Cover not available
Article published In:
Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education
Vol. 5:2 (2017) ► pp.187–213

Teaching CLIL?

Yes, but with a pinch of SALT

| University of Education Upper Austria

CLIL (content and language integrated learning) is an educational approach where a classroom subject is taught through a second language. However, its core features are ambiguously interpreted. Research on CLIL teaching has consistently shown that teachers focus their methodological efforts on the teaching of subject matter concepts and take any language related aspects mostly as by-products of such an approach. This has led to only sparsely planned methodological efforts when it comes to the teaching of language. Contrary to this, it is argued in this hermeneutical study that thinking and language acquisition are inextricably intertwined and CLIL teachers are therefore by definition also language teachers. Following this, the author reports on a pedagogical CLIL model, named SALT, that was devised for and successfully implemented in CLIL training courses to support subject teachers on their way to becoming language-aware CLIL teachers. Pedagogical procedures of the model's principles and concepts are also presented.

Keywords: CLIL, language awareness, academic language, literacies, multi-modality, languaging, language learning strategies, code-switching
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Four core language aspects
    • 2.1Content and language integration
    • 2.2CLIL pedagogical language knowledge
    • 2.3Language as a tool for academic communication and thinking
    • 2.4The power of all languages in the CLIL classroom
  • 3.SALT – a pedagogical and language-aware model for the teaching of CLIL
    • 3.1SALT and its four dimensions
    • 3.2S – learning content through strategic languaging
      • 3.2.1Key concepts and principles for languaging strategies
      • 3.2.2Languaging procedures for “learning content through languaging strategies”
    • 3.3A – learning content through using all language practices
      • 3.3.1Key concepts and principles for encouraging all language practices
      • 3.3.2Languaging procedures for learning content through using all language practices
    • 3.4L – learning content through multimodal and digital literacies
      • 3.4.1Key concepts and principles for multi-modal and digital literacies
      • 3.4.2Languaging procedures for learning content through multimodal and digital literacies
    • 3.5T – learning content through topic relevant languaging
      • 3.5.1Key concepts and principles for topic-relevant languaging
      • 3.5.2Procedures for learning content through topic relevant languaging
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 6 November 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jicb.5.2.02gie
References
Anstrom, K., DiCerbo, P., Butler, F., Katz, A., Millet, J., & Rivera, C.
(2010) A review of the literature on academic English: Implications for K–12 English Language Learners. Arlington, VA: The George Washington University Center for Equity and Excellence in Education.Google Scholar
Baecher, L., Farnsworth, T., & Ediger, A.
(2014) The challenges of planning language objectives in content-based ESL instruction. Language Teaching Research, 18(1), 118–136. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ball, P., Kelly, K., & Clegg, J.
(2015) Putting CLIL into practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Barwell, R.
(2016) A Bakhtinian perspective on language and content integration: Encountering the alien word in in second language mathematics. In T. Nikula, E. Dafouz, P. Moore, & U. Smit (Eds.), Conceptualising integration in CLIL and multilingual education (pp. 101–122). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bateman, J.
(2014) Text and image: A critical introduction to the visual/verbal divide. New York, NY: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bonnet, A.
(2012) Language, content and Interaction: How to make CLIL classrooms work. In D. Marsh, & O. Meyer (Eds.), Quality interfaces: Examining evidence and exploring solutions in CLIL (pp. 175–190). Eichstätt, Germany: Eichstaett Academic Press.Google Scholar
Boroditsky, L.
(2012) How the languages we speak shape the ways we think. In M. Spivey, K. McRae, & M. Joanisse (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 615–632). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 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). Unpublished PhD dissertation. University of Jyväskylä.Google Scholar
Brüning, C. I., & Purrmann, M.-S.
(2014) CLIL pedagogy in Europe: CLIL teacher education in Germany. Utrecht Studies in Language & Communication, 271, 315–338.Google Scholar
Cammarata, L., & Tedick, D. J.
