Cover not available
Article published In:
CLIL and Bilingual Education in the Netherlands
Edited by Tessa Mearns and Rick de Graaff
[Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics 7:2] 2018
► pp. 129–155

How do we measure up?

A review of Dutch CLIL subject pedagogies against an international backdrop

| Leiden University
| Leiden University
| Leiden University
| Leiden University
| Monash University
Research into the pedagogies employed by CLIL teachers has been limited to date and, as such, has been identified as a key area in need of further investigation (Pérez-Cañado, 2012; Dalton-Puffer & Smit, 2013). This review uses an elaborated 4Cs Analysis Framework (adapted from Coyle, Hood, & Marsh, 2010; Coyle, 2015a, 2015b) as a basis for analysis of studies of pedagogies implemented by CLIL subject teachers internationally and in Dutch classrooms. This allows us to place the Dutch situation in an international context and to identify avenues for future research and development. The following questions guided the review: (1) What appear to be the most prominent international trends with regard to the implementation of the 4Cs in CLIL subject pedagogies?; and, (2) To what extent do Dutch CLIL subject pedagogies appear to reflect these international trends? Findings about pedagogies reported in the reviewed studies suggest that, in general, studies from the Netherlands stand out compared to international studies in several respects. Specifically, there is evidence of a relatively strong pedagogic focus in the Netherlands on developing students’ intercultural competence. The Dutch studies also stand out, however, for not addressing the role that the L1 can play in CLIL pedagogy. Furthermore, a main finding is that both the Dutch and the international studies reviewed provide little insight into aspects of CLIL pedagogy related to subject-specific culture and into ways in which content and language are integrated.
Keywords: CLIL, pedagogies, 4Cs, the Netherlands, review
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • 1.Conceptual framework
  • 2.Method
    • 2.1Research questions
    • 2.2Search and selection
    • 2.3Analysis
  • 3.Results and discussion
    • 3.1Content
    • 3.2Cognition
    • 3.3Communication
      • 3.3.1Language learning and language using
      • 3.3.2Role of the L1
    • 3.4Culture
      • Intercultural understanding
      • Subject-specific culture
    • 3.5Content and language integration
  • 4.Conclusions and implications for CLIL subject pedagogies and related research in The Netherlands
    • Avenues for further research
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 10 January 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/dujal.18004.kam
References (83)
References
Studies marked with * were included in the literature review.
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives (Complete edition). New York, NY: Longman.Google Scholar
Baetens Beardsmore, H. (2014). The cultural element in content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) Programmes. International Conference: Sociocultural competence and language learning in multilingual settings, V.U.B. 18–19.9.2014.
*Busz, M., Helleman, J., DeVincent, D., Verwoerd-Sowariraj, S., & Tonsberg Schlie, K. (2014). De praktijk van feedback op Engelstalige profielwerkstukken. Levende Talen Tijdschrift, 15(4), 26–37.Google Scholar
Cenoz, J., (2013). Discussion: Towards an educational perspective in CLIL language policy and pedagogical practice. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16(3), pp. 389–394. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
*Clark, G. (2013). Snapshot of a lower secondary CLIL program in Japan. Asian EFL Journal, 15(4), 383–394.Google Scholar
*Coonan, C. M. (2007). Insider views of the CLIL class through teacher self-observation. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(5), 625–646. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coyle, D. (2007). Content and Language Integrated Learning: Towards a connected research agenda for CLIL pedagogies. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(5), 543–562. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008). CLIL – A pedagogical approach from the European perspective. In N. Hornberger (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Education, (Vol. 41, pp. 97–112). Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015a). Moving from the 4Cs framework to a pluriliteracies approach for CLIL. Presentation on behalf of the Graz Group ECML.
