Постолов А.О. Adoption of CLIL opportunities in the specific CLIL programmes and implementation

Матеріал з PSYH.KIEV.UA -- Вісник психології і соціальної педагогіки

Перейти до: навігація, пошук

Постолов Антон Олександрович – студент Національного університету фізичного виховання і спорту України, напрям підготовки «Здоров'я людини та фізичне виховання».

Мета даної статті-проаналізувати предметно-мовне інтегроване навчання (CLIL) у використанні та впровадженні конкретних програм. Одним із головних завдань цього дослідження є забезпечення розуміння того, чому в подальшому доцільно реалізувати даний підход, дану методику в мовному освіту. У статті наводяться основні відомості про використання предметно-мовного інтегрованого навчання та можливості навчання за програми з повноцінним впровадженням.

Ключові слова: предметно-мовне інтегроване навчання, мовлення, білінгвізм, мовна компетентність, процес впровадження.

Цель данной статьи – проанализировать предметно-языковое интегрированное обучение (CLIL) в использовании и внедрении конкретных программ. Одной из главных задач этого исследования является обеспечение понимания того, почему в дальнейшем целесообразно реализовать данный подход, данную методику в языковом образовании. В статье приводятся основные сведения об использовании предметно-языкового интегрированного обучения и возможности обучения по программам с полноценным внедрением.

Ключевые слова: предметно-языковое интегрированное обучение, речи, билингвизм, языковая компетентность, процесс внедрения.

The aim of this article is to analyse Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) in implementation adoption in the specific CLIL programmes. Our results aim to provide an understanding of why CLIL should be further implemented as a mediating approach in language education. The article gives an overview on adoption of CLIL Learning Opportunities in the specific CLIL programs and implementation.

Key words: Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL), speech production, bilingualism, language competence, adoption process.



In the 21st century, in the linguistic consequences of globalization and internationalization, economic, technological and cultural changes all European educational systems are focusing on the importance of foreign languages learning, since there is neediness to educate successfully multilingual and multicultural citizens. Modern cosmopolitan citizen needs to have the urgent capacity to have the competence in at least one foreign language, however globalization demands knowing more than one foreign language. The main reason of such requirement is amount of perspectives that it opens for the person that includes more hire competitiveness at a labor market not only in your country, but all around the world, enrichment of your personal and professional experience and expand the range of various professional opportunities.

One of the central tendencies in Ukraine is effective a integration to the European Union, which includes international relationships in different areas and cooperation that becomes the reason of the educational orientation and implementation the European educational system into our educational system. One of the great established language immersion education methodology is well-known by Canadian immersion education is Content Language Integrated Learning (CLIL), which was further successfully applied in European countries. This educational policies are provided because of the growing of different foreign languages trainings in general and professional areas.

Analysis of recent achievements and publications

CLIL with its methodology is defined, examined and using in practice by such a great amount of researches all over the world as Phillip Ball, Diana Lindsay, Yolanda Ruiz de Zarobe, David Lasagabaster, Ana Llinares, Emma Dafouz, Inmaculada Fortanet, Coyle Do, Hood Philip, Marsh David, Dalton-Puffer and others. The most successful methodologies that are presented the recent years Some of the European countries are leaders in researches and providing Content and Language Integrated Learning and they create the tendencies: Spain (Phillip Ball, Diana Lindsay, Yolanda Ruiz de Zarobe, David Lasagabaster, Ana Llinares, Emma Dafouz, Inmaculada Fortanet) , German (Stephan Breidbach and Britta Viebrock), French (Petra Burmeister, Thorsten Piske and Andreas Rohde), Sweden (Movchan Larysa) and Finland (Kari Nieminen).

The objective of the article

The main object of this article is to present adoption of Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) opportunities in the specific CLIL programs and implementation.

The statement of the fundamenatal material

In the latter part of the 20th century Hugo Baetens-Beardsmore described CLIL as the growth industry of educational linguistics. There has been an explosion of interest in CLIL in Europe and beyond over the last decade, as many teachers, learners, parents, researchers and policy-makers have realised the potential of CLIL and interpreted this potential in very different ways. Indeed, the fact that CLIL is open to wide interpretation is its strength since the ways in which different languages are learned and used, including the first language, need to be embedded in the local and regional learning context. There are no set formula and methods for CLIL and re-conceptualising elements of any formal curriculum at primary, secondary or tertiary levels, needs a vision which involves new and alternative opportunities for connected and connecting learning which are pertinent to the context and the individuals who work and learn in them [1].

Educational system that is characterized by the changing of language instruction through the additional language is cause by the system of social, political, economic, trade relationships results. In modern society we can find a few different purposes of another foreign implementation into educational process, they includes the aim of achieving social unity, development of international contacts and improving knowledge of other cultures. The European launch of CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning) during 1994 was both political and educational. The political impulse was explained as a vision that mobility across the European Union required higher levels of language competence in designated languages. The educational impulse was influenced by the bilingual initiatives such as in Canada [2].

