Cover not available
Article published In:
Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education
Vol. 11:2 (2023) ► pp.229–254

CLIL teacher beliefs as they emerge working in tandem

| Tallinn University
| Tallinn University
| Tallinn University
The current article investigates the beliefs of Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) subject and language teacher tandems in a situation where they worked in close contact to design and deliver a CLIL course. The aim was to discover their underlying beliefs concerning setting learning goals, developing academic language proficiency, using authentic materials and cooperative tasks, and managing assessment. The Interpretative Phenomenological Approach revealed both overlapping and idiosyncratic beliefs involving all of the focal aspects. Common beliefs included the dominance of subject learning goals over language goals, the need to develop academic language proficiency, the use of authentic materials and cooperative tasks as sources of subject knowledge and skills, as well as the need to involve appropriate assessment in the process. Differences included flexibility in the process of goal setting, the definition of academic language proficiency, the meaning of authentic learning materials and the repertoire of tools available for scaffolding learning and managing assessment.
Keywords: CLIL, teacher tandem, teacher beliefs, co-teaching, collaboration
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Theoretical background
    • 2.1CLIL teacher identity
    • 2.2CLIL teacher beliefs
    • 2.3CLIL tandem teacher collaboration
    • 2.4CLIL essential aspects in focus in the current study
  • 3.Methods
    • 3.1Context of the study
    • 3.2Participants
    • 3.3Data collection and analysis
  • 4.Findings: The phenomenological perspective
    • 4.1Setting learning goals
    • 4.2Attaining academic language proficiency
    • 4.3Promoting collaborative learning
    • 4.4Using authentic materials and authentic learning tasks
    • 4.5Managing Assessment
  • 5.Discussion
    • 5.1The hermeneutic perspective
    • 5.2The idiographic perspective
  • 6.Conclusion
  • References
Published online: 14 September 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jicb.22001.ala
References (65)
References
Aguirregoitia Martinez, A., Bengoetxea Kortazar, K., & Gonzalez-Dios, I. (2021). Are CLIL texts too complicated? A computational analysis of their linguistic characteristics. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 9 (1), 4–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ainley, J., & Carstens, R. (2018). Teaching and learning international survey (TALIS) 2018 conceptual framework. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).Google Scholar
Andrews, S., & Lin, A. M. (2017). Language awareness and teacher development. In P. Garret & J. M. Cots (eds.), The Routledge handbook of language awareness (pp. 57–74). Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aruvee, M., & Puksand, H. (2019). Kirjaoskuse arendamine eesti keele ja kirjanduse õpetajate vaatevinklist: Sillad ja kuristikud teooria ja praktika vahel. [Developing literacy in Estonian as L1: bridges and gaps]. Eesti Haridusteaduste Ajakiri. Estonian Journal of Education, 2 (7), 154–180. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ball, P., Kelly, K., & Clegg, J. (2019). Putting CLIL into practice. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Barrios, E., & Milla Lara, M. D. (2020). CLIL methodology, materials and resources, and assessment in a monolingual context: An analysis of stakeholders’ perceptions in Andalusia. The Language Learning Journal, 48 (1), 60–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beijaard, D., Meijer, P. C., & Verloop, N. (2004). Reconsidering research on teachers’ professional identity. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20 (2), 107–128. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biesta, G., Priestley, M., & Robinson, S. (2015). The role of beliefs in teacher agency. Teachers and Teaching, 21 (6), 624–640. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Borg, S. (2017). Teachers’ beliefs and classroom practices. In P. Garret & J. M. Cots (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Language Awareness, 75–91. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bovellan, E. (2014). Teachers’ beliefs about learning and language as reflected in their views of teaching materials for Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL). Doctoral Dissertation Jyväskylä Studies in Humanities, 2311, 1–244. [URL]
Castillo Losada, C. A., Insuasty, E. A., & Jaime Osorio, M. F. (2017). The impact of authentic materials and tasks on students’ communicative competence at a Colombian language school. Profile: Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development, 19 (1), 89–104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cenoz, J., Genesee, F., & Gorter, D. (2014). Critical analysis of CLIL: Taking stock and looking forward. Applied Linguistics, 35 (3), 243–262. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education. Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cook, L., & Friend, M. (2017). Co-teaching: Guidelines for creating effective practices. Focus on Exceptional Children, 28 (3). 1–16. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Council of Europe. (2020). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment: Companion volume. Council of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg, available at [URL]
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
Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coyle, Y., & Roca de Larios, J. (2020). Exploring young learners’ engagement with models as a written corrective technique in EFL and CLIL settings. System, 95 1, 102374. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cummins, J. (2013). BICS and CALP: Empirical support, theoretical status, and policy implications of a controversial distinction. In M. R. Hawkins (Ed.) Framing Languages and Literacies: Socially Situated Views and Perspectives (pp. 20–33). Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dale, L., & Tanner, R. (2012). CLIL activities with CD-ROM: A resource for subject and language teachers. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dale, L., Oostdam, R., & Verspoor, M. (2017). Searching for identity and focus: Towards an analytical framework for language teachers in bilingual education. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21 (3), 366–383. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2013). A construct of cognitive discourse functions for conceptualising content-language integration in CLIL and multilingual education. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1 (2), 216–253. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Graaff, R., Jan Koopman, G., 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
