International Journal of Bilingual Education and

Bilingualism

ISSN: 1367-0050 (Print) 1747-7522 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rbeb20

From cultural awareness to scientific citizenship:

implementing content and language integrated
learning projects to connect environmental
science and English in a state school in Colombia

Edgar Garzón-Díaz

To cite this article: Edgar Garzón-Díaz (2018): From cultural awareness to scientific citizenship:
implementing content and language integrated learning projects to connect environmental science
and English in a state school in Colombia, International Journal of Bilingual Education and
Bilingualism, DOI: 10.1080/13670050.2018.1456512

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2018.1456512

Published online: 28 Mar 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 2

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rbeb20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION AND BILINGUALISM, 2018
https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2018.1456512

From cultural awareness to scientific citizenship: implementing

content and language integrated learning projects to connect
environmental science and English in a state school in Colombia
Edgar Garzón-Díaz
Faculty of Education, University of Los Andes, Bogota, Colombia

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) is an educational Received 2 April 2017
approach that integrates language learning with content teaching of Accepted 17 March 2018
subjects such as science. The CLIL approach regards culture a core
KEYWORDS
component, however, science teachers often struggle to integrate a CLIL; PBL; bilingual learners;
cultural component in their lessons. This study describes a pedagogical scientific citizenship; science
intervention using CLIL in a state school in Bogotá, Colombia. The first
cycle of an action research project was implemented over the course of
1 year with 50 students (aged 15–19 years) and their teacher. Students
used technology-enhanced CLIL-based environmental learning projects
to integrate content (science) and a vehicular language (English).
Questionnaires, a teacher’s journal, artefacts, and interviews were used
to collect data. The findings show students’ positive perceptions of CLIL
and highlight the value of explicitly considering a cultural component in
science lessons, framed through a lens of scientific citizenship.
Implications for CLIL and science education are discussed.

Introduction
Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) is a term coined in the mid-90s by European aca-
demics. In the last decade, it has been used as an umbrella term that embraces an extensive range of
situations referred to as ‘the experience of learning non-language subjects through a foreign
language’ (Marsh 2012, 28). It is important to highlight the emphasis the author places on the
word through, because one of the main features of CLIL is the use of language as a vehicle to facilitate
the learning of both content and language simultaneously and not to learn content in a foreign
language as in some bilingual settings or situate language learning in a content topic. In this
study, CLIL is seen as a form of education in which several language-supportive methodologies con-
verge into a form of instruction, where, despite the content being the driving force, both content and
language share equal attention in the teaching-learning process (Coyle, Hood, and Marsh 2010).
Our understanding of CLIL is still evolving, given that this is a relatively recent approach to learn-
ing whose genesis, according to Nikula et al. (2016), can be connected to earlier models of bilingual
education. Moreover, the authors remind us of the intricacy of the factors that interact in CLIL as well
as other educational settings where both language and content objectives are addressed ‘ … apart
from content and language matters, an array of other factors – institutional, pedagogical, personal –
also need to be considered’ (2016, 1). Due to its complexity and potential affordances practitioners
and academics in recent decades have promoted and critiqued a range of classroom practices
through experimenting and implementing CLIL programmes at school and university settings (see

CONTACT Edgar Garzón-Díaz ea.garzon@uniandes.edu.co; edgarzonmaster@gmail.com

© 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 E. GARZÓN-DÍAZ

e.g. Ball, Kelly, and Clegg 2015; Coyle, Hood, and Marsh 2010; Genesee and Hamayan 2016; Mehisto,
Marsh, and Frigols-Martín 2008). CLIL is often associated with other types of bilingual education such
as Immersion Education (IE), Language Across the Curriculum (LAC), Language for Specific Purposes (LSP)
and Content Based Instruction (CBI) aimed at integrating both content and language in different ways
with a greater emphasis on either language learning or content learning depending on the context.
For example, Anderson, McDougald, and Cuesta (2015) note a key difference between LSP and CLIL.
In LSP there is a prerequisite for learning content in the first language (L1) before learners attempt to
develop competences in the additional language (L+) in order to be able to communicate that
content. CLIL, however, involves progressing both content and language simultaneously.
Banegas (2013) found a close relationship between CLIL and CBI. He states that the two
approaches originated from Canadian immersion programmes that had a dual commitment to
integrate content and language. In the current study, CLIL differs from CBI in the way that a cul-
tural dimension is embedded within an integrated approach to learning. Nieto (2002) highlights
that language, literacy, and culture had not been transparently connected until a few years
ago. It is this connection that CLIL makes salient in integrated approaches to learning. As a
result, CLIL teachers need to understand how cultural awareness and pluricultural understanding
may affect students’ schooling. According to de Mejía (2006, 163), ‘teachers need to be sensitive
to the cultural implications of what they are teaching not only in the Social Science but also in
other content areas’. As Coyle, Hood, and Marsh (2010) clearly state, culture goes beyond
knowing about food or festivals in another country. It implies the development of identity, citizen-
ship, cultural awareness (self and otherness), and progression towards pluricultural understanding.
Culture also takes into account the specific nature of different subjects and the different ways of
constructing knowledge and inherent ways of behaving. Taking the example of science teaching
from a post-positivist perspective, the cultural dimension may appear initially to have little value.
However, from a socio-cultural perspective, the role of culture is fundamental since it defines the
context where students and teachers operate as well as the interpretation and understandings of
the content itself. For the purposes of this study, the concept of culture is of particular relevance
because it is understood as the filter used by students to make meaning of the world around
them at macro and micro levels.
Mehisto, Marsh, and Frigols-Martín (2008) framed CLIL as having a three-way focus on content,
language, and learning skills. However, it is Coyle (1999), influenced by the work of Mohan and his
Knowledge Framework, who proposed an innovative way of integrating these elements, adding a
new category that resulted in the 4Cs framework: content (subject matter), communication (language
learning and using), cognition (learning and thinking processes), and culture (intercultural under-
standing and global citizenship). The framework provides support in understanding CLIL and the
dimensions that interact in a symbiotic manner in any contextualised scenario.
Another key aspect of CLIL classes pertains to how language is perceived and what sequence
should be followed to guarantee a clear relationship between content and language objectives.
Coyle (2007) suggested The Language Triptych, a conceptual representation that responds to the
need to integrate language learning and using with cognitively demanding content. Such represen-
tation allows CLIL practitioners to analyse the vehicular language from three interconnected perspec-
tives: language of learning (language needed for learners to access basic concepts and skills relating
to the subject theme or topic), language for learning (the kind of language required to operate in a
foreign language environment), and language through learning (language to support and advance
learners’ thinking processes).
Dalton-Puffer (2011) usefully summarises the following points characteristic of CLIL programmes
in Europe, Asia, and South America.