Nowadays European schools and universities are offering a great variety of courses suggesting foreign languages training. This variety is a result of student`s desire to improve their language skills. The implementation of CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning) programs is becoming common, according to the point that this kind of approach is the best way to improve students’ foreign language competence without involving too much efforts into this process. In this way students have to deal with some amount of languages (2-4 languages) and therefore the time allotted to each of them becomes a key issue in language planning.

The label CLIL is defined as an integrative term that includes language and content, such as content-based language instruction, content-enhanced teaching, integration of content and language, theme-based language teaching, content infused language teaching, foreign language medium instruction, bilingual integration of language and disciplines, learning through an additional language, foreign languages across the curriculum. The 2006 Eurydice Survey analyzes CLIL programmes in 30 European countries and comes to the conclusion that different labels are used in different contexts, which is why the reader can come across manifold labels for CLIL in literature on the subject. Coyle [2] points out that “whilst CLIL shares some elements with many of these approaches, in essence its distinctiveness lies in an integrated approach, where both language and content are conceptualised on a continuum without an implied preference for either”.

According to our research we consider that CLIL cornerstones are not only mentioned as integrated approach, but on the other hand as the European framework, mentioned in the way of CLIL programs are basically included in very diverse European contexts due to their own sociolinguistic and political features.

The CLIL approach has been praised on many different grounds [6] (preparation for internationalization; boosting the affective dimension, in the sense that students will feel more motivated to learn foreign languages; improving specific language terminology; enhancing students’ intercultural communicative competence; fostering implicit and incidental learning by centering on meaning and communication; improving overall language competence in the target language, in particular oral skills) purportedly being more beneficial for their development than traditional foreign language teaching approaches.

Politically and socially, there is an obvious need for a rethink of language education policy in Europe. CLIL represents the best framework in terms of a content-based bilingual approach. At the extreme, it could be argued that CLIL materials are the subject matter of other disciplines, that CLIL teachers are well versed in both language instruction and a content subject, that learning a language and learning through a language are concurrent processes, and that the traditional concepts of the language classroom and the language teacher are without a future since they do not fit the CLIL model. While CLIL undoubtedly has potential, there are factors which hinder its development, and caution regarding the implementation of content-based bilingual programmes may be advisable on the following grounds:

• Experimentation and ad-hoc implementation of CLIL is currently outpacing researchdriven studies and empirical evidence of success.

• CLIL is based on belief in natural language acquisition, and may well be appropriate in an immersion situation. However, when cognitive effort is involved, when exposure to the language is restricted to specific times, and when exposure to the language rarely happens outside the classroom, conscious learning of the target language is involved.

• CLIL involves a constant effort from both teacher and learner to master both content and language.

• The lack of CLIL teacher-training programmes suggest that the majority of teachers working on bilingual programmes may be ill-equipped to do the job adequately.

• While learners’ breadth of knowledge, confidence and cultural understanding may benefit from CLIL, there is little evidence to suggest that, for the majority, understanding of content is not impeded by lack of language competence. Current opinion seems to be that language ability can only be enhanced once sufficient content has been absorbed to make the general context understandable, and that there is a ‘transition’ stage, after which the learner is able to function effectively in both languages.

• Various aspects of CLIL appear entirely unnatural; such as the appreciation of the literature and culture of the learner’s own country through a second language. For a Turkish student to learn about the tenets of Ataturk through English, for example, would seemingly be inappropriate [2].


There has been great increasing in the number of studies focused on CLIL programmes, their adoption and implementation during the last decade though it is rather obvious that this type of approach brings with it input related qualitative differences that affect foreign language competence and which deserve further consideration. CLIL is usually put under the microscope in contexts where a foreign language is used to teach majority language students [6]. We consider that adoption of CLIL programmes as it is analyzed in our article as in implemented in learning contexts where both majority and minority language students share the same class. Each context has its own peculiarities and the outcomes of CLIL programmes should therefore be studied from different perspectives and in diverse settings, enabling us to draw conclusions based on precise and case-specific evidence. By doing this our knowledge of the (dis)advantages of this particular kind of programme will be more accurate.

The learning of foreign languages through the CLIL approach gives an attractive challenge and amount of opportunities further implementation, and this is especially so in contexts as analyzed in this paper where the two co-official languages have to be presented in the curriculum.


  1. Banegas, Dario Luis. "CLIL teacher development: Challenges and experiences." Latin American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning 5.1 (2012): 46-56.
  2. Coyle D. Content and language integrated learning: towards a connected research agenda for CLIL pedagogies. Int J Biling Edu Bilingual 2007; 10: 543-562.
  3. Cenoz, Jasone. "Discussion: Towards an educational perspective in CLIL language policy and pedagogical practice." International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 16.3 (2013): 389-394.
  4. Darn S. Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL): A European Overview //Online Submission. – 2006.
  5. Harrop E. Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL): Limitations and possibilities [Електронний ресурс]. – Режим доступу: http://dspace.uah.es/dspace/bitstream/handle/10017/14641/Harrop_Content.pdf ?sequence=1
  6. Nikula, Tarja, Christiane Dalton-Puffer, and Ana Llinares García. "CLIL classroom discourse: Research from Europe." Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education 1.1 (2013): 70-100.

Особисті інструменти
Ми в мережі