FAQ Responses by Dr Margaret Gearon - please scroll down the page to find answers to these questions:
1. What is the difference between CLIL and immersion?
2. What are the benefits of CLIL?
3. What is the value of CLIL methodology?
4. What is NOT CLIL
5. What could CLIL look like in an Australian context?
6. How could CLIL be implemented in a school?
7. How do we plan units of CLIL? What would these look like?
8. What support is available for schools and their educators from the government and other organizations?
9. What training is available for educators?
10. References
1. What is the difference between CLIL and immersion?
2. What are the benefits of CLIL?
3. What is the value of CLIL methodology?
4. What is NOT CLIL
5. What could CLIL look like in an Australian context?
6. How could CLIL be implemented in a school?
7. How do we plan units of CLIL? What would these look like?
8. What support is available for schools and their educators from the government and other organizations?
9. What training is available for educators?
10. References
1. What is the difference between CLIL and immersion?
Immersion education and Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) both fall within the field of bilingual education, having as goals the addition of another language to students’ knowledge and skills. Both are offered as optional programs within a mainstream school and aim to develop plurilingualism, biliteracy and cultural diversity.
Immersion education involves the delivery of the mainstream curriculum to children from a language majority background in an additional language, and is offered via a full (100% of the curriculum) or partial (at least 50%) program model. The second language is used for the medium of instruction and is largely confined to classroom use, although there may be some contact in the outside community. The focus is on the language needed for the content of the curriculum discipline area/s with some attention being paid to developing explicit knowledge of the linguistic, semantic and pragmatic features of the additional language in order to succeed in assessment tasks which focus on the content. An immersion program is offered as an optional stream within a school and runs for the same number of years as the regular mainstream program. The majority of immersion teachers are native or near-native speakers of the language. They usually have a teacher education qualification in immersion education.
Content and Language Integrated Learning can be delivered in a number of ways. Weak forms range from the teaching of one theme or topic in an additional language to the teaching of one discipline area for a term or a semester, while strong forms can include teaching one discipline area for one or two school years. CLIL involves a dual-focused approach where the additional language is used for the explicit teaching and learning of both content AND language. The additional language can be a ‘foreign’, second or community/heritage language. A CLIL program can run for a number of weeks or months, a term or terms, or one school year. All CLIL programs are based on a theoretical framework which integrates four areas: content, cognition, communication and culture. They are also informed by six core features: a multiple focus (integrating language and content learning through several subject areas or cross – curricula themes or projects); a safe and enriching learning environment (use of learning centres, displays of language and content in the classroom); authenticity (connecting with other speakers of the language, using current materials); active learning (student-centred not teacher-centred, co-operative learning); scaffolding (building on learners’ existing knowledge, interests, experiences, responding to different learning styles, fostering creative and critical thinking, challenging students); co-operation (content and language teachers plan together, local community and parents are involved). Although there may be some native speakers teaching, the majority of CLIL teachers are non-native speakers of the language; they may be discipline area specialists with some level of competence in the CLIL language. Currently, there is very little formal teacher education available in CLIL pedagogical approaches.
Immersion education and Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) both fall within the field of bilingual education, having as goals the addition of another language to students’ knowledge and skills. Both are offered as optional programs within a mainstream school and aim to develop plurilingualism, biliteracy and cultural diversity.
Immersion education involves the delivery of the mainstream curriculum to children from a language majority background in an additional language, and is offered via a full (100% of the curriculum) or partial (at least 50%) program model. The second language is used for the medium of instruction and is largely confined to classroom use, although there may be some contact in the outside community. The focus is on the language needed for the content of the curriculum discipline area/s with some attention being paid to developing explicit knowledge of the linguistic, semantic and pragmatic features of the additional language in order to succeed in assessment tasks which focus on the content. An immersion program is offered as an optional stream within a school and runs for the same number of years as the regular mainstream program. The majority of immersion teachers are native or near-native speakers of the language. They usually have a teacher education qualification in immersion education.
