Multilingualism and multimodality in the CLIL/EMI classroom

The articles in this special issue of the Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development highlight three significant areas of research that have evolved in content and language integrated learning (CLIL) education: (1) the implementation of translanguaging pedagogy and the use of multimodal resources in scaffolding content and language in CLIL classrooms, (2) CLIL teachers’ awareness of the pedagogical philosophies of multilingualism and translanguaging, and (3) the role of multimodality in CLIL assessments. This commentary will begin with a discussion of the articles in this special issue and draw out key theoretical and methodological themes. This commentary will advance the field of CLIL education by critically reflecting on the implications of adopting translanguaging as a methodological framework in CLIL research, which enables teachers and researchers to achieve a greater understanding of the meaning-making processes in CLIL classrooms.

In Thailand, the new educational policy is mandated to encourage content teachers to integrate English in content classrooms. The policy has created tensions and misconceptions among content teachers, who must change the medium of instruction from Thai to English. This paper presents an attempt to foster teacher knowledge about the Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) approach in a teacher professional development program. Classroom language in English and CLIL classroom structure were provided for 15 teachers at a secondary school. Four volunteer teachers were observed to determine the extent to which teachers implemented CLIL. The findings revealed the teachers partly implemented classroom language in English and the provided CLIL structure was not evident. The contribution of this paper is to the literature of CLIL teacher professional development effectiveness and the implementation fidelity of a professional development program.

The content and language integrated learning (CLIL) is acknowledged as a dual-focused educational approach and practice for better access in both languages and content learning. In the last two decades, CLIL has been increasingly under close scrutiny, especially in Europe and Latin America (Pérez-Cañado, 2018; Banegas, Poole, & Corrales, 2020). However, it has been expanded globally and takes up a notable position in the field of ELT. Here comes the publication of this edited collection, signal of an increased need and interests in CLIL across the world.
 This book consists of four parts and fourteen chapters. Besides first part serves as introductory overview of CLIL’s theoretical development and last part as conclusional prospect of conduction of CLIL--both of which are presented by the editors of the book under review--this volume encompasses twelve papers falling under two headings: CLIL practice and CLIL professional development.
 The part of CLIL practice addresses a variety of cultural backgrounds and educational contexts where CLIL implementations are conducted. This part discusses assessment issue in CLIL Spanish history course and translanguaging in CLIL science class in Colombia, attesting to the authenticity (chapter 2) and engaging effect of CLIL. Shifting to a less explored contexts in Japan and Taiwan, there are 3 chapters in this part that investigate the possibilities of implementing CLIL in Asian EFL contexts. Chapter 4 investigates the students’ perception of being assessed in a CLIL programme in Japanese University, chapter 6 concentrates on the interaction between teacher and students that ficilitates both content and language learning in a CLIL classroom in Japan. Chaper 7 surveys students in a CLIL programme at a polytechnic university in Taiwan with CQS (Cultural Quotient Scale) and finds that CLIL approach effectively promotes learners’ cross-cultural understanding and CQ competence. This part empirically reveals the malleability and accessibility of CLIL in various cross-cultural educational settings.
 The part of CLIL professional development explores in what ways CLIL can be sustained across educational levels and types of education provision. Chapter 8 reflects CLIL models in Australian TESOL course, chapter 12 offers evidence that CLIL approach can also be utilized in coursebook for very young learners in tandem with second language learning in the context of schooling. This part also mentions language and content teachers’ needs for professional training that can provide instructions and strategies in both their pre- and in-service phases (chapter 9, 10, 11). Chapter 13 shows the significance of teachers’ awareness of possible hegemonic ideologies in CLIL class. It is crucial for people to realize that instead of being regarded as an elitist education/language learning approach (Van Mensel, Hiligsmann, Mettewie, & Galand, 2020), “CLIL can become the platform through which multilingual education is embraced as an option for anyone regardless of personal circumstances” (Hemmi & Banegas, 2021:306).
 Taken as a whole, this anthology helps language teachers to establish a comprehensive understanding of CLIL initiatives and contributes concrete pedagogical implications for language teaching researchers, as well as education policy makers, postgraduates, and language teacher educators all over the world.

