Discourse in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) Classrooms
Abstract
The label CLIL stands for classrooms where a foreign language (English) is used as a medium of instruction in content subjects. This book provides a first in-depth analysis of the kind of communicative abilities which are embodied in such CLIL classrooms. It examines teacher and student talk at secondary school level from different discourse-analytic angles, taking into account the interpersonal pragmatics of classroom discourse and how school subjects are talked into being during lessons. The analysis shows how CLIL classroom interaction is strongly shaped by its institutional context, which in turn conditions the ways in which students experience, use and learn the target language. The research presented here suggests that CLIL programmes require more explicit language learning goals in order to fully exploit their potential for furthering the learners’ appropriation of a foreign language as a medium of learning.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In CLIL lessons in Austria, questions for facts were predominant at 89%, and short student responses featuring single noun phrases persisted independent of the type of questions.
“In contrast, Dalton-Puffer (2007) found in CLIL lessons in Austria that while questions for facts were predominant at 89%, short student responses featuring single noun phrases persisted independent of the type of questions.”
From Teacher questions, wait time, and student output in classroom interaction in EMI science classes: An interdisciplinary view (2023) · cites this paper as Dalton-Puffer (2007)
Evidence remains inconclusive as to whether higher-order thinking questions elicit more substantial and complicated student responses in EMI classes, as claimed for L1 classes.
“Thus, evidence remains inconclusive as to whether higher-order thinking questions elicit more substantial and complicated student responses in EMI classes, as claimed for L1 classes.”
From Teacher questions, wait time, and student output in classroom interaction in EMI science classes: An interdisciplinary view (2023) · cites this paper as Dalton-Puffer (2007)
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Own-language use in language teaching and learning
Hall, G., & Cook, G. (2012) · Language Teaching · doi:10.1017/s0261444812000067 · Cited by 466 · see citing works
Exploring translanguaging in CLIL
Nikula, T., & Moore, P. (2019) · International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism · doi:10.1080/13670050.2016.1254151 · Cited by 225 · see citing works
Content and Language Integrated Learning: A research agenda
Dalton-Puffer, C., & Smit, U. (2013) · Language Teaching · doi:10.1017/s0261444813000256 · Cited by 169 · see citing works
Self-citationGrandinetti, M., Langellotti, M., & Ting, Y. L. T. (2013) · International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism · doi:10.1080/13670050.2013.777390 · Cited by 58 · see citing works
Moore, P., & Lorenzo, F. (2015) · The Language Learning Journal · doi:10.1080/09571736.2015.1053282 · Cited by 51 · see citing works
An, J., & Childs, A. (2023) · Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching · doi:10.14746/ssllt.38283 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
“In contrast, Dalton-Puffer (2007) found in CLIL lessons in Austria that while questions for facts were predominant at 89%, short student responses featuring single noun phrases persisted independent of the type of questions.”
- Authors
- Dalton-Puffer, C.
- Affiliations
- University of Vienna
- Venue
- Language Learning & Language Teaching
- Publisher
- John Benjamins Publishing Company
- Published
- 2007-09-27
- ISSN
- 1569-9471 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2239004722
- Cited by
- 833
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 25 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 46 · 2023: 54 · 2022: 86 · 2021: 57 · 2020: 80 · 2019: 54 · 2018: 87 · 2017: 52 · 2016: 43 · 2015: 55 · 2014: 42 · 2013: 37 · 2012: 35
- FWCI
- 74.99
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Language learning and language teaching (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Second Language Learning and Teaching
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
- Social Sciences › Linguistics and Language › Multilingual Education and Policy
- Keywords
- CLIL, classroom discourse, English-medium instruction, teacher discourse, student discourse, interpersonal pragmatics, secondary schools, institutional environment, communicative competence, language learning goals, foreign language learning
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
