Search

Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) is one of the most dynamic pedagogic trends in language teaching in Europe, and yet, the enthusiasm with which this innovation is implemented by stakeholders and ‘made a success’ is not fully understood. In this paper we argue for an investigation of CLIL implementation as a form of extended language policy, which relates language management, practice and beliefs, and so expands the notion of policy well beyond a top-down legislation. In this contribution, the suggested centrality of beliefs to CLIL policy analysis will be shown by a detailed investigation into the lay theories of teachers and learners involved in CLIL instruction in Austrian upper secondary colleges of technology, which traditionally attract students considered as relatively unsuccessful foreign language learners. The data consist of 48 in-depth interviews with teachers and students in this setting, covering a range of teacher specialisations and of student abilities. The discursive and content analysis of these interviews shows clear clusters of beliefs relating to language learning, the effects and benefits of CLIL and to the construction of success regarding CLIL. Findings suggest that the strength of beliefs and the relative absence of language management result in a construction of CLIL and of CLIL success that is partly at odds with those of experts or policy-makers, but which is linked directly to local CLIL practices. Issues arising of these mismatches are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Innovation strategies for smart specialization have become the new framework for organizing innovation support in European regions and states. This article examines how policy-makers conceive monitoring in the context of the current European territorial and innovation policy. In this setting, monitoring activities have to move beyond an audit-oriented logic in order to integrate a range of strategic functions such as producing the information needed to manage evidence-based policy decisions effectively and keep stakeholders informed and engaged in the policy cycle. To analyse this transition, we first conceptualize the logic of intervention of smart specialization. In a second step, we present the findings from a survey of policy-makers on their perceptions of this intervention logic and monitoring. We find that strategy monitoring is an exercise that must go beyond a narrow audit focus. Regional policy-makers involve stakeholders to interpret monitoring results for strategy revision and they adopt a priority-specific intervention logic, albeit with problems of implementing this logic in practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]