![3D"Imagen](3D"1.OttoSanIsidro2_archivos/image001.jpg")
![3D"Cuadro](3D"1.OttoSanIsidro2_archivos/image002.gif")
Language=
as
the articulator of a CLIL ecosystem: the Spanish case
La lengua como articulador
de un ecosistema AICLE: el caso
español
Ana Isabel Otto Cantón=
Universidad
a Distancia de Madrid, Esp=
aña
anaisabel.otto@udima.es<= o:p>
Xabier San Isidro
Nazarbayev University Graduate School of Education,
Kazakhstan
xabier.sanisidro@nu.edu.kz
ABSTRACT
Spanish Content and
Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) provision perfectly reflects what is
happening in the kaleidoscopic European language learning landscape. Even
though English is the most widely used language in this type of programme, =
in
the course of more than two decades of implementation, CLIL has adapted to =
the
diverse and ecological language policy of the European Union through dispar=
ate
models in the different regions. Despite the differences among the various
contexts, CLIL implementation has morphed into the design of language polic=
ies
at school level (San Isidro & Lasagabaster,
2019), and these language policies are inextricably connected to teacher
qualification, training and collaboration, along with curriculum integratio=
n.
CLIL schools have thus become cross-curricular language ecosystems involving
all the languages of instruction.
In th=
is
article we offer a theoretical discussion of the state of the art on CLIL as
far as planning and implementation are concerned. We first provide a general
overview of the Spanish challenges towards multilingualism. In the second p=
art,
we address and discuss in detail the key points in the articulation of a CL=
IL
ecosystem: the role of language itself as an articulator, and the
teachers’ profiles and their roles in designing a ‘language
aware’ project based on curriculum integration (Otto, 2017b).
Keywords:
CLIL, bi/multilingual education, curriculum integration, language learning,
teacher training
RESUMEN
La regulación de AICLE refleja
perfectamente lo que está ocurriendo en el panorama caleidoscó=
;pico
del aprendizaje de idiomas en Europa. Aunque el inglés es el idioma
más utilizado en este tipo de programas, en el transcurso de m&aacut=
e;s
de dos décadas de implementación, AICLE se ha adaptado a la
política lingüística diversa y ecológica de la
Unión Europea a través de modelos dispares en las diferentes
regiones. A pesar de las diferencias entre los distintos
contextos, la implementación de AICLE se ha transformado en el
diseño de políticas lingüísticas a nivel escolar =
(San
Isidro y Lasagabaster, 2019), y estas políticas lingüíst=
icas
están inextricablemente relacionadas con la cualificación, la
formación y la colaboración de los profesores, así como
con la integración curricular de los planes de estudio. Los centros
educativos que implementan AICLE se han convertido así en ecosistemas
lingüísticos interdisciplinarios en los que se tienen en cuenta
todas las lenguas de instrucción.
En este artículo ofrecemos una discusión teóri=
ca
sobre el estado del arte de AICLE en lo que se refiere a la
planificación y la implementación. En primer lugar, ofrecemos=
una
visión general de los retos de España con respecto al
multilingüismo. En la segunda parte, abordamos y discutimos en detalle=
los
puntos clave en la articulación de un ecosistema AICLE: el papel del
lenguaje en sí mismo como articulador, y los perfiles de los profeso=
res
y su papel en el diseño de un proyecto "consciente de la
lengua" basado en la integración curricular (Otto, 2017b).
Palabras clave: AICLE, educación bilingüe/multiling&uum=
l;e,
integración curricular, aprendizaje de idiomas, formación de
profesores.
1. INTRODUCTION: SPANISH CHALLENGES TOWARDS MULTILINGUALISM
Spanish is the offici=
al
language of the country, but the issue of language policy is an important o=
ne
in Spain by virtue of the recognition of other languages as co-official bot=
h in
the Constitution of 1978 and in the regional statutes of 6 communities:
Catalonia, the Basque Country, Galicia, the Balearic Islands, Valencia and
Navarre. In these regions, the local language and Spanish coexist as offici=
al
languages and a system of bilingual education operates. This recognition is=
the
keystone of Spanish linguistic and cultural diversity. In the last couple of
decades, Spain has been facing the challenge of combining this
preservation-focused language policy —aimed at the use and the
standardisation of minority languages— with the new needs related to
multilingualism (CLIL) (San Isidro & Lasagabaster<=
/span>,
2019).
As regards CLIL in Sp=
ain,
it started being implemented by the end of the 1990s with no national provi=
sion
and through different directives in both the monolingual and bilingual regi=
ons.
Its exponential growth and the massive uptake on the part of schools and
students has made Spain become one of the leading countries in both CLIL
implementation and practice given the growing relevance that learning forei=
gn
languages has in a globalised society (Coyle, 2010). CLIL has become one of=
the
cornerstones to both support multilingualism and enhance the learning of
foreign languages. Nonetheless, the overall picture is quite varied as each
region can regulate and design (Guillamón-Suest=
a
& Renau, 2015) its own provision based on i=
ts
needs and interests, provided that it complies with the requirements in the
legal framework set by the state educational law (Lasa=
gabaster
& Ruiz de Zarobe, 2010).
One of the earliest
undertakings to introduce CLIL in Spain was the creation of the Bilingual a=
nd
Bicultural Project by the Spanish Ministry of Education and Science together
with the British Council back in 1996, which was based on an integrated Eng=
lish
and Spanish curriculum (Coba Arango, 2010). It
started in Madrid, but it was later extended to other regions. This pilot
experience was considered to be the starting poi=
nt
and, possibly, the triggering effect for independent CLIL programmes in the
different Spanish regions. At the moment it co-e=
xists
with the CLIL programmes of the different education departments in
non-bilingual communities.
As regards regions wi=
th
two co-official languages, Catalonia can be considered as one of the pionee=
ring
regions to implement CLIL in public schools throughout the Orator Project
and the Foreign Language Experimental Plan, which took place between
1999-2008 (Navés & Victori,
2010). In Catalonia, Catalan is the main language of instruction and Englis=
h is
taught as the main foreign language in mainstream education, with the recent
introduction of CLIL programmes in some schools (Roque=
t
& Pérez-Vidal, 2015).
