Volume 5, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2212-8433
  • E-ISSN: 2212-8441
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


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


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Anstrom, K. , DiCerbo, P. , Butler, F. , Katz, A. , Millet, J. , & Rivera, C.
    (2010) A review of the literature on academic English: Implications for K–12 English Language Learners. Arlington, VA: The George Washington University Center for Equity and Excellence in Education.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Baecher, L. , Farnsworth, T. , & Ediger, A.
    (2014) The challenges of planning language objectives in content-based ESL instruction. Language Teaching Research, 18(1), 118–136. doi: 10.1177/1362168813505381
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168813505381 [Google Scholar]
  3. Ball, P. , Kelly, K. , & Clegg, J.
    (2015) Putting CLIL into practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Barwell, R.
    (2016) A Bakhtinian perspective on language and content integration: Encountering the alien word in in second language mathematics. In T. Nikula , E. Dafouz , P. Moore , & U. Smit (Eds.), Conceptualising integration in CLIL and multilingual education (pp.101–122). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bateman, J.
    (2014) Text and image: A critical introduction to the visual/verbal divide. New York, NY: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bonnet, A.
    (2012) Language, content and Interaction: How to make CLIL classrooms work. In D. Marsh , & O. Meyer (Eds.), Quality interfaces: Examining evidence and exploring solutions in CLIL (pp.175–190). Eichstätt, Germany: Eichstaett Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Boroditsky, L.
    (2012) How the languages we speak shape the ways we think. In M. Spivey , K. McRae , & M. Joanisse (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of psycholinguistics (pp.615–632). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139029377
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139029377 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bovellan, E.
    (2014) Teachers’ beliefs about learning and language as reflected in their views of teaching materials for content and language integrated learning (CLIL). Unpublished PhD dissertation. University of Jyväskylä.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Brüning, C. I. , & Purrmann, M.-S.
    (2014) CLIL pedagogy in Europe: CLIL teacher education in Germany. Utrecht Studies in Language & Communication, 27, 315–338.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Cammarata, L. , & Tedick, D. J.
    (2012) Balancing content and language in instruction: The experience of immersion teachers. The Modern Language Journal, 96(2), 251–269. doi: 10.1111/j.15400026‑7902/12/251‑269‑269
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.15400026-7902/12/251-269-269 [Google Scholar]
  11. Cammarata, L. , Tedick, D. J. , & Osborn, A. T.
    (2016) Content-based instruction and curricular reforms: Issues and goals. In L. Cammarata (Ed.), Content-based foreign language teaching: Curriculum and pedagogy for developing advanced thinking and literacy skills (pp.1–21). New York, NY: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Cenoz, J.
    (2015) Content-based instruction and content and language integrated learning: The same or different?Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28(1), 8–24. doi: 10.1080/07908318.2014.1000922
    https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2014.1000922 [Google Scholar]
  13. Cenoz, J. , Genesee, F. , & Gorter, D.
    (2014) Critical analysis of CLIL: Taking stock and looking dorward. Applied Linguistics, 35(3), 243–262. doi: 10.1093/applin/amt011
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amt011 [Google Scholar]
  14. Cenoz, J. , & Gorter, D.
    (2015) Towards a holistic approach in the study of multilingual education. In J. Cenoz & D. Gorter (Eds.), Multilingual education: Between language learning and translanguaging (pp.1–15). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Cohen, A. D.
    (2011) Strategies in learning and using a second language. New York, NY: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. (2012) Strategies: The interface of styles, strategies, and motivation on tasks. In S. Mercer & S. Ryan (Eds.), Psychology for language learning: Insights from research, theory and practice (pp.136–150). Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. doi: 10.1057/9781137032829_10
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137032829_10 [Google Scholar]
  17. Cohen, A. D. , & Griffiths, C.
    (2015) Revisiting LLS research 40 years later. TESOL Quarterly, 49(2), 414–429. doi: 10.1002/tesq.225
    https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.225 [Google Scholar]
  18. Cook, V.
    (2011) Linguistic relativity and language teaching. In V. Cook & B. Bassetti (Eds.), Language and bilingual cognition (pp.509–518). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Corbin, J. M. , & Strauss, A. C.
