What Is Clil - Topic 4

Where do these outcomes lead us?
The current
CLIL controversy
[5.1] The current CLIL controversy: characterization,
implementation, and research
[5.2] Identifying the main challenges to conquer
[5.3] Providing solutions within the current scenario
4
UNIT
<<<<<<<<<<<
Outline
Where do these outcomes lead us? The current CLIL controversy
The current CLIL Challenges to conquer Possible solutions

controversy
Homogeneity
Defining the controversy Observation

Catering to diversity
Characterization Linguistic and Investigation

intercultural competence
Implementation Information
Theoretical
underpinnings
Research Education
Materials and resources
Debunking false myths Methodology Motivation
Ongoing professional
development
False myths
What is CLIL? Origins, definition, and characterization
Topic 4: Where do these outcomes lead us? The current CLIL controversy
MIEB
Overview of the unit
This final unit will help you become acquainted with the controversy currently affecting CLIL
and with the chief challenges to which we must step up in the near future, and will equip you
with possible solutions to tackle them. Our objectives are:
To become aware of the current controversy affecting CLIL

To have empirical evidence to debunk common myths on CLIL
To describe the main challenges to conquer in CLIL implementation
To provide concrete solutions to successfully step up to these challenges
To carry out a personal reading and critical appraisal of where we stand and where we
need to go in CLIL pedagogy and investigation.
In order to do so, you will read:
Lancaster, N. 2018. Extramural Exposure and Language Attainment: The Examination of

Input-related Variables in CLIL Programmes. Porta Linguarum 29: 91-114.
Pérez Cañado, M. L. 2017a. CLIL teacher education: Where do we stand and where do we
need to go? In Bilingual Education: Educational Trends and Key Concepts, M. E.
Gómez Parra & R. Johnstone (eds.), 129-144. Madrid: Ministerio de Educación.
Pérez Cañado, M. L. 2018a. CLIL and educational level: A longitudinal study on the impact
of CLIL on language outcomes and content mastery. Porta Linguarum 29: 51-70.
Pérez Cañado, M. L. 2018b. The effects of CLIL on L1 and content learning: Updated
empirical evidence from monolingual contexts. Learning and Instruction 57: 18-33.
Pérez Cañado, M. L. 2018c. CLIL and pedagogical innovation: Fact or fiction? International
Journal of Applied Linguistics. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12208.
Pérez Cañado, M. L. 2018d. Innovations and challenges in CLIL teacher training. Theory
Into Practice 57(3): 1-10.
Pérez Cañado, M. L. In press for 2019. CLIL and elitism: Myth or reality? The Language
Learning Journal.
MIEB
And we will employ the following resources:
A PowerPoint presentation and lecture where the main contents of the subject
will be fleshed out
An activity on the forum
A final online test which can be self-corrected.
MIEB
5.1. The current CLIL controversy: characterization, implementation,

