Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Content and language integrated learning

Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) is a dual-focused educational methodology in which academic content subjects, such as mathematics or history, are taught and learned through an additional language, typically a foreign one, to simultaneously foster subject-specific knowledge and linguistic competence.^[1]^[2] This approach emphasizes the integration of content mastery with language development, requiring learners to engage with complex disciplinary concepts using non-native linguistic resources, which demands heightened cognitive processing.^[3] Originating in Europe during the mid-1990s amid efforts to promote multilingualism within the European Union, CLIL emerged as a response to traditional foreign language instruction's limitations in achieving functional proficiency, drawing on principles from content-based instruction and immersion models.^[4] Key tenets include balancing content objectives with language support, such as scaffolding terminology and communicative strategies, often framed around interconnected dimensions of content, cognition, communication, and culture to enhance both academic outcomes and intercultural awareness.^[5] Implementation varies by context, with widespread adoption in secondary and higher education across Europe, where it has been integrated into national curricula to address linguistic diversity and economic competitiveness.^[6] Empirical evaluations of CLIL reveal consistent advantages in foreign language proficiency, particularly in receptive skills and specialized vocabulary acquisition, with learners often outperforming peers in non-CLIL programs on metrics like lexical range and motivation.^[7]^[6] However, systematic reviews indicate mixed results for content knowledge retention, with some studies reporting neutral or diminished gains in disciplinary understanding due to linguistic barriers, alongside evidence of selection bias favoring higher-ability students.^[8]^[9] Criticisms of CLIL center on implementation hurdles, including insufficient teacher training in dual pedagogy, risks of content-language imbalance that prioritizes language at the expense of depth in subject matter, and potential exacerbation of educational inequities by diverting resources from broader foreign language reforms.^[10]^[11] These challenges underscore the need for rigorous professional development and context-specific adaptations, as unsubstantiated enthusiasm in policy circles has sometimes overlooked empirical variability across diverse learner populations.^[12]

History and Origins

European Development and Coining of the Term

The term "Content and Language Integrated Learning" (CLIL) was coined in 1994 by David Marsh, a researcher at the University of Jyväskylä in Finland, as part of efforts to formalize dual-focused educational approaches within European multilingualism initiatives.^[13]^[14] This development occurred amid the European Union's push following the Maastricht Treaty of 1992, which emphasized economic integration and required enhanced language competencies to support cross-border mobility and trade in non-English-dominant member states.^[15]^[16] Early CLIL implementation focused on secondary education, aligning with EU Council resolutions from the mid-1990s that advocated diversifying language teaching to integrate content subjects for practical proficiency gains.^[17] In Finland, pilot programs emerged around 1991 via legislative decrees enabling content delivery in foreign languages at upper secondary levels, with significant research and trials intensifying by 1996 to address regional needs for skills in languages like English and Swedish.^[17]^[18] Spain followed with initial CLIL experiments in the mid-1990s, particularly in regions like Madrid and Catalonia, driven by national bilingual education reforms to bolster foreign language use in subjects such as science and mathematics amid EU multilingual policy pressures.^[19]^[20] These European origins reflected a pragmatic response to post-Cold War integration goals, prioritizing empirical language skill-building over traditional grammar-focused instruction, though initial programs emphasized English as the primary vehicular language due to its economic utility.^[21] Institutional involvement, including the European Centre for Modern Languages (ECML), facilitated knowledge exchange through projects like EMILE (European Model for Integration of Language and Content), which prototyped CLIL frameworks from 1999 onward.^[22]

Influences from Earlier Bilingual Education Models

The concept of integrating content and language learning in bilingual education drew from Canadian French immersion programs initiated in the mid-1960s, particularly the experimental program launched in 1965 at St. Lambert School in Quebec, where English-speaking parents advocated for French-medium instruction to foster bilingualism amid the Quiet Revolution.^[23]^[24] These early total immersion models demonstrated the viability of acquiring subject knowledge while developing second-language proficiency, as students achieved near-native fluency without significant content deficits, yet revealed challenges such as high cognitive demands and potential delays in initial literacy for young learners in intensive formats.^[25]^[26] In the United States, content-based instruction (CBI) emerged as a complementary influence during the 1980s, building on communicative language teaching principles to prioritize subject-matter delivery over isolated grammar drills, particularly in ESL contexts for immigrant students.^[27]^[28] By the late 1980s, CBI frameworks like discipline-based approaches integrated academic content to address critiques of traditional EFL/ESL methods, which often failed to produce functional fluency due to decontextualized practice and limited real-world application.^[29]^[30] This shift emphasized causal links between meaningful content engagement and incidental language acquisition, highlighting how grammar-focused instruction inefficiently replicated native-like competence compared to task-oriented, domain-specific learning.^[30] European precedents in the 1980s further adapted these models through partial immersion in regional minority languages, such as Catalonia's post-Franco linguistic normalization efforts under the 1983 Language Normalization Law, which mandated Catalan-medium instruction in schools while allowing Spanish support.^[31]^[32] These programs, implemented from the early 1980s, balanced immersion with L1 maintenance to mitigate the intensity of full submersion seen in Canadian models, fostering additive bilingualism in diverse classrooms and informing flexible dual-focus strategies by demonstrating reduced dropout risks and improved equity for non-dominant language speakers.^[31] Such adaptations underscored limitations of uniform immersion, prioritizing graduated exposure to content and language for sustainable proficiency gains.^[32]

Theoretical Foundations and Principles

Core Objectives

The core objectives of Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) revolve around a dual focus: advancing disciplinary knowledge in subjects such as science or history through instruction in an additional language, while concurrently building functional proficiency in that language for authentic communication. This approach prioritizes the use of language as a vehicle for content mastery, eschewing isolated grammar exercises in favor of contextualized application that fosters comprehension and expression tied directly to subject matter.^[33]^[34] Beyond primary content and language gains, CLIL seeks to develop higher-order cognitive processes, including critical thinking and problem-solving, by engaging learners in tasks that require analyzing, synthesizing, and applying concepts across linguistic boundaries. These objectives target the interdependent causal dynamics where language mediation enhances content processing, enabling learners to transfer skills between domains more effectively than in segregated monolingual settings.^[35]^[34] CLIL further aims to prepare individuals for multilingual professional contexts by cultivating advanced communicative competencies aligned with demands of international knowledge economies, where empirical correlations exist between plurilingual ability and labor market advantages. This preparation emphasizes practical functionality over theoretical linguistics, grounding objectives in observable links between integrated exposure and real-world adaptability without presuming unverified broader cultural outcomes.^[7]^[36]

