Language education policy and CLIL principles

Rita Kupetz and Alexander Woltin, Leibniz Universität Hannover, Germany

1. CLIL and education policy

The first bilingual programmes in Germany arose from post-war cooperation
efforts between Germany and France (the Élysée Contract). These programmes
focused on a partnership by developing the target language as the language of
the partner. Thus, the German bilingual programme has a past of strong linguis-
tic and intercultural emphasis due to socio-historical reasons back in 1963. This
focus has changed over the last 50 years because the plurilingual background of
Copyright © 2014. Peter Lang GmbH, Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften. All rights reserved.

the learners, who are partially or fully bilingual, had to be considered as well
(Lyster, 2007: 1, Bongartz, Rymarczyk, 2010: 7f., Breidbach, Viehbrock, 2012:
10f., Königs, 2013: 34f.). Consequently, more languages are now involved in
bilingual teaching settings, due to a diverse learner and teacher clientele. The
potential for multilingualism is central since language policies desire that stu-
dents acquire two foreign languages in addition to their first language (L1)
(Wolff, 2013: 18). The re-cognition of the importance of the L1 in all learning
processes, which could be the home language for students with migration back-
grounds, is a part of this new orientation, which is discussed in detail in the con-
text of the Canadian language situation, where territorial bilingualism occurs
(Wesche, 2002, Swain, Lapkin, 2005). Bilingual branches teaching content in a
foreign language at school level have been offered in Germany since the 1960s,
and Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) has been popular since
the 1990s in Europe as an approach which integrates teaching content in the for-
eign, second or additional language learning, where the additional language is
used as a medium for authentic usage (Marsh, 2002).
Vollmer (2006: 5f.) discusses CLIL’s potential in terms of internal and ex-
ternal processes of plurilingualism in the context of Europe:
Acquiring conceptual literacy and discourse competence for subject-specific use and
thus acquiring new varieties of language use within one and the same language is
not to be seen as a luxury, but rather as a preliminary and fundamental form of pluri-
lingualism.
A second form of plurilingualism develops when a learner acquires other lan-
guages, extends his/her repertoire with new languages through foreign language edu-
cation adding to the new varieties of the language of school education and home

Content and Language Integrated Learning by Interaction, edited by Rita Kupetz, and Carmen Becker, Peter Lang GmbH,
Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften, 2014. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/unimelb/detail.action?docID=1766405
Created from unimelb on 2020-10-17 04:30:23.
 12 Language education policy and CLIL principles

language if different. Both types of plurilingualism (the first discourse-based or in-

ternal one as well as the second external one, based on adding new language reper-
toires) are indispensable for learners to become intra-culturally and inter-culturally
sensitive, knowledgeable and skilled and thus to develop towards democratic citi-
zenship and participation within Europe. A special case in point concerns the in-
tegration of content and second language learning within the framework of CLIL (or
multilingual education) leading ideally to support for both types of plurilingualism.
A desired global aim and imperative in a world becoming increasingly intercon-
nected and interdependent through globalization (Wolff, 2000: 159) is the acqui-
sition of multi-literal and intra- as well as inter-cultural competences. These
competences unite important sensitive abilities, namely plurilingual and demo-
cratic participation as a part of global education, which focuses on the awareness
and implications of dealing with global issues (O’Loughlin, Wegimont, 2002:
126). Lyster (2007: 1) points out similar changes around the world based on so-
cial and linguistic demographics, which lead to “a continued need to develop
Copyright © 2014. Peter Lang GmbH, Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften. All rights reserved.

more effective second language programs to meet the changing needs of local
communities.” In short, education ought to promote globally competent life-long
learners. Since each and every subject teaches its subject specifically, and inter-
disciplinary methods including various literacies and content cannot be acquired
without language and vice versa (Hallet, 2005: 5, Vollmer, 2013: 125), educa-
tors refer to this teaching approach as Language Across the Curriculum (LAC)
(Vollmer, 2006: 5, Lyster, 2007: 56). Further, this approach clearly indicates
every teacher’s responsibility for holistic language education, thus making pure-
ly bilingual education no longer appropriate. The term is even worth reconsider-
ing. Content, languages and methods must be fused to meet the multicultural
premises of the diverse learners (Hallet, 2013: 54) as well as to meet the goals of
global education in terms of globally competent and multiliterate life-long learn-
ers.
Ruiz de Zarobe et al. (2011: 13) discuss the plurilingual perspective offered
by CLIL and claim that it is “one of the most effective frameworks to foster plu-
rilingualism in the European landscape, where it is firmly becoming a preferred
educational approach.” However, CLIL practice in Europe is characterized by
diversity, both in terms of language policy and the instructional approaches used
at school (Königs, 2013: 48ff.).

