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]

This paper addresses the need to re-evaluate the aims and objectives underlying the teaching of English for Academic Purposes (EAP) in a European context. I argue here that for students to develop fully their abilities as writers, the objectives set in individual classes must reflect students’ communicative purposes, rather than those of expert writers, and for that reason specific student writing models are needed. This paper proposes a methodology for the development of such writing models, and presents results of the application of this methodology to the analysis of a corpus of 55 student paper conclusions. The notion of student genre(s) adopted here challenges the tacit assumption that EAP is a homogeneous whole, and that expert models can realistically be used as models in teaching EAP student writing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]