Volume 7, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2211-7245
  • E-ISSN: 2211-7253
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



Research into the pedagogies employed by CLIL teachers has been limited to date and, as such, has been identified as a key area in need of further investigation (Pérez-Cañado, 2012Dalton-Puffer & Smit, 2013). This review uses an elaborated 4Cs Analysis Framework (adapted from Coyle, Hood, & Marsh, 2010Coyle, 2015a2015b) as a basis for analysis of studies of pedagogies implemented by CLIL subject teachers internationally and in Dutch classrooms. This allows us to place the Dutch situation in an international context and to identify avenues for future research and development. The following questions guided the review: (1) What appear to be the most prominent international trends with regard to the implementation of the 4Cs in CLIL subject pedagogies?; and, (2) To what extent do Dutch CLIL subject pedagogies appear to reflect these international trends? Findings about pedagogies reported in the reviewed studies suggest that, in general, studies from the Netherlands stand out compared to international studies in several respects. Specifically, there is evidence of a relatively strong pedagogic focus in the Netherlands on developing students’ intercultural competence. The Dutch studies also stand out, however, for not addressing the role that the L1 can play in CLIL pedagogy. Furthermore, a main finding is that both the Dutch and the international studies reviewed provide little insight into aspects of CLIL pedagogy related to subject-specific culture and into ways in which content and language are .


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R.
    (Eds.) (2001) A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives (Complete edition). New York, NY: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Baetens Beardsmore, H.
    (2014) The cultural element in content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) Programmes. International Conference: Sociocultural competence and language learning in multilingual settings, V.U.B.18–19.9.2014.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. *Busz, M., Helleman, J., DeVincent, D., Verwoerd-Sowariraj, S., & Tonsberg Schlie, K. (2014) De praktijk van feedback op Engelstalige profielwerkstukken. Levende Talen Tijdschrift, 15(4), 26–37.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Cenoz, J.
    (2013) Discussion: Towards an educational perspective in CLIL language policy and pedagogical practice. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16(3), pp.389–394. doi:  10.1080/13670050.2013.777392
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2013.777392 [Google Scholar]
  5. *Clark, G. (2013) Snapshot of a lower secondary CLIL program in Japan. Asian EFL Journal, 15(4), 383–394.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. *Coonan, C. M. (2007) Insider views of the CLIL class through teacher self-observation. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(5), 625–646. doi:  10.2167/beb463.0
    https://doi.org/10.2167/beb463.0 [Google Scholar]
  7. Coyle, D.
    (2007) Content and Language Integrated Learning: Towards a connected research agenda for CLIL pedagogies. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(5), 543–562. doi:  10.2167/beb459.0
    https://doi.org/10.2167/beb459.0 [Google Scholar]
  8. (2008) CLIL – A pedagogical approach from the European perspective. InN. Hornberger (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Education, (Vol.4, pp. 97–112). Dordrecht: Springer. 10.1007/978‑0‑387‑30424‑3_92
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-30424-3_92 [Google Scholar]
  9. (2015a) Moving from the 4Cs framework to a pluriliteracies approach for CLIL. Presentation onbehalf of the Graz Group ECML.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. (2015b) Strengthening integrated learning: Towards a new era for pluriliteracies and intercultural learning. Latin American Journal of Content and Language Integrated Learning, 8(2), 84–103. doi:  10.5294/laclil.2015.8.2.2
    https://doi.org/10.5294/laclil.2015.8.2.2 [Google Scholar]
  11. Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D.
    (2010) Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. *Cross, R. (2012) Creative in finding creativity in the curriculum: The CLIL second language classroom. Australian Educational Researcher, 39(4), 431–445. doi:  10.1007/s13384‑012‑0074‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-012-0074-8 [Google Scholar]
  13. *Cross, R. (2016) Language and content ‘integration’: The affordances of additional languages as a tool within a single curriculum space. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 48(3), 388–408. doi:  10.1080/00220272.2015.1125528
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2015.1125528 [Google Scholar]
