Applied Linguistics 2014: 35/3: 243–262 ß Oxford University Press 2013

doi:10.1093/applin/amt011 Advance Access published on 13 July 2013

Critical Analysis of CLIL: Taking Stock and

Looking Forward
1,
*JASONE CENOZ, 2FRED GENESEE, and 3DURK GORTER
1
Department of Research Methods in Education, University of the Basque Country

Downloaded from [Link] by guest on 04 May 2025

UPV/EHU, 2Department of Psychology, McGill University and 3Department of Theory
and History of Education, University of the Basque Country, UPV/EHU-Ikerbasque
Basque Foundation for Science
*E-mail: [Link]@[Link]

The growing interest in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) has
resulted in enthusiasm in and active pursuit of improved methods of foreign/
second-language (L2) teaching in Europe. However, the definition and scope of
the term CLIL both internally, as used by CLIL advocates in Europe, and exter-
nally, as compared with immersion education in and outside Europe, indicate
that the core characteristics of CLIL are understood in different ways with
respect to: the balance between language and content instruction, the nature
of the target languages involved, instructional goals, defining characteristics of
student participants, and pedagogical approaches to integrating language and
content instruction. We argue further that attempts to define CLIL by distin-
guishing it from immersion approaches to L2 education are often misguided. The
aim of this article is to examine these ambiguities and to call for clarification of
the definition of CLIL. Clarification is critical if CLIL is to evolve and improve
systematically and if CLIL educators are to benefit from the experiences and
knowledge acquired in other educational settings.

1. INTRODUCTION
The term Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) was launched in
Europe in the 1990s by a group of experts from different backgrounds, includ-
ing educational administrators, researchers, and practitioners1 (Marsh 2002).
Since then, the European Commission and the Council of Europe have funded
many initiatives in support of CLIL because it responded to a need in Europe
for enhancing second-language (L2) education and bilingualism that was well
received; in Marsh’s words, it was ‘. . . a pragmatic European solution to a
European need’ (Marsh 2002: 11). According to CLIL advocates, there was a
need for CLIL in Europe because European approaches to bilingual education
were being described using terms ‘ ‘‘borrowed’’ from other contexts with over 30
descriptors to choose from, but especially drawing on immersion and bilingual move-
ments in the USA and Canada’ (Coyle 2007a: 544). The desire for a distinct
European frame of reference for promoting L2 competence in schools is exem-
plified by Coyle (2008: 97), who considers CLIL to be unique and different
from ‘bilingual or immersion education and a host of alternatives and variations such
244 CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF CLIL

as content-based language teaching, English for Special Purposes, plurilingual educa-

tion’. However, although CLIL’s origins in Europe might make it historically
unique, this does not necessarily make it pedagogically unique. In fact, we will
show shortly that definitions of CLIL and the varied interpretations of this
approach within Europe indicate that it is understood in different ways by
its advocates. As well as being internally ambiguous, the term CLIL is not
clearly defined when compared with other approaches that integrate content
and language teaching for L2 learning.

Downloaded from [Link] by guest on 04 May 2025

The aim of this article is to examine these ambiguities both internally, within
Europe and among CLIL advocates, and with special reference to the simila-
rities and differences between CLIL and immersion education programs, which
are often used as a frame of reference to distinguish CLIL. Clarifying the def-
inition of CLIL internally is critical if it is to evolve and improve systematically
because without a common understanding of CLIL, there can be no coherent
evolution. Clarification of the definition of CLIL with respect to other forms of
content-based L2 education is necessary if CLIL educators are to benefit from
the experiences and knowledge acquired in other educational settings. To
rarify the concept of CLIL so that it is seen to be totally distinct from other
forms of integrated L2 and content-based instruction (CBI) is to effectively
preclude learning from the experiences of other educators and from the find-
ings of educational researchers working in other settings. This may not be in
the best interests of teachers and students in CLIL classrooms.
In the next section, we present and analyze the definitions that have been
given to CLIL in the European context. We then compare characteristics of
CLIL that are often cited as evidence of its distinctiveness with characteristics of
immersion education so as to ascertain the similarities and differences between
these two popular forms of L2 education. The results of these analyses, we
believe, call for a clearer and more fine-tuned definition of CLIL that is peda-
gogically useful, a topic we discuss in section 5.

2. DEFINITION OF CLIL
There are a variety of definitions of CLIL, but Coyle et al. (2010: 1) provide a
succinct definition that refers to its specific features. ‘Content and Language
Integrated Learning (CLIL) is a dual-focused educational approach in which an
additional language is used for the learning and teaching of both content and
language’. According to this definition, CLIL can include a wide range of edu-
cational practices provided that these practices are conducted through the
medium of an additional language and ‘both language and the subject have a
joint role’ (Marsh 2002: 58). The dual role of language and content has been
understood in different ways. According to Ting (2010: 3), ‘CLIL advocates a
50:50/Content: Language CLIL-equilibrium’. However, research conducted in
actual CLIL classrooms shows that it is difficult to achieve a strict balance of
language and content (Dalton-Puffer 2007; Mehisto 2008; Pérez-Vidal and
Juan-Garau 2010). According to Marsh (2002), there should always be a
 J. CENOZ, F. GENESEE, AND D. GORTER 245

dual focus on language and content for instruction to qualify as CLIL, even if
the proportion is 90 per cent versus 10 per cent. However, a view of CLIL that
embraces such wide variation in content and language instruction is problem-
atic because it is difficult to imagine a traditional non-CLIL L2/foreign language
class with a less than 10 per cent focus on some type of content. Such a flexible
definition makes CLIL very broad, but arguably overly inclusive and at the
expense of precision.

Downloaded from [Link] by guest on 04 May 2025

Coyle’s definition also refers to CLIL as an ‘educational approach’. However,
this is understood in different ways. More specifically, some scholars view CLIL
largely in terms of the actual instructional techniques and practices used in
classrooms to promote L2/foreign language learning (Ball and Lindsay 2010;
Hüttner and Rieder-Bünemann 2010). Indeed, the conceptualization of CLIL
as ‘essentially methodological’ (Marsh 2008: 244), ‘a pedagogic tool’ (Coyle 2002:
27), or ‘an innovative methodological approach’ (Eurydice 2006: 7) is widespread.
Yet, other scholars consider CLIL in largely curricular terms (Langé 2007;
Navés and Victori 2010). Baetens Beardsmore (2002: 25), for example,
explains that CLIL is flexible regarding curricular design and timetable organ-
ization ‘ranging from early total, early partial, late immersion type programs, to
modular subject-determined slots’. A conceptualization of CLIL with reference to
curriculum is complicated further insofar as the link between language and
content can take the form of a theme or a project and does not necessarily
mean the use of an additional language as the medium of instruction for a
whole school subject, as pointed out by Coyle (2007a). Finally, yet another
conceptualization of CLIL refers to it in largely theoretical terms as the inter-
play of the theoretical foundations of constructivism and L2 acquisition (Marsh
and Frigols 2013).
As can be seen from the preceding text, there are different conceptualiza-
tions of CLIL, including views that it is an educational approach that focuses on
the classroom-level and specific pedagogical practices, to views that emphasize
its foundations in constructivism and L2 acquisition theories (Halbach 2010;
Ioannou Georgiou 2012). In some cases, CLIL is defined as a whole program of
instruction and in other cases, as isolated lessons or activities conducted in an
additional language. As Coyle (2008: 101), one of the most representative and
seminal scholars of CLIL, points out ‘there is a lack of cohesion around CLIL
pedagogies. There is neither one CLIL approach nor one theory of CLIL’.
The definition of CLIL also includes reference to an additional language as a
medium of instruction, as exemplified in the quote from Coyle. ‘Additional’
language was defined by Marsh (2002: 17) as any language other than the first
language, including foreign language, L2, or minority language. This view is
shared by those who launched CLIL and coined the term CLIL in the first place
(Wolff 2007a; Coyle 2008) and is also expounded by the Eurydice (2006)
report on CLIL. However, CLIL has often been identified exclusively with
English-medium instruction because it has had an especially significant
impact on scholars, teacher trainers, and teachers who work in English-as-a-
246 CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF CLIL

second or foreign language contexts (Dalton-Puffer et al. 2010a; Whittaker et al.

