Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T19:29:01.611Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Content-and-Language Integrated Learning: From Practice to Principles?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2011

Christiane Dalton-Puffer
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article surveys recent work on content-and-language integrated learning (CLIL). Related to both content-based instruction and immersion education by virtue of its dual focus on language and content, CLIL is here understood as an educational model for contexts where the classroom provides the only site for learners’ interaction in the target language. That is, CLIL is about either foreign languages or lingua francas. The discussion foregrounds a prototypical CLIL context (Europe) but also refers to work done elsewhere. The first part of the discussion focuses on policy issues, describing how CLIL practice operates in a tension between grassroots decisions and higher order policymaking, an area where European multi- and plurilingual policies and the strong impact of English as a lingua franca play a particularly interesting role. The latter is, of course, of definite relevance also in other parts of the world. The second part of the article synthesizes research on learning outcomes in CLIL. Here, the absence of standardized content testing means that the main focus is on language-learning outcomes. The third section deals with classroom-based CLIL research and participants’ use of their language resources for learning and teaching, including such diverse perspectives as discourse pragmatics, speech acts, academic language functions, and genre. The final part of the article discusses theoretical underpinnings of CLIL, delineating their current state of elaboration as applied linguistic research in the area is gaining momentum.

Type
SECTION C: TOPICS IN INTEGRATED APPROACHES
Information
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics , Volume 31 , March 2011 , pp. 182 - 204
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Coyle, D., & Baetens Beardsmore, H. (Eds.). (2007). International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism [Special Issue on CLIL], 10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and language integrated learning. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dale, L., Van der Es, W., & Tanner, R. (2010). CLIL skills. Leiden, the Netherlands: University of Leiden, Expertisecentrum mtv.Google Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2007b). Discourse in content and language integrated learning (CLIL) classrooms. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C., Nikula, T., & Smit, U. (Eds.). (2010). Language use and language learning in CLIL. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen-Pauly, M. A., Bentner, G., Llinares, A., Morton, T., Dafouz, E., Favilli, F., Novotna, J., et al. (2009). Teacher education for CLIL across contexts. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission, Directorate General for Education and Culture. Retrieved from http://clil.uni.luGoogle Scholar
Marsh, D., & Wolff, D. (Eds.). (2007). Diverse contexts—converging goals. CLIL in Europe. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Lang.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pérez Vidal, C. (2009). The integration of content and language in the classroom: A European approach to education (the second time around). In Dafouz, E. & Guerrini, M. (Eds.), CLIL across educational levels (pp. 3–16). Madrid, Spain: Richmond.Google Scholar

REFERENCES

Admiraal, W., Westhoff, G., & de Bot, K. (2006). Evaluation of bilingual secondary education in the Netherlands: Students' language proficiency in English. Educational Research and Evaluation, 12, 75–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Airey, J. (2009). Estimating undergraduate bilingual scientific literacy in Sweden. International CLIL Research Journal, 1, 26–35.Google Scholar
Airey, J., & Linder, C. (2006). Language and the experience of learning university physics in Sweden. European Journal of Physics, 27, 553–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Badertscher, H., & Bieri, T. (2009). Wissenserwerb im content-and-language integrated learning. Bern-Stuttgart-Wien, Switzerland: Haupt.Google Scholar
Bonnet, A. (2004). Chemie im bilingualen Unterricht. Kompetenzerwerb durch Interaktion. Opladen Germany: Leske +Budrich.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brinton, D. M., Snow, M. A., & Wesche, M. B. (2008). Content-based second language instruction. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. (Original work published 1989)Google Scholar
Bruthiaux, P. (2009). Multilingual Asia: Looking back, looking across, looking forward. In Lim, L. & Low, E.-L. (Eds.), Multilingual, globalizing Asia (pp. 120–130). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Canagarajah, S. A. (1995). Functions of code switching in ESL classrooms: Socialising bilingualism in Jaffna. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 6, 173–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chamot, A. U., & O'Malley, M. (1994). The CALLA handbook: Implementing the Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Christie, F. (2002). Classroom discourse analysis. A functional perspective. London, UK: Continuum.Google Scholar
Coetzee-Lachmann, D. (2009). Assessment of subject-specific task performance of bilingual geography learners (Unpublished doctoral thesis). University of Osnabrück, Germany.Google Scholar
Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and language integrated learning. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crandall, J. (1992). Content-centered learning in the U.S. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 13, 110–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cromdal, J. (2005). Bilingual order in collaborative word processing: On creating an English text in Swedish. Journal of Pragmatics, 37, 329–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cummins, J. (1984). Bilingualism and special education. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Cummins, J. (1991). Conversational and academic language proficiency in bilingual context. AILA Review, 8, 75–89.Google Scholar
Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power, and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dafouz, E., Núñez, B., & Sancho, C. (2007). Analyzing stance in a CLIL university context: Non-native speaker use of personal pronouns and modal verbs. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10, 647–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2007a). Academic language functions in a CLIL environment. In Marsh, D. & Wolff, D. (Eds.), Diverse contexts—converging goals (pp. 201–210). Frankfurt, Germany: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2007b). Discourse in content and language integrated learning (CLIL) classrooms. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C., Hüttner, J., Jexenflicker, S., Schindelegger, V., & Smit, U. (2008). Content and language integrated learning an Österreichs Höheren Technischen Lehranstalten. Forschungsbericht. Vienna, Austria: Universität Wien & Bundesministerium für Unterricht, Kultur und Kunst.Google Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C., & Nikula, T. (2006). Pragmatics of content-based instruction: Teacher and student directives in Finnish and Austrian classrooms. Applied Linguistics, 27, 241–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Day, E. M., & Shapson, S. M. (1996). Studies in immersion education. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Graaff, R., Koopman, G. J., Anikina, Y., & Westhoff, G. (2007). An observation tool for effective L2 pedagogy and language integrated learning (CLIL). International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10, 603–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (Eds.). (1998). Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Douglas, D. (2004). Discourse domains: The cognitive context of speaking. In Boxer, D. & Cohen, A. (Eds.), Studying speaking to inform second language learning (pp. 25–48). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Duff, P. (1995). An ethnography of communication in immersion classrooms in Hungary. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 505–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Escobar Urmeneta, C. (2010). Pre-service CLIL teacher-education in Catalonia. Expert and novice practitioners teaching and reflecting together. In Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. & Lasagabaster, D. (Eds.), CLIL in Spain: Implementation, results and teacher training. (p. 188–218). Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
European Commission. (1995). White paper on education and training. Teaching and learning: Towards the learning society. Retrieved from http://europa.eu/documents/comm/white_papers/pdf/com95_590_en.pdfGoogle Scholar
European Commission. (2003). Promoting language learning and linguistic diversity: An action plan 2004–2006, 1–29. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/education/doc/official/keydoc/actlang/act_lang_en.pdfGoogle Scholar
European Commission. (2008). Multilingualism: An asset for Europe and a shared commitment. Communication of the European Commission, 1–15. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/education/languages/pdf/com/2008_0566_en.pdfGoogle Scholar
Eurydice Network. (2006). Content and language integrated learning (CLIL) at school in Europe. Brussels, Belgium: Retrieved from http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/thematic_studies_archives_en.phpGoogle Scholar
Ferguson, G. (2006). Language planning and education. Edinburgh, Scotland: Edinburgh University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernández, D. J. et al. (Eds.). (2008). Proceedings selection from XXXIII FAAPI Conference: Using the language to learn. Learning to use the language: What's next in Latin America. Santiago del Estero, Argentina: British Council.Google Scholar
Fernández Fontecha, A. (2009). Spanish CLIL: Research and official actions. In Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. & Jiménez Catalán, R. M. (Eds.), Content and language integrated learning: Evidence from research in Europe (pp. 3–21). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gajo, L. (2007). Linguistic knowledge and subject knowledge: How does bilingualism contribute to subject development? International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10, 563–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallardo del Puerto, F., García Lecumberri, M., & Gómez Lacabex, E. (2009). Testing the effectiveness of content and language integrated learning in foreign language contexts: Assessment of English pronunciation. In Ruiz, Y. de Zarobe & Jiménez Catalán, R. M. (Eds.), Content and language integrated learning: Evidence from research in Europe (pp. 215–234). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Gibbons, P. (2002). Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning: Teaching second language learners in the mainstream classroom. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
