Research Papers in Language Teaching and Learning

Vol. 8, No. 1, February 2017, 44-61

ISSN: 1792-1244
Available online at http://rpltl.eap.gr
This article is issued under the Creative Commons License Deed. Attribution
3.0 Unported (CC BY 3.0)

CLIL Teachers and their Language

Οι εκπαιδευτικοί της CLIL και η γλώσσα τους

Mary SPRATT

Relatively little focus has been given to the language needed by CLIL teachers, of whatever first
language background, to fulfil their roles in the classroom. This paper attempts to summarise
research on various aspects of CLIL teacher language covering what the research says about what
CLIL teachers may need to use language for, registers, the discourse characteristics of CLIL teacher
language and the demands placed on this language by recommended CLIL classroom practices.
Finally it focusses on the CLIL teacher and TLA (teacher language awareness) and then ties all this
research into CLIL teacher competences. This summary of research on CLIL teacher language provides
a platform through which the article then goes on to propose an initial specification of ‘English for
CLILing’ and make recommendations for CLIL teacher language training as part of professional
development.

Σχετικά μικρή έμφαση έχει δοθεί στη γλώσσα που απαιτείται από τους εκπαιδευτικούς, οι οποίοι
εφαρμόζουν τη μέθοδο CLIL, ανεξαρτήτως της πρώτης γλώσσας, για να εκπληρώσουν το ρόλο τους
μέσα στην τάξη. Η παρούσα εργασία επιχειρεί να συνοψίσει ερευνητικές δραστηριότητες σε
διάφορες πτυχές της γλώσσας των εκπαιδευτικών καλύπτοντας οπτικές για το πώς χρησιμοποιούν
οι εκπαιδευτικοί τη γλώσσα, τα χαρακτηριστικά του λόγου του εκπαιδευτικού και τις απαιτήσεις
που τίθενται σε αυτή τη γλώσσα από τις πρακτικές στην τάξη όπου εφαρμόζεται η μέθοδος CLIL.
Τέλος, η εργασία εστιάζει στον εκπαιδευτικό της CLIL καθώς και στη γλωσσική επίγνωση των
εκπαιδευτικών, και συνδέει όλα αυτά με τις δεξιότητες του εκπαιδευτικού στο συγκεκριμένο
διδακτικό πλαίσιο. Η σύνοψη ερευνών που σχετίζονται με τη γλώσσα του εκπαιδευτικού που
εφαρμόζει τη μέθοδο CLIL παρέχει μια πλατφόρμα μέσω της οποίας το άρθρο επιχειρεί μια αρχική
εννοιολογική αποσαφήνιση της «αγγλικής γλώσσας για CLILing» και προχωράει σε προτάσεις για
την επιμόρφωση των εκπαιδευτικών που εφαρμόζουν την CLIL ως συνιστώσα της επαγγελματικής
τους ανάπτυξης.

Key words: CLIL teacher language, language use, discourse, classroom practices, CLIL teacher
competences, English for CLILing, professional development.
Spratt / Research Papers in Language Teaching and Learning 8/1 (2017) 44-61

1. Introduction

Much has been researched and written about different aspects of CLIL e.g. the rationale for CLIL,
CLIL content, CLIL classroom practices and the evaluation of CLIL learning outcomes for subject
content and language, but there is little unique focus on teachers’ use of language for and in the CLIL
classroom. Yet language is one of the means through which CLIL is delivered and through which CLIL
learners learn both the language and the subject content of their CLIL lessons. As such it is pivotal to
the success of CLIL initiatives.

This paper will attempt to piece together what has been written about teacher language in CLIL and
then draw on this to outline the beginnings of a needs analysis of CLIL teacher language. This will
lead on to a brief discussion of some possible implications of the needs analysis for teacher
development that would enable the CLIL teacher to operate more effectively and confidently in their
classroom.

To avoid misunderstanding, however, it is useful to start with a statement of the definition of CLIL
that this paper will work with. It makes use of Marsh’s well-known definition: ‘A foreign language is
used as a tool in the learning of a non-language subject in which both language and the subject have
a joint role’ (Marsh, 2002). This definition highlights that CLIL has a dual focus: content and
language. CLIL is more than learning subject content through a foreign language (immersion) or
learning a foreign language through subject content (some versions of EFL). It is firmly in the middle
of this spectrum (see Fig. 1).

Focus Focus
On On
Subject Language

Bilingual CLIL Language

Education Teaching

Figure 1: The focus of CLIL

This paper also only reports on studies of CLIL initiatives involving English as the medium of
instruction.

2. Language use and language registers in the CLIL Framework

When we review what has been said about CLIL teacher language, we see it has focused on two
themes in particular: what the language is used for and the registers of language that CLIL works
with. We will look at both of these.

Coyle (2006) has proposed that in the CLIL classroom three kinds of language use help to construct
knowledge: language of learning, language for learning and language through learning. The language
of learning refers to ‘language needed for learners to access basic concepts relating to the subject
theme or topic’ (Coyle, et al., 2010, p.37). This language is made up of subject specific vocabulary
(e.g. for geography: stream, confluence, tributary, to meander), including fixed expressions (e.g. for
social sciences: as shown in the graph, as can be seen, a steep rise, gradually decrease) and subject
typical grammar (e.g. use of the passive in descriptions of scientific processes, use of the past tense

45
Spratt / Research Papers in Language Teaching and Learning 8/1 (2017) 44-61

in historical descriptions, use of past modal verbs in interpretation of evidence in history and social
sciences). It also covers ‘register’ and genre. While the above quote from Coyle appears to focus on
the learner, it is of course the teacher who will be engaged, with or without the help of aids such as
input texts, videos, computer resources, in delivering or mediating that language to learners.