2011).
CLIL is often referred to as an ‘umbrella’ term that includes many variants
and/or a wide range of different approaches (Hondris et al. 2007; Marsh 2008).
For example, according to Mehisto et al. (2008: chapter 1), CLIL includes the
following educational approaches: ‘language showers’,2 CLIL camps, student
exchanges, local projects, international projects, family stays, modules, work-
study abroad, one or more subjects, partial immersion, total immersion, two-

Downloaded from [Link] by guest on 04 May 2025

way immersion, and double immersion. CLIL can even go beyond school
contexts to include everyday activities, provided they take place in an L2/for-
eign language. Whereas on the one hand, all of these learning contexts are
arguably examples of opportunities to learn language through content (a core
element of CLIL), on the other hand, it is otherwise difficult to identify specific
characteristics of these learning environments which they all share and which,
thus, make them all equally and uniquely part of CLIL. In other words, the
possible forms that CLIL can take are so inclusive that it is difficult to think of
any teaching or learning activity in which an L2/foreign language would be
used that could not be considered CLIL. Moreover, such an inclusive concep-
tualization of CLIL makes it so general as to lack practical or theoretical utility.
For example, it is difficult, if not impossible, to identify pedagogical tools or
theoretical constructs that apply to all or even most of these contexts/activities
that are unique to CLIL as an educational approach to language and content
learning.
In short, the use of CLIL as an umbrella construct makes it difficult ‘to pin
down the exact limits of the reality that this term refers to’ (Alejo and Piquer 2010:
220) and, thus, to distinguish CLIL learning environments from non-CLIL
learning environments, except in cases where there is exclusive instruction
in the target language with absolutely no content as a vehicle for instruction;
even the latter type of learning environment is probably difficult to find at
present. Some of the most well-known advocates of CLIL are aware of this
dilemma. Marsh (2008: 233) points out ‘Applications of CLIL are multifarious
depending on educational level, environment and the specific approach adopted’.
Similarly, Coyle (2010: vii) writes that ‘There are no set formula and methods
for CLIL’ and that ‘ . . . we know that there is neither one model which suits all
CLIL contexts nor one approach to integrating content and language teaching . . . ’
(Coyle 2007b: 49). Dalton-Puffer et al. (2010b: 3) argue that the term CLIL
‘has acquired some characteristics of a brand name, complete with the symbolic capital
of positive description: innovative, modern, effective, efficient and forward-looking’. It is
these very positive associations of CLIL that have attracted researchers, admin-
istrators, teacher educators, and teachers, particularly those in the field of
English as an L2/foreign language. At the same time, such a broad concept
of CLIL is ‘slippery’ because it ranges from the original broad view that in-
cludes different types of programs with use of an L2/foreign language as the
medium of instruction (in and even outside of school) to a narrow vision of
CLIL as representing specific pedagogical tools for teaching isolated content
 J. CENOZ, F. GENESEE, AND D. GORTER 247

through the medium of English (English for Special Purposes (ESP), for ex-
ample). Compared with traditional L2/foreign language teaching, the corner-
stone of CLIL is content and this is often considered to be different and
innovative (Marsh and Frigols 2013). At the same time, other forms of CBI,
including different types of immersion programs, have a long tradition in L2/
foreign language education in Europe and other parts of the world. This raises
the question of whether and how CLIL is really different from other types of
CBI and, in particular, immersion.

Downloaded from [Link] by guest on 04 May 2025

In summary, we have sought to show that the scope of CLIL is not clear-cut
and, as a consequence, its core features cannot be clearly identified. We would
argue that this lack of precision makes it difficult for CLIL to evolve in Europe
in a pedagogically coherent fashion and for research to play a critical role in its
evolution.

3. HOW DOES CLIL RELATE TO IMMERSION?

To better define and, therefore, understand CLIL, we discuss the relationship
between CLIL and foreign language/L2 immersion programs. We have chosen
to focus our discussion in this way for three reasons. First, immersion programs
are among the most widespread bi-multilingual education programs, not only
in North American but possibly around the world. For example, there are
immersion programs in Estonian for Russian-speakers in Estonia (Mehisto
and Asser 2007), English for Japanese speakers in Japan (Bostwick 2001),
Basque immersion for Spanish speakers in Spain (Cenoz 2009), Swedish
immersion in Finland (Björklund 1998), and Maori immersion for English-
speaking children in New Zealand (May 2013). Secondly, this comparison is
intended to examine the extent to which immersion programs and CLIL are
similar and different with the ultimate goal of ascertaining how each can
inform the other with respect to theory development, research findings, and
educational policy and practice. In other words, we think that such a discus-
sion can reveal to what extent and how experiences with immersion can guide
efforts at CLIL and, conversely, how experiences with CLIL can inform those
working in immersion programs. In the case of CLIL, at issue is how to maxi-
mize the educational outcomes of European students and students in commu-
nities around the world where CLIL is being used by drawing on research on
immersion. We believe that it behooves educators, researchers, and policy-
makers to draw on all sources of pertinent knowledge possible to ensure suc-
cess for these learners. Finally, comparing CLIL and immersion is also
important because there is a great deal of ambiguity about this relationship
among CLIL advocates. In fact, adoption of the term CLIL in the beginning was
linked to the rejection of the term immersion. For example, Coyle (2007a: 544)
explained the need for the term CLIL because ‘ ‘‘immersion’’, though used in some
European countries, was not widely favoured due to its close association with Canadian
models’. Similarly, Marsh (2002: 57) pointed out that ‘Recognition that Europe is
not Canada, not as a whole, or even in terms of most regions, led to a seeking out for
248 CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF CLIL

alternative terms’. Despite such assertions, and as we have already seen in the
previous section, Mehisto et al. (2008) consider that immersion programs are
CLIL.
French immersion programs were developed in Canada in the 1960s. In
these programs, at least 50 per cent of academic instruction is delivered
through French (or other non-native languages of the participating students)
during some part of elementary and/or secondary school for majority language
English-speaking students. Immersion is commonly defined as an educational

Downloaded from [Link] by guest on 04 May 2025

program in which an L2 or a foreign language is used for academic instruction.
There are different types of immersion programs (partial, total, early, middle,
late, dual, double, . . .); they are offered in different languages in Canada and,
indeed, around the world (Genesee 1987, 2004).
Immersion programs can be viewed as a form of ‘content-based second lan-
guage instruction’ (or CBI). Although, according to Met (1998), students in
CBI programs always engage in learning some type of content through the
medium of an L2 or a foreign language, CBI is not a unitary approach to
teaching language and content. Met distinguishes different types of CBI
using a continuum that goes from content-driven instruction to language-
driven instruction. Immersion programs are placed toward the content-
driven end of the continuum (Met 1998). Content-driven instruction has
content learning as priority and language learning is secondary (Met 1999).
In fact, as Genesee and Lindholm-Leary (2013) point out, in immersion pro-
grams, language learning is often incidental to learning prescribed academic
knowledge and skills.
Many advocates of CLIL have highlighted the differences between CLIL and
immersion (Pérez-Cañado 2012). Differences between CLIL and immersion
often focus on the goals of each approach, students’ and teachers’ profiles,
the target languages, the balance between content and language instruction,
and other pedagogical issues. We discuss each of these in turn.