and research
CLIL has undergone a very interesting evolution since it first entered the European scene. It was
initially heralded as the potential lynchpin to tackle the foreign language deficit on our continent
and was embraced as “a lever for change and success in language learning” (Pérez Cañado &
Ráez Padilla 2015: 1), as “awesome innovation” (Tobin & Abello-Contesse 2013: 224), or as “the
ultimate opportunity to practice and improve a foreign language” (Pérez-Vidal 2013: 59).
However, after this period of unbridled enthusiasm, over the course of the past half a decade, a
more critical attitude has emerged (Cabezas Cabello 2010; Bruton 2011a, 2011b, 2013, 2015;
Pérez Cañado 2011, 2012; Cenoz, Genesee, & Gorter 2013; Paran 2013), calling into question
some of the core underpinnings of CLIL and shaking CLIL advocates out of their complacency.
As Paran (2013: 334) has put it, we have moved from a “celebratory rhetoric” which saw CLIL as
a near panacea to dwelling almost exclusively “on the problematic issues of CLIL”. This so-called
“pendulum effect” (Swan 1985: 86) which has characterized language teaching history has just
made itself conspicuous in the CLIL scenario, leading to CLIL controversy on different
fronts. Great debate has been sparked off and contradictory opinions have been harbored vis-à-
vis pivotal aspects of CLIL characterization, implementation, and research, thereby creating the
need to revisit some taken-for-granted issues affecting this approach and constituting challenges
to be addressed in the present and very near future of CLIL theory and praxis (cf. Pérez Cañado
2016a for a detailed rendering).
To begin with, the so-called CLIL controversy has affected the characterization of this
approach. Initially, the prevalent tendency was to distill the core features which differentiate
CLIL from other types of immersion approaches and which make it a foreign language teaching
trend in its own right, and not a mere offshoot of other types of bilingual programs (cf. Topic 1).
However, the metaphorical pendulum has of late swung to the other extreme, calling into
question this reductionist, isolationist view of CLIL as detrimental for practitioners and
researchers (Cenoz et al. 2013: 1): “We argue that attempts to define CLIL by distinguishing it
from immersion approaches to L2 education are often misguided”. In this vein, Somers and
Surmont (2010), Cenoz, Genesee, and Gorter (2013), Hüttner and Smit (2013), Cenoz (2015),
and Cenoz and Ruiz de Zarobe (2015) expound on the similarities rather than differences
between CLIL, immersion, and Content-Based Instruction (CBI), and advocate a more inclusive,
integrative, and constructivist stance which does not attempt to provide “a detailed, theoretically
„tight‟ definition of what is (not) CLIL” (Hüttner & Smit 2014: 164). A much broader, all-
encompassing view of CLIL is now proposed, where this acronym is regarded as an “umbrella
MIEB
construct” which includes immersion education (Cenoz et al., 2013, p. 13) and is synonymous to
CBI (Cenoz & Ruiz de Zarobe 2015).
In turn, in terms of implementation, criticism has been leveled at CLIL due to the plethora of
models or variants which can be identified within it. It is considered to encompass too broad an
array of models and this has been regarded as detrimental by certain scholars for the
pedagogically coherent evolution of CLIL: “Identifying the programmatic, instructional, and
student-related properties that are specific and perhaps unique to CLIL is complicated by the
diverse and ill-defined range of learning contexts/opportunities that can be classified as CLIL”
(Cenoz et al. 2013: 12-13). However, another notable batch of authors has recently countered
this view, crafting a compelling argument that the variegated types of approaches which can be
subsumed within CLIL have, far from hampering its development, helped it to accommodate the
linguistic diversity of the European landscape (Wolff 2005; Coyle & Baetens-Beardsmore 2007;
Lasagabaster 2008), thereby avoiding the one-size-fits-all model (Smit 2007) which has “failed
miserably” (Lorenzo, Moore, & Casal 2011: 454).
However, if there is an area where the so-called pendulum effect has been at work, that is CLIL
research (cf. Pérez Cañado 2017b). Two clear moments can be discerned if we canvass the
research conducted into the effects of CLIL. In an initial phase, CLIL advocates vastly
outnumber its detractors or skeptics, and investigations on CLIL paint its outcomes in the most
positive light possible, almost exclusively singing the praises of this approach (Lasagabaster
2008; Ruiz de Zarobe 2008; Coyle et al., 2010). However, in the past few years, the pendulum
has violently swerved to the opposite extreme, initiating a second phase in CLIL research which
harbors a pessimistic outlook on its effects and feasibility (Cabezas Cabello 2010; Bruton 2011a,
2011b, 2013, 2015; Paran 2013); questions the validity of the research conducted (Pérez Cañado
2011, 2012; Bruton 2011a, 2011b, 2013, 2015; Paran 2013; Pérez Cañado & Ráez Padilla 2015);
and warns against the wholesale adoption of CLIL and the dangers inherent in the rush to
embrace it.
This criticism has been mushrooming in newspaper articles, blogs, and social networks. Their
authors consider CLIL a scam, a plague, or a total disaster, and they speak of „camps‟ and
„battles‟ between its advocates and detractors. The problem with these contributions is that they
have spawned a considerable number of misconceptions affecting CLIL, stemming from
unsubstantiated opinions, personal experiences, and obsolete or methodologically compromised
research, and which are demotivating teachers, discouraging CLIL program set-ups, and
alarming participating stakeholders. They could thus ultimately derail current and future CLIL
MIEB
practice.
It is on these misconceptions or false myths which are currently proliferating around CLIL that
we are now going to focus through our final activity. We will address eight of these most
common misguided perceptions which are plaguing the CLIL arena at present and employ
empirical evidence stemming from very recent research to debunk them.
ACTIVITY 4
“DEBUNKING CLIL MYTHS”
(PLEASE GO TO THE SUBJECT FORUM TO COMPLETE THIS ACTIVITY)
In order and overcome some of the most common CLIL misconceptions which are
proliferating in opinion articles, blogs, and social networks, we are now going to examine what
each one consists in and to provide empirical evidence to debunk it.
We’re going to do this through a cooperative learning activity. The tutor will divide you into
eight groups of approximately ten members each using an alphabetic criterion (please see the
FORUM for the exact group in which you have been placed). Each group will focus on one myth
and will read and respond to the questions pertaining to it in a specific thread on the FORUM.
Then, a spokesperson for each group will post a summary of his/her group’s main ideas in the
CONCLUSIONS thread on the FORUM. Finally, you will all read the other groups’ summaries
and give your opinions on the current CLIL controversy in a FINAL DISCUSSION thread: How
will you respond to all those posts on social networks/newspapers/blogs/your school which
are based on personal opinions and unsubstantiated facts? The timeline for each of these tasks
is the following:
1. Read your article: 3 days