The Basque Country has
also made huge efforts in order to combine Engli=
sh,
Basque and Spanish in schools. According to Lasagabast=
er
and Ruiz de Zarobe (2010), the provision approv=
ed by
the Basque government to encourage multilingualism towards CLIL can be summ=
arised
into the following projects: Early Start to English, INEBI (English through
Content in Primary Education), BHINEBI (English through Content in Secondary
Education) and the Plurilingual Experience for Secondary Education and
Baccalaureate. The most distinctive characteristic of its large-scale
implementation is that it pursues enhancing multilingualism in a bilingual
community as well as promoting the learning and use of the minority languag=
e.
In the Basque Country two different modalities of CLIL are followed at pres=
ent.
In one of them English is taught by English language teachers through
content-based units related to curricular areas (Social Sciences, Physical
Education, or Maths). The second modality involves teaching content subject=
s in
English (History, Natural Sciences, or Computer Science).
The region of Navarre,
which is located near the Basque Country and presents some Basque-speaking
areas, has also undertaken some CLIL pilot projects (N=
avés
& Muñoz, 1999; Heras & Lasagabaster,
2015).
The Balearic Islands
first mentioned the possibility of teaching parts of the curriculum in prim=
ary
and secondary education through a foreign language in 2002 (Conselleria
d’Educació i<=
/span> Cultura ,2002a, 2002b). Regulations were developed to=
unify
the previous provision and promote a widespread implementation of CLIL
programmes (named European Sections in the Islands) in all stages of public
education (Pérez-Vidal & Juan-Garau,
2010).
In Galicia, the
regulation of the use of Galician in the curriculum was taking place at the
same time as CLIL was gradually embraced and regulated by the end of the 19=
90s.
However, there seemed to be a clash of interests: protection of Galician ve=
rsus
the introduction of foreign languages as vehicles for learning other subjec=
ts.
This dual focus in language policy led the Galician Educational Department =
to
publish, in June 2010, a decree on Plurilingualism —Decree 79/2010 (<=
span
class=3DSpellE>Xunta de Galicia, 2010)—. This officially broug=
ht the
use of foreign language as vehicular into public education, setting out that
one third of subjects must be taught in a foreign language —mainly
English— with the two remaining thirds taught in Galician and Spanish=
.
The Valencian Communi=
ty
also presents a bilingual background in which both Spanish and Valencian ar=
e co-official.
Support for CLIL has witnessed a dramatic increase in the last few years (<=
span
class=3DSpellE>Navés & Muñoz, 1999; Pérez-V=
idal,
2002). After
the first Decree 127/2012 (Conselle=
ria d’Educació, Cultura<=
/span> i Esport, 2012), which paved the way to subsequent teacher t=
raining
regulations, a new Decree on Plurilingualism has recen=
tly
been published (Generalitat Valenciana,
2018) with a view to developing a trilingual language policy.=
With regard to monolingual regions, the characteristics =
of
CLIL implementation vary in the different communities as provision and fund=
ing
are different in all of them. An interesting case is Madrid, which set up i=
ts
programme in 2004, as separate from the previous Bilingual and Bicultural
Project with the British Council.
A different scenario =
is
that of Andalusia and its Plan de Fomento de=
l Plurilingüismo (2005). Its origin can be tra=
ced
back to 1998 when bilingual experiences began, first with French and then w=
ith
German. In the so-called bilingual and plurilingual schools, the languages =
used
for CLIL are now English, Italian and Portuguese=
, in
addition to French and German. The Plan de Fomento<=
/span>
del Plurilingüismo also mandates an ea=
rly
start of the first foreign language in pre-school and the introduction of a
second foreign language in 5th grade (Lorenzo, Casal
& Moore, 2010).
Spanish CLIL provisio=
n is
a faithful reflection of what is happening in the kaleidoscopic European
language learning landscape. In the course of mo=
re
than two decades of implementation, CLIL has adapted to the diverse and eco=
logical
language policy of the European Union through various models in the differe=
nt
regions. According to San Isidro & Lasagabaster
(2019), despite the differences among the contexts, CLIL implementation has
morphed into the design of language policies at school level. These language
policies are inextricably connected to teacher qualification, training and collaboration, along with curriculum
integration. CLIL schools have thus become cross-curricular language ecosys=
tems
involving all the languages of instruction.
=
= 2. &= nbsp; THE ARTICULATION OF A CLIL ECOSYSTEM
The key principle of CLIL as an integrated
pedagogic approach is straightforward – both the content and the lang=
uage
have to be explicitly taught together and learne=
d in
an interrelated way, which leads to deeper learning for all learners.
Nevertheless, how this is done depends on a myriad of variables which are <=
span
class=3DGramE>context-specific. CLIL is about developing pedagogies
relevant for different contexts which provide rich learning contexts and fo=
cus
on enabling the conceptual development and linguistic progression of all
learners – regardless of their ability or age. According to Coyle,
CLIL approaches have the flexibility and
adaptability to make a difference to the quality of learning but only on
condition that the principles upon which the pedagogies are developed are m=
ade
clear and satisfy the cognitive and cultural demands of deeper learning as =
well
as the linguistic and knowledge/skills base of schooling and the world beyo=
nd.
(Coyle, as interviewed by San Isidro & Julián, 2018),
A recent report by the European Commission (2018) advocates that sch=
ools
need to be ‘language aware’. It is through such guidance for
language policy makers that CLIL practitioners and educators can operate
successfully. Language as a cognitive learning instrument as well as a pluriliteracy-development communication tool has beco=
me a
hot topic in the research literature (Morton, 2018; Coyle, 2015; Meyer et a=
l.,
2015). Linking learning to literacy development has influenced the ways of
reconceptualising CLIL scenarios or ecosystems and the ways learners
access, practise and develop their linguistic skills. There is a need to fo=
cus
on designing the learning environment (San Isidro & Lasagabaster,
forthcoming) so that the language relates transparently to the conceptual
development required for learning subject matter. The key points that make
language the articulator in the design of this type of learning environment
are: profiling teachers in terms of qualification and training needs; the
consideration of all teachers as language teachers; curriculum integration,
teachers’ collaboration and the delineation of teachers’ roles;=
and
making language salient.
=
2.1. Profiling teachers: qualification and
training needs
In some regions such =
as
Madrid, teachers are expected to obtain the Linguistic Capability Certifica=
tion
or "habilitación lingüística"
to teach subject areas through a foreign language, in the case of primary
teachers, and an advanced level of English or "Advanced English
Curriculum" (or an equivalent certificate in other foreign languages),=
in
the case of secondary ones. These certificates measure teachers’
linguistic skills as part of the competences they need to teach content thr=
ough
a vehicular language. Other regions require specific training in CLIL-relat=
ed
methodology (e.g. Catalonia, La Rioja, Castille=
and
Leon, Valencia, Murcia, the Canary Islands and Extremadura) (Eurydice, 2017=
, p.
