See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/308194120

Developing the speaking skills of students through CLIL

Conference Paper · July 2016

DOI: 10.18638/eiic.2016.5.1.517

CITATIONS READS

4 3,593

2 authors, including:

Makrina Zafiri
University of Thessaly
32 PUBLICATIONS   36 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Makrina Zafiri on 14 October 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.


Developing the speaking skills of students through
CLIL
A case of sixth grade Primary School students in Greece
Anastasia Delliou
School of Humanities
Hellenic Open University
Patras, Greece
Abstract—The necessity to educate multilingual and multicultural
citizens has created the dire need to explore new teaching
methodologies that can ensure the learners’ command of foreign
languages. Content Language Integrated Learning is an
innovative method of teaching whereby language is used as a tool
for learning both the content of a subject of the school
curriculum and the language itself. Although CLIL is not a new
trend in Europe, in Greece only in the past few years have some
attempts been made to implement it in schools on an
experimental basis.
The present study examines the potential of CLIL in the
development of the speaking skills of students in the sixth grade
of Primary School. Given the complexity of the speaking skill, it
is difficult to find ways to explore and assess the learners’ oral
production on the basis of valid and reliable criteria. Hence, both
quantitative and qualitative methods of research are employed in
order to provide data for the analysis and interpretation of the
results. The assessment criteria of the speaking tests of the
national certificate of competence in foreign languages were
applied. Observation, of the CLIL lessons, and a questionnaire
investigating the students’ attitude to the approach, were also
applied. The findings, of this research, show the effectiveness of
CLIL in the speaking skills of students, as well as their favorable
attitude to the new teaching approach.
Keywords- CLIL, primary education, speaking
I. INTRODUCTION
The majority of the educational systems in European
countries give importance to the teaching of foreign languages
in schools with the purpose of promoting multilingual and
multicultural citizens [13]. There is a vital need for testing and
employing new and innovative teaching methods that can
improve students‟ overall competence in the target language
better than the traditional methods of teaching.
Content Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) is
considered to maximize the students‟ exposure to the foreign
language and thus create the most suitable environment for
learning. In CLIL, the target language is used as a vehicle for
the instruction of school subjects; it is used not only to offer
knowledge, but also to convey meaning and share experience.
Even though CLIL has become commonplace in many
schools in Europe, only lately have language teachers and
researchers started to experiment on the effectiveness of this
Educational sciences
10.18638/eiic.2016.5.1.517 - 48 -
The 5th Electronic International Interdisciplinary Conference
August, 8. - 12. 2016, www.eiic.cz
Dr. Makrina Zafiri
School Of Humanities
Hellenic Open University, Patras,
University of Thessaly, Greece
method in Greece. Teaching and implementing CLIL has many
implications for educators; they have to comply with the
principles of the new methodology, adjust their teaching
material, as well as, have a thorough knowledge of both the
foreign language and the content subject. In light of the
aforementioned, the present research aims to investigate the
effectiveness of CLIL in the development of the students‟
speaking skills.
II. TEACHING SPEAKING
Speaking is one of the most complex skills; “it is unique to
every human being and it is context – dependent” [14]. Oral
skills are constantly developing throughout a person‟s
childhood and the production of units of spoken discourse is
part of the learners‟ conscious effort to speak [10]. Reference
[2] was the first to claim that speaking serves two main
functions: interactional (maintenance of social relationships)
and transactional (transfer of information). Oral
communication is an interactional process and is seen as an end
in foreign language teaching; learners need “to be able to speak
with confidence in order to carry out some of the most basic
transactions” [5].
The development of speaking skills is of vital importance in
English language teaching, both in an educational program and
in the design of an exam to obtain a certificate. Success in
language learning is measured in terms of the ability to carry
out a conversation in the target language [3], [20]. An array of
skills and knowledge needed for learners to converse and
succeed in a given speech act are highlighted in [9]. A good
speaker:
 Uses grammar in an accurate way
 Assesses characteristics of the target audience, such as
status and power relations
 Selects vocabulary appropriate for the settings of the
speech act and the topic of discussion
 Applies strategies to enhance comprehensibility, such
as rephrasing and checking understanding
 Cares about the success of the interaction and adjusts
the speaking components in order to maximize the
involvement of the listener and comprehension
eISSN: 1339-9977, cdISSN: 1338-7871
ISBN: 978-80-554-1248-1

