This document discusses content and language integrated learning (CLIL) in Europe from 2006 to 2012. It makes three key points: 1) By 2010/11, CLIL provision existed in almost all European countries, either in all schools, some schools, or as pilot projects. Only a few countries had no CLIL provision. 2) CLIL definitions have remained largely stable over time, focusing on using an additional language for teaching both content and language. 3) Mainstreaming education and addressing student diversity, including special needs students making up around 20% of students and specific needs groups like migrants, is a major consideration for CLIL.

1. CEP Luisa Revuelta de Córdoba - 15 November 2012 - David Marsh
Forces Driving CLIL

2. Change Agents in Fast Developing Systems & CLIL
Adopting a holistic view of education which shifts
towards learner-centricity
Identifying key success factors such as equity and
competence-based education involving problem-
solving skills and pattern recognition
Recognising that demand for change now requires a
response as significant as the setting up of basic
education systems which occurred at least a century
ago and that these have changed little in this time
Moujaes et al. 2012
Canada, New Zealand, Korea

3. Change Agents in Fast Developing Systems & CLIL
Leveraging quality through focus on creativity, critical
thinking, communication and collaboration
Changing curricula from emphasis on what to learn
towards how to learn, and activating this in rich
learning environments
Recognising the relevance of the newly emerging
literacies & communication with respect to the impact
of technology on the lives of young people
Moujaes et al. 2012
Singapore, Finland,
Australia

4. that occurred in different classes, and those variations depended mainly on the quality
of teaching in different classrooms.
The Evidence-base Growing Globally since the 1960s
Exhibit 5: The effect of teacher quality
Student
performance
100th percentile
her
teac 90th percentile
ing*
erform
hi gh-p
with
ent
Stud 53 percentile points
50th percentile
Student
with low
-perform
ing** tea
c her 37th percentile
0th percentile
Age 8 Age 11
*Among the top 20% of teachers; **Among the bottom 20% of teachers
Analysis of test data from Tennessee showed that teacher quality effected student performance more than any other variable; on average, two
students with average performance (50th percentile) would diverge by more than 50 percentile points over a three year period depending on the
teacher they were assigned
Source: Sanders & Rivers Cumulative and Residual Effects on Future Student Academic Achievement, McKinsey
The negative impact of low-performing teachers is severe, particularly during

5. Enhancing Education takes Time – Finland 30 years
1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

6. Innovation Paths: CLIL vs. Standard Education
6
5
4
3 CLIL
Standard
2
1
0
2012 2014 2016 2018

7. Effects from Learning Activities – 0.40
upwards considered Significant
§ Self-reported grades 1.44
§ Formative Evaluation 0.90
§ Classroom Discussion 0.88
§ Teacher-student Relationships 0.72
§ Concept Mapping 0.60
§ Cooperative Learning 0.59
§ Visualization 0.55
John Hattie Visible Learning (2012)
Page § 7

8. Dimension 1
Simultaneous Pressure for Change 1990-2012
Socio-political Top-down Pressure
European Integration
Equity of Access to Languages
Educational System Transformation
Educational Top-down Pressure
Language Competences
Language-learning Performance
Educational Practices Transformation

9. Examining Existing Educational Practices
Total Immersion Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol
Partial Immersion Cognitive Academic Language Learning
Double Immersion Cross-curricular Language Teaching
Bilingual Education Content-based Language Teaching
Two-way Immersion Task-based Language Instruction
Dual language Immersion English as medium of Instruction
Foreign language Immersion English for Specific Purposes
Heritage Language Immersion Content-based Instruction
Content and Language Integrated Learning
CLIL

10. Stability over CLIL Definitions 1994 - 2012
a dual-focused educational approach in which an additional
language is used for the learning and teaching of both
content and language
(EuroCLIC 1994)
a dual-focused educational approach in which an additional
language is used for the learning and teaching of content
and language with the objective of promoting both content
and language mastery to pre-defined levels
(ECFT 2010)
a general term to designate different types of bilingual and
immersion education
(Eurydice 2012)