92).
The lack of specific
linguistic training was a common concern in some regions after the initial
stages of programme implementation. However, once teachers were gradually
proving thorough knowledge of the target language, specific training on CLIL
steadily increased (Fernández & Halbach, 2011).
=
2.2. Every teacher is a language teacher
Appreciation of language-related issues on=
the
part of the teachers or the so-called Teacher Language Awareness (TLA) is
described as a deep insight into how the language works, how to use it, and=
how
to show a high level of proficiency (Edge, 1998, p. 10). It refers to the
knowledge that teachers have of the underlying systems of the language that
enables them to teach effectively (Thornbury, 1997; Andrews, 2007), namely =
the
knowledge about the language demands of the curriculum and the students
(Gibbons, 2002; Glegg, 2007). This knowledge im=
plies
empathy for the students’ difficulties in acquiring and learning a
vehicular language (Andrews, 2003), and understanding the support students =
need
in order to accomplish subject tasks through a s=
econd
language (Clegg, 2007). The language demands of the curriculum are dependen=
t on
the specific subject and register and engage teachers in several processes.=
The
first of them will be the analysis of textbooks and other teaching material=
s in order to identify aspects such as the spoken langua=
ge
demands and the types of texts students will require to read and/or listen =
to.
This close analysis of materials is also necessary to consider the written =
text
types and their schematic structure, the most significant grammatical aspec=
ts
e.g. the use of tense that the topic demands, and the appropriate
content-obligatory and content-compatible lexis for the subject matter (Gib=
bons,
2002, p. 22), before these aspects can be made visible for students.
As for the focus on students’
difficulties, since the CLIL approach does not necessarily require students=
to
have reached a specific level in the vehicular language, teachers must also=
be
attentive to students’ language needs. Thus, teachers can identify wh=
at
might be challenging for them beforehand, and plan accordingly in collabora=
tion
with the language teacher. This emphasis on language pedagogies typical of
foreign language instruction is, in fact, beneficial in CLIL contexts for a
variety of reasons. On the one hand, because the specific focus on form thr=
ough
an overt focus on language (Pérez Vidal, 2007) might help students at
the upper levels in the acquisition of the foreign language as opposed to
second/foreign language acquisition in young learners who still seem to lack
the abilities to contrast the vehicular language and their mother tongue. On
the other hand, because if teachers are not aware of language in CLIL, stud=
ents’
errors could be overlooked with the subsequent lack of accuracy over fluenc=
y in
the foreign language that some immersion programmes in Canada were criticiz=
ed
for (Lyster, 2007). Finally, by paying attentio=
n to
language issues, it is easier to identify language objectives in multilingu=
al
education, align them with content ones, and thus, teachers can contribute =
to
an integrated cross-curricular approach as will be discussed below.
=
2.3.
Curriculum Integration and Teachers’ Roles in CLIL Contexts
The following are desired changes to be
implemented for successful integration of content, lang=
uage
and skills according to Lorenzo, Trujillo & Vez
(2011). First, in relation to term and concept unification, the incorporati=
on
of linguistic concepts into other curricular subjects requires sharing these
linguistic terms, which need to be added into each subject. Contrary to wha=
t is
commonly thought, and as will be explained in detail when we refer to the r=
ole
of content teachers, this does not entail that the content specialist teach=
es
grammatical concepts. Instead, integration should include higher levels in =
the
linguistic system such as those related to social and discourse functions i=
.e.
working with argumentative texts in history or being able to design a
scientific poster in biology to promote higher literacy levels in students.
Secondly, in order to help students advance in their language skills, it is
also highly recommended to add some flexibility in schedules in order to
organize groups of students taking into account linguistic levels, and thus
make the most of students’ participation and interaction in class. Th=
ird,
as for term and concept integration, the integrated syllabus should be desi=
gned
in such a way that linguistic goals and objectives are incorporated into the
content subjects without content-related goals being compromised. In this
sense, integration is considered not as an end in itsel=
f, but
as a medium to achieve general and specific goals so that non-linguistic and
linguistic competences are aligned. Finally, regarding assessment, it is
necessary to point out that changes in assessment practice derive from the =
changes
observed so far. In fact, successful assessment results from the
teachers’ awareness of the elements they take into
account: only content-related issues or also language, and to what
extent incomplete mastery of the foreign language can interfere with
subject-related meaning-making. Likewise, when assessing language component=
s in
CLIL subjects, teachers need to know if their assessment criteria conform to
the principles of second language acquisition and use so that the language =
is
graded in a fair way, i.e. if language mastery is considered incomplete and
subject to change as opposed to native-like proficiency (Lorenzo, Trujillo
& Vez, 2011, p. 164).
2.3.1. Teachers’ collaboration
Teacher cooperation can lead to the
development of more effective responses regarding students’ meaning-making (San Isidro, 2018) =
More
specifically, in CLIL provision, cooperation is vital as it helps create
communities of learners in the ecosystem of the bilingual school (Lorenzo,
Trujillo & Vez, 2011), and integrate conten=
t and
language-related issues in an efficient manner (Bertau=
x,
Coonan, Frigols & Mehi=
sto,
2010; Marsh et al., 2010; Pavón & El=
lison,
2013; Pavó=
n Vázquez & Méndez García, 2017).
In this context of collaboration, the joint efforts of content teachers and
language teachers do not only become essential insofar as they contribute to
the efficient integration of the vehicular language and content, but also to
help to construct knowledge holistically.&=
nbsp;
However, it is interesting to point out the fact that content teache=
rs
—especially those who have not received specific training in language
pedagogies (Muñoz-Luna, 2013; Olivares & Pena, 2013)— comm=
only
complain about the lack of time for dealing with both content and language
focus in the class (Bigelow, 2010, p. 37). These complaints might be due, on
the one hand, to the teachers’ limited perception of their role since
they tend to think that, as content specialists, they should not be made
responsible for language-related learning. On the other hand, it might also
respond to common misconceptions about CLIL pedagogies and the role of
vehicular languages assuming that CLIL subjects are taught
As Coyle, Holmes & King (2009) point o=
ut,
the swiftest solution in order to overcome langu=
age
restrictions on the part of content teachers is usually to work in
collaboration with a language specialist. CLIL teachers are unlikely to wor=
k on
their own but rather through teamwork, sharing responsibilities for teaching
and learning across subjects, and developing a broader perspective on
curriculum design (Coyle, Holmes & King, 2009, p. 17). However, this is=
not
always a frequent practice, mostly due to the dual profile of teachers, in
secondary schools, teachers do not always benefit from joint planning (OECD,
2014).