Content and Language Integrated Learning can be delivered in a number of ways. Weak forms range from the teaching of one theme or topic in an additional language to the teaching of one discipline area for a term or a semester, while strong forms can include teaching one discipline area for one or two school years. CLIL involves a dual-focused approach where the additional language is used for the explicit teaching and learning of both content AND language. The additional language can be a ‘foreign’, second or community/heritage language. A CLIL program can run for a number of weeks or months, a term or terms, or one school year. All CLIL programs are based on a theoretical framework which integrates four areas: content, cognition, communication and culture. They are also informed by six core features: a multiple focus (integrating language and content learning through several subject areas or cross – curricula themes or projects); a safe and enriching learning environment (use of learning centres, displays of language and content in the classroom); authenticity (connecting with other speakers of the language, using current materials); active learning (student-centred not teacher-centred, co-operative learning); scaffolding (building on learners’ existing knowledge, interests, experiences, responding to different learning styles, fostering creative and critical thinking, challenging students); co-operation (content and language teachers plan together, local community and parents are involved). Although there may be some native speakers teaching, the majority of CLIL teachers are non-native speakers of the language; they may be discipline area specialists with some level of competence in the CLIL language. Currently, there is very little formal teacher education available in CLIL pedagogical approaches.
2. What are the benefits of CLIL?
- differs from traditional languages learning in its pedagogical approach, learning outcomes (both content AND language)
- emphasizes progression in new knowledge, skills and understanding
- promotes meaningful interaction and progression in language using and learning
- focuses on production of both oral and written texts
- promotes engagement in higher order thinking and understanding, creativity and accepting challenges and reflecting on them
- develops an awareness of ‘self’ and ‘others’, of identity, and progression towards pluri-cultural understanding through links with partner schools
- values different home languages
- promotes development of cross-curricula knowledge and skills by having learners study new concepts in their non-native language
- encourages problem-solving, inquiry-based learning, information processing
- promotes enjoyment of language learning leading to success; learners can see they are making progress
- develops a higher level of language proficiency than regular language courses
- addresses some issues of a “crowded curriculum” since both language and subject discipline areas are taught at the same time
- supports a team-work approach for teachers
- challenges teachers and learners and raises expectations of advanced language learning and the development of thinking skills
3. What is the value of CLIL methodology?
- provides flexible approaches which can be adapted to any context
- promotes teacher co-operation and collegial approach to curriculum delivery
- provides opportunities for cross-curricula planning
- encourages teachers and students to ‘think’ outside of rigid subject boundaries and to make connections across discipline areas
- focuses on relevant and engaging topics and materials
- develops thinking skills through the use of authentic materials and task-based, inquiry learning
- uses co-operative learning which encourages exploratory talk more than presentational talk
- develops intercultural awareness and a world view rather than a narrow local focus
- uses a “plan-use-review” cyclical approach (cf Action Research)
- develops both Basic Interpersonal Communicative Skills (BICS) and Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP), two aspects of language learning proposed by Jim Cummins in the 1970s
- draws on successful pedagogies from BOTH languages and the subject discipline area/s
- draws heavily on language scaffolding techniques
4. What is NOT CLIL
There is a potential for teachers to confuse CLIL with content-based teaching which focuses on delivering content through the students’ second language, but does not develop this language at the same time. Following are some points which reflect an approach which is NOT a CLIL one:-
There is a potential for teachers to confuse CLIL with content-based teaching which focuses on delivering content through the students’ second language, but does not develop this language at the same time. Following are some points which reflect an approach which is NOT a CLIL one:-
- focusing on content and understanding, without specific strategies to also develop and push students' production of the NEW language which is the target for each lesson
- using content only for topics or themes to support language teaching (i.e., not an equal focus on developing students' knowledge of language and NEW content)
- replicating known content without any NEW understanding, development, or extension to existing skills or knowledge; for example, teaching the exact same content as the mainstream teacher has presented in the students’ first language, or delivering a small component of a broader topic without making connections to the wider area
- just changing the language of instruction
- using large amounts of teacher-focussed instruction and not allowing time for student-centred learning
- focus on learning facts
5. What could CLIL look like in an Australian context?
In the Australian context, there could be a number of types of CLIL programs. Given the cognitive, linguistic, and social benefits of learning through a CLIL approach, including its contribution to the development of oracy and literacy, CLIL has significant potential in the early and primary years of schooling. It provides additional exposure to the skills needed to learn to decipher, read and write in a language, while addressing the vexed issue of the crowded curriculum. This is a particular problem in primary schools where Languages often languish at the bottom of the priority list, while other subjects also compete with dedicated curriculum time spend specifically on literacy and numeracy. By working with Languages across an integrated, thematic curriculum, the CLIL language teacher could be entrusted with delivering an appropriate part of the class theme in the additional language. Alternatively, the CLIL teacher could take responsibility for a specific curriculum unit each semester (e.g., Science) to be delivered through the additional language, planned in collaboration with the regular homeroom teacher (refer to the primary schools involved in the CLIL research project between DEECD and University of Melbourne’s Graduate School of Education in 2012).
