Implementing A CLIL Programme: Challenges and Initiatives

Implementing a CLIL programme:
challenges and initiatives
[1.1] Functions and responsibilities of the school management staff
[1.1.1] Contextualisation: schools and CLIL programmes
[1.1.2] Quality of CLIL programmes
[1.1.3] First decisions
[1.2] The role of the bilingual coordinator
[1.3] Functions of the language assistants
2 UNIT
Models
Outline
UNIT 2
Programmes Collaboration
Timing
Stakeholders Incentives
Results
The school Objectives
management staff
Resources
Quality
“the main role of the CLIL coordinator is to Leadership

Bilingual coordinator
guarantee that the programme is being Pedagogy
implemented in a correct way”
Coordination
The emotional Welcome Integratio Participati Assistance Evaluation Identity

dimension n on
Language assistants
Technical aspects Planning Support Tandem Strategies Culture Activities

Coordination and organisation of CLIL programmes
Unit 2: Implementing a CLIL programme: challenges and initiatives
MIEB
Overview of the unit
This unit will analyse some key aspects of the organisation of the bilingual programme
in schools. The specific objectives are:
 To review the benefits that bilingual education programmes can provide the
educational characteristics of schools.
 To explore the initiatives and actions that the managing team should implement
in bilingual education.
 To define the role of leadership of the bilingual coordinator.
 To suggest a series of recommendations regarding the effective use of language
assistants.
Article to be read:
Meyer, O. (2010). “Towards quality-CLIL: successful planning and teaching

strategies”. Pulso, 33, 11-29.
We will employ the following resources:
 A Power Point presentation and lecture.

 Unit activity (video and questions)
 A group debate on the forum
 An synchronous master class using Adobe Connect for final
wrap-up and doubt resolution
 A final online test which can be self-corrected.
MIEB
1. Functions and responsibilities of the school

management staff
One of the main reasons for the implementation of bilingual education
programmes stems from the necessity to ameliorate the results of foreign language
teaching (Marsh 2013). In bilingual programmes, the teaching of academic content
through an additional language becomes an effective way to enhance the linguistic
proficiency of students and, at the same time, to strengthen the learning of the content
matter (Dalton-Puffer 2007). From 1995 on, the language policy promoted by the
European Commission has encouraged the implementation innovative educational
programmes related to the teaching of foreign languages, among which, the
programmes associated to any kind of bilingual education have been particularly
fomented (Council of Europe 2014, 2015a, 2015b). The main characteristics of such
programmes lie in the fact that working with contents in a foreign language imply the
use of all the linguistic skills, focuses the use of the language in the real world, and
makes possible the promotion of the cognitive processes associated to understanding
and verbalisation, which are quite difficult to activate in traditional foreign language
lessons (Marsh, Mehisto, Frigols 2009; Coyle, Hood, and Marsh 2010).
The target of these programmes is to promote a teaching model based on the
Canadian immersion programmes, a model that is being implemented successfully in
many parts of the world and that, with the necessary adaptations, aspires to achieve
positive results in the Spanish educational context (Wolff 2005). There abundant
studies corroborating that the assimilation of content through a foreign language does
not interfere to a large extent in the learning of such content (Pérez-Cañado 2012,
2016). Only in subjects where the cognitive demand is high, for example in
Mathematics and Philosophy, it is possible that it might be possible that we could find
some problems with students with appreciable deficiencies in the use of the foreign
language (Surmont et al. 2016). It is important to highlight that the learning of the
essential content is not affected; on the contrary, it is consolidated because of the
utilisation of more effective methodologies. However, the increase in the time required
may provoke that the number of complementary or not very relevant material is
reduced, which may also produce some kind of dissatisfaction in some teachers. The
most relevant issue here is that the possession of a low linguistic competence on the
part of the students or the utilization of poor methodologies may seriously damage the
learning of content.
MIEB
2.1. Contextualization: schools and CLIL programmes

In the European and the Spanish context, one of the most frequent approaches
adopted to implement bilingual education is content and language integrated learning
(CLIL), a wide term that covers different models based on the teaching of academic
content through a foreign language (Wolff 2005: 11; Coyle, Hood and Marsh 2010: 6).
Among its potential benefits (Mehisto and Marsh 2012), CLIL is traditionally seen as an
educational proposal that “seeks to promote the use of the foreign language in the
schools” (Ruiz de Zarobe 2008: 61), due to “the direct influence that teaching in CLIL
may have in language learning” (Llinares, Morton and Whittaker 2012: 53). However,
its potential benefits are not only associated with an increase of the linguistic
competence of students: linguistic awareness, wider vocabulary, morphological
creativity and morpho-syntactic production (Admiral, Westhoff and de Bot 2006;
Dalton-Puffer 2007; Lasagabaster 2008; Lorenzo, Casal and Moore 2009; Lo and
Murphy 2010; Navés 2011; Brevick and Moe 2012); but also to the amelioration of
cognitive development and to the learning of content itself: greater creativity, semantic
scaffolding, divergent and convergent thinking, metalinguistic awareness, abstract and
symbolic reasoning, and context understanding (Genesee 2002; van de Craen, Ceuleers
and Mondt 2007; Meyer 2010). The linguistic output is the dimension that is normally
proclaimed as the main objective of CLIL, although there are also important academic
and psycho-affective benefits that have to be highlighted: greater interest and
motivation, higher self-confidence, more positive attitude towards the foreign language,
greater spontaneity, and the promotion of intercultural learning (Seikkula-Leino 2007;
Lasagabaster 2011; Méndez 2013).
In order to achieve positive results in CLIL, consideration of the language is not