A guide to languages in the European Union. (2008, September). EUBusiness.com. Retrieved from: http://www.eubusiness.com/topics/Languages/eu-languages-guide/Google Scholar
Hajer, M. (2000). Creating a language-promoting classroom: Content-area teachers at work. In Hall, J. K. & Stoops Verplaetse, L. (Eds.), Second and foreign language learning through classroom interaction (pp. 265–285). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1993). Towards a language-based theory of learning. Linguistics and Education, 5, 93–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harley, B., Allen, P., Cummins, J., & Swain, M. (Eds.). (1990). The development of second language proficiency. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hüttner, J., & Rieder-Bünemann, A. (2010). A cross-sectional analysis of oral narratives by children with CLIL and non-CLIL instruction. In Dalton-Puffer, C., Nikula, T., & Smit, U. (Eds.), Language use and language learning in CLIL classrooms (pp. 61–80). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jäppinen, A.-K. (2005). Thinking and content learning of mathematics and science as cognitional development in content and language integrated learning (CLIL): Teaching through a foreign language in Finland. Language and Education, 19, 148–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Järvinen, H.-M. (2010). Language as a meaning making resource in learning and teaching content: Analysing historical writing in content and language integrated learning. In Dalton-Puffer, C., Nikula, T., & Smit, U. (Eds.), Language use and language learning in CLIL classrooms (pp. 145–168). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jexenflicker, S., & Dalton-Puffer, C. (2010). The CLIL differential: Comparing the writing of CLIL and non-CLIL students in higher colleges of technology. In Dalton-Puffer, C., Nikula, T., & Smit, U. (Eds.), Language use and language learning in CLIL classrooms (pp. 169–190). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, K., & Swain, M. (Eds.). 1997. Immersion education: International perspectives. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiraz, A., Güneyli, A., Baysen, E., Gündüz, S., & Baysen, F. (2010). Effect of science and technology learning with foreign language on the attitude and success of students. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2, 4130–4136.Google Scholar
Kong, S. (2009). Content-based instruction: What can we learn from content-trained teachers’ and language-trained teachers’ pedagogies? Canadian Modern Language Review, 66, 233–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krampitz, S. (2007). Spracharbeit im bilingualen Unterricht. Ergebnisse einer Befragung von LehrerInnen und Lehrern. In Caspari, D., Hallet, W., Wegner, A., & Zydatiß, W. (Eds.), Bilingualer Unterricht macht Schule: Beiträge aus der Praxisforschung (pp. 133–146). Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis. Issues and implications. London, UK: Longman.Google Scholar
Lantolf, J. P. (2002). Sociocultural theory and second language acquisition. In Kaplan, R. B. (Ed.), Oxford handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 104–114). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lasagabaster, D. (2008). Foreign language competence in content and language integrated learning. Open Applied Linguistics Journal, 1, 31–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lasagabaster, D., & Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (Eds.). (2010). CLIL in Spain: Implementation, results and teacher training. Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. M. (2009). Language attitudes in CLIL and traditional EFL classes. International Journal of CLIL Research, 1, 4–17.Google Scholar
Li, D. C. S. (2002). Hong Kong parents’ preference for English-medium education: Passive victims of imperialism or active agents of pragmatism? In Kirkpatrick, A. (Ed.), Englishes in Asia: Communication, identity, power, & education (pp. 29–62). Melbourne, Australia: Language Australia.Google Scholar
Lim, L., & Low, E.-L. (Eds.). (2009). Multilingual, globalizing Asia: Implications for policy and education. AILA Review, 22.Google Scholar
Lim Falk, M. (2008). Svenska i engelskspråkig skolmiljö. Ämnesrelaterat språkbruk i två gymnasieklasser [Swedish in an English classroom environment. Language use in two grammar school classes]. Stockholm, Sweden: Eddy. (Reprinted from Acta Universitatis Stockholmiensis [Stockholm Studies in Scandinavian Philology], 46)Google Scholar
Llinares, A., & Whittaker, R. (2009). Teaching and learning history in secondary CLIL classrooms: From speaking to writing. In Dafouz, E. & Guerrini, M. (Eds.), CLIL across educational levels: Experiences from primary, secondary and tertiary contexts (pp. 73–88). Madrid, Spain: Richmond.Google Scholar
Llinares, A., & Whittaker, R. (2010). Writing and speaking in the history class: A comparative analysis of CLIL and first language contexts. In Dalton-Puffer, C., Nikula, T., & Smit, U. (Eds.), Language use and language learning in CLIL classrooms (pp. 125–144). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Lo, Y.-Y., & Murphy, V. A. (2010). Vocabulary knowledge and growth in immersion and regular language-learning programmes in Hong Kong. Language and Education, 24, 215–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lochtmann, K. (2007). Die mündliche Fehlerkorrektur in CLIL und im traditionellen Fremdsprachenunterricht: Ein Vergleich. In Dalton-Puffer, C. & Smit, U. (Eds.), Empirical perspectives on CLIL classroom discourse—CLIL: Empirische Untersuchungen zum Unterrichtsdiskurs (pp. 119–138). Frankfurt, Germany: Lang.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In Ritchie, W. C. & Bahtia, T. K. (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Lorenzo, F., Casal, S., & Moore, P. (2005). Orientaciones para la elaboración del currículo integrado de las lengaus en los centros bilingües. Seville, Spain: Consejería de Educación (Junta de Andalucía).Google Scholar
