HomeContent and Language Intergrted Learning

HomeContent and Language Intergrted Learning

Content and Language Intergrted Learning

Enseignement d’une matière par l’intégration d’une langue étrangère

Recherche et pédagogie

Research and Pedagogy

*  *  *

Published on Friday, April 05, 2019


In this Special Issue of Contextes et dictatiques, we aim to revisit Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) focusing on both research and pedagogy. This call for papers will accept both research and state-of-the-art submissions.



In this Special Issue, we aim to revisit Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) focusing on both research and pedagogy. This call for papers will accept both research and state-of-the-art submissions.

Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) is an educational approach with a dual objective of developing language skills and building disciplinary content knowledge. CLIL also aims to enable learners to improve their cognitive and intercultural communication skills and to build knowledge of norms and conventions specific to both the language and content they are studying (Coyle, 2007, 2008, 2013; Coyle, Hood, & Marsh, 2010; Cross, 2013, 2016; Dalton-Puffer, 2007; Mehisto, Marsh, & Frigols, 2008).

Bilingual education practices have long existed in the European and North American contexts under the names of immersion education, bilingual instruction, and content-based instruction, and so forth. CLIL is an educational approach and not an educational program. It is thus different from the concepts of “disciplines non linguistiques” (DNL, the term used in the French educational system), immersion or other bilingual education programs. Immersion programs, bilingual schools, and European or international sections (bilingual education programs in France) are examples of bilingual programs, which may or may not use the CLIL approach. CLIL provides a flexible approach in which contextual factors influence the development of different types of practices (Coyle, 2008; Coyle et al., 2010; Mehisto et al., 2008).

The term CLIL was coined by European language experts and educators within the European educational setting in the 1990s (Béliard & Gravé-rousseau, 2009; Coyle, 2008; Coyle et al., 2010; Cross, 2016; Pérez-Cañado, 2013)In the early 1990s, the CLIL approach was known to solely a small group of European language experts and language teaching practitioners, who were involved in the bi-plurilingual education provision prompted by the European Commission (Coyle, 2007; Dalton-Puffer, 2011; Pérez-Cañado, 2013). The 1990s was the period when multilingualism and language education became a crucial issue in the European context (Pérez-Cañado, 2013). This multifaceted movement involved political, economic, socio-cultural and educational dimensions. Initially, the movement aimed to improve intercultural knowledge and communication among European citizens to enable successful intercultural understanding and cooperation. Today CLIL is a fully recognized educational approach that has exceeded the initial objectives and has been incorporated into school curricula in diverse educational settings ranging from the elementary to tertiary education.

For the last decade, the interest in CLIL has gained impetus, and its practices are no longer limited to the European continent (Cross, 2012; Dalton-Puffer, 2011; Gabillon & Ailincai, 2013, 2016; Pérez-Cañado, 2013). This increase in CLIL activities and transnational interactions in diverse research initiatives contributed to the improvement of CLIL pedagogies. The consistent number of empirical research studies, which have been carried out for the last two decades, mainly in the Canadian context relentlessly supported the efficacy of content teaching using of a second language (Cummins, 1998; Cummins & Swain, 1998; Lazaruk, 2007; McLaughlin, 2012). For the last decade, various studies have also investigated CLIL practices in both European Union and non-European Union countries. The results obtained from some of these studies supported the results obtained in the North American context. Recent research on CLIL has also indicated that CLIL practices are motivating both for teachers and students and that they help the acquisition of both linguistic and academic competencies (Coyle et al., 2010; Craen & Mondt, 2010; Griva & Mattheoudaki-Sayegh, 2017).

This Special Issue of the journal “Contextes et Didactiques invites educationalists, teacher trainers and researchers to submit research papers and in-depth literature reviews on the following themes:

  • CLIL and context: Research issues concerning the context and learning conditions;

  • CLIL and affect: Learner beliefs, attitudes, and motivation;

  • CLIL and age: Issues concerning age and CLIL learning;

  • CLIL and theoretical issues: Search for compatible standpoints and approaches (constructivist, interactionist, sociocultural approaches etc.);

  • CLIL and pedagogical and didactic issues: Teacher education, learner involvement, learning and cognition nexus;

  • CLIL and learning outcomes: Experimental research studies, that compare CLIL with non-CLIL practices and longitudinal case studies, which focus on learning outcomes.


