Cover not available
Article published In:
CLIL and Bilingual Education in the Netherlands
Edited by Tessa Mearns and Rick de Graaff
[Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics 7:2] 2018
► pp. 156–176

Content and Language Integrated Learning in Dutch bilingual education

How Dutch history teachers focus on second language teaching

| Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences
| Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences
| Utrecht University
| Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences
| Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences
This small-scale observational study explores how Dutch bilingual education history teachers (BHTs) focus on the L2 component in their CLIL-lessons. We observed and rated eight BHTs on five language teaching categories. Results show that Dutch BHTs focus more strongly on using the L2 to teach subject content and that they tend to be less engaged in teaching specific second language topics, such as focus on form or language learning strategies. Further results and suggestions for improving the BHTs’ L2 focus are discussed together with a plea for a CLIL definition that is more in line with the everyday reality of the CLIL classroom.
Keywords: CLIL, second language pedagogy, bilingual education history teachers, focus on form, focus on meaning, subject specific language
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • Present study
  • 2.The language component in CLIL
  • 3.Method
    • 3.1Design
      • Study sample
    • 3.2Measurement instruments
    • 3.3L2 Pedagogy assessment instrument
    • 3.4Spoken English assessment instrument
    • 3.5Procedure
    • 3.6Data analysis
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Implementing L2 teaching in CLIL lessons (RQ1)
    • 4.2CLIL teaching and English proficiency levels (RQ2)
  • 5.Discussion
    • 5.1Limitations of the study and suggestions for future research
    • 5.2Conclusion
  • References
Published online: 10 January 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/dujal.18003.oat
References (46)
References
Andrews, S. (2001). The language awareness of the L2 teacher: Its impact upon pedagogical practice, Language Awareness, 10(2–3), 75–90. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Achugar, M., & Schleppegrell, M. (2006). Beyond connectors: The construction of cause in history textbooks. Linguistics and Education, 161, 298–318. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aiello, J., Di Martino, E., & Di Sabato, B. (2017). Preparing teachers for CLIL in Italy: Reflections on assessment, language proficiency and willingness to communicate. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 20(1), 69–83. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bertaux, P., Coonan, M., Frigols-Martin, & Mehisto, P. (2010). The CLIL teacher’s competence grid. Retrieved from <[URL]>
Bonnet, A., & Breidbach, S. (2017). CLIL teachers’ professionalization: Between explicit knowledge and professional identity. In A. Llinares, & T. Morton (Eds.), Applied linguistics perspectives on CLIL (pp. 269–286). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Butzkamm, W. (1998). Code-switching in a bilingual history lesson: The mother tongue as a conversational lubricant. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 1(2), 81–99. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cambridge English Language Assessment. (2015). ICELT: Syllabus and assessment guidelines 2015. Cambridge, United Kingdom: University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate (UCLES).Google Scholar
Cammarata, L., & Tedick, D. (2012). Balancing content and language: The experience of immersion teachers. The Modern Language Journal, 96(2), 251–269. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coffin, C. (2006). Historical discourse: The language of time, cause and evaluation. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Council of Europe. (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment (CEFR). Strasbourg: Language Policy Unit.Google Scholar
Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL – Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Creese, A., & Blackledge, A. (2010). Translanguaging in the bilingual classroom: A pedagogy for learning and teaching? The Modern Language Journal, 94(1), 103–115. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cummins, J. (2007). Rethinking monolingual instructional strategies in multilingual classrooms. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics / Revue Canadienne de Linguistique Appliquee, 101, 221–240.Google Scholar
Dale, L., Oostdam, R., & Verspoor, M. (in press). Juggling ideals and constraints: The position of English teachers in CLIL contexts. Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics, 7(2). DOI logo
De Graaff, R. (2013). Language for learning: Pedagogy and outcome of bilingual education [Taal om te leren. Didactiek en opbrengsten van tweetalig onderwijs] [Oration]. Utrecht: Utrecht University.Google Scholar
De Graaff, R., & Van Wilgenburg, O. (2015). The Netherlands: Quality control as a driving force in bilingual education. In P. Mehisto & F. Genesee (Eds.), Building bilingual education systems: Forces, mechanisms and counterweights (pp. 167–179). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
De Graaff, R., Koopman, G.-J., Anikina, Y., & Westhoff, G. (2007). An observation tool for effective L2 pedagogy in Content and Language Integrated Learning CLIL. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(5), 603–624. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Oliveira, L. (2011). Knowing and writing school history: The language of students’ expository writing and teachers’ expectations. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
Euridyce. (2006). Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) at school in Europe. Brussels: Eurydice Unit.Google Scholar
Eurydice. (2012). Key data on education in Europe 2012. Brussels: Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency.Google Scholar
Europees Platform. (2011). Standaard tweetalig onderwijs: Engels – havo/vwo. Haarlem: nr58/total communication.Google Scholar