the only area that deserves specific attention. Therefore, it is necessary that a series of
influential elements be organised correctly so that the integration of content and
language can be tackled appropriately (Mehisto 2012). Curricular organisation, the
selection of subjects, the methodology and materials, the evaluation procedures, etc.,
are factors that will determine the success and the quality of CLIL (Ruiz de Zarobe
2013). But among all of them, the linguistic competence of teachers and students and
the use of the language of instruction will inevitably affect the learning of content,
which forces educators to cast about for initiatives and actions that may benefit the
access to the language required to process academic information, and may also
MIEB
counterbalance the possible negative effects of a limited use of the language of
instruction.
One of the most remarkable differences between CLIL and immersion

programmes is that in CLIL “the English language is taught as a subject” (García 2009:
127). This is a fact that is particularly relevant for the purpose of this section since the
inclusion of the English language in the curriculum “provides the conditions for the
establishment of a network of collaboration between language and content teachers”
(García 2009: 210). The possibility to set up a connection between the language
students learn as a vehicle of communication with the content they are learning paves
the way for the construction of a bi-directional relationship between the academic
knowledge and the language needed to understand and express this knowledge.
Moreover, this collaboration could also be extended to other areas (Pavón et al. 2014),
and include the coordinated work of content teachers, and even comprise the
coordination between the English teacher with the teacher of the mother tongue and
the teacher of any other language present in the curriculum (French, German, etc.). The
idea is to proffer the benefits of establishing a multi-faceted type of coordination that
aims at facilitating the processing and assimilation of academic content, and at
providing students with effective linguist support to help them comprehend, process,
manipulate and verbalise this content.
2.2. Quality of CLIL programmes

Right from the early years when educational policies in some countries, in
regions or even just in located schools started to implement CLIL approaches, that is,
the attention to the development of the foreign language in schools via the teaching of
academic subjects through this foreign language, it was clear that there were some
areas that had to be carefully looked into. For some it was not sufficient to declare that
this kind of approach was having (and would have) a tremendous impact in education,
in general (Marsh 2013), and in the upgrading of the use of the foreign language in
schools, in particular (Admiraal et al. 2006; Lasagabaster 2008; Brevik and Moe 2012).
Very soon, then, it became evident that it was necessary that the purported benefits of
CLIL had to be proven and, for that reason, that research should make available
substantial empirical evidence of the results in CLIL (Dalton-Puffer 2007; Pérez-
Cañado 2012).
During the last two decades, bilingual education programmes and CLIL have
been investigated, analysed, and reported from several different perspectives, with
attention normally being paid to four general dimensions: the policies behind these
MIEB
programmes, the outcomes, the language of interaction, and classroom pedagogy. More
specifically, some realms have come front due to a mixed interest from investigators,
for example, the evaluation of these programmes (Cenoz 2013, 2015; Cenoz et al. 2013;
Dalton-Puffer et al. 2014; Ruiz de Zarobe 2013); language outcomes (Falcón and
Lorenzo 2015; Hermanto et al. 2012; Jexenflicker and Dalton-Puffer 2010; Lorenzo and
Rodríguez 2014; Roquet and Pérez-Vidal 2015); content outcomes (Fernández, et al.
2017; Surmont et al. 2016); the affective domain (Ávila 2009; Lasagabaster and López
2015; Seikkula-Leino 2007); teachers’s beliefs and perceptions (Coonan 2007; Hütner
et al. 2013; Infante et al. 2009; Tan 2011; Travé 2013); teacher training (Hillyard 2011;
Pérez-Cañado 2014; Salaberri 2010); students’ perceptions (Coyle 2013; Hunt 2011;
Merisuo-Storm 2007); parents’ perceptions (Pladevall-Balester 2015; Whiting and
Feinauer 2011); L1 use (Lasagabaster and García 2014; Méndez and Pavón 2012; Pavón
and Ramos 2018); and pedagogical orientation (Coyle 2008; de Graaf et al. 2007;
Meyer 2010; Viebrock 2012), to name some of the most frequently visited areas with a
scientific eye.
When coming to the analysis of the outcomes of CLIL programmes in particular,