Content and Language Integrated Learning by Interaction, edited by Rita Kupetz, and Carmen Becker, Peter Lang GmbH,
Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften, 2014. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/unimelb/detail.action?docID=1766405
Created from unimelb on 2020-10-17 04:30:23.
 Rita Kupetz & Alexander Woltin 13

2. A counterbalanced approach to CLIL in a global

education framework
Researchers, mainly second language (L2) researchers, have investigated the
learning processes involved in recent years leading to a theoretical turn in the
CLIL community (Bonnet, Breidbach, 2004). Doff (2010: 12) argues that there
was a bottom-up approach from teaching practice to empirical research in the
1990s. However, the current development is closer to a theoretical takeover.
Bilingual branches and immersion programmes are very popular with politi-
cians, parents and students alike. The German-English competence study (DESI)
(Nold et al., 2008), comparing the competences of 9th graders in German and
English in Germany, shows that CLIL students are about two years ahead of
language learners taught in conventional foreign language classes. The study
clearly indicates higher competence within the fields of text reconstruction, lis-
tening and reading comprehension, grammar, writing and socio-pragmatic issu-
Copyright © 2014. Peter Lang GmbH, Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften. All rights reserved.

es. The best results within these areas can be observed in the CLIL students’ lis-
tening and grammar competences. It can be assumed that this is the result of fre-
quent L2 exposure and, thus, learning time within an authentic and communica-
tive CLIL environment.
With regards to CLIL discourse, the dominating role of foreign language
teachers and applied linguists has to be acknowledged. It is only recently that
content experts have begun participating in this discussion (Ruiz de Zarobe et
al., 2011). Breidbach and Viehbrock (2012) provide a good survey of CLIL and
recent CLIL research in Germany. Surveys about competence development
within the subjects are rare; case studies by Bonnet (2004), Koch and Bründer
(2006) or Osterhage (2007) strongly indicate that subject specific competence
development is also more sustainable. Despite the promising benefits of CLIL,
not every school offers it due to a lack of resources. If schools offer CLIL clas-
ses, students are often selected according to their foreign language proficiency,
because it is assumed that students with weak language competences are not a-
ble to adequately participate and, thus, might disturb CLIL lessons. This selec-
tion might lead to the formation of an elite (Breidbach, 2002: 23, Breidbach,
2013: 15). Furthermore, it is simplistic to juxtapose conventional language clas-
ses to content and language integrated scenarios, as language classes use con-
tent-orientation, too. It is preferable to speak of a continuum of scenarios from
focus on form to focus on meaning. Most probably, the balance between the two
will vary from model to model, from country to country; maybe, even from
school to school and is, to a large extent, dependent on the didactic purpose.

Content and Language Integrated Learning by Interaction, edited by Rita Kupetz, and Carmen Becker, Peter Lang GmbH,
Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften, 2014. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/unimelb/detail.action?docID=1766405
Created from unimelb on 2020-10-17 04:30:23.
 14 Language education policy and CLIL principles

If we acknowledge that the integration of content and additional language

learning includes resources from both the target culture(s) and language(s) used
across the curriculum, the potential for intercultural and transcultural learning,
as demanded in terms of global competences, becomes obvious: due to more
language exposure in the target language, more comprehensible language and
content input is ultimately provided for the students. This leads to various com-
munication oriented occasions for negotiating language and content meaning via
student-student and / or student-teacher interaction. This language interaction in
turn produces output that may lead to a desired intake of content and, if applica-
ble, an awareness of cultural idiosyncrasies (Breidbach, Viebrock, 2006: 236).
Discourse – in the sense of “language in use, for communication” (Cook, 1989:
6) – in CLIL classrooms is described by Dalton-Puffer (2007), where she claims
that the CLIL classroom provides discourse space. The patterns occurring in this
discourse space are clearly defined by the institutional school context with role-
specific occurrences, such as questions asked by the teacher (Dalton-Puffer,
Copyright © 2014. Peter Lang GmbH, Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften. All rights reserved.

2007: 123) and language functions, such as defining, explaining, hypothesizing

and predicting, which are surprisingly rare (Dalton-Puffer, 2007: 131ff.). Dis-
course is a means within CLIL settings and a desired end; enabling the learner to
share in democratic participation in globalized societies (New London Group,
1996), which is a clearly defined goal of multiliteracies pedagogy. This makes
our perception of CLIL by interaction seen in the framework of multiliteracies
pedagogy (see chapter 3) more comprehensive.
Figure 1 visualizes these assumptions and hints at their theoretical basis:

Figure 1: CLIL by interaction: discourse as a means and an end

Content and Language Integrated Learning by Interaction, edited by Rita Kupetz, and Carmen Becker, Peter Lang GmbH,
Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften, 2014. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/unimelb/detail.action?docID=1766405
Created from unimelb on 2020-10-17 04:30:23.
 Rita Kupetz & Alexander Woltin 15

Within a CLIL learning environment, the L2 exposure is evident as the tar-

get language is used as a medium to deliver the content and the required lan-
guage means by comprehensible input (Krashen, 1985). The communicative oc-
casions are initiated by an authentic content topic and corresponding meaningful
and relevant tasks for the learners. These tasks lead to interaction within the
CLIL classroom through negotiating meaning and form if needed. Because the
content and the language input is slightly above the learners’ competence the
process of negotiating meaning through various forms of interaction takes place
by means of discourse (Long, 1983; Gass, 1997; Hall, 2000). During negotia-
tion, meaning output is produced, leading to more L2 exposure. If the output is
not comprehensible, it returns to a form of input, which is again above the learn-
er’s competence and evokes more interaction to construct meaning by negotiat-
ing form, if necessary. Lyster (2007: 57) makes a case for a reactive approach in
terms of form-focused instruction. He argues that this kind of “systematic inter-
vention during meaningful interaction” should be combined with a proactive
Copyright © 2014. Peter Lang GmbH, Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften. All rights reserved.

approach to form-focused instruction. This focusing is justified to avoid confu-

sion, which might occur if content- and form-oriented instruction is mixed arbi-
trarily. He thus propagates a counterbalanced approach (Lyster, 2007, 126).