3.1 Goals
CLIL and immersion have been distinguished from one another with respect to
differences in students’ putative motivations. To be more specific, according to
Hofmannová et al. (2008: 22), ‘Young Europeans in general have pragmatic goals,
similar to instrumental motivation. They want to make themselves understood when
they travel, seek new friendships and acquire knowledge’. Hofmannová et al. (2008)
imply that outside Europe, students in immersion and other bilingual pro-
grams are motivated to learn the L2 to integrate with native speakers of the
target language. The claim that students in CLIL versus immersion programs
have distinct patterns of motivation is, in fact, difficult to substantiate owing to
a lack of empirical evidence and, moreover, a lack of prime face validity for this
argument. To be more specific, Canadian students in French immersion pro-
grams, for example, are also instrumentally motivated—to enhance their job
prospects in Canada and around the world as a result of knowing an additional
 J. CENOZ, F. GENESEE, AND D. GORTER 249

language along with English; albeit an important additional motivation for

Canadian immersion students might be to integrate with native speakers of
the target languages in communities where there are French-speaking
Canadians.
Lasagabaster and Sierra (2010) distinguish between the language-learning
goals of programs in Spain where Basque and Catalan are used as languages of
instruction, which they call immersion, and programs using English as the
additional language of instruction for one or two school subjects, which they

Downloaded from [Link] by guest on 04 May 2025

consider CLIL. The underlying distinction that is implied here appears to be
that the goal of immersion programs is native-like proficiency in the target
language, but the goal of CLIL is much less advanced levels of L2 proficiency
(Marsh 2002). However, this distinction does not always apply. For example,
Várkuti (2010: 68) states that ‘bilingual schools’ in Hungary that use ‘the CLIL
approach’ . . . ‘are expected to produce ideal balanced bilinguals’. Whereas native-like
proficiency in the target language is ambitious and, arguably, perhaps often
unrealistic, the language-learning goals for CLIL programs in countries such as
Sweden and the Netherlands are often very high, and, indeed, the level of
achievement in English-as-a-second language among school-aged students in
these countries is very high (European Commission 2012). Additional
evidence against the claim that the goals of CLIL and immersion are distinct
comes from an examination of the goals of immersion programs in North
America and elsewhere. Immersion programs in French, Spanish, and
English for majority language students in Canada, the USA, and Japan,
respectively, do not expect students in these programs to attain native-like
proficiency, but rather advanced levels of functional proficiency.

3.2 Students
Differences between immersion and CLIL also draw attention to student pro-
files. More specifically, those who view CLIL as distinct from immersion often
assert the former, but less so the latter, is open to all students. To be more
specific, according to Marsh (2002:10), for example, ‘Egalitarianism has been one
success factor because the approach is seen to open doors on languages for a broader
range of learners’. Similarly, Wolff (2002: 48) claims that ‘CLIL is not an elitist
approach to language learning; it functions in all learning contexts and with all
learners’ (Baetens Beardsmore 2007). Coyle et al. (2010: 2) also consider
CLIL to be appropriate ‘for a broad range of learners, not only those from privileged
or otherwise elite backgrounds’ as compared with the past when ‘learning content
though an additional language was either limited to very specific social groups, or forced
upon school populations from whom the language of instruction was a foreign lan-
guage’. Although these claims may be accurate in some European contexts
where use of an additional language as the medium of instruction has often
been associated with elite private schools, it does not follow that such openness
is characteristic of all CLIL contexts nor that it is uniquely characteristic of
CLIL. Such claims ignore European immersion programs that use a minority
250 CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF CLIL

language as the language of instruction for all and any speakers of the majority
language. For example, in the Basque Autonomous Community, where the
main language of instruction can be either Basque or Spanish, more than
90 per cent of school children have Basque as a language of instruction even
though the percentage of Basque speakers in the region is approximately
30 per cent. These programs are open to the whole school population, and
schools teaching through Basque (which is an L2 for a large number of stu-
dents) serve children from different socioeconomic backgrounds (Cenoz 2009).

Downloaded from [Link] by guest on 04 May 2025

In North America, as well, immersion programs are widely available to stu-
dents with diverse backgrounds, including students from families with low
socioeconomic status (Caldas and Boudreaux 1999; Genesee 2007) and minor-
ity ethnolinguistic groups (Holobow et al. 1991).
In contrast to the notion that CLIL serves all students, some scholars point
out that CLIL programs are not available for all students (Mehisto 2007;
Lasagabaster and Sierra 2010; Bruton 2011). Mehisto (2007: 63) notes that
‘CLIL can attract a disproportionally large number of academically bright students’.
Bruton (2011: 524), who is very critical of some research studies on the
outcomes of CLIL, shares Mehisto’s concern noting that ‘many of the potential
pitfalls which CLIL might encounter are actually avoided by selecting for these programs
students who will be academically motivated to succeed in the FL (foreign language),
as in other subjects’. Lasagabaster and Sierra (2010: 372) point out that,
with respect to immigrant students in Spain, what they understand as CLIL
programs, namely, those using English as the language of instruction, may
be more elitist than immersion programs insofar as ‘Immigrant students are
usually enrolled in immersion programs [. . .], whereas they seldom[. . .] take part in
CLIL programs’. According to these authors, and contrary to those who claim
that CLIL is more accessible than other types of content-based L2 education,
CLIL may actually be more elitist. At the very least, claims concerning the
relative accessibility of CLIL in comparison with other content-based language
options, and most importantly immersion, demonstrate a relatively superficial
knowledge of different types of immersion education and the student popula-
tions they serve. All things considered, it would appear that there are no
grounds for claiming that CLIL is typically and uniquely less elitist than
immersion.

3.3 The target language

It has also been claimed that CLIL is distinct from immersion insofar as the
additional language used in CLIL is a foreign language, English in most cases,
and not an L2 spoken locally (Dalton-Puffer et al. 2010b:1). However, this is in
contradiction with the usage given in the Eurydice report (2006: 8), which
notes that the ‘acronym CLIL is used as a generic term to describe all types of provision
in which a second language (a foreign, regional or minority language and/or another
official state language) is used to teach certain subjects in the curriculum other than
language lessons themselves’. Furthermore, the use of English can be more
 J. CENOZ, F. GENESEE, AND D. GORTER 251

extensive in countries such as the Netherlands or Sweden, where there are

CLIL programs, than the use of French in many parts of Canada, where im-
mersion programs exist. In short, it is difficult to argue that CLIL can be dis-
tinguished with reference to the nature of the additional language(s) used for
instruction. In North America, immersion programs are available in a wide
variety of languages, including many that are not spoken in the community
where the program is located; the Center for Applied Linguistics identifies
programs in the USA that use 25 different languages (see these Web sites for

Downloaded from [Link] by guest on 04 May 2025

details: [Link] [Link]
directory/[Link]). Nikula et al. (2013: 71) also acknowledge that, as
in many CLIL programs, many current immersion programs focus on a foreign
language.