11. O R G A N I S AT I O N
SECTION II – FOREIGN LANGUAGE PROVISION IN
THE CONTEXT OF CLIL IN PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION
K-12 Current Status - Europe 2012 – 2006 (Eurydice)
CONTENT AND LANGUAGE INTEGRATED LEARNING IS PART OF MAINSTREAM
PROVISION IN ALMOST ALL COUNTRIES
In nearly all European countries, certain schools offer a form of education provision according to which
non-language subjects are taught either through two different languages, or through a single language
which is 'foreign' according to the curriculum. This is known as content and language integrated
learning (CLIL – see the Glossary, Statistical Databases and Bibliography section). Only Denmark,
Greece, Iceland and Turkey do not make this kind of provision.
2012
Figure B9: Existence of CLIL provision
2006
in primary and/or general secondary education, 2010/11
CLIL provision in all schools
CLIL provision in some schools
CLIL provision within pilot projects only
No CLIL provision
Source: Eurydice.
Explanatory note
Eurydice 2006 & 2012
CLIL provision in some schools: The practice is not necessarily widespread. For detailed information on CLIL
provision in each country, see Annex 2.
This figure does not cover:

12. The CLIL Development Trajectory
Summarising Dimension 1
1 Political integration
Professional inter-linking of
2 language teaching with other
disciplines
Parent and student
Trajectory 3 expectations
Simultaneous with other
4 integrative trajectories
influencing education
Impact of competence-
5 building on curriculum

13. Dimension 2
Mainstreaming and Student Diversity
Special Needs Specific Needs
(often through psycho- (often through
Special
medical paradigm) includes educational paradigm)
single or multiple disabilities, includes migrants
or disorders Specific students, those
generally longer-term hospitalized,
challenges giftedness
generally shorter-term
Mainstream challenges
Placeholder

14. Significance of Scale: Special Needs
Scale of Students with Special Needs
Indicative Rates
Around 20%
Page § 14
Finland 30% of all students receive special education each year
NNDR 2012

15. Significance of Scale: Special & Specific Needs
Scale of Students with Special & Specific Needs
Indicative rates
vary considerably
and can be 40%+
UK 55% London primary students not having English as first
language (2010) due to migration, National: 0.5m (MW 2012)

16. Stresses a Triple Focus for Teaching & Learning
The Learner If everyone is percieved as
the same, we don’t find the
need to think about thinking
Content For SEN language experts
cognition and student
engagement is crucial
Individualizing learning paths
Language means combining cognition,
content & language as in
CLIL

17. Inclusion, Innovation & Integration
Inclusion of special & specific needs students has expanded over
2000-2012 in most EU countries for different reasons
This drives the need to explore alternative ways of ensuring equity of
access to language learning, accelerated access to education, and ways
of de-stigmatizing certain cohorts of learners
SEN research describes research and examples of good practice where
content and language are integrated
This leads to the hypothesis that an integrated CLIL approach can
enhance learning outcomes for a broad range of young people, those
with special/specific needs and those without

18. The CLIL Development Trajectory
Summarising Dimension 2
Inclusion into mainstream
1 classes, and equity of access
to effective language learning
Migration and changing composite
2 of classrooms
Trajectory 3 Recognition & diagnosis
Cognition, thinking skills &
4 individualized learning paths
Understanding how to overcome learning challenges leads to
5 culture of individualized learning & implementation of solutions
such as socio-constructivist holistic teaching and learning

19. Dimension 3
CLIL as Holistic Practices & LA
Coyle et al. 2010

20. Challenges, Constraints & Opportunities
In this information-rich age language awareness is an
increasingly significant competence in L1 and L2
Traditional education has often led to deficit in language
awareness with responsibility solely with L1 & L2 language
teachers
Language teachers face major restrictions of time in the
curriculum. Even if they wanted to develop language awareness
time, and other constraints, are a challenge
CLIL can provide both extra time, and crucially context, for
developing both L1 and L2 language awareness, if the teacher
has the pre-requisite skills

21. The CLIL Development Trajectory
Summarising Dimension 3
Enhanced competences in language awareness is
1 a long-standing goal in quality language education
Increasing access to digital
2 information requires acute critical
thinking skills
Media-rich lifestyles of
Trajectory 3 young people impact on
L1 and L2
Interactive basis of new digital landscape
4 strengthening case for socio-constructivist
educational practices
Power of language awareness
5 to promote learner autonomy

