ABSTRACT
CLIL prompted the design of learning materials on human heart anatomy which,
when implemented, naturally led to learner-centred classroom dynamics. It should be
noted that, as classroom practitioners seeking pragmatic solutions, our research
methodology is post-positivistic and qualitative in nature (Denzin and Lincoln
1994): rather than testing hypotheses which have been established a priori, we sought
to understand whether and how our approach to CLIL supports (or not) learning in the natural setting of the CLIL classroom. As such, our method is the process: we do
not have, therefore, a ‘Methods & Materials’ section since the method of materials
development was the actual process of producing the materials. Therefore, in Section
2, we discuss how traditional learning materials were transformed into CLIL-
learning materials, presenting not only the full set of materials, but also the
theoretical framework guiding our materials development. We also provide a detailed
analysis of how the tasks systematically scaffolded between familiar language and
unfamiliar content, or vice versa. Section 3 presents data collected on classroom dynamics and discourse during the implementation of these CLIL-learning materials
(Section 3.1). Likewise, samples of successful and sustained learning are presented to
illustrate that CLIL can indeed support both content learning and language
acquisition. Finally, this research reflects classroom-situated teacher training at its
best: while the CLIL researcher (Ting) implemented the two CLIL lessons, Maria
and Margherita assumed the role of participant observers, scrutinising learning
processes from their respective perspectives of EFL instruction and science
education. These experienced teachers delineated how the use of ad hoc CLILlearning materials facilitated learning (Section 3.2), concluding that CLIL can be
much more than the sum of its parts. Since teacher-led classroom investigations using
qualitative research methods provide a prime source of insight into (in)effective
classroom practices (Eisner 1991; Hargreaves 1996), it will be teachers’ narratives
(Goodson and Sikes 2001; Ting 2005) such as that presented here, which may convince
sceptical colleagues that CLIL, done well, can indeed offer a pragmatic means for
obtaining rather positive learning outcomes despite rather ‘far-from-ideal’ conditions.
2. The process: from traditional to CLIL