2. Respond to the questions on the forum, discussing them with your group: 3 days
3. Post your group’s conclusions in the CONCLUSION thread and read through the other
7 contributions: 2 days (an extra day from the weekend can also be added here if
necessary)
4. Post your final opinions on the current CLIL controversy in the FINAL DISCUSSION
thread: 2 days (an extra day from the weekend can also be added here if necessary).
MYTH 1 (GROUP 1): “CLIL does not necessarily improve foreign language competence.”
Several opinion and research articles have been spreading the belief that CLIL does not
necessarily promote foreign language learning. Javier Marías, for example, in an opinion
article in El País (Marías 2015), claimed that “El resultado es un desastre total (ni enseñanza,
ni bilingüe): los chicos salen sin saber nada de inglés (…)”. Bruton (2011b: 523), in turn,
MIEB
maintains much the same when he states that “a closer look at some of the research conducted
into CLIL and content learning in an L2 suggests that such initiatives do not necessarily
produce better results than the alternatives they compete with (…)”.
Let us now examine, using robust empirical evidence, if this is true. Please read the following
article on the effects of CLIL on foreign language learning: Pérez Cañado (2018a) . Then,
answer the following three sets of questions on the forum, discussing them with the rest of
your group members:
1. What does the previous specialized literature say about the effects of CLIL on FL
learning? Does CLIL, in general and according to these previous studies, have positive
or negative effects on the language level of students?
2. Let us now turn to the specific study reported on in this article. Are CLIL students
better or worse than non-bilingual students in English level at the end of Primary
Education? And at the end of Compulsory Secondary Education? And at the end of
Baccalaureate? Do the effects of CLIL on language learning get stronger or weaker with
more years of bilingual teaching?
3. On the basis of this evidence, what would you respond to people like Marías or Bruton,
who claim that CLIL is negative for language learning?
MYTH 2 (GROUP 2): “CLIL detrimentally impacts L1 competence.”
Another point of contention vis-à-vis the impact of CLIL affects the mother tongue. If exposure
to it is decreased as foreign language presence is pushed up through content teaching, there
are concerns for the detrimental impact of CLIL on L1 competence. As the Sindicato del
Profesorado Extremeño (PIDE) claims, “empobrece el contenido de la lengua madre” (cf.
https://www.hoy.es/extremadura/pide-cree-bilinguismo-20171030190615-nt.html).
article on the effects of CLIL on L1 learning: Pérez Cañado (2018b) (please see attached
article). Then, answer the following three sets of questions on the forum, discussing them with
the rest of your group members:
1. What does the previous specialized literature say about the effects of CLIL on the L1?
Does CLIL, in general and according to these previous studies, have positive or
negative effects on the mother tongue of students?
better or worse than non-bilingual students in the L1 at the end of Primary Education?
And at the end of Compulsory Secondary Education?
3. On the basis of this evidence, what would you respond to people like those in the
Sindicato del Profesorado Extremeño (PIDE), who claim that CLIL is negative for the
students’ L1?
MIEB
MYTH 3 (GROUP 3): “CLIL improves foreign language learning at the expense of content,
which is watered down.”
Another pressing concern affects the impact of CLIL on content learning. Many voices have
recently expressed their malaise with the potentially curbing effect of CLIL on subject areas.
Foreign language levels are improved, they hold, at the expense of content, which is reduced
or undermined. As Sanmartín (2013) has claimed in El Mundo, “nada es gratis: o el
aprendizaje de las asignaturas en inglés se ve perjudicado, o el aprendizaje del idioma
inglés no es suficiente”. Or, in Zuil’s (2016) words in El Confidencial, “No se puede intentar
ayudar a los alumnos a mejorar un aspecto de su conocimiento machacando otro”.
article on the effects of CLIL on content learning: Pérez Cañado (2018b) (please see attached
article). Then, answer the following three sets of questions on the forum, discussing them with
the rest of your group members:
1. What does the previous specialized literature say about the effects of CLIL on content
learning? Does CLIL, in general and according to these previous studies, have positive
or negative effects on the content level of students?
better or worse than non-bilingual students in content learning at the end of Primary
Education? And at the end of Compulsory Secondary Education? Do the effects of CLIL
on content learning get stronger or weaker with more years of bilingual teaching?
3. On the basis of this evidence, what would you respond to people like Sanmartín or Zuil,
who claim that CLIL is negative for language learning?
MYTH 4 (GROUP 4): “CLIL is anti-pedagogical. The theoretical traits of CLIL are not really
being applied practically in CLIL classrooms.”
As we saw in Topic 1, CLIL is considered to have brought about a real “methodological

revolution” (Pavón & Rubio 2010: 48) and to be acting as a “catalyst for change” (Marsh et al.
2001: 51). However, has this transformative potential of CLIL which has been championed
theoretically truly become a practical reality? As Cabezas Cabello (2010: 86) warns, “There are
discrepancies between educational policies and real teaching contexts” and “In most cases,
only lip service has been paid” (2010: 90) to these social-constructivist, interactive, and
student-led methodologies associated to CLIL. It is what Breidbach & Viebrock (2012: 12) call
the rift between theoretical potential and practical implementation: “ […] CLIL lessons can
have a highly innovative potential for schools […] However, schools and teachers need to make
active use of this innovative potential as innovation does not happen automatically”.
In this sense, posts on social networks alarmingly claim that CLIL is anti-pedagogical (see an
example below) and that the student-centered methodologies associated to it are not really
being applied in the classroom.
MIEB
article on CLIL and pedagogical inovation: Pérez Cañado (2018c). Then, answer the following
three sets of questions on the forum, discussing them with the rest of your group members:
1. According to this very recent study, are the theoretical traits of CLIL becoming a
practical reality?
2. Is CLIL methodology more student-centered, communicative, and diversified? Are
CLIL materials considered more innovative and interesting? Is CLIL evaluation
becoming more diversified, ongoing, and holistic and giving priority to oral aspects?
3. On the basis of this evidence, what would you respond to people like Pablo Ruiz, who
claim that CLIL is anti-pedagogical?
MYTH 5 (GROUP 5): “CLIL only works with the elite.”
Strong claims have been made for the elitist nature of CLIL. As Bruton (2011b: 523)
underscores, “there is every reason to believe some students may be prejudiced by CLIL”, as
“rather than increasing the equality of opportunity, CLIL in certain contexts is subtly
selecting students out” (Bruton 2013: 593). In this sense, Paran (2013: 331) upholds that CLIL
“probably works best in elite contexts” and that “Implicitly, CLIL is likely to be elitist and
cream off certain students” (Bruton 2013: 595).
article on the CLIL and elitism: Pérez Cañado (in press for 2019) please see attached article).
Then, answer the following four questions on the forum, discussing them with the rest of your
group members:
1. According to this very recent study, are the most intelligent, motivated, and
linguistically proficient students found in CLIL groups?
2. Is CLIL working equally well across both rural and urban contexts and different
socioeconomic levels?
3. Does CLIL have the potential to work even in the most deprived settings (rural, public,
MIEB
low socioeconomic status)?