A careful examination of the good speaker‟s characteristics
emphasizes the complexity of speaking; this mental activity
requires the triggering of various sub- skills and distinct areas
of planning [5]. The speaker has to retrieve words from his
memory and then place them into the appropriate syntactical
and propositional sequence at the same time [12]. Moreover,
this process can take place under the pressure of both external
and negative affective factors, such as the target audience and
feelings of anxiety and reluctance.
The effective instruction of speaking in the classroom
caters for all these aspects of the acquisition of speaking skills.
Taking into consideration the principles of the curriculum and
the teaching aims of speaking, teachers should adopt the
approach that most suits the learners in order to achieve the
best results.
III. CLIL DEFINITION AND CHARACTERISTICS
Content language integrated learning is a dual- focused
approach to teaching. The target language is used for the
teaching and learning of both the content of a school subject
and the language itself within a specific set of learning
objectives set by the teacher. In other words, an additional
language is used as a medium in the teaching and learning of a
non- language content [15]. Reference [23] supports in his
article that linguistic and content subject competence can be
promoted within this integrated concept by offering empirical
research data which show that CLIL functions in all learning
contexts. Comprehension-based programmes are also
considered beneficial for the development of communicative
performance and basic comprehension, especially in situations
where learners basically have contact with the second language
in the classroom environment.
In the last decade CLIL has become a fast developing
phenomenon in Europe; it is seen as a global trend and as an
educational innovation that can suit the learners‟ needs and
aspirations. It responds to the growing need for efficient
language skills and it overcomes the motivational problem of
classical lessons by offering to learners the opportunity to
participate in various types of activities which can suit their
needs and interests [1]. CLIL learners need to discuss, justify,
debate and explain using more complex language than usual;
through activities that promote cooperative learning, they
develop their social skills, namely their group- work and
speaking skills [7]. The topics and subjects are integrated in
order to provide a value- added educational outcome since
language is contextualized and becomes purposeful. The
students tend to develop better speaking skills due to the large
variety of language they are being exposed to in class, as well
as the large amount of information they have to handle; this
leads to the promotion of genuine communication and the
production of spontaneous speech via collaborative enquiry [7],
[19]. At the heart of authentic language use, CLIL enhances
creation and learning, which can improve educational
development and context. Moreover, the immediacy of purpose
as a characteristic of a CLIL lesson, increases motivation and
the quality of teaching input and encourages learners‟ active
participation and interest [15].
Educational sciences
10.18638/eiic.2016.5.1.517
The 5th Electronic International Interdisciplinary Conference
August, 8. - 12. 2016, www.eiic.cz
IV. CLIL IN THE GREEK EDUCATIONAL CONTEXT
CLIL implementation is difficult and demanding for
educators since the work to be done shifts from current
practices to new practices favoured by this approach[17]. As
already mentioned, CLIL is a kind of bilingual education and
equal emphasis is placed on both subject and language in an
integrative manner, although the focus may change from time
to time depending on the needs. Yet, CLIL is considered to be
a widespread approach in European educational systems, from
Finland to Italy and from Bulgaria to Spain [6], [22].
Despite the successful application of the approach in many
European countries, CLIL is rather unknown to Greek Primary
schools. In Greece, the first attempt to introduce this approach
was made almost five years before the present paper, in the 3 rd
Primary school of Evosmos in Thessaloniki, under the
supervision of the School of English of the Aristotle University
of Thessaloniki. Qualified teachers of English teach the
subjects of History, Religious Instruction, Geography, Art and
Environmental studies in various grades using material they
have designed on their own, since the official CLIL material is
not offered by the Ministry of Education; the results of this
form of instruction have shown both language and content
benefits for learners [16]. In the last two years five more
Primary schools in the prefecture of Thessaloniki adopted the
new approach under the guidance and cooperation of the
teachers and the school advisor. On an experimental basis,
there have been many efforts made to apply CLIL in class,
such as the present study, but these are usually short-term
experiences. These are called “language showers” and this
short-term exposure in primary education has positive effects
in learning by selecting the most important areas to be covered
[18].
It seems that CLIL instruction is taking its first steps in
Greek education, but a long-term application of the approach is
not yet under discussion.
V. THE ACTION RESEARCH
The present study is based upon the hypothesis that the
CLIL approach can help students develop their speaking skills
in a more effective manner than the traditional educational
methodology followed in Greek State Primary Schools with
regards to foreign language teaching. The research questions
are the following:
 Can CLIL enhance language learning more than a
traditional educational model with regards to speaking
skills?
 Can CLIL learners outperform non-CLIL students in
speech production?
 Can CLIL help learners achieve better results in the
speaking test of the KPG exams?
 What are the students‟ attitudes to CLIL teaching?
The action research takes place in a rural area in Greece;
the sample is thirty students who belong to two different state
primary schools of the same area and are divided into two
groups of fifteen students each. All of them are eleven years
old and attend the sixth grade. According to the Greek national
eISSN: 1339-9977, cdISSN: 1338-7871
- 49 - ISBN: 978-80-554-1248-1