. CLIL settings use a lingua franca or a foreign language. The language of instruction won’t be found
outside school boundaries due to its limited or no use in the society students live in.
. English is the dominant CLIL language. A core skill that learners want to acquire worldwide.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION AND BILINGUALISM 3

. In CLIL contexts most teachers are not native speakers of the target language. They are usually
content experts. The content derives mainly from academic/scientific disciplines rather than
from everyday life.
. CLIL lessons normally take place as content lessons (e.g. biology, maths, history). However,
language experts continue teaching the target language as a different subject.
. Usually no more than 50% of the curriculum is taught in the CLIL language.
. CLIL is normally implemented at secondary level when students have already developed literacy
skills in their first language (L1).

Moreover, Mehisto, Marsh, and Frigols-Martín (2008) argue that in certain contexts multilingualism
and bilingualism are often perceived as a privilege granted to the wealthy. In Colombia, for example,
this assertion has been confirmed in that CLIL has been mostly introduced in private schools and uni-
versity curricula – arguably the more affluent sector of Colombian society since only 9% of students
coming from poorer socio-economic backgrounds gain access to university compared to 53% of
those coming from wealthy backgrounds (OECD 2016). The present study tries to break such trends
by giving state school students in a school in Bogota (mostly coming from underprivileged back-
grounds) the opportunity to experience science lessons through English and Spanish as vehicular
languages. This implementation corroborates that CLIL can be used in a variety of contexts and with
individuals who come from diverse learning contexts. Hence, the implementation of CLIL in Colombian
state schools might create more accessible opportunities for growing a more egalitarian society.
CLIL has been widely incorporated into the European context since its origins in the mid-90s. There
have been a number of studies conducted principally in mainland Europe, with Spain being one of the
countries that have contributed significantly to the discussion in the field. Nevertheless, South America
has become increasingly interested in the implementation of CLIL at school and university levels. Both
Argentina and Colombia have reported increasing research in the area over the last few years. For
example, McDougald (2015) states that there is still considerable uncertainty as to the current state
of the art of CLIL in Colombia, as well as to what teachers, stakeholders, and practitioners understand
as CLIL. Private bilingual schools and universities of Colombia such as Universidad de la Sabana and
Universidad del Norte have shown the effectiveness of CLIL in secondary and tertiary education (see,
e.g. studies published by these universities in the Latin American Journal of Content and Language Inte-
grated Learning). However, little research has been carried out at elementary levels (Anderson, McDou-
gald, and Cuesta 2015). Herran-Baron (2015) conducted research for four months in a state school in
Bogotá. His study focused on reporting the effects of CLIL on 8th graders’ English learning compared
to a more traditional EFL communicative approach. The study reported positive student perceptions
regarding CLIL implementation. Additionally, the study served as a point of reference for CLIL prac-
titioners who aim to implement this approach in state schools.
Another study undertaken in the public sector was by Abouchaar, Fajardo, and Vargas (2009) at
the National University of Colombia. The main purpose was to create curricular guidelines for ‘pilot
bilingual’ state schools in Bogotá. The outcomes present a comprehensive justification for including
science teaching within a CLIL approach. The recommendation is that CLIL should be implemented
gradually and that the amount of time dedicated to L2 should not surpass the number of hours
devoted to L1 in the curriculum.
In sum, it is interesting to note that CLIL is gaining momentum in Colombia, not only in the privi-
leged private sector but also in the public sector where students need opportunities to access and
experience teaching methods aimed at improving teaching-learning processes. As Coyle, Hood, and
Marsh (2010) and Anderson, McDougald, and Cuesta (2015) say, CLIL means ‘good teaching’.

Context
Colombia is a multilingual and pluricultural country. There are around 70 indigenous languages that,
together with two Creole languages and Spanish, make up the linguistic diversity of the country.
4 E. GARZÓN-DÍAZ

Spanish is the official language spoken by about 99% of the population (Landaburu 1996). On the
islands of San Andres, Providencia, and Santa Catalina, English and Spanish share official status.
According to the British Council about 4% of the population in Colombia speak English and more
than one quarter of the nation’s population are currently studying the language in private and
public contexts (BC 2015). Promoting the use of English in Colombia’s education system has
become a national goal as the country is fully committed to becoming one of the most educated
nations in Latin America; however, further efforts are required to improve quality and equity if the
country is to reach this goal (OECD 2016). This has led to expanding ambitious programmes such
as the National Programme of Bilingualism 2004–2019 and Bogotá Bilingüe. These programmes
aim to support English teaching from elementary to university level to foster the development of stu-
dents’ communicative competences in a foreign language (BC 2015). It is suggested that English as a
foreign language be taught through content lessons in private and public education sectors.
However, in the public sector few attempts have been made to integrate content and language
despite some pilot schools where CLIL has been implemented. The results of such implementation
are yet unknown.
The current study emerged from the need to improve the use of English as a vehicle of com-
munication in state schools and to place bilingualism as an overriding priority in the local
agenda. The main goal of this project was to explore and experiment an approach to learning
which integrated content, language, and technology to help students become better able to use
a foreign language (English) as a vehicle through which to engage in the deep learning of
content (science) contributing significantly to national bilingual programmes and to the implemen-
tation of CLIL practices in the Colombian public education system. In essence, this article will clarify
how the study’s initial findings have shown an increase in students’ motivation towards the use of
Information and Communication Technology (ICT) for educational purposes, students’ reliance on
teamwork to conduct projects, a positive perception of the integration of English and science,
and an understanding of the ‘cultural filter’ in science lessons that has enabled growth from cultural
awareness towards scientific citizenship.
The idea of integrating CLIL, Project Based Learning (PBL) and ICT in science lessons, comes
alongside the potential development of literacies in the classroom. Meyer et al. (2015) assert
that progression towards deeper learning requires developing of subject-specific literacies.
Researchers such as Fang, Lame, and Pringle (2010) as well as Whittaker and Acevedo (2016)
remind us of the importance of literacy in science lessons. The researchers suggest different
strategies and pedagogies that may facilitate CLIL teachers’ development of subject literacies.
Lorenzo and Dalton-Puffer (2016) in their study of developing ‘historical’ literacy in CLIL high-
light the potential for multiple literacies developed in content lessons. In science lessons, for
example, scientific literacy can be fostered through inquiry-based learning since students
need to use the CLIL language to communicate their findings and articulate their thinking.
The implementation of inquiry-based strategies in multilingual contexts has been approached
by different studies and contexts (See, e.g. Barranco et al. 2016; Genesee and Hamayan 2016;
Nargund-Joshi and Bautista 2016; Stoller 2002). In this study, inquiry-based science instruction
underpinned the setting-up of projects in the school where the pedagogical intervention took
place. The teacher-researcher is a scientist who understands the need to promote intercultural
understanding associated with scientific literacy in bilingual education especially at a level where
subject disciplines have their own cultures and ways of communicating and seeing the world.
This vision of culture is supported by Holiday (1999) who claims that the concept of culture
can be connected to activities where there is social interaction and cohesive behaviour –
hence small cultures can be associated with any social grouping. Finally, the integration of tech-
nology was a ‘must’ taking into account the importance it has gained in supporting learning
and teaching over the last years (See, e.g. Brunner 2003; Coffman 2017; Siemens 2005).
Figure 1 displays how literacies may support the integration of the elements previously men-
tioned in science lessons:
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION AND BILINGUALISM 5