  14. Cummins, J.
    (1981) The role of primary language development in promoting educational success for language minority students. InC. F. Leyva (Ed.), Schooling and language minority students: A theoretical framework (pp.3–49). Los Angeles, CA: California State University.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. (2000) Language, power and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781853596773
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781853596773 [Google Scholar]
  16. *Dalton-Puffer, C. (2005) Negotiating interpersonal meanings in naturalistic classroom discourse: Directives in content-and-language-integrated classrooms. Journal of Pragmatic37(8), 1275–1293. doi:  10.1016/j.pragma.2004.12.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.12.002 [Google Scholar]
  17. Dalton-Puffer
    (2007) Discourse in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) classrooms. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.20
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.20 [Google Scholar]
  18. Dalton-Puffer, C., Llinares, A., Lorenzo, F., & Nikula, T.
    (2014) You can stand under my umbrella: Immersion, CLIL and bilingual education. A response toCenoz, Genesee, & Gorter (2013) Applied Linguistics, 35(2), 213–218. doi:  10.1093/applin/amu010
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amu010 [Google Scholar]
  19. *Dalton-Puffer, C., & Nikula, T. (2006) Pragmatics of content-based instruction: Teacher and student directives in Finnish and Austrian classrooms. Applied Linguistics, 27(2), 241–267. doi:  10.1093/applin/aml007
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/aml007 [Google Scholar]
  20. Dalton-Puffer, C., & Smit, U.
    (2013) Content and Language Integrated Learning: A research agenda. Language Teaching, 46(4), 545–559. doi:  10.1017/S0261444813000256
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444813000256 [Google Scholar]
  21. *De Graaff, R., Koopman, G. J., Anikina, Y., & Westhoff, G. (2007) An observation tool for effective L2 pedagogy in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL). International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(5), 603–624. doi:  10.2167/beb462.0
    https://doi.org/10.2167/beb462.0 [Google Scholar]
  22. De Graaff, R., & Van Wilgenburg, O.
    (2015) The Netherlands. Quality control as a driving force in bilingual education. InP. Mehisto, & F. Genesee (Eds.), Building bilingual education systems: Forces, mechanisms and counter weights (pp.167–180). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. *Denman, J., Tanner, R., & De Graaff, R. (2013) CLIL in junior vocational secondary education: Challenges and opportunities for teaching and learning. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16(3) 285–300. doi:  10.1080/13670050.2013.777386
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2013.777386 [Google Scholar]
  24. Doyle, W.
    (1983) Academic work. Review of Educational Research, 53(1), 159–199. 10.3102/00346543053002159
    https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543053002159 [Google Scholar]
  25. *Escobar Urmeneta, C. (2013) Learning to become a CLIL teacher: Teaching, reflection and professional development. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16(3), 334–353. doi:  10.1080/13670050.2013.777389
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2013.777389 [Google Scholar]
  26. *Escobar Urmeneta, C., & Evnitskaya, N. (2014) “ Do you know actimel?” The adaptive nature of dialogic teacher-led discussions in the CLIL Science classroom: A case study. Language Learning Journal, 42(2) 165–180. doi:  10.1080/09571736.2014.889507
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2014.889507 [Google Scholar]
  27. *Evnitskaya, N., & Morton, T. (2011) Knowledge construction, meaning-making and interaction in CLIL science classroom communities of practice. Language and Education, 25(2), 109–127. doi:  10.1080/09500782.2010.547199
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2010.547199 [Google Scholar]
  28. *Gené Gil, M. G., Garau, M. J., & Salazar Noguera, J. (2012) A case study exploring the language choice between the target language and the L1s in mainstream CLIL and EFL secondary education. Revista de Linguistica Y Lenguas Aplicadas, 7, 133–145. 10.4995/rlyla.2012.1129
    https://doi.org/10.4995/rlyla.2012.1129 [Google Scholar]
  29. *Gierlinger, E. (2015) ‘You can speak German sir’: On the complexity of teachers’ L1 use in CLIL. Language and Education, 29(4), 347–368. doi:  10.1080/09500782.2015.1023733
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2015.1023733 [Google Scholar]
  30. *Grandinetti, M., Langelotti, M., & Ting, T. (2013) How CLIL can provide a pragmatic means to renovate science education even in a sub-optimally bilingual context. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16(3), 354–374. doi:  10.1080/13670050.2013.777390
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2013.777390 [Google Scholar]
  31. *Huibregtse, I. (2001) Onderwijs in twee talen. Levende Talen Tijdschrift, 2(1), 11–20.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. *Hüttner, 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), 267–284. doi:  10.1080/13670050.2013.777385
