International Journal of Bilingual Education and

Bilingualism

ISSN: 1367-0050 (Print) 1747-7522 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rbeb20

CLIL in Australia: the importance of context

Marianne Turner
To cite this article: Marianne Turner (2013) CLIL in Australia: the importance of context,
International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16:4, 395-410, DOI:
10.1080/13670050.2012.691086
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2012.691086

Published online: 29 Jun 2012.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1174

View related articles

Citing articles: 3 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rbeb20
Download by: [Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris]

Date: 18 November 2016, At: 18:51

International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 2013

Vol. 16, No. 4, 395
410, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2012.691086

CLIL in Australia: the importance of context

Marianne Turner*
Faculty of Education, Monash University, Clayton, Melbourne, Australia
(Received 18 December 2011; final version received 2 May 2012)
Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) has been gaining in
popularity and is influencing ways in which various non-European countries
approach bilingual education. For example, some Australian bilingual programmes are now being officially referred to as CLIL programmes. Although
CLIL methodology shows potential outside Europe, this article argues that
certain aspects of CLIL should be subject to scrutiny before programmes are
adopted in an Australian context. In the article, these aspects relate primarily to
organisational and affective factors, which are considered to have a substantial
influence on successful programmes. The article specifically addresses Australian
primary and secondary public education because public bilingual education
programmes may offer a way to address the high attrition rates and the decline
in languages taught. The article will focus on ways in which CLIL arose and is
defined through the European context for which it was designed. Then it will
identify some of the bilingual programmes on offer in Australia and explore issues
related to applying/expanding the CLIL approach to Australian mainstream
education
English language dominance, language choice and human resources.
Keywords: Content Language Integrated Learning; bilingual education; mainstream;
Australia; Europe

Introduction
The tradition of integrating language and content is very old, dating back more than
2000 years (Coyle, Hood, and Marsh 2010; Mehisto, Marsh, and Frigols 2008).
Recent examples of this long-standing tradition are the very successful Canadian
immersion programmes and the Content-Based Instruction approach, developed in
the USA to improve the English language proficiency of non-native English speakers.
These programmes recognise that the meaningful use of a language when the level is
at or close to learner proficiency is beneficial for learning (e.g., Krashen 1982;
Lightbown and Spada 2006; Long 1990; Swain 2000), and also recognise that student
engagement in activities that are highly contextualised and cognitively demanding
has been found to result in successful learning (Cummins 1984). The integration of
language and content is continually being adapted to suit different needs and
sociocultural contexts, and Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) is the
name given to the way this practice has been adapted to a European context.
Observing the success of the Canadian immersion programmes with great
interest, the European Commission (2002, 56) pointed to the specific situational
and operational variables of the immersion programmes as a reason to adapt them
*Email: marianne.turner@monash.edu
# 2013 Taylor & Francis

396

M. Turner

rather than transfer them to Europe in their existing form. The Commission viewed
Canadian schools ready access to bilingual teachers, learners socio-economic status,
and learner homogeneity in target language proficiency as contextual differences,
and therefore cited the need to develop a new European content and language
integrated model. The importance of context is highlighted just as succinctly by
Swain and Johnson (1997, 3) in their discussion on the successful expansion of
Canadian immersion education, which they attributed to:
The success of the original St. Lambert program [. . .]; the research and evaluation
results which were widely disseminated [. . .]; and a strong perception, particularly
among influential English-speaking groups in Canada, of the potential economic,
political, and social value of a high level of proficiency in French.

Attention to contextual variables when adopting CLIL methodology in an

Australian context is the subject of this article. In Australia it is tempting to attempt
to emulate the success of CLIL in Europe by implementing CLIL pedagogy.
Performance in language education at primary and secondary school level is
mediocre: Students are less likely to spend time studying a second language than
students in any other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD) country (Lindsey 2007). Although it is widely accepted that bilingualism is
a cultural, intellectual and economic asset in Australia (Lo Bianco and Slaughter
2009), this acceptance has not necessarily translated into effective and widespread
language education. There have been high attrition rates and a decline in the number
of languages taught in schools (Lo Bianco and Slaughter 2009). Djite (2011, 63)
sums up a widespread Australian assumption that learning languages is unnecessary
by quoting Alexander Downer, Australias foreign minister between 1996 and 2007:
[L]earning foreign languages is a good thing, but English is the language of the
world. Foreign political and business leaders increasingly speak our language and
were privileged because of that (cited in Hyland 2008).
Government departments and researchers are now using the term CLIL as a
way to talk about how bilingual education programmes are being implemented in
Australian schools, and also to promote effective teaching practices and higher
retention rates in language education (e.g. DEECD 2011a; Smala 2009; 2011). This
article seeks to clarify some affective and organisational factors that may impact on
CLILs contribution to Australian language education. The article will first situate
CLIL within its European context both in terms of its success and the challenges it
faces. A discussion will then follow on bilingual programmes in Australia and how
different aspects of successful CLIL programmes may require some thought in
Australian mainstream primary and secondary public school contexts.