Ideally, in a CLIL programme there should =
be
language specialists together with teaching assistants or language assistan=
ts
working in collaboration with subject specialists as they can exchange subj=
ect
knowledge and broaden their skills and understanding across different areas=
. As
pointed out before, CLIL teams are commonly successful when there is a comm=
on
vision of shared goals across subject disciplines. Furthermore, content
teachers also benefit from the contact with language teachers who are more =
open
to the communicative approach to language teaching and thus, do not consider
themselves as mere transmitters of knowledge about language but as embracing
more flexible roles as communicators, organizers and facilitators of knowle=
dge
(Baker, Lewis & Jones, 2013, p. 12).&n=
bsp;
Still, some CLIL practitioners seem to be
insecure about how to organize their CLIL sessions and more specifically as=
to
whether they should give over responsibility for her/his subject(s) to the
language teachers. In fact, collaboration between language teachers and sub=
ject
teachers does not imply that language teachers are subordinated to the cont=
ent
areas and that imbalance is found regarding curriculum authority and import=
ance
(Davison, 2006, p. 456). Instead, this collaboration aims to balance the
development and support of language learning and the development and suppor=
t of
content learning (Coyle, Holmes & King, 2009).
But how is this collaboration made effecti=
ve
in daily practice? The underlying conceptual framework is thus, that of
collaboration where subject area specialists and language specialists work
together to design the course. Collaborative groups between members of the =
same
didactic department are also a good option in that they function as an
ecosystem for the creation of class material and other teaching resources.
Besides, they can also help fellow teachers analyse learners’ needs,
develop efficient task-sharing and support colleagues in using innovative
methodologies (Bertaux et al. 2010, p. 8).
2.3.2. The role of language teachers
Content and language teachers in Spain come from a variety of profil=
es.
On the one hand, language teachers can be certified to teach other
non-linguistic subjects or have a double degree, which is quite common in s=
ome
European countries such as Belgium and Sweden (European Commission, 2012, p.
88). On the other hand, as explained above, content teachers can obtain som=
e =
language certification allowing them to teach subjects through a
vehicular language. For pract=
ical
purposes, regarding the nature and purpose of the study, language teachers =
will
be referred here as those specialists in language subjects regardless
of the fact that they might also be specialized in other non-language
subjects. Consequently, language teachers are responsible for the subject t=
hey
teach, i.e. the foreign langu=
age
As regards the correct integration of cont=
ent,
language and skills in bilingual education, the following are necessary act=
ions
to accomplish by language teachers when they work in multilingual contexts.=
The
language teacher is the one who must assume the responsibility for language,
following the content teacher’s observation about linguistic needs and
deficiencies that need to be corrected, and identifying language demands in
content areas so that students are able to understand and learn academic co=
ntent
(Davison, 2006, p. 462; Pavón & Elli=
son,
2013, p. 68). To do so, language teachers can help to establish clear-language focus, and analyse language demands for
content areas. Secondly, their starting point should be the students' L1 and
hence collaboration with L1 teachers will be instrumental in structuring the
CLIL learning ecosystem. This is related to the=
fact
that CLIL feeds on L1 (single or multiple) teaching, i=
.e
in a CLIL multilingual scenario, language interdependence between the diffe=
rent
languages is considered when designing curricula and lessons (San Isidro &a=
mp; Lasagabaster, forthcoming). Through this approach, in=
their
CLIL and language lessons, students tend to appreciate much more keenly the
role of language and content in both understanding a range if
topics, and expressing themselves intelligently =
in an
additional language. And consequently, the things they can achieve through =
an
additional language become inextricably intertwined with what they can do in
L1. =
Third,
they can help content teachers to p=
lan
instruction, and contribute to reporting on students’ foreign language
development by analysing and considering aspects such as students’ pr=
ior
language level in relation with the CEFR, and students’ language
challenges and difficulties. Fourth, language teachers can help by collecti=
ng
useful materials and strategies for class support, foster cross-curricular
language awareness in students, and help content teachers to use foreign
language learning strategies (Davison, ibid: 462). Finally, in relation to
assessment, language teachers will assess language in their subject whereas
content teachers must focus on content by offering students a range of vari=
ed
assessment tools so that they can show their acquisition of knowledge witho=
ut
their marks being biased by a higher or lower language proficiency.
As explained in the previous section,
teachers’ linguistic level can vary depending on the country and regi=
on.
For instance, in some Autonomous Communities like Andalusia in Spain, conte=
nt
teachers only need to certify a B2 level to access teaching in CLIL educati=
on
contexts. Besides, content teachers’ requirements do not necessarily
entail prior training in the CLIL approach or language pedagogies (Eurydice,
2017), especially in some contexts where secondary teachers are subject
teachers who certified the required language level to teach CLIL subjects.
Consequently, as content specialists, content teachers focus mostly on cont=
ent
objectives rather than linguistic ones, and they might not feel responsible=
for
the latter, a fact that makes a deep impact on some educational stages:
One of the challenges of CLIL education at the secondary level, in c=
ontrast
to primary education, concerns teacher profiles. While teachers in primary
education have a dual profile (content and language) most teachers in secon=
dary
are content experts with certified knowledge of the target language. Theref=
ore,
some of the greatest efforts from the administration are focused on both
ensuring teacher competence in the foreign language as well as raising their
awareness of the specific language demands and characteristics of the diffe=
rent
subject disciplines. (Llinares &
Regardless of their training, for CLIL to be effective some actions =
need
to be taken on the part of content teachers. In general, following the
recommendations from the CLIL Teachers’ Competence Grid (2010), the content teacher should be able to take the following
actions: To start with, adapt the course syllabus in order to include conte=
nt,
language and learning skills outcomes. Secondly, integrate the language and
content area curriculum so that content is supported by language-related go=
als
and vice versa. Then, guide students in the processing of both BICS and
academic language (CALP), and select the language needed to provide rich in=
put,
and to ensure students’ learning in both content and language. Finall=
y,
for learning to be meaningful, content teachers need to help students devel=
op
meta-cognitive awareness, and therefore, deepen their understanding of cont=
ent
subjects (Bertaux et al., 2010, p. 4).