    (2008) Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). London: Sage. doi: 10.4135/9781452230153
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452230153 [Google Scholar]
  20. Corcoll López, C. , & González-Davies, M.
    (2015) Switching codes in the plurilingual classroom. English Language Teaching Journal, 70(1), 67–77. doi: 10.1093/elt/ccv056
    https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccv056 [Google Scholar]
  21. Coxhead, A.
    (2000) A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly, 34(2), 213–238. doi: 10.2307/3587951
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3587951 [Google Scholar]
  22. Coyle, D. , Hood, P. , & Marsh, D.
    (2010) CLIL: Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Cummins, J.
    (2014) Rethinking pedagogical assumptions in Canadian French immersion programs. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 2(1), 3–22. doi: 10.1075/jicb
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jicb [Google Scholar]
  24. Dalton-Puffer, C.
    (2011) Content-and-language integrated learning: From practice to principles. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 182–204. doi: 10.1017/S0267190511000092
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190511000092 [Google Scholar]
  25. (2016) Cognitive discourse functions: Specifying an integrative interdisciplinary construct. In T. Nikula , E. Dafouz , P. Moore , & U. Smit (Eds.), Conceptualising integration in CLIL and multilingual education. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Dalton-Puffer, C. , Nikula, T. , & Smit, U.
    (Eds.) (2010) Language use and language learning in CLIL classrooms. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/aals.7
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aals.7 [Google Scholar]
  27. Dalton-Puffer, C. , Llinares, A. , Lorenzo, F. , & Nikula, T.
    (2014) You can stand under my umbrella”: Immersion, CLIL and bilingual education. A response to Cenoz, Genesee & Gorter (2013). Applied Linguistics, 35(2), 213–218. doi: 10.1093/applin/amu010
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amu010 [Google Scholar]
  28. Denzin, N. K. , & Lincoln, Y.
    (Eds.) (2011) The SAGE handbook of qualitative research. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Domingo, M.
    (2016) Multimodality in virtual learning environments: Exploring traces of the page in designs of screens. In C. Haythornthwaite , R. Andrews , J. Fransman , & E. M. Meyers (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of e-learning research (pp.152–170). London: Sage. doi: 10.4135/9781473955011
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473955011 [Google Scholar]
  30. Donato, R.
    (2016) Sociocultural theory and content-based foreign language instruction: theoretical insights on the challenge of integration. In L. Cammarata (Ed.), Content-based foreign language teaching: Curriculum and pedagogy for developing advanced thinking and literacy skills (pp.24–50). New York, NY: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Dörnyei, Z. , & Ryan, S.
    (2015) The psychology of the language learner revisited. New York, NY: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Ellis, R. , & Shintani, N.
    (2013) Exploring language pedagogy through second language acquisition research. New York, NY: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Garcia, O. , & Li, W.
    (2013) Translanguaging. London: Palgrave Macmillan. doi: 10.1057/9781137385765
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137385765 [Google Scholar]
  34. Gee, J. P.
    (2015) Literacy and education. New York, NY: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Gierlinger, E. M.
    (2007) Modular CLIL in lower secondary education: some insights from a research project in Austria. In C. Dalton-Puffer & U. Smit (Eds.), Empirical perspectives on classroom discourse (pp.79–118). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. (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]
  37. Glenberg, A. M. , Goldberg, A. B. , & Zhu, X.
    (2011) Improving early reading comprehension using embodied CAI. Instructional Science, 39(1), 27–39. doi: 10.1007/s11251‑009‑9096‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-009-9096-7 [Google Scholar]
  38. Gottlieb, M. , & Ernst-Slavit, G.
    (2014) Academic language in diverse classrooms: Definitions and contexts. Thousand oaks: Corwin.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Halliday, M. , & Matthiessen, C.
    (2014) An introduction to functional grammar. New York, NY: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Hammersley, M.
    (2008) Questioning qualitative inquiry: Critical essays. London: Sage. doi: 10.4135/9780857024565
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9780857024565 [Google Scholar]
  41. Hawking, S. , & Mlodinow, L.
    (2012) The grand design. London: Bantam.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Hockly, N. , Dudeney, G. , & Pegrum, M.
    (2013) Digital literacies. New York, NY: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Hoey, M. , Mahlberg, M. , Stubbs, M. , & Teubert, W.