we are far from reaching a consensus on the benefits that CLIL can help bring about or
on the factors and variables that require a much better handling for these benefits to be
garnered (Pérez-Cañado 2016). Thus, for some it is more relevant to decide if the
positive results in CLIL programmes stem from the students’ previously acquired
potential rather than from the effects of the teaching and learning process (Bruton
2011, 2013, 2015; Paran 2013). However, whether CLIL programmes are selective or
not may be an important issue that is in fact attracting the attention of academics in
many different contexts (Broca 2016), but there are other spheres at the very heart of
the relationship of content and language that deserve the interest of scholars because
they are intimately related to the success of these programmes: “in order to efficiently
support a balanced development of content and language skills, it is crucial to
conceptualise what exactly their relationship is” (Jakonen 2016: 1). Questions such as if
the content material taught through a foreign language is assimilated and learnt
effectively to match the outcomes of the instruction via the mother tongue, whether the
integrated learning of content and language is being built in parallel with the same
standards of quality, whether the overemphasis in the foreign language may deteriorate
the development of the mother tongue, or if there are important variables (psycho-
affective, social, contextual, etc.) other than the pedagogical ones which might affect
crucially the success of the programme, are still under scrutiny (Pavón 2018a).
MIEB
In this context, there is a need to put in some evidence in the area of social and
contextual differences, particularly the possible existing variance in the performance of
students, from example, from rural and urban schools (Alejo and Píriz 2016; Pavón
2018b). Among the number of studies delving into the reasons, causes, effects, etc. that
some decisive factors may have in the success (or not) of CLIL programmes, this
investigation is justified by the need to feel out the variables related to the social milieu
of students that may entrain significant differences among them, because there are not
many studies broaching the insights and the impingement of this specific influence,
and also because it might contribute to clarify some dark areas about some of the
influential factors at work in CLIL programmes.
Following what has been pinpointed previously when dealing with the main
areas of research in CLIL, there are a number of variables on whose correct or incorrect
application depends the achievement of good or poor results. To begin with, the
decision about who is the ideal profile of the teachers teaching academic content
through a foreign language, and what should be their linguistic and methodological
competences (Pavón and Ellison 2013), as these teachers have to exhibit three distinct
kind of abilities: knowledge of the discipline; a competent use of the foreign language;
and the utilisation of appropriate methodological strategies. Secondly, there a number
of initiatives that the school may implement, and which may greatly determine the
quality of the programme: deciding the number of the subjects in terms of their
cognitive demands, time-span of the programme, choice of an adequate pedagogical
approach, deployment of an effective assessment procedure for language and content,
establishing a solid structure of collaboration with language teachers (Pavón 2014),
and, together with all this, sorting out a valid and reliable set of instruments for the
evaluation of the CLIL programmes (Pérez-Cañado 2015).
But, irrespective of the importance of identifying the important factors involved

in the attainment of expected outcomes, it is the contribution of research in other
important fields that should be strengthened: “the demands of different contexts have
led to wide-ranging questions as to how CLIL is put into practice, taking account of
social, cultural, economic and political agendas” (Coyle 2013: 245). More specifically, as
Fernández et al. (2017: 3) point out when weighing the necessity of further research in
CLIL beyond the current search for linguistic and content academic gains, there is a
shortage of studies investigating, for example, the social milieu of CLIL and the socio-
economic status of the parents of CLIL students, or the specific characteristics of the
context where the bilingual teaching takes place. Moreover, a rigorous analysis of these
two elements would probably contribute to extricate scholars from the on-going debate
MIEB
on whether or not the benefits of CLIL are produced by the inherent capacities of
students previous to contact with CLIL or by the proper integration of language and
content in the classroom.
2.3. First decisions

One of the basic principles on which the potential effectiveness of any
educational programme is based on is the existence of an adequate connection,
coordination and collaboration among all the stakeholders (Mehisto 2009). We can
obtain positive results when the forces operate bottom-up, that is to say, when the
teachers decide to put into practice a given education proposal. In addition, positive
results can also be achieved when the forces are originated top-down, with the
existence of regulations and norms aiming at establishing a particular educational
proposal or rationale. However, the ideal scenario would be one in which these two
forces meet at some point connected by the presence of a common objective.
Irrespective of the direction from which they were originated, the schools and their
managing staff will be responsible of structuring and administering these two forces.
Therefore, the role they play is essential for the implementation of, in this case, the
bilingual education programme.
There are some important considerations with respect to the decisions that the
managing staff has to take:
1. First of all, the attainment of results will depend on the existence of a consistent
implication of the managing staff, which has the responsibility of analysing the
characteristics of the school and identifying the necessities before the implementation
of the programme.
2. Secondly, there must be recognition of the human resources available, in particular

with respect to the accredited linguistic competence and methodological qualification
specific for bilingual education and CLIL. In third place, the students’ level of linguistic
proficiency must also be diagnosed, with the objective of adapting the targets of the
programme to this crucial factor, or even the decision of delaying its implementation.
3. Once these important decisions have been taken, it is also necessary that the school
can choose the best programme and rationale available in order to get adapted to these
characteristics. A fundamental decision would then be the to embrace a particular
conceptualization of what bilingual education means. The school may opt for an
immersion programme in which the total amount of hours are taught through the
MIEB
foreign language or, on the contrary, for implementing a gradual implementation with
a percentage of hours taught in the foreign language that will be increasing along time.
The first option is feasible when the students possess a high competence in the foreign
language, whereas the second suits better the contexts where the students’ linguistic
competence is not very high.
4. Another important decision is associated to the beginning of the programme. The

ideal context would be one in which the programme starts in the early stages of infant
education, however, the length of the programme, the number and type of subjects
involved in terms of difficulty and cognitive demands, the human resources available,
and the objectives pursued may force the managing staff to consider other alternatives.
5. Finally, another important factor to be considered is that there should be a global

understanding of the nature and objectives of the programme by all the teachers in the
school, whether they are part of the bilingual programme or not. It is paramount that
all the teachers are conscious of their direct or indirect participation in a school project.
One of the main functions of the managing staff is also to ideate a series of
actions that will enable teachers to perform efficiently in the school. Among these, we
can highlight:
1. The possibility to work collaboratively must be facilitated, in the first place by

providing teachers with the necessary slots in their schedules so that they can gather
together and coordinate their actions. This is one of the most problematic areas as it is
difficult to find common time slots. But despite this difficulty, this possibility should
be provided, as it is one of the most effective instruments to enhance quality).
2. The provision of a programme of incentives, which may range from an increase in

the salary, specific budget to buy material, the possibility to be trained here or abroad,
to a reduction of the working load.
3. The creation of a quality assurance mechanism through which the managing staff
can control and assist the implementation of the programme.
4. To use external forms of evaluation, both for the language and for the content,
through the collaboration with reputed institutions. This evaluation should comprise
not only the linguistic competence of students, but also the acquisition of content,
degree of satisfaction, and cognitive, psychological and emotional development of
students.
5. To provide teachers and students with adequate materials and resources, specific
for bilingual education and CLIL.
MIEB
6. The creation of a programme of extracurricular activities connected to the bilingual
programme.
7. To elaborate a quality training programme for the bilingual teachers.
8. To plan the adequate use of the language assistants.
9. To establish a smooth and solid relationship with the families by providing

information before and during the academic year and by designing effective strategies
of collaboration.
3. The role of the bilingual coordinator