CLIL and the European context

Content and Language Integrated Learning is a heteroglossic type of bilingual
education developed in Europe to target mainstream language education (Garca
2009). It focuses on both L1 and L2 acquisition, but similar levels of proficiency in
the L2 as in the L1 are not required, and there is some flexibility in its conception of
bilingualism (Garca 2009, 130). As its name suggests, CLIL focuses on the teaching
and learning of both content and an additional language. It is content-driven (Coyle,
Hood, and Marsh 2010) but takes an integrated approach where both language and

International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism

397

content are conceptualised on a continuum without an implied preference for either

(Coyle 2007, 545). The additional language is usually a foreign language but can also
be a second language or heritage language (Coyle, Hood, and Marsh 2010). This
broad definition of CLIL allows for programmes that existed in different European
countries to be redefined as CLIL programmes (see Baetens Beardsmore 2009).
However, CLIL pedagogies also rely on an integrated conceptual framework known
as the four Cs: content (subject matter), communication (language), cognition
(thinking and learning skills), and culture/citizenship (social awareness of self and
others) (Coyle 2007, 550). The four Cs are based on different learning principles: the
learner constructs rather than acquires her/his own content knowledge and skills;
an explicit focus on thinking skills helps enable this type of active, participatory
learning; learning language in context and learners contextual social interactions are
crucial to the learning process; and there is a complex relationship between culture
and language (Coyle 2007).
During the development of CLIL, the terms bilingual education and immersion
were both avoided, the former owing to negative connotations in some European
countries, and the latter to differentiate European language education efforts from
Canadian immersion programmes (Baetens Beardsmore 2009). CLIL also arose from
European initiatives which predated the successful Canadian immersion model
(Baetens Beardsmore 2009). For example, European schools established in 1958 to
educate the children of European civil servants provide a setting where more than
two languages function as medium of instruction, and have enjoyed a reputation of
scholarly and multilingual achievement (Baetens Beardsmore 1993, 121).
In Europe, transferability across countries and different types of schools was
especially important to the operational success of a bilingual education approach (see
Coyle, Hood, and Marsh 2010). Although the transferability, or flexibility, of CLIL
is an obvious advantage in the European context, it is also considered to be a
potential weakness (Coyle 2007). The weakness lies in the misinterpretation of the
flexibility: Attention to the aims and projected outcomes of contextualised frameworks is extremely important to make CLIL effective (Coyle 2007). This attention
includes dedication to the CLIL methodology of the four Cs
a factor which
indicates whether a programme will be successful or not (e.g. Coyle, Hood, and
Marsh 2010; Nave s 2009). As Swain (1998, 68) argues, systematic preparation
and monitoring are fundamental for the integration of thinking skills, content, and
language: Good content teaching is not necessarily good language teaching. This is
also true the other way around. Language teaching has been favoured in CLIL
pedagogies, and this can be limiting. In Europe the language most frequently chosen
for CLIL programmes is English, and with this focus comes the adoption of
Anglophone approaches, such as English for Specific Purposes and Content-Based
Language instruction (Coyle 2007). While these approaches can be successful, their
focus is not on the integration of language pedagogies and subject matter pedagogies,
but rather, how to teach language most effectively.
The bilingual education debate about the form-meaning dichotomy also has an
influence on CLIL programmes. In the immersion programmes in Canada it has
been found that learners are able to gain a much higher proficiency in listening and
reading skills than in speaking and writing skills, which suggests semantic processing
taking precedence over syntactic processing (Kowal and Swain 1997). In Europe
a way in which CLIL programmes have approached the issue of grammatical
(in)accuracy in learner output is to run additional language classes as a subject

398

M. Turner

parallel to the content-language integrated classes. This has frequently resulted in

language and content teachers working closely together (Baetens Beardsmore 2009).
In the European school model, this approach of offering language classes is also
taken and has been successful (Baetens Beardsmore 1993). In addition, structured
translanguaging or code-switching between the L1 and the target language is used
in CLIL classrooms, especially at the beginning when learners have a very low level of
proficiency in the target language (Coyle, Hood, and Marsh 2010). The L1 is used
strategically to prioritise communication; for example during in-depth analysis and
emotionally charged discussions. Unplanned and frequent code-switching are to be
avoided, and a gradual switch to the target language as learners proficiency increases
is highly desirable (Wannagat 2007).
Although practitioners rich understanding of CLIL methodology is a significant
indicator of the success of a CLIL programme, it has also been found that other
organisational and affective factors should not be underestimated. Nave s (2009, 36)
identifies 10 common characteristics of successful European CLIL programmes:
(1) Respect and support for the learners first language and culture
(2) Competent bilingual teachers, that is, teachers fully proficient in the
language of instruction and familiar with one of the learners home
languages
(3) Mainstream (not pull-out) optional courses
(4) Long-term, stable programmes and teaching staff
(5) Parents support for the programme
(6) Cooperation and leadership of education authorities, administrators, and
teachers
(7) Dually qualified teachers (in content and language)
(8) High teaching expectations and standards
(9) Availability of quality CLIL teaching materials
(10) Properly implemented CLIL methodology
All of these characteristics, including the training needed to facilitate the proper
implementation of CLIL methodology, are likely to be significantly influenced by
context. For example, in Europe many of the aforementioned characteristics can
be more readily found in immersion programmes than CLIL programmes, and the
contextual differences between CLIL and these specialised immersion programmes
will be explored later. The development of CLIL, which targets mainstream language
education in Europe, has resulted in challenges which also resonate in Australian
mainstream primary and secondary schooling. How these challenges relate to
Australia, as well as additional issues which arise with a change of context, will be
considered in the subsequent section.
Differences between CLIL and immersion programmes in Europe
Although various types of immersion, such as partial, total, and two-way immersion,
feature in different CLIL programmes (e.g. Coyle, Hood, and Marsh 2010; Mehisto,
Marsh, and Frigols 2008), important distinctions can be made between European
immersion programmes and the CLIL approach. Lasagabaster and Sierra (2010)
claim that making a distinction is important because conflation of the two
approaches is confusing for teachers, learners, and researchers. The differences