    (2007) Text, discourse and corpora. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. 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]
  45. Kerr, P.
    (2014) Translation and own-language activities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Kramsch, C. , & Huffmaster, M.
    (2015) Multilingual practices in foreign language study. In J. Cenoz & D. Gorter (Eds.), Multilingual education: Between language learning and translanguaging (pp.114–136). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Krashen, S.
    (1984) Immersion: Why it works and what it has taught us. Language and Society, 12, 61–64.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Laufer, B. , & Nation, I.
    (2012) Vocabulary. In S. M. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp.163–176). Oxon: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Levine, G. S.
    (2011) Code choice in the language classroom. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Leow, R. P.
    (2015) Explicit learning in the L2 classroom: A student-centered approach. New York, NY: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Li, W.
    (2013) Who’s teaching whom? Co-learning in multilingual classrooms. In S. May (Ed.), The multilingual turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL, and bilingual education (pp.167–190). London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Lier, L. V.
    (2004) The ecology and semiotics of language learning: A sociocultural perspective. Dordrecht: Kluwer. doi: 10.1007/1‑4020‑7912‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-7912-5 [Google Scholar]
  53. Lightbown, P. M.
    (2014) Focus on content-based language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Littleton, K. , & Mercer, N.
    (2013) Interthinking: Putting talk to work. New York, NY: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Llinares, A.
    (2015) Integration in CLIL: A proposal to inform research and successful pedagogy. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28(1), 58–73. doi: 10.1080/07908318.2014.1000925
    https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2014.1000925 [Google Scholar]
  56. Llinares, A. , & Nikula, T.
    (2016) Teacher and student evaluative language in CLIL across contexts: Integrating SFL and pragmatic approaches. In T. Nikula , E. Dafouz , P. Moore , & U. Smit (Eds.), Conceptualising integration in CLIL and multilingual education (pp.189–210). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Loewen, S.
    (2015) Introduction to instructed second language acquisition. New York, NY: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Long, M. H.
    (2011) Methodological principles for language teaching. In M. H. Long & C. J. Doughty (Eds.), The handbook of language teaching (pp.373–394). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Lorenzo, F. , & Dalton-Puffer, C.
    (2016) Historical literacy in CLIL: Telling the past in a second language. In T. Nikula , E. Dafouz , P. Moore , & U. Smit (Eds.), Conceptualising integration in CLIL and multilingual education (pp.55–72). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Love, K.
    (2010) Literacy pedagogical content knowledge in the secondary curriculum. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 5(4), 338–355. doi: 10.1080/1554480X.2010.521630
    https://doi.org/10.1080/1554480X.2010.521630 [Google Scholar]
  61. Lyster, R. , & Ballinger, S.
    (2011) Content-based language teaching: Convergent concerns across divergent contexts. Language Teaching Research, 15(3), 270–288. doi: 10.1177/1362168811401150
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168811401150 [Google Scholar]
  62. Lyster, R. , Quiroga, J. , & Ballinger, S.
    (2013) The effects of biliteracy instruction on morphological awareness. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 1(2), 169–197. doi: 10.1075/jicb.1.2
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jicb.1.2 [Google Scholar]
  63. Macaro, E.
    (2009) Teacher use of code switching in the second language classroom: Exploring “optimal” useIn M. Turnbull & J. Dailey-O’Cain (Eds.), First language use in second and foreign language learning (pp.35–49). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. (2013) Overview: Where should we be going with classroom code switching research?In R. Barnard & J. McLellan (Eds.), Code switching in university English-medium classes (pp.10–23). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. McCarthy, M. , & O’Dell, F.
    (2016) Academic vocabulary in use edition with answers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. McDougald, J. S.
    (2015) Teachers’ attitudes, perceptions and experiences in CLIL: A look at content and language. Colombian Applied Linguistic Journal, 17(1), 25. doi: 10.14483/udistrital.jour.calj.2015.1.a02
    https://doi.org/10.14483/udistrital.jour.calj.2015.1.a02 [Google Scholar]
  67. Mehisto, P. , Marsh, D. , & Frigols, M. J.
    (2008) Uncovering CLIL: Content and language integrated learning in bilingual and multilingual education. Oxford: Macmillan.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Mercer, N.