Figure 2: Instructional options to counterbalance content-based options and form-focused

options (Lyster, 2007: 126)

This process continues until comprehensible and meaningful output is pro-

duced and understood (Swain, 1993, 1995). This process of interaction and ne-
gotiation of meaning creates qualitative, quantitative, and genuine learning time

Content and Language Integrated Learning by Interaction, edited by Rita Kupetz, and Carmen Becker, Peter Lang GmbH,
Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften, 2014. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/unimelb/detail.action?docID=1766405
Created from unimelb on 2020-10-17 04:30:23.
 16 Language education policy and CLIL principles

of both content and language. As the focus of instruction is on content and lan-
guage simultaneously, one can speak of an authentic dual learning arrangement.
The notion of counterbalancing content-based and form-focused options will
occur throughout the book. As will the concept of scaffolding. Gibbons (2002:
10) defines it as
a special kind of help that assists learners to move toward new skills, concepts, or
levels of understanding. Scaffolding is thus the temporary assistance by which a tea-
cher helps a learner know how to do something, so that the learner will later be able
to complete a similar task alone.
To put this counterbalanced approach into a global education perspective, it is
not enough to consider plurilingual students and perspectives, the content of the
subject itself might provide a link to eco-didactics. For that reason CLIL is a
promising educational approach, which might lead content teachers to overcome
their scepticism and to become active partners in the CLIL business. The pre-
ferred pedagogy adapted in this volume is a “multiliteracies” approach (Depuy,
Copyright © 2014. Peter Lang GmbH, Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften. All rights reserved.

2011, Marenzi, this volume) as the concept is internationally well established

and accepted by content teachers, and also because this approach focuses on the
need to acquire skills and knowledge in order to cognitively, culturally and so-
cially deal with and create multimodal texts. The major advantage of the literacy
concept over competence is seen in its situated social practice. We could claim
that competences are essential parts of multiliteracies. As the competence model
is used in German curricular and research discourse, we refer to it in the follo-
wing passages.
Table 1 shows competence dimensions which are inherent to CLIL and indi-
cate that CLIL is more than teaching a subject in an additional language.

Table 1: CLIL’s competence dimensions (translated and modified from Breidbach, 2006:
13)

CLIL’s Competence Dimensions

conceptual subject specific topics and their terminology
methodological subject specific methods (e.g. documentation and repre-
sentation methods)
discursive subject specific discourses / communication
interactional social communication skills, learning skills and the
ability of being cooperative
reflexive intercultural approaches

Content and Language Integrated Learning by Interaction, edited by Rita Kupetz, and Carmen Becker, Peter Lang GmbH,
Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften, 2014. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/unimelb/detail.action?docID=1766405
Created from unimelb on 2020-10-17 04:30:23.
 Rita Kupetz & Alexander Woltin 17

Butzkamm and Caldwell (2009: 41) point out that learning subjects in a for-
eign language (FL) can be successful in educational contexts that meet the
following requirements, with special implications for the use of the mother
tongue (MT):
• There is an increased amount of contact time for the foreign language. That
means, teaching content subjects through the FL does not replace conven-
tional language classes and systematic language instruction, but is added on.
[…];
• In order to be able to teach a subject such as biology or geography in an FL,
teachers work hard to improve their language skills;
• Teachers must find ways and means to transmit the special MT register of
content areas taught in the FL.
These three claims provide a good starting point for raising issues of the lan-
guage policy involved: Butzkamm and Caldwell’s first requirement addresses a
Copyright © 2014. Peter Lang GmbH, Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften. All rights reserved.

misconception of CLIL. In our point of view CLIL is neither a substitution of

nor a complement to conventional language teaching. As explained and shown,
it is content teaching in a cross-curricular mode (Hoffmann, 2004: 218), pos-
sibly supporting plurilingual learners.
The second requirement refers to teacher education. If we underestimate the
needs in terms of teacher education, the results could prove fatal:
[…] at its worst, bilingual subject-matter teaching can be inhibitive to both content
and language learning, particularly where the teacher lacks the ability to be a simul-
taneous teacher of language. There is also the danger that immersion schools with a
heavy emphasis on fluency at the expense of accuracy produce an error-laden inter-
language (Hammerly, 1998, 1991 in Butzkamm, Caldwell, 2009: 41).
Thus, teacher responsibility and dual qualification can be said to be of concern.
In an ideal world every subject teacher is qualified to consider his/her students’
language development, not only the language teacher. That is why teachers using
the CLIL approach either need to be educated as (foreign) language teachers or
must have a high command of the target language as well as a certain awareness
of language learning and instruction methods. Policy varies in Europe in this
respect. Germany favours a double qualification in both a (foreign) language and
a subject. Italy and Greece prefer the subject teachers to teach CLIL, offering
on-the-job training (Oddone, 2013: 13ff). The outcome of the reverse responsi-
bility remains to be seen.
Not only should a CLIL teacher possess language skills, they should also be
experienced in methodology, especially in the field of specific material design
(Mehisto, 2012). This is important because there is a clear lack of appropriate
CLIL learning and teaching material. This material must be designed to make an