International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism

399

that exist may arise because European immersion programmes are generally run in
special schools (see Baetens Beardsmore 2009). This is not to imply that there are
only differences between the two approaches. Lasagabaster and Sierra identify five
principles, which CLIL and the immersion programmes share: the common goal of
student proficiency in a first and second language with no negative impact on
academic knowledge, the newness of the language of instruction, the optional
nature of the programmes, the requirement of bilingual staff, and the fundamental
role of the communicative approach in the success of the programme.
However, as Lasagabaster and Sierra (2010) argue, there are more differences
than similarities in the European context. First, a great majority of CLIL students do
not come into contact with the target language outside the formal learning context,
whereas the language of the immersion language frequently occurs in the students
social context
either family or the society at large. Parental support is thus more
likely to be forthcoming in the immersion programmes. Second, teachers in the
immersion programmes are frequently native speakers and receive specialised
training for their position, and CLIL teachers are far more frequently native
speakers of the students mother tongue. The CLIL teachers also tend to receive less
training and often need to learn on-the-job (Lasagabaster and Sierra 2010). Neither
pre-service nor in-service training for teachers is widespread, although some
institutions in Austria, England, Germany, and Italy do offer it (Baetens Beardsmore
2009). Except in Austria and Germany where pre-service teachers often enrol in a
language and non-linguistic method, dually qualified teachers are also in short
supply (Baetens Beardsmore 2009). However, a minimum of language competence
may be sufficient; it has been argued that teachers who share the L1 and background
of the learners are more au fait with the curriculum of the particular country, and
this is an advantage (Nikula and Marsh 1999).
A third difference is that immersion programmes in Europe generally start
earlier; many secondary students studying CLIL have had a more traditional
language learning experience in primary school (Lasagabaster and Sierra 2010).
Fourth, resources in the immersion programmes tend to be aimed at native speakers
of the target language (Lasagabaster and Sierra 2010). CLIL materials in the target
language generally need to be adapted for a particular countrys curriculum
requirements, and this leaves teachers with an increased workload (Baetens
Beardsmore 2009). Furthermore, a shortage of teaching materials can be linked to
high-stakes assessment, as most European countries that endorse CLIL also insist on
monolingual exit examinations, thus not providing the motivation for government
bodies to adapt a particular curriculum into the main CLIL target language.
Although it is hardly unreasonable to assume that bilingual learners could be
examined in either language, a lack of tangible reward may also have a negative effect
on learner motivation (Lasagabaster and Sierra 2010). An example of a tangible
reward is the provision of bonus points for language proficiency, as is offered in
Germany. Modifying actual examinations is more complicated, however, given that
school curricula generally entail standardized tests, which resist easy solutions to the
assessment of both language and content (Lasagabaster and Sierra 2010).
Fifth, the language objectives of the two types of programmes differ; European
immersion programmes often aspire to native-like language proficiency in their
students, but CLIL language objectives are more modest (Lasagabaster and Sierra
2010). Sixth, immigrant students are usually present in the immersion programmes,
but are far less represented in CLIL programmes because they are assessed on their

400

M. Turner

competence in the first language of the majority group before they are allowed entry
into the programme (Lasagabaster and Sierra 2010).1 Finally, the immersion
programmes, in general, have been running for more than 20 years, and a
considerable amount of research has been conducted on their effects (Lasagabaster
and Sierra 2010). CLIL programmes are still experimental in comparison and
therefore do not yet engender the same kind of confidence (Lasagabaster and Sierra
2010). Confusion between the two types of programmes may therefore negatively
influence the implementation and refinement of CLIL programmes.
The distinctions drawn by Lasagabaster and Sierra are relevant to the Australian
context because they show the need for clarity in a discussion on different types of
bilingual programmes. The term immersion is an illustration of how terminology is
used in different ways depending on context. Immersion programmes in Australia

and Canada
differ from those cited by Lasagabaster and Sierra; for example,
students are not usually native speakers of the target language and materials do need
to be adapted for the immersion classroom. Australia is no stranger to immersion
programmes and it is therefore necessary to fully understand how CLIL can be
applied in an Australian context in order to avoid the potentially damaging
conflation of different terminology.
Adapting CLIL to Australian contexts
The European determination to find its own name for a type of mainstream bilingual
education should be of interest to Australia, where language education continues to
have to rationalise its existence (DEECD 2008). If bilingual education is perceived as
successful, it has the potential to attract government funding, and an example of this
occurring in a specialised bilingual Australian primary school will be discussed.
However, more importantly, if long-term stable mainstream bilingual programmes
are to be implemented in Australia, initiatives need both to withstand and to
capitalise on changes in government language policy, as emphasis on certain
languages
including English
has fluctuated substantially over the last four
decades. A century of intolerance and prohibitions against bilingual education in
Australia (see Clyne 2005) gave way to a multicultural phase starting in the early
1970s (Lo Bianco 2004), and an increase in funding going to community language
education. Then in the late 1980s the English as literacy, Asianist or economic
rationalism phase began (Djite 2011, 54). This phase resulted in a weakening of
language learning in general, with English literacy being extolled as the single most
important achievement in education (Lo Bianco 2004).
However, alongside this increased focus on English literacy sat a drive to learn
Asian languages for economic purposes. The Government introduced the National
Asian Languages and Studies in Australian Schools strategy. This strategy highlighted the importance of four Asian languages: Mandarin, Japanese, Indonesian
and Korean. The strategy did not last beyond 2002, as this was the year designated
for it to be self-sustaining in schools and it did not live up to expectations (Djite
2011). The Government prioritised English literacy at the expense of language
education until, in 2009, these four Asian languages were reinstated as Australias
priority languages under another scheme: the National Asian Languages and Studies
in Schools Program. The goal is now for at least 12% of Year 12 students to achieve
fluency in one of these languages by 2020 (Lo Bianco and Slaughter 2009). Leaving
aside the complex issue of what constitutes fluency, this ambitious aspiration