Béliard, J., & Gravé-rousseau, G. (2009). Les programmes EMILE : principes , objectifs et mise en œuvreComission européeneRetrieved from http://www.ienmaroc.org/site_ien/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Les-programmes-EMILE-principes-objectifs-et-mise-en-oeuvre-1.pdf

Coyle, D. (2007). Content and Language Integrated Learning: Towards a Connected Research Agenda for CLIL Pedagogies. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism10(5), 543–562. https://doi.org/10.2167/beb459.0

Coyle, D. (2008). CLIL—A pedagogical approach from the European perspective. In N. H. Hornberger (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Education (pp. 97–111). Boston, MA: Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-30424-3_92

Coyle, D. (2013). Listening to learners: An investigation into “successful learning” across CLIL contexts. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism16(3), 244–266. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2013.777384

Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL : content and language integrated learningCambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Craen, P. Van De, & Mondt, K. (2010). EMILE a douze ans. Douze ans d’enseignement de type immersif en Belgique. Résultats et perspectives. Synergies Monde7, 127–140. Retrieved from http://dialnet.unirioja.es/descarga/articulo/3604997.pdf

Cross, R. (2012). Creative in finding creativity in the curriculum: The CLIL second language classroom. Australian Educational Researcher39(4), 431–445. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-012-0074-8

Cross, R. (2013). Research and evaluation of the content and language integrated learning (CLIL) approach to teaching and learning languages in Victorian schools.Melbourne, Australia. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/11343/55778

Cross, R. (2016). Language and content ‘integration’: the affordances of additional languages as a tool within a single curriculum space. Journal of Curriculum Studies48(3), 388–408. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2015.1125528

Cummins, J. (1998). Immersion education for the millennium: What have we learned from 30 years of research on second language immersion? In Learning through two languages: Research and practice. Second Katoh Gakuen International Symposium on Immersion and Bilingual Education (pp. 34–47). Katoh Gakuen, Japan.

Cummins, J., & Swain, M. (1998). Bilingualism in education: Aspects of theory, research and practice (6th ed.). New York, USA: Routledge.

Dalton-Puffer, C. (2007). Outcomes and processes in content and language integrated learning (CLIL): current research from Europe. Future Perspectives for English Language Tearching, (May).

Dalton-Puffer, C. (2011). Content-and-language integrated learning: From practice to principles? Annual Review of Applied Linguistics31, 182–204. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190511000092

Gabillon, Z., & Ailincai, R. (2013). CLIL: A science lesson with breakthrough level young EFL learners. Education3(3), 168–177. https://doi.org/10.5923/j.edu.20130303.05

Gabillon, Z., & Ailincai, R. (2016). The role of artefacts and gestures in CLIL lessons. TESOLANZ Journal24(Special edition, CLESOL 2014), 26–37. Retrieved from http://www.tesolanz.org.nz/Site/Publications/TESOLANZ_Journal/default.aspx#H138990-2

Griva, E., & Mattheoudaki-Sayegh, M. (2017). CLIL implementation in foreign language contexts: Exploring challenges and perspectives - Part II. Research Papers in Lnguage Teaching and Learning8(2), 63–73.

Lazaruk, W. (2007). Linguistic, Academic, and Cognitive Benefits of French Immersion. Canadian Modern Language Review63(5), 605–627. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.63.5.605

McLaughlin, B. (2012). Second-language acquisition in childhood:Volume 2 school-age children. New York, USA: Psychology Press.

Mehisto, P., Marsh, D., & Frigols, M. J. (2008). Uncovering CLIL content and language integrated learning in bilingual and multilingual education. New York, USA: Macmillan Education.

Pérez-Cañado, M. L. (2013). International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism CLIL research in Europe : past , present , and future. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism15(3), 315–341. https://doi.org/0.1080/13670050.2011.630064


  • Thursday, January 30, 2020


  • enseignement, langue étrangère


  • Frédéric Anciaux
    courriel : fanciaux [at] espe-guadeloupe [dot] fr

Reference Urls

Information source

  • Sopheap Theng
    courriel : etudescaribeennes [at] gmail [dot] com


CC0-1.0 This announcement is licensed under the terms of Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal.

To cite this announcement

« Content and Language Intergrted Learning », Call for papers, Calenda, Published on Friday, April 05, 2019, https://calenda.org/595958

Archive this announcement

  • Google Agenda
  • iCal
Search OpenEdition Search

You will be redirected to OpenEdition Search