Volume 11, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2212-8433
  • E-ISSN: 2212-8441
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



The current article investigates the beliefs of Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) subject and language teacher tandems in a situation where they worked in close contact to design and deliver a CLIL course. The aim was to discover their underlying beliefs concerning setting learning goals, developing academic language proficiency, using authentic materials and cooperative tasks, and managing assessment. The Interpretative Phenomenological Approach revealed both overlapping and idiosyncratic beliefs involving all of the focal aspects. Common beliefs included the dominance of subject learning goals over language goals, the need to develop academic language proficiency, the use of authentic materials and cooperative tasks as sources of subject knowledge and skills, as well as the need to involve appropriate assessment in the process. Differences included flexibility in the process of goal setting, the definition of academic language proficiency, the meaning of authentic learning materials and the repertoire of tools available for scaffolding learning and managing assessment.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Aguirregoitia Martinez, A., Bengoetxea Kortazar, K., & Gonzalez-Dios, I.
    (2021) Are CLIL texts too complicated? A computational analysis of their linguistic characteristics. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 9(1), 4–30. 10.1075/jicb.19022.agu
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jicb.19022.agu [Google Scholar]
  2. Ainley, J., & Carstens, R.
    (2018) Teaching and learning international survey (TALIS) 2018 conceptual framework. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Andrews, S., & Lin, A. M.
    (2017) Language awareness and teacher development. InP. Garret & J. M. Cots (eds.), The Routledge handbook of language awareness (pp.57–74). Routledge. 10.4324/9781315676494‑4
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315676494-4 [Google Scholar]
  4. Aruvee, M., & Puksand, H.
    (2019) Kirjaoskuse arendamine eesti keele ja kirjanduse õpetajate vaatevinklist: Sillad ja kuristikud teooria ja praktika vahel. [Developing literacy in Estonian as L1: bridges and gaps]. Eesti Haridusteaduste Ajakiri. Estonian Journal of Education, 2(7), 154–180. 10.12697/eha.2019.7.2.07
    https://doi.org/10.12697/eha.2019.7.2.07 [Google Scholar]
  5. Ball, P., Kelly, K., & Clegg, J.
    (2019) Putting CLIL into practice. Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Barrios, E., & Milla Lara, M. D.
    (2020) CLIL methodology, materials and resources, and assessment in a monolingual context: An analysis of stakeholders’ perceptions in Andalusia. The Language Learning Journal, 48(1), 60–80. 10.1080/09571736.2018.1544269
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2018.1544269 [Google Scholar]
  7. Beijaard, D., Meijer, P. C., & Verloop, N.
    (2004) Reconsidering research on teachers’ professional identity. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(2), 107–128. 10.1016/j.tate.2003.07.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2003.07.001 [Google Scholar]
  8. Biesta, G., Priestley, M., & Robinson, S.
    (2015) The role of beliefs in teacher agency. Teachers and Teaching, 21(6), 624–640. 10.1080/13540602.2015.1044325
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2015.1044325 [Google Scholar]
  9. Borg, S.
    (2017) Teachers’ beliefs and classroom practices. InP. Garret & J. M. Cots (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Language Awareness, 75–91. 10.4324/9781315676494‑5
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315676494-5 [Google Scholar]
  10. Bovellan, E.
    (2014) Teachers’ beliefs about learning and language as reflected in their views of teaching materials for Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL). Doctoral Dissertation Jyväskylä Studies in Humanities, 2311, 1–244. urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-951-39-5809-1
  11. Castillo Losada, C. A., Insuasty, E. A., & Jaime Osorio, M. F.
    (2017) The impact of authentic materials and tasks on students’ communicative competence at a Colombian language school. Profile: Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development, 19(1), 89–104. 10.15446/profile.v19n1.56763
    https://doi.org/10.15446/profile.v19n1.56763 [Google Scholar]
  12. Cenoz, J., Genesee, F., & Gorter, D.
    (2014) Critical analysis of CLIL: Taking stock and looking forward. Applied Linguistics, 35(3), 243–262. 10.1093/applin/amt011
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amt011 [Google Scholar]
  13. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K.