22. Dimension 4
Impact of Languages on Individuals
Recent expansion of evidence-base due to
research within the neurosciences
1960-1979
1980-1999
2000-2009
Est. 2012
EC 2009, plus projected

23. New Knowledge Driven by Innovative Research Practices
MBE: To improve the state of knowledge in & dialogue between
education, biology, and the developmental & cognitive sciences
University of University of
Cambridge, Centre for Harvard, Graduate
Neuroscience in School of Education
Mind Brain
Education
Education
International Mind, Brain &
Education Society
OECD:CERI

24. Significance of Plasticity for (Languages) Education
‘Weak enough to yield to an influence, but strong enough not to yield all at
once’ William James, The Principles of Psychology (1890)
cerebral architecture is heavily
influenced by experiences such
as when learning at school, or
immersion in a new environment
Mind
Brain
The brain as adaptive and
malleable and not ‘hard-
wired’
Plasticity
Athanasopoulus et al. 2010

25. Significance of Plasticity on Media Use
8-18 year olds – USA – hours of exposure 1999-2009
2009: Multi-tasking 1999: Multi-tasking
alongside use at 6.19 per alongside use at
7.38 per
29% of time day day 16% of time.
51.66 per 43.33 per
week week
6.21 per day
43.47 per week
2004: Multi-tasking
alongside use at
Rideout, Foehr & Roberts 2010
26% of time

26. Core Findings on Enhancement through L2
Flexibility
cognitive, affordances, interpretations, creativity, divergent and convergent thinking
Problem-solving
executive function processing, attentional control
Metalinguistic awareness
linguistic processing, enriched information processing
Learning
memory, abstract and symbolic reasoning, innovative thinking, hypothesis formation
Interpersonal skills
communicative sensibility, interactional competence, context understanding

27. The CLIL Development Trajectory
Summarising Dimension 4
Ideas emerging from authentic neuroscience with
1 relevance for education (Howard-Jones 2011 )
Technological advances through fMRIs, PET, OT, and
2 others have a major impact on understanding
processes of language & thought (Ojima et al. 2010)
Advantages of using two languages on regular basis
Trajectory 3 outweighs disadvantages (Bialystock 2010)
Broad advantages from using two languages on a
4 regular basis that support learning of other subjects
(EU 2009)
The neurocognitive mechanisms for learning the L1 have
5 implications for learning an L2 in CLIL-type immersive
environments (Morgan-Short et al. 2012)

28. non-language subjects are taught either through two different languages, or through a single language
which is 'foreign' according to the curriculum. This is known as content and language integrated
learning (CLIL – see the Glossary, Statistical Databases and Bibliography section). Only Denmark,
Greece, Iceland CLIL Provision Europe provision. - 2012
Reported and Turkey do not make this kind of - K-12
Figure B9: Existence of CLIL provision
in primary and/or general secondary education, 2010/11
CLIL provision in all schools
CLIL provision in some schools
CLIL provision within pilot projects only
No CLIL provision
Source: Eurydice.
Explanatory note
CLIL provision in some schools: The practice is not necessarily widespread. For detailed information on CLIL
provision in each country, see Annex 2.
This figure does not cover:

29. Student Admission - CLIL Programmes - K-12 - 2012-2006
2006
2012
Eurydice 2006 & 2012

30. Status of Target Languages - K-12 - 2012-2006
2006
2012
Eurydice 2006 & 2012

31. Conclusion – The Development Trajectory
§ development has been driven by real-time pressures
§ no single blueprint for implementation or export
§ requires facing challenges and re-thinking of practices
§ strengthened by inter-disciplinary dialogue, breaking ‘silo’ mindsets,
recognition of the potential of diversity, & professional capacity-building
§ further strengthened by identified generic features of good practice in
educational transformation, and research on mind & brain
§ acts as open-source, different agendas, and differing approaches
§ leading to educational experience relevant to language and literacy
§ rising significance of language and literacies in education is likely to drive
future development of CLIL

32. Thank
you!