International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism

401

combined with a more general desire to improve language outcomes presents an

opportunity to revitalise language education in Australia. The difficulties involved in
learning Asian languages, as well as the strain the changes in language policy have
placed on the teaching of European languages, have been incentives to explore the
potential of CLIL in Australian primary and secondary school contexts.
Bilingual education in Australia
Australian bilingual programmes in Australia are currently being referred to as CLIL
programmes both nationally (e.g. DEECD 2011a; Smala 2009) and internationally
(e.g. Coyle, Hood, and Marsh 2010). However, an understanding of CLIL
methodology is still in its infancy. For example, the Victorian State Government
has just piloted its first in-service CLIL teacher training course for language teachers
(DEECD 2011a). Also, although bilingual programmes in Australia are not
widespread, they may pre-date the implementation of the CLIL approach in Europe.
This is not to say that they do not conform to CLIL practices, only that some care
should be taken if lessons are to be learned from these programmes and applied to
mainstream Australian schooling. In this section, some existing Government-funded
bilingual programmes in the states of Victoria and Queensland will be discussed in
terms of organisational and affective factors of their particular contexts. They are
all public schools but attendance is optional. They are far outnumbered by their
monolingual counterparts. It should therefore be stated at the outset that they are
likely to enjoy certain characteristics of successful CLIL programmes noted earlier,
such as bilingual teachers, parental support and leader and practitioner support.
Other characteristics are more dependent on the organisation of each school, and
little research so far has been done on the implementation of the programmes at
school level.
In the public sector in Victoria 11 primary schools and one special school offer
bilingual programmes which focus on content-based teaching in the target languages.
The languages include Mandarin, Japanese, Indonesian, Vietnamese, French,
German, Greek, Macedonian and Auslan (DEECD 2011b). In these programmes
it is stipulated that the school offers a minimum of five hours per week teaching
specific content areas, such as science and the humanities, in the target language and
a further 2.5 hours per week of language classes. This aligns with CLIL programmes
in Europe in that syntactical accuracy is prioritised. It is also stipulated that the
schools need to make arrangements with secondary schools in the area so that
students can continue with their language studies (DEECD 2011b). The effects of
learning in a bilingual programme in primary school and then moving to stand-alone
classes in secondary school need to be considered; this is the reverse of what appears
to be happening in Europe (see Lasagabaster and Sierra 2010). In the primary
schools, students choosing to study the language are also required to study the
chosen content areas in the language. Thus, studying the language is optional, but
once the decision is made, the complete bilingual programme is obligatory.
Although little research has been done on most of these bilingual programmes,
one of the schools has been extensively researched. Bayswater South Primary School
is an example of an effective German partial immersion programme which was
initially based on the Canadian immersion model (Fernandez 1996; 2009; see also De
Meja 2002). The success of this programme has lain in its constant evaluation of its
own performance (De Meja 2002). For example, it caters both to students from

402

M. Turner

German-speaking families and students with no previous exposure to the language

and, although time allocations have fluctuated, has offered approximately 30% of the
curriculum in German since 2005 (Fernandez, 2009); in Canadian partial immersion
programmes it is most common to offer up to 50% in the target language (Fernandez
1996; 2009). The Governments promotion of languages as one of the eight main
learning areas in 1992 and a Victoria State Government report in 1994 which came
out in strong support for immersion programmes helped to consolidate the success of
the Bayswater South programme through funding (Fernandez, 1996). Their success
has also arisen from the schools freedom to continue adjusting the programme to
meet the needs of plateauing students and the needs of both bilingual and
monolingual staff since establishment in 1987 (Fernandez, 1996). The current
Federal Government language policy focus on Asian languages (Djite 2011; Lo
Bianco and Slaughter 2009) is not as helpful to a German partial immersion
programme as previous language policies have been, but the programme has been
running for three decades and is now well established.
In contrast to the Victorian Governments focus on funding immersion
programmes in some State primary schools, the Queensland Government funds
programmes in 11 secondary schools (Smala 2011). Languages offered in the
Queensland programmes include Mandarin, Japanese, Indonesian, Italian, French,
German and Spanish. The programmes are run for students from Years Eight to Ten,
and content areas include Mathematics, Science and Studies of Society and the
Environment. This indicates that curriculum materials need to be adapted, as in
CLIL programmes in Europe, at least at the middle school level. In one German
immersion programme the issue of exit examinations raised in the European context
is side-stepped. Students move into a monolingual programme with German
language taken as a subject for their two final years of secondary school (Smala
2011). Although the schools running the programmes are Government-funded, most
of them actively seek academic high achievers who may have some connection with
the language, but who are generally not native speakers (Smala 2011). Selection
based on students academic merit, parent interviews and, often, signatures
committing students to a costly international exchange (Smala 2011) indicate that
it may be difficult to mainstream the programmes without adapting them.
It is clear that more longitudinal research on the special bilingual programmes is
needed in order to refine and expand this kind of initiative in Australia, and also
inform how types of bilingual education may be adapted and implemented effectively
in mainstream government schools. For example, the Government-funded bilingual
programmes in Victoria do not follow the same gate-keeping processes as the
programmes in Queensland (personal communication 2011) and include community
languages. It would be interesting to know why no Victorian public secondary school
has opted to continue these bilingual programmes
a few secondary schools
originally took part. If the Victorian primary students want to continue their
bilingual education, they must go to a private secondary school; for example, there is
a late partial immersion French bilingual programme offered by a private girls
school. Around two out of 24 students in each class come from a public French
primary bilingual programme (personal communication 2012). Also, partial immersion programmes are being trialled in a number of mainstream primary and
secondary schools in states such as Victoria, but content areas selected to be taught
in the target language are frequently subjects such as art and physical education,
rather than key learning areas (personal communication, 2011). This is a different

