English Teaching: Practice and Critique

December, 2011, Volume 10, Number 4

http://education.waikato.ac.nz/research/files/etpc/files/2011v10n4art7.pdf
pp. 116-126

The impact of CLIL on L2 vocabulary development and content knowledge

MARIA XANTHOU
University of Cyprus
ABSTRACT: This paper examines whether students involved in CLIL are able
to learn content through the medium of L2 and simultaneously exhibit
significant gains in L2 vocabulary knowledge. Two experiments were set up in
two public primary schools. Two groups of 6th grade students participated in
each experiment. The first group was taught three 80-minute Science lessons
through the medium of L2 English, while the second group was taught the
same content through the medium of L1 Greek. The outcomes demonstrated a
significant effect of CLIL (p= .001) on L2 vocabulary knowledge of the
experimental groups, which outperformed the control groups that were not
exposed to CLIL. A significant effect (p= .000) of treatment on content
knowledge was shown for both experimental and control groups. Observation
of three video-taped Science lessons provided more information about the
learning processes allowing benefits for CLIL students. Avenues for further
related research are discussed.
KEYWORDS: CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning), L2
learning, subject matter learning, experimental study, action research.
INTRODUCTION
Increasing attention to Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) is due to
the European aspirations of providing a multilingual education (Van de Craen, 2001).
The European Union seeks to promote Content and Language Integrated Learning,
hoping that students might benefit from the experience of content and language
integrated learning (CLIL) (Council of Europe, 2005, p. 32). The European
Commission urges in the White Paper that secondary school pupils should study
certain subjects in the first foreign language learned, as is the case in the European
schools (European Commission, 1995, p. 51), where the L2s serve as language of
instruction for certain subjects.
A basic principle regarding modern languages, on which the Committee of Ministers
of the Council of Europe has based its work to prepare the Common European
Framework (CEF), is that only through a better knowledge of European modern
languages will it be possible to facilitate communication and interaction among
Europeansin order to promote European mobility, mutual understanding and cooperation (Council of Europe, 2001, p. 2). Among the variety of general approaches
outlined in the Common European Framework is the direct exposure to authentic use
of language in L2 in several ways such as participating in courses in other
curriculum subjects which employ L2 as a medium of instruction (p. 143).
Theoretical groundings of content and language integrated learning
CLIL is based on theories assuming that language is acquired implicitly (Krashen,
1982), in interaction with the social environment and through the scaffolding of

Copyright 2011, ISSN 1175 8708

M. Xanthou

The impact of CLIL on L2 vocabulary development and content knowledge

facilitative language learning (Vygotsky, 1978). Knowledge is constructed when

linked with prior knowledge (Piaget, 1963), and both the academic and social aspects
of language can be acquired simultaneously (Cummins, 1981).
Implicit acquisition of language
Content and language integrated instruction was influenced by Krashens theory of
second language acquisition (1982). Krashen argued that acquisition takes place when
the language skills are developed through use in a way similar to how native speakers
learn grammatical rules. Otherwise, when language ability is developed through
formal instruction, this conscious knowledge is called learning. Krashen held that
only meaning-focused instruction can meet the first condition.
These suggestions imply that second language instruction primarily needs to be based
on meaningful material, just as natural language is always learned in meaningful
situations (De Graaff, Koopman, Anikina & Westhoff, 2007). CLIL is a meaningfocused learning method, where language knowledge is not the ultimate aim but
rather a vehicle for instruction (Van de Craen & Mondt, 2003).
Social contructivist theory
Vygotskys (1978) social constructivist theory emphasises the importance of
constructing mediation. It is assumed that language is the tool which mediates mental
functioning. In this regard, learning is facilitated by teacher and peers who help the
individual reach the zone of proximal development (ZPD), that is, the area between
the persons actual developmental level and the level of their potential development.
Van de Craen and Mondt (2003) assert that a CLIL class is an ideal environment for
scaffolding to occur. Teacher and learners interact in their effort to make sense of
activities and get messages across.
Cognitive constructivist theory
A cognitive constructivist theory of learning postulates that learning involves the
individual construction of knowledge which builds on prior learning (Piaget, 1963).
Constructivist theory suggests that meaningful contexts are a prerequisite for learning
to occur, providing a rationale for the CLIL approach. In this perspective, learning is
more powerful when many strong connections are created. New material which is
linked to prior knowledge is likely to be better retained, as knowledge is
interconnected.
In CLIL classes, content acts as the driving force for students making connections
between new and prior knowledge. The more the number of connections relate to
prior knowledge, the greater learning is enhanced. In contrast, facts and language
skills taught in isolation need much more practice and rehearsal before they can be
internalised.
Language development theory
Another hypothesis providing support for content enriched language learning is the
belief that humans develop two different kinds of language proficiency: social and

