You are on page 1of 3

CLIL what is beyond content and language?

Dear Professor and partners,


I would like to share my insights with all of you.
Sometimes people think that just because they know the content and the language,
they can integrate CLIL into their classrooms. However, for me CLIL goes beyond
the mere knowledge of content and language. Teachers, who use CLIL, should be
balanced in order not to prioritize one of the elements and should also be careful
and pedagogically strategic to integrate content and language so that the learner
can foster both aspects. CLIL is beyond content and language because general
education theories should be taken into account as well as theory on language
didactics.
There is a current controversy regarding other professionals (for instance
Engineers who know English) teaching content (e.g. math) in bilingual schools.
How convenient or not do you think it could be for CLIL?
Regarding how similar to/ different CLIL is from other approaches, Coyle, Hood &
Marsh (2010) compared technology with CLIL by mentioning: learn as you use,
use as you learn differs from the older experience of learn now for use
later (p. 10). I think it can be connected with how CLIL is different from other
approaches because methods such as the Grammar Translation and the Audiolingual ones are based on the second premise of knowing the structure of the
language for a possible use in the future.
It can be similar to other approaches such as the communicative approach where
language is used as an excuse for communicating. In CLIL, language is used as an
excuse for learning content and vice-versa.
I hope these comments can contribute to the discussion.
I look forward to reading your insights.
Best,
Yuranny Romero
References
Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and language integrated
learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Do you consider, is it necessary to have a teaching/learning approach in


CLIL? Why?

Dear Jhonathan,
Thank you for stating such an interesting question.
I agree with Andrea when she mentions that CLIL helps both students and teachers
to see the language and the content differently and to develop cognitive
strategies. It is not a learning process of the student. The teacher also learns from
students experiences and ideas.
Regarding your question, I think CLIL, per se, is an approach which covers some
general aspects. It can be aided by some methodologies and strategies that
contribute to the learning processes. In my opinion, it is necessary because CLIL
provides some general guidelines, but there is also a need for having some steps
depending on the specific contexts where CLIL is going to be applied and its
particular needs. What do you think about it?

I look forward to reading your comments.


Kind regards,
Yuranny Marcela Romero
Dear Liz,
It was interesting for me to read your definition on CLIL and your reflections on the
support that is needed for implementing CLIL.
I totally agree with you when you mention that we need help from content teachers
and a real collaborative work is essential for continuing improving.
In my opinion, CLIL cannot be implemented overnight; it requires a process and
small steps given at a time. Those small changes can contribute to an
improvement in both teaching and learning processes.
What steps do you think can be given for having a better perspective towards
CLIL?

All your comments and insights regarding this issue are more than welcome!
Best,
Yuranny Marcela Romero

You might also like