Teaching and learning through CLIL: what is at stake in the non-specialist language sector?
Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) in France is more widespread in primary and secondary schooling than in higher education. However there are a large number of variations on the practice of integrating content and language learning, whether it be a second, foreign, regional or official language, at all educational levels throughout Europe. A number of terms are used to describe this practice such as Content-Based Instruction (CBI), immersion teaching, bilingual education, etc. with CLIL being the term used by the European commission (in French, EMILE—Enseignement de Matières par l´Intégration d´une Langue Étrangère). Now, more than 20 years after the concept was introduced by the European Commission, researchers and pedagogues undoubtedly have enough perspective to evaluate the opportunities it has to offer for teaching and learning foreign languages in professional education.
CLIL is based on a double methodological approach : non-linguistic content is taught via a foreign language. The learner is thus expected to make progress in the subject matter as well as improving his or her language skills. The concept of integration, central to CLIL, emphasizes the fact that both the language and the subject matter are at issue – with neither taking precedence over the other. But is this in fact what happens? What are the practical implications of implementing CLIL?
- 1 From the introduction of Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) at School in Europe. Avail (...)
Carrying out the objectives of CLIL implies a collaborative teaching approach across the disciplines involving the institution, teachers and students. It necessitates thinking not only about language teaching, but about education in general. Recruiting and training content teachers (as well as language teachers) is, of course, crucial. How can this be taken into account when implementing CLIL? European programs provide for financial aid for the mobility of “teaching staff of other disciplines required or wishing to teach in a foreign language”1. Are these programs in fact promoting mobility?
What is specific to CLIL pedagogy at the level of the institution, the teachers and the students? Does this innovative approach deliver on its promises in terms of improved education (associating culture and language, developing trans-disciplinary skills and know-how)?
CLIL has the advantage of offering relatively intense language learning without increasing the number of teaching hours provided for in the cursus. Does this advantage in fact help languages? Does it change the status of the target language? CLIL was imagined by the European Commission to promote language learning and linguistic diversity in Europe. Has it really accomplished this?
Contributions on this theme should be submitted in the form of research articles or notes, pedagogical articles or notes, or reports on programs carried out in France and the rest of Europe.
Instructions to authors: apliut.revues.org/1524
Send contributions to: email@example.com
December 15, 2012: Reception of a 150-word abstract of proposal.
December 30, 2012: Notification to authors of the editorial board’s decision concerning acceptance of the proposal.
February 15, 2013: Reception of completed articles.
February-June 2013: Anonymous review and modification by authors.
June 30, 2013: Final decision sent to authors of acceptance or rejection of articles.
October 2013: Publication in volume XXXII n° 3 of the journal.
1 From the introduction of Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) at School in Europe. Available at http://www.aulaintercultural.org/spip.php?article1652Haut de page