Pedagogical Principles and Frameworks

CLIL pedagogy rests on a dual-focus principle, wherein an additional language functions both as a medium for subject-content acquisition and as a deliberate instructional target, with content-specific demands determining the required linguistic features rather than vice versa.^[33] This approach ensures that language development emerges organically from the cognitive demands of disciplinary knowledge, fostering proficiency through contextual necessity rather than isolated drills.^[37] The 4Cs framework, developed by Do Coyle, provides a foundational structure interconnecting content (subject knowledge progression), cognition (higher-order thinking and problem-solving), communication (interactive language use for meaning construction), and culture (intercultural awareness and contextual relevance).^[5] These dimensions operate interdependently, with content and cognition as primary drivers that generate targeted language opportunities via communication, while cultural elements enhance relevance only insofar as they support cognitive engagement and measurable skill advancement.^[38] Scaffolding within this framework prioritizes causal links between task complexity and learner capability, adapting support to bridge gaps in bilingual proficiency without diluting content rigor. Drawing from Vygotskian concepts of the zone of proximal development, CLIL principles emphasize action-oriented, task-based scaffolding that temporarily structures complex activities to enable independent performance in both content domains and language functions.^[39] This involves graduated assistance—such as modeling, prompting, and collaborative dialogue—tailored to bilingual contexts, where empirical progression in cognitive tasks causally reinforces linguistic accuracy and fluency over abstract multilingual ideals.^[40] The framework thus privileges verifiable mechanisms of support that align learner potential with disciplinary outcomes, ensuring integration yields dual gains without presuming inherent benefits from unmeasured cultural exposure.^[41]

Distinctions from Language Immersion Programs

Language immersion programs, such as Canadian French immersion, which originated in 1965, typically feature total or near-total use of the second language (L2) as the medium of instruction across core subjects, often starting in kindergarten or early primary years to provide intensive exposure for languages with societal or official status.^[42]^[43] This structure relies on adapted materials designed for native speakers and an implicit acquisition model, where language development occurs subordinately through content delivery without separate linguistic objectives.^[44] CLIL, by comparison, employs partial integration of a foreign language into subject teaching, commonly limiting L2-medium instruction to 20-50% of class time and initiating after first-language literacy is established, thereby allowing flexible exposure levels tailored to reduce cognitive strain from sustained L2 demands.^[45]^[46] Unlike immersion's adaptation of existing native materials, CLIL develops customized resources that embed explicit language support, fostering meta-linguistic awareness alongside content objectives.^[45] These structural variances stem from contextual factors, including the target language's status: immersion suits second languages bolstered by extramural community input, enabling high-intensity immersion, whereas CLIL addresses foreign languages lacking such reinforcement, necessitating moderated exposure and integrated pedagogical scaffolding to sustain feasibility in input-scarce environments.^[44]^[46] Both approaches encounter access disparities tied to resource availability, though immersion's early, comprehensive commitment amplifies entry barriers in under-resourced settings.^[45]

Relations to Content-Based Instruction and EMI

Content-Based Instruction (CBI), originating in North America during the early 1980s as an evolution from communicative language teaching principles, organizes language lessons around subject matter themes to provide contextualized practice for linguistic skills.^[28] This approach prioritizes content comprehension as the vehicle for language development, often starting from discipline-based goals where language emerges incidentally through exposure to authentic materials.^[47] CLIL builds upon CBI by incorporating more explicit and systematic language objectives alongside content mastery, reflecting European adaptations that emphasize dual-focused curricula aligned with native-language standards for additive bilingualism.^[48] While CBI typically views content learning as secondary to language acquisition goals, CLIL demands verifiable integration of both, with pedagogical frameworks that scaffold linguistic demands within subject-specific tasks to ensure balanced outcomes.^[49] This extension arises from CLIL's origins in 1994, coined by David Marsh at the University of Jyväskylä, which introduced flexibility for diverse European contexts beyond CBI's more rigid, language-class-centric implementations.^[50] Consequently, CLIL diverges by treating language not merely as a medium but as a co-equal cognitive tool, fostering deeper interdisciplinary connections through planned linguistic support.^[47] English Medium Instruction (EMI), prevalent in higher education settings globally, delivers academic content primarily in English without dedicated language pedagogy, relying on immersion-like exposure for any linguistic gains.^[51] In contrast, CLIL maintains explicit dual aims, integrating content objectives with targeted language instruction to mitigate risks of superficial comprehension in non-native contexts.^[52] EMI's ad-hoc adoption often prioritizes subject delivery over linguistic scaffolding, potentially leading to incidental learning deficits where students master content vocabulary at the expense of broader communicative proficiency.^[51] Both CBI and EMI fall under broader content-driven umbrellas, yet CLIL distinguishes itself through rigorous methodological integration, avoiding EMI's frequent variability in non-European higher education programs where English serves as a default without evaluative language supports.^[53] This emphasis on systematic duality in CLIL addresses causal gaps in purely content-focused models, where unaddressed language barriers can hinder verifiable content retention and transfer.^[49]

Implementation and Methodology

Classroom Strategies and Lesson Design

Classroom strategies in CLIL prioritize task-based lesson designs that anchor content objectives in communicative activities conducted via the target language, typically structured in five phases: pre-task for topic activation and material planning, task execution with teacher monitoring, planning for output preparation, reporting through presentations, and a focused language review.^[54] Examples include group projects such as assembling exhibitions from pictures, texts, and broadcasts or designing leaflets synthesized from brochures and websites, which employ reasoning-gap tasks like protocol development or opinion-gap discussions on ethical issues.^[55] These designs embed language supports, including visual aids like charts and graphs alongside collaborative pair or group interactions, to facilitate access to content without halting progression.^[55] Scaffolding techniques in CLIL lessons promote sequential skill development, initiating with receptive comprehension via connections to prior knowledge—evident in 80% of science lessons analyzed—and supplementary materials such as videos (90% in geography), before advancing to productive tasks with revoicing of student inputs (91% in social sciences) and selective modeling of strategies.^[39] Bilingual glosses for academic terms and group deliberations on concepts, like distinguishing weathering from erosion, further mitigate barriers by reinforcing causal content linkages essential for retention, as observed across 12 Norwegian CLIL sessions in natural and social sciences.^[39] Lesson assessments incorporate dual rubrics that independently score content mastery—such as conceptual accuracy in subject tasks—and language elements like vocabulary precision, drawn from validated inventories piloted with 201 CLIL teachers to ensure diagnostic validity.^[56] This separation upholds subject-specific standards by isolating language proficiency influences, enabling evaluations that track dual progress without compromising disciplinary depth, as rubrics specify criteria for integrated outputs like reports or debates.^[56]

