ABSTRACT
This does not mean that students would not have achieved even a higher level of
proficiency in the target language if they had taken second/foreign language classes
for the same amount of time. However, schools cannot usually afford having a large
amount of language classes instead of subject classes and using a second/foreign
language as the language of instruction can be an effective way to combine language
and content. If we want to assess the effect of CLIL, it is necessary to adopt an
educational perspective in the study of CLIL. This means considering CLIL as an
approach that is related to the whole curriculum and not just limited to foreign
language teaching. From a theoretical and empirical point, this perspective implies
bringing together research traditions in bi/multilingualism and second language
acquisition (Cenoz and Gorter 2011; Ortega forthcoming). Research on good
practices in CLIL and on stakeholders’ voices such as the studies reported in this
issue is also useful because it can contribute to identify effective strategies in
language and content integrated teaching. It is important to assess how effective
some of these strategies are by conducting comparisons within CLIL contexts that
share the same characteristics. It is also necessary to carry out studies to assess the
impact of CLIL on content and all the languages in the curriculum taking into
account the need to be very cautious about the causeeffect relationships. Another point that deserves consideration in future research when we move away
from the narrow perspective of CLIL as a foreign language teaching approach is the
need to expand it to all the languages being learned and/or used by learners. CLIL
learners are multilingual or in the process of becoming multilingual and have the
potential to use their linguistic resources as a scaffold when learning and using
languages. As Bialystok (2010) explains, bilingualism can have some general
cognitive advantages related to metalinguistic awareness. If this is the case, it is
desirable that these advantages are enhanced in CLIL classes. At the same time, it is
important to look at the way multilinguals navigate between languages and are able
to negotiate the multiple varieties of codes, modes, genres, registers, and discourses
(Cenoz and Gorter 2011; Kramsch 2012). An educational perspective that goes
beyond the foreign language teaching approach will give the opportunity for CLIL to
integrate not only language and content but also all the languages in the students’
multilingual repertoires.