As we have seen previously, the implementation of a bilingual programme
implies a series of organisational measures that may determine if we can aspire to
achieve satisfactory results. Thus, the selection of the type of bilingual programme or
the decisions taken by the managing staff play a significant role for the achievement of
positive results. In this context, the existence of the figure of bilingual coordinator
acquires a high relevance for the implementation of such programmes.
In this context, the figure of the CLIL coordinator becomes a key element, in
particular to assist the construction of sound teacher collaboration (Coyle 2007 –
especially table on p. 551). From a general perspective, the main role of the CLIL
coordinator is to guarantee that the programme is being implemented in a correct way,
and to define the actions that have to be adopted in order to monitor the achievement
of positive results in the areas of language and content (Julián 2007). More precisely,
his/her activity is essential for the organisation of a structure of collaboration between
language and content teachers. He/she will be in charge of arranging the work and
responsibilities of the teachers: conducting the coordination meetings where language
and content teachers gather to reach agreements on the collaborative strategies;
helping content teachers to search for common elements in their programmes;
assisting language teachers to look for common linguistic functions; advising teachers
on the application of common methodological strategies and on the employment of
appropriate materials and activities for the characteristics of the different subjects;
guiding them through the use of homogeneous criteria and instruments for the
evaluation of language and content; and organising the responsibilities and activities of
the language assistants (see for this last dimension Ministerio de Educación 2011).
The main and most visible objective of the bilingual coordinator is to guarantee
that the implementation of the programme is being effective with the selection of the
MIEB
necessary actions that ultimately will ensure its quality. The functions of the bilingual
coordinator are twofold, independent at first sight but that are intimately related. On
the one hand, coordination will cover the organisation of the work of all the teachers,
distributing the work and establishing coordination meetings. On the other, the
bilingual coordinator will also guide teachers when planning with other colleagues, and
helping them find the linguistic objectives and contents in the content subjects.
In parallel, one of the duties of the bilingual coordinator is to promote the

implementation of an adequate and effective methodology and evaluation procedure,
and to supervise that there is a common and homogeneous attention to these two
crucial areas. In particular, his/her roles will be to assist and advice teachers in the
following areas:
1. Changing the traditional paradigm of expositive lessons to participative and

interactive lessons, as results in the transmission of content cannot be achieved only by
changing the language of instruction, but making the students manipulate and use this
content.
2. This type of teaching is not centred on the transmission of content but on

understanding, showing, applying, analysing, synthesising and evaluating the content
material.
3. A practical utilisation of content through the resolution of tasks and cooperative and
collaborative learning.
4. A common attention to the use of evaluation criteria and instruments.
5. The design of tasks, activities and materials that preserve the quality of the content.
6. All the subjects should provide the same opportunities for the construction and
verbalisation of content.
7. The use of communicative functions and strategies specifically associated to the

particular subjects.
8. The utilisation of strategies (visuals, scaffolding techniques, etc.) in order to facilitate

the acquisition of content matter.
9. The different genres of the language used in bilingual lessons, as an instrument to

describe, narrate, exemplify, describe, etc.
10. The promotion of positive atmosphere, encouraging and motivating teachers to

work hard to achieve highly positive results.
MIEB
4. Functions of the language assistants