(2015b). Strengthening integrated learning: Towards a new era for pluriliteracies and intercultural learning. Latin American Journal of Content and Language Integrated Learning, 8(2), 84–103. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
*Cross, R. (2012). Creative in finding creativity in the curriculum: The CLIL second language classroom. Australian Educational Researcher, 39(4), 431–445. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
*Cross, R. (2016). Language and content ‘integration’: The affordances of additional languages as a tool within a single curriculum space. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 48(3), 388–408. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cummins, J. (1981). The role of primary language development in promoting educational success for language minority students. In C. F. Leyva (Ed.), Schooling and language minority students: A theoretical framework (pp. 3–49). Los Angeles, CA: California State University.Google Scholar
(2000). Language, power and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
*Dalton-Puffer, C. (2005). Negotiating interpersonal meanings in naturalistic classroom discourse: Directives in content-and-language-integrated classrooms. Journal of Pragmatic 37(8), 1275–1293. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dalton-Puffer. (2007). Discourse in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) classrooms. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C., Llinares, A., Lorenzo, F., & Nikula, T. (2014). You can stand under my umbrella: Immersion, CLIL and bilingual education. A response to Cenoz, Genesee, & Gorter. (2013). Applied Linguistics, 35(2), 213–218. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
*Dalton-Puffer, C., & Nikula, T. (2006). Pragmatics of content-based instruction: Teacher and student directives in Finnish and Austrian classrooms. Applied Linguistics, 27(2), 241–267. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C., & Smit, U. (2013). Content and Language Integrated Learning: A research agenda. Language Teaching, 46(4), 545–559. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
*De Graaff, R., Koopman, G. J., Anikina, Y., & Westhoff, G. (2007). An observation tool for effective L2 pedagogy in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL). International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(5), 603–624. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Graaff, R., & Van Wilgenburg, O. (2015). The Netherlands. Quality control as a driving force in bilingual education. In P. Mehisto, & F. Genesee (Eds.), Building bilingual education systems: Forces, mechanisms and counter weights (pp. 167–180). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
*Denman, J., Tanner, R., & De Graaff, R. (2013). CLIL in junior vocational secondary education: Challenges and opportunities for teaching and learning. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16(3) 285–300. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Doyle, W. (1983). Academic work. Review of Educational Research, 53(1), 159–199. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
*Escobar Urmeneta, C. (2013). Learning to become a CLIL teacher: Teaching, reflection and professional development. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16(3), 334–353. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
*Escobar Urmeneta, C., & Evnitskaya, N. (2014). “ Do you know actimel?” The adaptive nature of dialogic teacher-led discussions in the CLIL Science classroom: A case study. Language Learning Journal, 42(2) 165–180. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
*Evnitskaya, N., & Morton, T. (2011). Knowledge construction, meaning-making and interaction in CLIL science classroom communities of practice. Language and Education, 25(2), 109–127. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
*Gené Gil, M. G., Garau, M. J., & Salazar Noguera, J. (2012). A case study exploring the language choice between the target language and the L1s in mainstream CLIL and EFL secondary education. Revista de Linguistica Y Lenguas Aplicadas, 71, 133–145. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
*Gierlinger, E. (2015). ‘You can speak German sir’: On the complexity of teachers’ L1 use in CLIL. Language and Education, 29(4), 347–368. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
*Grandinetti, M., Langelotti, M., & Ting, T. (2013). How CLIL can provide a pragmatic means to renovate science education even in a sub-optimally bilingual context. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16(3), 354–374. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
*Huibregtse, I. (2001). Onderwijs in twee talen. Levende Talen Tijdschrift, 2(1), 11–20.Google Scholar
*Hüttner, J., Dalton-Puffer, C., & Smit, U. (2013). The power of beliefs: Lay theories and their influence on the implementation of CLIL programmes. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16(3), 267–284. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
*Kontio, J., & Sylvén, L. K. (2015). Language alternation and language norm in vocational content and language in integrated learning. Language Learning Journal, 43(3), 271–285. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
*Koopman, G. J., Skeet, J., & De Graaff, R. (2014). Exploring content teachers’ knowledge of language pedagogy: A report on a small-scale research project in a Dutch CLIL context. Language Learning Journal, 42(2), 123–136. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
*Lasagabaster, D. (2013). The use of the L1 in CLIL classes: The teachers’ perspective. Latin American Journal of Content and Language Integrated Learning, 6(2), 1–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
*Lin, A. M. Y., & Lo, Y. Y. (2017). Trans/languaging and the triadic dialogue in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) classrooms. Language and Education, 31(1), 26–45. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