4. On the basis of this evidence, what would you respond to people like Bruton or Paran,
who claim that CLIL only works with the elite?
MYTH 6 (GROUP 6): “What really works is teaching content and language separately,
increasing the number of hours devoted to English as a Foreign Language classes.”
This next false myth is extremely widespread at present in the CLIL scenario. Many are those
who contend that, in order to improve language learning standards, the key lies in increasing
the number of hours devoted to formal, English language-driven instruction rather than
teaching content through that language for it to be picked up unconsciously. This can be done
either in class (by reducing the number of hours devoted to subject teaching in the mother
tongue and assigning them to English as a foreign language) or outside it (through traditional
language academies). As Piedras Monroy (2013) claims in his blog, “¿por qué no se añade
alguna hora más al inglés? Es más saludable para el Conocimiento del Medio, de las Mates o
de la Plástica, que les quiten una hora a la semana que que se imparta en una lengua
semidesconocida”.
article on the effects of different types of exposure: Lancaster (2018). Then, answer the
following three questions on the forum, discussing them with the rest of your group members:
1. Do CLIL scenarios favor more extramural exposure to English (in the form of books,
and magazines, TV series and movies, the Internet and social networks, videogames
and songs)?
2. Are language outcomes (use of English, vocabulary, listening, reading and speaking)
better by means of extra formal English instruction or through meaningful,
subconscious CLIL acquisition?
3. On the basis of this evidence, what would you respond to people like Piedras Monroy,
who claim that more formal English instruction is better than more CLIL?
MYTH 7 (GROUP 7): “Language training for CLIL teachers is no longer necessary; we now
need to focus on methodological aspects.”
With teacher training initiatives having been firmly set in place for over a decade in our
country and continent, many stakeholders maintain that language training has been
adequately covered and the emphasis should now be on other aspects, such as methodological
training.
article on teacher training for CLIL: Pérez Cañado (2017a) (please see attached article). Then,
answer the following three questions on the forum, discussing them with the rest of your group
members:
1. According to this recent study, are there still training needs vis-à-vis linguistic and
intercultural competence for CLIL teachers or have they all been covered?
MIEB
2. Which types of teachers are the ones with the greatest needs on this front and on what
specific aspects of linguistic competence do they need more training?
3. On the basis of this evidence, what would you respond to those who claim that language
training for CLIL teachers is no longer necessary?
MYTH 8 (GROUP 8): “What teachers need are practical tips to implement CLIL in the
classroom, not theory.”
Also in line with teacher training is the next misconception, which reflects many teachers’
desire for practical orientations to guide their daily practice. They merely want quick recipes
to take to the grassroots level, but often disregard the theoretical underpinnings of CLIL,
thereby compromising its correct implementation.
article on teacher training for CLIL: Pérez Cañado (2018d) (please see attached article). Then,
answer the following three questions on the forum, discussing them with the rest of your group
members:
1. According to this recent study, are there still training needs vis-à-vis scientific
knowledge for CLIL teachers or have they all been covered?
2. On what specific aspects of the theoretical underpinnings of CLIL do teachers need
more training?
3. On the basis of this evidence, what would you respond to those who claim that the
theory underlying CLIL is not important?
A spokesperson for each group should now post their main ideas in the CONCLUSIONS thread
on the FORUM (around 150 words).
Finally, please read the other groups’ summaries and give your opinions on the current CLIL
controversy in a FINAL DISCUSSION thread: How will you respond to all those posts on social
networks/newspapers/blogs/your school which are based on personal opinions and
unsubstantiated facts?
5.2. Identifying the main challenges to conquer
There are still many challenges to conquer in pushing the CLIL agenda forward. On the
pedagogical front, the main challenges which still need to be redressed involve the
following (Pérez Cañado 2016b; Pérez Cañado 2016c):
To begin with, the homogeneity of CLIL programs needs to be stepped up. As

was pinpointed in Unit 1, CLIL encompasses too broad an array of program
alternatives and learning opportunities, and we stand in clear need of
MIEB
characterizing representative pedagogical CLIL practices in order to provide clear

guidelines for practitioners as regards what its implementation should look like at
the grassroots level.
Catering to diversity is another burning issue on the CLIL agenda. If

previously CLIL and non-CLIL streams coexisted in most schools, the general
tendency at present is to make all streams (and, thus, schools) bilingual and to
expand CLIL also in vocational training & baccalaureate. In Andalusia, for
example, the objective for 2020 is to extend CLIL to the whole of Primary and
Compulsory Secondary Education (CSE), a goal which is well underway in Primary
Education. In the latter, there are no longer CLIL and non-CLIL groups: all those
public schools which have been implementing CLIL programs for five or more
years now only have CLIL classes, so there is no distinction between monolingual
and bilingual strands. CLIL has officially embedded itself in mainstream education
and all learners are now experiencing FL learning (in English, French, or German)
both in language-driven and subject content classes. To take a case in point, in the
city of Granada, in the present academic year, absolutely all CLIL public schools
only have bilingual classes for the whole of Primary Education (until age 12). Thus,
the onus now is going to be on catering to diversity and on ensuring CLIL enhances
language and content learning in over- and under-achievers alike.
There are also conspicuous lacunae in terms of the linguistic and

intercultural competence of teachers: accurate pronunciation in the FL needs
to be improved, both BICS and CALP need to be worked on, and language for real
daily interaction and communication (Ruiz Gómez 2015) needs to be provided,
especially for non-linguistic area and Primary Education teachers.
Furthermore, the vast majority of bilingual teachers are still not familiar with the
theoretical underpinnings of CLIL, evincing an almost complete lack of
knowledge vis-à-vis the precursors of CLIL; its origins, driving forces and models;
its features, assets, and pitfalls; the theory of language and learning underlying it;
or the effects and functioning of CLIL in evidence-based research.
Greater guidelines also need to be provided within materials and resources for
the design and adaptation of materials, the elaboration of the integrated
curriculum, the implementation of collaborative teaching, and the use of Web 2.0
MIEB
tools.
Methodologically, considerable strides still need to be taken in order to

incorporate student-centeredness fully, as teachers are still not familiar with
approaches such as project-based learning, task-based language teaching,
cooperative learning o the lexical approach. Teaching assistants also require
greater methodological training in order to work adequately with students and
teachers.
Ongoing professional development is another major area for future work, as

attendance to university conferences and Masters on CLIL needs to be fostered,
together with the obtention of study licenses for further studies or research, and
participation in exchange and mobility programs and methodological upgrade
courses.
Finally, a series of false myths or misconstrued perceptions need to be