Besides, by concentrating on the CLIL
language, the content teacher becomes a language user and language promoter
(Coonan, 2013), incorporating a procedural (‘knowing that’) and
declarative (‘knowing how’) dimension of language in subject ma=
tter
knowledge (Andrews, 2007: 31). In becoming fully aware of language processe=
s in
CLIL, content teachers should engage in several actions apart from taking
responsibility for students’ content and language knowledge and skills
development. First, they need to consider their own level of language aware=
ness
in the subject(s) they teach (Davison, 2006, Marsh, Marshland, Stenberg, 20=
01)
as well as revise their language proficiency regularly. These language
abilities relate to the competence to master sufficient target language
knowledge and pragmatic skills of the vehicular language. Second, the CLIL
teacher needs to master some linguistic principles or what s/he terms as
“theory”, i.e. the comprehension of the differences and
similarities between the concepts of language learning and language acquisi=
tion
so that s/he can deal with language-related issues effectively (Marsh et al.
2001, p. 78-80). In this sense, it is also relevant to establish clear lear=
ning
goals so that language is visible for students. These learning goals can be
presented in the form of vocabulary, the four language skills, grammatical =
structures,
functions of language and learning strategies so that learners are able to
acquire them in a successful way (Baecher, Funsworth & Ediger, 2=
014, p.
118). Third, the content teacher should be prepared to deal with learning
strategies adapted to both content and language issues in the classroom. Th=
is
knowledge of foreign language methodology and pedagogy is usually what teac=
hers
lack, and what leads them to focus on content-related objectives and forget
about the foreign language (Arkoudis, 2006). Un=
der
this category of foreign language pedagogy, we consider, on the one hand, t=
he
ability to notice linguistic difficulties, recognize students’
interlanguage, and be able to use communicative and interactive methods
facilitating the understanding of meaning or subject knowledge. Among these
methods, we find repetition and echoing for correction and modelling good
language usage, and use dual-focused activities, which can cater for both
language and subject aspects (Marsh, 2007). Furthermore, regarding the lear=
ning
environment, as Marsh et al. point out (2001) the content teacher should al=
so
be willing and capable to work with learners of diverse linguistic/cultural
backgrounds. Last but not least, the content tea=
cher
must also be responsible for the creation and development of materials suit=
ing
the students’ needs and the CLIL purpose, and for assessment issues (=
Bertaux et al., 2010).
In terms of assessment, content teachers n=
eed
to be able to develop and implement formative assessment tools appropriate =
for the
CLIL scenario, including the following: (i) make
connections between planned outcomes, learning skills and processes, actual
outcomes, planning and negotiating strategies for future learning; (ii) use
self and peer-assessment tools as recommended by formative assessment or
Assessment for Learning (AfL); (iii) maintain a
triple focus on language, content and learning skills, and use CLIL-specific
characteristics of assessment which allow students to demonstrate their abi=
lity
in terms of concepts and skills rather than catch them out on the things th=
ey
are not able to do (Bertaux et al., 2010, p. 8)=
and
(iv) prepare students for formal examinations. As is recommended by the same
authors, these specific features include the following: First, to use the l=
anguage
for various purposes. Second, to work with authentic materials, and regular
communication with speakers of the CLIL language in ord=
er to
promote ongoing language growth, and some level of comfort in experimenting
with language and content. Finally, to
prevent the invisibility of language, and thus advance on real integratio
2.3.4. Making language salient in the content class
When articulating a CLIL ecosystem, it is =
also
fundamental to focus on the strategies at the teachers’ disposal to m=
ake
language visible in content subjects. The language in CLIL has
to be highlighted and not simply taken for granted as something stud=
ents
will simply “catch up by osmosis” (Llinare=
s,
Morton & Whittaker, 2012, p. 14). This focus on language is especially
relevant since students’ foreign language might be insufficient in order to express content knowledge and skills in CL=
IL
subjects as compared to proficiency in their mother tongue or students̵=
7;
language proficiency in immersion contexts. Thus, in introducing the langua=
ge
in CLIL, teachers need to bear in mind that student learning progression in
bilingual education requires more time than the mere acquisition of BICS in=
L2
learning (Hulstijn, 2015; Cummins, 1981). Besid=
es,
apart from the content vocabulary, academic language has special features,
which deserve closer attention: It is more precise than BICS, it avoids sla=
ng,
and has its own style and tone.
But how can this lang=
uage
visibility be done in practice? To start with, language objectives in a les=
son
or didactic unit must be made visible and explicit by teachers as referring=
to
both the language demands of the curriculum and those of the students (Gibb=
ons,
2002) as was pointed out in the previous section. To do so, the teachers
themselves need, on the one hand, to consider language as an essential step=
in
the planning of the lesson, and raise awareness on the language that studen=
ts
will need by taking into account that language functions vary from one regi=
ster
to another. On the other hand, they should reflect on the level of illitera=
cy
that students show in the foreign language and plan accordingly. The biggest
challenge, however, is to make teachers aware of the importance of language=
and
literacy in their subject (Morton, 2016) so that the curriculum is not as
demanding for them to devote some time and effort to deal with language iss=
ues
(Airey, 2013). It might also be the case that teachers find it difficult to
identify language objectives (Llinares &
Whittaker, 2006, p. 28) for a variety of reasons. First, maybe because cont=
ent
teachers often confuse language objectives with language activities and thu=
s,
need to work further on the first, and to consider how specific they wish t=
hem
to be (Baecher, Funsworth<=
/span>
& Ediger, 2014, p. 131). Introducing langua=
ge
objectives in the form of functions, grammatical structures, micro-skills,
specific vocabulary and the associated learning
strategies in the CLIL class results in a new form of language interaction =
or
discourse. It presents distinguishing features compared to other forms of
discourse in Second Language Acquisition, and, consequently, it requires
several strategies by content teachers, such as the conversion of an ideati=
onal
text into a didactic one to name just a few (Flowerdew & Peacock, 2001).