Summary The EU consistent policy on languages promotes new language teaching methods and encourages pedagogical experiments at all levels of education, Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) being one of language education innovations. Over the past twenty years CLIL proved to be an effective method in foreign language acquisition and there is considerable evidence of successful CLIL implementation in secondary schools in many European countries. Speaking about foreign languages in higher education, it is necessary to note that abbreviation EMI – English as a Medium of Instruction – is mentioned much more often than CLIL. One of the reasons for lower CLIL implementation at a tertiary level is the complexity of subject contents taught at universities. Furthermore, if a student’s major is law, the issue becomes more challenging because of the differences in common law and civil law systems. However, one of lawyer’s professional competences directly connected with language learning is a communicative competence. Such spheres of lawyer’s activity as client counseling, negotiation, and mediation rely heavily on listening, paraphrasing, reframing, summarising, and skills of question formation regardless of what legal system a lawyer belongs to. These so-called soft skills can be developed within a foreign language course but it seems more rational to master them through a professional medium. Therefore, law teachers should be engaged in designing a substantive part of course materials, while language teachers are to be in charge of communicative competence development. The present study aims at analyzing the practice and experience in designing and implementing an original optional course “Client Consultation in English”. This course can serve as an illustration of a CLIL Legal English course and its structure can be used as an example to follow while designing similar courses.

Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) is an approach to learning activity that uses foreign language as a medium for learning content so that the competence on the language and the subject area content can be achieved simultaneously. CLIL can be implemented in elementary level, secondary level, as well as tertiary or higher education level. In higher education, CLIL might have two significant reasons to be implemented: the globalized world and university internationalization. So far in Indonesia, nearly all universities have not implemented CLIL yet. This study aims at finding out the lecturers’ perceptions towards CLIL in higher education. The participants of the study were thirty-three lecturers from non-English departments of Universitas Muria Kudus. The intrument to collect the data was closed-ended questionnaire. The result reveals that the non-English department lecturers quite disagree for CLIL to be implemented in higher education. Their objection for having English as a medium of instruction seems to lie in their own ability of English as well as their students’ poor English proficiency. Keywords: CLIL, higher education, non-English department lecturers

In spite of the multiple competencies necessary to design and deliver proper Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) lessons, the teachers’ linguistic proficiency is the primary competence considered in the accreditation of CLIL teachers in Spain. However, teachers’ competence in planning CLIL lessons is key to bilingual education. This article explores this competence and reports on the several factors that influence the level of integration of CLIL methodological principles in the lesson planning style of in-service teachers at primary and secondary education. The factors studied are the stage of education, curricular subjects, teacher education, status at school, years teaching CLIL and type of school in a sample of 383 in-service CLIL teachers. Results show statistically significant differences in all the factors studied except in the stage of education (primary-secondary) and the type of school (state-semiprivate). These results reveal a high heterogeneity in the sample, which allows the description of the CLIL teacher profiles according to the factors that influence their competence in planning and delivering CLIL lessons. It is concluded that education and training in CLIL competencies, such as planning CLIL lessons, is also necessary in order to achieve a more homogeneous competence profile of the teachers. Therefore, a review of the academic programs and of the accreditation model so as to guarantee that they include prescriptive education and training in CLIL is recommended, since the quality and sustainability of bilingual programs also depends on teachers’ competence in CLIL and not only on the students’ academic results.

Content and language integrated learning (CLIL) has emerged as one of the major educational trends in the European Union. It is an innovative approach which refers to educational settings where a language other than the learners’ mother tongue is used as the medium of instruction. For many years the methodological aspects of CLIL were neglected. The CLIL classroom looked like a traditional teacher-centred language or content subject classroom but the content of the content subject replaced the traditional content of the language classroom (Marsh 2001, p. 32). The situation has changed in recent years and CLIL-specific methodology is being developed. The paper provides an outline of CLIL methodology starting with a brief outline of the phenomenon of CLIL. Additionally, the importance of teaching materials in a CLIL classroom will be discussed. All the data presented is based on CLIL classroom observations in Poland as well as on interviews conducted with CLIL teachers. Finally, problems concerning CLIL methodology are discussed and specific solutions are provided.