Escobar Urmeneta, C. (2020). Coteaching in CLIL in Catalonia. CLIL Journal of Innovation and Research in Plurilingual and Pluricultural Education, 3 (2), 37–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fernández-Sanjurjo, J., Fernández-Costales, A., & Arias Blanco, J. M. (2017). Analysing students’ content-learning in science in CLIL vs. non-CLIL programmes: Empirical evidence from Spain. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 22 (6), 661–674. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., and Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 111 1, 8410–8415. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haridussilm. (2022). Statistical Database of Education in Estonia. Retrieved from [URL]
HTM (Estonian Ministry of Education and Research). (2019). Availability of international general education in Estonia. [URL]
. (2022). Transition to instruction in the national language. [URL]
Honigsfeld, A., & Dove, M. G. (2016). Co-teaching ELLs: Riding a tandem bike. Educational Leadership, 73 (4), 56–60.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
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Stanne, M. B. (2000). Cooperative learning methods: A meta-analysis. University of MinnesotaGoogle Scholar
Kagan, D. M. (1992). Implication of research on teacher belief. Educational Psychologist, 27 (1), 65–90. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Karabassova, L. (2018). Teachers’ conceptualization of content and language integrated learning (CLIL): Evidence from a trilingual context. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 25 (3) 1–13. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Karjalainen, K., Pörn, M., Rusk, F., & Björkskog, L. (2013). Classroom tandem: Outlining a model for language learning and ınstruction. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 6 (1), 165–184.Google Scholar
Kelchtermans, G. (2006). Teacher collaboration and collegiality as workplace conditions. A review. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 52 (2), 220–237.Google Scholar
Kötter, M. (2002). Tandem learning on the internet: Learner interactions in virtual online environments (MOOs). Peter Lang Edition.Google Scholar
Laal, M., & Ghodsi, S. M. (2012). Benefits of collaborative learning. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 31 1, 486–490. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ljalikova, A., Meristo, M., Alas, E., & Jung, M. (2021). Narrative analysis as a means of investigating CLIL teachers’ meaningful experiences. Qualitative Research in Education, 10 (3), 228–259. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lo, Y. Y., & Fung, D. (2018). Assessments in CLIL: The interplay between cognitive and linguistic demands and their progression in secondary education. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 23 (10), 1192–1210. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maljers, A., & Wolff, D. (2007). Windows on CLIL: Content and language integrated learning in the European spotlight. European Platform for Dutch Education.Google Scholar
Maschmeier, F. (2019). Learner autonomy in the CLIL Classroom. Peter Lang Edition. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Massler, U., Stotz, D., & Queisser, C. (2014). Assessment instruments for primary CLIL: The conceptualisation and evaluation of test tasks. The Language Learning Journal, 42 (2), 137–150. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mehisto, P. (2012). Criteria for producing CLIL learning material. Encuentro, 21 1, 15–33.Google Scholar
Mehisto, P., & Ting, Y. L. T. (2017). CLIL essentials for secondary school teachers. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Met, M. (1999). Reports content-based instruction: Defining terms, making decisions. DC: NFLC Reports. The National Foreign Language Center.Google Scholar
Meyer, O., & Coyle, D. (2017). Pluriliteracies teaching for learning: Conceptualizing progression for deeper learning in literacies development. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5 (2), 199–222. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moje, E. B. (2008). Responsive literacy teaching in secondary school content areas. In M. W. Conley (Ed.), Meeting the challenge of adolescent literacy: Research we have, research we need (pp. 58–87). Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Nikula, T., Dafouz, E., Moore, P., & Smit, U. (Eds.) (2016). Conceptualising integration in CLIL and multilingual education. Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nisbett, R. E., & Ross, L. (1985). Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment. Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62 (3), 307–332. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pappa, S. (2018). “You’ve got the color, but you don’t have the shades”: Primary education CLIL teachers’ identity negotiation within the Finnish context. Jyväskylä Studies in Education, Psychology and Social Research, 6191, 1–179.Google Scholar
Pelz, M. (1995). Die 5. Internationalen Tandem-Tage in Freiburg i. Br. In M. Pelz (Ed.), Tandem in der Lehrerbildung, Tandem und grenzüberschreitende Projekte. Dokumentation der 5. Internationalen Tandem-Tage 1994 in Freiburg i. Br. (pp. 5–8). Verlag für Interkulturelle Kommunikation.Google Scholar
Pinner, R. (2013). Authenticity and CLIL: Examining authenticity from an international CLIL perspective. International CLIL Research Journal, 2 (1), 44–54. [URL]
Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard educational review, 57 (1), 1–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shaw, R., Burton, A., Xuereb, C. B., Gibson, J., & Lane, D. (2014). Interpretative phenomenological analysis in applied health research. SAGE Publications, Ltd. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Skinnari, K., & Bovellan, E. (2016). CLIL teachers’ beliefs about integration and about their professional roles: Perspectives from a European context. In T. Nikula, E. Dafouz, P. Moore, & U. Smit (eds.), Conceptualising Integration in CLIL and Multilingual Education (145–168). Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smith, J. A., Flowers, P., & Larkin, M. (2012). Interpretative phenomenological analysis: Theory, method and research. Sage. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tulviste, T., & Ahtonen, M. (2007). Child-rearing values of Estonian and Finnish mothers and fathers. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 38 (2), 137–155. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tulviste, T., Mizera, L., De Geer, B., & Tryggvason, M. T. (2007). Child-rearing goals of Estonian, Finnish, and Swedish mothers. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 48 (6), 487–497. 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, 23 (8), 855–871. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vangrieken, K., Dochy, F., Raes, E., & Kyndt, E. (2015). Teacher collaboration: A systematic review. Educational Research Review, 15 1, 17–40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pavón Vázquez, V., & Ellison, M. (2013). Examining teacher roles and competences in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL). Linguarum Arena: Revista de Estudos em Didática de Línguas da Universidade do Porto, 4 1, 65–78.Google Scholar
Villabona, N., & Cenoz, J. (2021). The integration of content and language in CLIL: A challenge for content-driven and language-driven teachers. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 35 (1), 1–15. DOI logoGoogle Scholar