Second, these language objectives might be blurred because there are few ea=
sily
available frameworks for the integration of content and language (Morton,
2016). Finally, it might happen, as stressed above, that content teachers do
not see themselves as language teachers and therefore, they do not consider
they should be made responsible for language-related aspects and deal with
students’ use of the language (Airey, 2012). In fact, some of them al=
so
point out that they feel they might not be prepared to deal with language in
content lessons as they can make occasional mistakes themselves.
As content teachers are not often trained =
on
how to raise awareness of language in academic subjects and identify langua=
ge
levels and support language in CLIL, Chadwick (2012) suggests to consider t=
he
following questions when dealing with language challenges in relation to
content vocabulary, functional language and language skills:
CONTENT VOCABULARY:
•What content vocabulary will my
students need for the tasks in my lessons?
•How will I help my students with th=
is
vocabulary?
FUNCTIONAL LANGUAGE
•What are my students actually
doing? What are the cognitive processes and creative thinking skills
that they are using? What is the functional language which goes with these
skills?
•How will I help my students with th=
is
language?
LANGUAGE SKILLS
•What language skills are the studen=
ts
using? Do I want them to read, write, speak and/=
or
listen?
•How will this affect the support I
provide?
Table 1. Raising awareness on CLIL languag=
e
(From Chadwick, 2012, p. 4)
Besides, apart from raising awareness on t=
he
CLIL language, a profound analysis of the genres in CLIL can help content
teachers adapt the tasks accordingly, and design=
a
linguistic inventory for their subjects. This will enable teachers to go be=
yond
academic vocabulary for each topic, and provide additional information on t=
he
grammatical and discursive features from the activities and genres that
students need to master in the foreign language to produce good oral and
written texts (Llinares & Whittaker, 2006, =
p.
28-29).
Like texts, the types=
of
tasks vary depending on the subject. In science, for example, learners need=
to
know to hypothesize, observe experiments, and describe different procedures=
. In
history and geography, learners read source materials, recounts, reports and case studies, and produce written and oral=
texts
highlighting causes and effects, to name just a few. In art and music, lear=
ners
read and write descriptions and explanations. Thus, regardless of the diffe=
rent
genres and academic disciplines, by working with different, texts and the t=
asks
associated with them, content teachers can prepare students for meaningful
learning in CLIL.
=
3. CONCLUSIONS
As a final conclusion, we would like to
highlight that teachers’ collaboration is the sine qua non in the articulation of a CLIL ecosystem. Language as an articulator=
as
well as teachers’ profiles and roles play the leading part in this
ecosystem, which is the first step to design a school-level language policy=
.
REFERENCES
Airey, J 2012, ‘I don’t teach
language’. The linguistic attitudes of physics lecturers in Sweden. In
AILA Review. Integrating Content and Language in Higher Education, vol. 25,=
pp.
64-79.
Alejo, R. & Piquer,
A. (2010). CLIL teacher training in Extremadura: A needs analysis perspecti=
ve.
In Lasagabaster & Ruiz de Zarobe
(eds.), CLIL in Spain: Implementation, Results and Teacher Training.
Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 219-42.
Andrews, S. (2003). Teacher language awareness and the professional
knowledge base of the L2 teacher. In Language Awareness, 12, pp. 81-=
95.
DOI: 10.1080/09658410308667068
Andrews, S. (2007). Teacher language awareness. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Arkoudis, J. (2006). Teach=
ing
International Students: Strategies to Enhance Learning. Victoria Centre=
for
Study of Higher Education, The University of Melbourne.
Assessment Reform Group, The (2002). Assessment for Learning: Bey=
ond
the Black Box. Retrieved from http://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/
=
sites/default/files/files/beyond_blackbox.pdf
Baecher, L. Funsworth,
T. & Ediger, A. (2014). The Challenges of
Planning Language Objectives in Content-Based ESL Instruction. In Langua=
ge
Teaching Research 2014, vol. 18 (I), pp. 118-136.
Baker, C., Lewis, G. & Jones, B. (2013). 100 Bilingual Lessons:
Distributing Two Languages in Classrooms. In R. C. Abe=
lló-Contesse
et al (eds.), Bilingual and Multilingual Education in the Twenty-First
Century: Building on Experience. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Bertaux, P., Coonan, C.M., <= span class=3DSpellE>Frigols, M.J., Mehisto, P. (2010). The CLIL Teacher’s &= nbsp; Competence Grid. Retrieved from http://lendtr= ento.eu/convegno/files/mehisto.pdf
Bigelow, M. (2010). L=
earning
to plan for a focus on form in CBI: The role of teacher knowledge and teach=
ing
context. In J. Davis (ed.), World language teacher education: Transitions a=
nd
challenges in the twenty-first century (pp. 35-56). Greenwich, UK: Informat=
ion
Age Publishing.
Chadwick, T. (2012). Language Awareness in
Teaching: A Toolkit for Content and Language Teachers.
Clegg, J. (2007). Analysing the language demands of lessons taught i=
n a
second language. In Revista española de lingü&ia=
cute;stica
aplicada, vol. extra 1, pp-113-128. Retriev=
ed
from http://ateneu=
.xtec.cat/wikiform/wikiexport/_media/cmd/lle/clsi/modul_2/dialnetanalysingt=
helanguagedemandsoflessonstaughtinasecon-2575499.pdf
Coba Arango, E. (2010). Foreword. In A. Dobson, M. Pérez Murillo
& R. Johnstone (Eds.), Bilingual education project Spain. Evaluat=
ion
report 5. Madrid: Ministerio
de Educación, Subdi=
rección
General de Documentación y Publicaciones.
Conselleria d’Educació i
Cultura. (2002a). Decret 119/2002 de 27 setembre. Butlletí O=
ficial
de les Illes Balears 120,
17281-17295.
Conselleria d’Educació i
Cultura. (2002b). Decret 120/2002 de 27 setembre. Butlletí Of=
icial
de les Illes Balears 120,
17295-17313.
Conselleria d’Educació, Cultura
i Esport (2012).
Coonan, C.M. (2013). The role of CLIL teachers. Paper present=
ed
at CLO CLIL 2, Bari. Retrieved from =
https://www.y=
outube.com/watch?v=3DdoN8oLApaSU
Coyle, D. (2010). Foreword. In D. Lasagabaster & Y. Ruiz de
Coyle, D. (2015). Strengthening
integrated learning: Towards a new era for plurilitera=
cies
and intercultural learning. Latin American Journal of Content and Language
Integrated Learning, 8(2), 84-103. Retrieved from https://laclil.unisabana.edu.co/index.php/LACLIL/
article/view/5915/pdf
Coyle, D., Holmes, B. & King, L. (2009). Towards and Integrat=
ed Curriculum.