Teacher Competencies and Training Requirements

CLIL educators require specialized competencies encompassing deep subject-matter knowledge and advanced proficiency in the target language, typically at a B2 level or higher per frameworks in regions like Andalusia, Spain, where pre-service teachers must meet official EFL certification standards.^[57] ^[58] This dual proficiency enables teachers to navigate content delivery while scaffolding language demands, a requirement heightened for non-native instructors prevalent in CLIL settings outside native-speaking environments.^[44] Unlike immersion models that prioritize native-speaker fluency for naturalistic exposure, CLIL demands meta-linguistic awareness, allowing teachers to explicitly integrate and address linguistic structures amid disciplinary concepts.^[59] Professional training programs address these gaps through targeted workshops emphasizing the integration of the 4Cs—content, communication, cognition, and culture—as per established frameworks, with empirical evaluations showing significant pre-to-post gains in CLIL theory application and lesson design among participating biology teachers.^[60] Systematic reviews of self-reported needs highlight emphases on pedagogical strategies for dual content-language focus, linguistic enhancement for subject-specific vocabulary, and organizational skills for material adaptation, underscoring the necessity of ongoing development to manage implementation complexities.^[61] Customized interventions, such as those tailored via needs analysis, have demonstrated improvements in assessment techniques and cognitive skill integration, particularly benefiting less-experienced educators.^[60] Key challenges include elevated planning workloads from coordinating content and language objectives, as reported across European studies, alongside time constraints that exacerbate skill gaps without sustained support.^[62] ^[63] However, evidence from training evaluations links teacher competency in these areas to enhanced classroom efficacy, with proficient CLIL practitioners yielding measurable advances in their own content-language integration abilities, thereby supporting superior instructional outcomes.^[60]^[61]

Empirical Evidence on Effectiveness

Research on Language Acquisition Outcomes

Meta-analyses of post-2010 studies indicate that CLIL programs generally yield moderate to large advantages in second language proficiency compared to traditional EFL instruction, particularly in receptive skills and vocabulary, attributable to increased exposure to authentic input through content subjects. One meta-analysis synthesizing nine studies with over 8,000 participants aged 10-17 found a significant effect size of 0.84 favoring CLIL for vocabulary acquisition, though no significant differences emerged for listening (effect size -0.14) or reading comprehension (effect size 0.43), with high heterogeneity (I² >78%) signaling variability across implementations.^[64] Another meta-analysis reported an overall Hedge's g of 0.81 across language skills, with stronger effects on receptive components like listening (g=0.91) and vocabulary (g=0.90) than productive skills such as speaking (g=0.35), based on comparisons showing CLIL learners outperforming non-CLIL peers by approximately 0.81 standard deviations.^[65] Longitudinal research supports gains in fluency and vocabulary under CLIL, though outcomes vary with program intensity and are tempered by methodological limitations in earlier work. A three-year study tracking young learners demonstrated significantly greater receptive vocabulary growth in CLIL groups versus traditional EFL, with CLIL participants exhibiting accelerated lexical development linked to sustained contextual exposure.^[66] Similarly, longitudinal assessments of speech production revealed statistically significant improvements in fluency, alongside vocabulary and grammar, in CLIL cohorts over time.^[67] However, critiques highlight small sample sizes and potential biases in pre-2010 studies, while more recent analyses using propensity score matching on larger datasets (e.g., over 5,900 students) suggest that apparent CLIL benefits may be overstated when accounting for student selection (e.g., higher prior proficiency) and additional preparation, reducing effects to non-significant levels after controls.^[68] In English as a lingua franca (ELF) contexts, CLIL fosters enhanced communicative competence emphasizing pragmatic utility over native-like accuracy, aligning with realistic multilingual interaction needs. Research comparing CLIL and other EFL settings shows CLIL learners achieving comparable or superior pragmatic competences, with fewer instances of weak performance in interactive tasks, supporting ELF's focus on functional proficiency rather than prescriptive norms.^[69] Studies frame CLIL and ELF as complementary, with CLIL elevating overall competence through content-driven practice while accommodating ELF's tolerance for variability in form to prioritize intelligibility and adaptation.^[70]

Findings on Content Mastery and Cognitive Impacts

A meta-analysis encompassing 29 independent samples and over 36,000 secondary students demonstrated that CLIL yields content knowledge acquisition comparable to mainstream L1 instruction, with a small overall effect size of 0.09 that lacked statistical significance (p = .40).^[71] This equivalence holds across subjects, though moderated by factors such as content domain and pre-existing student ability differences, highlighting potential variability rather than uniform deficits or advantages. In Spanish monolingual settings involving primary and secondary cohorts from 12 provinces, CLIL programs showed no adverse effects on content mastery, with students outperforming non-CLIL peers in Natural Sciences, as confirmed by factorial ANOVA revealing significant interactions (F(4, 1082) = 2.399, p < 0.05) tied to school type and socioeconomic status.^[72] Systematic reviews of European and international studies, including Belgian and Spanish contexts from the 2010s onward, report mixed content outcomes: CLIL learners often match L1-taught peers in science and mathematics, occasionally surpassing them, but underperform in select cases influenced by regional or learner-specific variables.^[8] The dual-task nature of CLIL—processing subject matter alongside L2 demands—imposes cognitive loads that, without adequate scaffolding, risk comprehension gaps for lower-proficiency or low-ability students, as observed in disadvantaged allophone groups where language barriers impede subject engagement.^[8] Regarding cognitive impacts, CLIL's bilingual processing requirements foster higher-order skills like problem-solving and metacognition through enhanced executive function demands, with some studies documenting superior cognitive flexibility in CLIL cohorts relative to traditional instruction.^[8] Yet, evidence remains inconsistent, as approximately half of primary-level investigations detect no broad cognitive advantages, attributing potential gains to incidental bilingualism effects rather than CLIL-specific causality. Long-term content retention exhibits positive signals in targeted domains, such as sustained Natural Sciences knowledge in Spanish longitudinal data, but aggregate findings are heterogeneous, necessitating methodological rigor to isolate genuine effects from confounding motivational or selection biases.^[72]^[73]