3.4 The balance between content and language

One of the claims made by CLIL advocates is that it is content-driven. Coyle
et al. (2010: 1) state ‘CLIL is content-driven, and this is where it both extends the
experience of learning a language, and where it becomes different to existing language-
teaching approaches’. This is obviously innovative if we consider CLIL to be a
foreign language teaching approach because academic content has not trad-
itionally been taught through a foreign language in European contexts. Marsh
(2008) explains that it is through content teaching that CLIL can develop
higher-order language skills and that this is characteristic of CLIL in compari-
son with other types of language-learning approaches, which are also content-
oriented. Marsh goes on to explain that the innovative aspect of CLIL is that
instructional content in CLIL teaching is drawn from academic subjects or
disciplines. It could be understood that this is the reason why CLIL develops
higher-order skills. However, it is not clear how this can be used to distinguish
CLIL from other content-based approaches and, in particular, immersion pro-
grams in Europe and North America as well as other parts of the world
(Kirkpatrick 2011).
In a somewhat extreme attempt to distinguish immersion from CLIL using
this distinction, Marsh (2002: 71) quotes Genesee (2004: 548–9) when the
latter refers to Met’s (1998) continuum: ‘Bilingual/immersion education are ex-
amples of content-driven approaches’. Surprisingly, and contrary to Genesee’s
description, Marsh (2002: 71) uses this quote to argue that immersion is
language-driven and, therefore, different from CLIL/EMILE: ‘This quotation is
particularly revealing because it shows the tendency towards language that much
research espouses, particularly that from Northern America where many applications
of ‘‘teaching through a second/foreign language’’ differ considerably from the
European experience of CLIL/EMILE3’. Somewhat later, Marsh (2002: 72) goes
on to emphasize this putative difference by saying that in CLIL/EMILE ‘the non-
language content is considerably more important than the language’. In a later pub-
lication, Marsh (2008: 235) insists that CLIL’s focus on content in comparison
with immersion is the main difference between the two approaches ‘What
252 CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF CLIL

happened, over time, was that forms of CLIL focused more on the content, rather than
on the language. This would be the single most distinctive difference between such forms
of CLIL and immersion’. However, this argument does not hold up because both
Met (1998) and Genesee (2004) consider immersion as ‘content-driven’ rather
than ‘language-driven’. In a related vein, to highlight the differences between
CLIL and immersion, Coyle et al. (2010: 133–4) claim that research in immer-
sion is focused mainly on language. However, this is to overlook the extensive
immersion research that has focused on academic achievement (Genesee

Downloaded from [Link] by guest on 04 May 2025

1987, 2004). Even were one to accept that there is a greater focus on language
than on academic achievement in Canadian immersion research, the same can
be said of research on CLIL where research on content is extremely limited.
Moreover, that research focuses more on language than on academic achieve-
ment in the Canadian context says nothing about the focus of instruction in
the classroom. The focus on language in research may reflect the historical fact
that immersion grew out of concerns about the quality of L2 learning that
resulted from traditional methods of L2 teaching and, thus, the need to estab-
lish that immersion was a more successful alternative. The focus on language
may also reflect the finding that although research has consistently shown that
immersion students score at par on academic achievement tests, they show
mixed results when it comes to language outcomes. In short, claims that CLIL
and immersion differ with respect to their relative focus in research and during
instruction on content versus language are not well founded and, in fact, run
counter to claims of most Canadian immersion researchers who have pointed
out that the focus on content in immersion has resulted in language instruc-
tion being incidental (Genesee 1991; Swain 1996; Lyster 2007).
The language-content distinction has been invoked further as a
distinguishing feature of CLIL and immersion insofar as advocates of CLIL
argue that there is more systematic planned integration of language and
content in CLIL than in immersion (Coyle 2008; Coyle et al. 2010: 6). On
the one hand, researchers and educators working in immersion programs
themselves have drawn attention to the need for more systematic, explicit,
and coherent integration of language and content instruction (Swain 1996;
Lyster 2007; Genesee and Lindholm-Leary 2013). Lyster (2007: 137), in par-
ticular, has written extensively about the merits of instruction in immersion
programs that systematically counterbalances language and content
instruction. On the other hand, evidence that there is a more balanced peda-
gogic integration of content and language in CLIL is scant. In fact, as pointed
out by Dalton-Puffer et al. (2009) and Evnitskaya and Morton (2011), the
majority of CLIL teachers are subject specialists without formal qualifications
in foreign language and/or general language pedagogy and, moreover, that
CLIL classrooms are just like classrooms in which subjects are taught in the
first language. Moreover, there is often little collaboration between teachers
who teach the L2 or foreign language per se and those teachers who are
teaching content through those languages. However, there is wide variation
in this regard.
 J. CENOZ, F. GENESEE, AND D. GORTER 253

3.5 Other pedagogical issues

Some CLIL experts assert that there are other important pedagogical differ-
ences between CLIL and immersion. For example Ball and Lindsay (2010)
explain that CLIL teachers devise their own instructional methods, design
their own materials, and highlight the role of language, whereas immersion
teachers always use materials developed for native speakers. Although native
language materials are used in some immersion classrooms for some content

Downloaded from [Link] by guest on 04 May 2025

teaching, largely in the higher grades when students’ L2 skills are relatively
advanced, there are just as many cases when immersion teachers devise their
own materials, adapt native language materials to be suitable for L2 learners,
or use locally devised immersion-specific materials; this is especially true in the
early grades of immersion and when complex academic subjects such as phys-
ics or chemistry are taught through the L2. It seems most likely that there is
enormous variation in both the pedagogical materials and pedagogical meth-
ods used by teachers in both CLIL and immersion classrooms.
That the development and use of instructional materials in CLIL and immer-
sion classrooms may not be as distinct as implied by some CLIL advocates
comes from cases where CLIL educators in Europe have acknowledged the
important role played by immersion in the development of CLIL methodology.
For example, Ruiz de Zarobe and Lasagabaster (2010: xi–xii) refer to the trans-
fer of methodology from immersion to CLIL ‘In those communities where immer-
sion programs in the minority language have had a long tradition, such as the Basque
Country or Catalonia, CLIL teachers have been able to transfer the methodological
procedures gathered in sound immersion programs, stepping from regional to foreign
languages’.
In a totally different vein, it has been argued that CLIL differs from immer-
sion in that immersion begins at an earlier age than CLIL (Lasagabaster and
Sierra 2010). Dalton-Puffer et al. (2010b: 1) point out that CLIL is usually
implemented after learners have acquired literacy skills in their first language.
However, there are middle and late as well as early immersion programs and
there are early CLIL programs (Llinares et al. 2012:2). In fact, Coyle et al.
(2010) give examples of CLIL models for pre-school, primary, secondary,
and higher education. In any case, differences in age of introduction of CLIL
versus immersion hardly seem sufficient to argue that the two approaches are
pedagogically distinct, except in an incidental fashion linked to learner age.
In contrast to the perspectives that CLIL and immersion are different in
irreconcilable ways, some consider CLIL to be the same as CBI and, thus,
immersion, which is clearly a form of CBI (Järvinen 2007: 255; Ruiz de
Zarobe 2008: 61). For example, Ruiz de Zarobe (2008: 61 footnote) point
out ‘Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) and Content-based instruction
(CBI) can be considered synonymous. The former is used more frequently in Europe
while the latter has gained more popularity in the United States and Canada’.
However, as we have already seen, immersion is considered a type of CBI,
so it can also be seen as a type of CLIL. Indeed, for some experts, there is no
254 CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF CLIL

distinction between CLIL and immersion. For example, Várkuti (2010: 68)
considers that schools using the CLIL approach have ‘an adapted version of a
kind of partial immersion program’. Maillat (2010: 45) goes even further and
considers CLIL to be a specific form of immersion ‘. . .any kind of immersion
education (of which CLIL is regarded as a specific form)’. For others, CLIL is the
general construct under which a variety of alternative forms of integrated
language and content instruction can be placed, including immersion
(Baetens Beardsmore 2002; Coyle 2007a; Dalton-Puffer 2007; Sylvén 2007).