    (2007) Research methods in education. Routledge. 10.4324/9780203029053
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203029053 [Google Scholar]
  14. Cook, L., & Friend, M.
    (2017) Co-teaching: Guidelines for creating effective practices. Focus on Exceptional Children, 28(3). 1–16. 10.17161/foec.v28i3.6852
    https://doi.org/10.17161/foec.v28i3.6852 [Google Scholar]
  15. Council of Europe
    Council of Europe (2020) Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment: Companion volume. Council of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg, available atwww.coe.int/lang-cefr
    [Google Scholar]
  16. 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. 10.2167/beb459.0
    https://doi.org/10.2167/beb459.0 [Google Scholar]
  17. Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D.
    (2010) CLIL: Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781009024549
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009024549 [Google Scholar]
  18. Coyle, Y., & Roca de Larios, J.
    (2020) Exploring young learners’ engagement with models as a written corrective technique in EFL and CLIL settings. System, 951, 102374. 10.1016/j.system.2020.102374
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102374 [Google Scholar]
  19. Cummins, J.
    (2013) BICS and CALP: Empirical support, theoretical status, and policy implications of a controversial distinction. InM. R. Hawkins (Ed.) Framing Languages and Literacies: Socially Situated Views and Perspectives (pp.20–33). Routledge. 10.4324/9780203070895‑9
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203070895-9 [Google Scholar]
  20. Dale, L., & Tanner, R.
    (2012) CLIL activities with CD-ROM: A resource for subject and language teachers. Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Dale, L., Oostdam, R., & Verspoor, M.
    (2017) Searching for identity and focus: Towards an analytical framework for language teachers in bilingual education. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21(3), 366–383. 10.1080/13670050.2017.1383351
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2017.1383351 [Google Scholar]
  22. Dalton-Puffer, C.
    (2013) A construct of cognitive discourse functions for conceptualising content-language integration in CLIL and multilingual education. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 216–253. 10.1515/eujal‑2013‑0011
    https://doi.org/10.1515/eujal-2013-0011 [Google Scholar]
  23. de Graaff, R., Jan Koopman, G., 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. 10.2167/beb462.0
    https://doi.org/10.2167/beb462.0 [Google Scholar]
  24. Escobar Urmeneta, C.
    (2020) Coteaching in CLIL in Catalonia. CLIL Journal of Innovation and Research in Plurilingual and Pluricultural Education, 3(2), 37–55. 10.5565/rev/clil.54
    https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/clil.54 [Google Scholar]
  25. Fernández-Sanjurjo, J., Fernández-Costales, A., & Arias Blanco, J. M.
    (2017) Analysing students’ content-learning in science in CLIL vs. non-CLIL programmes: Empirical evidence from Spain. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 22(6), 661–674. 10.1080/13670050.2017.1294142
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2017.1294142 [Google Scholar]
  26. Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., and Wenderoth, M. P.
    (2014) Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA1111, 8410–8415. 10.1073/pnas.1319030111
    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111 [Google Scholar]
  27. Haridussilm
    Haridussilm (2022) Statistical Database of Education in Estonia. Retrieved fromhttps://www.haridussilm.ee/ee/valdkonnaraportid/haridus/uldharidus
    [Google Scholar]
  28. HTM (Estonian Ministry of Education and Research)
    HTM (Estonian Ministry of Education and Research) (2019) Availability of international general education in Estonia. https://www.hm.ee/en/activities/pre-school-basic-and-secondary-education/availability-international-general-education
    [Google Scholar]
  29. HTM (Estonian Ministry of Education and Research)
    HTM (Estonian Ministry of Education and Research) (2022) Transition to instruction in the national language. https://www.hm.ee/uudised/minister-tonis-lukas-uleminek-eestikeelsele-oppele-toimub-kindlasti
    [Google Scholar]