Criticisms and Challenges

Pedagogical and Equity Concerns

In CLIL programs, the adaptation of subject content to accommodate learners' second language proficiency frequently leads to oversimplification, whereby complex concepts are diluted to prioritize linguistic accessibility over disciplinary depth. This methodological compromise risks shallow content mastery, as teachers with limited L2 expertise tend to reduce cognitive demands in lessons, resulting in less rigorous treatment of topics than in monolingual instruction.^[74]^[75] Learner feedback highlights associated stresses, including heightened anxiety from dual cognitive loads and perceptions of diminished content complexity, which can undermine engagement and long-term retention. Lower-proficiency students, in particular, experience these pressures acutely, as unresolved language barriers often eclipse subject-specific learning objectives.^[76]^[58] Equity issues arise from CLIL's uneven benefits, which disproportionately accrue to higher-ability or socioeconomically privileged students while disadvantaging lower-performing cohorts. Empirical data from Southern European contexts indicate that CLIL participants from disadvantaged backgrounds attain inferior outcomes compared to non-CLIL peers of similar socioeconomic status, widening preexisting achievement gaps. Weaker students face elevated disengagement risks, as proficiency deficits amplify exclusion from core content, perpetuating cycles of underachievement absent tailored supports.^[77]^[78] The prevailing advocacy for CLIL as a multilingual accelerator overlooks causal dynamics where dominant language hurdles impair foundational content acquisition, particularly for novices whose comprehension relies on native-medium scaffolds. Studies in varied settings reveal that without sufficient L2 thresholds, integrated formats exacerbate knowledge gaps rather than bridging them, challenging assumptions of inherent dual gains.^[79]^[80]

Practical Implementation Barriers

A persistent logistical challenge in CLIL rollout involves shortages of educators possessing dual competencies in subject content and target language proficiency, particularly in Europe where surveys indicate that a significant proportion of teachers report inadequate preparation for integrated instruction.^[81] In Sweden, for instance, mainstream school implementations have faltered due to insufficient policy-supported training, limiting scalability beyond pilot programs.^[82] Similar deficiencies appear in Asian contexts, such as Vietnam, where high school English teachers in 2020s surveys highlight gaps in professional capacity for content-language integration amid rapid policy-driven adoption.^[83] Resource strains exacerbate these issues, as the scarcity of pre-adapted CLIL materials compels teachers to devote substantial time to sourcing and modifying authentic resources like online clips or texts, increasing preparation burdens without institutional support.^[82] In European settings, this adaptation demand has persisted through the 2010s, with Spanish CLIL expansions (2008–2018) underscoring the logistical strain on educators handling curriculum integration solo.^[81] Asian implementations, including in China, mirror this, where teachers independently curate materials amid limited organized repositories, amplifying workload in under-resourced environments.^[84] Contextual mismatches in non-European regions intensify failures, as greater cultural and linguistic distances between content domains and the target language (often English) demand extensive scaffolding that policies overlook, leading to uneven adoption.^[12] In places like Hong Kong and Malaysia, empirical observations show CLIL disproportionately disadvantages weaker learners without tailored linguistic support, reflecting policy overreach that assumes uniform applicability from European models.^[12] This results in selective rollout favoring urban or advantaged schools, with evidence from Madrid's programs indicating 10% dropout rates in disadvantaged areas due to unaddressed systemic gaps.^[12] Scalability remains hindered by elevated training demands and evaluation intricacies, as comprehensive dual-competency programs incur high costs without yielding broad efficacy for mass education systems. Unsustainable teacher supply chains, coupled with complex assessment of integrated outcomes, confine CLIL to elite or voluntary contexts rather than equitable widespread use, per European and Asian implementation reviews.^[12]^[85]

Applications in English as a Lingua Franca

Adaptations for Non-Native English Contexts

In non-native English contexts where English operates as a lingua franca (ELF), CLIL implementations adapt by prioritizing functional varieties of English that emphasize intelligibility and communicative efficacy over conformity to inner-circle native norms, enabling effective interaction among speakers from diverse linguistic backgrounds in multinational or international classrooms.^[86] This pragmatic shift aligns with ELF's core principle of mutual accommodation, where participants negotiate meaning through clarification strategies, reformulations, and shared contextual cues rather than prescriptive grammar or pronunciation standards.^[87] Empirical observations in ELF-oriented CLIL settings, such as university-level content courses, reveal heightened frequencies of interactive sequences—averaging 14.9 negotiation episodes per lesson compared to 7.7 in monolingual baselines—fostering collaborative content exploration.^[88] Recent adaptations include a deliberate reduction in emphasis on formal accuracy, with pedagogues allowing greater tolerance for non-standard forms to mirror real-world global communication demands, as supported by longitudinal analyses of question-initiated exchanges in higher education CLIL programs using ELF.^[89] Code-switching to L1 is increasingly permitted for scaffolding complex content, particularly in transitional moments like term clarification or procedural instructions; a 2016 case study of Italian secondary CLIL biology lessons documented code-switching comprising up to 15% of utterances, primarily for enhancing comprehension without impeding overall lesson flow.^[90] Student perceptions in similar contexts affirm these practices boost accessibility, with 78% reporting improved understanding of subject-specific vocabulary through bilingual resources.^[91] These modifications yield enhanced intercultural pragmatics, equipping learners with adaptive skills for ELF-mediated professional environments, as evidenced by improved pragmatic awareness scores in post-CLIL assessments.^[86] ^[92] However, ELF variability can introduce referential ambiguities in technical discourse, potentially compromising content precision; studies note risks of diluted conceptual grasp when negotiation prioritizes relational harmony over rigorous terminology, particularly in disciplines requiring exactitude like sciences.^[86] ^[93]

Multiplicity of Terms and Conceptual Overlaps

The literature on content and language integrated learning (CLIL) encompasses a range of overlapping terms such as content-based instruction (CBI), English medium instruction (EMI), and immersion programs, which share the use of a non-native language for subject-matter teaching but diverge in their core objectives and mechanisms. CBI employs subject content as a medium to prioritize language skill development, with authentic tasks serving primarily to generate language input and output.^[94] In contrast, EMI focuses on content delivery by subject specialists in English, treating language proficiency as an incidental byproduct rather than a planned outcome, often without explicit linguistic support or assessment.^[94] Immersion, typically associated with early total submersion models like those in Canadian bilingual education, emphasizes naturalistic exposure to the target language for content learning without integrated language instruction, differing from CLIL's deliberate scaffolding of both domains.^[95] These distinctions arise causally from varying emphases: CLIL's balanced integration demands coordinated planning for content objectives and language competencies, whereas the others subordinate one to the other.^[96] This terminological multiplicity fosters conceptual confusion, as CBI serves as a broad umbrella incorporating CLIL and EMI variants, leading to interchangeable usage that obscures implementation differences and empirical outcomes.^[96] For instance, studies reveal inconsistent language gains under EMI's incidental model compared to CLIL's explicit dual aims, yet blurred labels hinder precise evaluation of effectiveness variances.^[96] In English as a lingua franca contexts, such proliferation exacerbates uncritical adoption, where approaches are conflated without accounting for contextual factors like learner proficiency or instructional design, potentially masking suboptimal results in content retention or communicative competence.^[94] Critiques highlight how indistinct boundaries enable overlapping classroom practices, such as theme-based activities, without rigorous differentiation based on goals.^[97] To resolve this, scholars advocate prioritizing verifiable operational criteria—such as the degree of explicit integration between content and language objectives, assessment practices, and teacher training—over nominal labels, which often stem from regional conventions (e.g., CLIL in Europe versus CBI elsewhere) rather than systematic evidence.^[98] This approach underscores that terminological evolution reflects contextual accidents and institutional preferences more than causal alignments with learning outcomes, urging research to delineate mechanisms empirically rather than semantically.^[99]^[98]