Lorenzo, F., & Moore, P. (2010). On the natural emergence of language structures in CLIL: Towards a theory of European educational bilingualism. In Dalton-Puffer, C., Nikula, T., & Smit, U. (Eds.), Language use and language learning in CLIL classrooms (pp. 23–38). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lose, J. (2007). The language of scientific discourse: Ergebnisse einer empirisch-deskriptiven Interaktionsanalyse zur Verwendung fachbezogener Diskursfunktionen im bilingualen Biologieunterricht. In Caspari, D., Hallet, W., Wegner, A., & Zydatiß, W. (Eds.), Bilingualer Unterricht macht Schule: Beiträge aus der Praxisforschung (pp. 97–107). Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. (1998). Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to error types and learner repair in immersion classrooms. Language Learning, 48, 183–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R. (2007). Learning and teaching languages through content: A counterbalanced approach. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maillat, D. (2010). The pragmatics of L2 in CLIL. In Dalton-Puffer, C., Nikula, T., & Smit, U. (Eds.), Language use and language learning in CLIL (pp. 39–60). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Maljers, A., Marsh, D., & Wolff, D. (Eds.). (2007). Windows on CLIL. Content and language integrated learning in the spotlight. The Hague, the Netherlands: European Platform for Dutch Education.Google Scholar
Mariotti, C. (2006). Negotiated interactions and repair. VIEWS Vienna English Working Papers, 15, 33–41. Retrieved from http://anglistik.univie.ac.at/views/archive/Google Scholar
Marsh, D., & Frigols, M.-J. (2007). CLIL as a catalyst for change in language education. Babylonia, 3, 33–37.Google Scholar
Martínez Adrián, M., & Gutiérrez Mangado, M. J. (2009). The acquisition of English syntax by CLIL learners in the Basque country. In Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. & Jiménez Catalán, R. M. (Eds.), Content and language integrated learning: Evidence from research in Europe (pp. 176–196). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDougald, J. S. (2009). The state of language and content instruction in Colombia. Latin American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning, 2, 44–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mehisto, P., Marsh, D., & Frigols, M. J. (2008). Uncovering CLIL: Content and language integrated learning in bilingual and multilingual education. Oxford, UK: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Mewald, C. (2007). A comparison of oral language performance of learners in CLIL and mainstream classes at lower secondary level in Lower Austria. In Dalton-Puffer, C. & Smit, U. (Eds.), Empirical perspectives on CLIL classroom discourse (pp. 139–178). Frankfurt, Germany: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Mohan, B., & Beckett, G.H. (2001). A functional approach to research on content-based language learning. Canadian Modern Language Review, 58, 133–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohan, B., Leung, C., & Davison, C. (Eds.). (2001). English as a second language in the mainstream. London, UK: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Moore, P. (2007). Enhancing classroom discourse: A modeling potential for content teachers. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada. Ejemplar: Models and Practice in CLIL, 1, 141–152.Google Scholar
Moore, P. (2009). On the emergence of L2 oracy in bilingual education: A comparative analysis of CLIL and mainstream learner talk (Unpublished doctoral thesis). Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Sevilla, Spain.Google Scholar
Morton, T. (2010). Using a genre-based approach to integrating content and language in CLIL: The example of secondary history. In Dalton-Puffer, C., Nikula, T., & Smit, U. (Eds.), Language use and language learning in CLIL classrooms (pp. 81–104). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nikula, T. (2007). Speaking English in Finnish content-based classrooms. World Englishes, 26, 206–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nikula, T. (2008). Learning pragmatics in content-based classrooms. In Alcón Soler, E. & Martínez Flor, A. (Eds.), Investigating pragmatics in foreign language learning, teaching and testing. (pp. 94–113). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nikula, T. (2010). On effects of CLIL on a teacher's language use. In Dalton-Puffer, C., Nikula, T., & Smit, U. (Eds.), Language use and language learning in CLIL classrooms (pp. 105–124). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Núñez Perucha, B., & Dafouz Milne, E. (2007). Lecturing through the foreign language in a CLIL university context: Linguistic and pragmatic implications. VIEWS Vienna English Working Papers, 16, 36–42. Retrieved from http://anglistik.univie.ac.at/views/archive/Google Scholar
Paesani, K. (2011). Research in language-literature instruction: Meeting the call for change? Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, this volume.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pérez Vidal, C. (2009). The integration of content and language in the classroom: A European approach to education (the second time around). In Dafouz, E. & Guerrini, M. (Eds.), CLIL across educational levels (pp. 3–16). Madrid, Spain: Richmond.Google Scholar
