CLIL in Europe

Content and Language Integrated Learning has clearly become a priority concern in the last decade in the European education debate as well.

A key reason for this is that the European Commission is now heavily pushing its requirement that every citizen of Europe should speak two further languages in addition to their native language. In order to fulfil this requirement, many countries in the European Union have been opting for integrated forms of language and content communication for some time, and are introducing them to their school systems. As a result of the diverse educational traditions and language contexts, varying models of bilingual teaching have developed in Europe, which are worthwhile comparing because strengths and weaknesses of one’s own model become conspicuous through knowledge of the other models. Of course for reasons of space only some aspects can be addressed here.

Information on the current status of CLIL teaching in Europe is now very comprehensive. There are four main works that, when read together, provide a good overview of CLIL: the two publications by Marsh (Profiling European CLIL Classrooms, 2001; CLIL/EMILE: The European Dimension, 2001), which were works written to order for the European Commission, the European Commission Eurydice Report from 2006, and the recently-published Council of Europe Country Report (Maljers et al., 2007). In the following text, the aim is to highlight two central aspects of these publications, the prevalence of CLIL in European education systems and the organisational structure of CLIL teaching in Europe.

CLIL now well-established across Europe

It is amazing how quickly CLIL has secured itself a place in the European educational context. Whereas before 1980 there were only a few countries in which integrated content and foreign language learning was known and here it mostly only occurred in elite schools – although this was frequently a result of long-standing traditions – today it can be assumed that with few exceptions CLIL is offered throughout the European context in a form appropriate to the definition. The exceptions include Denmark, Greece, Lithuania, Portugal and Cyprus. As emerges from the Eurydice Report, CLIL is established either permanently or within short-term projects in the other countries, and in this context between three and thirty per cent of students in primary and secondary education are receiving tuition of this kind. Luxemburg and Malta are the only countries in which all students are taught in at least two languages.

The Eurydice Report provides a detailed overview of the languages that are used as CLIL languages in teaching. As well as foreign languages, there are regional minority languages or also other official languages of the country concerned. In most countries that offer CLIL, the languages used are both foreign languages and minority languages. Examples: France, Spain, Italy, Germany, where both minority languages and foreign languages are used as CLIL languages.

English in front

It is not only the Eurydice Report, but also earlier reports and the Council of Europe country report as well which give a precise overview of the languages used as CLIL languages. For foreign languages, as would be expected, English is a long way in front in all countries, followed by French and German. Individual countries also list Spanish, Italian and Russian. These include Hungary and the Czech Republic, for instance. In the countries that are officially multilingual, the other official languages of the country concerned are also used of course, so for example Flemish in the French-speaking part of Belgium, Irish in the Republic of Ireland, Swedish in Finland. In many countries of the European Union and Council of Europe, minority languages are also used as CLIL languages, for instance Breton, Catalan, Occitan in France, Russian in Estonia, Sami in Norway or Ukrainian in Romania. In this context it should be emphasised that some of these languages have purely minority status (e.g. Friesian in the Netherlands), others by contrast are also majority languages, usually in neighbouring countries (e.g. Slovenian in Austria, which is a majority language in Slovenia). As we know from surveys, the attitudes of learners (and their parents) with regard to such languages varies. Minority languages that are not spoken as majority languages in other countries are usually only accepted by language groups who also speak one of these minority languages in the home environment, minority languages that have a majority language character in a neighbouring country on the other hand are often accepted even by people who have no cultural connection to this language, for instance Germans in the eastern regions of France. Particular attention should be drawn to the situation in Romania, where according to the Eurydice Report German is used as a foreign language in bilingual schools, whereas it is entering schools for the German-speaking minority as a minority language.

In a large number of countries CLIL is offered at both primary and secondary level. In some countries, for instance Belgium, Spain, Italy, Great Britain and Romania, there are already activities in another language at pre-school level. In certain countries both regional and minority languages are being offered at primary level, for example in Poland and Romania. However in most countries CLIL is a matter for secondary schools. Whilst the possible duration of CLIL tuition commonly extends until the end of compulsory schooling and could therefore theoretically last for up to ten years, in reality it is highly variable and in many countries goes on until completion of sixth form education (Abitur, Baccalauréat, A-Levels).

Organisational structure of CLIL in the European context

As already implied, CLIL has so far not been introduced across the board anywhere. For this reason the first question that arises is what the selection criteria for students who receive CLIL teaching are. Whilst in the early stages this problem resolved itself as it were through supply and demand, in the meantime access criteria have become established in several countries, which range from general knowledge tests to language tests. For instance learners in the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Bulgaria need to pass entrance examinations if they want to receive CLIL tuition, in which their general knowledge, mathematical and native language skills are tested. In France and Romania on the other hand, knowledge and ability in the target language is tested before access to CLIL lessons is granted. In countries such as Hungary, the Netherlands and Poland the test procedures are related to both general knowledge and linguistic ability in the target language. The administration of entrance tests takes the written form, but there are also oral examinations. However in the majority of European countries there have as yet been no access criteria for receiving CLIL tuition.

Discussion regarding suitable subjects

Right from the start the question as to which subjects are well-suited and which on the other hand are less well-suited to tuition in another language has played a key role in the debate about CLIL. A distinction is commonly made between three subject groups, humanities and social science subjects (history, geography, social studies), natural science subjects (mathematics, physics, biology) and creative subjects (art, sports, music). It has become generally apparent from surveys that proper stipulations with regard to specific subjects or subject groups do not exist in many countries. In primary education they are almost non-existent, in other words every subject or subject area can be taught in another language. Exceptions are Estonia and the German-speaking part of Belgium, where only creative subjects are supposed to be taught in a foreign language. Many countries allow schools the freedom of choice when selecting content subjects at secondary level as well, for example Spain, France, Italy, Ireland, England and Wales, Poland, Hungary and Austria. In other countries, for instance the Czech Republic and Romania, the choice is restricted to natural and social science subjects. In Sweden and Finland, but also in the Netherlands and Bulgaria, natural and social sciences are of primary importance, but also creative subjects.

For natural science subjects, mathematics, biology, physics, chemistry and technology are generally listed in that order of frequency. The social science subjects quoted the most often are history, geography and economics, the creative subjects quoted most often are music and art.

Number of teaching hours is critical

An important indicator with regard to the extent that CLIL is integrated into a particular school system is the number of teaching hours available for this approach. Exposure time is not defined at all in a large number of countries and depends on the individual school, as is the case for instance in Finland, Italy and Slovenia. Other countries quote approximate figures, such as the French-speaking part of Belgium, the Czech Republic, Austria and Germany, yet others quote very precise figures, for instance some of the autonomous regions of Spain, France, the Netherlands, Poland. Malta and Luxemburg, which are otherwise excluded from this survey because of their special status, estimate 50% to two-thirds of teaching time for teaching in the other language.

Marsh, D. (2002): CLIL/EMILE – The European Dimension: Actions, Trends and Foresight Potential. Bruxelles: The European Union. Marsh, D., Maljers, A. & Hartiala, A.-K. (2001): Profiling European CLIL Classrooms – Languages Open Doors. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä. Wolff, D. (2007): "Bilingualer Sachfachunterricht in Europa: Versuch eines systematischen Überblicks". (Content and Language Integrated Learning in Europe. An attempt at a systematic overview.) Published by FluL