debunked for smooth sailing on the CLIL front, including the erroneously held
beliefs that content and L1 learning lag behind in CLIL programs (a theory which
research has shot down), that language teachers now take the back seat (their role
is more heightened than ever in preparing students to cope successfully with the
grammar and lexicon covered in the content classes), or that subject-matter
lessons should merely summarize or translate contents in the FL (this led to what
Lasagabaster & Sierra 2010 termed the “Valencian fiasco”) (cf. Activity 4).
MIEB
Homogeneity
Catering to
False myths
diversity
Ongoing PEDAGOGICAL Linguistic and

professional intercultural
development CHALLENGES competence
Theoretical
Methodology
underpinnings
Materials and
resources
Figure 1. Summary of the main pedagogical CLIL challenges
5.3. Providing solutions within the current scenario
How to go about tackling the afore-mentioned challenges? We propound going about it by

fostering what we have termed “the five –ations”.
A necessary starting point is to promote observation. In order to build a solid

template for the future, it is incumbent upon stakeholders and gatekeepers to
depart from an in-depth analysis of the current situation (e.g., carrying out studies
on the presence of contents and strategies for bilingual education in the new
graduate and undergraduate degrees offered at university), as well as to engage in
joint reflection (e.g., through forums such as the Jornadas Regionales de
Plurilingüismo, which took place in Seville in September 2013) and, where
possible, learn from the good practices of others (e.g., through CLIL classroom
observation on the part of teachers, researchers, and even graduate and
undergraduate students during their practical training periods).
The best way to continue moving the CLIL agenda forward is to engage in
investigation as a device that drives the afore-mentioned observation. Both top-
down and bottom-up stocktaking should be encouraged and teachers should
increasingly take responsibility in classroom-based enquiry in order to truly have
MIEB
ownership of CLIL pedagogies.
The outcomes of such research should then be communicated by fostering

information sharing. It behooves all participants to stay abreast of the way CLIL
programs are working by being aware of the associations, networks, conference
listings, courses, book series, and specific journals which relay their results (cf.
Further readings section for a complete list of all these resources).
This ties in directly with education, the key to any future vision for bilingual
education. This is, in our view, where CLIL will stand or fall in terms of
sustainability. Teacher training needs to be escalated via the following five main
lines of action:
1. Modifying our present study plans, via specific actions such as:
1.1. Favoring the inclusion of specific disciplines and itineraries on bilingual
education in the new degrees
1.2. Promoting research strands related to bilingual education in end of degree and
end of Master‟s dissertations
1.3. Offering CLIL contents within the subject Innovación Docente in the so-called
Máster de Secundaria
1.4. Including, within the 6 elective credits contemplated in the afore-mentioned
Master‟s, specific elective subjects on bilingual education
1.5. Incorporating specific contents related to bilingual education in the courses for
the adaptation to the new degrees
1.6. Fostering practical training periods in bilingual schools at both graduate and
undergraduate levels
2. Proposing new specific degrees or diplomas, particularly in tertiary education:

2.1. Designing a degree of expert in bilingual education for university professors
2.2. Articulating new títulos propios related to bilingual education
2.3. Offering courses via the Modern Language Centers of universities to train
professors who teach in bilingual degrees
2.4. Bolstering the creation of plans for the promotion of plurilingualism in
universities
MIEB
3. Offering specific CLIL courses for pre-service teachers, which can be

acknowledged for the 6 credits of their choice contemplated in undergraduate
degrees, and which would allow students to have the equivalent of a CLIL subject.
4. Creating new bilingual degrees, which, according to recent investigations (e.g.,

Madrid Manrique & Madrid Fernández 2014) are a very efficient formula for pre-
service teacher training.
5. Proposing new specific CLIL Masters, such as the Máster Interuniversitario en

Enseñanza Bilingüe y AICLE, which directly addresses the chief teacher training
lacunae identified by the NALTT Project1, thereby constituting an instance of what
Coyle (2011) terms “evidence-based practice”.
And, finally, ensuring participant motivation is equally pivotal. Providing

