CLIL: Going for a Blackbox Revelation

CLIL research has been booming for many years and although many would like to claim that CLIL results in better outcomes than traditional (language) education, results do not always support these claims. In this study we will look into why one expects to find a CLIL-effect and if current methodologies are sufficient to capture the effect itself.

There are four reasons why CLIL education is expected to have a positive effect on language and content achievement: first of all there is impact of the so-called bilingual advantage. The second reason is linked to the manner of teaching, in which CLIL education is supposed to be a much more interactive and student-centred approach. The third reason has to do with selection of pupils (on different levels). The final reason has to do with an increased language exposure in CLIL, which is supposed to have a positive impact on language achievement.

The first, third and final reason have been investigated and discussed in a number of studies, but when it comes to what happens in CLIL-classrooms, not so much is known. The idea of interactive student-centred teaching is not exclusive to CLIL and has been proven to be more effective than teacher fronted teaching. However when CLIL and non-CLIL groups are compared, the impact of didactics is not taken into account. The studies on the extent that CLIL teachers actually use more activating and student-centred didactics than teachers in traditional curricula are to the best of our knowledge non-existent. We will therefore give a number of suggestions of steps future research should take to identify the CLIL-effect.