It could be introduced as an option in secondary schools, particularly at Years 9 and 10 where numbers tend to drop dramatically and when students have electives to choose from. Rather than positioning Languages in competition with other areas of the curriculum, students could elect to undertake both through an integrated model. This also enhances the meaningfulness of the content that underpins the school’s Languages program, in relation to the broader curriculum. The CLIL program could run in different disciplines in each semester across these two years and provide students with excellent preparation for VCE language units.
At secondary school, where the language teacher is also a teacher of another discipline, the same class could be allocated to this person for both areas, and a topic, or part of a unit of work could be delivered through the additional language. This could start at Year 7 or Year 8 and be provided as an option for students who elected to participate in such a program.
As well as being suitable for mainstream schools, it would be a highly appropriate model for Community Languages schools to adopt. Providing students who attend these schools with relevant, motivating and challenging topics, materials and tasks would provide a means of attracting and retaining students, especially in the early years of adolescence.
In the Australian context, there could be a number of types of CLIL programs. Given the cognitive, linguistic, and social benefits of learning through a CLIL approach, including its contribution to the development of oracy and literacy, CLIL has significant potential in the early and primary years of schooling. It provides additional exposure to the skills needed to learn to decipher, read and write in a language, while addressing the vexed issue of the crowded curriculum. This is a particular problem in primary schools where Languages often languish at the bottom of the priority list, while other subjects also compete with dedicated curriculum time spend specifically on literacy and numeracy. By working with Languages across an integrated, thematic curriculum, the CLIL language teacher could be entrusted with delivering an appropriate part of the class theme in the additional language. Alternatively, the CLIL teacher could take responsibility for a specific curriculum unit each semester (e.g., Science) to be delivered through the additional language, planned in collaboration with the regular homeroom teacher (refer to the primary schools involved in the CLIL research project between DEECD and University of Melbourne’s Graduate School of Education in 2012).
It could be introduced as an option in secondary schools, particularly at Years 9 and 10 where numbers tend to drop dramatically and when students have electives to choose from. Rather than positioning Languages in competition with other areas of the curriculum, students could elect to undertake both through an integrated model. This also enhances the meaningfulness of the content that underpins the school’s Languages program, in relation to the broader curriculum. The CLIL program could run in different disciplines in each semester across these two years and provide students with excellent preparation for VCE language units.
At secondary school, where the language teacher is also a teacher of another discipline, the same class could be allocated to this person for both areas, and a topic, or part of a unit of work could be delivered through the additional language. This could start at Year 7 or Year 8 and be provided as an option for students who elected to participate in such a program.
As well as being suitable for mainstream schools, it would be a highly appropriate model for Community Languages schools to adopt. Providing students who attend these schools with relevant, motivating and challenging topics, materials and tasks would provide a means of attracting and retaining students, especially in the early years of adolescence.
6. How could CLIL be implemented in a school?
The implementation of CLIL in a school takes time and careful planning. Because there are many varieties of CLIL programs which can introduced for varying periods of time, a school community needs to be sure that it is choosing the most appropriate one for the students and teachers who will be involved. Baetens-Beardsmore (2012, v) warns against what he calls “hit and miss improvisation” and advises that all members of a school community must be committed to a long-term process of implementing a program which will develop additive bilingualism.
A CLIL program, while requiring whole school support, could be implemented by an individual teacher with the knowledge and skills in both the language and a particular discipline area. This would enable the teacher to incorporate aspects of other areas of the curriculum into the language classes, causing minimal disruption to the timetable and to other curriculum areas.
Two of the primary schools involved in a research project conducted by the Graduate School of Education at the University of Melbourne are examples of this model. In one, the French delivered content for a unit in the Art curriculum and in the other, the Spanish teacher implemented a Science and Technology unit on cause and effect in relation to force and pressure. In one of the secondary schools, because the language teacher taught the same class for both Italian and Humanities, she was able to deliver one of the Humanities topics through Italian. This approach requires the support of both the students in the class and their parents, and means that very good communication channels need to be established between the school and the parents so that there is a clear understanding that being a member of a particular class will mean that part of the curriculum would be delivered through the additional language.