Language for learning is the enabling language of the classroom that allows the teacher to conduct
classroom and learning management e.g. scaffolding learning, setting up pair and group work,
encouraging etc. For learners it is the language which allows them to develop and work with learning
skills such as ‘cooperative group work, asking questions, debating, chatting, enquiring, thinking,
memorising and so on’ (Coyle, 2006). While the teacher may not need to use this learner language
themselves they may well need to provide it to the learners to enable them to use it.

Finally, language through learning is defined as language ‘to support and advance (learners’) thinking
processes whilst acquiring new knowledge, as well as to progress their language learning’ (Coyle, et
al., 2010, p.38). As learners struggle to express their understanding of their new learning, and, with
this, new meanings, they will require their own particular expression of language through which to
do this. They will, often as not, need the teacher’s support to express these new meanings, hence
the teacher must be able to supply that support be it linguistic or cognitive or both.

Llinares, Morton and Whittaker (2012) also identify three roles for language in CLIL (see Table 1).

SUBJECT CLASSROOM LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT

LITERACIES INTERACTION
A Instructional and A Expressing ideational meanings
S Regulative registers (focus) S (key concepts and
GENRE S S understandings)
E E
S S
S Communication systems S Expressing interpersonal meanings
M (approach) M (social relationships, attitudes)
E E
REGISTER N N
T Interaction patterns and T Expressing textual meanings
Scaffolding (action) (moving from more spoken to
Written forms of language)

Table 1: A three-part framework for understanding the roles of language

(Llinares, Morton & Whittaker, 2012, p.15)

The authors developed this framework by combining views about language from systemic functional
linguistics, Vygotsky’s view of language as the essential mediating tool in our cognitive development
(Llinares, et al., 2012) and a social perspective on second language development.

In the framework, genres refer to the text types that are typical of a subject area (e.g. in history:
chronicalling, reporting, explaining, arguing (Dalton Puffer, 2007); in business studies: reports,
journal papers, case studies; in science: reports, procedures and explanations) and register refers to
the grammar and vocabulary typical of a subject. We can see that this category has much in common
with Coyle’s language of learning (Coyle, 2006). LLinares et al. (2012, p.16) say ‘CLIL teachers can
identify these genre and register features in the materials and activities they use, and highlight them

46
Spratt / Research Papers in Language Teaching and Learning 8/1 (2017) 44-61

for their learners’. Genres and register are the text types and language through which content
knowledge is expressed.

Under the heading Classroom Interaction the authors talk of instructional and regulative register,
the former referring to the language used to talk about key concepts and ideas related to the subject
being studied (Llinares, et al., 2012), while regulative register refers to the language used to manage
and organise the social world of the classroom, similar to Coyle’s language for learning (Coyle, 2006).
In instructional language the authors draw our attention to a very useful distinction made by
Bernstein (Llinares, et al., 2012, p.39), between vertical and horizontal language. Vertical language
reflects the hierarchical knowledge structures of a subject area (e.g. description of cause and effect
within a chronological narrative structure), whereas horizontal language refers to everyday language
used to talk about everyday life and experiences. As a teacher delivers information about a subject
they may well wish and need to move between these registers, maybe using a horizontal register to
elicit students’ knowledge and experience of a topic at a warm up stage of a lesson, then using a
vertical register to identify participants, processes, circumstances, and causal, and other logical links
between them (Linares, et al., 2012), then maybe reverting to horizontal register to give or elicit
examples from everyday life of the concepts under discussion. Again, these registers will be used not
only by teachers but also by learners, with teachers playing a very helpful role in advancing CLIL’s
dual aims if they enable learners’ learning of this kind of language. Use of the two registers facilitates
the dialogic inquiry advocated by Wells (1999) i.e. dialogue between teachers and learners to
construct knowledge.

2.1 CLIL classroom discourse

We can analyse a teacher’s classroom language from the perspective of the uses it needs to be put
to, as above, and also from that of the type of language characteristics that it makes use of.
Cummins and others have proposed that in order to aid students’ learning of both content and
language through the development of both higher and lower order thinking skills (HOTS and LOTS),
the teacher in the classroom should tailor their lesson content and development round the Cummins
(1984) quadrant, as given below:

(Cummins, 1984; modified format, https://juanpwashere.wordpress.com/page/3 )

Cummins maintained that there are two causes of ease and difficulty in expressing or understanding
topics in the classroom: the amount of cognitive demand they create and the complexity of the

47
Spratt / Research Papers in Language Teaching and Learning 8/1 (2017) 44-61

language through which they are expressed. Easier language is made easy partly by being supported
by the clues (e.g. gestures, surroundings, facial expressions) provided by the context in which it is
produced. More difficult language is made difficult partly by the fact that it is not contextually
supported, and is also expressed in language which is structurally complex. Cummins (1979) also
maintains that these variables mean that language can be used to express low level thinking skills in
easy language. Conversely it can also express high level thinking skills in difficult language, or difficult
concepts can be expressed through easy language or vice versa.

The CLIL teacher is encouraged to make use of all these quadrants to scaffold the learning of
language, subject or thinking skills, to cater for different levels of learner and to aid the acquisition
of the more abstract language through which subject matter and higher order thinking skills (HOTS)
are often expressed, especially in various written genres. As can be seen, moving between these
quadrants is likely to require the teacher (and learners) to operate with and in both formal and
informal registers of language, involving the use of BICS (Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills)
and CALP (Cognitive academic language proficiency) i.e. in the CLIL classroom it is not sufficient for
participants just to be able to use the day to day language needed to interact socially (BICS) , but
they also need the language for formal academic learning that covers not just subject specific
language, but also the comprehension and expression of higher level thinking skills such as
comparing, analysing, evaluating, hypothesising, inferring, synthesizing, as in Quadrant IV above
(CALP). These are skills and language which the learner will need for academic activities such as
listening to a lecture, reading an academic textbook, presenting a paper or writing an essay.

