ABSTRACT
Although teaching content subjects through the medium of a foreign language has
been present in Europe for several decades, different terms have been used to describe
the educational approaches that link content and language. Similarly, there is no
uniform teaching methodology that could be applied in all European educational
contexts. Baetens-Beardsmore (1993) observes that teaching subjects through the
medium of a foreign language is determined not only by the educational traditions of
a given country but also by the prevailing linguistic needs. Underlining the role of
sociocultural traditions and educational regulations, Nikula (1997) notes that there is
no universal pattern that could be applied in different countries. Kees de Bot
(2001,12) enumerates the factors that exert the strongest effect on the adoption of a
specific model of content and language integrated learning (CLIL) in different
educational backgrounds: ‘sociolinguistic environment, exposure, target language,
teachers, discourse type, translanguaging, subject appropriacy and content-language
ratio.’ Wolff and Otwinowska-Kasztelanic (2010) indicate that approaches to CLIL
ric lar odels of IL education at secondary level. This chapter t
CONTENT AND LANGUAGE INTEGRATED LEARNING
vary in particular countries as a result of administrative decisions taken on a national
level. Such top-down regulations often determine the choice of the content subjects,
the proportion of CLIL and non-CLIL classes, the recruitment process, or the type of
school in which CLIL is introduced. Depending on the educational contexts, CLIL is
introduced at all stages of education, ranging from pre-school to tertiary education,
while in other contexts it is limited to secondary education only. Moreover, the shape
of CLIL provision is to a large extent determined by the teachers: their competence in
L2, their qualifications in the field of CLIL as well as their ability to cooperate with their colleagues in order to facilitate the integration of language and content. Ongoing
teaching practice and different initiatives undertaken by teachers are also affected by
individual approaches and beliefs (Coyle, Hood, and Marsh 2010; Marsh, Maljers,
and Hartiala 2001; Mehisto, Marsh, and Frigols 2008). A large number of the afore-
mentioned factors aswell as the multiple interpretations of the term itself triggered the
emergence of diverse curricular objectives and teaching methodologies as well as
approaches to the assessment process. The lack of a uniform teaching methodology
that would integrate language and content has resulted in the development of multiple models of CLIL in different educational contexts.