*Lin, A. M. Y., & Wu, Y. (2015). ‘May I speak Cantonese?’ Co-constructing a scientific proof in an EFL junior secondary science classroom. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 18(3), 289–305. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
*Llinares, A. & Pascual Peña, I. (2015). A genre approach to the effect of academic questions on CLIL students’ language production. Language and Education, 29(1), 15–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
*Lo, Y. Y. (2015). How much L1 is too much? Teachers’ language use in response to students’ abilities and classroom interaction in Content and Language Integrated Learning. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 18(3), 270–288. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
*Lo, Y. Y., & Macaro, E. (2015). Getting used to Content and Language Integrated Learning: What can classroom interaction reveal? Language Learning Journal, 43(3), 239–255. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Loewen, S. (2014). Introduction to instructed second language acquisition. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (1983). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 126–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Long, M. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. de Bot, R. Ginsberg, & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign language research in crosscultural perspective (pp. 40–52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009). Methodological principles for language teaching. In M. H. Long & C. J. Doughty (Eds.), The handbook of language teaching (pp. 373–394). Malden, MA: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(1), 37–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Madrid, D., & Pérez-Cañado, M. L. (2012). CLIL teacher training. In J. de Dios Martínez Agudo (Ed.), Teaching and learning English through bilingual education (pp. 181–212). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
*Méndez García, M. (2013). The intercultural turn brought about by the implementation of CLIL programs in Spanish monolingual areas: A case-study of Andalusian primary and secondary schools. Language Learning Journal, 41(3). 268–283. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
*Méndez García, M., & Pavón Vázquez, V. (2012). Investigating the co-existence of the mother tongue and the foreign language through teacher collaboration in CLIL contexts: Perceptions and practice of the teachers involved in the plurilingual programme in Andalusia. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 15(5), 573–592. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meyer, O. (2010). Towards quality-CLIL: Successful planning and teaching strategies. Pulso, 331, 11–29.Google Scholar
Meyer, O., Coyle, D., Halbach, A., Schuck, K., & Ting, T. (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 logoGoogle Scholar
*Milla, R., & García Mayo, M. P. (2014). Corrective feedback episodes in oral interaction: A comparison of a CLIL and an EFL classroom. International Journal of English Studies, 14(1), 1–20. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
*Moate, J. M. (2011). The impact of foreign language mediated teaching on teachers’ sense of professional integrity in the CLIL classroom. European Journal of Teacher Education, 34(3), 333–346. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
*Montet, M., & Morgan, C. (2001). Teaching Geography through a foreign language: How to make text accessible to learners at different levels. The Language Learning Journal, 24(1), 4–11. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Morton, T. (2010). Using a genre-based approach to integrating content and language in CLIL. In C. Dalton-Puffer, Nikula, T., & Smit, U. (Eds.), Language use and language learning in CLIL classrooms (pp. 81–104). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
*Morton, T. (2015). Vocabulary explanations in CLIL classrooms: A conversation analysis perspective. Language Learning Journal, 43(3), 256–270. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
*Morton, T. (2016). Conceptualizing and investigating teachers’ knowledge for integrating content and language in content-based instruction. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 4(2), 144–167. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Morton, T., & Llinares, A. (2017). Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL). Type of programme or pedagogical model? In A. Llinares, & T. Morton (Eds.), Applied linguistics perspectives on CLIL (pp. 1–16). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
*Możejko, Z. (2011). How much CLIL is there in CLIL? A study of the approach on the example of CLIL provision in a junior high school. Acta Philologica, 401, 69–81.Google Scholar
*Nikula, T. (2005). English as an object and tool of study in classrooms: Interactional effects and pragmatic implications. An International Research Journal, 16(1), 27–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
*Nikula, T. (2007). Speaking English in Finnish content-based classrooms. World Englishes, 26(2), 206–223. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
*Nikula, T. (2015). Hands-on tasks in CLIL Science classrooms as sites for subject-specific language use and learning. System, 541, 14–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oattes, H., Oostdam, R., De Graaff, R., & Wilschut, A. (2018). The challenge of balancing content and language: Perceptions of Dutch bilingual education history teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 701, 165–174. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
*Papaja, K. (2011). Analyzing types of classroom interaction in CLIL. Glottodidactica, 381, 43–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
*Papaja, K. (2013). The role of a teacher in a CLIL classroom. Glottodidactica, 40(1), 147–154. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