In a CLIL class the teacher will need to teach the thinking and language skills involved in such tasks.
Research (e.g. Collier, 1989; Thomas & Collier, 1997) has found that whereas BICS can be learnt
within a few years in the school context, it may take five to seven years for learners to master an
appropriate level of CALP, though other research suggests that in a CLIL context, in which exposure
to the target language outside the classroom may be very limited or non-existent, the opportunities
for encountering and using BICS may therefore be similarly limited (Dalton-Puffer, 2007) and
insufficient for it to be acquired automatically (Varkuti, 2010). This suggests that the CLIL teacher
may in some contexts need to help learners to learn both BICS and CALP. There are clear similarities
between Cummins’ CALP and Bernstein’s ‘vertical register’ (discussed above), and similarly between
BICS and Bernstein’s ‘horizontal register’. (Cummins, 1979; Bernstein 1999 in Llinares, et al., 2012,
p.39).

In the CLIL literature we also find reference to the discourse of the CLIL classroom. Unlike in the
above research, the literature on classroom discourse bases itself on studies of what talk actually
occurs in the CLIL classroom, as mentioned by Nikula, et al.(2012). While the studies in these areas
do not usually focus uniquely on teacher discourse, certain features of CLIL teacher discourse
nevertheless emerge. Before identifying these, it needs to be stressed that the practice of CLIL varies
considerably from classroom to classroom, and country to country, and it is difficult to talk of a
typical CLIL classroom and therefore of typical CLIL classroom discourse. Most of the studies report
on teacher-led classrooms and on whole-class interaction in secondary schools throughout a range
of countries in Europe. Features of teacher discourse such as the following receive attention in the
studies: negotiation of meaning; dealing with errors and providing feedback, particularly through the
use of recasts; teacher use of different types of questions, particularly open and referential
questions; teacher-led whole class discussions; the teacher’s central role as input giver; the teacher’s
role as provider of comprehensible input; the teacher’s modification of input so as to make it
comprehensible; the teacher’s use of explicit discourse markers to structure lectures particularly in
university settings. The studies also suggest that these features are generally more prominent in CLIL
classrooms than they would be in the average EFL classroom. The authors conclude:

48
Spratt / Research Papers in Language Teaching and Learning 8/1 (2017) 44-61

“Overall, discourse analytic and pragmatic studies suggest that teaching content
matter through a foreign language has the potential for rendering classroom discourse
qualitatively different from contexts where language is the object of scrutiny. The
biggest differences relate to students’ increased opportunities to be active participants
in interaction and to use the target language for contextually relevant meaning
making. However, these differences also relate to pedagogical practices: gains are less
obvious if teacher-centered methods prevail.” (Nikula, et al., 2012, p.86).

Another study of CLIL classroom discourse of particular relevance and interest to this paper is in
Nikula (2010). This reports on a study of the classroom discourse of one Finnish teacher with a good
command of English (Nikula, 2007), teaching one class biology in English and another class biology in
Finnish. Differences are noted in the teacher’s discourse between the two classes. These are that
when teaching in his mother-tongue, Finnish, the teacher engaged in more monologic and less
interactional language whereas in the CLIL class where he was speaking in English his discourse
tended to be more dialogic and interactional. The researcher hypothesizes that this may be due to
the fact that the teacher does not command the formal register of English sufficiently to allow for his
extended use of it for monologues, and/or that in the CLIL classroom where the teacher and
students are working collaboratively to find their feet, there may be less place for the teacher to
adopt an authoritarian role. Yet we have seen above that in CLIL the teacher may well need on the
occasion to make use of vertical language and CALP. The study also finds that in the CLIL class the
teacher makes less use of nuanced interpersonal strategies for classroom management and
attributes this to the teacher’s lack of language ability in this register. Although these findings cannot
be generalised, as they are a case study of one teacher in one classroom context, they suggest a
methodology for further studies of CLIL teacher language and potential areas on which teacher
language might impact.

2.2 Language and CLIL classroom practices

These findings from discourse analysis provide us with some clues as to the kinds of pedagogic
interventions a CLIL teacher needs to use language for themselves, and also indicate areas where
CLIL learners may need support for their language comprehension and use. We are arriving at a
picture of what the CLIL teacher may need to use their language for. Absent from this picture so far,
however, is a detailed focus on CLIL methodology and the demands it may place on teacher
language. This goes beyond Coyle’s ‘language for learning’ as it is linked to specific recommended
CLIL classroom practices. While it is generally accepted that there is no one fixed CLIL methodology,
certain principles are constantly promoted for CLIL classroom practices as they enable the
achievement of CLIL’s dual aims. We find that CLIL teaching practices are frequently placed within
the context of the teaching of the 4 C’s (Content, Communication, Culture/Community, Cognition) as
these underlie and enable the dual aims of CLIL. Coyle illustrates the 4C’s as shown in Figure 2.

We see that while there is a focus on the 4C’s in CLIL teaching, it is nevertheless Content that drives
and decides on the content of the other C’s, i.e. what from the other C’s will be selected and
focussed on to enable and extend the teaching of content. At the same time the 4Cs will be
constantly integrated so the teaching/ learning of one supports the teaching/learning of the others.
Words and phrases which often occur in discussion of recommended CLIL classroom practices and
how to promote the 4C’s are:

• Exposure and acquisition;

• Scaffolded learning;
• Interactive, co-operative, dialogic, and exploratory teaching;
• Focus on form.

49
Spratt / Research Papers in Language Teaching and Learning 8/1 (2017) 44-61

Cognition Communication
Learning Using languages to learn
Thinking skills Learning to use
Problem solving Content languages

Culture
Intercultural
understanding

Figure 2: Coyle’s 4C’s model.