CLIL National Statements and Guidelines. London, UK: The Languages Company.
Retrieved from http://www.ra=
chelhawkes.com/PandT/CLIL/CLILnationalstatementandguidelines.pdf
Cummins, J. (1981). Language Development and Academic Learning. <=
/i>In
L. Malave & G. Duquette, Language, Culture and Cognition. Bristo=
l,
UK: Multilingual Matters.
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2007). Discourse in Content and Language Integrat=
ed
Learning (CLIL) Classrooms. In Applied Linguistics, Volume 31, Issue=
3,
1 July 2010, pp. 475–478.
Davison, C. M. (2006). Collaboration Between ESL and Content Teacher=
s:
How Do We Know When We Are Doing It Right? In International Journal of <=
span
style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'> =
Bilingual
Education and Bilingualism, v. 9 n. 4, pp. 454-475. DOI 10.2167/beb339.=
0
Drake, S. & Burns, R. (2004)
European Commission (2006). The European Lifelong
Learning Programme 2007-2013. Retrieved from
European Commission (2009). Strategic framework -
Education & Training 2020. Retrieved from
European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice. (2012). Developing Key
Competences at School in Europe: Challenges and Opportunities for Policy.
Eurydice Report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.=
European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice. (2017). Key Data on Teaching
Languages at School in Europe – 2017 Edition. Eurydice Report<=
/i>.
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
European Commission (2018). Proposal for a Council Recommendation on=
a
comprehensive approach to the teaching and learning of languages. Retrieved
from http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/
=
document/ST-9229-2018-ADD-2/en/pdf
Fernández, R. & Halbach, A. (2011). Analysing the Situati=
on
of Teachers in the =
Madrid
Bilingual Project after Four Years of Implementation. In Y. Ruiz de Zarobe, J. Manuel Sierra a=
nd F.
Gallardo del Puerto (eds.), Content and Foreign Language Integrated
Learning. Contributions to Multilingualism in European Contexts, pp. 41=
-70.
Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang.
Flowerdew, J. & Peacock, M. (2001). Issues in E. A. P.: A
Preliminary Perspective. In Flowerdew & Peacock, (Eds.), Research Pe=
rspectives
on English for Academic Purposes. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Generalitat Valenciana (2018). LLEI 4/2018, de 21 d=
e febrer, de la Generalitat=
, per la
qual es regula i
Gibbons, P. (2002). Scaffolding Language, Scaffolding Learning:
Teaching Second Language Learners in the Mainstream Classroom. New Hampshire, USA: Heinemann.=
Guillamón-Suesta, F., & Renau, M.L. (2015). A critic=
al
vision of the CLIL approach in secondary education: A study in the Valencian
Community in Spain. Latin American Journal of Content and Lang=
uage
Integrated Learning 8(1), 1-12.
Halbach, A. (2010). From the Classroom to University and Back: Teach=
er
Training for CLIL in Spain at the University de Alcal&=
aacute;.
In Lasagabaster & Ruiz de Zarobe
(eds.), CLIL in Spain: Implementation, Results and Teacher Training. Newcastle upon
Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 243- 256.
Heras, A., & Lasagabaster, D. (2015)=
. The
impact of CLIL on affective factors and vocabulary learning. Language
Teaching Research 19, 70-88.
Hulstijn, J. H. (2015). La=
nguage
proficiency in native and non-native speakers: Theory and research.
Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Junta de Andalucía (2005). Plan de Fo=
mento
del Plurilingüismo. Retrieved from http://www.junta=
deandalucia.es/boja/2005/65/5
Kelly, K. (2014). COOP E-CLIL. Retrieved from https://www.t=
eachingenglish.org.uk/sites/teacheng/files/Lan=
guage%20teachers%20working%20with%20subject%20teachers%20-%20TE.pdf<=
/span>
Lasagabaster, D., & Ruiz de <=
span
class=3DSpellE>Zarobe, Y. (2010). Spain: Implementation, Results =
and
Teacher Training. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Lorenzo, F., Casal, S.,
& Moore, P. (2010). The effects of content and language integrated lear=
ning
in European education: Key findings from the Andalusian bilingual sections evaluation project. Applied Linguistics 3=
1(3), 418-442.
Lorenzo, F., Trujillo, F. & Vez, J.M.
(2011). Educación bilingüe: integració=
n
de contenidos y segundas lenguas. Madrid: Sínt=
esis.
Llinares, A. and Whittaker, R.
(2006). Linguistic analysis of secondary school students’ oral and
written production in CLIL Contexts: Studying Social Science in English. In=
Dalton-Puffer
et al., Current Research on CLIL, vol. 15, 3, pp. 28-32. Retrieved f=
rom http://anglis=
tik.univie.ac.at/fileadmin/user_upload/dep_anglist/weitere_Uploads/Views/vi=
ews15_3_clil_special.pdf#page=3D28
Llinares A. and Dafouz, E. (2010). Content and Language Integrated
Programmes in the Madrid Region: Overview and Research Findings. In D. Lasagabaster & Y. Ruiz de Za=
robe
(eds.), CLIL in Spain: Implementation, Results and Teacher Training.=
Newcastle
upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars &=
nbsp; Publishing,
pp. 95-114.
Llinares, A., Morton, T. &
Whittaker, R. (2012). The Roles of Language in CLIL. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Lyster, R. (2007). Learn=
ing
and Teaching Languages through Content: A Counterbalanced Approach. Ams=
terdam
and Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins
Marsh, D., Marshland, B., & Stenberg, K. (2001). CLIL compend=
ium.
Profiling European CLIL classrooms. Jyväskyl&=
auml;,
Finland: University of Jyväskylä.
Marsh, D. (2007). Language Awareness & CLIL. In J. Cenoz, J & N. Hornberger, (eds.), Encyclopedia
of Language and Education: Knowledge about Language, vol. 6, 2nd editio=
n,
pp. 233-246. New York & Berlin: Springer Science and Business Media.
Marsh, D., Mehisto, P., Wolff, D., Frigols Martin, M. J. (2010). European Framework f=
or
CLIL Teacher Education: A framework for the professional development of CLIL
teachers. Graz, Austria: European Centre for Modern Languages.