*Paulsrud, B. A. Y. (2016). English-medium instruction in Sweden. Perspectives and practices in two upper secondary schools. Journal of Immersion and Content-based Language Education, 4(1), 108–128. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pavón Vázquez, V., & Ellison, M. (2013). Examining teacher roles and competences in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL). Linguarum Arena, 41, 65–78.Google Scholar
Pavón Vázquez, V., & Rubio, F. (2010). Teachers’ concerns and uncertainties about the introduction of CLIL programmes. Porta Linguarum, 141, 45–58.Google Scholar
Pérez-Cañado, M. L. (2012). CLIL research in Europe: Past, present and future. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 15(3), 315–341. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roussel, S., Joulia, D., Tricot, A., & Sweller, J. (2017). Learning subject content through a foreign language should not ignore human cognitive architecture: A cognitive load theory approach. Learning and Instruction. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (2007). CLIL in a bilingual community: Similarities and differences with the learning of English as a foreign language. Vienna English Working Papers, 16(3), 47–52.Google Scholar
Saito, K., & Lyster, R. (2012). Effects of form-focused instruction and corrective feedback on L2 pronunciation development of /ɹ/ by Japanese learners of English. Language Learning, 62(2), 595–633. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
*Schuitemaker-King, J. (2013). Giving corrective feedback in CLIL and EFL classes. Levende Talen Tijdschrift, 14(2), 3–10.Google Scholar
*Smala, S. (2013). Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) pedagogies in Queensland. International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 8(3), 194–205. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook, & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics (pp. 125–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
*Tavares, N. J. (2015). How strategic use of L1 in an L2-medium mathematics classroom facilitates L2 interaction and comprehension. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 18(3), 319–335. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
*Ting, T. (2007). Insights from Italian CLIL-Science classrooms: Refining objectives, constructing knowledge and transforming FL-learners into FL-users. Vienna English Working Papers, 16(3), 60–69.Google Scholar
(2010). CLIL appeals to how the brain likes its information: Examples from CLIL-(neuro)science. International CLIL Research Journal, 1(3), 3–18.Google Scholar
Van den Akker, J. (2003). Curriculum perspectives: An introduction. In J. Van den Akker, W. Kuiper, & U. Hameyer (Eds.), Curriculum landscapes and trends (pp. 1–10). Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
*Van Kampen, E., Admiraal, W., & Berry, A. (2018). Content and Language Integrated Learning in The Netherlands: Teachers’ self-reported pedagogical practices. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21(2), 222–236. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Kampen, E., Meirink, J., Admiraal, W., & Berry, A. (2017). Do we all share the same goals for Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL)? Specialist and practitioner perceptions of ‘ideal’ CLIL pedagogies in the Netherlands. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Manen, M. (2003). The language of pedagogy and primacy of student experience. In J. Loughran (Ed.), Researching teaching: Methodologies & practices for understanding pedagogy (pp. 13–27). London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
*Wannagat, U. (2007). Learning through L2 – content and language integrated learning (CLIL) and English as Medium of Instruction (EMI). International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(5), 663–682. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Westhoff, G. (2004). The art of playing a pinball machine. Characteristics of effective SLA-tasks. Babylonia, 31, 58–62.Google Scholar
Cited by (8)

Cited by eight other publications

Banegas, Darío Luis & Tessa Mearns
2023. The Language Quadriptych in content and language integrated learning: findings from a collaborative action research study. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Schat, Esther, Ewout van der Knaap & Rick de Graaff
2023. Key principles for an integrated intercultural literary pedagogy: An educational design research project on arts integration for intercultural competence. Language Teaching Research 27:2 ► pp. 332 ff. DOI logo
Schat, Esther, Ewout van der Knaap & Rick de Graaff
2023. Implementation of an integrated intercultural literary pedagogy intervention in Spanish-as-a-foreign-language classrooms in the Netherlands: An effect study at the secondary level. Language Teaching Research ► pp. 136216882311563 ff. DOI logo
Salvador-Garcia, Celina & Oscar Chiva-Bartoll
2022. The Nature of Integration in Physical Education Through CLIL: An Analysis of Cognitive Discourse Functions. Journal of Language, Identity & Education ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Feddermann, Maja, Jens Möller & Jürgen Baumert
2021. Effects of CLIL on second language learning: Disentangling selection, preparation, and CLIL-effects. Learning and Instruction 74 ► pp. 101459 ff. DOI logo
Mearns, Tessa & Tamara Platteel
2021. Exploring teacher support for a content and language integrated modern languages curriculum. Language, Culture and Curriculum 34:3 ► pp. 207 ff. DOI logo
van Kampen, Evelyn, Jacobiene Meirink, Wilfried Admiraal & Amanda Berry
2021. Characterising integrated content-language pedagogies of global perspectives teachers in Dutch bilingual schools. Language, Culture and Curriculum 34:1 ► pp. 18 ff. DOI logo
Rumlich, Dominik
2020. Bilingual education in monolingual contexts: a comparative perspective. The Language Learning Journal 48:1 ► pp. 115 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 14 october 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.