The first step would involve establishing a small committee of interested stake holders to include a representative of the school administration, the language teacher/s and teacher/s from the content area to be delivered in the additional language, parent supporters, and for at least one meeting, a person from outside of the school with knowledge of CLIL approaches.
Team work is an essential component of a successful CLIL program and a school needs to be aware of teacher availability in both the language and content areas. An initial pilot project with one year level or one class of volunteer students for a topic, a term, or a semester is also a good way of gauging whether or not a CLIL program is suited to the particular school context and who is willing to be involved in delivering such a program. Decisions about content, language and general learning outcomes need to be determined early, and the links to existing curriculum framework documents made.
Mehisto (2012, pp. 22-23) provides a list of key questions which need to be considered prior to the introduction of a program. These questions should form the basis of discussions for the committee and satisfactory responses to them provided for all members of the school community to examine. In addition, Mehisto (2012, p. 23) outlines a number of factors which teachers and school administrators often do not think of, later finding that these can be quite annoying and impact in negative ways on the teachers and students involved in the CLIL program. For example, the school will be asked to welcome many visitors and to share its expertise with others; teachers involved in the program will need additional release for professional learning and for planning and preparation of the program, including the development of dual-focused unit guidelines and materials and resources for a range of student abilities in the CLIL program.
All curriculum innovations impact of internal stakeholders (school administrators, teachers, school support staff, students and parents) and also on external stakeholders (teacher professional associations, departments of education, teacher training institutions, the media, to name but a few). Managing the relationships involved with these requires tact, diplomacy and open and constructive dialogue. Managing an initiative which has the potential to change an organization such as a school also requires thought and planning, and most importantly, clear and open communication channels to reduce the risk of misunderstanding, disappointment and even resentment where there has been a perceived lack of open discussion for the implementation and on-going evaluation of the CLIL program.
The implementation of CLIL in a school takes time and careful planning. Because there are many varieties of CLIL programs which can introduced for varying periods of time, a school community needs to be sure that it is choosing the most appropriate one for the students and teachers who will be involved. Baetens-Beardsmore (2012, v) warns against what he calls “hit and miss improvisation” and advises that all members of a school community must be committed to a long-term process of implementing a program which will develop additive bilingualism.
A CLIL program, while requiring whole school support, could be implemented by an individual teacher with the knowledge and skills in both the language and a particular discipline area. This would enable the teacher to incorporate aspects of other areas of the curriculum into the language classes, causing minimal disruption to the timetable and to other curriculum areas.
Two of the primary schools involved in a research project conducted by the Graduate School of Education at the University of Melbourne are examples of this model. In one, the French delivered content for a unit in the Art curriculum and in the other, the Spanish teacher implemented a Science and Technology unit on cause and effect in relation to force and pressure. In one of the secondary schools, because the language teacher taught the same class for both Italian and Humanities, she was able to deliver one of the Humanities topics through Italian. This approach requires the support of both the students in the class and their parents, and means that very good communication channels need to be established between the school and the parents so that there is a clear understanding that being a member of a particular class will mean that part of the curriculum would be delivered through the additional language.
The first step would involve establishing a small committee of interested stake holders to include a representative of the school administration, the language teacher/s and teacher/s from the content area to be delivered in the additional language, parent supporters, and for at least one meeting, a person from outside of the school with knowledge of CLIL approaches.
Team work is an essential component of a successful CLIL program and a school needs to be aware of teacher availability in both the language and content areas. An initial pilot project with one year level or one class of volunteer students for a topic, a term, or a semester is also a good way of gauging whether or not a CLIL program is suited to the particular school context and who is willing to be involved in delivering such a program. Decisions about content, language and general learning outcomes need to be determined early, and the links to existing curriculum framework documents made.
Mehisto (2012, pp. 22-23) provides a list of key questions which need to be considered prior to the introduction of a program. These questions should form the basis of discussions for the committee and satisfactory responses to them provided for all members of the school community to examine. In addition, Mehisto (2012, p. 23) outlines a number of factors which teachers and school administrators often do not think of, later finding that these can be quite annoying and impact in negative ways on the teachers and students involved in the CLIL program. For example, the school will be asked to welcome many visitors and to share its expertise with others; teachers involved in the program will need additional release for professional learning and for planning and preparation of the program, including the development of dual-focused unit guidelines and materials and resources for a range of student abilities in the CLIL program.
