Abstract
This response to Pérez-Cañado’s (2017) disappointing defence of CLIL interests insists on the need for a clear definition of CLIL not only so that it can be characterised for comparative purposes, but also so that the fundamentals underlying it can be scrutinised, instead of the continued hedging of bets on a moving target, justified for its contextual flexibility. As an example, whether CLIL classes are accompanied by FL classes on the curriculum or not is not a minor issue, both practically and theoretically. In addition other questions are reconsidered such as the communicative nature of CLIL, especially when it comes to whether the content is likely to be more motivating, and the supposed egalitarianism of CLIL initiatives. Finally, two research issues are discussed. Firstly, an example demonstrates how it is perfectly legitimate to critique empirical CLIL research which argues apparently beneficial results from a ‘due to’ stance by countering it with ‘despite’ arguments, while leaving much of the flawed CLIL research aside. Secondly, there is a reiterated demand that disinterested research at a curricular level confront outcomes in both the FLs and the content covered in CLIL programmes for all the state-school students affected both directly or indirectly, and in comparable terms.
References
Alonso, E., J. Grisaleña & A. Campo. 2008. Plurilingual education in secondary schools: Analysis of results. International CLIL Research Journal 1(1). 36–49.Search in Google Scholar
Broca, A. 2016. CLIL and non-CLIL: Differences from the outset. ELT Journal 70(3). 320–331.10.1093/elt/ccw011Search in Google Scholar
Bruton, A. 2011a. Are the differences between CLIL and non-CLIL groups in Andalusia due to CLIL?: A reply to Lorenzo, Casal and Moore. Applied Linguistics 32(2). 236–241.10.1093/applin/amr007Search in Google Scholar
Bruton, A. 2011b. Is CLIL so beneficial, or just selective? Re-evaluating some of the research. System 39(4). 523–532.10.1016/j.system.2011.08.002Search in Google Scholar
Bruton, A. 2013. CLIL: Some of the reasons why …. and why not. System 41(3). 587–597.10.1016/j.system.2013.07.001Search in Google Scholar
Bruton, A. 2015. CLIL: Detail matters in the whole picture. More than a reply to J. Hüttner and U. Smit. System 53. 119–128.10.1016/j.system.2015.07.005Search in Google Scholar
Cenoz, J. 2013. Discussion: Towards an educational perspective in CLIL language policy and pedagogical practice. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 16(3). 389–394.10.1080/13670050.2013.777392Search in Google Scholar
Cenoz, J. 2015. Content-based instruction and content and language integrated learning: The same or different?. Language, Culture and Curriculum 28(1). 8–24.10.1080/07908318.2014.1000922Search in Google Scholar
Cenoz, J., F. Genesee & D. Gorter. 2014. Critical Analysis of CLIL: Taking stock and looking forward. Applied Linguistics 35(3). 243–262.10.1093/applin/amt011Search in Google Scholar
Czura, A. & K. Papaja. 2013. Curricular models of CLIL education in Poland. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 16(3). 321–333.10.1080/13670050.2013.777388Search in Google Scholar
Dickey, R. J. 2004. Content (adj.) or content (n.) with your English classes?. Educational International 1(3). 10–15.Search in Google Scholar
García López, M. & A. Bruton. 2013. Potential drawbacks and actual benefits of CLIL initiatives in public secondary schools. in C. Abello-Contesse, P. M. Chandler, M. D. López-Jiménez & R. Chacón-Beltrán (eds.), Bilingual and Multilingual Education in the twenty-first Century: Building on experience, 256–274. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.10.21832/9781783090716-016Search in Google Scholar
Genesee, F. 1998. A case study of multilingualism in Canada. in J. Cenoz & F. Genesee (eds.), Beyond bilingualism: Multilingualism and multilingual education, 243–258. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Search in Google Scholar
Hunt, M. 2011. Learners’ perceptions of their experiences of learning subject content through a foreign language. Educational Review 63. 365–378.10.1080/00131911.2011.571765Search in Google Scholar
Hüttner, J. & U. Smit. 2014. CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning): The bigger picture. A response to A. Bruton. 2013. CLIL: Some of the reasons why … and why not. System 41 (2013): 587-597. System 44(2). 160–167.10.1016/j.system.2014.03.001Search in Google Scholar
Lambert, S. C. 2015. The importance of classification to business model research. Journal of Business Models 3(1). 49–61.Search in Google Scholar
Lorenzo, F., S. Casal & P. Moore. 2010. The effects of content and language integrated learning in European Education: Key findings from the Andalusian Sections Evaluation Project. Applied Linguistics 31(3). 418–442.10.1093/applin/amp041Search in Google Scholar
Marsh, D. 2002. Introduction. in D. Marsh (ed.), CLIL/EMILE – The European Dimension: Action, trends and foresight potential, 15–17. Finland: University of Jyväskylä.Search in Google Scholar
Marsh, H. W., K. T. Hau & C. K Kong. 2000. Late immersion and language of instruction in Hong Kong high schools: Achievement growth in language and non-language subjects. Harvard Educational Review 70(3). 302–346.10.17763/haer.70.3.gm047588386655k5Search in Google Scholar
Pérez Cañado, M. L. 2017. Stopping the “pendulum effect” in CLIL research: Finding the balance between Pollyanna and Scrooge. Applied Linguistics Review 8(1). 79–99.10.1515/applirev-2016-2001Search in Google Scholar
Pérez-Cañado, M. L. 2012. CLIL research in Europe: Past, present and future. The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 15(3). 315–341.10.1080/13670050.2011.630064Search in Google Scholar
Roussel, S., D .Joulia, A. Tricot & J. Sweller. 2017. Learning subject content through a foreign language should not ignore human cognitive architecture: A cognitive load theory approach. Learning and Instruction 52. 69–79.10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.04.007Search in Google Scholar
Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. 2008. CLIL and foreign language learning: A longitudinal study in the Basque Country. International CLIL Research Journal 1(1). 60–73.Search in Google Scholar
Rumlich, D. 2013. Students’ general English proficiency prior to CLIL: Empirical evidence for substantial differences between prospective CLIL and non-CLIL students in Germany. in S. Breidbach & B. Viebrock (eds.), Content and language integrated learning (CLIL) in Europe. Research perspectives on policy and practice, 151–201. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Search in Google Scholar
Taillefer, G. 2013. CLIL in higher education. The (perfect?) crossroads of ESP and didactic reflection. ASp 63. 31–53.10.4000/asp.3290Search in Google Scholar
© 2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