International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism

403

approach from the one taken in the special bilingual programmes in Victoria. Indeed,
Bayswater South Primary School began with the same strategy of teaching art and
physical education in German, but new subjects were introduced when it was found
that students were becoming de-motivated due to lack of challenge in their German
speaking and writing skills (de Meja 2002; Fernandez 1996). Research which informs
approaches taken in mainstream language education would therefore be beneficial.
Prioritising language in mainstream education
Although the bilingual programmes cited above exist in Australia, they are in the
minority and traditional language classes are still standard practice. Considering the
impact of affective variables on successful CLIL programmes, the reasons behind a
bilingual education programme are extremely important. Baetens Beardsmore (2009,
211) points out that: The propagation of CLIL responds to the growing need for
efficient linguistic skills, bearing in mind that the major concern is about education,
not about becoming bilingual or multilingual, and that multiple language proficiency
is the added value which can be obtained at no cost to other skills and knowledge.
Education is the key and bilingual education must justify its existence in terms of
education (Fishman 1989). This calls for a conceptual repositioning of language
education as a whole-of-school approach rather than simply as a stand-alone
subject. In all of the bilingual programmes cited this approach is being taken, and
the Department of Education in Victoria has shown an awareness of the approach
by discussing the possibility of language programmes with mainstream school
principals (personal communication 2011). Nevertheless, it is also important to gain
community support for language learning. This includes both parental support
and the support of relevant education authorities, administrators and teachers (see
Nave s 2009).
Increasing the motivation to learn another language is a critical factor in gaining
the support, especially given the issue of the crowded curriculum. Although not listed
as a characteristic for an efficient programme, it is telling that CLIL programmes
frequently run stand-alone classes to improve syntactical accuracy in the target
language. Slaughter and Hajek (2007) found that language programmes in Victorian
primary schools, excluding schools with bilingual programmes, on average ran for 65
minutes per week. In order for a successful CLIL programme to be implemented,
subject areas taught in the target language would need to be added to this time, and
this may have ramifications for the optional nature of the programme. Schools not
especially set-up as bilingual schools may find it counterproductive to make a
particular language compulsory; in European mainstream schooling, efficient CLIL
programmes are optional (Nave s 2009).
Given that prioritising language learning is important to the implementation of
a whole-of-school approach, two main issues need to be addressed in the Australian
context. First, Djite (2011, 63) cites a complacent attitude towards language learning,
referring to the assumption that English is the only language the nation needs, that
languages other than English are useful, but not necessary.2 Second, there is a belief
that diverting attention from learning the mother tongue to learning another
language will be detrimental to first language uptake. As noted in a report written
by the Department of Education and Early Childhood Development in Victoria,
[t]he literacy debate which has led to the demise of many mainstream primary
school language programs in the early years is predicated on the view that only

404

M. Turner

time spent directly on English literacy will lead to improved literacy outcomes
(DEECD 2008, 8).
The tendency towards monolingualism is reflected in various case studies of
primary schools in Victoria, where there appears to be less attention paid to teaching
languages in more native
English
speaker dominant schools. This is even the case
if students in the more multilingual schools are from language backgrounds which
are not represented by the languages taught (DEET 2000). The benefits of bilingual
education need to be strongly promoted at a community level, especially in
predominantly monolingual regions. Easily accessible studies on the positive impact
of learning a second language on first language uptake may be one way to do this,
since communities are still not convinced of the positive relationship between L1
and L2 acquisition (Slaughter and Hajek 2007). Charismatic teachers may also be
effective ambassadors for their language, and offering parents evening classes in the
chosen language has proven to be an effective motivational strategy (DEET 2000).
Nevertheless, the introduction of a standardised literacy and numeracy test in
Australian primary and secondary schools (the National Assessment Program Literacy and Numeracy [NAPLAN]) combined with new levels of school accountability for students performance are likely to present a challenge to language
education in under-performing mainstream schools.
Language choice
Another variable to take into consideration in the Australian context is the issue of
language choice. Both the lack of dominance of one second language and the place of
heritage languages in mainstream primary and secondary schooling are likely to have
a strong influence on the implementation of effective CLIL programmes. In a
European context, CLIL has frequently been equated with learning English
(eg, Lasagabaster and Sierra 2010; Coyle 2007). In fact, Coyle, Hood, and Marsh
(2010, 9) argue that: CLIL as a promoter of LOTE has yet to reach its potential in
the global arena and may not do so until after the saturation of English as the
CLIL medium. The rise of Asian languages has moved many Australian schools in
the direction of these languages, but these language decisions come at a cost; for
example, Orton (2010) points out that gaining proficiency in Chinese takes around
3.5 times longer for an average language learner than gaining proficiency in a
European language. The goals of any CLIL programme focusing on an Asian
language are particularly important in the light of the Governments allusion to
fluency in Asian languages as an outcome to be attained by 2020. As argued by
Lasagabaster and Sierra (2010), many CLIL programmes are not as ambitious as
European immersion programmes in which students are expected to reach nearnative-like competence, and objectives need to be clearly stated in an Australian
context so that expectations remain realistic.
Language choice is also affected by the lack of homogeneity in learners levels of
language proficiency. In Europe, immigrant or heritage languages are generally not
included in CLIL programmes (Baetens Beardsmore 2009; Lasagabaster and Sierra
2010) even though heritage languages appear in Coyles (2007) definition of an
additional language to be taught. In Australia, heritage languages are among the
mainstream languages taught in primary and secondary schools. Heritage language
education has been losing government support in the past two decades (e.g., Djite
2011; Lo Bianco and Slaughter 2009; Willoughby 2006), but some Asian heritage