Global Adoption and Recent Developments

Expansion to Non-European Regions

In Asian countries such as China and Japan, CLIL gained traction in the 2010s, primarily through partial implementations in higher education and select secondary programs, driven by demands for English proficiency amid economic globalization.^[100]^[101] In China, systematic reviews document a boom in university-level applications, with pilots yielding measurable improvements in both content comprehension and language skills, though textbook inadequacies and resource shortages limited scalability.^[100]^[1] Japan's efforts similarly emphasized controlled secondary school trials, where empirical data indicated language proficiency gains but were hampered by low teacher English competence and infrastructural gaps, restricting widespread adoption to elite or experimental settings.^[1]^[102] Adoption in the Americas and Africa remained limited up to 2020, often overshadowed by entrenched immersion or bilingual models tailored to indigenous or colonial language dynamics. In South America, implementations were predominantly language-oriented in private schools, with reviews noting innovations in curriculum integration but persistent challenges in public sectors due to teacher preparation deficits and equity disparities across socioeconomic lines.^[103] African contexts showed sparse empirical engagement, such as exploratory higher education curricula in Commonwealth nations and multilingual adaptations in South African schools, where diverse first-language backgrounds necessitated heavy modifications yet revealed implementation hurdles from varying baseline proficiencies.^[104]^[105] Globally, non-European expansion reflected economic imperatives for multilingual workforces, yet data underscore suboptimal results—such as stalled content mastery—in cases where policies overlooked learners' initial language competencies, prioritizing rapid rollout over foundational assessments.^[106]^[1] This pattern highlights the causal role of mismatched prerequisites in undermining CLIL's dual objectives, with successful pilots confined to contexts providing supplementary support.^[100]

Post-2020 Innovations and Research Trends

Following the COVID-19 pandemic, CLIL implementations increasingly incorporated hybrid and online platforms, enabling remote content delivery while maintaining language integration. A 2021 study on distance online CLIL lessons reported high learner satisfaction, with participants noting enhanced self-regulated learning through structured virtual tasks that fostered autonomy in language and content mastery.^[107] Similarly, polysynchronous interactions in hybrid CLIL mathematics classes during 2020-2021 demonstrated feasibility for real-time collaboration between in-person and online students, though challenges in equitable participation persisted without adequate technological scaffolding.^[108] Research trends post-2020 emphasize translanguaging within CLIL to address equity in multilingual settings, allowing strategic use of learners' full linguistic repertoires for deeper content comprehension. A 2024 review of translanguaging in U.S. K-12 science education highlighted its role in promoting equitable access by leveraging home languages alongside target languages, countering monolingual biases in traditional CLIL.^[109] Teacher-researcher collaborations have advanced this through online professional development, as seen in 2024 programs training educators in translanguaging and trans-semiotizing for non-English CLIL contexts.^[110] Pre-service workshops, such as a 2024 six-week CLIL science initiative, integrated translanguaging with hands-on activities, yielding statistically significant gains in pedagogical content knowledge (p < 0.003125) among participants.^[111] Despite these innovations, empirical data reveal persistent gaps in long-term impact metrics, with studies noting contradictory outcomes on equity and sustained language proficiency. A 2023 analysis identified inequities in CLIL access linked to socioeconomic factors, underscoring the need for contextual adaptations rather than universal application.^[112] Calls for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have intensified to rigorously test claims of broad efficacy, as quasi-experimental designs dominate and fail to isolate variables like learner background from outcomes. A 2024 study on self-regulatory processes in CLIL advocated for longitudinal RCTs to evaluate dependencies on institutional support and teacher training.^[113] These trends prioritize evidence over anecdotal benefits, highlighting CLIL's variability across non-European and EFL-dominant regions.