Downloaded from [Link] by guest on 04 May 2025

Van de Craen et al. (2007: 186) encourage the use of CLIL in this generic sense
when they write ‘CLIL has earned its stripes in various educational contexts, in
Canada it helped Canadians to learn their second language; in Wales, CLIL played
an important role in reviving the Welsh language’. Reference to immersion as a
type of CLIL can also be found in the article by Coyle et al. (2010: 9), where
French immersion in Canada and Basque trilingual programs in Spain is pre-
sented as an example of CLIL with languages other than English. That CLIL
may not be a totally new, unique form of education is discussed also by
Mehisto et al. (2008: 9), who even uses the term CLIL to refer to education
in ancient Akkadian communities, some 5,000 years ago, when Sumerian was
used as a medium of instruction to teach academic subjects.
In summary, our comparison of perspectives on CLIL versus immersion in-
dicates that there is not a single position regarding the relationship between
CLIL and immersion among CLIL advocates and, moreover, distinctions that
have been used by advocates to argue that CLIL is unique do not, in fact, hold
up when analyzed carefully. Before leaving this discussion, it is important to
recognize that in the European context, CLIL has attracted scholars and prac-
titioners in the field of English as a foreign language (EFL) in particular. As a
result, in some circles, CLIL has become a label to designate a relatively in-
novative form of teaching EFL insofar as EFL teaching in Europe has tradition-
ally been limited to the English language class and has not included much
academic content. In this regard and in this context only, CLIL might be
considered unique. However, this innovation in EFL education in Europe is
insufficient to warrant considering CLIL an innovative form of education
outside the European context.

4. TAKING STOCK AND MOVING FORWARD

Our examination of the definition and scope of the term CLIL both internally,
as used by CLIL advocates in Europe, and externally, as compared with
immersion education in and outside Europe, indicates that the core character-
istics of CLIL are understood in different ways with respect to: the balance
between language and content instruction, the nature of the target languages
involved, instructional goals, defining characteristics of student participants,
and pedagogical approaches to integrating language and content instruction.
Identifying the programmatic, instructional, and student-related properties
that are specific and perhaps unique to CLIL is complicated by the diverse
 J. CENOZ, F. GENESEE, AND D. GORTER 255

and ill-defined range of learning contexts/opportunities that can be classified

as CLIL, as noted by Mehisto et al. (2008). Our analysis reveals further that
categorical distinctions between CLIL and immersion, another widely used
form of integrated content and language instruction, are unsupported
(Tedick and Cammarata 2012). In fact, the lack of precision in the internal
definition of CLIL makes it difficult, if not impossible, to identify features that
are uniquely characteristic of CLIL in contrast with immersion education.
We believe that CLIL is best conceptualized as an umbrella term, like CBI,

Downloaded from [Link] by guest on 04 May 2025

that incorporates a wide variety of program alternatives and learning oppor-
tunities. What alternative renditions of CLIL share is their view that authentic
content that extends beyond language be used as a vehicle for L2/foreign
language teaching and learning—as well, of course, as being of importance
for teaching and learning itself. In our opinion, the extent to which CLIL
(and CBI as well) entails a specific well-defined pedagogical approach to con-
tent and language integrated teaching, which is evident in all and only CLIL
classrooms and programs, is presently not clear and, thus, open to question
and discussion. The same could be said of immersion, which itself lacks a clear
and coherent pedagogy. In any case, from the perspective of CLIL as an um-
brella construct, immersion education can be considered a particular form of
CLIL (or CBI). Immersion programs share characteristics with some, but not
all, forms of CLIL. More specifically, and like other forms of CLIL, immersion is
characterized by the use of an L2 or a foreign language as the language of
instruction of prescribed non-linguistic academic content. Immersion, which
typically uses an L2/foreign language to teach at least 50% of the school cur-
riculum throughout elementary school, contrasts with other forms of CLIL
that, for example, use the target language for teaching only one subject or
for teaching modules that are part of specific school subjects. For instance, one
lesson in an English as an L2/foreign language course can be CLIL-oriented
by focusing on the solar system or on musical instruments. In any case, if
we conceptualize CLIL as an umbrella construct and immersion as a form of
CLIL, it is difficult and meaningless to make categorical claims about their
distinctiveness.
The development of CLIL since its inception two decades ago has strengths
and weaknesses. In moving the development of CLIL forward, it is useful to
take stock of each. Among CLIL’s strengths are the following:

4.1 The spread of CLIL

The growing interest in CLIL and the European-specific perspective it offers has
resulted in enthusiasm in and active pursuit of improved methods of foreign
language/L2 teaching that is much welcomed at a time when the countries of
the European Union are becoming increasingly integrated and, indeed, as
nations around the world become globally integrated. There is little question
that providing students with enhanced opportunities in school to acquire com-
petence in additional languages will better prepare them for globalization,
256 CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF CLIL

whether they are educated in the European community or in communities

elsewhere.

4.2 L2/foreign languages in the school curriculum

The development and expansion of CLIL in Europe and around the world has
served to increase the prominence of L2/foreign languages in school curricula.
CLIL programs provide more hours of contact with the L2/foreign language,

Downloaded from [Link] by guest on 04 May 2025

and CLIL has made learning an L2/foreign language in school more important
throughout Europe and beyond. The integrated approach to language and
content teaching espoused by CLIL has the potential to better integrate foreign
language/L2 instruction and the teachers responsible for that instruction with
mainstream curriculum and teachers.

4.3 Research
The development of CLIL and the enthusiasm it has engendered in foreign
language/L2 education circles has stimulated research on language learning,
and content integrated language learning in particular, that is advancing our
theoretical understanding of this important aspect of human development and
our capacity to nurture it in school contexts. However, by insisting on the
uniqueness of CLIL as compared with immersion and other CBI programs,
the wealth of research evidence on immersion and other variants of CBI is
often ignored.
At the same time, there are some weaknesses in CLIL that warrant greater
attention.

4.3.1 The bandwagon effect

As noted by Banegas (2011: 183) ‘Because CLIL shortcomings are not fully ad-
dressed, I believe that a rather evangelical picture is offered, implying to teachers that
very few problems will emerge’. In fact, claims on behalf of the success of CLIL are
all too often made without substantial empirical evidence (Coyle 2007a; Wolff
2007b; Bruton 2011). There is a need for more balanced reflection on both the
strengths and shortcomings or gaps in our understanding of CLIL and its ef-
fectiveness in diverse contexts.