Content and Language Integrated Learning by Interaction, edited by Rita Kupetz, and Carmen Becker, Peter Lang GmbH,
Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften, 2014. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/unimelb/detail.action?docID=1766405
Created from unimelb on 2020-10-17 04:30:23.
 18 Language education policy and CLIL principles

integrative learning of content and language possible. Neither authentic material

from the target culture nor translated material from the L1 into the target lan-
guage can fulfil the premise for dual focused instruction. In consequence, tea-
chers are often left to design their own material.
The third requirement makes us reconsider the role of L1 in a CLIL context.
The MT taboo is swept away by Butzkamm and Caldwell (2009) when they
claim that we need a paradigm shift in foreign language teaching, which means
that the L1 is used systematically as a tool, as it is natural to relate an additional
language to what is already there. It remains for us to find out whether this is
true for a CLIL context as well. Helbig (2001) and Kollenrott (2007) give empir-
ical evidence that the L1 is not systematically used in CLIL classrooms in Ger-
many. Kollenrott (2007: 248) points out that in her study on ‘History taught in
English’ the learning scenarios are monolingual (target language) and the trans-
fer to L1 is left to the students. Helbig (2001: 319) states that working with texts
in the target language does not consider the L1 in a sufficient way, thus ignoring
Copyright © 2014. Peter Lang GmbH, Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften. All rights reserved.

its importance for understanding texts and concepts. Königs supports this view
since he believes that bi- / multilingualism should have an instructional permit
as a methodological and curricular tool not only to promote the idea of multilin-
gualism, but also to consider the diverse language backgrounds of the students,
thus empowering them to express content matters in more than just one language
by acquiring bilingual literacy (2013: 34ff.).
To grasp the new quality of CLIL, which is not simply teaching a subject in
an additional language, the suitability of various school subjects for a CLIL con-
text should be considered. The critical perspectives of content experts need to be
taken into account (Bonnet, Breidbach, 2004). Traditionally, only social science
subjects were favoured for the CLIL approach, because they were believed to be
more vividly demonstrative with clear connections to the learners’ lives in terms
of content. Therefore they were assumed to be more suitable for spoken produc-
tion due to the subjects’ inherent descriptive nature. (Sekretariat der Ständigen
Konferenz der Kultusminister, 2006: 16f.). According to CLIL’s original de-
mand to promote intercultural understanding, it was taken for granted that only
social science would meet the premise for such intercultural learning settings
due to their affinity to other cultures (Bonnet, 2004: 20; Wegner, 2006: 244).
Moreover, social sciences were considered to be cognitively less complex and
abstract in comparison to science (ibid.). However, these assumptions have
changed with the theories of constructivism as well as through groundbreaking
empirical research (Breidbach, 2004), and, meanwhile, the natural sciences are
beginning to gain the upper hand on social studies. However, presently all sub-
jects are considered appropriate for CLIL, which goes hand in hand with the
paradigm shift from the focus on language instruction within a subject setting to

Content and Language Integrated Learning by Interaction, edited by Rita Kupetz, and Carmen Becker, Peter Lang GmbH,
Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften, 2014. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/unimelb/detail.action?docID=1766405
Created from unimelb on 2020-10-17 04:30:23.
 Rita Kupetz & Alexander Woltin 19

the focus on content itself, where language is being used as a vehicle to com-
municate content (Wolff, 2013: 18f., Schmelter, 2013: 41). We will use the dis-
course on teaching history in a CLIL curriculum as an example to articulate one
of the major concerns of the proponents of the various subjects, which is related
to the fact that CLIL is frequently monolingual and that the gain is linguistic ra-
ther than content-oriented.
Hasberg (2004) investigates whether learning history can be achieved in a
bilingual history-teaching context. He is positive about the potential of sources
from various languages for dealing with the “other”. This form of empathy is
certainly needed when speaking about the global learner’s competences. Has-
berg points out, however, that there is a lack of empirical investigation and
theoretical foundation on a balanced use of the languages concerned for learning
history and their impact on identity formation (2004: 231). Barricceli and
Schmieder (2009: 209) discuss the advantages and disadvantages of teaching
history in a CLIL setting. They are strictly against a monolingual approach
Copyright © 2014. Peter Lang GmbH, Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften. All rights reserved.

where only the target language is used. They support instead the implementation
of scenarios with multilingual resources, if appropriate, where terminology car-
ries culturally loaded meaning. Thus, various languages and their resources
could be used as tools to reconstruct not only historical but also cultural realities.
This is another way of addressing the MT taboo. A CLIL approach should not
only foster one target language, but provide bilingual or multilingual avenues to
the content and the concepts where various languages are the tools. In this man-
ner, learner plurilingual competence is supported.
Lyster’s counterbalanced approach to CLIL provides a starting point for de-
veloping teaching principles, because it combines various instructional practices
at the interface of language and content literacy instruction, form-focused in-
struction as well as decontextualized grammar instruction and incidental focus
on language (2007: 25ff.). However, content experts claim that content drives
the curriculum (Hasberg, 2004; Barricelli, Schmieder, 2009). If the CLIL ap-
proach is to be accepted by the content experts, this priority needs to be accept-
ed. Furthermore, Lyster’s model needs to be enhanced by embedding it in a
pluri-lingual and global setting (see figure 3).

