The “Contextes et Didactiques” journal invites submission of articles for their special issue, “Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL): Research and pedagogy” before 30 January 2020 electronically to the journal’s address, as well as, to the editor of this special issue: email@example.com et firstname.lastname@example.org.
The manuscripts will be submitted to the reviewers’ expertise for double-blind review and then to the editorial committee. Reviewer comments will be returned to authors 30 March 2020.
The final manuscripts will be received 30 April 2020.
The Issue Number 15 of the journal “Contextes et Didactiques” will appear on the website of the journal under electronic format 30 June 2020.
For information about the editorial policy, recommendations to authors, and the style sheet, please consult the information on the website of the journal “Contextes et Didactiques” at: https://www.contextesetdidactiques.com
All published issues are available online and accessible free of charge at: https://www.contextesetdidactiques.com/71
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 œuvre. Comission européene. Retrieved 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 Bilingualism, 10(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 Bilingualism, 16(3), 244–266. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2013.777384
Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL : content and language integrated learning. Cambridge, 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 Monde, 7, 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 Researcher, 39(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 Studies, 48(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 Linguistics, 31, 182–204. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190511000092
Gabillon, Z., & Ailincai, R. (2013). CLIL: A science lesson with breakthrough level young EFL learners. Education, 3(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 Journal, 24(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 Learning, 8(2), 63–73.
Lazaruk, W. (2007). Linguistic, Academic, and Cognitive Benefits of French Immersion. Canadian Modern Language Review, 63(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 Bilingualism, 15(3), 315–341. https://doi.org/0.1080/13670050.2011.630064