(2012) Balancing content and language in instruction: The experience of immersion teachers. The Modern Language Journal, 96(2), 251–269. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cammarata, L., Tedick, D. J., & Osborn, A. T.
(2016) Content-based instruction and curricular reforms: Issues and goals. In L. Cammarata (Ed.), Content-based foreign language teaching: Curriculum and pedagogy for developing advanced thinking and literacy skills (pp. 1–21). New York, NY: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cenoz, J.
(2015) Content-based instruction and content and language integrated learning: The same or different? Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28(1), 8–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cenoz, J., Genesee, F., & Gorter, D.
(2014) Critical analysis of CLIL: Taking stock and looking dorward. Applied Linguistics, 35(3), 243–262. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D.
(2015) Towards a holistic approach in the study of multilingual education. In J. Cenoz & D. Gorter (Eds.), Multilingual education: Between language learning and translanguaging (pp. 1–15). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cohen, A. D.
(2011) Strategies in learning and using a second language. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
(2012) Strategies: The interface of styles, strategies, and motivation on tasks. In S. Mercer & S. Ryan (Eds.), Psychology for language learning: Insights from research, theory and practice (pp. 136–150). Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cohen, A. D., & Griffiths, C.
(2015) Revisiting LLS research 40 years later. TESOL Quarterly, 49(2), 414–429. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cook, V.
(2011) Linguistic relativity and language teaching. In V. Cook & B. Bassetti (Eds.), Language and bilingual cognition (pp. 509–518). New York, NY: Psychology Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. C.
(2008) Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). London: Sage. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Corcoll López, C., & González-Davies, M.
(2015) Switching codes in the plurilingual classroom. English Language Teaching Journal, 70(1), 67–77. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coxhead, A.
(2000) A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly, 34(2), 213–238. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D.
(2010) CLIL: Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cummins, J.
(2014) Rethinking pedagogical assumptions in Canadian French immersion programs. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 2(1), 3–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C.
(2011) Content-and-language integrated learning: From practice to principles. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 311, 182–204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016) Cognitive discourse functions: Specifying an integrative interdisciplinary construct. In T. Nikula, E. Dafouz, P. Moore, & U. Smit (Eds.), Conceptualising integration in CLIL and multilingual education. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C., Nikula, T., & Smit, U.
(Eds.) (2010) Language use and language learning in 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
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y.
(Eds.) (2011) The SAGE handbook of qualitative research. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Domingo, M.
(2016) Multimodality in virtual learning environments: Exploring traces of the page in designs of screens. In C. Haythornthwaite, R. Andrews, J. Fransman, & E. M. Meyers (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of e-learning research (pp. 152–170). London: Sage. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Donato, R.
(2016) Sociocultural theory and content-based foreign language instruction: theoretical insights on the challenge of integration. In L. Cammarata (Ed.), Content-based foreign language teaching: Curriculum and pedagogy for developing advanced thinking and literacy skills (pp. 24–50). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Dörnyei, Z., & Ryan, S.
(2015) The psychology of the language learner revisited. New York, NY: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R., & Shintani, N.
(2013) Exploring language pedagogy through second language acquisition research. New York, NY: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garcia, O., & Li, W.
(2013) Translanguaging. London: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gee, J. P.
(2015) Literacy and education. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gierlinger, E. M.
(2007) Modular CLIL in lower secondary education: some insights from a research project in Austria. In C. Dalton-Puffer & U. Smit (Eds.), Empirical perspectives on classroom discourse (pp. 79–118). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
(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
Glenberg, A. M., Goldberg, A. B., & Zhu, X.
(2011) Improving early reading comprehension using embodied CAI. Instructional Science, 39(1), 27–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gottlieb, M., & Ernst-Slavit, G.
(2014) Academic language in diverse classrooms: Definitions and contexts. Thousand oaks: Corwin.Google Scholar
Halliday, M., & Matthiessen, C.
(2014) An introduction to functional grammar. New York, NY: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hammersley, M.