Figure 1. Science, English, and ICT integration.

Methodology – the four stages

An action research approach was selected because the study is rooted in the classroom itself.
Additionally, it is a reflective process involving progressive problem-solving conducted by individuals
working to improve the way they address issues related to their own contexts. According to Halbach
(2016, 58) action research has an added value as ‘an added expected learning outcome of engaging
in the inquiry is to foster the development of teacher reflection, and thus the creation of a reflective
mindset in teachers’
This action research study followed the four-step cycle suggested by Sagor (2005). Each cycle helps
teacher-researchers discover critical knowledge and insights required to improve their teaching prac-
tice and help students achieve their learning goals. In the first stage, clarifying vision and targets, the
study focus, targets, and assessment criteria were determined. The main objectives were to identify
student perceptions of the integration of science, English, and technology as well as to understand
the role of the cultural dimension of CLIL in science lessons. In the second stage, articulating a
theory of action, the teacher-researcher planned the most appropriate way to achieve the goals
taking into account contextual affordances and constraints. The theory of action which emerged
fuses elements of CLIL and PBL to facilitate the integration of science and English. It also led to the
identification of appropriate questions which the study would seek to address (see research questions).
Figures 2 and 3 show the elements that the 4Cs framework and the 5E learning cycle framework, usually
applied in inquiry-based science instruction, bring to a CLIL and PBL conceptualisation for
implementation:
The third stage, implementing action and collecting data, involved the classroom intervention itself
and data gathering. Students co-designed and conducted group science-projects and their evolving
perceptions were investigated and analysed. Group projects were co-constructed by the teacher and
the students around topics linked to students’ interests and school curriculum (e.g. global warming,
biodiversity, and sustainability). In particular, the cultural dimension of CLIL was analysed in order to
understand the effects of how raising student cultural awareness might broaden the cultural filter to
be ‘activated’ in science lessons. Finally, in the fourth stage, reflecting and planning informed action,
6 E. GARZÓN-DÍAZ

Figure 2. 4Cs Framework. Adapted from Coyle (2007).

there was a reflection on the data obtained, and based on this reflection future informed-actions
(next cycles) were planned.

Research questions
The main research question for this study was: What are the effects of technology-enhanced CLIL-
based environmental learning projects on students’ learning outcomes? To answer this, other sub-
questions were posed among those the one that shapes the current article:

Figure 3. 5E Learning Cycle Framework. Adapted from Bybee (1997).

 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION AND BILINGUALISM 7

. How is the cultural dimension of CLIL perceived in science lessons when students conduct pro-
jects?

Data collection
To gather the data required for the study, a teacher’s journal, questionnaires, interviews, and artefacts
were used. A careful design of the data collection instruments was followed in order to avoid bias.
These instruments were chosen because they allow researchers to collect different kinds of data
and assure trustworthiness and rigour through triangulation. They can also be used to gain access
to participants’ opinions, ideas, knowledge, and experiences. According to Sagor (2005), when stu-
dents learn they create products, and these products are data. The ‘documents’ (Burns 1999; 2010)
or artefacts considered in this study were lesson plans, rubrics, grade reports, evaluations, notebooks,
and students’ projects products. The latter were presented in the form of e-books, videos, and pre-
sentations of a campaign to protect Bogotá wetlands. Quantitative data from the questionnaires are
presented as frequency counts and percentages. Qualitative data from questionnaires, teacher’s
journal, interviews, and artefacts were analysed using coding, memo writing, and theoretical
sampling, saturation, and sorting (Charmaz 2006). The analysis phases were systematically followed
in order to construct robust theoretical categories.

Pedagogical intervention
The study was implemented over one school year. The intervention took place in two groups of 11th
graders and two groups of 10th graders. Students worked in groups to develop their own projects on
agreed topics related to environmental issues that affect global and local contexts. From this perspec-
tive, a critical analysis of intercultural understanding from a scientific standpoint was fostered
throughout the pedagogical intervention. As such, students were encouraged to ‘think as scientists
do’ in order to provide possible solutions to the problems raised in their projects. The groups were
also encouraged to work independently. The projects on endangered species, global warming, and
wetlands were connected to the curricula demanded by the school and a university involved in the
process of certifying students’ credits to be validated in case of future continuing studies in the uni-
versity science faculty.
Eleventh graders conducted two projects over the year. One from February to May and the other
from July to November. The first project focussed on climate change and global warming. Students
were asked to set up a climatological station at home where they collected data regarding weather
patterns such as temperature, humidity, cloudiness, and wind direction. With these data and second-
ary data students deepened their understanding of weather in Bogota. They formulated their own
definition of global warming and its effects on the planet. Students also watched videos and critically
analysed the two points of view defended by scientists and media. Finally, they created videos where
they shared their definitions of global warming, its causes, and suggestions for contributing to
solving this problem.
The second project was about wetlands in Bogotá. Students set up a campaign to protect wet-
lands and raise awareness of their importance for the environment. They were required to choose
one wetland and gather, classify, select, and revise information in order to focus on the main
problem affecting these ecosystems. At the same time, students had to research local laws that regu-
late wetlands and compare this information with that of international treaties such as the Ramsar
Convention (Formally the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance, especially as water-
fowl habitat) noting the recommendations in terms of their protection and importance around the
world.
The 10th graders only conducted one project from July to November. This was about endemic
endangered species from Colombia. Students described the current situation and prioritised the
most significant threats to extinction faced by these species. Students had to collect and analyse
8 E. GARZÓN-DÍAZ

Table 1. Students’ responses to the question: ‘Do you think the integration of
English in your science class was … ?’
Item Number of students Percentage
Really good 40 80
Good 5 10
Fine 3 6
Bad 2 4
Really bad 0 0

data leading to informed solutions to mitigate the problem and eventually contribute to the conser-
vation of the species. Finally, e-books were created to display students’ projects and reflections.