International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism

405

languages are now being prioritised under the economic rationalism direction of
current language policy; namely, Mandarin, Japanese, Korean and Indonesian.
Complexities involved in teaching these Asian languages to students who fall
somewhere on a continuum between complete beginner and native speaker have been
addressed by introducing different language streams. For example, in Victoria there
are currently three university entrance examinations: First Language, Second
Language and Second Language Advanced (VCAA 2011). Not only does this
system raise issues of fairness
other heritage languages are not streamed in the
same way
but it also poses problems for learners who do not fit easily into a
particular category. Oriyama (2011) highlighted this issue in her discussion of
Japanese heritage language learners in Sydney. Heritage Japanese learners are
obliged to take a heritage language stream which has a target language level of Year 4
formal education. The target level of background, or L1 learners, is Year 9. Heritage
learners often do not have the right proficiency level for the heritage learner course
but too much for the beginner course (Oriyama 2011).
The problem is compounded if students are also to learn a content area through
the language, as some students would be greatly advantaged over others. This
perceived advantage is already an issue in traditional stand-alone language classes,
especially for Mandarin. A major factor cited in the very high attrition rate of L2
Mandarin learners in Australian secondary schools is the presence of L1 or heritage
Mandarin speakers in the same classes (DEEWR 2010). If CLIL were applied in this
case, the type of CLIL model chosen would be crucial, and the amount of codeswitching structured into the model would need to be carefully considered. A wholeof-school approach which takes into account different levels of proficiency, perhaps
by dividing content area classes according to the students level of language
proficiency, may be a way to address this problem, but would require a strong
school commitment to a particular language. As in Europe, the question of how to
incorporate CLIL into high-stakes assessment, such as university entrance examinations, is a difficult one to solve. However, the issue of assessment at any level is likely
to be more complicated in Australia, given the diversity of students exposure to both
the language and culture under study. Fluency in social communication and low
academic literacy among heritage language students (Anderson 2009), as well as the
habit of code-switching between English and the heritage language in everyday
conversation (Willoughby 2006), are just two functional language areas which would
require some pedagogical thought in classes comprising both heritage and nonheritage students.
Another reason why a whole-of-school approach to a particular language needs a
strong school commitment relates to changes in government language policy. For
example, a government focus on Asian languages may have negative implications for
schools running European language programmes. In order to gain more funding, the
school may decide to switch to an Asian language. This could be detrimental to
language education given the obvious ramifications of language-swapping on learner
proficiency, and also the complexities involved in language streaming. However, if
language policy were again to swing back to a focus on English-as-literacy as it did in
the Howard years (1996
2007) (see Djite 2011), the whole-of-school approach of a
bilingual programme may well be a way to withstand pressure to change or drop the
languages. As mentioned, long-term, stable programmes and teaching staff are a key
to efficient CLIL programmes in Europe (Nave s 2009). A strong school commitment
to a whole-of-school approach would also assist in the availability of quality

406

M. Turner

CLIL teaching materials
another key characteristic of efficient CLIL programmes

(Nave s 2009). Curriculum resources for different content areas need to be built up for
each language offered
a daunting task given the diversity of languages taught in
Australia.

Human resources
Finally, human resources are cited as key features of successful CLIL programmes,
both in terms of competent bilingual teachers and teachers dually qualified to teach
language and content (Nave s 2009). As mentioned earlier in the article, it has been
argued that L2 speakers of the target language can often teach very effectively even
if they are not fluent. However, since the predominant target language in Europe
is English, levels of exposure to
and proficiency in
the target language may be
greater than that of the L2 language teachers in Australia, many of whom are likely
to feel uncomfortable teaching in the target language. Content teachers able to speak
the particular language(s) chosen by the school are also likely to be in short supply.
Two different ways to address this problem in the Australian context may be to
increase the provision of pre-service and in-service training for language teachers in
and through CLIL and also utilise bilingual teachers, language assistants and native
speakers in the community more effectively.
First, professional development in CLIL methodology for mainstream primary
and secondary teachers has begun in Victoria and will hopefully increase around
Australia. Naturally, this professional development cannot take the place of
addressing organisational and affective variables cited in the article. For example,
if language teachers do not have the support of the school and the CLIL programme
only takes place in the language classroom, there is a danger that language
pedagogies will be prioritised over content pedagogies (see Coyle 2007), and the
classes will not be content driven. Discussing ways that CLIL can be promoted to
parents, education authorities and administrators during professional development
may be a pragmatic way to demonstrate the importance of these variables in effective
CLIL programmes.
Furthermore, professional development
both pre-service and in-service
can
include a partial immersion programme; an effective way for the teachers to learn
CLIL methodology is by experiencing this methodology for themselves. This
experience would have the added benefit of improving language proficiency. The
idea is not new (see de Meja 2002), although it is not yet widespread in Australia.
Partial immersion programmes have been trialled in teacher training programmes,
such as a French language teacher training programme in New South Wales
(Caldwell 1995), a Japanese programme in Queensland (Cross 1995), and a Chinese
programme
also in Queensland (de Courcy 2002). The programmes have had
mixed results; for example, some staff were threatened by the new approach (e.g.
Caldwell 1995) or some teachers used too much English in class (e.g. de Courcy
2002). These programmes mainly appear to be directed at language teachers.
Nevertheless, running partial immersion programmes for language teachers according to CLIL methodology increases in importance given the difficulties involved
in finding enough qualified content teachers to teach in the target language(s) chosen
by the school. Subsequent close liaison between language and content teachers
an
approach taken in the European context
is crucial.