Content and Language Integrated Learning by Interaction, edited by Rita Kupetz, and Carmen Becker, Peter Lang GmbH,
Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften, 2014. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/unimelb/detail.action?docID=1766405
Created from unimelb on 2020-10-17 04:30:23.
 20 Language education policy and CLIL principles
Copyright © 2014. Peter Lang GmbH, Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften. All rights reserved.

Figure 3: CLIL’s core principles

3. Teaching principles seen in the context of a

multiliteracies pedagogy
Content-based and form-focused options are essential, but not sufficient for
CLIL. The following point of view is quite popular: “Content and Language In-
tegrated Learning (CLIL) is a dual-focused education approach in which an ad-
ditional language is used for the learning and teaching of both content and lan-
guage.” (Coyle et al., 2010: 1) Coyle elaborates in her 4C’s model on the “four
contextualized building blocks: content (subject matter), communication (lan-
guage learning and using), cognition (learning and thinking processes) and cul-
ture (developing intercultural understanding and global citizenship)” (ibid. 41).
Even though the model considers learning, it must be dealt with more thorough-
ly. That is why a third dimension, a strong demand for learning skill develop-
ment, must be explicitly stated. Consequently, in addition to content and lan-
guage, learning skills are a third goal for CLIL (Mehisto et al., 2008: 12).
CLIL’s target aim is to empower learners to deduce content matters with content
specific and academic skills through a foreign language by means of discourse
and interaction and to deepen comprehension within the foreign language (Kö-

Content and Language Integrated Learning by Interaction, edited by Rita Kupetz, and Carmen Becker, Peter Lang GmbH,
Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften, 2014. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/unimelb/detail.action?docID=1766405
Created from unimelb on 2020-10-17 04:30:23.
 Rita Kupetz & Alexander Woltin 21

nigs, 2013: 35f., Breidbach, 2013:16). Furthermore, the dimension of global

learning described in chapter 1 has to be added. From these aspects of learning
content, language and learning skills some general principles related to CLIL
can be deduced. This is of importance as there are no official curricular guide-
lines for teaching CLIL.
• Content drives the curriculum. Content experts claim this priority in terms of
curriculum design;
• To communicate the content and negotiate language as well as content mean-
ing, learners must have some basic interpersonal communicative skills
(BICS), which in turn can also to be seen as a kind of learning skill. The con-
tent and the language then may lead to a cognitive academic linguistic profi-
ciency (CALP), which is desired for participating within specific content
matters (Cummins, 1979). However, BICS must not be underestimated, as
this qualification is a prerequisite for any form of communication and dis-
Copyright © 2014. Peter Lang GmbH, Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften. All rights reserved.

course, too;
• Learning skill development is seen as third goal dimension within the frame-
work of multiliteracies empowering learners to become life-long learners;
• Besides these interwoven core principles with a multiple focus, CLIL instruc-
tion offers great potential for authenticity in terms of the object (material),
the subject (learner) and the situation. (Blell, Kupetz, 2011: 109);
• Modern media and technologies provide opportunities for eLearning and
networks related to CLIL communities which is crucial for dealing with
multimodal texts;
• Scaffolding is needed when it comes to specific content instruction, which
should also focus on context and culture, where applicable. This means that
didactic reduction of content, e. g. in terms of simplification, needs to be ap-
plied in order to generate essential key concepts, which relate to the learner’s
existing beliefs or knowledge. Furthermore, scaffolded learning is based on
Vygotsky’s principles of learning in the ZPD;
• CLIL is always subject to active learning, which means that the amount of
learner communication in the target language must exceed that of the teach-
ers, who is thus a learning facilitator;
• As a learning facilitator the teacher needs to deal with language mistakes in a
moderate way as the focus is clearly on meaning before accuracy. Feedback
is consequently essential, be it student-student feedback or student-teacher
feedback.
• Learning centeredness and learner centeredness correspond with a task-
based approach, which helps students to actively learn content and language
simultaneously, without neglecting learning skill development;

Content and Language Integrated Learning by Interaction, edited by Rita Kupetz, and Carmen Becker, Peter Lang GmbH,
Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften, 2014. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/unimelb/detail.action?docID=1766405
Created from unimelb on 2020-10-17 04:30:23.
 22 Language education policy and CLIL principles

• The educational shift from instruction to construction goes hand in hand with
CLIL, which focuses on learning by construction. Language and content
learning needs various approaches that are embedded in specific and general
learning skills (e.g. note taking or vocabulary learning as general skills and
analyzing graphics or microscope technique as specific skills);
• However, in order to reach the global learner’s competences, CLIL arrange-
ments must also focus on multiliteracies to be developed by an interaction-
oriented approach.
The CLIL core principle authenticity is essential and needs further explanation.
It used to be the most outstanding CLIL principle in terms of authentic language
usage and content (texts and other materials) coming from the various school
subjects. Widdowson (1987) makes a distinction between genuine and authentic
(1978: 80) and describes the process of working with authentic material as au-
thentication. We argue that even this is no longer sufficient (Blell, Kupetz,
2011: 109). In terms of learner-orientation, we need to consider the process of
Copyright © 2014. Peter Lang GmbH, Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften. All rights reserved.

authentication which leads us closer to CLIL scenarios considering the subject

and the situation as well. Subject orientation – or learner orientation – provides
space for a linguistic needs analysis and for the learners’ interests. Situation
orientation makes it possible to go beyond the classroom. Field trips, excursions
and the like come in handy here.