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2013.777385 [Google Scholar]
  33. *Kontio, J., & Sylvén, L. K. (2015) Language alternation and language norm in vocational content and language in integrated learning. Language Learning Journal, 43(3), 271–285. doi:  10.1080/09571736.2015.1053279
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2015.1053279 [Google Scholar]
  34. *Koopman, G. J., Skeet, J., & De Graaff, R. (2014) Exploring content teachers’ knowledge of language pedagogy: A report on a small-scale research project in a Dutch CLIL context. Language Learning Journal, 42(2), 123–136. doi:  10.1080/09571736.2014.889974
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2014.889974 [Google Scholar]
  35. *Lasagabaster, D. (2013) The use of the L1 in CLIL classes: The teachers’ perspective. Latin American Journal of Content and Language Integrated Learning, 6(2), 1–21. doi:  10.5294/laclil.2013.6.2.1
    https://doi.org/10.5294/laclil.2013.6.2.1 [Google Scholar]
  36. *Lin, A. M. Y., & Lo, Y. Y. (2017) Trans/languaging and the triadic dialogue in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) classrooms. Language and Education, 31(1), 26–45. doi:  10.1080/09500782.2016.1230125
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2016.1230125 [Google Scholar]
  37. *Lin, A. M. Y., & Wu, Y. (2015) ‘May I speak Cantonese?’ Co-constructing a scientific proof in an EFL junior secondary science classroom. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 18(3), 289–305. doi:  10.1080/13670050.2014.988113
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2014.988113 [Google Scholar]
  38. *Llinares, A. & Pascual Peña, I. (2015) A genre approach to the effect of academic questions on CLIL students’ language production. Language and Education, 29(1), 15–30. doi:  10.1080/09500782.2014.924964
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2014.924964 [Google Scholar]
  39. *Lo, Y. Y. (2015) How much L1 is too much? Teachers’ language use in response to students’ abilities and classroom interaction in Content and Language Integrated Learning. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 18(3), 270–288. doi:  10.1080/13670050.2014.988112
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2014.988112 [Google Scholar]
  40. *Lo, Y. Y., & Macaro, E. (2015) Getting used to Content and Language Integrated Learning: What can classroom interaction reveal?Language Learning Journal, 43(3), 239–255. doi:  10.1080/09571736.2015.1053281
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2015.1053281 [Google Scholar]
  41. Loewen, S.
    (2014) Introduction to instructed second language acquisition. New York, NY: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Long, M. H.
    (1983) Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 126–41. doi:  10.1093/applin/4.2.126
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/4.2.126 [Google Scholar]
  43. Long, M.
    (1991) Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. InK. de Bot, R. Ginsberg, & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign language research in crosscultural perspective (pp.40–52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/sibil.2.07lon
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.2.07lon [Google Scholar]
  44. (2009) Methodological principles for language teaching. InM. H. Long & C. J. Doughty (Eds.), The handbook of language teaching (pp.373–394). Malden, MA: Blackwell. 10.1002/9781444315783
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444315783 [Google Scholar]
  45. Lyster, R., & Ranta, L.
    (1997) Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(1), 37–66. 10.1017/S0272263197001034
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263197001034 [Google Scholar]
  46. Madrid, D., & Pérez-Cañado, M. L.
    (2012) CLIL teacher training. InJ. de Dios Martínez Agudo (Ed.), Teaching and learning English through bilingual education (pp.181–212). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. *Méndez García, M. (2013) The intercultural turn brought about by the implementation of CLIL programs in Spanish monolingual areas: A case-study of Andalusian primary and secondary schools. Language Learning Journal, 41(3). 268–283. doi:  10.1080/09571736.2013.836345
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2013.836345 [Google Scholar]
  48. *Méndez García, M., & Pavón Vázquez, V. (2012) Investigating the co-existence of the mother tongue and the foreign language through teacher collaboration in CLIL contexts: Perceptions and practice of the teachers involved in the plurilingual programme in Andalusia. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 15(5), 573–592. doi:  10.1080/13670050.2012.670195
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2012.670195 [Google Scholar]
  49. Meyer, O.
    (2010) Towards quality-CLIL: Successful planning and teaching strategies. Pulso, 33, 11–29.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Meyer, O., Coyle, D., Halbach, A., Schuck, K., & Ting, T.