All curriculum innovations impact of internal stakeholders (school administrators, teachers, school support staff, students and parents) and also on external stakeholders (teacher professional associations, departments of education, teacher training institutions, the media, to name but a few). Managing the relationships involved with these requires tact, diplomacy and open and constructive dialogue. Managing an initiative which has the potential to change an organization such as a school also requires thought and planning, and most importantly, clear and open communication channels to reduce the risk of misunderstanding, disappointment and even resentment where there has been a perceived lack of open discussion for the implementation and on-going evaluation of the CLIL program.
7. How do we plan units of CLIL? What would these look like?
CLIL units of work are best planned collaboratively within a school with both content and language teachers involved. Where these are the same person, units of work could be prepared collaboratively with teachers from other schools, or as part of professional learning activities offered by language teacher associations. It would be important to develop a bank of units of work using the Australian Curriculum framework for relevant discipline areas. There are already curriculum documents available in some areas (Mathematics, Science, History) and as others are ready for implementation, these could be added. There needs to be a repository for these units of work which teachers from all sectors, States and Territories, metropolitan and rural can access easily.
It is essential that these units of work address both language AND content and provide teachers with sample worksheets and lesson plans demonstrating excellence in CLIL pedagogical approaches. This means helping teachers to move away from a highly teacher-centred classroom to a more learner-centred dialogic one. It is NOT a case of translating materials which exist in English and which are used in the mainstream classes in English, but much more a process of teachers having to decide how the content will be taught through the target language, what language will be required for dealing with this content AND also for enabling learners to communicate with each other and with the teacher in task-based, small group or pair work activities.
CLIL units of work are best planned collaboratively within a school with both content and language teachers involved. Where these are the same person, units of work could be prepared collaboratively with teachers from other schools, or as part of professional learning activities offered by language teacher associations. It would be important to develop a bank of units of work using the Australian Curriculum framework for relevant discipline areas. There are already curriculum documents available in some areas (Mathematics, Science, History) and as others are ready for implementation, these could be added. There needs to be a repository for these units of work which teachers from all sectors, States and Territories, metropolitan and rural can access easily.
It is essential that these units of work address both language AND content and provide teachers with sample worksheets and lesson plans demonstrating excellence in CLIL pedagogical approaches. This means helping teachers to move away from a highly teacher-centred classroom to a more learner-centred dialogic one. It is NOT a case of translating materials which exist in English and which are used in the mainstream classes in English, but much more a process of teachers having to decide how the content will be taught through the target language, what language will be required for dealing with this content AND also for enabling learners to communicate with each other and with the teacher in task-based, small group or pair work activities.
8. What support is available for schools and their educators from the government and other organizations?
The Modern Language Teachers Association of Victoria Inc has established a CLIL network group. It is keen to set up a depository of CLIL information, sample units of work, suggested resources and contacts, both local and international.
The Department of Education and Early Childhood Development (DEECD) is also setting up a web-site with CLIL information.
The Modern Language Teachers Association of Victoria Inc has established a CLIL network group. It is keen to set up a depository of CLIL information, sample units of work, suggested resources and contacts, both local and international.
The Department of Education and Early Childhood Development (DEECD) is also setting up a web-site with CLIL information.
9. What training is available for educators?
The Melbourne Graduate School of Education offers postgraduate courses in CLIL. Classes are held in the evenings on weekdays.
Over the past four years, the Department of Education and Training (DET) has offered funded places in an intensive CLIL postgraduate program in the Melbourne Graduate School of Education. A number of teachers from all three sectors (catholic, government and independent) have participated in these courses. There were also professional learning workshops offered through the DET’s regions to languages teachers, and to school administrators during 2012, and a number of single language teachers associations have included at least one CLIL workshop in their professional learning programs.
Research from the European Union shows that training in CLIL approaches is essential to the successful and on-going implementation of programs. In particular, long-term professional learning is needed so that teachers can trial various strategies and exchange views about these with colleagues from other schools and other languages. Coyle, Hood & Marsh (2010, p. 69) state: “To develop as CLIL professionals, to gain confidence, to explore the CLIL agenda, to take risk and move beyond the familiar, it is desirable that teachers belong to or build a professional learning community where everyone considers themselves as learners as well as teachers”. They comment about the importance for teachers to be able to ask questions about their own practice and to share understandings about what types of activities, for both teaching and learning, are suitable to the sorts of classes they teach, all of which cannot be done by working in isolation, hence the need for the establishment of a professional community of CLIL teachers.