Findings and discussion

Students’ perceptions of the pedagogical intervention were mostly positive. Most (80%) reported that
learning English in their science lessons was ‘really good’ and they felt motivated to learn this
language as well as other languages outside the school. The results are shown in table 1.
Some interesting impressions were noted from the interviews and teacher’s journal such as the
following:
I love languages. When I finish school, I would like to study languages at university. I’d love to master several
languages such as French, Japanese, German, and of course English! (Student 19)

I like English very much. In this class I learnt many new words and I feel motivated to use the language in other
classes not only the English class. (Student 17)

In the lessons I learnt new words. We had to speak in English and with the teacher’s support we felt more com-
fortable to speak in class and we didn’t feel afraid anymore, it is not anymore ohhh English what a nightmare!
(Student 2)

Today student 35 came up to me and said

Teacher, I looked for information about the project online and it was very interesting because I looked for the
information first in Spanish and then in English and the information was totally different. Thank you for
making us learn things in two languages!

I think it is great that they are becoming aware of the importance to check different sources and
contrast data. Knowing more than one language really helps the research process and they seem to
come to grips with that! (Teacher’s journal).
These findings illustrate what Coyle, Hood, and Marsh (2010) refer to as a form of ‘convergence’
where CLIL has language and subject teaching begin interacting in a symbiotic way. Having the
opportunity to be exposed to the target language in science, allows students to find higher levels
of authenticity, relevance, and motivation when learning a foreign language at school. In essence,
motivation is widely documented to be key in multilingual settings (see, e.g. Banegas 2012;
Dörnyei and Ushioda 2011; Gardner, 2005; Lasagabaster 2011) and these data substantiate this claim.

Table 2. Students’ responses to the question: ‘What do you think was best about integrating
English and ICT in your science class?’
Item Number of students Percentage
I feel more confident using English 20 40
I learnt things I like in English 7 14
Classes were dynamic 7 14
We learnt about other countries 6 12
We saw videos and did things in the lab 4 8
It was easier to learn English in the science class 4 8
It was great to share your work with other people 2 4
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION AND BILINGUALISM 9

Table 3. Students’ responses to the question: ‘What do you think was the worst or most difficult
aspect of integrating English and ICT in your science class?’
Item Number of students Percentage
It was difficult to learn the new words 30 60
It was difficult to pronounce the words 14 28
It was difficult to write in English 3 6
It was difficult to work in groups 2 4
It was difficult to have tests in both languages 1 2

When asked what they liked most and least when integrating science, English, and ICT, students’
responses varied. Tables 2 and 3 summarise the most important patterns found.
Students felt that the integration of ICT, English, and science was innovative and challenging. The
most salient responses refer to English as something new and even frightening at the beginning, but
in science lessons they found it easier to use the language while focusing on topics that really inter-
ested them. Banegas (2013) reminds us that when lessons are related to students’ interests, their
learning outcomes and motivation improve. Vocabulary, pronunciation, and writing are areas stu-
dents reported as challenging when English is used in science lessons. However, Dalton-Puffer
(2011) argues that listening and speaking are skills usually enhanced in CLIL lessons and that CLIL
students often display lower levels of foreign language speaking anxiety. This study suggests that
productive skills, namely writing and speaking, are those that participants found the most challen-
ging when conducting projects in their science lessons.
Students found it interesting to incorporate ICT in their learning process as is shown in the follow-
ing excerpts:
We had the advantage of having tablets and computers to work with. I think they are a good support for learning.
(Student 6)

I like using the internet to find out information. (Student 13)

I liked creating products using different software and tools. (Student 15)

According to Mehisto, Marsh, and Frigols-Martín (2008) ICT is fundamental to learning. The authors
claim that through the use of ICT students can display various types of skills, moral, and ethical issues
that are inherent to the work environment in which they will be expected to participate. The data
collected show that students perceive ICT and English as key elements for their professional devel-
opment. Students feel they are privileged at having the opportunity to use technological tools for
academic purposes. Finally, students refer to videos and group work as positive aspects of their
science lessons.
After analysing data collected in the pedagogical intervention, five main categories emerged from
the data: motivation, teacher as a model, cooperative work, videos in the classroom, and hands-on work.
These categories were considered to have the most relevance in impacting on student learning
during their science-projects. Each one of these will be detailed below.

Motivation
Students reported an increasing interest in using English in their science lessons. This result is note-
worthy since students had noted their English skills were poor and they did not feel comfortable
when speaking the language. Banegas (2013) and Coyle, Hood, and Marsh (2010) also affirm this
finding suggesting that student motivation is closely related to subject content relevance and inter-
est covered in CLIL settings.
I am not very good in English, but I think it is cool that we develop this skill in Science lessons. (Student 3)

I am really bad in English and it was difficult when we had to learn grammar and verbs and all that, but instead
English in Science was really good because we learnt words that we didn’t know, we learnt about soil and eutro-
phication, it was really engaging. (Student 4)
10 E. GARZÓN-DÍAZ

In Science we reinforced what we saw in English, and to me it was better to learn English in Science because the
teacher explained to us the topics and we practiced and had fun. (Student 7)

I am not good in English, but for me it was easier to learn English in Science than in the English class. When you
like topics you learn better. For instance, it was interesting to learn about the ozone layer, there were easy words
that you can remember. (Student 11)

English is a universal language. I like this class because the teacher gives us what will be seen at university.
(Student 17)

I really like this class. I can use what I learn in the language institute. All classes should be like this. (Student 20)

Teacher as a model
Students reported their teacher’s role as a model to follow. When organising their projects, the stu-
dents felt the teacher was a person they could count on for reassurance, to provide useful feedback
and to talk to whenever they needed.
The teacher is close to us. We can talk to him about different things. (Student 1)