References

[1]
Content and language integrated learning (CLIL): Experiences and ...
CLIL is an educational approach that emphasizes the simultaneous acquisition of content knowledge and language skills through the use of a foreign language ( ...
[2]
[PDF] Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) in ELT as ... - ERIC
Jun 26, 2022 · Content and Language Integrated Learning signifies studying a core subject (Mathematics,. Physics, Chemistry, Engineering and so on) while ...
[3]
[PDF] CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning) Methodological ...
With the CLIL approach, learners increase their linguistic resources to carry out content learning, requiring mental processing that leads to significant gains ...
[4]
(PDF) CLIL: An Overview - ResearchGate
May 20, 2021 · In this chapter, we first describe the origins of content and language integrated learning (CLIL) as an educational approach that emerged in the mid-1990s.
[5]
[PDF] Revisiting CLIL: Background, Pedagogy, and Theoretical ... - HAL-SHS
The creation of CLIL was marked by a multitude of factors such as (a) the historical, political, epistemological and societal influences of the 1980s, (b) ...
[6]
Effects of content and language integrated learning in Europe A ...
4 Sept 2019 · Later studies have shown that CLIL learners are better L2 performers, more motivated, and more linguistically and academically talented: it can ...
[7]
[PDF] Improving the effectiveness of language learning: CLIL and ...
25 Jun 2014 · The review also shows that the greatest gain for CLIL learners is that they possess larger vocabularies of technical and semi-technical terms ...
[8]
A systematic review of student learning outcomes in CLIL in LOTE
12 Sept 2024 · Four of the nine studies reported positive outcomes, two reported neutral outcomes and three reported negative outcomes for enrolled students.
[9]
A review of CLIL outcomes: Calling for fuller use of effect sizes and ...
This article reviews empirical quantitative studies concerning the outcomes of Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) from the perspective of ...
[10]
Full article: The integration of content and language in CLIL
The study. This study examines teachers' beliefs and practices regarding the integration of language and content in a CLIL programme by comparing a teacher ...
[11]
CLIL: Some of the reasons why … and why not - ScienceDirect
One conclusion worthy of concern is that the interest in CLIL diverts attention away from the shortcomings of mainstream FL teaching in state schools and the ...
[12]
[PDF] Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL): Limitations and ...
In Seikkula-Leino's study (2007), while CLIL learners remained more motivated than their non-CLIL peers, they also reported a lower self-concept of themselves ...
[13]
What is CLIL? | Article - Onestopenglish
The term CLIL was coined by David Marsh, University of Jyväskylä, Finland (1994): ... Even if you are unaware of the term CLIL, you may already have been using CLIL ...
[14]
[PDF] 1 History of CLIL - Blog da UFES
The acronym CLIL was coined by David Marsh, a member of a team working in the area of ... A brief history of CLIL and CLIL in Jyväskylä. Retrieved 23 July ...
[15]
[PDF] Language teaching and learning in multilingual classrooms
The European Commission has developed a report on Language teaching and learning in Multilingual Classrooms (RLMC) to provide more guidance on successfully ...
[16]
(PDF) The Sociolinguistics of CLIL: language Planning and ...
The language policies adopted in Europe during the 1990s marked a significant change in the European language ideology, shifting from monolingualism to ...
[17]
[PDF] Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) at School in Europe
CLIL provision including minority languages has existed since 1959. SK. Early 1990s. Since the early 1950s. FI. Legislation by decree in 1991 for provision at ...
[18]
[PDF] LANGUAGE TEACHER TRAINING AND BILINGUAL EDUCATION ...
The first significant research projects on CLIL in Finland started in 1996 (cf. Marsh, Oksman-Rinkinen & Takala 1996, Nikula & Marsh 1997a, Nikula & ...
[19]
(PDF) A CLIL Approach: Evolution and Current Situation in Europe ...
Aug 8, 2025 · Abstract: The main purpose of this study is to analyse the CLIL situation and its evolution. The ability to communicate appropriately.
[20]
https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.21832/9781847691675-005/html
[21]
CLIL research in Europe: Past, present, and future - ResearchGate
Dec 5, 2011 · This article provides a comprehensive, updated, and critical approximation to the sizeable literature which has been produced on the increasingly acknowledged ...
[22]
[PDF] CLIL/EMILE – the European dimension - ECML
Sep 2, 2002 · CLIL and EMILE refer to any dual-focused educational context in which an additional language, thus not usually the first language of the ...
[23]
Canada's "Founding Mothers" of French Immersion
Jan 9, 2020 · Olga Melikoff, Murielle Parkes and Valerie Neale were leaders of the parent group behind the creation, in 1965, of Canada's first bilingual ...
[24]
La Vie Bilingue: French immersion programs in Canada through the ...
Mar 12, 2017 · French immersion was first developed in Quebec during the 1960s, in the midst of the province's "Quiet Revolution". It was a time when Quebecers ...
[25]
Cummins: Immersion Education for the Millennium
The term "immersion education" came to prominence in Canada during the 1960s ... Canadian French immersion programs: a comparison with Swedish immersion programs ...
[26]
Canadian French Immersion: What did it actually achieve, and to ...
Dec 21, 2022 · Early partial immersion students started kindergarten with a mix of French- and English-medium instruction across academic subjects, depending ...
[27]
[PDF] The Evolving Architecture of Content-Based Instruction
Mar 15, 2017 · By the late 1980s, the modern language teaching community in the U.S. also began to apply CBI principles to “disciplined-based” approaches.
[28]
[PDF] Content-Based Instruction in Language Education: A Bibliometric ...
Oct 12, 2024 · CBI has its origins in the early 1980s as educa- tors sought ... Although North America, where CBI was initially proposed (Brinton et ...
[29]
[PDF] Content-Based Instruction (CBI) refers to an approach to second lan
Content-Based Instruction likewise draws on the principles of Communicative Language Teaching, as these emerged in the 1980s. If, as it was argued ...
[30]
[PDF] Content-based ESL instruction and curriculum.
Mar 22, 2007 · Most importantly, empirical findings show that content-based models are more effective than traditional ESL teaching.Missing: shift EFL critiques
[31]
https://www.rikkyo.repo.nii.ac.jp/record/2000952/files/AA11356662_38_05.pdf
[32]
Languages, Minorities and Education in Spain: The Case of Catalonia
Catalan-language immersion in the classroom. Under the aegis of the Linguistic Normalis- ation Law, the regional government established the Language Immersion ...Missing: partial | Show results with:partial
[33]
[PDF] CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning
Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) is a dual-focused educational approach in which an additional language is used for the learning and teaching ...
[34]
[PDF] Core Features of Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL)
Jul 19, 2022 · the integration of content learning and language learning aims at equipping the learners with experience of using English for learning specific ...
[35]
[PDF] The Effectiveness of Using Content and Language Integrated ... - ERIC
3- CLIL is a cross-curricular approach to learning and aims to enable learners to use their critical thinking in order to integrate, use and transfer newly ...
[36]
[PDF] The Role of CLIL in Foreign Language Instruction
Sep 26, 2025 · This article argues that the integration of content and language through CLIL represents a powerful pedagogical strategy for meeting the demands ...
[37]
(PDF) Content-and-Language Integrated Learning: From Practice to ...
Aug 6, 2025 · This article surveys recent work on content-and-language integrated learning (CLIL). Related to both content-based instruction and immersion education.
[38]
[PDF] theoretical framework of CLIL, an Overview - Ateneu
CLIL models are by no means uniform. They are elaborated at a local level to respond to local conditions and desires. Indeed the.
[39]
The comprehending teacher: scaffolding in content and language ...
Jan 27, 2020 · The study investigates how three Norwegian CLIL teachers support learning for second language learners (SLL) through scaffolding.
[40]