    (2015) A pluriliteracies approach to Content and Language Integrated Learning – Mapping learner progressions in knowledge construction and meaning-making. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28(1), 41–57. doi:  10.1080/07908318.2014.1000924
    https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2014.1000924 [Google Scholar]
  51. *Milla, R., & García Mayo, M. P. (2014) Corrective feedback episodes in oral interaction: A comparison of a CLIL and an EFL classroom. International Journal of English Studies, 14(1), 1–20. doi:  10.6018/ijes/14/1/151841
    https://doi.org/10.6018/ijes/14/1/151841 [Google Scholar]
  52. *Moate, J. M. (2011) The impact of foreign language mediated teaching on teachers’ sense of professional integrity in the CLIL classroom. European Journal of Teacher Education, 34(3), 333–346. doi:  10.1080/02619768.2011.585023
    https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2011.585023 [Google Scholar]
  53. *Montet, M., & Morgan, C. (2001) Teaching Geography through a foreign language: How to make text accessible to learners at different levels. The Language Learning Journal, 24(1), 4–11. doi:  10.1080/09571730185200151
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09571730185200151 [Google Scholar]
  54. Morton, T.
    (2010) Using a genre-based approach to integrating content and language in CLIL. InC. Dalton-Puffer, Nikula, T., & Smit, U. (Eds.), Language use and language learning in CLIL classrooms (pp.81–104). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/aals.7.05mor
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aals.7.05mor [Google Scholar]
  55. *Morton, T. (2015) Vocabulary explanations in CLIL classrooms: A conversation analysis perspective. Language Learning Journal, 43(3), 256–270. doi:  10.1080/09571736.2015.1053283
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2015.1053283 [Google Scholar]
  56. *Morton, T. (2016) Conceptualizing and investigating teachers’ knowledge for integrating content and language in content-based instruction. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 4(2), 144–167. doi:  10.1075/jicb.4.2.01mor
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jicb.4.2.01mor [Google Scholar]
  57. Morton, T., & Llinares, A.
    (2017) Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL). Type of programme or pedagogical model?InA. Llinares, & T. Morton (Eds.), Applied linguistics perspectives on CLIL (pp.1–16). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.47.01mor
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.47.01mor [Google Scholar]
  58. *Możejko, Z. (2011) How much CLIL is there in CLIL? A study of the approach on the example of CLIL provision in a junior high school. Acta Philologica, 40, 69–81.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. *Nikula, T. (2005) English as an object and tool of study in classrooms: Interactional effects and pragmatic implications. An International Research Journal, 16(1), 27–58. doi:  10.1016/j.linged.2005.10.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2005.10.001 [Google Scholar]
  60. *Nikula, T. (2007) Speaking English in Finnish content-based classrooms. World Englishes, 26(2), 206–223. doi:  10.1111/j.1467‑971X.2007.00502.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-971X.2007.00502.x [Google Scholar]
  61. *Nikula, T. (2015) Hands-on tasks in CLIL Science classrooms as sites for subject-specific language use and learning. System, 54, 14–27. doi:  10.1016/j.system.2015.04.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.04.003 [Google Scholar]
  62. Oattes, H., Oostdam, R., De Graaff, R., & Wilschut, A.
    (2018) The challenge of balancing content and language: Perceptions of Dutch bilingual education history teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 70, 165–174. doi:  10.1016/j.tate.2017.11.022
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.11.022 [Google Scholar]
  63. *Papaja, K. (2011) Analyzing types of classroom interaction in CLIL. Glottodidactica, 38, 43–52. doi:  10.14746/gl.2011.38.4
    https://doi.org/10.14746/gl.2011.38.4 [Google Scholar]
  64. *Papaja, K. (2013) The role of a teacher in a CLIL classroom. Glottodidactica, 40(1), 147–154. doi:  10.14746/gl.2013.40.1.11
    https://doi.org/10.14746/gl.2013.40.1.11 [Google Scholar]
  65. *Paulsrud, B. A. Y. (2016) English-medium instruction in Sweden. Perspectives and practices in two upper secondary schools. Journal of Immersion and Content-based Language Education, 4(1), 108–128. doi:  10.1075/jicb.4.1.05pau
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jicb.4.1.05pau [Google Scholar]
  66. Pavón Vázquez, V., & Ellison, M.
    (2013) Examining teacher roles and competences in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL). Linguarum Arena, 4, 65–78.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Pavón Vázquez, V., & Rubio, F.