Gierlinger, E. (2015). ‘You can speak German, sir’: On the complexity of teachers’ L1 use in CLIL. Language and Education, 29(4), 347–368. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koopman, G.-J., Skeet, J., & De Graaff, R. (2014). Exploring content teachers’ knowledge of language pedagogy: A report on a small-scale research project in a Dutch CLIL context. The Language Learning Journal, 42(2), 123–136. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lasagabaster, D. (2013). The use of the L1 in CLIL classes: The teachers’ perspective. Latin American Journal of Content and Language Integrated Learning, 6(2), 1–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017). Integrating content and language learning. What do CLIL students believe? Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 5(1), 4–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J.-M. (2010). Immersion and CLIL in English: More differences than similarities. ELT Journal, 64(4), 367–375. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lin, A. (2015). Conceptualising the potential role of L1 in CLIL. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28(1), 74–89. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Llinares, A. (2015). Integration in CLIL: A proposal to inform research and successful pedagogy. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28(1), 58–73. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Llinares, A., & Peña, I. (2015). A genre approach to the effect of academic questions on CLIL students’ language production. Language and Education, 29(1), 15–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lo, Y. (2017). Development of the beliefs and language awareness of content subject teachers in CLIL: Does professional development help? International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Long, M. (2009). Methodological principles for language teaching. In M. Long & C. Doughty (Eds.), The handbook of language teaching (pp. 373–395). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lorenzo, F. (2007). An analytical framework of language integration in L2 content based courses: the European dimension. Language and Education, 211, 503–516. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). Genre-based curricula: Multilingual academic literacy in Content and Language Integrated Learning. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16(3), 375–388. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Monte-Sano, C. (2008). Qualities of effective writing instruction in history classrooms: A cross-case comparison of two teachers’ practices. American Educational Research Journal, 45(4), 1045–1079. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moore, P., & Nikula, T. (2016). Translanguaging in CLIL classrooms. In T. Nikula, E. Dafouz, P. Moore, & U. Smit, (Eds.), Conceptualising integration in CLIL and multilingual education (pp. 211–234). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Morton, T. (2010). Using a genre-based approach to integrating content and language in CLIL: The example of secondary history. In C. Dalton-Puffer, T. Nikula, & U. Smit (Eds.), Language use and language learning in CLIL classrooms (pp. 81–104). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017). Reconceptualizing and describing teachers’ knowledge of language for content and language integrated learning (CLIL). International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. Advance online publication. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nel, N., & Muller, H. (2010). The impact of teachers’ limited language proficiency on English second language learners in South African schools. South African Journal of Education, 30(4), 635–660. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nikula, T., Dalton-Puffer, C., Llinares, A., & Lorenzo, F. (2016). More than content and language: The complexity of integration in CLIL and multilingual education. In T. Nikula, E. Dafouz, P. Moore, & U. Smit (Eds.), Conceptualising integration in CLIL and multilingual education (pp. 1–25). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nikula, T., & Moore, P. (2016). Exploring translanguaging in CLIL. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. Advance online publication, 1–13. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oattes, H., Oostdam, R., De Graaff, R., & Wilschut, A. (2018). The challenge of balancing content and language: Perceptions of Dutch bilingual education history teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 701, 165–174. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Papaja, K. (2013). The role of a teacher in a CLIL classroom. Glottodidactica, 401, 147–154. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Zarobe, Y., & Cenoz, J. (2015). Way forward in the twenty-first century in content based instruction: Moving towards integration. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28(1), 90–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schleppegrell, M., & De Oliveira, L. C. (2006). An integrated language and content approach for history teachers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 51, 254–268. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schuitemaker-King, J. (2012). Teachers’ strategies in providing opportunities for second language development (Unpublished PhD dissertation). Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.Google Scholar
Westhoff, G. J. (2004). The art of playing a pinball machine. Characteristics of effective SLA-tasks. Babylonia, 121, 58–63.Google Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Ertugruloglu, Errol, Tessa Mearns & Wilfried Admiraal
2023. Scaffolding what, why and how? A critical thematic review study of descriptions, goals, and means of language scaffolding in Bilingual education contexts. Educational Research Review 40 ► pp. 100550 ff. DOI logo
Kuzembayeva, Gulzhana, Akmaral Umarova, Zhumagul Maydangalieva, Olga Gorbatenko, Elena Kalashnikova, Nadezhda Kalmazova & Oksana Chigisheva
2022. Content and Language Integrated Learning Practices in Kazakhstan Secondary Schools During COVID-19 Pandemic. Contemporary Educational Technology 14:2 ► pp. ep362 ff. DOI logo
Oattes, Huub, Ruben Fukkink, Ron Oostdam, Rick de Graaff & Arie Wilschut
2022. A showdown between bilingual and mainstream education: the impact of language of instruction on learning subject content knowledge. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 25:2 ► pp. 756 ff. DOI logo
Oattes, Huub, Arie Wilschut, Ron Oostdam, Ruben Fukkink & Rick de Graaff
2022. Practical solution or missed opportunity? The impact of language of instruction on Dutch history teachers’ application of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK). Teaching and Teacher Education 115 ► pp. 103721 ff. DOI logo
Villabona, Nerea & Jasone Cenoz
2022. The integration of content and language in CLIL: a challenge for content-driven and language-driven teachers. Language, Culture and Curriculum 35:1 ► pp. 36 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 6 september 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.