CLIL and materials for learning: a rubric for analysis

Cynthia Pimentel-Velázquez

doi:10.31637/epsir-2025-1564

Autori

Cynthia Pimentel-Velázquez Universidad de Córdoba https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7840-7028

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.31637/epsir-2025-1564

Parole chiave:

CLIL, CLIL materials, CLIL teaching materials, CLIL methodological principles, analysis of CLIL materials, checklists of materials, evaluation of bilingual materials

Abstract

Introduction: The development of tools for the analysis and evaluation of teaching materials used in bilingual contexts (CLIL) is still scarce. This paper reflects on the methodological principles that CLIL materials should comply with, with a triple objective: content and lan-guage learning and the development of literacy and presents a checklist for the analysis of materials. Methodology: the development of this checklist has considered the methodologi-cal principles for CLIL, especially the so-called "dimensions of literacy support". Results and discussion: The proposed checklist contains the dimensions based on the type of workplan (tasks, activities and academic questions), cognitive discourse functions (CDFs), text genres, communicative language activities (CLAs) and interaction. Conclusions: The scarce tools available to teachers in CLIL contexts to carry out the analysis of materials in these contexts make it necessary to carry out proposals that can be useful in a process that is often labori-ous, the checklist presented in this paper aims to be useful to teachers and contribute to a field, still under-studied.

Downloads

I dati di download non sono ancora disponibili.

Biografia autore

Cynthia Pimentel-Velázquez, Universidad de Córdoba

Cynthia Pimentel has been a lecturer in the Department of English and German Philology at the University of Córdoba (Spain) since 2016. She received her PhD from the University of Cordoba in 2023 with the thesis entitled “Textbooks for literacy learning in the science classroom in bilingual contexts in Andalusia”. Her interests focus on bilingual education programs /CLIL, the development and analysis of teaching materials in bilingual contexts, English teaching methodology, second/foreign language acquisition and English phonetics and phonology.

Riferimenti bibliografici

Ball, P., Kelly, K., & Clegg, J. (2016). Putting CLIL into Practice. Oxford University Press.

Banegas, D. L. (2014). An investigation into CLIL-related sections of EFL coursebooks: Issues of CLIL inclusion in the publishing market. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 17(3), 345-359. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2013.793651 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2013.793651

Banegas, D. L., & Tavella, G. (2021). Language-driven CLIL in Primary Education: An Anal-ysis of General English Coursebooks in Argentina. En C. Hemmi & D. L. Banegas (Eds.), International Perspectives on CLIL (pp. 239-258). Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-70095-9_12

Barrios, E., & Milla Lara, M. D. (2020). CLIL methodology, materials and resources, and as-sessment in a monolingual context: an analysis of stakeholders’ perceptions in Anda-lusia. The Language Learning Journal, 48(1), 60-80. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2018.1544269 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2018.1544269

Breen, M. (1989). The Evaluation Cycle for Language Learning Tasks. En R. K. Johnson (Ed.), The Second Language Curriculum (pp. 187-206). Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524520.014

Coffin, C. (1997). Constructing and giving value to the past: An investigation into secondary school history. In C. Frances & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Genre and Institutions: Social Pro-cesses in the Workplace and School (pp. 196-230). Continuum.

Council of Europe. (2020). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Companion Volume. Council of Europe Publishing.

Coyle, D. (1999). Supporting students in content and language integrated learning contexts: Planning for effective classrooms. En J. Masih (Ed.), Learning through a Foreign Lan-guage: Models, Methods and Outcomes (pp. 46-62). CILT (Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research).

Coyle, D., & Meyer, O. (2021). Beyond CLIL: Pluriliteracies Teaching for Deeper Learning. Cam-bridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108914505

Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge University Press.

Crane, C. (2002). Genre analysis: A step toward understanding the different stages of advanced language instruction. Paper presented at the ACTFL/AATG conference, Salt Lake City, UT.

Cummins, J. (2000). Language, Power and Pedagogy: Bilingual Children in the Crossfire. Multi-lingual Matters. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21832/9781853596773

Cummins, J. (2007). Language Interactions in the Classroom: From Coercive to Collaborative Relations of Power. In O. García & C. Baker (Eds.), Bilingual Education: An Introducto-ry Reader (pp. 108-136). Multilingual Matters.

Czura, A. (2017). Translation is not enough-The need for pedagogical adaptation in CLIL textbook development. Porta Linguarum, 27, 35-46. https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=6151248 DOI: https://doi.org/10.30827/Digibug.53950

Dale, L., Van der Es, W., & Tanner, R. (2010). CLIL Skills: A practical book on Content and Lan-guage Integrated Learning. European Platform.