    (2008) Talk and the development of reasoning and understanding. Human Development, 51(1), 90–100. doi: 10.1159/000113158
    https://doi.org/10.1159/000113158 [Google Scholar]
  69. Met, M.
    (1998) Curriculum decision-making in content-based language teaching. In J. Cenoz & F. Genesee (Eds.), Beyond bilingualism: Multilingualism and multilingual education (pp.35–63). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Moate, J.
    (2010) The integrated nature of CLIL. International CLIL Research Journal, 1(3), 38–38. Retrieved fromwww.icrj.eu/13/article4.html
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Morton, T. , & Jakonen, T.
    (2016) Integration of language and content through languaging in CLIL; Classroom interaction: A conversation analysis perspective. In T. Nikula , E. Dafouz , P. Moore , & U. Smit (Eds.), Conceptualising integration in CLIL and multilingual education (pp.171–188). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Nation, P.
    (2008) Lexical awareness in second language learning. In J. Cenoz & N. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education, Vol 6. Knowledge about language (pp.167–179). Dordrecht: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978‑0‑387‑30424‑3_147
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-30424-3_147 [Google Scholar]
  73. Nikula, T. , Dalton-Puffer, C. , & Lorenzo, F.
    (2016) More than content and language: The complexity of integration in CLIL and bilingual education. In T. Nikula , E. Dafouz , P. Moore , & U. Smit (Eds.), Conceptualising integration in CLIL and multilingual education (pp.1–28). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Nikula, T. , & Moore, P.
    (2016) Exploring translanguaging in CLIL. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 1–13. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1080/13670050.2016.1254151
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2016.1254151 [Google Scholar]
  75. Nyikos, M. , & May, F.
    (2007) A review of vocabulary learning strategies: Focus on language proficiency and learner voice. In A. D. Cohen & E. Macaro (Eds.), Language learner strategies (pp.251–273). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Ortega, L.
    (2014) Second language learning explained? SLA across 10 contemporary theories. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp.245–272). New York, NY: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Otwinowska, A.
    (2015) Cognate vocabulary in language acquisition and use: Attitudes, awareness, activation. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Paquot, M.
    (2010) Academic vocabulary in learner writing: From extraction to analysis. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Paran, A.
    (2013) Content and language integrated learning: Panacea or policy borrowing myth. Applied Linguistics Review, 4(2), 317–342. doi: 10.1515/applirev‑2013‑0014
    https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2013-0014 [Google Scholar]
  80. 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]
  81. Philippakos, Z. A. , MacArthur, C. A. , & Coker, D. L.
    (2015) Developing strategic writers through genre instruction: Resources for Grades 3–5. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Rose, D. , & Martin, J. R.
    (2012) Learning to write, reading to learn: Genre, knowledge and pedagogy in the Sydney School. Sheffield: Equinox.
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Scott, M. , & Tribble, C.
    (2006) Textual patterns: Key words and corpus analysis in language education. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/scl.22
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.22 [Google Scholar]
  84. Spada, N.
    (2007) Communicative language teaching: Current status and future prospects. In J. Cummins & C. Davison (Eds.), International handbook of English language teaching (pp.271–288). Dordrecht: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978‑0‑387‑46301‑8_20
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-46301-8_20 [Google Scholar]
  85. Swain, M. , & Lapkin, S.
    (2013) A Vygotskian sociocultural perspective on immersion education: The L1/L2 debate. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 1(1), 101–129. doi: 10.1075/jicb
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jicb [Google Scholar]
  86. Tan, M.
    (2011) Mathematics and science teachers’ beliefs and practices regarding the teaching of language in content learning. Language Teaching Research, 15(3), 325–342. doi: 10.1177/1362168811401153
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168811401153 [Google Scholar]
  87. Tyler, A.
    (2012) Cognitive linguistics and second language learning: Theoretical basics and experimental evidence. New York, NY: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Vygotsky, L. S.
    (2004) The historical meaning of the crisis in psychology: A methodological investigation. In R. W. Rieber & D. K. Robinson (Eds.), The essential Vygotsky (pp.227–334). New York, NY: Kluwer/Plenum.
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Williams, M. , Mercer, S. , & Ryan, S.
    (2015) Exploring psychology in language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  90. Wegner, A.
    (2012) Seeing the bigger picture: What students and teachers think about CLIL. International CLIL Research Journal, 1(4), 29–35.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

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