Meyer, D., Coyle, D.,
Halbach, A., Schuck, K., & Ting, T. (2015) A pluri=
literacies
approach to content and language integrated learning – mapping learner
progressions in knowledge construction and meaning-making, Language, Culture
and Curriculum, 28:1, 41-57,DOI: 10.1080/07908318.2014.1000924
Morton, T. (2016). Integrating Content and Lang=
uage
by Design: Principles for Designing Teaching Units for Content and Language
Integrated Learning (CLIL). Unpublished Presentation at Nebrija
University [09/29/16].
Morton, T. (2018). Reconceptualizing and describing teachers’
knowledge of language for content and language integrated learning (CLIL).
International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21(3),
275–286, DOI: 10.1080/13670050.2017.1383352
Muñoz-Luna, R.
(2013). From Drills to CLIL: The Paradigmatic and Methodological Evolution
Towards the Integration of Content and Foreign Language. Profile Issues in
Teachers Professional Development, 16(1), 167-180.
Navés, T & Muño=
z,
C. (1999). Implementation of CLIL in Spain. In D. Marsh & G. Langé (Eds.), Implementing Content and Lang=
uage Integrated
Learning. Jyväskyla: ER-paino
& Jyväskylän yliopistapaino.
Navés, T., & Victori, M. (2010). CLIL in
Catalonia: An overview of research studies. In D. Lasa=
gabaster
& Y. Ruiz de Zarobe (Eds.),
OECD (2014). A Teachers’ Guide to TALIS 2013. Teaching and
Learning International Survey. Paris, France: OECD Publishing. Retrieve=
d from
http://www.oecd.org/edu/school/TALIS-Teachers-Guide.pdf
OECD (2014). Education at a Glance 201= 4: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing. Retrieved from https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/edu= cation/education-at-a-glance-2014_eag-2014-en
Olivares, M., & Pena, C. (2013)=
. How
Do We Teach Our CLIL Teachers? A Case Study from Alcal=
á
University. Porta Linguarum, 19, 87-99.<=
span
class=3DNinguno>
Otto, A.& Estrada, J.L. (2019). Towards an Understanding of CLIL=
in
a European Context: Main Assessment Tools and the Role of Language in Conte=
nt
Subjects. CLIL Journal of
Innovation and Research in Plurilingual and Pluricultural Education, 2(=
1),
31-42. Retrieved from https://r=
evistes.uab.cat/clil/article/view/v2-n1-otto-estrada
Otto, A. (2017a). Assessment Issues in CLIL: What You’ve
Been Wondering but Were Afraid to Ask. In RDIM, =
n.º
1, pp. 1-13. Retrieved from https://app.rdim.es/archivos/publicacion/e8a4=
d38d3b45a4831eebde1c2dcbe47e.pdf
Otto, A. (2017b). Colaboración
Pavón, V. & Ellison, M.
(2013). Examining Teachers’ Roles and Competences in Content and
Language Integrated Learning (CLIL). In Linguarum
Arena, vol. 4, pp. 65-78. Retrieved from http://ler.letra=
s.up.pt/uploads/ficheiros/12007.pdf
Pavón Vázquez, V. &= amp; Méndez García, M.C. (2017). Analysing teachers’ roles <= o:p>
Pérez Cañado, M. L. (2016b). Teacher training needs =
for
bilingual education: In-service teacher perceptions. International Journ=
al
of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 19(3), 266-295. https://doi.or=
g/10.1080/13670050.2014.980778
Pérez Cañado, M. L. (2017). CLIL Teacher Education: =
Where
do we Stand and Where do we Need to Go? In M. E. Gómez Parra, & =
R.
Johnstone (Eds.), Bilingual Education: Educational Trends and Key Concep=
ts
(pp. 129-144). Madrid: Ministerio de Educación.
Pérez Cañado, M. L. (2018).
Innovations and Challenges in CLIL Teacher Training. Theory Into Practice, 57(3), 1-10.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2018.1492238
Pérez-Vidal, C. (2002). Spain. In M. Grenfell (Ed.), Moder=
n Languages
across the Curriculum, pp. 114-130. London and New York: Routledge/ Fal=
mer.
Pérez Vidal, C. (2007). The need of focus on form (FoR) in content and language integrated approaches: an exploratory study. I=
n Revista español=
a
de lingüística aplicada,
pp. 39-54. Retrieved from hispadoc.es/descarga/articulo/2575491.pdf
Pica, T. (2002). Subject-Matter Content: How does it assist the
Interactional and Lingu=
istic
Needs of Classroom Language Learners? Retrieved from https://reposito=
ry.upenn.edu/gse_pubs
Roquet, H. & Pérez-Vidal, C. (2015). Do Productive Skills Impro=
ve
in Content and Language Integrated Learning Contexts? The Case of Writing. =
Applied Linguistics 2=
015, 1-24.
Ruiz, R. (1990). Official languages and language planning. In K. Adams & D. Brink (eds.), Perspectives on official Englis=
h.
New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Savage, J. (2011). Cross-Curricular Teaching and Learning in
Secondary Education. London, UK: Routledge.
Salaberri Ramiro, S. (2010). T=
eacher
Training Programmes for CLIL in Andalusia. In Lasagaba=
ster
& Ruiz de Zarobe (eds.), CLIL in Spain:
Implementation, Results and Teacher Training. Newcastle upon Tyne:
Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 140-161.
San Isidro, X. (2018). Innovations and challenges =
in
CLIL implementation in Europe. Theory into Practice, 57 (3), pp. 185-195.
San Isidro, X. & Julián, C. (2018).
San Isidro, X. & Lasagaba=
ster,
D. (2019). Monitoring of teachers’ views on both CLIL and the develop=
ment
of pluriliteracies: a longitudinal qualitative =
study. English Language
Teaching, 12(2)
San Isidro, X.&nb=
sp;
& Lasagabaster, D. (forthcoming).
Schleppegrell, M. J., Achugar. M. & Oteíza<=
/span>,
T. (2004). The Grammar of History: Enhancing Content-Based Instruction Thro=
ugh
a Functional Focus on Language. In TESOL Quarterly, vol. 38, 1, pp. 67-93. Retrieved from:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3588259seq=3D1#page_scan_tab_contents <=
/span>
Thornbury, S. (1997). About language: Tasks for English Teachers.=
Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Westwood, P. (2006). Teaching and Learning Difficulties: Cross-curricular Perspectives. Camberwell, Australia: Australian Council Educatio= nal Research (ACER).