incentives, course release, and stability for teachers, and guaranteeing support
from gatekeepers are essential for a success-prone implementation of the APPP. In
this sense, we fully concur with Fernández & Halbach (2011: 262) in that, more
than on any other aspect, success of CLIL schemes “ultimately relies on teachers‟
commitment and motivation”, which, consequently, need to be sustained.
Observation
Motivation Investigation
Education Information
Figure 2. The theory of the five “-ations”
1 For detailed information on its structure and design, cf. Pérez Cañado (2015).
MIEB
References
Breidbach, S. & Viebrock, B. 2012. CLIL in Germany – Results from recent research in a
contested field of education. International CLIL Research Journal 1(4): 5-16.
Bruton, A. 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.
Bruton, A. 2011b. Is CLIL so beneficial, or just selective? Re-evaluating some of the
Research. System 39: 523-532.
Bruton, A. 2013. CLIL: Some of the reasons why ... and why not. System 41: 587-597.
Bruton, A. 2015. CLIL: Detail matters in the whole picture. More than a reply to J. Hüttner
and U. Smit (2014). System 53: 119-128.
Cabezas Cabello, J. M. 2010. A SWOT analysis of the Andalusian Plurilingualism
Promotion Plan (APPP). In Proceedings of the 23rd GRETA Convention, M. L.
Pérez Cañado (ed.), 83-91. Jaén: Joxman.
Cenoz, J. 2015. Content-based instruction and content and language integrated learning:
the same or different? Language, Culture and Curriculum 28(1): 8-24.
Cenoz, J., Genesee, F., & Gorter, D. 2013. Critical analysis of CLIL: Taking stock and
looking forward. Applied Linguistics 2013: 1-21.
Cenoz, J. & Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. 2015. Way forward in the twenty-first century in content-
based instruction: Moving towards integration. Language, Culture and
Curriculum 28(1): 90-96.
Coyle, D. 2011. Setting the CLIL agenda for successful learning: What pupils have to say.
Plenary conference at the II Congreso Internacional de Enseñanza Bilingüe en
Centros Educativos. Madrid: Universidad Rey Juan Carlos.
Coyle, D. & Baetens Beardsmore, H. 2007. Research on content and language integrated
learning (CLIL). International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism
10(5): 541-542.
Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. 2010. CLIL. Content and Language Integrated Learning.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fernández, R. & Halbach, A. 2011. Analysing the situation of teachers in the Madrid
autonomous community bilingual project. In Content and Foreign Language
Integrated Learning: Contributions to Multilingualism in European Contexts, Y.
Ruiz de Zarobe, J. M. Sierra, & F. Gallardo del Puerto (eds.), 241-270. Frankfurt-
am-Main: Peter Lang.
Hüttner, J. & Smit, U. 2014. CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning): The
MIEB
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.
Lancaster, N. 2018. Extramural Exposure and Language Attainment: The Examination of
Input-related Variables in CLIL Programmes. Porta Linguarum 29: 91-114.
Lasagabaster, D. 2008. Foreign language competence in Content and Language Integrated
courses. The Open Applied Linguistics Journal 1: 31-42.
Lasagabaster, D. & Sierra, J. M. 2010. Immersion and CLIL in English: more differences
than similarities. ELT Journal 64(4): 367-375.
Lorenzo, F., Moore, P., & Casal, S. 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.
Madrid Manrique, M. & Madrid Fernández, D. 2014. La formación inicial del profesorado
para la educación bilingüe. Granada: Universidad de Granada.
Marsh D., Maljers A., & Hartiala A. K. 2001. Profiling European CLIL Classrooms.
Languages Open Doors. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä.
Paran, A. 2013. Content and language integrated learning: Panacea or policy borrowing
myth? Applied Linguistics Review 4(2): 317-342.
Pavón Vázquez, V. & Rubio, F. 2010. Teachers‟ concerns and uncertainties about the
introduction of CLIL programmes. Porta Linguarum 14: 45-58.
Pérez Cañado, M. L. 2011. The effects of CLIL within the APPP: Lessons learned and ways
forward”. In Studies in Honour of Ángeles Linde López, R. Crespo & M. García de
Sola (eds.), 13-30. Granada: Universidad de Granada.
Pérez Cañado, M. L. 2012. CLIL research in Europe: Past, present, and future.
International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 15(3): 315-341.
Pérez Cañado, M. L. 2016a. From the CLIL craze to the CLIL conundrum: Addressing the
current CLIL controversy. Bellaterra Journal of Teaching & Learning Language &
Literature 9(1): 9-31.
Pérez Cañado, M. L. 2016b. Teacher training needs for bilingual education: In-service
teacher perceptions. International Journal of Bilingual Education and
Bilingualism, DOI:10.1080/13670050.2014.980778.
Pérez Cañado, M. L. 2016c. Are teachers ready for CLIL? Evidence from a European study.
European Journal of Teacher Education.
Pérez Cañado, M. L. 2017a. CLIL teacher education: Where do we stand and where do we
need to go? In Bilingual Education: Educational Trends and Key Concepts, M. E.
Gómez Parra & R. Johnstone (eds.), 129-144. Madrid: Ministerio de Educación.
Pérez Cañado, M. L. 2017b. Stopping the “pendulum effect” in CLIL research: Finding the
MIEB
balance between Pollyanna and Scrooge. Applied Linguistics Review 8(1): 79–99.
Pérez Cañado, M. L. 2018a. CLIL and educational level: A longitudinal study on the impact
of CLIL on language outcomes and content mastery. Porta Linguarum 29: 51-70.
Pérez Cañado, M. L. 2018b. The effects of CLIL on L1 and content learning: Updated
empirical evidence from monolingual contexts. Learning and Instruction 57: 18-
33.
Pérez Cañado, M. L. 2018c. CLIL and pedagogical innovation: Fact or fiction?
International Journal of Applied Linguistics. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12208.
Pérez Cañado, M. L. 2018d. Innovations and challenges in CLIL teacher training. Theory
Into Practice 57(3): 1-10.
Pérez Cañado, M. L. In press for 2019. CLIL and elitism: Myth or reality? The Language
Learning Journal.
Pérez Cañado, M. L. & Ráez Padilla, J. 2015. Introduction and overview. In CLIL in action:
Voices from the classroom, D. Marsh, M. L. Pérez Cañado, & J. Ráez Padilla
(Eeds.), 1-12. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. 2008. CLIL and foreign language learning: A longitudinal study in the
Basque Country. International CLIL Research Journal 1(1): 60-73.
Ruiz Gómez, D. A. 2015. A Practical Approach to CLIL in L2 Content-Based Courses:
Methodological Guidelines for the Andalusian Bilingual Classroom. In CLIL in
Action: Voices from the Classroom, D. Marsh, M. L. Pérez Cañado, & J. Ráez
Padilla (eds.), 14-30. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Smit, U. 2007. Introduction. Vienna English Working Papers 16(3): 3-5.
Somers, T. & Surmont, J. 2011. CLIL and immersion: how clear-cut are they? ELT Journal
66(1): 113-116.
Swan, M. 1985. A critical look at the communicative approach (2). ELT Journal 39(2): 76-
87.
Tobin, N. A. & Abello-Contesse, C. (2013). The use of native assistants as language and
cultural resources in Andalusia‟s bilingual schools. In Bilingual and multilingual
education in the 21st century. Building on experience, C. Abello-Contesse, P. M.
Chandler, M. D. López-Jiménez, & R. Chacón-Beltrán (eds.), 231-255. Bristol:
Multilingual Matters.
Wolff, D. 2005. Approaching CLIL. In The CLIL quality matrix. Central workshop report,
D. Marsh (Coord.).
<http://www.ecml.at/mtp2/CLILmatrix/pdf/wsrepD3E2005_6.pdf>.
MIEB
Further readings
Associations, organizations, and networks
The CLIL Compendium (European report on reasons for implementation of CLIL in schools and
colleges across Europe)
URL: http://www.clilcompendium.com/
European Commission site on languages and CLIL