Figure 4: Object-, subject- and situation-oriented authentication in CLIL scenarios

(Blell, Kupetz, 2011: 109)

Content and Language Integrated Learning by Interaction, edited by Rita Kupetz, and Carmen Becker, Peter Lang GmbH,
Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften, 2014. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/unimelb/detail.action?docID=1766405
Created from unimelb on 2020-10-17 04:30:23.
 Rita Kupetz & Alexander Woltin 23

All of these CLIL principles help students in building integrated knowledge and
skills for an increasingly interconnected world, which is also the aim of global
learning. Multiliteracies pedagogy, on the other hand, tries to grasp the implica-
tions of change in our social environment, which leads to an “increasing multi-
plicity and integration of significant modes of meaning-making, where the text-
ual is also related to the visual, the audio, the spatial, the behavioural, and so
on.” (New London Group, 1996: 64) Another major issue dealt with by multi-
literacies pedagogy is the dichotomy between local diversity and global con-
nectedness. The latter helps to work out the relationship between a multiliter-
acies pedagogy and a global learning paradigm. Warschauer (1999) elaborates
further on the implications of the spread of the Internet for literacy, international
language use and additional language learning and teaching. He claims that “we
must practise principles of situated learning” with authentic tasks and problem-
solving activities to “benefit their (student) future lives as productive citizens”
(Warschauer, 1999). CLIL provides genuine discourse space for this.
Copyright © 2014. Peter Lang GmbH, Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften. All rights reserved.

References
Barricelli, Michele, Schmieder, Ulrich (2009). ‘Über Nutzen und Nachteil des
bilingualen Sachfachunterrichts. Fremdsprachen- und Geschichtsdidaktik
im Dialog’, in Daniela Caspari et al. (eds), Bilingualer Unterricht macht
Schule. Beiträge aus der Praxisforschung. Frankfurt am Main: Peter
Lang, pp. 205-20.
Blell, Gabriele, Kupetz, Rita (2011). ‘Authentizität und Fremdsprachendidaktik
im Dialog’, in Wolfgang Funk and Lucia Krämer (eds), Fiktionen von
Wirklichkeit: Authentizität zwischen Materialität und Konstruktion. Biele-
feld: transcript, pp. 99-115.
Bonnet, Andreas (2004). Chemie im bilingualen Unterricht. Opladen: Leske und
Budrich.
Bonnet, Andreas (2013). ‘Unterrichtsprozesse’, in Wolfgang Hallet and Frank
G. Königs (eds), pp. 187-94.
Bonnet, Andreas, Breidbach, Stephan (eds) (2004). Didaktiken im Dialog. Kon-
zepte des Lehrens und Wege des Lernens im bilingualen Sachfachunter-
richt. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Breidbach, Stephan (2002). ‘Bilingualer Sachfachunterricht als neues interdis-
ziplinäres Forschungsfeld’, in Stephan Breidbach et al. (eds), pp. 11-30.
Breidbach, Stephan (2006). ‘Was hat das Denken mit Sprechen zu tun?’, Praxis
Fremdsprachenunterricht 3: 10-5.

Content and Language Integrated Learning by Interaction, edited by Rita Kupetz, and Carmen Becker, Peter Lang GmbH,
Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften, 2014. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/unimelb/detail.action?docID=1766405
Created from unimelb on 2020-10-17 04:30:23.
 24 Language education policy and CLIL principles

Breidbach, Stefan (2013). ‘Geschichte und Entstehung des Bilingualen Unter-

richts in Deutschland’, in Wolfgang Hallet and Frank G. Königs (eds), 18-
26.
Breidbach, Stephan et al. (eds) (2002). Bilingualer Sachfachunterrich. Didaktik,
Lehrer-/Lernerforschung und Bildungspolitik zwischen Theorie und Em-
pirie. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Breidbach, Stephan, Viebrock, Britta (2006). ‘Bilingualer Sachfachunterricht
aus Sicht wissenschaftlicher und praktischer Theoretiker’, in Wolfgang
Gehring (ed.), Fremdsprachenunterricht heute. Oldenburg: Oldenburger
Forum Fremdsprachendidaktik, pp. 234-56.
Breidbach, Stephan, Viehbrock, Britta (2012). ‘CLIL in Germany – results from
recent research in a contested field of education’, International CLIL Re-
search Journal 1, 4: 5-16.
Butzkamm, Wolfgang, Caldwell, John A. W. (2009). The Bilingual Reform: A
paradigm shift in foreign language teaching. Tübingen: Narr.
Copyright © 2014. Peter Lang GmbH, Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften. All rights reserved.