English Teaching: Practice and Critique

117

M. Xanthou

The impact of CLIL on L2 vocabulary development and content knowledge

academic language (Cummins, 1981). Social language is informal and cognitively less
demanding as a result of being contextualised. Academic language is more formal
and cognitively demanding. CLIL instruction seems to promote both sides of the
target language simultaneously. By using content-area texts and tasks as a vehicle for
strengthening L2 proficiency, educators may enable the development of both
academic concepts and target language skills.
The common factor stressed by all four theories described above is that learners
require substantial and meaningful contextualised language input. This idea meets the
requirements of the European Council (2001) as described in the Common European
Framework, that the most important thing a teacher can do is provide the richest
possible linguistic environment in which learning can take place without formal
teaching (p. 139). This rich linguistic environment may require increased exposure to
L2 in a content-oriented, discourse-based language teaching environment such as
CLIL. In this framework, students can be exposed to contextualised language
learning.
Research related to implementing content and language integrated learning
Content-based instruction in L2 has been put into practice in Canadas immersion
education from the 1970s onwards (Harley, Allen, Cummins & Swain, 1990) and
later in the foreign language across the curriculum movement in the U.S. and
Britain. However, a wide applicability of content-based instruction has taken place the
last 15 years, with its being implemented in countries such as Hong Kong, Australia,
Indonesia and Argentina.
The CLIL approach is a fast developing phenomenon in Europe, too. The Eurydice
survey notes that the initiatives in the field of CLIL have increased in recent years
(European Commission, 2005, p. 55). CLIL-type provision is part of mainstream
school education in most countries at primary and secondary levels.
Research findings regarding students academic gains are at a preliminary stage.
Stoller (2004, p. 264) reports that students involved in such courses exit the courses
with improved language abilities and content-area knowledge gains. Langam (2003)
investigated English language learners in middle-school classrooms. The researchers
observed retention of vocabulary and content concepts. More recently, CLIL
implementation in Estonia revealed development in the four language skills of the
target language. The students in Russian-language schools were taught at least half of
the subjects of the national curriculum through the medium of L2 Estonian by
focusing on content, negotiating the meaning of language and content and being
involved in active learning. Results showed that they met curriculum expectations in
mathematics and science (Mehisto & Asser, 2007).
However, a number of studies involving immersion settings did not exhibit the results
that were anticipated. For example, evaluation of the Canadian, bilingual education
experience did not show the advantages that were predicted, that is, improved
language skills (Harley et al., 1990). However, this could be attributed to the focus of
teaching being placed on content, following a content-driven approach that leaves
language learning to be incidental.

English Teaching: Practice and Critique

118

M. Xanthou

The impact of CLIL on L2 vocabulary development and content knowledge

Collectively, the results of research findings suggest that CLIL may have positive
outcomes on learners L2 proficiency. However, scientific research regarding CLIL
implementation is still at an embryonic stage. Researchers do not seem to have
reached a consensus on the efficacy of the particular program in respect of both
content and L2 knowledge. More longitudinal studies are required in order to examine
the linguistic and academic outcomes of CLIL. This study aims to contribute to this
discussion by examining the results of two experiments involving content learning
through the medium of L2 and through L1 as well as discourse in CLIL classes.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The current study employed both a qualitative and a quantitative methodology in
order to ensure triangulation of data provided by the various sources, that is,
presenting data from more than one source. An experimental pretest/posttest research
design provided quantitative data about the impact of the CLIL program on content
knowledge and L2 vocabulary development. Three CLIL lessons were video-taped,
allowing observation of the students reactions to learning content and vocabulary in
this environment.
Quantitative measurements: Quasi-experiments
Two quasi-experiments were set up collecting data from intact/sixth grade classrooms
which were formed for teaching purposes. It was not practicable to rearrange students
into different groups as this would raise objections on the part of the students and
their parents, since the former would be separated from their friends for a whole year.
Analysis of covariance was used to balance possible initial differences between the
groups.
Internal validity was improved by adding more than one experimental and control
groups. The two experiments aimed to compare teaching content through two
different approaches. The first experiment was carried out by the researcher who
implemented CLIL in Science, while the second experiment was carried out by
another teacher who repeated the first experiment. This research design provided two
experimental and two control groups.
Each teacher had to teach the same content to two different classes. The first class was
taught content through L1 whereas the second class was through L2. The two teachers
strictly adhered to the same lesson plans in order to control for differences in the
teaching styles between them. Instruction in both experimental and control groups
promoted inquiry learning. Lessons in both L1 and L2 included problem
identification, hypothesis formation, brainstorming of solutions, investigation through
experimentation, data collection and analysis, discussion, forming conclusions, and
reaching generalisations. The three 80-minute science lessons were carried out once a
week lasting three weeks. It was hypothesized that students in the CLIL class would
a) have significant gains in L2 vocabulary knowledge out-performing their
counterparts who were not involved in CLIL, and b) exhibit significant improvement
in content knowledge development.