Scaffolding what, why and how? A critical thematic review study of ...
In bilingual education 'scaffolding' is used to describe support that allows learners to engage with content in a language they only partially know.
[41]
[PDF] Using Children's Literature to Teach the 4Cs of CLIL - ERIC
This review examines if children's literature in EFL supports the 4Cs of CLIL: content, communication, cognition, and culture. It finds evidence that it can ...
[42]
Early French Immersion Program (K-12) | Language Programs
Oct 15, 2025 · First developed in Canada in 1965, the French Immersion program is based on decades of research into its effectiveness both in teaching a second ...
[43]
French Immersion in Canada
Since the mid-1960s, some English-language public schools in Canada have offered French immersion programs to students who speak English and other languages.
[44]
[PDF] Immersion and CLIL in English: more differences than similarities
In this article, we attempt to unravel this ambiguity from the Spanish context, describing from a psycholinguistic and methodological point of view the aspects.
[45]
CLIL and Immersion: Some differences - Achilleas Kostoulas
Jul 25, 2018 · A summary of an article by Cenoz, Genesee & Gorter, which discusses differences between CLIL and bilingual education / immersion programmes.
[46]
Critical Analysis of CLIL: Taking Stock and Looking Forward
13 Jul 2013 · The aim of this article is to examine these ambiguities and to call for clarification of the definition of CLIL.
[47]
6 - Content-Based Instruction and Content and Language Integrated ...
Apr 8, 2022 · CLIL often involves a content teacher teaching content through a second or foreign language, as does CBI, but also may involve content from ...<|separator|>
[48]
Content-based instruction and content and language integrated ...
Mar 11, 2015 · The use of both CBI and CLIL refers to programmes where academic content is taught through a second or additional language and the preference ...
[49]
Content-based instruction and content and language integrated ...
This article looks at the characteristics of Content-Based Instruction (CBI) and Content land Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) in order to examine their ...
[50]
Content and Language Integrated Learning - ResearchGate
Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) has been widely promoted as a method for teaching both vocational subjects and foreign language skills ...
[51]
(PDF) CLIL vs EMI: Different Approaches or the Same Dog with a ...
This chapter describes the main differences between Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) and English as a Medium of Instruction (EMI).
[52]
[PDF] Emerging From Content and Language Integrated Learning ... - ERIC
Therefore, I believe CLIL- ised EMI surpasses traditional EMI by providing greater linguistic support for students in a language immersion programme. CLIL-ised ...Missing: programs | Show results with:programs<|separator|>
[53]
View of Language and Content Outcomes of CLIL and EMI - laclil
CBI may be practiced in various forms, with the most common being Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) or English-Medium Instruction (EMI) (Brinton & ...<|separator|>
[54]
None
### Summary of Task-Based Learning in CLIL (Section 2)
[55]
[PDF] Integrating the task-based approach to CLIL teaching - HAL
Nov 9, 2012 · Then, we will suggest activities in a CLIL context to improve students' learning and offer one example. Finally, we will discuss the question of ...
[56]
Developing the CLIL teacher assessment literacy inventory
Assessment in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) ... My assessment tasks come with clear assessment rubrics in content and language dimensions.
[57]
(PDF) Defining foreign language needs among pre-service CLIL ...
Aug 10, 2025 · The pre-service CLIL teachers already have the official level of EFL (B2) required to. work in public education in Andalusia. 3. The pre ...
[58]
Content Language Integrated Learning (CLIL): Teachers ...
The primary objective of this research is to explore CLIL teachers' metacognitive knowledge of pedagogical translanguaging in the context of Vietnam.Missing: definition | Show results with:definition
[59]
CLIL vs Immersion | TEFL Handbook - studiumdigitale
One difference to the Immersion approach is that in CLIL lessons you mostly have non-native speaking teachers. Do you think this is an obstacle that can prevent ...
[60]
[PDF] Exploring the Effects of Customized CLIL Training on Teacher ...
focused on CLIL teacher training in Myanmar. This is surprisingly ... CLIL teacher's competencies grid. Common Constitution and. Language Learning ...
[61]
[PDF] CLIL Teachers' Needs and Professional Development - ERIC
This study utilizes a systematic review process to synthesize research on content and language integrated learning (CLIL) teachers' self-reported needs and ...
[62]
[PDF] CLIL realities through the lens of English and content teachers - ERIC
They were concerned about the increased teacher workload in CLIL, in part because coordination was necessary. They identified two important categories: the ...
[63]
Are teachers ready for CLIL? Evidence from a European study
Aug 9, 2025 · ... teacher workload, lack of content expertise, and collaboration between CLIL and non-CLIL educators; and (2) benefits, focusing on students ...
[64]
[PDF] Meta-analysis of studies on the acquisition of receptive skills and ...
Concerning global comprehension,. CLIL students scored significantly higher, however, non-CLIL students outperformed non-CLIL group in vocabulary (p=0,000) and ...
[65]
[PDF] The Effect of CLIL on Language Skills and Components: A Meta
In addition, students acquire language in real-life and natural situations rather than learning it through analysis; hence, this method prioritizes fluency and ...
[66]
(PDF) Vocabulary growth in young CLIL and traditional EFL learners
Aug 9, 2025 · PDF | This paper presents a three-year longitudinal study in which the receptive vocabulary size and lexical growth of a group of CLIL ...
[67]
[PDF] A Longitudinal Study on the Impact of CLIL on Language Outcomes
Speech production was assessed in terms of pronunciation, vocabulary, grammar, fluency, and content, with statistically significant differences being detected ...
[68]
Effects of CLIL on second language learning - ScienceDirect.com
The positive effects of Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) on the development of students' foreign language skills may have been overestimated ...
[69]
[PDF] Pragmatic Competences of German Students in English Content ...
communicative competences, but no CLIL students who score weakly. ... The means of First study with CLIL students and ELF students are not significantly different ...Missing: utility | Show results with:utility
[70]
(PDF) CLIL and ELF: Friends or Foes? - ResearchGate
While the former-CLIL-has burgeoned as a proactive attempt to upgrade European language competence standards, the latter-ELF-favours more realistic language ...
[71]
Effects of Content and Language Integrated Learning on secondary ...
Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) has demonstrated benefits for target language development, specifically because the target language is used ...
[72]
The effects of CLIL on L1 and content learning - ScienceDirect.com
This article reports on a quantitative study into the effects of CLIL programs on the L1 competence and content knowledge of Primary and Secondary Education ...
[73]
The trade-off between STEM knowledge acquisition and language ...
Although the CLIL group has shown to be less successful, CLIL outreach learning provides positive data for long-term learning in the content knowledge test.
[74]
[PDF] Challenges of Adopting CLIL in Private Schools in Beijing
CLIL, as a pedagogical ... （2） In CLIL, teachers with insufficient L2 proficiency tend to oversimplify when teaching subject content, leaving students.
[75]
[PDF] Students' View on CLIL: Perceived Benefits and Limitations
Jul 23, 2021 · 2010; Pavón Vázquez 2014); the consequent risk is that excessive simplification of the language might lead to oversimplification of the content.Missing: pedagogical criticisms
[76]
(PDF) Students' View on CLIL: Perceived Benefits and Limitations
Aug 9, 2025 · This article aims to analyse students' perception of the quality of their CLIL experience since they are the final recipients of CLIL.
[77]
(PDF) Equity in Bilingual Education: Socioeconomic Status and ...
Aug 10, 2025 · ... CLIL students from more disadvantaged backgrounds. obtained worse results than their non-CLIL peers of a similar socioeconomic standing. As a ...
[78]