The teacher explains the tasks and concepts in a way that is clear and interesting. (Student 3)

The teacher used different methods to explain the topics such as videos and lab practices. (Student 9)

The teacher is a person I admire a lot because he has travelled to many countries, he speaks different languages
and he knows many things. (Student 19)

It confirms that establishing rapport with students is key for engaging them in the activities pro-
posed for class. When there is a positive class atmosphere, students not only feel free to participate in
the activities suggested but also feel they can create and propose new ideas and activities. This
finding is supported by studies conducted in varied contexts which emphasize the importance of
positive classroom climate (See, e.g. Anderson, Hamilton, and Hattie 2004; Brown 2001; Fraser
1989; Frisby and Martin 2010; Gabrys-Barker 2016; Holbrook 2017; Wu, Wu, and Tasi 2014). For
instance, Mehisto, Marsh, and Frigols-Martín (2008) emphasise that CLIL students are more likely
to learn optimally when they feel respected, are empowered to think critically, are willing to use
the target language and feel that their learning process is challenging. The following excerpt
taken from the teacher’s journal shows how important it is for teachers to be aware of their role
as models in the classroom.
Most students have told me that they really like my lessons because they feel they are learning
many things and they like the way I treat them, I am a point of reference for them, they want to
know my opinion on many issues, they pay attention to the way I speak, the clothes I wear, etc.
They feel sort of close to me. They like the fact that they can talk freely without feeling intimi-
dated. I think this aspect is key to lower anxiety levels in class when they have to speak in
public or do tasks in groups particularly when they have to use a foreign language (Teacher’s
journal).

Cooperative work
Students found it important to work cooperatively to complete their project tasks. The following
excerpts exemplify student thinking:
It is great to work in groups. We share with our classmates, we work together, it is great to have support from the
group. (Student 5)

It depends on the group. At the beginning we had some conflicts and had to talk to solve the issues. But later it
was easier to work together because we knew how to do it. (Student 7)

When we work in groups all of us have a role and a task to do. If a member of the group fails to do their part, we
won’t get a good grade. If someone does not work it may affect other’s grades. (Student 19)
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION AND BILINGUALISM 11

Students were asked to select a wetland where they will situate their campaign. They will need to
negotiate what problems to address and distribute roles to achieve their goals. After listening to their
presentations, I feel they really learnt how to assign roles in the group and to work cooperatively. It is
evident in some groups more than in others, but I think they did well! (Teacher’s journal).

Videos in the classroom

Artefacts created by students reflected their engagement with activities that involve the use of ICT,
specifically videos for educational purposes. They had reported using technology for ‘fun’ but had
limited experience of using it for academic purposes. After the pedagogical intervention some stu-
dents specifically noted how ICT such as videos supported their learning:
We learnt many things with the videos in class. It was fun to make videos too! (Student 7)

I liked doing projects. Watching videos about different topics, making videos to show our position about environ-
mental issues, it was fun. (Student 16)

Through the videos we learnt that human errors are responsible for the worst environmental tragedies. (Student 17)

Hands-on work
This category was reported as crucial by most students. They said that science lessons are special
because they can ‘do things’. They really liked observing, experimenting, collecting data, and analys-
ing their findings related to real-world issues.
I really liked the labs and the field trip. (Student 2)

The Science class was out of the normal routine. We did labs, we learnt English, we did many things. I liked going
to the botanic garden and studying the wetland. (Student 6)

Doing projects has been a wonderful experience because we were able to see microorganisms under the micro-
scope. (Student 10)

When doing tasks, we have to follow procedures to understand the process and have the expected results.
(Student 16)

Doing projects is a more analytical way to see problems. It is important to follow the scientific method. Everything
starts from observation. (Student 17)

When presenting their projects many students placed emphasis on the fact that they really like
doing things. They felt they had gone beyond classroom boundaries and that there are many
things to do outside. When student 37 told me her friends were surprised that at her school they
carry out projects, I really feel this is a great way to engage students in their learning process.
When they do things outside school, they feel a connection with their communities and all this
takes real relevance (Teacher’s journal).
Cooperative work, videos in the classroom, and hands-on work have been reported to enhance
learning in CLIL classrooms. For instance, Banegas (2013) remarks that learning is socially mediated,
therefore cooperative work should be favoured in learning environments, particularly those where
learner autonomy is a future goal. He also perceives videos as texts that can be authentic or modified
by teachers, and that can be a great support in CLIL settings. Anderson, McDougald, and Cuesta
(2015) claim that young learners should be encouraged to engage in group activities, using video-
tapes and other types of audio-visual aids. Highly naturalistic learning encourages learners to do
things in a way that builds their confidence when using a vehicular language as well as their
mother language in relevant content areas. Figure 4 displays the five elements that participants con-
sidered play a crucial role when doing their CLIL-based projects in science lessons:
The study results previously presented provide evidence of the effects that the pedagogical inter-
vention had on science lessons where content, language, and technology were fused through CLIL-
based projects in state schools. However, the most remarkable outcome of the research illustrates
12 E. GARZÓN-DÍAZ

Figure 4. Elements considered important for the study participants when doing CLIL-based projects.

how the teaching of content through language may broad the cultural filter of CLIL in science lessons.
In this study, the conceptualisation of culture has been alluded to what Coyle, Hood, and Marsh
(2010) highlight. The authors observe that culture defines our understanding of the world and
language is used to convey such interpretation. From the beginning of the study, participants under-
stood the cultural dimension of CLIL as cultural awareness that they would heightened through con-
stant reflection about ‘self’ and ‘otherness’ in order to develop plurilingual and pluricultural
competences. The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) define these
competences as ‘the ability to use languages for the purposes of communication and to take part
in intercultural interaction, where a person, viewed as a social agent has proficiency, of varying
degrees, in several languages and experience of several cultures’ (Council of Europe 2001, 168). In
the pedagogical intervention, plurilingual and pluricultural competences were fostered through pro-
jects co-constructed with students to engage them in the debate and analysis of local and global
environmental issues. Additionally, an emphasis on cultural awareness was aimed to facilitate a
better understanding of a broader range of contexts (social, environmental, political, and geographi-
cal contexts) that participants were exposed to. Students’ responses to what culture is in science
lessons revolved around five main clusters that are displayed in Table 4.
The technology available at the time the research was conducted, facilitated students’ extension
of their scientific knowledge as well as their understanding of weather patterns and environmental
issues that affect different parts of the planet. Students became keenly aware of cultural differences
that arise when topics such as seasons, time zones, ecosystems, and contamination are introduced by
foreigners who speak about their home countries and the ecological features that characterise them.