4.3.2 The scarcity of research

Even though the development of CLIL has stimulated research on content and
language integrated learning, there are important empirical gaps in our under-
standing of its effectiveness. Bruton (2011), for example, points out that
although the rationale for integrating content with language teaching includes
the assumption that this will increase motivation and, thus arguably, use of the
target language, it could have the opposite effect. More specifically, student
motivation might be reduced because of loss of self-esteem when students are
 J. CENOZ, F. GENESEE, AND D. GORTER 257

required to use a language they do not know, and use of the language might
actually diminish if the subject matter is novel and/or complex resulting in
reduced language acquisition. Without empirical evidence concerning these
issues, we simply do not know. Similar concerns have been identified by
immersion researchers (Lyster 2007) and by Lin and Man (2009: chapter 7)
in reference to the use of English as the language of instruction in Southeast
Asia. In a related vein, there is a need to examine more carefully if content is
acquired to the same extent when taught through the medium of the L2

Downloaded from [Link] by guest on 04 May 2025

in comparison with students’ native language (Seikkula-Leino 2007).
Fundamental issues about the effectiveness of CLIL remain unexamined.
Specifically, much, if not most, research on CLIL has been conducted by
ESL/EFL scholars who have compared CLIL and non-CLIL groups of learners
and reported higher achievement in English for CLIL learners (Coyle 2007a;
Järvinen 2007; Lorenzo et al. 2010). Although these results provide general
support for CLIL (although see Bruton 2011 for an opposing view), they do not
establish a clear causal link between integrated language and content teaching
and learner outcomes. CLIL instruction usually entails more contact hours
with the target language during the school day, and it could be this extended
exposure to the target language that is the crucial variable (Tedick and
Cammarata 2012). Perhaps the same number of hours of direct language
instruction would be as effective or more effective without a CLIL approach
(Bruton 2011).
The need for more research in general has been noted by some CLIL experts
(Dalton-Puffer et al. 2010a). As Marsh (2008) points out, and as we have
noted, however, there are challenges to carrying out research on CLIL because
of the diversity of CLIL program formats and the lack of a standardized CLIL
blueprint (Van de Craen et al. 2007: 197). At a very minimum, it is incumbent
on researchers to provide clear and detailed descriptions of the CLIL class-
rooms/programs that they are examining to ensure that others can understand
the limits of generalizability of their results. Advances on the research front
could be hampered by definitional shortcomings, our next point.

4.3.3 The lack of conceptual clarity

The initial and ongoing emphasis on defining CLIL in ways that distinguish it
from other CBI programs has resulted in a plethora of and at times contradict-
ory set of definitions of CLIL. This is evident from our analyses of what we call
internal as well as external definitions. Conceptualizing CLIL as a blanket term
(akin to CBI) embraces the multiple formats of CLIL that it currently includes
and which many advocates favor. At the same time, there is a critical need to
refine the definition of CLIL in ways that systematically and coherently rec-
ognize this diversity of formats. This may call for the creation of a taxonomy of
prevalent forms of CLIL that can serve to organize discussions about appropri-
ate pedagogy, research findings, and policy. It is unlikely that research find-
ings, policy statements, or pedagogical practices that are applicable to one
258 CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF CLIL

variety of CLIL would be appropriate for all renditions of CLIL. Clarity and
coherence are necessary to better identify and develop research priorities,
pedagogical initiatives, and policy. At present, research efforts as well as edu-
cational initiatives are likely to be hampered or limited because there is no
widely accepted definition(s) of CLIL and, moreover, no clear understanding of
different versions of CLIL. A taxonomy or delineation of alternative formats for
CLIL would help to bring order to these matters (Cenoz 2009).

Downloaded from [Link] by guest on 04 May 2025

5. THE FUTURE
CLIL has undergone important developments during the past 20 years and has
become a well-recognized and useful construct for promoting L2/foreign
language teaching. Now that CLIL is well established, it no longer has to strug-
gle for recognition and support. Efforts to insist that it is unique are potentially
harmful to its future evolution for several reasons. First, by isolating CLIL,
advocates are depriving CLIL educators of valuable information from research
on immersion education and related forms of CBI that could inform and
improve their efforts in CLIL classrooms and programs in Europe and else-
where. Secondly, a pre-occupation with the uniqueness of CLIL isolates
CLIL theoreticians and researchers from mainstream research on multilingual
and L2 education, as, logically, anything that is unique is unrelated to other
forms of L2 education. Rather than insisting on the uniqueness of CLIL, efforts
might be better spent establishing a taxonomy of different common forms of
CLIL/CBI so as to circumscribe the diverse contexts in which CLIL is found.
This, in turn, will make it possible to conduct research that is generalizable,
meaningful, and useful. This will also make it possible for theory, research, and
educational practices in CLIL settings to contribute to general theories, re-
search findings, and pedagogy.
We believe that it is time for CLIL scholars to move from celebration to a
critical empirical examination of CLIL in its diverse forms to better identify its
strengths and weaknesses in different learning contexts. It is important that
there not be just more research, but rather more critical research on CLIL. We
also believe that research on CLIL should go beyond a focus on the ‘English as a
Foreign Language’ perspective of much work at present so that other domains of
student learning are examined and better understood. The current focus on
ESL/EFL results in neglect of students’ achievement in non-language academic
domains, such as mathematics and science. A focus on ESL/EFL similarly results
in a neglect of acquisition of other L2s as well as neglect of acquisition of stu-
dents’ first language (Cenoz and Gorter 2011). In short, a more comprehensive
assessment of student outcomes in diverse CLIL contexts is called for.
A critical, and ultimately the most important, direction for future research is
to examine efficient ways to effectively integrate language and content instruc-
tion. In other words, research is needed that goes beyond examining simply
whether teaching content in an L2 or a foreign language promotes L2 compe-
tence to examining how teaching content in an L2 works and how it can be
 J. CENOZ, F. GENESEE, AND D. GORTER 259

improved. Classroom-based research on how best to integrate language and

content is necessary if we are to enhance teacher effectiveness in CLIL settings.
Efforts in this direction have been undertaken in CBI programs in North
America (Lyster 2007; Short et al. 2011). However, there are many aspects
of the integration of language and content instruction that require careful
theoretical, empirical, and pedagogical attention. CLIL researchers could
learn from their findings. At the same time, research in CLIL settings has
much to contribute to these endeavors.

Downloaded from [Link] by guest on 04 May 2025

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors thank the editors and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. Jasone
Cenoz and Durk Gorter acknowledge the support of the research grants EDU2012-32191 (Spanish
Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness) and IT-714-13/UFI 11/54 (Basque Government).