Pessoa, S., Hendry, H., Donato, R., Tucker, R. G., & Lee, H. (2007). Content-based instruction in the foreign language classroom: A discourse perspective. Foreign Language Annals, 40, 102–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pistorio, Maria Inés. (2009).Teacher training and competences for effective CLIL teaching in Argentina. Latin American Journal of Content and Language Integrated Learning 2 (2), 37–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prinsloo, M., & Baynham, M. (Eds.). (2008). AILA Applied Linguistics: Series 2. Literacies, global and local. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (2008). CLIL and foreign language learning: A longitudinal study in the Basque country. International CLIL Research Journal, 1, 60–73.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (2010). Written production and CLIL: An empirical study. In Dalton-Puffer, C., Nikula, T., & Smit, U. (Eds.), Language use and language learning in CLIL classrooms (pp. 191–212). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schleppegrell, M., Achugar, M., & Orteíza, T. (2004). The grammar of history: enhancing content-based instruction through a functional focus on language. TESOL Quarterly 38, 67–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schleppegrell, M., & O'Hallaron, C. (2011). Teaching academic language in L2 secondary settings. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, this volume.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shohamy, E. (2006). Language policy: Hidden agendas and new approaches. London, UK: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snow, M. A. (1998). Trends and issues in content-based instruction. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 18, 243–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spanos, G. (1989) On the integration of language and content instruction. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 10, 227–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spolsky, B. (2004). Language policy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stoller, F. L. (2004). Content-based instruction: Perspectives on curriculum planning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 264–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In Cook, G. & Seidlhofer, B. (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics (pp. 125–144). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In Lantolf, J. P. (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 97–114). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sylvén, L. K. (2004). Teaching in English or English teaching? On the effects of content and language integrated learning on Swedish learners’ incidental vocabulary acquisition (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Göteborg University, Göteborg, Sweden.Google Scholar
Tarone, E., & Swain, M. (1995). A sociolinguistic perspective on second-language use in immersion classrooms. Modern Language Journal, 79, 166–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tollefson, J. W., & Tsui, A. B. M. (Eds.). (2004). Medium of instruction policies: Which agenda? Whose agenda? Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Tsui, A. B. M., & Tollefson, J. W. (Eds.). (2007). Language policy, culture and identity in Asian contexts. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
van de Craen, P., Ceuleers, E., & Mondt, K. (2007). Cognitive development and bilingualism in primary schools: Teaching maths in a CLIL environment. In Marsh, D. & Wolff, D. (Eds.), Diverse contexts—converging goals: CLIL in Europe (pp. 185–200). Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Lang.Google Scholar
Villarreal, I., & García Mayo, M. (2009). Tense and agreement morphology in the interlanguage of Basque-Spanish bilinguals: Content-based learning vs. the learning of English as a school subject. In Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. & Jiménez Catalán, R. M. (Eds.), Content and language integrated learning: Evidence from research in Europe (pp. 215–234). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Vollmer, H. J., Heine, L., Troschke, R., Coetzee, D., & Küttel, V. (2006, August). Subject-specific competence and language use of CLIL learners: The case of geography in grade 10 of secondary schools in Germany. Paper presented at the ESSE8 Conference, London, UK.Google Scholar
Walker, E. (2010). Evaluation of a support intervention for senior secondary school English immersion. System, 38, 50–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whittaker, R., & Llinares, A. (2009). CLIL in social science classrooms: Analysis of spoken and written productions. In Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. & Jiménez Catalán, R. M. (Eds.), Content and language integrated learning. Evidence from research in Europe (pp. 215–234). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Widdowson, H. (1980). Reading and thinking in English 1–4. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wolff, D. (2007). CLIL: Bridging the gap between school and working life. In Marsh, D. & Wolff, D. (Eds.), Diverse contexts—converging goals. CLIL in Europe (pp. 15–25). Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Zuengler, J. (1993). Encouraging learners’ conversational participation: The effect of content knowledge. Language Learning, 43, 403–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zydatiß, W. (2007). Deutsch-Englische Züge in Berlin (DEZIBEL). Eine Evaluation des bilimgualen Sachfachunterrichts in Gymnasien: Kontext, Kompetenzen, Konsequenzen. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Peter Lang.Google Scholar