Table 4. Students’ responses to the question: ‘What do you understand as culture in your science
class?’
Item Number of students Percentage
Beliefs and traditions 20 40
Values and knowledge 14 28
Politeness 14 28
Behaviours 1 2
Holidays and dance 1 2
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION AND BILINGUALISM 13

Table 5. Students’ responses to the question: ‘What do you think helped you become aware of
cultural differences and similarities between Colombia and other countries?’
Item Number of Students Percentage
Teacher’s experiences 25 50
Videos in class 17 34
Searching the Internet 3 6
Talking to others 3 6
Reading books 2 4

Participants stated that they became more aware of similarities and divergences between Colombia
and other countries due to the experiences shared by their teacher and the audio-visual material
used in the pedagogical intervention (Table 5).
Apart from the data previously shown, stimulating ideas about the cultural aspects of science
started to surface. These notions showed deeper assumptions of the cultural filter of CLIL that had
not been planned or foreseen at the outset of the study. This change was evident when 11th
graders conducted their second project about Bogota wetlands. In this project the vision of
culture that the study participants had experienced, started to evolve from cultural awareness,
framed through the understanding of ‘self’ and ‘otherness’, to a new category that seemed to fit
more the core dimensions of scientific citizenship.
Scientific citizenship has no single definition and is arguably a concept difficult to define. Aca-
demics in diverse contexts have explored the relation between science and society invoking the
idea of scientific citizenship in varied ways (see, e.g. Irwin 2001; Felt 2003; Michaels and Brown
2005). The results of this study support what Gibbs (2015) defines as scientific citizenship – a
concept that transgresses national boundaries and subsequently, as this study claims, may assume
a multilingual perspective within it. Coyle, Hood, and Marsh (2010) highlight that CLIL implies situ-
ations and experiences that foster intercultural understanding of the behaviour of individuals in
different contexts (e.g. scientists, geographers, and journalists). Evidence of the evolution of this con-
ceptualisation of culture in this study can be seen in the following excerpts:
It was interesting to see how countries which are supposedly developed, pollute more than our country or other
developing countries. These countries should be held to account for this and should reduce their pollution!
(Student 8)

As I see it, our wetlands are unique and we should protect them. I would like that we do a clean-up day in one of
the fourteen wetlands. (Student 9)

I have learnt many things especially how to protect the environment. (Student 12)

I didn’t know that the locals are the ones who capture animals to sell them or to use them to make money. Next
time I see a wild animal on the street I will call the police. (Student 00)

I think our role as students is to increase people’s awareness to protect the environment and to stop polluting the
planet. (Student 17)

Cultural awareness is pretty important for students! I am glad I showed them my friends’ inter-
views. It is amazing that they didn’t know about time zones and seasons in other countries (Teacher’s
journal).
After listening to students’ positions and critical analysis of the problems analysed in the projects, I
think that they have not only become aware of cultural differences but also they seem to have
become agents of change, eager to do something for their communities by adopting an active
role as science learners and global citizens (Teacher’s journal).
The experiences shared by the study participants revealed that the notion of culture in science
lessons may embrace aspects of the relation between science and society that go beyond building
awareness among audiences. Participants addressed a myriad of needs that considered issues such
as identity (the role that scientists have in their communities), values (what their rights and
14 E. GARZÓN-DÍAZ

responsibilities are as both citizens and scientists), and agency (how the action in different spheres
contributes positively to solving local and global issues). As stated by Gibbs (2015) the three dimen-
sions of scientific citizenship: membership, rights and responsibilities, and participation are key for the
conceptualisation of the term. Science learners forge their identities by seeking membership of a
community that they want to be part of by sharing the same language, codes, and values. These
values shape what they do and empower them with rights and responsibilities that reflect their
mutual understanding of the world. Finally, what they do their ‘actions’ is what provides evidence
of students’ articulation of the other dimensions.
As participants became increasingly engaged in their projects, they gradually felt empowered to
make their voices be heard and to share the conclusions and reflections they had arrived at following
reasonable procedures and structured thinking. They also felt motivated to adopt a stance regarding
environmental issues that their projects had considered and to defend these postures with clear
arguments based on genuine empiric information. As student learning deepened and their aware-
ness of identity and values increased, participation emerged as an expression of students’ desire
to become agents of change.
Scientific citizenship filters cultural aspects of science at both global and local levels empowering
CLIL teachers to consciously include, analyse and potentially assess the cultural dimension of CLIL in
their contexts. Figure 5 shows what this study suggests should be amalgamated when filtering the
cultural component of CLIL through a model of scientific citizenship that incorporates the dimensions
suggested by Gibbs (2015). The model has been supplemented with a new core category, scientific
knowledge. From a socio-cultural perspective, scientific knowledge is constructed by members of a
community who share codes, procedures, and values. Learning outcomes that were set under this
category involved concepts, models, theories, strategies, or procedures that students were expected
to internalise while doing projects. Scientific knowledge was gained through projects and articulated
through language (Spanish and English). The learning outcomes reflected different types of discourse
suited for specific purposes that were guided through input. The diverse nature of knowledge stu-
dents were exposed to, allowed them to understand the complexity of science and the role that it
has played in society along history. This study claims that science teachers should ground students
in an awareness of scientific knowledge dynamics and discourses in order to motivate a critical

Figure 5. Scientific citizenship in CLIL settings.

