal awareness. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 1(2), 169197.
doi: 10.1075/jicb.1.2
Macaro, E. (2009). Teacher use of code switching in the second language classroom: Exploring
optimal use In M. Turnbull & J. Dailey-OCain (Eds.), First language use in second and
foreign language learning (pp. 3549). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Macaro, E. (2013). Overview: Where should we be going with classroom code switching re-
search? In R. Barnard & J. McLellan (Eds.), Code switching in university English-medium
classes (pp. 1023). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
McCarthy, M., & ODell, F. (2016). Academic vocabulary in use edition with answers. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
McDougald, J.S. (2015). Teachers attitudes, perceptions and experiences in CLIL: A look at
content and language. Colombian Applied Linguistic Journal, 17(1), 25.
doi: 10.14483/udistrital.jour.calj.2015.1.a02
Mehisto, P., Marsh, D., & Frigols, M.J. (2008). Uncovering CLIL: Content and language integrated
learning in bilingual and multilingual education. Oxford: Macmillan.
212 Erwin Maria Gierlinger

Mercer, N. (2008). Talk and the development of reasoning and understanding. Human
Development, 51(1), 90100.doi: 10.1159/000113158
Met, M. (1998). Curriculum decision-making in content-based language teaching. In J. Cenoz
& F. Genesee (Eds.), Beyond bilingualism: Multilingualism and multilingual education (pp.
3563). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Moate, J. (2010). The integrated nature of CLIL. International CLIL Research Journal, 1(3), 38
38. Retrieved from http://www.icrj.eu/13/article4.html
Morton, T., & Jakonen, T. (2016). Integration of language and content through languaging in
CLIL; Classroom interaction: A conversation analysis perspective. In T. Nikula, E. Dafouz,
P. Moore, & U. Smit (Eds.), Conceptualising integration in CLIL and multilingual education
(pp. 171188). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Nation, P. (2008). Lexical awareness in second language learning. In J. Cenoz & N. Hornberger
(Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education, Vol 6. Knowledge about language (pp. 167
179). Dordrecht: Springer.
Nikula, T., Dalton-Puffer, C., & Lorenzo, F. (2016). More than content and language: The com-
plexity of integration in CLIL and bilingual education. In T. Nikula, E. Dafouz, P. Moore, &
U. Smit (Eds.), Conceptualising integration in CLIL and multilingual education (pp. 128).
Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Nikula, T., & Moore, P. (2016). Exploring translanguaging in CLIL. International Journal of
Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 113. Advance online publication.
doi: 10.1080/13670050.2016.1254151
Nyikos, M., & May, F. (2007). A review of vocabulary learning strategies: Focus on language pro-
ficiency and learner voice. In A.D. Cohen & E. Macaro (Eds.), Language learner strategies
(pp. 251273). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ortega, L. (2014). Second language learning explained? SLA across 10 contemporary theories.
In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduc-
tion (pp. 245272). New York, NY: Routledge.
Otwinowska, A. (2015). Cognate vocabulary in language acquisition and use: Attitudes, aware-
ness, activation. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Paquot, M. (2010). Academic vocabulary in learner writing: From extraction to analysis. London:
Continuum.
Paran, A. (2013). Content and language integrated learning: Panacea or policy borrowing myth.
Applied Linguistics Review, 4(2), 317342.doi: 10.1515/applirev-2013-0014
Prez-Caado, M.L. (2012). CLIL research in Europe: Past, present, and future. International
Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 15(3), 315341.
doi: 10.1080/13670050.2011.630064
Philippakos, Z.A., MacArthur, C.A., & Coker, D.L. (2015). Developing strategic writers through
genre instruction: Resources for Grades 35. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Rose, D., & Martin, J.R. (2012). Learning to write, reading to learn: Genre, knowledge and peda-
gogy in the Sydney School. Sheffield: Equinox.
Scott, M., & Tribble, C. (2006). Textual patterns: Key words and corpus analysis in language edu-
cation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.doi: 10.1075/scl.22
Spada, N. (2007). Communicative language teaching: Current status and future prospects. In
J. Cummins & C. Davison (Eds.), International handbook of English language teaching (pp.
271288). Dordrecht: Springer.doi: 10.1007/978-0-387-46301-8_20
 Teaching CLIL? 213

Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2013). A Vygotskian sociocultural perspective on immersion educa-
tion: The L1/L2 debate. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 1(1),
101129.doi: 10.1075/jicb
Tan, M. (2011). Mathematics and science teachers beliefs and practices regarding the teaching
of language in content learning. Language Teaching Research, 15(3), 325342.
doi: 10.1177/1362168811401153
Tyler, A. (2012). Cognitive linguistics and second language learning: Theoretical basics and experi-
mental evidence. New York, NY: Routledge.
Vygotsky, L.S. (2004). The historical meaning of the crisis in psychology: A methodological in-
vestigation. In R.W. Rieber & D.K. Robinson (Eds.), The essential Vygotsky (pp. 227334).
New York, NY: Kluwer/Plenum.
Williams, M., Mercer, S., & Ryan, S. (2015). Exploring psychology in language learning and teach-
ing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wegner, A. (2012). Seeing the bigger picture: What students and teachers think about CLIL.
International CLIL Research Journal, 1(4), 2935.

Abstrakt

CLIL (content and language integrated learning) ist eine pdagogische Methode bei der ein
Schulgegenstand in einer Fremdsprache gelehrt wird. Ihre Grundelemente werden jedoch ver-
schiedenartig interpretiert und Forschungsergebnisse zeigen, dass CLIL Lehrende ihre metho-
dischen berlegungen auf das Vermitteln von Sachfachwissen fokussieren und sprachlicher
Wissenserwerb als eine Begleiterscheinung dieser Methode gesehen wird. Diese Einstellung fhrt
daher nur zu einem geringen Einsatz von geplanten sprachenmethodischen Vorgangsweisen.
Im Gegensatz dazu wird in dieser hermeneutischen Studie argumentiert, dass Denken und
Spracherwerb eng miteinander verbunden sind und daher CLIL Lehrende unweigerlich auch
Sprachenlehrende sind. Der Author berichtet ber ein sprachensensibles Modell des CLIL
Unterrichtes (SALT) welches im Rahmen von Fortbildungskursen entwickelt und durchgefhrt
wurde. Die methodischen Prinzipien diese Models werden vorgestellt und diskutiert.

Authors address
Erwin Maria Gierlinger
University of Education of Upper Austria (UEUA)
Kaplanhofstrasse 40
4020 Linz
Austria
Erwin.gierlinger@ph-ooe.at