URL: http://ec.europa.eu/education/languages/index_en.htm
The Eurydice Network (European survey on CLIL, 2006)

URL: http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/index_en.php
EuroCLIC (European network on CLIL (including member database))

URL: http://www.ecml.at/mtp2/CLILmatrix/EN/qMain.html
CLIL Cascade Network (Information point for new developments in CLIL and key expertise)
URL: http://www.ecml.at/mtp2/CLILmatrix/EN/qMain.html
CLIL Terminology database

URL: http://www.clil.nl/ctd/index.html
CLIL Glossary
URL: http://www.cambridgeesol.org/assets/pdf/resources/teacher/clil_glossary.pdf
TIECLIL (Translanguage in Europe – Content and Language Integrated Learning)

URL: www.tieclil.org
ProCLIL (Providing guidelines for CLIL implementation in Primary and Pre-Primary Education)
URL: http://www.proclil.org/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=5
e-CLILT (e-based Content and Language Integrated Learning Training)

URL: http://www.eclilt.net/newsletters.html
The TL2L project

URL: http://www.tl2l.nl/events.htm
Isabel Pérez’s CLIL website

URL: http://www.isabelperez.com/clil.htm
LinguaRed: Red Profesional de Formación para el Profesorado de Centros Bilingües

URL: http://ulises.cepgranada.org/moodle/course/view.php?id=937#section-3
Vandelvira: Plataforma Provincial de Plurilingüismo

URL: http://www.cepjaen.es/vandelvira/
MIEB
International Association of Multilingualism (IAM)

URL: http://www.daf.tu-darmstadt.de/l3/association-1/index.de.jsp
The Bilingual/Bicultural Family Network (BBFN)

URL: http://www.biculturalfamily.org/
The Multilingual Children’s Association (MCA)

URL: http://www.multilingualchildren.org/
Specific research journals
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition (BLC)

Publisher: Cambridge University Press
URL: http://journals.cambridge.org
CLIL Journal of Innovation and Research in Plurilingual and Pluricultural

Education
Publisher: Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona
URL: https://revistes.uab.cat/clil/index
International CLIL Research Journal

Publisher: CLIL Consortium
URL: http://www.icrj.eu/
International Journal of Bilingual Education & Bilingualism

Publisher: Routledge (Taylor & Francis Group)
URL: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/1367-0050
International Journal of Bilingualism (IJB)

Publisher: SAGE
URL: http://ijb.sagepub.com/
Journal of Multilingual Communication Disorders (JMCD)

URL: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713736670
Journal of Multilingual & Multicultural Development (JMMD)

URL: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t794297829
International Multilingual Research Journal (IMJR)

Publisher: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates in cooperation with Arizona State University
URL: http://imjr.asu.edu
International Journal of Multilingualism (IJM)

MIEB
URL: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/1479-0718
The Bilingual Research Journal (BRJ)
Publisher: National Association for Bilingual Education (NABE)
URL: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/UBRJ
The Bilingual Review/La Revista Bilingüe (BR/RB)

Publisher: Bilingual Review Press, Arizona State University
URL: http://www.asu.edu/brp/bilin/bilin.html
Research journals with bilingualism/CLIL as one of various topics
AILA Review
Publisher: John Benjamins
URL: http://www.benjamins.com/
AILE (Acquistion et Interaction en Langue Étrangère)

Publisher: L‟Association Encrages de l‟Université de Paris VIII
URL: http://aile.revues.org/
Applied Language Learning

Publisher: Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center
URL: http://www.dliflc.edu/
Estudios de Lingüística Aplicada

Publisher: CELE, Universidad Autónoma de México
URL: http://ianua.cele.unam.mx/publicaciones/
EUROSLA Yearbook
URL: http://www.benjamins.com/
Foreign Language Annals

Publisher: ACTFL
URL: http://www.actfl.org
GRETA. Revista para Profesores de Inglés.

Publisher: Asociación de Profesores de Inglés de Andalucía
URL: http://www.gretajournal.com
International Journal of Applied Linguistics

Publisher: Wiley-Blackwell Publishing
URL: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/
ITL-International Journal of Applied Linguistics

Publisher: Peeters Online Journals
URL: http://poj.peeters-leuven.be/
MIEB
JALT Journal
Publisher: Japan Association for Foreign Language Teaching
URL: http://jalt-publications.org/jj/
Language Learning
Language Learning Journal

Publisher: Association for Language Learning
URL: http://www.all-languages.org.uk/
Language Learning & Development

Publisher: Psychology Press (Taylor & Francis Group)
URL: www.tandf.co.uk/journals/
Language Policy
Publisher: Springer
URL: http://www.springer.com
Language Teaching
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
URL: http://journals.cambridge.org/
Multilingua
Publisher: Mouton de Gruyter
URL: http://www.degruyter.de/
Porta Linguarum
Publisher:Universidad de Granada
URL: http://www.ugr.es/~portalin/
RESLA
Publisher: AESLA
URL: http://www.aesla.uji.es/resla
Revista Nebrija de Lingüística Aplicada a la Enseñanza de Lenguas

Publisher: Universidad Antonio de Nebrija
URL: http://nebrija.com/revista-linguistica/
The Modern Language Journal

MIEB
Book series
Child Language and Child Development

Publisher: Multilingual Matters
URL: http://www.multilingual-matters.com/
General Editor: Li Wei (Birkbeck College, University of London)
Bilingual Education and Bilingualism (BEB)

Editors: Nancy H. Hornberger (University of Pennsylvania) and Colin Baker (Bangor University,
Wales)
Hamburg Studies on Multilingualism (HSM)

URL:http://www.benjamins.com/
Editors: Peter Siemund, Barbara Hänel-Faulhaber, Christoph Gabriel (University of Hamburg)
Multilingual Education
Publisher: Springer
URL: https://www.springer.com/series/8836
Editor: Andy Kirkptarick, Bob Adamson
Multilingual Matters
Editor: John Edwards (St. Francis Xavier University, Canada)
Multilingualism and Multiple Language Acquisition and Learning