Bilingual programmes in which an L2 is used as the medium of instruction are becoming popular in different parts of the world, and content and language integrated learning (CLIL) is one variant of such programmes. Recent research on CLIL has gradually shifted from product-oriented (i.e. evaluating the effectiveness of CLIL in terms of language and content learning outcomes) to more process-oriented by exploring classroom interaction in detail to gain insight into effective pedagogy and teacher education. This paper compares two different settings of CLIL classrooms in Hong Kong (where CLIL is referred to as ‘English Medium Instruction’). In one setting, the Grade 10 teachers and students (aged 15) had experienced CLIL for the first three years of secondary education; in the second one, the Grade 10 teachers and students had just started to experience the CLIL approach. In our comprehensive analysis of 15 observed lessons, we found that the teacher–student interaction where CLIL had just started was more monologic: the teacher dominated the lesson talk, students had difficulties expressing their meaning in L2, question-and-answer sequences were constrained – a finding which would cause concern if replicated more generally. Our interpretation is that it takes time for both teachers and students to get used to integrated content and language learning, teachers need to develop skills to engage students in extended verbal exchanges, and students need to reach operational levels of L2 proficiency. The findings of this study yield significant implications for the successful implementation of CLIL in other contexts.

Content and language integrated learning (CLIL) contexts, i.e. classrooms where the medium of instruction is a foreign language, have become increasingly popular throughout Europe. Earlier research on CLIL classroom discourse has mainly explored teacher-fronted situations and the effect of teacher-student interaction on target language competence, with less attention to subject-specific aspects of language learning and use. Talk among peers and its role in language and subject learning has not been researched much, either. This paper draws on a discourse-pragmatic framework and focuses on Finnish students' peer discussions during group-work activities in CLIL history lessons conducted in English. The purpose is to explore students' joint processes of meaning-making and the extent to which their discursive practices reveal awareness of subject-specific language use. The focus is thus on the very notion of subject and language integration and how student co-construct an understanding of a subjectspecific activity and the type of language it requires. The findings show that the intertwined nature of language and content knowledge often becomes salient in students' group-work activities, especially in phases that involve meaning negotiations. It will also be argued that a close look at situations that require joint meaning-making by the students can provide some useful insights for CLIL pedagogical practice as regards raising students' awareness of subject- and genre-specific language use.1 IntroductionLanguage learners' discourse, the theme of this volume, is approached in this chapter from the viewpoint of content and language integrated learning, known as CLIL (e.g. Coyle, Hood & Marsh 2010). The context is Finland, with data from secondary level history classes taught in English. More specifically, this chapter explores learner discourse in a hitherto underexplored context: group-work situations where students are involved in peer discussions without the presence of the teacher. While reaching a research-based understanding of the dynamics of teacher-student interaction in CLIL settings continues to be important for the whole CLIL enterprise and a goal worth pursuing further, it is also worthwhile to direct an analytical gaze at group-work situations and at learners' joint processes of negotiation and interaction, because we know less about the value of these contexts for learning.What further characterizes this chapter is that rather than focusing on how students learn or how well they master the target language as a system (i.e. paying attention to the correctness of formal aspects of language), the purpose is to explore what students' group-work interaction reveals about content and language integration, a crucial concern in CLIL given its dual and overlapping goals. In so doing, it seeks to investigate students' joint processes of meaning making and the extent to which their discursive practices reveal any orientation to subject-specific language use. The focus is thus on the very notion of subject and language integration, how students coconstruct understanding of a subject-specific activity, and the type of language this requires.Theoretically, the study is based on a discourse-pragmatic orientation to interaction which emphasizes both the necessity of situated exploration of the details of talk and attention to the social-interpersonal dimensions inherent in any communicative encounter (for more details, see Nikula 2005, 2008). As regards the approach to learning, the study draws on socio-constructivist understandings of learning, according to which it is useful to see learning as social accomplishment and meaning making as a joint construction rather than a process undertaken solely by individuals (e.g. Lantolf & Poehner 2008).2 Language and content integrationContent and language integrated learning (CLIL) is an educational approach that aims at the simultaneous learning of language and subject; it has steadily gained ground in Europe especially since the 1990s (for overview, see Dalton-Puffer, Nikula & Smit 2010b). …