With regard to the role of the language assistants (LAs), a possible unfortunate
situation is that neither teachers nor language assistants seem to have been explicitly
trained in the principles and benefits of using the two languages in the classroom. Quite
frequently, teachers report not being given consistent instruction on the practices that
should be observed for effective co-teaching strategies (Méndez and Pavon 2012). The
result is that their teaching practice is mainly based on their intuitions and on the
previous knowledge they may have acquired. It is evident that the guidelines on the
functions of language assistants provided by the regional governments may not suffice
for the implementation of effective co-teaching and profitable use of the two languages.
Contrary to the recommendations of the ideal pattern for collaborative teaching
(Murawski and Dieker 2004; Friend, Reising and Cook 2010), teachers do not share the
same level of knowledge, expertise and skills about the special type of instruction and
assessment required. And what is more important, there is no regulation concerning
the definition of classroom roles and responsibilities, which could prove detrimental for
the successful handling of the two languages.
However, and on a more positive note, it is remarkable to observe that there are
also a series of gains that are to be mentioned. Firstly, teachers normally have a clear
idea that collaboration is the key to success, a source of motivation for all teachers and
beneficial to the school. Secondly, students tend to work harder and better with the
foreign language; they are reported to exhibit higher language awareness and to have a
less inhibited response to its use. And finally, collaboration between teachers and use of
distinct languages entail profound changes in the way the content is taught and
learned: teachers carry into effect compensatory mechanisms by using both languages;
activities become more communicative; resources become more illustrative and
attractive; and the use of the foreign language turns out to be more spontaneous and
enjoyable. In sum, content teachers tend to work at the textual level, language teachers
work on sentence-level and represent semi-immersion and language assistants provide
opportunities for immersion and focus on conversational style, in line with Cummins’s
(1981) BICS and CALP distinction. For this reason, ‘CLIL has the potential to provide
an extremely rich language learning environment’ (Lorenzo et al. 2009: 16) assisting
and motivating the teaching professionals to function as a community of practice
(Costa and D’Angelo 2011).
MIEB
Having said this, it is worth pointing out that the impact of language assistants
on the school may be notable. In fact, the collaboration between the content teachers
and the LAs is one of the drivers of success in CLIL as they provide an essential help no
only to students but to the teachers themselves. The reasons are quite visible as the
students normally work better, are less inhibited, and use the language more naturally
and spontaneously. Also, during team-teaching content teachers and LAs must conduct
adaptations and compensatory measures in order to help students in the process of
understanding content material. Finally, the collaboration between these two types of
teachers adds an extra component of motivation and enrichment to the content
teachers.
Coordinating the work of content teachers and LAs is not an easy endeavour.
Ideally, it would be the bilingual coordinator the person responsible of organising their
work, establishing the terms of the collaboration, structuring their work inside and
outside the classrooms, and helping them gain the maximum benefit of the
collaboration. The following is a summary of the initiatives that should be taken in
order to structure this collaboration effectively:
1. It would be optimal to initially explore the reactions and expectations that LAs might
have in the school.
2. Their role should be clearly defined, especially with respect to the type of activities
that can perform inside and outside the classroom, and to the development of culture
and language at the same time.
3. Special attention should be given to the emotional aspects, thus it is very important
that LAs feel they are integrated in the educational community from the first moment.
4. It is desirable that LAs always use English with the teachers and with the students,
the students will automatically use their mother tongue if they know that the LA can
understand them.
5. It is also fundamental that LAs and content teachers are fully aware of the necessity
to promote conversational and academic English, it may be helpful then to separate the
focus of content teachers (academic) and LAs (conversational).
6. With respect to the pedagogical dimension, they should be advised on the basics of
the methodology used in CLIL, particularly on their role as scaffolders and modellers of
the language.
MIEB
7. It is also advisable that LAs are given a clear idea of they way they have to perform in
the classroom, in this respect both content and LAs should know the characteristics of
the different models of team-teaching.
8. Content teachers and LAs should have the time and space to plan together:
coordination meetings should be regular and systematic.
9. It would be recommended to implement a gradual incorporation of LAs to the daily

activities, for example, by giving some time to adapt to the classroom and observe for
some days.
10. It is also highly advisable to give them the opportunity to get involved in
extracurricular activates, projects, and in any activity in which they can contribute with
the foreign language.
ACTIVITY 2
(Please go to the subject forum to complete this activity)
You will now watch a video of experts on CLIL debating on several important aspects
related to the main ideas covered in this Unit. Please reflect on the questions, you will
then pool your answers with the rest of the class by posting a brief entry on the FORUM
(around 500 words long). Read through classmates’ posts and comment on any
outstanding aspects with which you (dis)agree.
Questions video 2
FLIP Videos
Peeter Mehisto
Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmR1IABVpMQ
1. According to Peeter Mehisto, why has CLIL become a motor for reform in schools?
MIEB
2. He speaks of supporting students in a CLIL context. How does he elaborate this

point?
References
Journal Articles
Admiral, W., Westhoff, G., and de Bot, K. (2006). “Evaluation of bilingual secondary
education in the Netherlands: students’ language proficiency in English”.
Educational Research and Evaluation, 12(1), 75-93.
MIEB
Alejo, R., and Piquer Píriz, A. (2016). “Urban vs. rural CLIL: an analysis of input-
related variables, motivation and language attainment”. Language, Culture and
Curriculum, 29(3), 245-262.
Broca, A. (2016). “CLIL and non-CLIL: differences from the outset”. ELT Journal,
70(3), 320-331.
Bruton, A. (2011). “Is CLIL so beneficial, or just selective? Re-evaluating some of the
research”. System, 39(4), 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.
Cenoz, J. (2015). “Content-based instruction and content and language integrated

learning: the same or different?” Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28, 8-24.
Cenoz, J., F. Genesee, F., and Gorter, D. (2013). “Critical analysis of CLIL: taking stock
and looking forward”. Applied Linguistics (advance access), 1-21. Retrieved
from: http://applij.oxofrdjournals.org/
Coonan, C.M. (2007). “Insider views of the CLIL class through teacher self-
observation-introspection”. International Journal of Bilingual Education and
Bilingualism, 10(5), 625-646.
Costa, F., and L. D’Angelo. (2011). “CLIL: A Suit for all Seasons?” Latin American
Journal of Content and Language Integrated Learning, 4(1), 1-13.
Coyle, D. (2007). “Content and Language Integrated Learning: towards a connected

research agenda for CLIL pedagogies”. The International Journal of Bilingual
Education and Bilingualism, 10(5), 543-562.
Coyle, D. (2008). “Content and Language Integrated Learning: towards a connected

research agenda for CLIL pedagogies”. International Journal of Bilingual
Education and Bilingualism, 10(5), 543-562.
MIEB
Coyle, D. (2013). “Listening to learners: an investigation into ‘successful learning’
across CLIL contexts”. International Journal of Bilingual Education and
Bilingualism, 16(3), 244-266.
Dalton-Puffer, C., Llinares, A., Lorenzo, F., and Nikula, T. (2014). “You Can Stand
Under My Umbrella”: immersion, CLIL and bilingual education. A response to
Cenoz, Genesee and Gorter (2013). Applied Linguistics, 35(2), 213-218.
Falcón, E., and Lorenzo, F. (2015). El desarrollo de la sintaxis compleja en L1y L2 en