Publisher: Schneider Verlag Hohengehren
URL: http://www.paedagogik.de/
Editors: Britta Hufeisen (Technical University of Darmstadt) and Beate Lindemann (University of
Tromso)
Promoting Multilingualism Across Contexts (PMAC)

Publisher: Caslon Publishing and Consulting
URL: http://www.caslonpublishing.com/
Second Language Acquisition

Editor: David Singleton (Trinity College, Dublin)
URL: http://www. www.multilingual-matters.com/
MIEB
Studies in Bilingualism
URL:http://www.benjamins.com/
Editors: Dalila Ayoun (University of Arizona) and Robert DeKeyser (University of Pittsburgh)
Top conferences on CLIL
CIEB (Congreso Internacional de Enseñanza Bilingüe en Centros Educativos)

URL: https://cieb.es/
Congreso Internacional sobre Educación Bilingüe

URL: https://www.grupo-ebei.es/confbe/2018/es/home-es/
Congreso Internacional sobre Educación Bilingüe en un Mundo Globalizado

URL: https://www.institutofranklin.net/eventos-franklin/iv-congreso-internacional-educacion-
bilingue-mundo-globalizado/
GRETA (Asociación de Profesores de Inglés de Andalucía)

URL: https://www.gretateachersassociation.org/
NABE (National Association for Bilingual Education)

URL: http://www.nabe.org/
Conference listings
AEDEAN (Asociación Española de Estudios Anglo-Norteamericanos)

URL: http://www.aedean.org
AESLA (Asociación Española de Lingüística Aplicada)

URL: http://www.aesla.uji.es
ANGLONET
URL: http://www.rediris.es/list/utilizacion.html.es
IDV Kalender (Internationaler Deutschlehrerverband)

URL: http://www.dadkhah.de/idv/Hauptseiten/index.htm
Institut Universitari de Lingüística Aplicada (Universitat Pompeu Fabra), Agenda de

Congressos
URL:http://www.iula.upf.es/serdocum/llistes/congrefca,htm
The LINGUIST LIST, Calls and Conferences List

URL: http://www.linguistlist.org/callconf/index.html
MIEB
The Official AILA Conference Calendar (sponsored by SYSTEM: An International

Journal of Educational Technology and Applied Linguistics)
URL: http://www.solki.jyu.fi/yhteinen/kongress/start.htm
Roy Cochrun’s Conference List for Linguists, Translators, Interpreters and Teachers
of Languages
URL: http://www.royfc.com/confer.html

What Is Clil - Topic 4

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

What Is Clil - Topic 4

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Where do these outcomes lead us?

implementation, and research

[5.2] Identifying the main challenges to conquer

[5.3] Providing solutions within the current scenario

The current CLIL Challenges to conquer Possible solutions

Defining the controversy Observation

Characterization Linguistic and Investigation

Debunking false myths Methodology Motivation

Overview of the unit

To become aware of the current controversy affecting CLIL

In order to do so, you will read:

Lancaster, N. 2018. Extramural Exposure and Language Attainment: The Examination of

And we will employ the following resources:

5.1. The current CLIL controversy: characterization, implementation,

(PLEASE GO TO THE SUBJECT FORUM TO COMPLETE THIS ACTIVITY)

1. Read your article: 3 days

MYTH 2 (GROUP 2): “CLIL detrimentally impacts L1 competence.”

As we saw in Topic 1, CLIL is considered to have brought about a real “methodological

MYTH 5 (GROUP 5): “CLIL only works with the elite.”

low socioeconomic status)?

5.2. Identifying the main challenges to conquer

To begin with, the homogeneity of CLIL programs needs to be stepped up. As

characterizing representative pedagogical CLIL practices in order to provide clear

Catering to diversity is another burning issue on the CLIL agenda. If

There are also conspicuous lacunae in terms of the linguistic and

Methodologically, considerable strides still need to be taken in order to

Ongoing professional development is another major area for future work, as

Finally, a series of false myths or misconstrued perceptions need to be

Ongoing PEDAGOGICAL Linguistic and

Figure 1. Summary of the main pedagogical CLIL challenges

5.3. Providing solutions within the current scenario

How to go about tackling the afore-mentioned challenges? We propound going about it by

A necessary starting point is to promote observation. In order to build a solid

ownership of CLIL pedagogies.

The outcomes of such research should then be communicated by fostering

2. Proposing new specific degrees or diplomas, particularly in tertiary education:

3. Offering specific CLIL courses for pre-service teachers, which can be

4. Creating new bilingual degrees, which, according to recent investigations (e.g.,

5. Proposing new specific CLIL Masters, such as the Máster Interuniversitario en

And, finally, ensuring participant motivation is equally pivotal. Providing

Figure 2. The theory of the five “-ations”

Associations, organizations, and networks

European Commission site on languages and CLIL

The Eurydice Network (European survey on CLIL, 2006)

EuroCLIC (European network on CLIL (including member database))

CLIL Terminology database

TIECLIL (Translanguage in Europe – Content and Language Integrated Learning)

e-CLILT (e-based Content and Language Integrated Learning Training)

The TL2L project

Isabel Pérez’s CLIL website

LinguaRed: Red Profesional de Formación para el Profesorado de Centros Bilingües

Vandelvira: Plataforma Provincial de Plurilingüismo

International Association of Multilingualism (IAM)

The Bilingual/Bicultural Family Network (BBFN)

The Multilingual Children’s Association (MCA)

Specific research journals

Bilingualism: Language and Cognition (BLC)

CLIL Journal of Innovation and Research in Plurilingual and Pluricultural

International CLIL Research Journal

International Journal of Bilingual Education & Bilingualism

International Journal of Bilingualism (IJB)

Journal of Multilingual Communication Disorders (JMCD)