(2008) Questioning qualitative inquiry: Critical essays. London: Sage. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hawking, S., & Mlodinow, L.
(2012) The grand design. London: Bantam.Google Scholar
Hockly, N., Dudeney, G., & Pegrum, M.
(2013) Digital literacies. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hoey, M., Mahlberg, M., Stubbs, M., & Teubert, W.
(2007) Text, discourse and corpora. London: Continuum.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
Kerr, P.
(2014) Translation and own-language activities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kramsch, C., & Huffmaster, M.
(2015) Multilingual practices in foreign language study. In J. Cenoz & D. Gorter (Eds.), Multilingual education: Between language learning and translanguaging (pp. 114–136). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Krashen, S.
(1984) Immersion: Why it works and what it has taught us. Language and Society, 121, 61–64.Google Scholar
Laufer, B., & Nation, I.
(2012) Vocabulary. In S. M. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 163–176). Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Levine, G. S.
(2011) Code choice in the language classroom. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leow, R. P.
(2015) Explicit learning in the L2 classroom: A student-centered approach. New York, NY: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Li, W.
(2013) Who’s teaching whom? Co-learning in multilingual classrooms. In S. May (Ed.), The multilingual turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL, and bilingual education (pp. 167–190). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lier, L. V.
(2004) The ecology and semiotics of language learning: A sociocultural perspective. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lightbown, P. M.
(2014) Focus on content-based language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Littleton, K., & Mercer, N.
(2013) Interthinking: Putting talk to work. New York, NY: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Llinares, A.
(2015) Integration in CLIL: A proposal to inform research and successful pedagogy. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28(1), 58–73. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Llinares, A., & Nikula, T.
(2016) Teacher and student evaluative language in CLIL across contexts: Integrating SFL and pragmatic approaches. In T. Nikula, E. Dafouz, P. Moore, & U. Smit (Eds.), Conceptualising integration in CLIL and multilingual education (pp. 189–210). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Loewen, S.
(2015) Introduction to instructed second language acquisition. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Long, M. H.
(2011) Methodological principles for language teaching. In M. H. Long & C. J. Doughty (Eds.), The handbook of language teaching (pp. 373–394). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lorenzo, F., & Dalton-Puffer, C.
(2016) Historical literacy in CLIL: Telling the past in a second language. In T. Nikula, E. Dafouz, P. Moore, & U. Smit (Eds.), Conceptualising integration in CLIL and multilingual education (pp. 55–72). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Love, K.
(2010) Literacy pedagogical content knowledge in the secondary curriculum. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 5(4), 338–355. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R., & Ballinger, S.
(2011) Content-based language teaching: Convergent concerns across divergent contexts. Language Teaching Research, 15(3), 270–288. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R., Quiroga, J., & Ballinger, S.
(2013) The effects of biliteracy instruction on morphological awareness. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 1(2), 169–197. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Macaro, E.
(2009) Teacher use of code switching in the second language classroom: Exploring “optimal” use In M. Turnbull & J. Dailey-O’Cain (Eds.), First language use in second and foreign language learning (pp. 35–49). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013) Overview: Where should we be going with classroom code switching research? In R. Barnard & J. McLellan (Eds.), Code switching in university English-medium classes (pp. 10–23). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, M., & O’Dell, F.
(2016) Academic vocabulary in use edition with answers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McDougald, J. S.
(2015) Teachers’ attitudes, perceptions and experiences in CLIL: A look at content and language. Colombian Applied Linguistic Journal, 17(1), 25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mehisto, P., Marsh, D., & Frigols, M. J.
(2008) Uncovering CLIL: Content and language integrated learning in bilingual and multilingual education. Oxford: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Mercer, N.
(2008) Talk and the development of reasoning and understanding. Human Development, 51(1), 90–100. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Met, M.
(1998) Curriculum decision-making in content-based language teaching. In J. Cenoz & F. Genesee (Eds.), Beyond bilingualism: Multilingualism and multilingual education (pp. 35–63). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Moate, J.