Cook, Guy (1989). Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Coyle, Do et al. (eds) (2010). CLIL – Content and Language Integrated Learn-
ing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dalton-Puffer, Christiane (2007). Discourse in Content and Language Inte-
grated Learning (CLIL) Classrooms. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Depuy, Beatrice (2011). ‘CLIL: Achieving its goals through a multiliteracies
framework’, Latin American Journal of Content & Language Integrated
Learning 4, 2: 21-32.
Gass, M. Susan (1997). Input, Interaction and the Second Language Learner.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hall, Joan et al. (eds) (2000). Second and Foreign Language Learning through
Classroom Interaction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hallet, Wolfgang (2005). ‘Bilingualer Unterricht: Fremdsprachig denken, lernen
und handeln’, Der Fremdsprachliche Unterricht Englisch 78: 2-8.
Hallet, Wolfgang (2013). ‘Bilingualer Unterricht als Aufgabe der Schulentwick-
lung’, in Wolfgang Hallet and Frank G. Königs (eds), 52-9.
Hallet, Wolfgang (2013). ‘Geschichte und Entstehung des Bilingualen Unter-
richts in Deutschland: Bilingualer Unterricht und Gesellschaftspolitik’, in
Wolfgang Hallet and Frank G. Königs (eds), 11-17.
Hallet, Wolfgang, Königs, Frank G. (eds) (2013). Handbuch Bilingualer Unter-
richt. Content and Language Integrated Learning. Seelze: Klett &
Kallmeyer.
Hasberg, Wolfgang (2004). ‘Historisches Lernen im bilingualen Geschichtsun-
terricht (?)’, in Andreas Bonnet and Stephan Breidbach (eds), pp. 221-36.

Content and Language Integrated Learning by Interaction, edited by Rita Kupetz, and Carmen Becker, Peter Lang GmbH,
Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften, 2014. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/unimelb/detail.action?docID=1766405
Created from unimelb on 2020-10-17 04:30:23.
 Rita Kupetz & Alexander Woltin 25

Helbig, Beate (2001). Das bilinguale Sachfach Geschichte. Eine empirische

Studie zur Arbeit mit französischsprachigen (Quellen-)Texten. Tübingen:
Stauffenburg.
Hoffmann, Reinhard (2004). ‘Geographie als bilinguales Sachfach’, in Andreas
Bonnet and Stephan Breidbach (eds), pp. 207-19.
Koch, Angela, Bründer, Wolfgang (2006). ‘Fachbezogener Wissenserwerb im
bilingualen naturwissenschaftlichen Anfangsunterricht’, Zeitschrift für
Didaktik der Naturwissenschaften 12: 67-76.
Königs, Frank G. (2013). ‘Sprachen, Sprachenpolitik und Bilingualer Unter-
richt’, in Wolfgang Hallet and Frank G. Königs (eds), pp. 46-52.
Kollenrott, Anne I. (2007). Sichtweisen auf deutsch-englischen bilingualen Ge-
schichtsunterricht. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Krashen, Stephen D. (1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and implications.
New York: Longman.
Leisen, Josef (2005). ‘Wechsel der Darstellungsformen. Ein Unterrichtsprinzip
Copyright © 2014. Peter Lang GmbH, Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften. All rights reserved.

für alle Fächer’, Der Fremdsprachliche Unterricht 78: 9-11.

Lyster, Roy (2007). Learning and Teaching Languages through Content. A
counterbalanced approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Marsh, David (2002). CLIL/EMILE. The European Dimension. Actions, trends
and foresight potential. Public Services Contract DG EAC: European
Commission. Jyväskylä, Finland: UniCOM, Continuing Education Centre,
University of Jyväskylä, pp. 65-88.
Mehisto, Peeter et al. (2008). Uncovering CLIL. Content and language inte-
grated learning in bilingual and multilingual education. Oxford: Maxmil-
lan.
Mehisto, Peeter (2012). ‘Criteria for producing CLIL learning material’,
Encuentro 21: 15-33.
New London Group (1996). ‘A pedagogy of multiliteracies: designing social
futures’, Harvard Educational Review 66, 1: 60-92. 01 November 2013,
retrieved from
<http://her.hepg.org/content/17370n67v22j160u/?p=21a6d6e53104451c8
2f133aefdd176e7&pi=2>
Nold, Günter et al. (2008). ‘Klassen mit bilingualem Sachfachunterricht: Eng-
lisch als Arbeitssprache’, in DESI-Konsortium (eds), Unterricht und
Kompetenzerwerb in Deutsch und Englisch: Ergebnisse der DESI-Studie.
Weinheim: Beltz Verlag, pp. 451-57.
O’Loughlin, Eddie, Wegimont, Liam (eds) (2002). Global Education in Europe
to 2015: Strategy, policies, and perspectives – outcomes and papers of the
Europe-wide global education congress Maastricht, The Netherlands
15th-17th November 2002. 01 November 2013, retrieved from

Content and Language Integrated Learning by Interaction, edited by Rita Kupetz, and Carmen Becker, Peter Lang GmbH,
Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften, 2014. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/unimelb/detail.action?docID=1766405
Created from unimelb on 2020-10-17 04:30:23.
 26 Language education policy and CLIL principles

<http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/nscentre/Resources/Publications/GE_Maastrich
t_Nov2002.pdf>
Oddone, Cristina (2013). Web 2.0 and CLIL. Task and material design to scaf-
fold learning in interactive environments. Unpublished dissertation thesis.
University of Genova.
Osterhage, Sven (2007). ‘Sachfachkönnen (scientific literacy) bilingual und
monolingual unterrichteter Biologieschüler: Ein Kompetenzvergleich’, in
Daniela Caspari et al. (eds), Bilingualer Unterricht macht Schule: Beiträ-
ge aus der Praxisforschung. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, pp. 41-50.
Ruiz de Zarobe, Yolanda et al. (2011). ‘Introduction – Content and Foreign
Language Integrated Learning: A plurilingual perspective’, in Yolanda
Ruiz de Zarobe et al. (eds), pp. 11-7.
Ruiz de Zarobe, Yolanda et al. (eds) (2011). Content and Foreign Language In-
tegrated Learning. Contributions to multilingualism in European contexts.
Bern: Peter Lang.
Copyright © 2014. Peter Lang GmbH, Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften. All rights reserved.