Effects of CLIL Teaching on Language Outcomes - Academia.edu
Some Norwegian politicians have argued that being exposed to more than one foreign language has a negative impact on weaker students. The preliminary findings ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[79]
[PDF] The Challenges of Implementing Content Language Integrated ...
This article expresses the idea of CLIL in Thailand, including challenges of implementing CLIL in. Thai context, CLIL materials, and steps to successful ...Missing: controversies criticisms
[80]
Challenges and Strategies on the Content and Language Integrated ...
Aug 25, 2022 · The study revealed that as part of the CLIL approach, the participant teachers indicated various challenges such as a lack of vocabulary ...
[81]
Innovations and Challenges in CLIL Implementation in Europe
ABSTRACT Content and language integrated learning (CLIL) implementation has become the cornerstone of educational change all around Europe, building on a ...10 Citations · When Clil Is For All... · Clil - A Pedagogical...Missing: shortages planning Asia<|separator|>
[82]
[PDF] Advantages and Challenges with CLIL - DiVA portal
The main focus for this study concerns the perceived advantages and challenges in terms of learner engagement and confidence in using the. English language in ...Missing: costs | Show results with:costs
[83]
TEACHER'S CHANGES AND CHALLENGES IN CLIL ...
This study aims at finding out high school English teachers' changes and challenges in content and language integrated learning in Vietnam. Survey ...
[84]
The Clash between CLIL and TELL: Effects and Potential Solutions ...
Mar 28, 2023 · This research paper investigates the different challenges and problems that were faced by content and language integrated learning teachers in their ...<|separator|>
[85]
Innovations and Challenges in CLIL Program Evaluation
In this article, we present key findings from one of the first large-scale, multidimensional CLIL evaluation projects. ... The ultimate aim is to base decisions ...
[86]
https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9781501503177-031/html
[87]
ENGLISH AS A LINGUA FRANCA IN EUROPE: CHALLENGES FOR ...
Oct 25, 2006 · The chapter suggests a different way of conceptualizing the language in European contexts and provides an updated overview of empirical research ...
[88]
CLIL classroom discourse: Research from Europe - Academia.edu
A study noted that average negotiation of meaning sequences were twice as frequent in CLIL lessons (14.9) compared to L1 lessons (7.7), indicating richer ...Missing: multinational | Show results with:multinational
[89]
English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) and its role in integrating content ...
Use of English as lingua franca-this element refers to the increasing use of ... Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL)) classrooms where non ...
[90]
[PDF] Code-switching in CLIL classes: a Case Study - Edizioni CaFoscari
Abstract This paper aims to analyse the phenomenon of the linguistic alternation (code-switching) between mother tongue and foreign language (English) ...
[91]
Code-Switching in CLIL: the Students' Perception - ResearchGate
Aug 9, 2025 · The aim of the present study is to investigate the nature of code-switching in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) classes from the students' point ...
[92]
Content and Language Integrated Learning and ELF | Request PDF
This chapter describes the online learning component of a blended model designed to promote Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) at the ...Missing: multinational | Show results with:multinational
[93]
Content adaptations in English-medium instruction: Comparing L1 ...
The present study addresses this research gap by analyzing five sets of matching L1 and English-medium lectures given in different disciplines at three Italian ...<|separator|>
[94]
[PDF] EMI, CLIL, & CBI: Differing Approaches and Goals - JALT Publications
However, we view EMI not as an umbrella term but rather as an approach to teaching in English distinct from CLIL and CBI. Examination of some of the ways EMI ...
[95]
[PDF] A Typology of English-Medium Instruction - Professor Jack C. Richards
Although CLIL and immersion are often used synonymously in foreign language research, Lasagabaster and Sierra (2010) suggest there are differences between CLIL ...
[96]
[PDF] Language and Content Outcomes of CLIL and EMI - ERIC
CBI may be practiced in various forms, with the most common being Content and Language In- tegrated Learning (CLIL) or English-Medium Instruction (EMI) (Brinton.
[97]
CBI, CLIL & EMI: Differing Approaches and Goals - Academia.edu
The paper indicates that the indistinct boundaries among CLIL, EMI, and CBI can lead to overlapping classroom activities, particularly with active learning ...
[98]
Teaching and Learning of Mathematics through CLIL, CBI, or EMI ...
The use of one term over the other is mainly due to contextual and accidental characteristics: CLIL is usually used in Europe, while CBI is the preferred term ...Missing: terminology | Show results with:terminology
[99]
(PDF) Integration of Content and Language Learning - ResearchGate
Dec 19, 2017 · The multiplicity of terms can cause confusion, and indeed debate continues as to what the distinctions are between them.
[100]
(PDF) Sustaining Content and Language Integrated Learning in China
Feb 12, 2023 · PDF | The past decades have witnessed the rise and boom of Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL). As this dual-focused pedagogical ...
[101]
[PDF] Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL)
Comparatively, CLIL development in European countries is more advanced, whereas in Asian countries, such as Vietnam, China and Japan, it is currently gaining.
[102]
[PDF] exploring content and language integated learning in japan
Content and language integrated learning: Towards a connected research agenda for CLIL pedagogies. International Journal of Bilingual Education and.
[103]
Innovations and Challenges in CLIL Implementation in South America
Aug 9, 2025 · From this review, it transpires that Latin American CLIL is mostly implemented and examined from a language-driven perspective in private ...
[104]
Using Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) to address ...
Aug 7, 2025 · This paper confronts the education system of South Africa, indicating that all official languages must be treated equally, and not only on ...
[105]
An Exploration of an English Content and Language Integrated ...
Aug 9, 2025 · This research explored the viability of an English Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) curriculum in higher education ...Missing: adoption | Show results with:adoption
[106]
[PDF] Content and Language Integrated Learning: Origin, Development ...
CLIL teaching methods in Europe attach importance to several indicators, such as culture, teaching process, educational and living space, communicative language ...
[107]
Evaluating Learners' Satisfaction with a Distance Online CLIL ... - NIH
Jun 14, 2021 · Results revealed that ICLHE may not work well in a distance learning situation due to decreasing motivation, greater distraction, lack of actual interaction.
[108]
Pointed polysynchronous interactions in CLIL mathematics class ...
When the class goes hybrid, potential activities that encourage interactions of face-to-face students with those in the online synchronous classroom are ...
[109]
Translanguaging in US K–12 science and engineering education: A ...
Nov 13, 2024 · The purpose of this review of literature was to examine what equity approaches have undergirded research on translanguaging in US K–12 science and engineering ...
[110]
CLIL teacher online professional development in translanguaging ...
May 13, 2024 · In this paper, I intend to measure the effectiveness of an online pedagogy of multiliteracies, which embraces translanguaging and trans-semiotizing.
[111]
Transformative impact of pre-service CLIL science workshops on ...
Aug 1, 2025 · RQ1: How does participation in a six-week CLIL workshop influence preservice teachers' competencies in CLIL science pedagogical content ...
[112]
New challenges for CLIL research: Identifying (in)equity issues
Jul 7, 2023 · The special issue seeks to question, explore, and understand how CLIL might have the potential or not to contribute to greater equity and access ...
[113]
Students' self-regulatory processes in content and language ...
Aug 6, 2024 · This study aimed to explore how students plan, monitor, and evaluate their learning in CLIL contexts by employing a novel vignette-based microanalytic ...<|control11|><|separator|>