curriculum, the specific students are considered to be A2 level
and are able to sit for the KPG1 exam and this is the reason
why the specific age group and language level are chosen for
this research. They are taught English by the same teachers,
who are also the researchers, for the effectiveness of CLIL in
their speaking skills. Both groups‟ level of competence is
considered to be A2 according to CEFR (Waystage), however
both are mixed- ability classes since their competence in the
language use varies; the majority of the students also attend
extra-lessons in private language institutes. As a result, some of
them are more advanced than those who depend solely on the
language course offered at school.
The first group, the non-CLIL group (also known as the
control group), follows a conventional Foreign Language
program and receives three hours of English language teaching
per week. The students have been learning English since the
third grade of primary school following the principles set by
the CTCF2 curriculum which promotes a cross-curricular
approach to learning. The second group, the CLIL or the
experimental group comes from a different educational
background than the non-CLIL group; the students have been
following the English for Young Learners (EYL)3 programme
and in their school, English is a compulsory subject from the
first grade. Nevertheless, both groups are taught the same
course book by the same teachers in the sixth grade and both
belong to the A2 level of the rating scale of CEFR language
competence.
VI. METHODOLOGY
In order to validate the hypothesis made, the researchers
intend to gather data concerning the oral production of the
students of both groups and compare them with the aid of
statistical graphs and tables.
Through methodological triangulation both quantitative and
qualitative research methods are employed to draw valid results
from the teaching experiment. This term refers to the use or
combination of more than one method to gather data for
analysis and to validate the hypothesis made by the researchers
[8]. The use of triangulation “strengthens a study by combining
methods. This means, using different kinds of methods, or data,
including using both quantitative and qualitative approaches”
[21]. Researchers, who use the quantitative approach, employ
experimental methods and quantitative methods to test their
hypothesis and make generalizations about them [11]. They
also attempt to delimit and observe phenomena by using
standardized and measurable categories of a list they have
prepared. On the other hand, qualitative research seeks to
illuminate behaviors in context- specific settings and produces
findings that come from real- world settings [21]. In addition to
measurable patterns, the researchers supplemented the process
of finding out the validity of the hypothesis made in the initial
stage of the research, through observation and through the
1
KPG: Kratiko Pistopiitiko Glossomathias, the National Certificate
for the knowledge of Foreign Languages set by the Ministry of
Education.
2
CTCF stands for Cross-Thematic Curriculum Framework
3
Within the context of the Project entitled “New Foreign Language
Education Policy in Schools: English for Young Learners”. For more
information http://rcel.enl.uoa.gr/peap/en/articles/programme
Educational sciences
10.18638/eiic.2016.5.1.517
The 5th Electronic International Interdisciplinary Conference
August, 8. - 12. 2016, www.eiic.cz
recording of the events that occurred, due to behavioral
changes [11].
In the present study, three instruments were employed in
order to produce valid and reliable findings; the KPG speaking
test as a speech production test, classroom observation and a
questionnaire addressed to the CLIL group.
The speaking test of the Greek State Certificate of
Language Proficiency provided the framework for the
investigation and collection of data; the learners were marked
according to certain criteria set for their level.
In the beginning and in the end of the study, both groups
were tested in their speaking skills and their results were
compared to see which approach or method was more
effective. The speaking test of the Greek State Certificate of
Language Proficiency provided the framework for the
investigation and collection of data; the learners were marked
according to certain criteria set for their level.
The KPG is designed upon the principles of the CEFR for
the teaching of English as a foreign language. It is the only
National Certificate which is forwarded to Greek State schools
by the Ministry of Education and is addressed to students who
wish to ascertain their competence and their progress in
language learning.
For the purpose of the analysis of the students‟ speech
production, six basic criteria from the speaking test were used:
 Pronunciation and intonation
 Lexical range and appropriacy of linguistic choices
 Grammatical accuracy
 Fluency
 Use of communication strategies
 Cohesion and coherence
These criteria refer to the quality of students‟ language
output and are marked from one to five points each. There are
three more criteria used that refer to task completion, namely
the appropriate response to the three tasks of the test and the
achievement of the communicative purpose. According to the
A level examiner‟s information pack, the points are not marks;
each point on the Likert scale represents a different qualitative
judgment of the learner‟s competence and his/her overall
performance4. In detail:
1= Unsatisfactory
2= Partly satisfactory
3= Moderately satisfactory
4= Satisfactory
5= Fully Satisfactory
The students of both the CLIL and non-CLIL class took
part in a simulated speaking test in the classroom during the
same period of time; initially, before the CLIL teaching, all
4
The information is taken from the examiner‟s information pack
http://rcel.enl.uoa.gr/files/KPG/english/A_level_oral_examiner_info_
pack.pdf
eISSN: 1339-9977, cdISSN: 1338-7871
- 50 - ISBN: 978-80-554-1248-1