NOTES
1 The group of experts were David Marsh and ten years old, who receive between
from Finland, Hugo Baetens Beard- 30 minutes and one hour of exposure
smore from Belgium, Do Coyle from per day. This includes the use of games,
the UK, Marı́a Jesús Frigols from songs, many visuals, realia, handling of
Spain, Gisella Langé from Italy, Anne objects and movement’ (Mehisto,
Maljers from The Netherlands, Peeter Marsh and Frigols 2008: 13).
Mehisto from Estonia, and Dieter 3 EMILE is the French acronym for CLIL
Wolff from Germany. ‘Enseignement d’une Matière par
2 ‘Language showers are primarily in- l’Intégration d’une Langue Etrangère’.
tended for students aged between six

REFERENCES
Alejo, R. and A. Piquer. 2010. ‘CLIL teacher in D. Lasagabaster and Y. Ruiz de Zarobe
training in extremadura: A needs analysis per- (eds): CLIL in Spain. Implementation, Results
spective’ in D. Lasagabaster and Y. Ruiz de and Teacher Training. Cambridge Scholars
Zarobe (eds): CLIL in Spain. Implementation, Publishing, pp. 162–87.
Results and Teacher Training. Cambridge Banegas, D. L. 2011. ‘A review of CLIL: Content
Scholars Publishing, pp. 219–42. and language integrated learning,’ Language
Baetens Beardsmore, H. 2002. ‘The signifi- and Education 25: 182–5.
cance of CLIL/EMILE’ in D. Marsh (ed.): Bostwick, M. 2001. ‘English immersion in a
CLIL/EMILE the European Dimension. University Japanese school’ in D. Christian and
of Jyväskylä, pp. 24–6. F. Genesee (eds): Bilingual Education. TESOL,
Baetens Beardsmore, H. 2007. ‘The working pp. 125–38.
life perspective’ in D. Marsh and D. Wolff Björklund, S. 1998. ‘Immersion in Finland in
(eds): Diverse Contexts-Converging Goals: CLIL in the 1990s: A state of development and
Europe. Peter Lang, pp. 27–31. expansion’ in J. Cenoz and F. Genesee (eds):
Ball, P. and D. Lindsay. 2010. ‘Teacher training Beyond Bilingualism: Multilingualism and
for CLIL in the Basque country: The case of the Multilingual Education. Multilingual Matters,
Ikastolas - in search of parameters’ pp. 85–102.
260 CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF CLIL

Bruton, A. 2011. ‘Is CLIL so beneficial, or just Learning in CLIL Classrooms. John Benjamins,
selective? Re-evaluating some of the research,’ pp. 279–91.
System 39: 523–32. Dalton-Puffer, C., T. Nikula, and U. Smit.
Caldas, S. J. and N. Boudreaux. 1999. 2010b. ‘Charting promises premises and re-
‘Poverty, race, and foreign language immer- search on content and language integrated
sion: Predictors of math and English lan- learning’ in C. Dalton-Puffer, T. Nikula, and
guage arts performance,’ Learning Languages 5: U. Smit (eds): Language Use and Language
4–15. Learning in CLIL Classrooms. John Benjamins,
Cenoz, J. 2009. Towards Multilingual Education: pp. 1–19.

Downloaded from [Link] by guest on 04 May 2025

Basque Educational Research from an European Commission. 2012. First European
International Perspective. Multilingual Matters. Survey on Language Competences, available at
Cenoz, J. and D. Gorter. 2011. ‘Focus on [Link]
Multilingualism: A study of trilingual writing,’ final-report-escl_en.pdf.
The Modern Language Journal 95: 356–69. Eurydice. 2006. Content and Language Integrated
Coyle, D. 2002. ‘Relevance of CLIL to the Learning (CLIL) at School in Europe. Eurydice.
European Commission’s language learning ob- Evnitskaya, N. and T. Morton. 2011.
jectives’ in D. Marsh (ed.): CLIL/EMILE the ‘Knowledge construction, meaning making
European Dimension. University of Jyväskylä, and interaction in CLIL science classroom com-
pp. 27–8. munities of practice,’ Language and Education
Coyle, D. 2007a. ‘Towards a connected research 25: 109–27.
agenda for CLIL pedagogies,’ The International Genesee, F. 1987. Learning Through Two
Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism Languages: Studies of Immersion and Bilingual
10: 543–62. Education. Newbury House.
Coyle, D. 2007b. ‘The CLIL quality change’ Genesee, F. 1991. ‘Second language learning in
in D. Marsh and D. Wolff (eds): Diverse school settings: Lessons from immersion’
Contexts-Converging Goals: CLIL in Europe. Peter in A. Reynolds (ed.): Bilingualism, Multicultural-
Lang, pp. 47–58. ism, and Second Language learning: The McGill
Coyle, D. 2008. ‘CLIL-A pedagogical approach Conference in Honor of Wallace E. Lambert. Law-
from the European perspective’ in N. rence Erlbaum, pp. 183–202.
Van Dusen-Scholl and N.H. Hornberger (eds): Genesee, F. 2004. ‘What do we know about bi-
Encyclopedia of Language and Education. lingual education for majority language stu-
Springer, pp. 97–111. dents’ in T.K. Bhatia and W. Ritchie (eds):
Coyle, D. 2010. ‘Foreword’ in D. Lasagabaster Handbook of Bilingualism and Multiculturalism.
and Y. Ruiz de Zarobe (eds): CLIL in Blackwell, pp. 547–576.
Spain. Implementation, Results and Teacher Genesee, F. 2007. ‘French immersion and at-risk
Training. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, students: A review of research findings,’
pp. vii–viii. Canadian Modern Language Review 63: 655–688.
Coyle, D., P. Hood, and D. Marsh. 2010. Genesee, F. and K. Lindholm-Leary. 2013.
Content and Language Integrated Learning. ‘Two case studies of content-based language
Cambridge University Press. education,’ Journal of Immersion and Content-
Dalton-Puffer, C. 2007. Discourse in Content and Based Education 1: 3–33.
Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) Classrooms. Halbach, A. 2010. ‘From the classroom to uni-
John Benjamins. versity and back: teacher training for CLIL in
Dalton-Puffer, C., J. Hüttner, Spain at the Universidad de Alcalá’
V. Schindelegger, and U. Smit. 2009. in D. Lasagabaster and Y. Ruiz de Zarobe
‘Technology geeks speak out: what students (eds): CLIL in Spain: Implementation, Results
think about vocational CLIL,’ International and Teacher Training. Cambridge Scholars
CLIL Research Journal 1: 18–25. Publishing, pp. 243–56.
Dalton-Puffer, C., T. Nikula, and U. Smit. Hofmannová, M., J. Novotná, and
2010a. ‘Language use and language learning R. Pı́palová. 2008. ‘Assessment approaches
in CLIL: current findings and contentious to teaching mathematics in English as a foreign
issues’ in C. Dalton-Puffer, T. Nikula, and language,’ International CLIL Research Journal 1:
U. Smit (eds): Language Use and Language 20–35.
 J. CENOZ, F. GENESEE, AND D. GORTER 261

Holobow, N. E., F. Genesee, and W. Maillat, D. 2010. ‘The pragmatics of L2 in CLIL’

E. Lambert. 1991. ‘The effectiveness of a for- in C. Dalton-Puffer, T. Nikula, and U. Smit
eign language immersion program for children (eds): Language Use and Language Learning
from different ethnic and social class back- in CLIL Classrooms. John Benjamins, pp. 39–58.
grounds: Report 2,’ Applied Psycholinguistics 12: Marsh, D. 2008. ‘Language awareness and CLIL,’
179–98. in J. Cenoz and N. Hornberger (eds):
Hondris, G. I., S. Vlahavas, and Demetriadis. Encyclopedia of Language and Education, vol 6.
2007. ‘Negotiation of meaning and digital Knowledge about Language. Springer, pp.
textbooks in the CLIL classroom’ in D. Marsh 233–46.