International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism

407

Second, the linguistic diversity in Australia can be used more effectively as a

resource. Attracting more bilinguals into mainstream primary and secondary
classrooms would assist in the implementation of CLIL programmes. As in Germany
and Austria, pre-service teachers in Australia often train to teach their language and
another non-linguistic method, and among these teachers are native speakers of the
target language. Their expertise can be optimised in a content and language
integrated programme. However, improved training for the teachers is important.
In a government report on Asian language education it was found that L1 teachers
of all four [prioritised Asian] languages often struggle to adapt to Australian school
culture and to contemporary Australian approaches to teaching (DEEWR 2010,
8). Language assistants can also be leveraged to greater effect. Six of eight primary
schools cited by the Victorian State Government as making active efforts to link their
English literacy and language programmes benefited from the presence of a language
assistant in the classroom (DEET 2000). Language assistants may be supplied both
to primary and secondary schools through programmes such as the COASIT
Language Assistants Program, which places Italian graduates in schools in Victoria
(CO.AS.IT 2011), and the Japanese Assistant Teachers programme which places
Japanese nationals in Western Australian schools (Hasegawa 2011). Also, bilinguals
in the community have a lot to offer in terms of providing students with authentic
language practice and cultural knowledge. Learning how to incorporate language
assistants and community language speakers into CLIL programmes is a way to
adapt these programmes to an Australian context.
Conclusion
Although the CLIL approach is experiencing success in a European context, caution
is required when applying CLIL programmes to Australian mainstream primary and
secondary schools. Viewing CLIL as a novel way of learning language rather than as
a whole-of-school approach may result in its use solely in the language classroom and
the loss of its fundamental content-driven nature. The language-driven approaches of
the majority of language classes taught in mainstream primary and secondary
schools in Australia could well become conflated with the CLIL approach if
attention is not paid to both methodology and context. Indeed, methodology itself
cannot be separated from contextual factors such as teacher access to both training
and resources. Some of the potentially difficult organizational and affective factors
involved in the implementation of CLIL in an Australian context have been discussed
in the article. Both language appreciation and institutional decisions about which
language(s) to teach need careful thought. Differing degrees of motivation
at all
levels, including government
to learn other languages and the lack of dominant
target language in Australia make it problematic to import a European model
without any debate about adaptation.
However, all children have the right to effective language education, and the
European initiative of mainstreaming bilingual education thus has a lot to offer
Australia. If CLIL is viewed as a situated phenomenon, longitudinal research which
investigates the Australian bilingual programmes already in existence may help
inform how adapted CLIL programmes can be implemented in mainstream
Australian schools. Student transition from primary to secondary school programmes also needs to be considered, as many State programmes appear to currently
exist in either primary or secondary. Finally, finding a way to use Australias cultural

408

M. Turner

diversity more effectively for language learning may have a positive influence on the
integration of content and language. Just as in the European case, learning from an
innovative approach while resisting the idea that programmes which are successful in
one context can simply be transposed to another may prove to be an effective step in
the promotion of mainstream bilingual education in Australia.

Notes
1.

2.

Migrants proficiency in English is extremely relevant to implementing CLIL in the

Australian context. However, the issue, like Indigenous language education, is not
addressed. It requires special consideration and therefore falls outside the scope of the
article.
Language and literacy policies also present Indigenous bilingual education programmes
with substantial challenges, but, as mentioned, Indigenous language education requires
special consideration.

References
Anderson, J. 2009. Relevance of CLIL in developing pedagogies for minority language
teaching. In CLIL practice: Perspectives from the field, ed. D. Marsh, P. Mehisto, D. Wolff,
R. Aliaga, T. Asikainen, M.J. Frigols-Martin, S. Hughes, and G. Lange, 124
32. Finland:
University of Jyva skyla .
Baetens Beardsmore, H. 1993. The European School model. In European models of bilingual
education, ed. H. Baetens Beardsmore, 121
54. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Baetens Beardsmore, H. 2009. Language promotion by European supra-national institutions.
In Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global perspective, ed. O. Garca, 197
217.
Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Caldwell, J. 1995. The French immersion programme
Newcastle Faculty of Education,
the University of Newcastle. Australian Association of Language Immersion Teachers
Second Biennial Conference Proceedings, 15
20.
Clyne, M. 2005. Australias language potential. Sydney: UNSW Press.
CO.AS.IT. 2011. 2012 Italian Language Assistant Program. http://www.coasit.com.au/docs/
ShortTermTeacherApplic11.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, no. 5: 543
62.
Coyle, D., P. Hood, and D. Marsh. 2010. CLIL: Content and language integrated learning.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cross, R. 1995. From the other side of the desk: A students perspective on a tertiary language
and culture immersion program. Australian Association of Language Immersion Teachers
Second Biennial Conference Proceedings, 85
104.
Cummins, J. 1984. Bilingualism and special education: Issues in assessment and pedagogy.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
de Courcy, M. 2002. Learners experiences of immersion education: Case studies of French and
Chinese. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
de Meja, A.M. 2002. Power, prestige and bilingualism: International perspectives on elite
bilingual education. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Department of Education and Early Childhood Development (DEECD). 2011a. The
Victorian Governments vision for languages education. http://www.eduweb.vic.gov.au/
edulibrary/public/commrel/about/languageseducation.pdf
Department of Education and Early Childhood Development (DEECD). 2011b. Languages
other than English: Bilingual programs. http://www.education.vic.gov.au/studentlearning/
teachingresources/lote/programs.htm#2