students were asked to carry out the same speaking test with a
view to assess their initial level of competence. After two
months of CLIL teaching, the students were asked, once more,
to take the same speaking test, a different one one this time,
with the purpose of finding out whether the CLIL methodology
had helped the students of the particular control group to
enhance their speaking abilities. All the tests were recorded and
conducted by the researchers, who are experienced examiners
of the KPG exam, and are certified by the Ministry of
Education.
Classroom observation was applied in order to focus on the
research context [20]. It is a qualitative method of research
which allowed the researchers to observe their subjects, in this
case students, in their natural settings. Throughout the teaching
of the CLIL lessons, the researchers documented classroom
action and interaction with regards to the development of the
speaking skill. Classroom observation offered the opportunity
to acquire a full insight into the students‟ perceptions of the
dual-focused nature of the new teaching approach.
The researchers constructed an observation checklist on the
basis of the KPG assessment criteria of speaking, more
specifically, the criteria which concern the quality of oral
production constituted the characteristics of the checklist that
the teachers chose to focus upon. Therefore, the areas to be
observed include:
 Vocabulary
-Students use a range of
vocabulary items
 Accuracy
-Students produce correct
grammatical sentences
 Cohesion & coherence
-Students connect word elements
in a logical and comprehensive
manner
 Use of strategies
-Students use strategies when they
want to talk/ do not understand/ do
not how to express something in
English
 Pronunciation/ intonation
-Students articulation is proper-
the oral message is comprehensible
The likert scale, which was used, ranged from one to five.
Each scale point corresponded to a different understanding of
the overall performance of the learners, during a teaching
session. By implementing the observation of the same criteria
that were assessed in the speaking test of the KPG, the
researchers hoped to monitor the enhancement of the learners,
speaking ability and strengthen the findings of the research in
the end.
Educational sciences
10.18638/eiic.2016.5.1.517 - 51 -
The 5th Electronic International Interdisciplinary Conference
August, 8. - 12. 2016, www.eiic.cz
Lastly, in order to find out about the students‟ attitude to
Content Language Integrated Learning, a checklist designed by
the researchers was handed out to them after the CLIL lessons.
The learners were requested to respond to a checklist,
documenting their opinion on specific aspects of the new
approach tested. These aspects included the tasks and the
organization of the lessons, the interaction of the students
within groups, and in the classroom, their learning abilities and
finally, their speaking skill.
The checklist was written in both Greek and English and
for those students who chose to answer it in English, the
teachers were available for queries or instant translation when
needed. The sections to be checked contained statements
concerning different aspects of CLIL teaching and students
were expected to tick the appropriate emoticon, according to
their attitude. They are not expected to rate, but express their
agreement or disagreement with the statements. Emoticons are
used to make the checklist more student-friendly and enjoyable
to young learners.
Using this particular tool of research, the researchers hoped,
on the one hand, to discover the students‟ attitudes to CLIL,
especially regarding the speaking skill and on the other to
support and strengthen the results of the hypothesis set at the
beginning of this research.
VII. RESULTS
Regarding the overall performance of the students, there
seems to be an enhancement in the speaking skill of both
groups. Taking into account the researcher‟s marking in all
categories of the speaking test, and this includes the task
completion section, the control group showed a slight
improvement:
8
6
4 pre-CLIL (Ss)
2 post-CLIL (Ss)
0
20.7 26.1 31.5 36.9 42.3
Figure 1. Table of frequencies
Five students had 0% variation in their grade and there
were two who had a negative percentage in variation, too. The
rest of the students had a positive variation in their total
marking.
On the other hand, the quantitative measurement of the
CLIL students indicated a much better performance for them in
the second speaking test. All of them scored higher than the
first test and there was even a variation of 20% in one student.
It is worth noticing that all students in this group had a positive
variation in comparison to their grades in the first and in the
second test.
eISSN: 1339-9977, cdISSN: 1338-7871
ISBN: 978-80-554-1248-1
 The 5th Electronic International Interdisciplinary Conference
August, 8. - 12. 2016, www.eiic.cz