 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION AND BILINGUALISM 15

analysis of science and the effects it has had on society. Scientific knowledge provides a safety
harness to articulate the other dimensions (membership, rights and responsibilities, and partici-
pation) and to allow CLIL teachers to embody the distinguishable essence of scientific citizenship
as central to the process of learning science.
The findings suggest that scientific citizenship, as an emergent concept in CLIL settings, may
enrich potential CLIL models and frameworks. Scientific citizenship then gain relevance when scien-
tists are to act as citizens and citizens are to act as scientists using scientific reasoning to support their
points of view. This connection between citizens’ participation and democracy of knowledge is what
Gibbs (2015) and Irwin (2001) evoke as fundamental in scientific citizenship. We found that when stu-
dents perform tasks emulating those that scientists do, they feel empower to make meaningful
decisions. In this sense, the data suggest that projects devised for this study have engaged students
with purposeful, dynamic, and rich experiences triggered by students’ natural curiosity.
By doing projects, students develop a sense of membership that helps them build their identity
and recognise the values they are expected to preserve. Take for example the ethical dilemma that
students face while reporting findings. Students need to understand that data ought to be reported
despite negative results or even if they do not reflect expected outcomes. By fostering scientific
citizenship, teachers motivate students to develop a sense of responsibility and to report their
research findings without any modification. Then, actions and agency take real relevance in scien-
tific citizenship. When students act as both scientists and citizens they articulate scientific knowl-
edge and use scientific reasoning to think more critically and creatively about current issues.
Teachers are then encouraged to foster the development of scientific citizenship and to facilitate
the link of science and society by using a wide repertoire of knowledge and technologies. If CLIL
is to have a cultural impact in science lessons, teachers, and students must create a dialogic inter-
acting learning experience in and outside the classroom that makes the connection of science and
society clearly explicit.

Conclusions
This study found a technology-enhanced CLIL-based project offers rich opportunities to integrate
content and a vehicular foreign language in science lessons. The implementation of the CLIL
approach not only served as a means to integrate content and language, but also to potentially con-
tribute to the development of scientific citizenship. This finding supports the value of explicitly con-
sidering a cultural component in science lessons and framing it through the lens of scientific
citizenship. Our findings should encourage science teachers who want to implement English as a
CLIL language (ECL – an acronym suggested by the author of the study) to consider scientific citizen-
ship as a key element when planning lessons. It was shown that students felt motivated to use a new
language in their science class as well as to find information online using both English and Spanish.
The use of ICT, such as videos, for academic purposes appeared to be a motivating factor since stu-
dents reported having fun not only watching videos in class but also creating their own. Thus, the
pedagogical intervention was effective in motivating students to use English in science lessons, enga-
ging students in the use of ICT for academic purposes, fostering cooperative work, and last but not
least, contributing to the development of scientific citizenship.

Recommendations
It is advisable in future cycles to gather more quantitative data to broaden our understanding of the
effects of the pedagogical intervention on students’ learning outcomes and achievements. Pre- and
post-tests would also help us to better understand the effects of the intervention on students’ ‘per-
formance’ both in science and English in order to provide more quantitative data for stakeholders
and policy makers. Additionally, science teachers may find it interesting to highlight the role of
culture in their lessons. In so doing, we strongly recommend experimenting with their students in
16 E. GARZÓN-DÍAZ

co-creating a cultural lens through which to introduce, explore and deepen understanding of scien-
tific citizenship.
The study fell short in having few members of the community involved in the projects conducted
by students. In the next cycles it would be interesting to engage the community more fully with the
participation of, for example, language teachers, parents, and guests from other regions or countries
to develop a sense of global citizenship. The data also suggest that some students felt limited in their
confidence and skills to act independently when doing projects, an issue that will be factored into the
planning for future studies. Finally, this study underlines the importance for science teachers in CLIL
settings to teamwork with language and technology teachers. It is in this endeavour that science tea-
chers may reflect on their teaching practice and potentially bring new elements to enrich their
classrooms.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes on contributor
Edgar Garzón-Díaz is a member of the IUCN Commission on Education and Communication, a former professor at the
Department of Foreign Languages and Cultures at La Sabana University and a Science teacher at SED Bogotá Colombia.
He has conducted research on CLIL, Biology, and areas related to the use of ICT for academic purposes. Mr. Garzón-Díaz is
currently a PhD candidate from Los Andes University. He holds a Masters’ degree in ELT from la Sabana University and an
ICELT certificate from Cambridge University. His main research interests are CLIL, ICT, Action Research, Pluriliteracies,
Bilingualism and Multilingualism, Biology, Environmental Science, and Global Environmental Change.

ORCID
Edgar Garzón-Díaz http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9739-8382

References
Abouchaar, A., L. A. Fajardo, and N. Vargas. 2009. Lineamientos curriculares para los colegios pilotos hacia el bilingüismo.
file:///C:/Users/Owner/Dropbox/PhD/Articles%20&%20Books/CLIL/Lineamientos_colegios%20pilotos%20hacia%20el
%20Biling%EF%BF%BDismo%20version%20septiembre%202009.pdf.
Anderson, A., R. J. Hamilton, and J. Hattie. 2004. “Classroom Climate and Motivated Behaviour in Secondary Schools.”
Learning Environments Research 7 (3), 211–225.
Anderson, C. E., J. S. McDougald, and L. Cuesta Medina. 2015. “CLIL for Young Learners.” In Children Learning English: From
Research to Practice, edited by G. N. Giannikas, L. McLaughlin, G. Fanning, and N. Deutsch Muller, 137–151. Reading,
UK: Garnet.
Ball, P., K. Kelly, and J. Clegg. 2015. Putting CLIL into Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Banegas, D. L. 2012. “Motivation and Autonomy Through CLIL. A Collaborative Undertaking.” In Views on motivation and
autonomy in ELT: Selected papers from the XXXVII FAAPI Conference (39). San Martín de los Andes: APIZALS.
Banegas, D. L. 2013. “Teachers developing language-driven CLIL through collaborative action research in Argentina.” PhD
diss., University of Warwick.
Barranco, N., F. J. Sanz, M. T. Calderón, and A. I. Alario. 2016. “SciencePro Project: Towards Excellence in Bilingual
Teaching.” Estudios sobre Educación 31: 159–175.
British Council. 2015. English in Colombia: An Examination of Policy, Perceptions and Influencing Factors. https://ei.
britishcouncil.org/sites/default/files/latin-america-research/English20in20Colombia.pdf.
Brown, H. D. 2001. Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. 2nd ed. New York: Addison
Wesley Longman.
Brunner, J. J. 2003. “La educación al encuentro de las nuevas tecnologías.” Las nuevas tecnologías y el futuro de la
educación. 15–68.
Burns, A. 1999. Collaborative Action Research for English Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Burns, A. 2010. Doing Action Research in English Language Teaching: A Guide for Practitioners. Abingdon: Routledge.
Bybee, R. W. 1997. Achieving Scientific Literacy. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Charmaz, K. 2006. Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. London: Sage.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION AND BILINGUALISM 17