International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism

409

Department of Education and Early Childhood Development (DEECD). 2008. Teaching and
learning languages other than English (LOTE) in Victorian schools. Melbourne: Education
Policy and Research Division.
Department of Education Employment and Training (DEET). 2000. Linking LOTE to the
early years. Melbourne: DEET.
Department of Education Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR). 2010. The
current state of Chinese, Indonesian, Japanese and Korean language education in Australian
schools: Four languages, four stories. Melbourne: Education Services Australia.
Djite, P.G. 2011. Language policy in Australia: What goes up must come down? In Uniformity
and diversity in language policy: Global perspectives, ed. C. Norrby and J. Hajek, 53
67.
Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
European Commission. 2002. CLIL/EMILE
The European dimension: Actions, trends
and foresight potential. Brussels: Brussels European Unit, Public Services Contract 2001 3406/001-001.
Fernandez, S. 1996. Room for two: A study of bilingual education at Bayswater South Primary
School. East Melbourne: The National Languages and Literacy Institute of Australia.
Fernandez, S. 2009. Form-focused instruction in a primary school content based language
program. Melbourne: University of Melbourne.
Fishman, J. 1989. Language and ethnicity in minority sociolinguistic perspective. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
Garca, O. 2009. Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global perspective. Malden, MA:
Wiley-Blackwell.
Hasegawa, H. 2011. The Japanese assistant teacher program in Western Australia: A
consideration of the pros and cons. Babel 45, nos. 2
3: 17
24.
Hyland, T. 2008. Minding our language. www.theage.com.au/national/minding-our-language20081011-4ysu.html?page-1
Kowal, M., and M. Swain. 1997. From semantic to syntactic processing: How can we promote
it in the immersion classroom? In Immersion education: International perspectives, ed.
R. Johnstone and M. Swain, 284
309. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Krashen, S. 1982. Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford/ New York:
Pergamon.
Lasagabaster, D., and J.M. Sierra. 2010. Immersion and CLIL in English: More differences
than similarities. ELT Journal 64, no. 4: 367
75.
Lightbown, P.M. and N. Spada. 2006. How languages are learned. 2nd rev. ed. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Lindsey, T. 2007. Relaxed, complacent and risible. The Australian Literary Review 2, no. 2:
18
9.
Lo Bianco, J. 2004. A site for debate, negotiation and contest of national identity: Language
policy in Australia. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Lo Bianco, J., and Y. Slaughter. 2009. Second languages and Australian schooling. Melbourne:
Australian Council for Educational Research.
Long, M.H. 1990. Maturational constraints on language development. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition 12: 251
85.
Mehisto, P., D. Marsh, and M.J. Frigols. 2008. Uncovering CLIL: Content and Language
Integrated Learning in bilingual and multilingual education. Oxford: Macmillan Education.
Nave s, T. 2009. Effective content and language integrated learning (CLIL) programmes. In
Content and language integrated learning: Evidence from research in Europe, ed. Y. Ruiz de
Zarobe and R.M. Jimenez Catalan, 22
40. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Nikula, T., and D. Marsh. 1999. Case study: Finland. In Implementing content and language
integrated learning, ed. D. Marsh and G. Lange, 17
72. Jyva skyla : Continuing Education
Centre.
Oriyama, K. 2011. Nowhere to study the heritage language: Impact of language policy on the
Japanese community in Sydney. Paper presented at the Language, Education and Diversity
Conference, November 22
25, in Auckland, New Zealand.
Orton, J. 2010. The current state of Chinese language education in Australian schools.
Melbourne: The University of Melbourne and Confucius Institute.
Slaughter, Y. and J. Hajek. 2007. Community languages and LOTE provision in Victorian
primary schools. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 30, no. 1: 07.01
07.22.

410

M. Turner

Smala, S. 2009. Introducing: Content and language integrated learning (CLIL). Paper
presented at the ACSA National Biennial Conference Curriculum: A national conversation, October 2
4, in Canberra, Australia.
Smala, S. 2011. Contexts and agents
Different ways of doing bilingual education in
Queensland. Paper presented at the Language and Diversity Conference, November
22
25, in Auckland, New Zealand.
Swain, M. 1998. Manipulating and complementing content teaching to maximise second
language learning. TESL Canada Journal 6, no. 1: 68
83.
Swain, M. 2000. French immersion research in Canada: Recent contributions to SLA and
applied linguistics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 20: 199
212.
Swain, M., and R.K. Johnson. 1997. Immersion education: A category within bilingual
education. In Immersion education: International perspectives, ed. R. Johnston and
M. Swain, 1
16. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority (VCAA). 2011. Exams and assessment
reports. http://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au/vce/exams/examsassessreports.html
Wannagat, U. 2007. Learning through L2
content and language integrated learning (CLIL)
and English as medium of instruction (EMI). International Journal of Bilingual Education
and Bilingualism 10, no. 5: 663
82.
Willoughby, L. 2006. Heritage LOTES at VCE level: Student perspectives on current
programs. Monash University Linguistics Papers 5, no. 1: 3
15.