results of the KPG tests, but lack of progress in accuracy and

Experimental group pronunciation. It seemed that the students in the classroom used
the English language in a communicative manner without
6 overall performance taking into consideration accuracy or pronunciation; their goal,
5 during the CLIL lessons, was to carry out the tasks successfully.
Students were also constantly encouraged by their teachers to
4 speak freely. In contrast, the students were more concentrated
3 during the KPG speaking tests and their focus on achievement
students

gave them higher scores in accuracy.

2
Throughout the CLIL lessons, of the experimental group,
1 the teachers also gathered information concerning students‟
0 speaking abilities. On the basis of the oral performance
assessment criteria, set by the KPG, an observation checklist
13.5 20.5 27.5 34,5 41,5 was created; fluency, accuracy, pronunciation, strategies,
grades vocabulary and cohesion/ coherence were assessed according
pre-test post-test
to the teachers‟ personal evaluation.

Figure 2. Comparison of the two groups‟ performance (Frequency polygon)

The evaluation of the similarities and differences of the two
groups points to the fact that the CLIL group outranks the non-
CLIL group, as we can see in the table below:
10
8 frequent use of the foreign language at the expense of Greek.
students
The results of each category showed that, by the end of the
lessons, the students had progressed not only in fluency but
also in the use of strategies and cohesion. According to the
teacher‟s notes, students were reluctant to use or speak English
in the beginning, but as they became used to the new teaching
method, they began using English in a more efficient and
coherent manner. Vocabulary was also slightly developed,
whereas pronunciation and accuracy were not affected at all.
The teachers observed that the collaborative nature of the
majority of the activities promoted communication and the