Relevance. Intellectual fashion plays an important role in determining the principles of organizing cognitive space in the practice of teaching the younger generation. The problem of choosing a cognitive strategy is key to the implementation of personal development within the framework of any educational model. A critical analysis of popular cognitive strategies enjoying increased attention from the scientific community is relevant, since the adherence of researchers to pedagogical fashion distracts methodologists from solving truly significant problems. The purpose of the study is a critical assessment of two phenomena of pedagogical fashion: the “flipped classroom” and content and language integrated learning (CLIL). Research methods. Based on a theoretical analysis of scientific literature and systematization of existing methodological concepts, the correct methodological conditions for the implementation of these pedagogical strategies in a modern university are identified and justified. Research results. It has been revealed that the name “flipped classroom” referring to the popular model of advanced independent students’ work is terminologically incompatible with the formal style of Russian scientific discourse. The idea that the effective use of modern digital resources in the university educational process should be associated only with this model is also subject to critical rethinking. The CLIL methodology used in teaching foreign languages should provide a dual focus in teaching, combining simultaneous mastery of both the subject and a foreign language within one basic discipline. Many CLIL proponents consider it a central phenomenon in teaching foreign languages, but consider it superficially, ignoring the differences between the methodologies of CLIL vs ESP (English for Specific Purposes) as well as CLIL vs EMI (English as Medium of Instruction). Conclusions. It is more correct to consider the “flipped classroom” strategy as advanced independent students’ work or reverse learning as a form of blended learning. The review of Russian studies devoted to CLIL allows us to negatively assess the CLIL centralization trend without proper taking into account its differences from the ESP and EMI methodologies.

Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) has been promoted by the European Union as a means to achieve multilingualism. While in Germany and other European countries the trend to use the L2 as a medium of instruction is increasing, in Hong Kong, however, we see a converse development. Many schools switched from English as a medium of instruction (EMI) to mother tongue education. The German CLIL concept promotes a gradual and cautious switch to L2 for only a few content subjects in the curriculum. The Hong Kong EMI approach introduces L2 after a short bridging period to most content subjects. Although the CLIL and EMI programmes both share the features of a late immersion programme, their approach to language use in classroom discourse frames is different. The current study was designed to examine the processes and effects of language learning in L2-taught content subjects. Based on samples from two history lessons in the German CLIL and the Hong Kong EMI context, classroom interaction was analysed with special focus on teacher/student talk and codeswitching. First results support the claim that constructive processes during classroom interaction are vital elements of language acquisition.

The following article discusses Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) in European higher education, which has become popular in recent years due to the status of English as a foreign language. Firstly, the difference between CLIL and English Medium Instruction (EMI) is explained, then CLIL modules in higher education are presented. Furthermore, CLIL special pedagogy in higher education is described. The subsequent section is devoted to the benefits and challenges of CLIL in higher education as listed in the literature; finally, insight into research on language in the CLIL higher education context is addressed. The data presented in the article is based on an in-depth literature review and research conducted in higher education institutions in Europe. The findings show that even though CLIL has become a popular approach in higher education in recent years, adapting this concept has been a great challenge due to the very little preparation, proper methodological training and complex linguistic learning situations.

Arising in Europe in the early 1990s, content and language integrated learning (CLIL) has become a popular educational approach. CLIL involves a dual focus on content and language learning with an additional language used as the medium of instruction. Although CLIL has received much attention and spread widely around the world, there is limited discussion that critically examines CLIL in relation to its core construct of integration between content and language learning. In particular, the phrasing of ‘content and language integrated learning’ gestures towards viewing language and content as separate entities. With these fundamental issues in mind, we discuss ways in which translanguaging pedagogies can provide a fruitful direction towards a critical integration of content and language learning in multilingual settings. With a view to contributing to a dynamic integration of content and language learning, we argue that CLIL pedagogies informed by translanguaging allow fluidity in meaning-making practices and critically re-examine the construct of language in CLIL. This approach responds to recent calls for more critical approaches to CLIL in order to challenge ‘English-only’/target-language-only pedagogies, ‘native-(English-)speakerism’, and unequal power relations between content and language teachers in many CLIL programs. Implications of this approach to CLIL classrooms in diverse settings are also discussed.