    (2010) Teachers’ concerns and uncertainties about the introduction of CLIL programmes. Porta Linguarum, 14, 45–58.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Pérez-Cañado, M. L.
    (2012) CLIL research in Europe: Past, present and future. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 15(3), 315–341. doi:  10.1080/13670050.2011.630064
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2011.630064 [Google Scholar]
  69. Roussel, S., Joulia, D., Tricot, A., & Sweller, J.
    (2017) Learning subject content through a foreign language should not ignore human cognitive architecture: A cognitive load theory approach. Learning and Instruction. doi:  10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.04.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.04.007 [Google Scholar]
  70. Ruiz de Zarobe, Y.
    (2007) CLIL in a bilingual community: Similarities and differences with the learning of English as a foreign language. Vienna English Working Papers, 16(3), 47–52.
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Saito, K., & Lyster, R.
    (2012) Effects of form-focused instruction and corrective feedback on L2 pronunciation development of /ɹ/ by Japanese learners of English. Language Learning, 62(2), 595–633. doi:  10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2011.00639.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00639.x [Google Scholar]
  72. *Schuitemaker-King, J. (2013) Giving corrective feedback in CLIL and EFL classes. Levende Talen Tijdschrift, 14(2), 3–10.
    [Google Scholar]
  73. *Smala, S. (2013) Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) pedagogies in Queensland. International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 8(3), 194–205. doi: 10.5172/ijpl.2013.8.3.19
    https://doi.org/10.5172/ijpl.2013.8.3.19 [Google Scholar]
  74. Swain, M.
    (1995) Three functions of output in second language learning. InG. Cook, & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics (pp.125–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  75. *Tavares, N. J. (2015) How strategic use of L1 in an L2-medium mathematics classroom facilitates L2 interaction and comprehension. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 18(3), 319–335. doi:  10.1080/13670050.2014.988115
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2014.988115 [Google Scholar]
  76. *Ting, T. (2007) Insights from Italian CLIL-Science classrooms: Refining objectives, constructing knowledge and transforming FL-learners into FL-users. Vienna English Working Papers, 16(3), 60–69.
    [Google Scholar]
  77. (2010) CLIL appeals to how the brain likes its information: Examples from CLIL-(neuro)science. International CLIL Research Journal, 1(3), 3–18.
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Van den Akker, J.
    (2003) Curriculum perspectives: An introduction. InJ. Van den Akker, W. Kuiper, & U. Hameyer (Eds.), Curriculum landscapes and trends (pp.1–10). Dordrecht: Kluwer. 10.1007/978‑94‑017‑1205‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-1205-7 [Google Scholar]
  79. *Van Kampen, E., Admiraal, W., & Berry, A. (2018) Content and Language Integrated Learning in The Netherlands: Teachers’ self-reported pedagogical practices. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21(2), 222–236. doi:  10.1080/13670050.2016.1154004
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2016.1154004 [Google Scholar]
  80. Van Kampen, E., Meirink, J., Admiraal, W., & Berry, A.
    (2017) Do we all share the same goals for Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL)? Specialist and practitioner perceptions of ‘ideal’ CLIL pedagogies in the Netherlands. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. doi:  10.1080/13670050.2017.1411332
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2017.1411332 [Google Scholar]
  81. Van Manen, M.
    (2003) The language of pedagogy and primacy of student experience. InJ. Loughran (Ed.), Researching teaching: Methodologies & practices for understanding pedagogy (pp.13–27). London: Falmer Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  82. *Wannagat, U. (2007) Learning through L2 – content and language integrated learning (CLIL) and English as Medium of Instruction (EMI). International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(5), 663–682. doi:  10.2167/beb465.0
    https://doi.org/10.2167/beb465.0 [Google Scholar]
  83. Westhoff, G.
    (2004) The art of playing a pinball machine. Characteristics of effective SLA-tasks. Babylonia, 3, 58–62.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): 4Cs; CLIL; pedagogies; review; the Netherlands
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error