The Melbourne Graduate School of Education offers postgraduate courses in CLIL. Classes are held in the evenings on weekdays.
Over the past four years, the Department of Education and Training (DET) has offered funded places in an intensive CLIL postgraduate program in the Melbourne Graduate School of Education. A number of teachers from all three sectors (catholic, government and independent) have participated in these courses. There were also professional learning workshops offered through the DET’s regions to languages teachers, and to school administrators during 2012, and a number of single language teachers associations have included at least one CLIL workshop in their professional learning programs.
Research from the European Union shows that training in CLIL approaches is essential to the successful and on-going implementation of programs. In particular, long-term professional learning is needed so that teachers can trial various strategies and exchange views about these with colleagues from other schools and other languages. Coyle, Hood & Marsh (2010, p. 69) state: “To develop as CLIL professionals, to gain confidence, to explore the CLIL agenda, to take risk and move beyond the familiar, it is desirable that teachers belong to or build a professional learning community where everyone considers themselves as learners as well as teachers”. They comment about the importance for teachers to be able to ask questions about their own practice and to share understandings about what types of activities, for both teaching and learning, are suitable to the sorts of classes they teach, all of which cannot be done by working in isolation, hence the need for the establishment of a professional community of CLIL teachers.
10. References
BOOKS AND PAPERS
Bentley, K. 2010. The TKT Course: CLIL Module. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Coyle, D. 2007. Content and Language Integrated Learning: Towards a connected research base. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10, 5, 543-62.
Coyle, D., Holme, B. and King, L. 2009. Towards an Integrated Curriculum –CLIL National Statement and Guidelines. United Kingdom, The Languages Company.
Coyle, D., Hood, P. and Marsh, D. 2010. CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Dale, L. and Tanner, R. 2012. CLIL Activities: a resource for subject and language teachers. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Hansen – Pauly, M-A. et al. 2009. CLIL across contexts: A scaffolding framework for CLIL teacher education. European Commission, Socrates-Comenius Project 2.1. (available at http://clil.uni.lu)
Llinares, A., Morton, T. and Whittaker, R. 2012. The Roles of Language in CLIL. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Mehisto, P. 2012. Excellence in Bilingual Education: A Guide for School Principals. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Mehisto, P., Marsh, D. and Frigols, M-J. 2008. Uncovering CLIL. Oxford, Macmillan Books for Teachers.
JOURNALS
International CLIL Research Journal (available on-line)
VIEWS: Journal of the English Department at the University of Vienna. (Has three special issues on CLIL – Vol 15, no. 3, 2006; Vol 16, no. 3, December 2007; Vol 19, no. 3, 2010. Available on-line at http://anglistik.univie.ac.at/views/archive)
ON-LINE RESOURCES
CLIL video and audio library at www.ccn-clil.eu
BOOKS AND PAPERS
Bentley, K. 2010. The TKT Course: CLIL Module. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Coyle, D. 2007. Content and Language Integrated Learning: Towards a connected research base. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10, 5, 543-62.
Coyle, D., Holme, B. and King, L. 2009. Towards an Integrated Curriculum –CLIL National Statement and Guidelines. United Kingdom, The Languages Company.
Coyle, D., Hood, P. and Marsh, D. 2010. CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Dale, L. and Tanner, R. 2012. CLIL Activities: a resource for subject and language teachers. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Hansen – Pauly, M-A. et al. 2009. CLIL across contexts: A scaffolding framework for CLIL teacher education. European Commission, Socrates-Comenius Project 2.1. (available at http://clil.uni.lu)
Llinares, A., Morton, T. and Whittaker, R. 2012. The Roles of Language in CLIL. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Mehisto, P. 2012. Excellence in Bilingual Education: A Guide for School Principals. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Mehisto, P., Marsh, D. and Frigols, M-J. 2008. Uncovering CLIL. Oxford, Macmillan Books for Teachers.
JOURNALS
International CLIL Research Journal (available on-line)
VIEWS: Journal of the English Department at the University of Vienna. (Has three special issues on CLIL – Vol 15, no. 3, 2006; Vol 16, no. 3, December 2007; Vol 19, no. 3, 2010. Available on-line at http://anglistik.univie.ac.at/views/archive)
ON-LINE RESOURCES
CLIL video and audio library at www.ccn-clil.eu