(2010) The integrated nature of CLIL. International CLIL Research Journal, 1(3), 38–38. Retrieved from [URL]Google Scholar
Morton, T., & Jakonen, T.
(2016) Integration of language and content through languaging in CLIL; Classroom interaction: A conversation analysis perspective. In T. Nikula, E. Dafouz, P. Moore, & U. Smit (Eds.), Conceptualising integration in CLIL and multilingual education (pp. 171–188). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nation, P.
(2008) Lexical awareness in second language learning. In J. Cenoz & N. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education, Vol 6. Knowledge about language (pp. 167–179). Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nikula, T., Dalton-Puffer, C., & Lorenzo, F.
(2016) More than content and language: The complexity of integration in CLIL and bilingual education. In T. Nikula, E. Dafouz, P. Moore, & U. Smit (Eds.), Conceptualising integration in CLIL and multilingual education (pp. 1–28). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nikula, T., & Moore, P.
(2016) Exploring translanguaging in CLIL. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 1–13. Advance online publication. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nyikos, M., & May, F.
(2007) A review of vocabulary learning strategies: Focus on language proficiency and learner voice. In A. D. Cohen & E. Macaro (Eds.), Language learner strategies (pp. 251–273). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ortega, L.
(2014) Second language learning explained? SLA across 10 contemporary theories. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 245–272). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Otwinowska, A.
(2015) Cognate vocabulary in language acquisition and use: Attitudes, awareness, activation. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paquot, M.
(2010) Academic vocabulary in learner writing: From extraction to analysis. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Paran, A.
(2013) Content and language integrated learning: Panacea or policy borrowing myth. Applied Linguistics Review, 4(2), 317–342. DOI logoGoogle 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
Philippakos, Z. A., MacArthur, C. A., & Coker, D. L.
(2015) Developing strategic writers through genre instruction: Resources for Grades 3–5. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Rose, D., & Martin, J. R.
(2012) Learning to write, reading to learn: Genre, knowledge and pedagogy in the Sydney School. Sheffield: Equinox.Google Scholar
Scott, M., & Tribble, C.
(2006) Textual patterns: Key words and corpus analysis in language education. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spada, N.
(2007) Communicative language teaching: Current status and future prospects. In J. Cummins & C. Davison (Eds.), International handbook of English language teaching (pp. 271–288). Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S.
(2013) A Vygotskian sociocultural perspective on immersion education: The L1/L2 debate. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 1(1), 101–129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tan, M.
(2011) Mathematics and science teachers’ beliefs and practices regarding the teaching of language in content learning. Language Teaching Research, 15(3), 325–342. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tyler, A.
(2012) Cognitive linguistics and second language learning: Theoretical basics and experimental evidence. New York, NY: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S.
(2004) The historical meaning of the crisis in psychology: A methodological investigation. In R. W. Rieber & D. K. Robinson (Eds.), The essential Vygotsky (pp. 227–334). New York, NY: Kluwer/Plenum.Google Scholar
Williams, M., Mercer, S., & Ryan, S.
(2015) Exploring psychology in language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wegner, A.
(2012) Seeing the bigger picture: What students and teachers think about CLIL. International CLIL Research Journal, 1(4), 29–35.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 3 other publications

Aguirregoitia Martinez, Amaia, Kepa Bengoetxea Kortazar & Itziar Gonzalez-Dios
2021. Are CLIL texts too complicated?. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education 9:1 ► pp. 4 ff. DOI logo
Göpferich, Susanne, Ina Alexandra Machura & Janine T. Murphy
2019. Supporting English Medium Instruction at German Institutions of Higher Education. In English in the German-Speaking World, ► pp. 114 ff. DOI logo
Villabona, Nerea & Jasone Cenoz
2022. The integration of content and language in CLIL: a challenge for content-driven and language-driven teachers. Language, Culture and Curriculum 35:1 ► pp. 36 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 1 april 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.