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]

The article offers developments related to the integration of language and content to higher education in Europe. It states that Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) was started in Europe but stimulated by the general policy of the European Union aimed at boosting societal and individual multilingualism. It states that foreign language became popular in numerous countries, especially those that use these languages for educational intentions.