entornos educativos bilingües (CLIL). Un estudio de caso. E-Aesla, 1, 1-9.
Fernández, J., Fernández-Costales, A. and Arias, 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 (advance access). 1-14.
Friend, M., Reising, M., and Cook, L. (2010). “Co-teaching: An overview of the past, a
glimpse at the present, and considerations for the future”. International
Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 37(4), 6-10.
de Graaf, R., Koopman, G.J., Anikina, Y., and Westhoff, G. (2007). “An observation tool
for effective L2 pedagogy in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL)”.
The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(5),
603–624.
Hermanto, N., Moreni, S., and Bialystok, E. (2012). “Linguistic and metalingustic
outcomes of intense immersion education: how bilingual?” International
Hillyard, S. (2011). “First steps in CLIL: training the teachers”. Latin American Journal
of Content & Language Integrated Learning, 4(2), 1-12.
Hunt, M. (2011). “Learners’ perceptions of their experience of learning subject content

through a foreign language”. Educational Review, 6(3), 365-378.
Hüttner, J., Dalton-Puffer, C., and Smit, U. (2013). “The power of beliefs: lay theories
and their influence on the implementation of CLIL programmes”. International
MIEB
Jakonen, T. (2016). “The integration of content and language in students’ task answer
production in the bilingual classroom”. International Journal of Bilingual
Education and Bilingualism (advance access), 1-17.
Julián, C. (2007). “La importancia de la coordinación en la implantación de modelos

AICLE”. GRETA Journal, 15, 14-19.
Lasagabaster, D. (2008). “Foreign language competence in content and language

integrated courses”. The Open Applied Linguistics Journal, I, 31-42.
Lasagabaster, D. (2011). “English achievement and student motivation in CLIL and EFL
settings”. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 5, 3-18.
Lasagabaster, D., and García, O. (2014). “Translanguaging: towards a dynamic model of

bilingualism at school”. Culture and Education, 26(3), 557-572.
Lasagabaster, D. and López, R. (2015). “The Impact of type of approach (CLIL Versus
EFL) and methodology (Book-based Versus Project work) on motivation”.
Porta Linguarum, 23. 41-57.
Lo, Y.-Y. and Murphy, V. (2010). “Vocabulary knowledge and growth in immersion and
regular language-learning programmes in Hong Kong”. Language and
Education, 4, 215-238.
Lorenzo, F., Casal, S., and Moore, P. (2009). “The effects of content and language
integrated learning in European education: key findings from the Andalusian
bilingual sections evaluation project”. Applied Linguistics, Nov 2009, 1-25
Lorenzo, F., and Rodríguez, L. (2014). “Onset and expansion of L2 cognitive academic
language proficiency in bilingual settings: CALP in CLIL”. System, 47, 64-72.
Meyer, O. (2010). “Towards quality-CLIL: successful planning and teaching

strategies”. Pulso, 33, 11-29.
Murawski, W., L. Dieker. (2004). “Tips and strategies for co-teaching at the secondary
level”. Teaching Exceptional Children 36(5), 52-58.
Paran, A. (2013). “Content and Language Integrated Learning: panacea or policy

borrowing myth?” Applied Linguistics Review, 4(2), 317–342.
MIEB
Pavón, V. (2018a). “La controversia de la educación bilingüe en España”. Tribuna

Norteamericana, 26, 20-27.
Pavón, V. (2018b). “Learning outcomes in CLIL programmes: a comparison of results

between urban and rural environments”. Porta Linguarum, 29, 9-28.
Pavón, V., Ellison, M. (2013). “Examining teachers roles and competences in Content
and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL)”. Linguarum Arena, 4, 65-78.
Pavón, V., Ávila, J., Gallego, A., and Espejo, R. (2014). “Strategic and organisational
considerations in planning CLIL: a study on the coordination between content
and language teachers”. International Journal of Bilingual Education and
Bilingualism, advance access, 1-17.
Pavón, V., Ramos, M.C. (2018). “Describing the use of the L1 in CLIL: analysing
students’ L1 communication strategies in classroom interaction”. International
Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism (published online). DOI:
10.1080/13670050.2018.1511681
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. (2014). “Teacher training needs for bilingual education: in-service
teacher perceptions”. International Journal of Bilingual Education and
Bilingualism (advance access). 1-14.
Pérez-Cañado, M.L. (2015). “Evaluating CLIL programmes: instrument design and

validation”. Pulso, 39, 79-112.
Pérez-Cañado, M. L. (2016). “From the CLIL craze to the CLIL conundrum: addressing
the current CLIL controversy”. Bellaterra Journal of Teaching Language and
Literature, 9(1), 9–31.
Pladevall-Ballester, E. (2015). “Exploring primary school CLIL perceptions in

Catalonia: students’, teachers’ and parents’ opinions and expectations”.
International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 18(1), 45-59.
Roquet, H., and Pérez-Vidal, C. (2015). Do productive skills improve in Content and
MIEB
Language Integrated Learning contexts? The case of writing. Applied
Linguistics, 2015, 1–24.
Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (2008). “CLIL and foreign language learning: a longitudinal study in
the Basque Country”. International CLIL Research Journal, 1, 60-73.
Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (2013). “CLIL implementation: from policy-makers to individual

initiatives”. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism,
16(3), 231-243.
Seikkula-Leino, J. (2007). “CLIL learning: achievement levels and affective factors”.