Downloaded from [Link] by guest on 04 May 2025

and D. Wolff (eds): Diverse Contexts-Converging Marsh, D. (ed.) 2002. CLIL/EMILE the European
Goals: CLIL in Europe. Peter Lang, pp. 319–30. Dimension. University of Jyväskylä.
Hüttner, J. and A. Rieder-Bünemann. 2010. Marsh, D. and M. J. Frigols. 2013. ‘Content-
‘A cross-sectional analysis of oral narratives and language integrated learning’
by children with CLIL and non-CLIL instruc- in C. Chapelle (ed.): Blackwell Encyclopedia of
tion’ in C. Dalton-Puffer, T. Nikula, and Applied Linguistics. Blackwell, pp. 911–20.
U. Smit (eds): Language Use and Language May, S. 2013. ‘Indigenous immersion education:
Learning in CLIL Classrooms. John Benjamins, International developments,’ Journal of
pp. 61–80. Immersion and Content-Based Language Education
Ioannou Georgiou, S. 2012. ‘Reviewing the 1: 34–69.
puzzle of CLIL,’ ELT Journal: English Language Mehisto, P. 2007. ‘What a school needs to
Teachers Journal 66: 495–504. consider before launching a CLIL program:
Järvinen, H. M. 2007. ‘Language in language the Estonian experience’ in D. Marsh and
and content integrated learning (CLIL)’ D. Wolff (eds): Diverse Contexts-Converging
in D. Marsh and D. Wolff (eds): Diverse Goals: CLIL in Europe. Peter Lang, pp. 61–77.
Contexts-Converging Goals: CLIL in Europe. Peter Mehisto, P. 2008. ‘CLIL counterweights: Recog-
Lang, pp. 253–60. nising and decreasing disjuncture in CLIL,’
Kirkpatrick, A. 2011. ‘English as a medium of International CLIL Research Journal 1: 93–119.
instruction in Asian education (from primary Mehisto, P. and H. Asser. 2007. ‘Stakeholder
to tertiary): implications for local languages perspectives: CLIL programme management
and local scholarship,’ Applied Linguistics in Estonia,’ International Journal of Bilingual
Review 2: 99–120. Education and Bilingualism 10/5: 683–701.
Langé, G. 2007. ‘Postscript to CLIL 2006 and Mehisto, P, D. Marsh, and M. J. Frigols. 2008.
future action’ in D. Marsh and D. Wolff Uncovering CLIL. Macmillan Education.
(eds): Diverse Contexts-Converging Goals: CLIL in Met, M. 1998. ‘Curriculum decision-making in
Europe. Peter Lang, pp. 351–4. content-based language teaching’ in J. Cenoz
Lasagabaster, D. and J. M. Sierra. 2010. and F. Genesee (eds): Beyond Bilingualism:
‘Immersion and CLIL in English: more differ- Multilingualism and Multilingual Education.
ences than similarities,’ ELT Journal 64: Multilingual Matters, pp. 35–63.
367–75. Met, M. 1999. Content-based Instruction: Defining
Lin, A. M. Y. and E. Y. F. Man. 2009. Bilingual Terms, Making Decisions. The National Foreign
education: Southeast Asian perspectives. Hong Language Center.
Kong University Press. Navés, T. and M. Victori. 2010. ‘CLIL in cata-
Llinares, A., T. Morton, and R. Whittaker. lonia: An overview of reesarch studies’
2012. The Roles of Language in CLIL. in D. Lasagabaster and Y. Ruiz de Zarobe
Cambridge University Press. (eds): CLIL in Spain. Implementation, Results
Lorenzo, F., S. Casal, and P. Moore. 2010. ‘The and Teacher Training. Cambridge Scholars
effects of content and language integrated Publishing, pp. 30–54.
learning in European education: Key findings Nikula, T., C. Dalton-Puffer, and A. Llinares.
from the Andalusian bilingual sections 2013. ‘CLIL classroom discourse: Research
evaluation project,’ Applied Linguistics 31: from Europe,’ Journal of Immersion and
418–42. Content-Based Language Education 1: 70–100.
Lyster, R. 2007. Learning and Teaching Language Pérez-Cañado, M. L. 2012. ‘CLIL research in
thought Content. John Benjamins. Europe: past, present, and Future,’ International
262 CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF CLIL

Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism Tedick, D. J. and L. Cammarata. 2012.

15: 315–41. ‘Content and language integration in K-12
Pérez-Vidal, C. and M. Juan-Garau. 2010. ‘To contexts: Student outcomes, teacher practices
CLIL or not to CLIL: From bilingualism to and stakeholder perspectives,’ Foreign
multilingualism in Catalan/Spanish commu- Language Annals 45/S1: S28–53.
nities’ in D. Lasagabaster and Y. Ruiz de Ting, Y. L. T. 2010. ‘CLIL appeals to how the
Zarobe (eds): CLIL in Spain: Implementation, brain likes its information: examples from
Results and Teacher Training. Cambridge CLIL-(Neuro) Science,’ International CLIL
Scholars Publishing, pp. 115–38. Research Journal 1: 1–18.

Downloaded from [Link] by guest on 04 May 2025

Ruiz De Zarobe, Y. 2008. ‘CLIL and foreign lan- Van de Craen, P., E. Ceuleers, and K. Mondt.
guage learning: A longitudinal study in the 2007. ‘Cognitive development and bilingualism
Basque country,’ International Journal of CLIL in primary schools: teaching maths in a CLIL
Research 1: 60–73. environment’ in D. Marsh and D. Wolff (eds):
Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. and D. Lasagabaster. 2010. Diverse Contexts-Converging Goals: CLIL in Europe.
‘The emergence of CLIL in Spain: Peter Lang, pp. 185–200.
An educational challenge’ in D. Lasagabaster Várkuti, A. 2010. ‘Linguistic benefits of the CLIL
and Y. Ruiz de Zarobe (eds): CLIL in approach: measuring linguistic competences,’
Spain. Implementation, Results and Teacher International CLIL Research Journal 1: 67–79.
Training. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Whittaker, R., A. Llinares, and A. McCabe.
pp. ix–xvii. 2011. ‘Written discourse development in CLIL
Seikkula-Leino, J. 2007. ‘CLIL learning: at secondary school,’ Language Teaching
Achievement level and affective factors,’ Research 15: 343–62.
Language and Education 21: 328–41. Wolff, D. 2002. ‘On the importance of CLIL in
Short, D., J. Echevarria, and C. Richards- the context of the debate on plurilingual edu-
Tutor. 2011. ‘Research on academic literacy cation in the European Union’ in D. Marsh
development in sheltered instruction class- (ed.): CLIL/EMILE the European dimension.
rooms,’ Language Teaching Research 15: 363–80. University of Jyväskylä, pp. 47–8.
Swain, M. 1996. ‘Integrating language and con- Wolff, D. 2007a. CLIL in Europe. Retrieved
tent in immersion classrooms: Research per- from CLIL-Content and Language Integrated, avail-
spectives,’ The Canadian Modern Language able at [Link]/ges/spa/dos/ifs/ceu/
Review 52: 529–48. [Link].
Sylvén, L. K. 2007. ‘Swedish CLIL students’ Wolff, D. 2007b. ‘CLIL: bridging the gap
extracurricular contact with English and its re- between school and working life’ in D. Marsh
lation to classroom activities’ in D. Marsh and and D. Wolff (eds): Diverse Contexts-
D. Wolff (eds): Diverse Contexts-Converging Goals: Converging Goals: CLIL in Europe. Peter Lang,
CLIL in Europe. Peter Lang, pp. 237–50. pp. 15–25.