Exposure to language is thought to be essential in CLIL as it is through this that learners will acquire
the target language. As we have seen, this language may well vary in register (BICS/CALP,
instructional/ regulative). It may also be spoken or written and produced by the teacher or delivered
through aids such as reading passages or videos. Teachers will provide this input when, for example,
they explain something to learners, describe visuals or processes, give their opinion in a whole class
discussion, provide feedback to a learner/ learners, organise project or group work, engage in oral
whole class exploration of a new concept, etc. However, experts in language acquisition such as
Krashen, Lightbown, Ellis have long maintained that in order to learn from and through exposure to
language, learners need to be exposed not just to any language but to what they term
‘comprehensible input’, a term elaborated by Krashen (1982), which refers to language which is just
above the learners’ current level of competence. They have also maintained that language can be
learnt, and, indeed is mainly learnt, through acquisition rather than learning i.e. by being exposed to
it rather than focussing on it. In CLIL, exposure is obviously required to enable language learning, but
it is also required to communicate about subject content and to enable the teaching of the other C’s
(culture/community, cognitive skills). This means a teacher will need to be able to gauge whether
the language they themselves are using seems to be at the right comprehensible level for students,
and if not, be able to modify it. They will similarly need to gauge the language of any materials or
aids they use, and modify the language in them if it is at the wrong level. There is a very nice quote
from Swan (1994) that captures the essence of providing comprehensible input in the classroom:

“Good teaching involves a most mysterious feat – sitting, so to speak, on one’s

listener’s shoulder, monitoring what one is saying with the listener’s ears, and using
this feedback to shape and adapt one’s words from moment to moment so that the
thread of communication never breaks. This is art, not science……” (Swan, 1994 in
Andrews 2012, p.4)

Scaffolding is another mainstay of the CLIL classroom-whether it is scaffolding of content or

scaffolding of communication. Scaffolding involves providing temporary support to the learner in
order to make specific learning goals more attainable. It may consist of techniques such as breaking

50
Spratt / Research Papers in Language Teaching and Learning 8/1 (2017) 44-61

tasks up into smaller tasks and sequencing the subtasks appropriately, providing learners with visual
organisers to enable them to see the route that a line of argument or topic development follows,
giving learners a (bilingual) glossary of key terms, providing a model text (spoken or written),
providing learners with language frames to support writing or speaking activities, providing
emerging language to learners as they, for example, answer questions or take part in discussions,
demonstrating an activity prior to asking students to do something, doing a warm up to engage
learners’ schemata, providing feed-back before moving on to the next stage etc. Scaffolding is said to
be particularly necessary in CLIL because of the dual demands, cognitive and linguistic, that CLIL
places on the learner. Scaffolding makes demands on teachers’ language in a variety of ways. In the
activities above, for instance, teachers may need to be able to supply emerging language/language
through learning, recognise a discourse structure (e.g. cause-effect, cycle, ordering of a process,
event sequence in a narrative) in order to provide a suitable visual organiser, gauge the difficulty
level (linguistic and/or cognitive) of tasks in order to sequence their use, swap between regulative or
instructional registers in a warm up etc.

CLIL teachers are also encouraged to make their teaching ‘Interactive, co-operative, dialogic, and
exploratory’. Interaction can be between teachers and learners, or between learner(s) and
learner(s). It is believed that it is through cooperation in the verbal exploration and social
construction of ideas that learning fully takes place. Coyle, et al. (2010, p.35) say: According to
Freire:

‘without dialogue there is no communication and without communication there can be no true
education’ (1972, p.35). This puts classroom communication- interaction between peers and
teachers- at the core of learning. There is also growing recognition that ‘dialogic’ forms of
pedagogy-that is, where learners are encouraged to articulate their learning—are potent tools
for securing learner engagement, learning and understanding. Focussing teaching and learning on
quality discourse between learners, and between learners and teachers—where learners have
different opportunities to discuss their own learning with others as it progresses, where feedback
is integrated into classroom discourse and where learners are encouraged to ask as well as
answer questions—promotes meaningful interaction fundamental to any learning scenario. This
is what Wells (1999) terms ‘dialogic learning’ (Coyle, et al., 2010, p.35).

So, in dialogic teaching the teacher is prompted to use language interactively with learners, so as to
encourage cooperation between learners, to encourage the joint exploration of new concepts to
allow for the co-construction of knowledge and multiple associations with it, to provide feedback
and to respond to students’ questions as well as ask their own. Mortimer and Scott (2003) focus on
four kinds of classroom talk: interactive/ non interactive and dialogic/ authoritarian. In dialogic talk,
students are encouraged to contribute their own ideas and understandings, whereas in authoritarian
talk only the teacher’s or official view is recognised (Llinares, Morton & Whittaker, 2012). We can
see that when a teacher is giving the facts of a subject they might want to use an authoritarian
mode, whereas a dialogic mode would lend itself more to exploration and interpretation of those
facts.