  30. He, P., & Lin, A. M.
    (2018) Becoming a “language-aware” content teacher: Content and language integrated learning (CLIL) teacher professional development as a collaborative, dynamic, and dialogic process. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 6(2), 162–188. 10.1075/jicb.17009.he
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jicb.17009.he [Google Scholar]
  31. Honigsfeld, A., & Dove, M. G.
    (2016) Co-teaching ELLs: Riding a tandem bike. Educational Leadership, 73(4), 56–60.
    [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. 10.1080/13670050.2013.777385
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2013.777385 [Google Scholar]
  33. Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Stanne, M. B.
    (2000) Cooperative learning methods: A meta-analysis. University of Minnesota
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Kagan, D. M.
    (1992) Implication of research on teacher belief. Educational Psychologist, 27(1), 65–90. 10.1207/s15326985ep2701_6
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2701_6 [Google Scholar]
  35. Karabassova, L.
    (2018) Teachers’ conceptualization of content and language integrated learning (CLIL): Evidence from a trilingual context. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 25(3) 1–13. 10.1080/13670050.2018.1550048
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2018.1550048 [Google Scholar]
  36. Karjalainen, K., Pörn, M., Rusk, F., & Björkskog, L.
    (2013) Classroom tandem: Outlining a model for language learning and ınstruction. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 6(1), 165–184.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Kelchtermans, G.
    (2006) Teacher collaboration and collegiality as workplace conditions. A review. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 52(2), 220–237.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Kötter, M.
    (2002) Tandem learning on the internet: Learner interactions in virtual online environments (MOOs). Peter Lang Edition.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Laal, M., & Ghodsi, S. M.
    (2012) Benefits of collaborative learning. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 311, 486–490. 10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.12.091
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.12.091 [Google Scholar]
  40. Ljalikova, A., Meristo, M., Alas, E., & Jung, M.
    (2021) Narrative analysis as a means of investigating CLIL teachers’ meaningful experiences. Qualitative Research in Education, 10(3), 228–259. 10.17583/qre.7511
    https://doi.org/10.17583/qre.7511 [Google Scholar]
  41. Lo, Y. Y., & Fung, D.
    (2018) Assessments in CLIL: The interplay between cognitive and linguistic demands and their progression in secondary education. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 23(10), 1192–1210. 10.1080/13670050.2018.1436519
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2018.1436519 [Google Scholar]
  42. Maljers, A., & Wolff, D.
    (2007) Windows on CLIL: Content and language integrated learning in the European spotlight. European Platform for Dutch Education.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Maschmeier, F.
    (2019) Learner autonomy in the CLIL Classroom. Peter Lang Edition. 10.3726/b15200
    https://doi.org/10.3726/b15200 [Google Scholar]
  44. Massler, U., Stotz, D., & Queisser, C.
    (2014) Assessment instruments for primary CLIL: The conceptualisation and evaluation of test tasks. The Language Learning Journal, 42(2), 137–150. 10.1080/09571736.2014.891371
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2014.891371 [Google Scholar]
  45. Mehisto, P.
    (2012) Criteria for producing CLIL learning material. Encuentro, 211, 15–33.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Mehisto, P., & Ting, Y. L. T.
    (2017) CLIL essentials for secondary school teachers. Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Met, M.
    (1999) Reports content-based instruction: Defining terms, making decisions. DC: NFLC Reports. The National Foreign Language Center.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Meyer, O., & Coyle, D.
    (2017) Pluriliteracies teaching for learning: Conceptualizing progression for deeper learning in literacies development. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5(2), 199–222. 10.1515/eujal‑2017‑0006
    https://doi.org/10.1515/eujal-2017-0006 [Google Scholar]
  49. Moje, E. B.
    (2008) Responsive literacy teaching in secondary school content areas. InM. W. Conley (Ed.), Meeting the challenge of adolescent literacy: Research we have, research we need (pp.58–87). Guilford Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Nikula, T., Dafouz, E., Moore, P., & Smit, U.
