Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Applied Linguistics Review

Editor-in-Chief: Wei, Li

4 Issues per year


IMPACT FACTOR 2016: 0.351

Online
ISSN
1868-6311
See all formats and pricing
More options …

Questions about CLIL which are unfortunately still not outdated: A reply to Pérez-Cañado

Anthony Bruton
Published Online: 2017-11-28 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2017-0059

Abstract

This response to Pérez-Cañado’s (2017) disappointing defence of CLIL interests insists on the need for a clear definition of CLIL not only so that it can be characterised for comparative purposes, but also so that the fundamentals underlying it can be scrutinised, instead of the continued hedging of bets on a moving target, justified for its contextual flexibility. As an example, whether CLIL classes are accompanied by FL classes on the curriculum or not is not a minor issue, both practically and theoretically. In addition other questions are reconsidered such as the communicative nature of CLIL, especially when it comes to whether the content is likely to be more motivating, and the supposed egalitarianism of CLIL initiatives. Finally, two research issues are discussed. Firstly, an example demonstrates how it is perfectly legitimate to critique empirical CLIL research which argues apparently beneficial results from a ‘due to’ stance by countering it with ‘despite’ arguments, while leaving much of the flawed CLIL research aside. Secondly, there is a reiterated demand that disinterested research at a curricular level confront outcomes in both the FLs and the content covered in CLIL programmes for all the state-school students affected both directly or indirectly, and in comparable terms.

Keywords: CLIL; Fl instruction; Fl curriculum

References

  • Alonso, E., J. Grisaleña & A. Campo. 2008. Plurilingual education in secondary schools: Analysis of results. International CLIL Research Journal 1(1). 36–49.Google Scholar

  • Broca, A. 2016. CLIL and non-CLIL: Differences from the outset. ELT Journal 70(3). 320–331.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bruton, A. 2011a. Are the differences between CLIL and non-CLIL groups in Andalusia due to CLIL?: A reply to Lorenzo, Casal and Moore. Applied Linguistics 32(2). 236–241.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bruton, A. 2011b. Is CLIL so beneficial, or just selective? Re-evaluating some of the research. System 39(4). 523–532.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bruton, A. 2013. CLIL: Some of the reasons why …. and why not. System 41(3). 587–597.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Bruton, A. 2015. CLIL: Detail matters in the whole picture. More than a reply to J. Hüttner and U. Smit. System 53. 119–128.CrossrefGoogle 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). 389–394.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle 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.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Cenoz, J., F. Genesee & D. Gorter. 2014. Critical Analysis of CLIL: Taking stock and looking forward. Applied Linguistics 35(3). 243–262.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Czura, A. & K. Papaja. 2013. Curricular models of CLIL education in Poland. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 16(3). 321–333.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Dickey, R. J. 2004. Content (adj.) or content (n.) with your English classes?. Educational International 1(3). 10–15.Google Scholar

  • García López, M. & A. Bruton. 2013. Potential drawbacks and actual benefits of CLIL initiatives in public secondary schools. in C. Abello-Contesse, P. M. Chandler, M. D. López-Jiménez & R. Chacón-Beltrán (eds.), Bilingual and Multilingual Education in the twenty-first Century: Building on experience, 256–274. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

  • Genesee, F. 1998. A case study of multilingualism in Canada. in J. Cenoz & F. Genesee (eds.), Beyond bilingualism: Multilingualism and multilingual education, 243–258. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

  • Hunt, M. 2011. Learners’ perceptions of their experiences of learning subject content through a foreign language. Educational Review 63. 365–378.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Hüttner, J. & U. Smit. 2014. CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning): The bigger picture. A response to A. Bruton. 2013. CLIL: Some of the reasons why … and why not. System 41 (2013): 587-597. System 44(2). 160–167.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Lambert, S. C. 2015. The importance of classification to business model research. Journal of Business Models 3(1). 49–61.Google Scholar

  • Lorenzo, F., S. Casal & P. Moore. 2010. The effects of content and language integrated learning in European Education: Key findings from the Andalusian Sections Evaluation Project. Applied Linguistics 31(3). 418–442.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Marsh, D. 2002. Introduction. in D. Marsh (ed.), CLIL/EMILE – The European Dimension: Action, trends and foresight potential, 15–17. Finland: University of Jyväskylä.Google Scholar

  • Marsh, H. W., K. T. Hau & C. K Kong. 2000. Late immersion and language of instruction in Hong Kong high schools: Achievement growth in language and non-language subjects. Harvard Educational Review 70(3). 302–346.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Pérez Cañado, M. L. 2017. Stopping the “pendulum effect” in CLIL research: Finding the balance between Pollyanna and Scrooge. Applied Linguistics Review 8(1). 79–99.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Pérez-Cañado, M. L. 2012. CLIL research in Europe: Past, present and future. The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 15(3). 315–341.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Roussel, S., D .Joulia, A. Tricot & J. Sweller. 2017. Learning subject content through a foreign language should not ignore human cognitive architecture: A cognitive load theory approach. Learning and Instruction 52. 69–79.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. 2008. CLIL and foreign language learning: A longitudinal study in the Basque Country. International CLIL Research Journal 1(1). 60–73.Google Scholar

  • Rumlich, D. 2013. Students’ general English proficiency prior to CLIL: Empirical evidence for substantial differences between prospective CLIL and non-CLIL students in Germany. in S. Breidbach & B. Viebrock (eds.), Content and language integrated learning (CLIL) in Europe. Research perspectives on policy and practice, 151–201. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar

  • Taillefer, G. 2013. CLIL in higher education. The (perfect?) crossroads of ESP and didactic reflection. ASp 63. 31–53.Google Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2017-11-28


Citation Information: Applied Linguistics Review, ISSN (Online) 1868-6311, ISSN (Print) 1868-6303, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2017-0059.

Export Citation

© 2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston. Copyright Clearance Center

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in