The fourth set of words often used in relation to CLIL teaching is a focus on form, by which is meant
a deliberate focus by the teacher on language forms which are key to and within particular
interactions, registers or genres in use/focus at that moment in the classroom, drawing learners’
attention to how something is said while remaining within the context of communication. This is not
to suggest that activities might involve a deliberate and separate focus on different grammar points
– these would break the flow of communication and exchange of meaning- but rather, for example,
providing learners with a range of exponents of the function of agreeing to enable group work,
giving them a handout with a list of ways of expressing cause and effect to aid them with writing a
report, providing on the spot correction of pronunciation of key lexis or of use of key grammar or

51
Spratt / Research Papers in Language Teaching and Learning 8/1 (2017) 44-61

lexis after a learner has used this language inaccurately. In other words, a focus on form involves
integrating into the lesson flow a brief focus on key language required for a specific activity. This is
different from the procedures and focus of much language teaching. There has been great debate
amongst CLIL experts and practitioners about how much CLIL teachers should focus on form, with
some maintaining that there is no place in the CLIL class for such a focus, and that exposing learners
to language is sufficient for them to learn it. Many recent studies, however, suggest that this is not
the case. Learners, in immersion or CLIL settings, whose learning of the language has been limited to
exposure have regularly been found to fall short of the desired level of proficiency, particularly on
the level of grammatical accuracy. (e.g. Lyster & Mori, 2006; Lightbown, 2014). There have also been
findings from language acquisition studies suggesting strongly that before something can be learnt it
needs to be noticed (Schmidt, 1990). The teacher can help learners to notice key language features
by employing ways of making them more salient. These techniques have been reported to have
resulted in greater accuracy (Vazquez, 2010).

3. Teacher Language Awareness in the CLIL context

The overview provided so far by this paper allows us to see that a CLIL teacher not only needs to be
able to use the language in particular ways but also needs to ‘know about’ language so as to be able
to do things such as focus on form, recognise genres, make input comprehensible, provide
correction and feedback on language use. As these authors say:

“The teacher of whatever material is being taught in an L2, should not only update his
linguistic knowledge to a standard and recognized level of fluency but should develop a
different linguistic sensitivity to be able to adapt the contents to the new language and
develop teaching procedures that make it possible for the student to learn.” (Lorenzo,
et al., 2005, p.71).

What is being discussed here is ‘Teacher language awareness’ (TLA) which Thornbury defines as ‘the
knowledge that teachers have of the underlying systems of the language that enables them to teach
effectively’ (Thornbury, 1997, p.x). Thornbury is talking about language teachers. However, what he
says becomes relevant for CLIL teachers too in light of CLIL’s dual aims, though it is probably more
appropriate to say that CLIL teachers need knowledge of the uses, genres and registers of language
that are typical of their subject area and of language for learning or regulative register, rather than
of the underlying systems of language as a whole. We can see very good examples of subject specific
language in Dale and Tanner’s 2012 book ‘CLIL Activities’. The authors provide descriptions of the
language of different subjects, in terms of their typical genres, genre features, functions, thinking
skills, use of spoken and written modes, recurrent grammar and vocabulary. Dale and Tanner (2012,
p. 80-81) point out, for instance, that the subject of science is typified by thinking skills such as
reasoning, questioning, creative problem-solving and evaluating, and genres such as scientific
articles, written reports, instructions for experiments. Within these, its functions are often those of
recounting, describing, informing, explaining, predicting and hypothesising, and the subject content
makes frequent use of grammatical structures such as present tenses, time clauses, linking words,
future tenses and modals, complex sentences with subclauses, comparisons and specialised
technical terms such as alkali, molecule, energy, atom, solution, soluble.

Different materials and activities will vary in their use of these features, and TLA will enable the
teacher to recognise them, make judgements about whether the text is comprehensible for a
particular set of learners, decide which features, if any, are important to focus on with learners,
decide which need scaffolding and how, allow the teacher to anticipate learner problems with the
language of the text and devise appropriate tasks round the text that focus on content and/ or
language. In other words TLA facilitates both the planning and the delivery of a lesson.

52
Spratt / Research Papers in Language Teaching and Learning 8/1 (2017) 44-61

Andrews (2012) identifies the positive enabling influence of TLA when planning a lesson as giving the
teacher:

- Sufficient freedom/control over content of teaching to engage fully with language related
issues of lesson before entering classroom
- Confidence in own explicit grammar knowledge and communicative language ability, and
confident about assuming responsibility for shaping the language related content of the
lesson.
- Information for pre-lesson reflections about language-related issues, and therefore to
influence language related aspects of preparation

And when delivering a lesson allowing the teacher to:

- Act as a bridge between the language content of the materials and the learners, making
salient the key features of the grammar area
- Filter the content of published materials and notice/avoid potential pitfalls
- Filter their own classroom output (spoken and written) to ensure that it is structurally
accurate, functionally appropriate, clearly expressed, pitched at the learners’ level
- Filter learner output (as appropriate in the context of form focussed activity). Mediation
takes the learners’ perspective into account and is correct, precise and intelligible,
structurally accurate, functionally appropriate, pitched at the learners’ level, an adequate
basis for learner generalisations
- Operate the filter in real time, responding spontaneously and constructively to issues of
language content as they arise in class
- Employ metalanguage to support learning correctly and appropriately
(paraphrased from Andrews 2012, pp.42-45)

We can note that these factors relate to both lesson planning and delivery. Also interesting to note is
how much the factors mention the importance of TLA in making the teacher feel confident in
planning and delivering the lesson. Here are some examples of how TLA can affect details of a
lesson:

“Within the classroom, TLA has the potential to exert a profound effect upon the
teacher’s performance of a range of tasks. These tasks include: (i) mediating what is
made available to learners as input; (ii) making salient the key grammatical features
within that input; (iii) providing exemplification and clarification, as appropriate; (iv)
monitoring students’ output; (v) monitoring one’s own output; (vi) helping the students
to make useful generalisations based upon the input; and (vii) limiting the potential
sources of learner confusion in the input; while all the time (viii) reflecting on the
potential impact of all such mediation on the learners’ understanding.” (Andrews 2012,
p.43).

Thornbury (1997, p xii) draws attention to the negatives of not making use of TLA:

• Failure to anticipate learners’ learning problems;

• Inability to plan lessons pitched at right level;
• Inability to interpret materials and adapt them to specific learners;
• Inability to deal satisfactorily with errors or field learner queries;
• General failure to earn learner confidence …and present new language clearly and
efficiently.