Dalton-Puffer, C. (2007). Discourse in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) Class-rooms. John Benjamins Publishing. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.20

Dalton-Puffer, C. (2013). A construct of cognitive discourse functions for conceptualising content-language integration in CLIL and multilingual education. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 216-253. https://doi.org/10.1515/eujal-2013-0011 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/eujal-2013-0011

Dalton-Puffer, C., & Bauer-Marschallinger, S. (2019). Cognitive Discourse Functions meet Historical Competences: Towards an integrated pedagogy in CLIL history education. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 7(1), 30-60. https://doi.org/10.1075/jicb.17017.dal DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/jicb.17017.dal

Derewianka, B., & Jones, P. (2016). Teaching Language in Context. Oxford University Press.

Ellis, R. (1991). The Interaction Hypothesis: A Critical Evaluation. Regional Language Center Seminar, Singapore. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED338037.pdf

García Mayo, M. d. P., & Basterrechea, M. (2017). CLIL and SLA: Insights from an interac-tionist perspective. En A. Llinares & T. Morton (Eds.), Applied Linguistics Perspectives on CLIL (pp. 33-50). Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.47.03gra

Gee, J. P. (1989). What is Literacy? Journal of education, 171(1), 18-25. https://commons.und.edu/tl-journal/vol2/iss1/2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/002205748917100102

Guazzieri, A. (2008). Oral interaction in CLIL student-led cooperative group work. In C. M. Coonan (Ed.), CLIL e l’apprendimento delle lingue. Le sfide del nuovo ambiente di ap-prendimento (pp. 79-104). Università Ca’ Foscari Venezia.

Harwood, N. (2014). Content, Consumption, and Production: Three Levels of Textbook Re-search. En N. Harwood (Ed.), English Language Teaching Textbooks (pp. 1-41). Spring-er. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137276285_1

Karabassova, L. & Oralbayeva, N. (2024). In D. Banegas & S. Zappa-Hollman (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Content and Language Integrated Learning (pp. 328-340). Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003173151-27

Krashen, S. D. (1998). Comprehensible output? System, 26(2), 175-182. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(98)00002-5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(98)00002-5

Littlejohn, A. (2011). The analysis of language teaching materials: Inside the Trojan Horse. En B. Tomlinson (Ed.), Materials Development in Language Teaching (pp. 179-211). Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139042789.011

Llinares, A., & Pascual Peña, I. (2015). A genre approach to the effect of academic questions on CLIL students’ language production. Language and Education, 29(1), 15-30. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2014.924964 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2014.924964

Llinares, A., Morton, T., & Whittaker, R. (2012). The Roles of Language in CLIL. Cambridge University Press.

Long, M. H. (1983). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 126-141. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/4.2.126 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/4.2.126

López-Medina, B. (2016). Developing a CLIL Textbook Evaluation Checklist. Latin American Journal of Content and Language Integrated Learning, 9(1), 159-173. https://doi.org/10.5294/laclil.2016.9.1.7 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5294/laclil.2016.9.1.7

López-Medina, B. (2021). On the Development of a CLIL Textbook Evaluation Checklist: A Focus Group Study. TESL-EJ, 25(1), 1-17. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1302482

López-Pérez, M., & Galván-Malagón, C. (2017). Creating materials with ICT for CLIL les-sons: A didactic proposal. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 237, 633-637. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2017.02.029 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2017.02.029

Lorenzo, F. (2013). Genre-based curricula: multilingual academic literacy in content and lan-guage integrated learning. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16(3), 375-388. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2013.777391 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2013.777391

Marsh, D. (2002). CLIL/EMILE. The European dimension. Actions, Trends and Foresight Potential. UniCOM. Continuing Education Centre, University of Jyväskylä.

Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2008). Genre Relations: Mapping Culture. Equinox Publishing Ltd.

McGrath, I. (2002). Materials Evaluation and Design for Language Teaching. Edinburgh Univer-sity Press.

McGrath, I. (2013). Teaching Materials and the Roles of EFL/ESL Teachers: Practice and theory. Bloomsbury.

Mehisto, P. (2012). Criteria for producing CLIL learning material. Encuentro, 21, 15-33. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ed539729

Mehisto, P., Marsh, D., & Frigols, M. J. (2008). Uncovering CLIL: Content and Language Inte-grated Learning in Bilingual and Multilingual Education. Macmillan.

Menegale, M. (2008). Expanding teacher-student interaction through more effective class-room questions: from traditional teacher-fronted lessons to student-centred lessons in CLIL. En C.M. Coonan (Ed.), CLIL e l’apprendimento delle lingue. Le sfide del nuovo am-biente di apprendimento. Libreria Editrice Cafoscarina.