Coffman, T. 2017. Inquiry-Based Learning: Designing Instruction to Promote Higher Level Thinking. 3rd ed. Maryland:
Rowman & Littlefield.
Council of Europe. 2001. Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Coyle, D. 1999. “Theory and Planning for Effective Classrooms: Supporting Students in Content and Language Integrated
Learning Contexts.” In Learning Through a Foreign Language, edited by J. Masih, 46–62. London: CILT.
Coyle, D. 2007. “The CLIL Quality Challenge.” In Diverse Contexts – Converging Goals: CLIL in Europe, edited by D. Marsh,
and D. Wolff, 47–58. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Coyle, D., P. Hood, and D. Marsh. 2010. CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
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
de Mejía, A. M. 2006. “Bilingual Education in Colombia: Towards a Recognition of Languages, Cultures and Identities.”
Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal 8: 152–168.
Dörnyei, Z., and E. Ushioda. 2011. Teaching and Researching Motivation (2nd ed.). Harlow: Longman.
Fang, Z., L. Lame, and R. Pringle. 2010. Language and Literacy in Inquiry-Based Science Classrooms, Grades 3-8. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Felt, U. 2003. “Optimizing Public Understanding of Science and Technology (OPUS)” Final Report ed. U. Felt European
Commission: Brussels, Belgium.
Fraser, B. J. 1989. “Twenty Years of Classroom Climate Work: Progress and Prospect.” Journal of Curriculum Studies 21 (4),
307–327.
Frisby, B. N., and M. M. Martin. 2010. “Instructor-Student and Student-Student Rapport in the Classroom.” Communication
Education 59 (2), 146–164.
Gabrys-Barker, D. 2016. “Caring and Sharing in the Foreign Language Class: On a Positive Classroom Climate.” In Positive
Psychology Perspectives on Foreign Language Learning and Teaching, edited by D. Gabrys-Barker and D. Galajda, 155–
174. Cham: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-32954-3_9
Gardner, H. 2005. Las cinco mentes del futuro. Barcelona: Paidós.
Genesee, F, and E Hamayan. 2016. CLIL in Context: Practical guidance for educators. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Gibbs, B. 2015. “Understanding Technoscientific Citizenship in a Low-Carbon Scotland.” PhD diss., University of
Nottingham.
Halbach, A. 2016. “Empowering Teachers, Triggering Change: A Case Study of Teacher Training Through Action
Research.” Estudios sobre Educación 31: 57–73.
Herran-Baron, I. G. 2015. Las dificultades en el aprendizaje del inglés como lengua extranjera en los grados octavo y las posi-
bilidades de usar CLIL para superarlas en el colegio IED Alexander Fleming. Catálogo de la Universidad de los Andes.
https://biblioteca.uniandes.edu.co/visor_de_tesis/web/?SessionID = L1Rlc2lzXzIwMTUxMDEvNTcyNC5wZGY%3D
Holbrook, J. 2017. “21st Century Skills and Science Learning Environments.” In Science Education: An International Course
Companion, edited by K. S. Taber and B. Akpan, 385–401. Rotterdam: Sense. doi:10.1007/978-94-6300-749-8_28
Holiday, A. 1999. “Small Cultures.” Applied Linguistics 20 (2): 237–264.
Irwin, A. 2001. “Constructing the Scientific Citizen: Science and Democracy in the Biosciences.” Public Understanding of
Science 10: 1–18.
Landaburu, J. 1996. Documentos Sobre Lenguas Aborígenes de Colombia del Archivo de Paul Rivet (Lenguas Aborígenes de
Colombia Fuentes). Santa Fe de Bogotá: Ediciones Uniandes.
Lasagabaster, D. 2011. “English Achievement and Student Motivation in CLIL and EFL Settings.” Innovation in Language
Learning and Teaching 5 (1), 3–18.
Lorenzo, F., and C. Dalton-Puffer. 2016. “Historical Literacy in CLIL: Telling the Past in a Second Language.” In
Conceptualising Integration in CLIL and Multilingual Education, edited by T. Nikula, E. Dafouz, P. Moore, and U. Smit,
55–72. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Marsh, D. 2012. Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL): A Development Trajectory. University of Cordoba:
Cordoba.
McDougald, J. 2015. “Teachers” Attitudes, Perceptions and Experiences in CLIL: A Look at Content and Language.”
Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal 17 (1): 25–41.
Mehisto, P., D. Marsh, and M. J. Frigols-Martín. 2008. Uncovering CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning in
Bilingual and Multilingual Education. Macmillan Education: Oxford.
Meyer, O., D. Coyle, A. Halbach, K. Schuck, and T. Ting. 2015. “A Pluriliteracies Approach to Content and Language
Integrated Learning: Mapping Learner Progressions in Knowledge Construction and Meaning-Making.” Language,
Culture and Curriculum 28 (1): 41–57. doi:10.1080/07908318.2014.1000924
Michaels, M., and N. Brown. 2005. “Scientific Citizenships: Self-Representation of Xenotransplantation Publics.” Science as
Culture 14 (1): 39–57.
Nargund-Joshi, V., and N. Bautista. 2016. “Which Comes First: Language or Content?” The Science Teacher 83 (4): 24–30.
18 E. GARZÓN-DÍAZ

Nieto, S. 2002. Language, Culture, and Teaching: Critical Perspectives for a new Century. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Nikula, T., E. Dafouz, P. Moore, and U. Smit. 2016. Conceptualising Integration in CLIL and Multilingual Education. Bristol:
Multilingual Matters.
OECD. 2016. Education in Colombia: Reviews of National Policies for Education. Paris: OECD. doi:10.1787/9789264250604-en
Sagor, R. 2005. The Action Research Guidebook: A Four-Step Process for Educators and School Teams. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin.
Siemens, G. 2005. “Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital age.” International Journal of Instructional Technology
& Distance Learning 2 (1): 1–8.
Stoller, F. L. 2002. “Project Work: A Means to Promote Language and Content.” In Methodology in Language Teaching: An
Anthology of Current Practice, edited by J. C. Richards, and W. A. Renandya, 107–119. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Whittaker, R., and C. Acevedo. 2016. “Working on Literacy in CLIL/Bilingual Contexts: Reading to Learn and Teacher
Development.” Estudios Sobre Educación 31: 37–55.
Wu, M.-L., P. L. Wu, and P. V. Tasi. 2014. “The Relationship Between Classroom Climate and Learning Satisfaction on Senior
High School Students.” Asian Journal of Management, Sciences and Education 3 (1): 58–68.