53
Spratt / Research Papers in Language Teaching and Learning 8/1 (2017) 44-61

While both Andrews (2012) and Thornbury (1997) are talking about TLA in relation to language
teachers who are teaching a foreign language, it is not hard to see the relevance to the CLIL teacher
of much of what they identify.

The above overview of a CLIL teacher’s uses of language in the classroom and of TLA, and of their
impact in the classroom show the importance and centrality of teacher language in CLIL. We find
recognition of this in some statements about the competences required by CLIL teachers. Keith Kelly,
for instance, mentions in his list of competencies for the ideal CLIL teacher: is proficient in the FL,
uses language-appropriate materials, integrates content & language learning during lessons, able to
identify language demands of subject matter (Kelly, 2012).

But probably the most detailed specification of CLIL teacher competences is that of Bertaux, et al
(2010), CLIL experts, who produced the specification in 2010 under the European Union’s Leonardo
da Vinci programme. Many of the competences are language related as can be seen from these
extracts:

• Using Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency

• Using the language of classroom management
• Using the language of teaching
• Using the language of learning activities
• Designing a course
• Lesson planning
• Translating (lesson) plans into action
• Knowing second language attainment levels
• Applying SLA knowledge in lesson preparation
• Applying SLA knowledge in the classroom
• Applying interactive methodology
• Having knowledge and awareness of cognition and metacognition in the CLIL environment
• Knowing about and applying assessment and evaluation procedures and tools

(extracted from Bertaux, et al., 2010). (See appendix for details of how these different competences
are evidenced in lesson planning and delivery).

We see the specifications pick up on both language proficiency and language awareness and make
clear the importance and centrality of language to the CLIL teacher’s role.

So far in this paper we have identified what CLIL teacher language needs to be used for and
characteristics it contains. We can summarise these in the following table (see Table 2).

The areas outlined in this table are a summary of the research this paper has reported on so far. The
researchers reported on were working separately from and independently of one another, and
inevitably use different units of measure and different terms, sometimes for the same thing. To
arrive at a clear specification of English for CLILing it would be useful to use a single over-riding
perspective for analysis for all the areas. We also note that the above research only deals with the
CLIL teacher’s roles as, amongst others, input source, mediator, generator of interaction, manager.
The CLIL teacher however plays other roles e.g. adviser/ counsellor, assessor, materials designer,
CLIL teaching partner. These would also need to be taken into consideration in any further
specification of the CLIL teacher’s language needs. The table provides a departure point.

54
Spratt / Research Papers in Language Teaching and Learning 8/1 (2017) 44-61

Within a subject specific 4 C’s framework:

Uses of language Language of, for, through learning
Language for subject literacies, classroom interaction and language development
- Instructional and regulative register
- Vertical and horizontal language
Language BICS
characteristics CALP
Subject specific genres (lexis, grammar (register), text types)
Features of CLIL Negotiation of meaning; dealing with errors and providing feedback, particularly
teacher discourse through the use of recasts ; teacher use of different types of questions, particularly open
and referential questions; teacher-led whole class discussion; input giving; providing
comprehensible input; modifying so as to make it comprehensible; explicit discourse
markers to structure lectures
Demands on Provision of
language from CLIL -exposure to language and opportunities for acquisition
pedagogies/ -scaffolding
pedagogic - a focus on forms
interventions
Use of interactive, exploratory and dialogic language

Language TLA (teacher language awareness)

awareness -to enable lesson planning and delivery
Other teacher roles e.g. adviser/ counsellor, assessor, materials designer, CLIL teaching partner et al.

Table 2: CLIL teacher language/ Language for CLILing.

The table shows us that CLIL teacher language is not the same as general language proficiency as it
contains features that go beyond general language proficiency e.g. CALP, TLA. We could say that
what has been presented is the basis for an English for Specific Purposes (ESP) which we might call
‘English for CLILing’. Freeman, Katz, Garcia Gomez and Burns argue in their 2015 ELTJ paper that EFL
teachers’ language is a kind of ESP and note the advantages of seeing it as such. They say:

“Focusing the target domain of language use on the classroom work teachers are doing
has several advantages. It makes that target more relevant and attainable to teachers as
learners. It simultaneously affirms clear, consistent communicative language that
students are likely to understand in the context of the classroom. In this way, this
focused approach converts the problem of language improvement from one of general
proficiency to one of specialised contextual language use, which is likely to be more
efficient in bringing out practical impacts on teacher classroom efficacy and student
learning outcomes.” (Freeman, Katz, Garcia Gomez & Burns , 2015, p.131)

These authors (2015), for example, use Hutchinson and Waters (1987) ESP model to arrive at an ESP
analysis of EFL teacher language needs. A similar specification for CLIL teachers would allow course
designers working in different training contexts to choose from it areas relevant for their particular
teachers, as not all CLIL teachers will have the same needs. They will have different ‘gaps’. For
example, it could be that native speaker subject teachers who have not studied language at school
or during their professional training lack TLA and a knowledge of formal registers such as CALP. On
the other hand, proficient language teachers may lack subject specific language, as well as an ability
to ‘talk CALP’ and the awareness of TLA related to it, but in neither case is their need simply for
greater general language proficiency. Similarly, primary teachers will not have the same CLIL
language needs as secondary teachers, and teachers operating in CLIL situations in which the subject

55
Spratt / Research Papers in Language Teaching and Learning 8/1 (2017) 44-61

teacher just teaches the subject and a separate language teacher provides the language input will
have different needs too.

