CLIL has become synonymous with teaching English to non-specialist students in professional and academic (ex. universities) contexts. However, it should not be seen as a unique approach that could be applied to any situation. The present reflection aims to emphasise the importance of social and educational contexts in the shaping of CLIL as a tool for both research and teaching, as a research question. It proposes a plan for research that needs to be collaborative and comparative in its objectives and methodology (action research), which will be followed by the presentation of the expected outcomes.
If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.
1. Truchot C. Europe: the linguistic challenge. Paris (France): La documentation française; 2008.
2. Taillefer G. Teaching a content in a foreign language in the French social sciences context: challenge, observations and implications. ASp. 2004;45–46:111-26. https://doi.org/10.4000/asp.884 French.
3. Hellekjaer GO, Wilkinson R. Trends in content learning through English at universities: A critical reflection. In: Van Leeuwen C, Wilkinson R. Multilingual approaches in university education: challenges and practices. Nijmegen : Valkhof Pers; 2003: 81–102.
4. Hellekjaer GO, Westergaard MR. An exploratory survey of content learning through English at nordic universities. In: Van Leeuwen C, Wilkinson R. Multilingual approaches in university education: challenges and practices. Nijmegen : Valkhof Pers; 2003:65–80.
5. Wolff D. Integrating language and content in the language classroom: Are transfer of knowledge and of language ensured? ASp. 2003;41-42:35–46. http://doi.org/10.4000/asp.1154
6. Stoller F, Grabe W. A Six-T’s approach to content-based instruction. In: Snow M, Brinton DM. The Content-Based Classroom. White Plains, NY (USA): Addison-Wesley Longman; 1997:78–94.
7. Grabe W, Stoller F. Content-based instruction: Research foundations. In: Snow M, Brinton DM. The Content-Based Classroom. White Plains, NY (USA): Addison-Wesley Longman; 1997:5–21.
8. Marsh D, Marsland B, Stenberg K. Integrating Competencies for Working Life. Jyväskylä, (Finland): Unicom, University of Jyväskylä; 2001.
9. Gajo L. From non-linguistic discipline to discipline said to be nonlinguistic: classroom principles and teacher training. Les Langues Modernes. 2009;4:15–23. French.
10. Riley P. The blind man and the bubble. In: Pemberton R, ed. Taking control : Autonomy in language learning. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press; 1996:251–64.
11. Narcy-Combes JP. Didactics of languages and ICTE. Paris (France): Ophrys; 2005. 238 p. French.
12. Bourdieu P, Chamboredon JC, Passeron JC. The profession of sociologist. Paris (France): Mouton Bordas; 1968. 430 p. French.
13. Bertin JC, Gravé P, Narcy-Combes, JP. Second Language Distance Learning. Theoretical Perspectives and Didactic Ergonomics. Hershley PA, (USA): IGI Global; 2010. 280 p. http://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-61520-707-7
14. Lahire B. Plural World. Paris (France): Seuil; 2012. 393 p. French.
15. Narcy-Combes JP, Miras G. 40 years of modelling in language didactics. Mélanges CRAPEL. 2012;33:25–45. French.
16. Chevallard Y. Fundamental concepts in didactics: Perspectives provided by an anthropological approach. In: Douady R, Mercier A, eds. Research in Didactique of Mathematics, Selected Papers. Grenoble (France): La pensée sauvage; 1992:131–67. French.
17. Hofstede G. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind in Administrative Science Quarterly 38. New York: Johnson Graduate School of Management, Cornell University; 1993:132–4.