Language and Education, 21, 328-341.
Surmont, J. Struys, E., Van Den Noort, M., and Van De Craen, P. (2016). “The effects of
CLIL on mathematical content learning: A longitudinal study”. Studies in
Second Language Learning and Teaching, 6(2), 319-337
Travé, G. (2013). “A study on primary school teachers’ representations about bilingual

teaching.” Revista de Educación, 361, 379-402.
Whiting, E., Feinauer, E. (2011). “Reasons for enrollment at a Spanish-English two way
immersion charter school among highly motivated parents from a diverse
community”. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism,
14(6), 631-651.
Books
Council of Europe. (2014). Education and Languages- Language Policy – Languages

of Schooling. Available at:
http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Schoollang_EN.asp
Council of Europe. (2015a). Language Teaching and Learning in Multilingual

Classrooms. Brussels: European Commission.
MIEB
Council of Europe. (2015b). The Language Dimension in All Subjects. Brussels:
European Eurydice (2006). Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL)
at School in Europe. Brussels: European Commission.
Coyle, D., Hood, P. & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and Language Integrated
Learning. Cambridge University Press.
García, O. 2009. Bilingual Education in the 21st Century. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-
Blackwell.
Llinares, A., Morton, T. and Whitttaker, R. (2012). The Roles of Languages in CLIL.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Marsh, D., Mehisto, P., Wolff, D. & Frigols. M.J. (2010). The European Framework for
CLIL Teacher Education. Graz: European Centre for Modern Languages.
Book chapters
Ávila, F.J. (2009). “Los factores afectivos: la piedra de toque de AICLE”. In V. Pavón
and F.J. Ávila (Eds.), Aplicaciones didácticas para la enseñanza integrada de
lengua y contenidos. Sevilla: Consejería de Educación-Universidad de Córdoba
Brevik, M. and Moe E. (2012). “Effects of CLIL teaching on language outcomes”. In D.

Tsagari and I. Csépes (eds.), Collaboration in Language Testing and
Assessment (pp. 213-227). Berlin: Peter Lang.
Cummins, J. (1981). “The Role of Primary Language Development in Promoting

Educational Success for Language Minority Students”. In C.F. Leyva (ed.),
Schooling and Language Minority Students: A Theoretical Framework, (pp.3-
49). Los Angeles: California State University.
Dalton-Puffer, D. (2007). “Outcomes and Processes in CLIL: Current Research from

Europe”. En W. Delanoy, and L. Volkmann (eds.), Future Perspectives for
English Language Teaching (pp. 139-157)Heidelberg: Carl Winter.
Genesee, F. (2002). “What do we know about bilingual education for majority language
students?” In T.K. Bhatia & W. Ritchie (eds.), Handbook of Multilingualism
and Multiculturalism (pp. 547-576). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
MIEB
Infante, D., Benvenuto, G., and Lastrucci, E. (2009). “The effects of CLIL from the
perspective of experienced teachers”. In D. Marsh, P. Mehisto, D. Wolff, R.
Aliaga, T. Asikainen, M.J. Frigols, S. Hughes and G. Langé (Eds.). CLIL
Perspectives from the Field (pp. 156-163). Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä.
Jexenflicker, S., and Dalton-Puffer, C. (2010). “The CLIL differential: comparing the
writing of CLIL and non-CLIL students in higher colleges of technology”. In C.
Dalton-Puffer, T. Nikula, & U. Smit (eds.), Language use and language
learning in CLIL classrooms (pp. 169-89). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John
Benjamins Publishing Company.
Mehisto, P. and Marsh, D. (2012). “Approaching the economic, cognitive and health
benefits of bilingualism: fuel for CLIL”. In Y. Ruiz de Zarobe, J.M. Sierra (eds.),
Content and Foreign Language Integrated Learning: Contributions to
Multilingualism in European Contexts (pp. 21-47). Berlin: Peter Lang.
Méndez, M.C. (2013). “The intercultural turn brought about by the implementation of
CLIL programmes in Spanish monolingual areas: A case study of Andalusian
primary and secondary schools”. The Language Learning Journal, 41(5), 268–
283.
Méndez, M.C., and Pavón, V. (2012). “Investigating the coexistence 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), 574-592.
Merisuo-Storm, T. (2007). “Pupils’ attitudes towards foreign language learning and the
development of literacy skills in bilingual education”. Teaching Teacher
Education, 23(2), 226-235.
Navés, T. (2011). “How promising are the results of integrating content and language
for EFL writing and overall EFL proficiency?” In Y. Ruiz de Zarobe, J.M. Sierra
& F. Gallardo (eds.), Content and Foreign Language Integrated Learning (pp.
155-187). Bern: Peter Lang.
Salaberri, S. (2010). “Teacher training programmes for CLIL in Andalusia”. In D.