It could also be that CLIL teachers from different backgrounds and working in different contexts
require different levels of language training. The analysis might provide the basis for a more honed
specification of the level of this language. This level is often described as B1 or B2 or C1 (cf
clilingmesoftly.wordpress.com) using CEFR reference points. But the CEFR was intended to be
applied to general language proficiency, which, we suggest, is not customised enough to meet the
needs of the CLIL teacher. There are several areas here worthy of further study.

4. Conclusion

To conclude, this paper has provided an overview of research on CLIL teachers’ language and drawn
from that a set of CLIL teacher language needs which could form the basis for a more detailed and
consistent analysis of those needs as well as a platform for differentiation in language development
programmes as part of CLIL teacher development. The paper makes a case for CLIL teacher language
to be regarded as an ESP. Some CLIL teachers may find daunting the language needs outlined above,
and their presentation as CLIL teacher requirements. Vasquez and Ellison (2013) have spoken of the
great unease CLIL subject teachers feel about their lack of language knowledge while being expected
to teach CLIL. And others (c.f. Harder, 1980; Moate, 2008) of other negative effects on how teachers
and learners view and express themselves when they don’t feel fully at ease in or with the language
they are using. What is clear is that it is not just up to the CLIL teacher to get themselves trained, but
for trainers, school administrators and educational authorities such as ministries to provide such
targeted language training. The risk of not doing so is that CLIL will not achieve its dual aims,
teachers will feel frustrated, restricted in their pedagogical choices and kinds of intervention, and
undermined; and learners will have been deprived of the opportunity for a rich learning experience
and all that can provide in terms of educational achievement, learner motivation and self-esteem.

References

Andrews, S. (2012). Teacher Language Awareness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bertaux, P., Coonan, C.M., Frigols-Martin, M.J. & Mehisto, P. (2010). The CLIL teacher’scompetences.
http://lendtrento.eu/convegno/files/mehisto.pdf retrieved on May, 2016.
Collier, V.P. (1989). ‘How long? A synthesis of research on academic achievement in second
Language’. TESOL Quarterly, 23: 509-31.
Coyle, D. A. (2005). Developing CLIL: Towards a theory of practice. Monograph 6, APAC, Barcelona,
Spain.
Coyle D., Hood, P. & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Cummins, J. (1979). ‘Cognitive/academic language proficiency, linguistic interdependence, the
optimum age question and some other matters’. Working Papers on Bilingualism, 19:121-129.
Cummins, J. (1984). Bilingualism and Special Education: Issues in Assessment and Pedogogy. San
Francisco, CA: College-Hill Press.
Dale, L & Tanner, R. (2012). CLIL Activities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dalton –Puffer, C. (2007). Discourse in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) Classrooms.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Freeman D., Katz A., Garcia-Gomes, P. & Burns, A. (2015). ‘English-for Teaching: rethinking teacher
proficiency in the classroom’. ELTJ, 69/2:129-139.
Harder, P. (1980). Discourse as self-expression. On the reduced personality of the second language
learner’. Applied Linguistics, 1/3: 262-270.

56
Spratt / Research Papers in Language Teaching and Learning 8/1 (2017) 44-61

Hutchinson, T. & Waters, A. (1987). English for Specific Purposes: A Learning-centred approach.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kelly, K. http://www.factworld.info/clil/cafe/090122/index.htm. Retrieved 2012.
Krashen, S.D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Llinares A., Morton T. & Whittaker R. (2012). The Roles of Language in CLIL. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Lightbown, P. (2014). Focus on Content-Based Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lorenzo, F., Hengst, H., Hernández, H. & Pavón, V. (2005). Borrador para la elaboración del Currículo
Integrado, Plan to Promote Multilingualism, Junta de Andalucía. Retrieved November 22, 2012,
from the World Wide Web: http://
www.juntadeandalucia.es/averroes/plurilinguismo/curriculo/borradorcil.pdf.
Lyster, R & Mori, H. (2006).’Interactional Feedback and Instructional Counterbalance’. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 28/2: 269-300.
Marsh, D. (2002). CLIL/EMILE – The European Dimension: Actions, Trends and Foresight. Potential
Public Services contract DG EAC: European Commission.
Moate, J. M. (2011). The impact of foreign language mediated teaching on teachers’ sense of
professional integrity in the CLIL classroom. European Journal of Teacher Education.
Mortimer, E.F. & Scott, P.H. (2003). Meaning Making in Secondary Science Classrooms. Buckingham,
UK: Open University Press.
Nikula, T. (2010). ‘Effects of CLIL on a teacher’s classroom language use’. In T. Nikula , C. Dalton
Puffer & A. Llinares (Eds.), CLIL Classroom Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 187-213.
Nikula, T., Dalton , C. & Llinares, A. (2012). CLIL Classroom Discourse. Retrieved November 2016 from
http://www.unifg.it/sites/default/files/allegatiparagrafo/17-12-2014/nikula_dalton-
puffer_and_llinares_clil_classroom_discourse.pdf.
Schmidt, R.W. (1990). ‘The role of consciousness in second language learning’. Applied Linguistics
11/2: 129-58.
Swan, M. (1994). ‘Design criteria for pedagogic language rules’. In M. Bygate, A., Tonkyn & E.
Williams (Eds.), Grammar and the Language Teacher. Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall, 45-55.
Thomas, W.P. & Collier, V.P. (1997). School effectiveness for language minority children. Washington,
D.C.: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education.
Thornbury, S. (1997). About Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Varkuti, A. (2010). Linguistic benefits of the CLIL approach: Measuring linguistic competences,
International CLIL Research Journal, 1/3: 67-79.
Vazquez, A. (2010). ‘A study of linguistic transfer in the oral discourse of learners of English as a
foreign language in the framework of content and language integrated learning (CLIL) in the
autonomous community of Madrid’. Unpublished Master’s dissertation, Madrid: Universidade
Autonoma de Madrid.
Vazquez, V.P. & Ellison, M. (2013). Examining teacher roles and competences in Content and
Language Integrated Learning (CLIL). Lingvarvmarena, 4: 65 – 78.
Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic Inquiry: Towards a Socio-Cultural Practice and Theory of Education.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