Language is a hallmark and the most enduring artefact of any community, playing a significant role in social interaction and the transmission of social values. Among the various approaches in language teaching, Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) and Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT) have consistently been at the forefront of research, receiving significant attention from practitioners and policymakers in Sri Lanka. This study investigates whether the use of TBLT and CLIL in English as a Second Language (ESL) classrooms enhances grammar learning. It aims to answer the research questions: a) “How do the CLIL and TBLT approaches enhance grammar teaching in ESL classrooms?” and b) “What are the perspectives of English teachers and learners on the use of CLIL and TBLT approaches in teaching grammar in ESL classrooms?” The study tests the hypothesis that TBLT is more effective than CLIL in teaching English grammar. The study involved sixty participants from one batch and two lecturers. Data were collected using pretest and posttest papers, semi-structured interviews, and open-ended questionnaires. The data were analyzed using SPSS and thematic analysis. The findings indicated that both TBLT and CLIL positively impact grammar learning, with TBLT emerging as the more effective approach. Perceptions of these approaches highlighted learner interest and the challenges of incorporating these methods in the classroom.

Introduction. Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) has recently been applied into education system, but a range of supporters is rapidly increasing, covering diverse countries. The CLIL approaches simultaneously use a foreign language as an object to studying and as an instrument to learning other subjects. The emergence of CLIL was related to a wide distribution of bilingualism in society and the need to cope with the problems related to this process, including the elimination of international conflicts, the consolidation of society as the factor of a social well-being, the support of a competitive labour market, etc.Despite growing popularity of CLIL across the world and recognised status by the European Union as one of the leading effective means to implementing international language policy of multilingualism, the academic teaching staff of Russian higher school does not still fully understand the organisational mechanisms and forms of a similar learning process, largely as a result of national characteristics and traditions. In a globalising world, CLIL didactics is currently becoming a perspective direction of higher education and an effective way both of acquiring and improving language and communicative competencies to provide further successful professionalising of students and to facilitate their career promotion in the chosen field of activity.Theaimof this paper was to sum up and discuss the experience of Tomsk Polytechnic University in conducting CLIL-based courses.Methodology and research methods. The concept of practice-oriented vocational education was used as the methodological base of the experimental work in order to search optimal variants when developing foreign language knowledge in the students of engineering specialties. In the course of the research, the approaches of comparative analysis, synthesis, generalisation, forecasting, design, modelling, prolonged monitoring of learning outcomes, observation and questionnaire survey were applied.Results and scientific novelty.The actualising reasons for CLIL approach in the Russian high school education were formulated and proved. The brief historical overview of didactic concepts was presented. The authors analysed temporary challenges which preceded the implementation of CLIL methodologies in the learning process of Tomsk Polytechnic University (TPU) and the introduction of programme “Vocational Training and Education in a Foreign Language” (3rd-4th years of education). The stages of teaching foreign language evolution at the university were distinguished: the anglification of engineering education transformed into multidisciplinary model of English for Specific Purpose (ESP); the creation of “pedagogical tandems” – the organization of courses with “double agents”; and, finally, CLIL training in which a cognitive component can be seen as the key characteristic and the main advantage. Success and failure in the field of CLIL practices available today at TPU were revised. The examples of private implementable practices were described and analysed. The research findings revealed the rationality when using various applied variations of CLIL methodology.Practical significance. The research outcomes allowed the authors to adjust not only the main educational programmes of higher education institution, but also internal programmes of professional development of teachers. Although the long-term experiment summarised in the publication in a single higher education institution does not apply for universality and mass circulation, the authors believe that experimentative materials will contribute to consistent embedding of CLIL courses into a complete system of vocational training.