Meyer, O. (2010). Towards Quality CLIL: successful planning and teaching strategies. Pulso: Revista de Educación, 33, 11-29. http://dx.doi.org/10.58265/pulso.5002 DOI: https://doi.org/10.58265/pulso.5002

Meyer, O., & Coyle, D. (2017). Pluriliteracies Teaching for Learning: conceptualizing pro-gression for deeper learning in literacies development. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5(2), 199-222. https://doi.org/10.1515/eujal-2017-0006 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/eujal-2017-0006

Meyer, O., Coyle, D., Halbach, A., Schuck, K., & Ting, T. (2015). A pluriliteracies approach to content and language integrated learning– mapping learner progressions in knowledge construction and meaning-making. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28(1), 41-57. https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2014.1000924 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2014.1000924

Mishan, F., & Timmis, I. (2015). Materials Development for TESOL. Edinburgh University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9780748691371

Mohan, B. A., Leung, C., & Slater, T. (2010). Assessing Language and Content: A Functional Perspective. In A. Paran & L. Sercu (Eds.), Testing the Untestable in Language Education (pp. 217-240). Multilingual Matters Clevedon. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847692672-013

Moore, P., & Lorenzo, F. (2007). Adapting authentic materials for CLIL classrooms: An em-pirical study. VIEWZ: Vienna English Working Papers, 16(3), 28-35. https://acortar.link/ysnRvS

Morton, T. (2010). Using a genre-based approach to integrating content and language in CLIL. In C. Dalton-Puffer, U. Smit, & T. Nikula (Eds.), Language Use and Language Learning in CLIL Classrooms (pp. 81-104). John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/aals.7.05mor

Morton, T. (2013). Critically evaluating materials for CLIL: Practitioners’ practices and per-spectives. En J. Gray (Ed.), Critical Perspectives on Language Teaching Materials (pp. 111-136). Palgrave McMillan. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137384263_6

Morton, T. (2020). Cognitive discourse functions: A bridge between content, literacy and language for teaching and assessment in CLIL. CLIL Journal of Innovation and Research in Plurilingual and Pluricultural Education, 3(1), 7-17. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/clil.33 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/clil.33

Mukundan, J. & Ahour, T. (2010). A review of textbook evaluation checklist across four dec-ades (1970-2008). En B. Tomlinson & H. Masuhara (Eds.), Research for materials devel-opment in language learning: Evidence for best practice. Continuum.

Noriega, A. O., Costales, A. F., & Sánchez, F. H. (2024). A rubric model to analyse CLIL textbooks in Primary Education. Porta Linguarum: revista internacional de didáctica de las lenguas extranjeras, 41, 16. https://doi.org/10.30827/portalin.vi41.27547 DOI: https://doi.org/10.30827/portalin.vi41.27547

Pavón Vázquez, V. (2018). Innovations and Challenges in CLIL Research: Exploring the De-velopment of Subject-Specific Literacies. Theory Into Practice, 57(3), 204-211. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2018.1484035 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2018.1484035

Pavón Vázquez, V., Prieto Molina, M., & Ávila López, F. J. (2015). Perceptions of Teachers and Students of the Promotion of Interaction Through Task-Based Activities in CLIL. Porta Linguarum, 23, 75-91. https://digibug.ugr.es/handle/10481/53756 DOI: https://doi.org/10.30827/Digibug.53756

Pérez Cañado, M. L. (2017). Stopping the “pendulum effect” in CLIL research: Finding the balance between Pollyanna and Scrooge. Applied Linguistics Review, 8(1), 79-99. https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2016-2001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2016-2001

Pérez Cañado, M. L. (2018). CLIL and pedagogical innovation: Fact or fiction? International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 28(3), 369-390. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12208 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12208

Polias, J. (2016). Apprenticing Students into Science: Doing, Talking and Writing Scientifically. Lexis Education.

Porcar Saravia, C. (2018). A Linguistic Analysis of the Types of Genres Used in the Subject of So-cial Science in CLIL Primary Education [Tesis de maestría]. Universidad de Extremadu-ra.

Quijada Sánchez, M., Castellano Sánchez, D., & Fernández Aguilar, E. M. (2016). Learn in English. Biology & Geology 1o ESO. Student’s ebook. Algaida Editores.

Richards, J. C. (2001). Curriculum Development in Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667220

Romeu Peyró, M. C., Cerezo Herrero, E., & Llamas Pérez, E. (2020). Thinking skills in Pri-mary Education: An Analysis of CLIL Textbooks in Spain. Porta Linguarum, 33, 183-200. https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=7588130 DOI: https://doi.org/10.30827/portalin.vi33.26647

Swain, M. (2006). Languaging, Agency and Collaboration in Advanced Second Language Proficiency. En H. Byrnes (Ed.), Advanced Language Learning: The Contribution of Halli-day and Vygotsky (pp. 95-108). Continuum.

Thornbury, S. (2000). A dogma for EFL. IATEFL Issues, 153, 2. https://acortar.link/LGqnIW

Tomlinson, B., & Masuhara, H. (2018). The Complete Guide to the Theory and Practice of Materi-als Development for Language Learning. John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Veel, R. (1997). Learning how to mean—scientifically speaking: Apprenticeship into scientific discourse in the secondary school. En C. Frances y J. Martin (Eds.), Genre and Institu-tions: Social Processes in the Workplace and School (pp. 161-195). Continuum.