57
Spratt / Research Papers in Language Teaching and Learning 8/1 (2017) 44-61

APPENDIX

Competences Indicators of competence

Using the language of Can use the target language in:
classroom management - Group management
- Time management
- Classroom noise management
- Giving instructions
- Managing interaction
- Managing co-operative work
- Enhancing communication
Using the language of Can use own oral language production as a tool for
teaching teaching through varying:
- Registers of speech
- Cadence
- Tone and volume

Using the language of Can use the target language to:

learning activities - Explain
- Present information
- Give instructions
- Clarify and check understanding
- Check level of perception of difficulty

Can use the following forms of talk (Barnes,

Mercer, et al.)
- Exploratory
- Cumulative
- Disputational
- Critical
- Meta
- Presentational
Designing a course Can integrate the language and subject curricula so
that subject curricula support language learning
and vice versa
Can plan for the incorporation of other CLIL core
features and driving principles into the course
outlines and into lesson planning, including:
- Scaffolding language, content and learning
skills development
- Continuous growth in language, content
and learning skills development
- Fostering of BICS and CALP development
- Fostering communication with other target
users

Can select the language needed to ensure:

- Student comprehension
- Rich language and content input
- Rich student language and content output

58
Spratt / Research Papers in Language Teaching and Learning 8/1 (2017) 44-61

- Efficient classroom management

Lesson planning Can analyse content in terms of language needs
Translating (lesson) plans Can support students in moving from ‘context
into action embedded’ to context reduced’ materials
(Cummins)
Can make content and language accessible by
helping students to turn their tacit/passive
knowledge into explicit/active knowledge
Knowing second language Can use the Common European Framework for
attainment levels languages as a self-assessment tool
Can use the CEF as a tool for assessing students’
level of attainment with colleagues
Can call on the CEF to define language targets in
the CLIL class
Applying SLA knowledge in Can distinguish between language learning and
lesson preparation language acquisition and select language input
accordingly
Can identify words, terms, idioms and discourse
structures that are new for the students in text,
audio or audio-visual materials, and support
comprehension thereof
Can identify the language components needed by
the learners for oral or written comprehension and
produce support material
Can identify the language components needed by
the learners for complex oral or written production
and produce adapted resources (e.g. vocabulary,
sentence and text types)
Can, if necessary, plan prior language learning
Can call on a range of strategies for fostering BICS
and CALP development
Applying SLA knowledge in Can support students in navigating and learning
the classroom new words, terms, idioms and discourse structures
Can call on a wide repertoire of strategies for
supporting students in oral or written production
Can use a wide range of strategies for scaffolding
language use so as to produce high quality
discourse
Can navigate the concepts of code-switching and
translanguaging, and decide if and when to apply
them
Can decide whether production errors are linked to
language or content
Can use a wide range of language correction
strategies with appropriate frequency, ensuring
language growth without demotivating students
Can use strategies such as echoing, modelling,
extension, and repetition to support students in
their oral production
Can develop a classroom culture where language
learning is supported through peers and learner

59
Spratt / Research Papers in Language Teaching and Learning 8/1 (2017) 44-61

autonomy
Applying interactive Can select learning activities in terms of classroom
methodology interaction (learner<->learner, learner<->teacher,
teacher<- >teacher)
Can support the development of learner autonomy
through choice, planning outcomes, identification
of scaffolding needs and sources, and formative
assessment
Can give students a substantial ‘voice’ in classroom
discourse
Can create rich learning experiences, e.g.:
- group work that involves definition of
each group member’s role
- mid-task analysis of work process and
results, scaffolding language and content
for interaction and task completion
- peer enhancement - tasks for those
listening to presentation
- end-of-task assessment of group work
processes and results, and using this in
planning for next group task

Can draw out current student knowledge, ways of

organising knowledge, ways of thinking, and
interests, and help students to learn and use
related language
Having knowledge and Can scaffold learning along a scale from lower
awareness of cognition order to higher order thinking, e.g., remembering,
and metacognition in the understanding, applying, analysing, evaluating,
CLIL environment creating (Anderson and Krathwohl)
Can identify, adapt and design materials suited to
the students’ current level of cognitive
development
Can identify syntactic structures and other
language required for higher order thinking
Can foster higher-order thinking about language,
content and learning skills
Can foster thinking about the interrelationships
between language, content and learning skills
Can use differences between languages to analyse
how two cultures perceive one and the same
concept
Can use linguistic similarities and differences to
develop metalinguistic awareness
Knowing about and Can engage students in an assessment-for-learning
applying assessment and culture including maintaining a triple focus on
evaluation procedures and language, content and learning skills
tools Can distinguish and navigate CLIL-specific
characteristics of assessment and evaluation
including:
- language for various purposes

60
Spratt / Research Papers in Language Teaching and Learning 8/1 (2017) 44-61

- work with authentic materials -

communication with speakers of the
CLIL language
- ongoing language growth (being
alert to plateauing)
- level of comfort in experimenting
with language and content
- progress in achieving planned
content, language and learning skills
goals - developing all language skills
- distinguishing content and language
errors
- carrying out assessment in the
target language

(Extracted from Bertaux, Coonan, Frigols-Martin and Mehisto, 2010)

Mary Spratt ([email protected]) is an ELT and CLIL consultant, trainer

and writer. She has worked in teaching, teacher development, and ELT research,
and is the author/ co-author of various ELT course books and supplementary
materials. She also works on various Cambridge Assessment qualifications.

61
 Reproduced with permission of copyright owner.
Further reproduction prohibited without permission.