Cover not available
Article published In:
Language Problems and Language Planning
Vol. 45:3 (2021) ► pp.309–330

Languages for learning

The role of CLIL teachers

| Liceo Statale Quasimodo

More than 25 years have passed since CLIL was first introduced in schools all over Europe with objectives, methods and organizational structures that often also vary from one country to another. Time has passed, and still without a precise framework of reference, CLIL shows its great potential as well as its drawbacks. Using data from research conducted in Italy with four CLIL teachers who teach physics through a foreign language, this article aims to highlight the possibility that CLIL can serve to make every teacher, regardless of the subject, aware of the role that language can play in learning. The data collected, which refer to the Italian education system, emphasize the central role of the subject teacher in CLIL implementation. They also draw attention to the need for important changes in the CLIL agenda for the coming years.

Keywords: language for learning, the language dimension of all subjects, CLIL, pluriliteracies
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • CLIL in Europe
  • CLIL in Italy
    • The beginnings
    • The school reform laws of 2003 and 2015
    • The CLIL teacher
    • The temporary norms
    • Official data on CLIL provision in Italy
  • The research
    • Theoretical framework
    • Objectives and research questions
    • Data and method
      • The lessons
      • The interviews
      • Results
  • Concluding remarks
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 28 February 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lplp.21025.min
References
Beacco, J.-C., Fleming, M., Goullier, F., Thürmann, E., & Vollmer, H.
(2016) The Language Dimension in All Subjects. A Handbook for Curriculum Development and Teacher Training. Education Department Education Policy Division Language Policy DG II – Directorate General of Democracy Council of Europe.Google Scholar
Bolitho, R., Rossner, R.
(2020) Language education in a changing world: challenges and opportunities. Multilingual Matters. 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
Council of Europe
(2014) Recommendation CM/Rec(2014)5 of the Committee of Ministers to member States on the importance of competences in the language(s) of schooling for equity and quality in education and for educational success.Google Scholar
Coyle, D.
(2019) Content and Language Integrated Learning. Changing contexts, Evolving competences: 25 years of inspiring innovation in language education. Graz: ECML, Council of Europe, 72–80.Google Scholar
European Commission
(2018) Rethinking language education in schools. Strasbourg, France: European Commission.Google Scholar
Gajo, L.
(2007) Linguistic Knowledge and Subject Knowledge: How does bilingualism contribute to subject development? The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(5), 563–581. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hélot, C., Cavalli, M.
(2016) Bilingual Education in Europe: Dominant Languages. In O. Garcia, A. Lin, S. May (eds). Bilingual and Multilingual Education. Encyclopedia of Language and Education (3rd ed.). Springer, Cham. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Llinares, A., Dalton-Puffer, C.
(2015) The role of different tasks in CLIL students’ use of evaluative language. System, 541, 69–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Llinares, A., Evnitskaya, N.
(2020) Classroom Interaction in CLIL Programs: Offering Opportunities or Fostering Inequalities? TESOL Quarterly.Google Scholar
Martin, J. R., Maton, K.
(2017) Systemic functional linguistics and Legitimation Code Theory on education: Rethinking field and knowledge. Onomazein, SFL: 12–45. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maton, K.
(2013) Knowledge and knowers: Towards a realist sociology of education. London & New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maton, K., Howard, S. K.
(2018) Taking autonomy tours: A key to integrative knowledge-building, LCT Centre Occasional Paper 11: 1–35.Google Scholar
Meyer, O., Coyle, D., Halbach, A., Ting, T., & Schuck, K.
(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
Meyer, O., Coyle, D., Schuck, K.
(2018) Learnscaping – creating next-gen learning environments for pluriliteracies growth. Elsner, D. & Buendgens-Kostens, J. (eds.): CALL in multilingual contexts. Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Morton, T.
(2018) Reconceptualizing and describing teachers’ knowledge of language for content and language integrated learning (CLIL). International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21(3), 275–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nikula, T., Dalton-Puffer, C., & Llinares, A.
(2013) CLIL classroom discourse: Research from Europe. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 1(1), 70–100. DOI logoGoogle Scholar