Three Schools, Three Models

doi:10.1017/9781108687867.008

6 - Three Schools, Three Models

Senior Leaders’ Views about the Value of CLIL in Their School

from Part II - Current Aspects of Practice in CLIL

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 July 2020

Kim Bower

Edited by

Kim Bower ,

Do Coyle ,

Russell Cross and

Gary N. Chambers

Show author details

Kim Bower: Affiliation:
Sheffield Hallam University
Do Coyle: Affiliation:
University of Edinburgh
Russell Cross: Affiliation:
University of Melbourne
Gary N. Chambers: Affiliation:
University of Leeds

Book contents

Get access

Summary

This chapter addresses the book’s questions about how different models of CLIL can be implemented and why school leaders adapt their curriculum to include CLIL projects, set against the absence of a national policy for modern languages and a resulting paucity of cross-curricular language learning in the secondary sector. I begin by reviewing a range of models undertaken in schools before focusing on three more substantial models in this study and exploring school leaders’ rationale for CLIL and how they implemented the approach in their school. It draws on findings from the empirical research study referred to in Chapter 2, which investigated the extent to which CLIL promotes learner motivation in England and explored the transferability of CLIL to other schools. Leaders’ perceptions of, confidence in and professional commitment to CLIL in three contrasting models and settings are explored.

Keywords

CLIL models school leaders school improvement motivation innovation

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: Curriculum Integrated Language Teaching
CLIL in Practice
, pp. 107 - 123

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108687867.008 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Baker, C., and Wright, W. E. (2017). Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. Buffalo, NY: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

Ball, S. J. (2017). The Education Debate. Bristol, UK: Policy Press.Google Scholar

Bauckham, I. (2016). Modern Foreign Languages Pedagogy Review: A Review of Modern Foreign Languages Teaching Practice in Key Stage 3 and Key Stage 4. London, UK: Teaching Schools Council.Google Scholar

Bower, K. (2006). An Analysis of Pupils’ and Teachers’ Views on the Use of ‘Immersion’ Techniques in the Teaching of Modern Foreign Languages at One Secondary School. Hull, UK: University of Hull.Google Scholar

Bower, K. (2014). To What Extent Does Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) as a Language-Based Project Approach Promote Pupil Motivation in the Teaching of MFL in Three Secondary Schools in England? Hull, UK: University of Hull.Google Scholar

Bower, K. (2017). ‘“Speaking French Alive”: Learner Perspectives on Their Motivation in Content and Language Integrated Learning in England’. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 13(1), 45–60.Google Scholar

Bower, K. (2019). ‘School Leaders’ Perspectives on Content and Language Integrated Learning in England’. Language, Culture and Curriculum. doi:10.1080/07908318.2019.1667367.Google Scholar

Breidbach, S., and Viebrock, B. (2012). ‘CLIL in Germany: Results from Recent Research in a Contested Field of Education’. International CLIL Research Journal, 1(4), 5–16.Google Scholar

Cedar School. (2013). ‘Cedar School Prospectus’.Google Scholar

Coyle, C., Holmes, B., and King, L. (2009). Towards an Integrated Curriculum: CLIL National Statement and Guidelines. London, UK: Languages Company.Google Scholar

Coyle, D. (2000). ‘Meeting the Challenge: Developing the 3Cs Curriculum’, in Green, S. (ed.), New Perspectives on Teaching and Learning Modern Languages. Modern Languages in Practice. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters, pp. 158–182.Google Scholar

Coyle, D. (2011). ITALIC Research Report Investigating Student Gains: Content and Language Integrated Learning. Edinburgh, UK: University of Aberdeen, Esmée Fairbairn Foundation.Google Scholar

Coyle, D. (2013). ‘Listening to Learners: An Investigation into “Successful Learning” across CLIL Contexts’. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16(3), 244–266.Google Scholar

Coyle, D., Hood, H., and Marsh, D. (2010). Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Dearing, R., and King, L. (2007). The Languages Review. London, UK: DfES.Google Scholar

Department for Education. (2010). The Importance of Teaching: The Schools White Paper 2010. Norwich, UK: Department for Education, Stationary Office.Google Scholar

Department for Education and Skills. (2002). Languages for All: Languages for Life – a Strategy for England. London, UK: DfES.Google Scholar

Diocese, Cedar School. (2013). Denominational Inspection Report.Google Scholar

Eurydice. (2017). Key Data on Teaching Languages at School in Europe – 2017 Edition. European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice Report. Luxembourg.Google Scholar

Greany, T., and Waterhouse, J. (2016). ‘Rebels against the System: Leadership Agency and Curriculum Innovation in the Context of School Autonomy and Accountability in England’ International Journal of Educational Management, 30(7), 1188–1206.Google Scholar

Hagger-Vaughan, L. (2016). ‘Towards “Languages for All” in England: The State of the Debate’. Language Learning Journal, 44(3), 358–375.Google Scholar

Hargreaves, D. (2011). Leading a Self-improving School System. Nottingham, UK: National College for School Leadership.Google Scholar

Hirsch, D. (2003). ‘The Management of Learning, Schools and Systems’. Networks of Innovation. OECD.Google Scholar

Hunt, M. J. (2011). ‘UK Teachers’ and Learners’ Experiences of CLIL Resulting from the EU-Funded Project ECLILT’. Latin American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning, 4(1), 27–39.CrossRef Google Scholar

Nuffield Foundation. (2000). Languages: The Next Generation: The Final Report and Recommendations of the Nuffield Languages Inquiry. London, UK: Nuffield Foundation.Google Scholar

Ofsted. (1997). Ash School Inspection Report. London, UK: Crown.Google Scholar

Ofsted. (2010). Ash School Inspection Report. London, UK: Crown.Google Scholar

Ofsted. (2011). Beech School Inspection Report. Manchester, UK: Crown.Google Scholar

Ofsted. (2012). School Report Cedar School. Manchester, UK: Crown.Google Scholar

Ofsted. (2013). Ash School Inspection Report. Manchester, UK: Crown.Google Scholar

Perryman, J., Ball, S., Maguire, M., and Braun, A. (2011). ‘Life in the Pressure Cooker–School League Tables and English and Mathematics Teachers’ Responses to Accountability in a Results-Driven Era’. British Journal of Educational Studies, 59(2), 179–195.CrossRef Google Scholar

Spielman, A. (2017). Amanda Spielman on the Launch of Ofsted’s Annual Report 2016/17. London, UK: Ofsted.Google Scholar

Tedick, D. J., Christian, D., and Fortune, T. W. (2011). ‘The Future of Immersion Education: An Invitation to “Dwell in Possibility”’, in Tedick, D. J., Christian, D., and Fortune, T. W. (eds.), Immersion Education: Practices, Policies, Possibilities. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters, pp. 1–10.CrossRef Google Scholar

Tinsley, T., and Doležal, N. (2018). Language Trends 2018: Language Teaching in Primary and Secondary Schools in England Survey Report. London, UK: British Council.Google Scholar

Tinsley, T., and Doležal, N. (2019). Language Trends 2019: Language Teaching in Primary and Secondary Schools in England Survey Report. London, UK: British Council.Google Scholar

Van Mensel, L., Hiligsmann, P., Mettewie, L., and Galand, B. (2020). ‘CLIL, an Elitist Language Learning Approach? A Background Analysis of English and Dutch CLIL Pupils in French-Speaking Belgium’. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 33(1), 1–14.Google Scholar

Wiesemes, R. (2005). The Final Report for the Content and Language Integrated Project. London, UK: CILT.Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

Accessibility compliance for the HTML of this chapter is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.