Lasagabaster and Y. Ruiz de Zarobe (Eds.). CLIL in Spain: Implementation,
MIEB
Results and Teacher Training (pp. 140-161). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge
Scholars Publishing.
Viebrock, B. (2012). The situation in the CLIL classroom is quite different -or is it?
teachers’ mindsets, methodological competences and teaching habits. In D.
Marsh and O. Meyer (Eds.), Quality interfaces: examining evidence &
exploring solutions in CLIL (pp. 78-90). Eichstaett: Eichstaett Academic Press.
Van de Craen, P., Ceuleers, E., and Mondt, K. (2007). “Cognitive development and
bilingualism in primary schools: teaching maths in a CLIL environment”. In D.
Marsh and D. Wolff (eds.), Diverse Contexts-Converging Goals: CLIL in
Europe (pp. 185-200). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Web pages
Ministerio de Educación (2011). Guía para Auxiliares de Conversación Extranjeros en

España. Disponible en:
http://www.educacion.gob.es/dctm/ministerio/educacion/actividadinternacion
al/convocatorias-de-trabajo-y-formacion/para-extranjeros/aacc-extranjeros-
2011/guia-aaccespana2011formateadai.pdf?documentId= 0901e72b80b92378
Wolff, D. (2005). “Approaching CLIL”. En Project D3 – CLIL matrix. The CLIL Quality
Matrix. Available at:
http://archive.ecml.at/mtp2/clilmatrix/pdf/wsrepD3E2005_6.pdf
Further reading
Marsh, D. (2013). The CLIL Trajectory: Educational Innovation for the 21st Century
iGeneration. Córdoba: University of Cordoba Academic Press
A concise and easy to read description of the forces that gave way to the rise of CLIL as
a successful educational approach. Along the different chapters the reader will discover
MIEB
from the benefits of its implementation to the factors and variables that have to be
juggled in order to obtain correct results.
Mehisto, P. (2005). Excellence in Bilingual Education: A Guide for School Principals.

Cambridge University Press.
The author provides the read with a complete and detail analysis of how CLIL
programmes have to be implemented to be successful, particularly from the perspective
of the organisational dimension.
Pavón, V. (2014). Programas bilingües/plurilingües. Plan Integral de Excelencia

Educativa. Oxford University Press
An enumeration of the most relevant areas that should be consolidated in a CLIL

programme, and of the decisions that have to be taken in the schools.

Implementing A CLIL Programme: Challenges and Initiatives

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Implementing A CLIL Programme: Challenges and Initiatives

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

Implementing A CLIL Programme: Challenges and Initiatives

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Implementing a CLIL programme:

challenges and initiatives

[1.1] Functions and responsibilities of the school management staff

[1.1.1] Contextualisation: schools and CLIL programmes

[1.1.2] Quality of CLIL programmes

[1.1.3] First decisions

[1.2] The role of the bilingual coordinator

[1.3] Functions of the language assistants

“the main role of the CLIL coordinator is to Leadership

The emotional Welcome Integratio Participati Assistance Evaluation Identity

Technical aspects Planning Support Tandem Strategies Culture Activities

Overview of the unit

Meyer, O. (2010). “Towards quality-CLIL: successful planning and teaching

We will employ the following resources:

 A Power Point presentation and lecture.

1. Functions and responsibilities of the school

2.1. Contextualization: schools and CLIL programmes

In order to achieve positive results in CLIL, consideration of the language is not

One of the most remarkable differences between CLIL and immersion

2.2. Quality of CLIL programmes

When coming to the analysis of the outcomes of CLIL programmes in particular,

But, irrespective of the importance of identifying the important factors involved

2.3. First decisions

2. Secondly, there must be recognition of the human resources available, in particular

4. Another important decision is associated to the beginning of the programme. The

5. Finally, another important factor to be considered is that there should be a global

1. The possibility to work collaboratively must be facilitated, in the first place by

2. The provision of a programme of incentives, which may range from an increase in

7. To elaborate a quality training programme for the bilingual teachers.

8. To plan the adequate use of the language assistants.

9. To establish a smooth and solid relationship with the families by providing

3. The role of the bilingual coordinator

In parallel, one of the duties of the bilingual coordinator is to promote the

1. Changing the traditional paradigm of expositive lessons to participative and

2. This type of teaching is not centred on the transmission of content but on

4. A common attention to the use of evaluation criteria and instruments.

7. The use of communicative functions and strategies specifically associated to the

8. The utilisation of strategies (visuals, scaffolding techniques, etc.) in order to facilitate

9. The different genres of the language used in bilingual lessons, as an instrument to

10. The promotion of positive atmosphere, encouraging and motivating teachers to

4. Functions of the language assistants

9. It would be recommended to implement a gradual incorporation of LAs to the daily

(Please go to the subject forum to complete this activity)

2. He speaks of supporting students in a CLIL context. How does he elaborate this

Cenoz, J. (2015). “Content-based instruction and content and language integrated

Coyle, D. (2007). “Content and Language Integrated Learning: towards a connected

Coyle, D. (2008). “Content and Language Integrated Learning: towards a connected

Falcón, E., and Lorenzo, F. (2015). El desarrollo de la sintaxis compleja en L1y L2 en

Fernández, J., Fernández-Costales, A. and Arias, J.M. (2017). “Analysing students’

Hunt, M. (2011). “Learners’ perceptions of their experience of learning subject content

Julián, C. (2007). “La importancia de la coordinación en la implantación de modelos

Lasagabaster, D. (2008). “Foreign language competence in content and language

Lasagabaster, D., and García, O. (2014). “Translanguaging: towards a dynamic model of

Meyer, O. (2010). “Towards quality-CLIL: successful planning and teaching

Paran, A. (2013). “Content and Language Integrated Learning: panacea or policy

Pavón, V. (2018a). “La controversia de la educación bilingüe en España”. Tribuna

Pavón, V. (2018b). “Learning outcomes in CLIL programmes: a comparison of results