6 The results of the questionnaire which was distributed to

4 the students at the end of the CLIL lessons revealed a positive
2 prior experience with CLIL, the learners agreed that the tasks
0 were interesting and not too difficult and that they were able to
-3,33 2,5 7,5 12,5 17,5
control group variation percentage
exp group
Figure 3. Variation percentage of both groups (Frequency polygon)
The above diagram shows that the variation percentages of
the CLIL students are higher than those of the non-CLIL
students in speech production. If the scores of each student in
the two speaking tests are compared, the variation percentage
of their progress is derived and this indicates the rate of their
progress. More specifically, it is worth noticing that there are
non-significant changes in the CLIL Ss‟ performance between
the first and the second speaking test, which is not surprising
though, since the students‟ rates in the first KPG were
satisfactory enough for the expectations of the researchers. The
students also improved in accuracy and use of strategies,
probably because they were motivated, by the new-type of
material which was applied, and tried to respond to the CLIL
activities, while the accuracy orientation of the typical EFL
teaching did not leave them unaffected and made them cater for
language mistakes in the new teaching context. Furthermore, the
teachers‟ observation checklist revealed a slight improvement,
in students‟ performance, in vocabulary which agrees with the
attitude towards the teaching approach. Without having any
complete them successfully. In addition, the majority of the
students enjoyed learning History through English and
appeared eager to be taught other subjects in future in the same
manner. According to the results produced by the
questionnaire, they also improved in their speaking skill, as
they felt that CLIL was an opportunity to use English more in
the classroom than they did before. The organization of the
lessons was satisfying and most of the students were willing to
participate throughout the course of this research study.
The general findings of the questionnaire showed the
enthusiasm and the positive feelings of the students towards
CLIL.
VIII. LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY
The analysis of the data collected showed improvement in
the oral production of the students; however, there are
limitations to the present study which do not allow the
generalization of our findings.
The most important limitation concerned the duration of the
research. CLIL was implemented for almost two months, since
the fixed school program did not allow further application of
the approach; a long-term experiment would lead to more valid
and reliable results concerning the effectiveness of CLIL.
Another point to consider was the number of students involved
in the teaching experiment; there were fifteen students in the
control group and fifteen in the experimental group. The data

Educational sciences eISSN: 1339-9977, cdISSN: 1338-7871

10.18638/eiic.2016.5.1.517 - 52 - ISBN: 978-80-554-1248-1
 The 5th Electronic International Interdisciplinary Conference
August, 8. - 12. 2016, www.eiic.cz

