How to Teach in CLIL? Some Remarks on CLIL Methodology

  • Katarzyna PapajaEmail author
Part of the Second Language Learning and Teaching book series (SLLT)


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


Foreign Language Teaching Material Language Teaching Content Subject Language Classroom 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Adamson, H. D. 1993. Academic competence: Theory and classroom practice. Preparing ESL students for content courses. White Plains, NY: Longman.Google Scholar
  2. Blanton, L. L. 1992. A holistic approach to college ESL: Integrating language and content. ELT Journal 46: 285–293.Google Scholar
  3. Crystal, D. 2007. Towards a philosophy of language management. In Researching content and language integration in higher education, eds. R. Wilkinson and V. Zegers, 19–31. Maastricht: Maastricht University Language Centre.Google Scholar
  4. Darn, S. 2006. Content and language integrated learning. TeachingEnglish website. (retrieved September 18, 2010 from
  5. Dooly, M. 2008. Multiple language integration: Introduction. In ‘How we’re going about it’: Teachers’ voices on innovative approaches to teaching and learning languages, eds. M. Doooly and D. Eastment, 15–17. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
  6. Genesee, F. 1987. Learning through two languages. Studies of immersion and bilingual education. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  7. Hauptman, P. C., M. B. Wesche and D. Ready. 1988. Second-language acquisition through subject-matter learning: A follow-up study at the University of Ottawa. Language Learning 38: 433–75.Google Scholar
  8. Krechel, H. L. and D. Wolff. 1995. Rapport de l’enquête sur les techniques d’apprentissage et detravail dans les classes bilingues en Allemagne (progress report). In Second progress report of the research and development programme of workshop 12 A, ed. Council of Europe, 61–66, 149–156. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.Google Scholar
  9. Krueger, M. and F. Ryan, eds. 1993. Language and content. Discipline- and content-based approaches to language study. Lexington, MA: Heath.Google Scholar
  10. Little, D., S. Devitt and D. Singleton. 1994. Learning foreign languages from authentic texts: Theory and practice. Dublin: Authentik.Google Scholar
  11. Marsh, D. and G. Lange, eds. 2000. Using languages to learn and learning to use languages. An introduction to content and language integrated learning for parents and young people. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä.Google Scholar
  12. Marsh, D. and B. Marsland. 1999. Learning with languages. A professionaldevelopment programme for introducing content and language integrated learning. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä.Google Scholar
  13. Marsh, D., B. Marsland and K. Stenberg. 2001. Integrating competencies for working life. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä.Google Scholar
  14. Marsh, D., P. Mehisto, D. Wolff and J. M. Frigols. 2010. Framework for CLIL teacher education. A framework for the professional development of CLIL teachers. Graz: European Centre for Modern Languages.Google Scholar
  15. Marsh, D., M. Zając, H. Gozdawa-Gołębiowska, A. Czura, A. Gapińska, R. Majewska, K. Papaja, M. Roda, M. Urbaniak and E. Wróblewska. 2008. Profile reportbilingual education (English) in Poland. Warszawa: The National Centre for Teacher Training and Development (CODN) and British Council Poland.Google Scholar
  16. Mehisto, P., D. Marsh and J. M. Frigols. 2008. Uncovering CLILcontent and language integrated learning in bilingual and multilingual education. Oxford: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  17. Portmann-Tselikas, P. P. 2002. Textkompetenz und unterrichtlicher Sprachwerb. In Textkompetenz. Neue Perspektiven für das Lehren und Lernen, eds. P. P. Portmann-Tselikas and S. Schmölzer Eibinger, 13–43. Innsbruck: Studien Verlag.Google Scholar
  18. Thürmann, E. 1999. Eine eigenständige Methodik für den bilingualen Fachunterricht? In Bilingualer Unterricht: Grundlagen, Methoden, Praxis, Perspektiven, eds. G. Bach and S. Niemeier, 75–96. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  19. Wolff, D. 2003. Content and language integrated learning: A framework for the development of learner autonomy. In Learner autonomy in the foreign language classroom: Teacher, learner, curriculum and assessment, eds. D. Little, J. Ridley and E. Ushioda, 211–222. Dublin: Authentik.Google Scholar
  20. Wolff, D. 2005. Content and Language Integrated Learning. HAL 5: 1–22.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of EnglishUniversity of SilesiaKatowicePoland

Personalised recommendations