Rymarczyk, Jutta, Bongartz, Christiane M. (2010). ‘40 Jahre Bilingualer Sach-

fachunterricht in Deutschland: Versuch einer Standortbestimmung’, in
Christiane Bongartz and Jutta Rymarczyk (eds). Languages Across the
Curriculum. Ein multiperspektivischer Zugang. Frankfurt am Main: Peter
Lang, pp.7-23.
Schmelter, Lars (2013). ‘Entwicklungstendenzen und Desiderata der bilingualen
Sachfachdidaktik’, in Wolfgang Hallet and Frank G. Königs (eds), pp. 40-
5.
Sekretariat der Ständigen Konferenz der Kultusminister der Länder der Bundes-
republik Deutschlang (eds) (2006). Konzepte für den bilingualen Unter-
richt – Erfahrungsberichte und Vorschläge zur Weiterentwicklung. Kul-
tusminister Konferenz. 01 November 2013, retrieved from
<http://www.kmk.org/fileadmin/veroeffentlichungen_beschluesse/2006/2
006_04_10-Konzepte-bilingualer-Unterricht.pdf>
Swain, Merrill (1993). ‘The output hypothesis. Just speaking and writing aren’t
enough’, The Canadian Modern Languages Review 50, 1: 158-64.
Swain, Merrill, Lapkin, Sharon (1995). ‘Problems in output and the cognitive
processes they Generate: a step towards second language learning’, Ap-
plied Linguistics 16, 3: 371-91.
Swain, Merill, Lapkin, Sharon (2006). ‘Multilingualism through immersion edu-
cation?’, in Dieter Wolff (ed.), Mehrsprachige Individuen – vielsprachige
Gesellschaften. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, pp. 31-45.
Vollmer, Helmut J. (2006). Language across the Curriculum. Strasbourg: Lan-
guage Policy Division, Council of Europe, pp. 1-12.

Content and Language Integrated Learning by Interaction, edited by Rita Kupetz, and Carmen Becker, Peter Lang GmbH,
Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften, 2014. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/unimelb/detail.action?docID=1766405
Created from unimelb on 2020-10-17 04:30:23.
 Rita Kupetz & Alexander Woltin 27

Vollmer, Helmut J. (2013). ‘Das Verhältnis von Sprach- und Inhaltslernen im

Bilingualen Unterricht’, in Wolfgang Hallet and Frank G. Königs (eds),
pp. 124-31.
Wegner, Anke (2006). ‘Bilinguales Lehren und Lernen im Spannungsfeld von
politischer und didaktischer Reflexion’, in Sabine Doff and Anke Wegner
(eds), Fremdsprachendidaktik im 20. Jahrhundert. Konstituierung einer
wissenschaftlichen Disziplin im Spannungsfeld von Theorie und Praxis.
München: Langenscheidt, pp. 243-61.
Warschauer, Mark (1999). ‘Millennialism and media: language, literacy, and
technology in the 21st century’, AILA Review 14: 49-59. 01 November
2013, retrieved from
http://www.aila.info/download/publications/review/AILA14.pdf#page=55.
Wesche, Marjorie B. (2002). ‘Early French immersion: how has the original Ca-
nadian model stood the test of time?’, in Petra Burmeister et al. (eds), An
Integrated View of Language Development: Papers in honour of Henning
Copyright © 2014. Peter Lang GmbH, Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften. All rights reserved.

Wode. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier, pp. 357-75.

Wildhage, Manfred, Otte, Edgar (eds) (2003). Praxis des bilingualen Unter-
richts. Berlin: Cornelsen.
Wolff, Dieter (2000).‘Möglichkeiten zur Entwicklung von Mehrsprachigkeit in
Europa‘, in Gerhard Bach and Susanne Niemeier (eds). Bilingualer Unter-
richt. Grundlagen, Methoden, Praxis, Perspektiven. Frankfurt am Main:
Peter Lang, pp. 159-72.
Wolff, Dieter (2013). ‘CLIL als europäisches Konzept.’ in Wolfgang Hallet and
Frank G. Königs (eds), pp. 18-26.

Content and Language Integrated Learning by Interaction, edited by Rita Kupetz, and Carmen Becker, Peter Lang GmbH,
Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften, 2014. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/unimelb/detail.action?docID=1766405
Created from unimelb on 2020-10-17 04:30:23.
Copyright © 2014. Peter Lang GmbH, Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften. All rights reserved.

Content and Language Integrated Learning by Interaction, edited by Rita Kupetz, and Carmen Becker, Peter Lang GmbH,
Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften, 2014. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/unimelb/detail.action?docID=1766405
Created from unimelb on 2020-10-17 04:30:23.