collected did not represent all sixth graders in Primary schools [8]
in Greece, since the sample was very small and it was
necessary to apply CLIL in more teaching contexts in order to
validate the conclusions drawn from this particular study. [9]
Still, the findings of this small-scale intervention cannot be
ignored but should be considered as positive evidence of the
[10]
contribution of CLIL to the development of the speaking skills
of learners.
IX. CONCLUSION [11]
There are few research-based empirical studies that
investigate the outcomes of CLIL in teaching, in Greece, and
[12]
more specifically, in the development of speaking skills. The
main aim of this action research was to investigate the impact
[13]
of CLIL on the speaking skills of students in a sixth grade
Primary School in Greece.
The findings indicate a positive influence of CLIL in the [14]
development of the speaking skills of CLIL students compared
[15]
with the non-CLIL ones. The speaking tests of the KPG and the
observation of the lessons also showed that the areas of
vocabulary, fluency and strategies were also affected by CLIL. [16]
Finally, the data gathered by the learners‟ questionnaire
revealed a positive attitude of the students towards CLIL,
namely the tasks, the lessons and the learning of both language
and subject content. [17]
REFERENCES
[18]
[1] H. Baetens- Beardsmore, “The significance of CLIL/ EMILE,” in CLIL-
EMILE: The European Dimension: Action, Trends and Foresight
Potential, Marsh, C., Ed. Strasbourg: European Commission, 2002, pp.
20-24. [19]
[2] G. Brown and G. Yule, Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1983.
[3] G. Burkart, and K. Sheppard, (2004). “A descriptive study of content- [20]
ESL practices”, vol. III: Training packet material. Available at
http://files.eric.ed.gov./fulltext/EJ752850.pdf.
[21]
[4] M. Bygate, Speaking. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987.
[5] M. Bygate, “Theoretical perspectives on speaking”, Annual Review of [22]
Applied Linguistics, vol.18, pp. 20-42, 1998
[6] M.L. Celaya, and Y. Ruiz de Zarobe, (2010) “First Languages and age in
CLIL and non- CLIL contexts”, International CLIL Research Journal. [23]
Available at http://www.icrj.eu/13/article6.html.
[7] D. Coyle, “Content and language integrated learning: Motivating
learners and teachers,” Scottish Language Review, vol. 13, pp. 1- 18,
2006.
C. Erzberger and U. Kelle, “Making inferences in mixed methods: The
rules of integration” in Handbook of mixed methods in social &
behavioral research, A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie Eds. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage, 2003, pp. 457- 488.
M. A. C. Florez, Improving Adult English Language Learners‟ Speaking
Skills, National Center for ESL Literacy Education. Retrieved from
ERIC database (ED435204), 1999.
A. Georgountzou, “Speaking: Orientation and Process,” in Language
Learning Skills & Materials (Oracy and Literacy), vol. I, N. Sifakis, A.
Georgountzou, & M. Hill, Eds. Patras: Hellenic Open University, 2004,
pp. 245- 308.
N. Golafshani, (2003, January), “Understanding Reliability and Validity
in Qualitative Research”, The Qualitative Report. Available at
http://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol8/iss4/6/
J. Harmer, , The Practice of English Language Teaching. Harlow:
Pearson Educated Limited, 2001.
M. Lasagabaster, “Foreign language competence in Content and
Language Integrated courses,” The Open Applied Linguistic Journal,
vol.1, pp. 30-41, 2008.
W. J. M. Levelt, Speaking: From Intention to Articulation (5th ed.).
USA: MIT Press, 1998.
D. Marsh, (2002). „CLIL- EMILE: The European Dimension: Action,
Trends and Foresight Potential‟. Available at
http://www.tieclil.org/html/products/pdf/1UK.pdf
M. Mattheoudakis, T. Alexiou, and C. Laskaridou, (2013). „To CLIL or
not to CLIL? The Case of the 3rd Experimental Primary School in
Evosmos‟. Available at
http://clil.web.auth.gr/links/To_CLIL_or_not_to_CLIL.pdf
P. Mehisto, (2008, January). “CLIL Counterweights: Recognizing and
Decreasing Disjuncture in CLIL”, International CLIL Research Journal,
vol. I. Available at http://www.icrj.eu/11/article8.html.
P. Mehisto, D. Marsh and M. J. Frigols, Uncovering CLIL. Content and
Language Integrated learning in Bilingual and Multilingual Education.
Oxford: Macmillan, 2008.
T. Nikula, “Effects of CLIL on one teacher‟s classroom language use” in
Language use and language learning in CLIL classrooms, C. Dalton-
Puffer, T. Nikula, and U. Smit, Eds, Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John
Benjamins, 2010, pp. 105- 124.
D. Nunan, Second language teaching and learning. Boston: Heinle &
Heinle, 1999.
M. Q. Patton, Qualitative research & evaluation methods. 3rd ed, Saint
Paul, MN: Sage Publications, 2001.
M. L Pérez- Cañado, “CLIL research in Europe: Past, present, and
future,” International. Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism,
vol.15, pp. 315-341, March 2012.
D. Wolff, “On the importance of CLIL in the context of the debate on
the plurilingual education in the European Union,” in The significance
of CLIL/ EMILE” In CLIL- EMILE: The European Dimension: Action,
Trends and Foresight Potential, Marsh, C., Ed. Strasbourg: European
Commission, 2002, pp. 44- 47.

Educational sciences eISSN: 1339-9977, cdISSN: 1338-7871

10.18638/eiic.2016.5.1.517 - 53 - ISBN: 978-80-554-1248-1

View publication stats