    (Eds.) (2016) Conceptualising integration in CLIL and multilingual education. Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781783096145
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783096145 [Google Scholar]
  51. Nisbett, R. E., & Ross, L.
    (1985) Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment. Prentice-Hall.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Pajares, M. F.
    (1992) Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307–332. 10.3102/00346543062003307
    https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543062003307 [Google Scholar]
  53. Pappa, S.
    (2018) “You’ve got the color, but you don’t have the shades”: Primary education CLIL teachers’ identity negotiation within the Finnish context. Jyväskylä Studies in Education, Psychology and Social Research, 6191, 1–179.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Pelz, M.
    (1995) Die 5. Internationalen Tandem-Tage in Freiburg i. Br. InM. Pelz (Ed.), Tandem in der Lehrerbildung, Tandem und grenzüberschreitende Projekte. Dokumentation der 5. Internationalen Tandem-Tage 1994 in Freiburg i. Br. (pp.5–8). Verlag für Interkulturelle Kommunikation.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Pinner, R.
    (2013) Authenticity and CLIL: Examining authenticity from an international CLIL perspective. International CLIL Research Journal, 2(1), 44–54. www.icrj.eu/21/article4.html
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Shulman, L.
    (1987) Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard educational review, 57(1), 1–23. 10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411
    https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411 [Google Scholar]
  57. Shaw, R., Burton, A., Xuereb, C. B., Gibson, J., & Lane, D.
    (2014) Interpretative phenomenological analysis in applied health research. SAGE Publications, Ltd. 10.4135/978144627305013514656
    https://doi.org/10.4135/978144627305013514656 [Google Scholar]
  58. Skinnari, K., & Bovellan, E.
    (2016) CLIL teachers’ beliefs about integration and about their professional roles: Perspectives from a European context. InT. Nikula, E. Dafouz, P. Moore, & U. Smit (eds.), Conceptualising Integration in CLIL and Multilingual Education (145–168). Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781783096145‑010
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783096145-010 [Google Scholar]
  59. Smith, J. A., Flowers, P., & Larkin, M.
    (2012) Interpretative phenomenological analysis: Theory, method and research. Sage. 10.1037/13620‑005
    https://doi.org/10.1037/13620-005 [Google Scholar]
  60. Tulviste, T., & Ahtonen, M.
    (2007) Child-rearing values of Estonian and Finnish mothers and fathers. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 38(2), 137–155. 10.1177/0022022106297297
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022106297297 [Google Scholar]
  61. Tulviste, T., Mizera, L., De Geer, B., & Tryggvason, M. T.
    (2007) Child-rearing goals of Estonian, Finnish, and Swedish mothers. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 48(6), 487–497. 10.1111/j.1467‑9450.2007.00618.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9450.2007.00618.x [Google Scholar]
  62. 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, 23(8), 855–871. 10.1080/13670050.2017.1411332
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2017.1411332 [Google Scholar]
  63. Vangrieken, K., Dochy, F., Raes, E., & Kyndt, E.
    (2015) Teacher collaboration: A systematic review. Educational Research Review, 151, 17–40. 10.1016/j.edurev.2015.04.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.04.002 [Google Scholar]
  64. Pavón Vázquez, V., & Ellison, M.
    (2013) Examining teacher roles and competences in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL). Linguarum Arena: Revista de Estudos em Didática de Línguas da Universidade do Porto, 41, 65–78.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Villabona, N., & Cenoz, J.
    (2021) The integration of content and language in CLIL: A challenge for content-driven and language-driven teachers. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 35(1), 1–15. 10.1080/07908318.2021.1910703
    https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2021.1910703 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): CLIL; co-teaching; collaboration; teacher beliefs; teacher tandem
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