English Teaching: Practice and Critique

119

M. Xanthou

The impact of CLIL on L2 vocabulary development and content knowledge

The subjects involved in both experiments were 77 11-year-old, Grade 6 learners

attending an urban and suburban school in Cyprus. The first experiment involved 31
children while the second involved 46. Two intact classes were involved in each
experiment, being assigned to experimental and control groups. Figure 1 illustrates
the procedure followed:

A: Non CLIL G1 O1 X content L1 O2

(15)

CLIL G2 P1 X content L2 P2 (16)

B: Non CLIL G3 Q1 X content L1 Q2 (21)

CLIL G4 R1 X content L2 R2 (25)

Figure 1. The experimental design of the study

In the first case, G1 stands for the control group which was taught content through L1
for five, 40-minute lessons and finally reached state O2. G2 is the experimental group,
starting from stage P1, which was taught content through L2, reaching state P2. In the
second case, G3 represents the control group which started from stage Q1, was taught
content through L1 and reached state Q2, whereas G4 is the experimental group
which started from stage R1, was taught content through L2 and finally reached stage
R2.
Initially, the children in the two groups were administered L2 vocabulary knowledge
pre-tests and on completion of the unit they were administered the same post-tests.
The experimental groups: Class information
The experimental group of the first experiment included sixteen students, of which
eight were boys and eight were girls, while the control group involved fifteen
subjects, of which six were boys and nine were girls. Participants attended a suburban
school. The experimental group of the second experiment included 25 children, 16
boys and 9 girls, while the control group involved 21 pupils, 8 boys and 13 girls. The
pupils of the second experiment attended an urban primary school in Cyprus for
Grades 1 to 6. The first primary school was small, having 106 students and situated in
a suburban area with a mixed socioeconomic profile, while the second one was a big
school having more than 400 students, with the majority of them having middle-class
parents.
The children were heterogeneously grouped into their class, as regards
academic/linguistic performance and gender, being taught English as a foreign
language twice a week for a 40-minute period each time. Participants spoke Cypriot
Greek as their L1. Students of both groups attended private English classes.
The two female teachers who participated in the study were selected (on the school
inspectors advice) for their enthusiasm in teaching. Both teachers had a good
relationship with their students. They were certified elementary school teachers for all
subjects and had a good command of English (level C1 at the CEFR scale), both
having pursued studies in the UK. The first one had an MA in Education from a

English Teaching: Practice and Critique

120

M. Xanthou

The impact of CLIL on L2 vocabulary development and content knowledge

British University, while the second held an MA in Applied Linguistics. They both
had a long experience in EFL teaching.
The teacher in the first experiment had 18 years of teaching experience but hadnt
taught CLIL before. The teacher in the second experiment had 17 years of teaching
experience and was teaching CLIL for the second time Treatment materials were
developed specifically for the experiment, following the objectives of the state
curriculum.
Vocabulary and content tests
The subjects in the control and experimental groups were administered pre- and posttreatment tests in order to strengthen the internal validity of the study. Vocabulary
pre-post tests assessed vocabulary breadth, that is, how many words the learner knows
and not depth. The vocabulary test required students to give the equivalent in L1 to
100 lexical items given in L2. The items were related to content words of the
Geography unit and the maximum score was 100. Subject-matter tests included truefalse, matching, multiple-choice and completion (short answer) tasks. Content tests
assessed only cognitive objectives. L2 students were given the test items in both L1
and L2 in order to allow for greater understanding of the interactions among the testtakers L1 and L2 knowledge, their content knowledge, and the linguistic and content
demands of the test
Qualitative measurements
Qualitative data from experimental classrooms were collected in order to enable the
interpretation of the quantitative data. These include observation data which provided
more details on the learning process. Data were mechanically recorded in the form of
audio and video recordings in order to safeguard the internal reliability of the results.
RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
Experiments
Experiment 1
The t-test showed that there were no significant differences between the two groups
on content (p= .454 > .05) and vocabulary knowledge (p= .724) at the outset of the
study.
Pre-tests were administered one week before treatment, while post-tests were
administered four days after the day of attending the last lesson in order to examine
retention of learning. The subject matter tests included test items in both L1 and L2
(Solano-Flores & Trumbull, 2003). Paired sample t-tests were carried out in order to
compare the pre-test/post-test performance of the two groups content and vocabulary
knowledge. The CLIL experimental group exhibited a significant increase in content
knowledge (p= .000) with a mean difference of 36.95. The CLIL group also showed
a significant difference p= .000 on vocabulary knowledge indicating a positive effect
of the treatment. The mean difference (9.06) indicated a positive impact of CLIL on
L2 vocabulary knowledge.

English Teaching: Practice and Critique

121

M. Xanthou

The impact of CLIL on L2 vocabulary development and content knowledge

The group which was taught content through L1 exhibited a significant improvement
in content knowledge (t= 8.72, p= .000). The control group did not exhibit a
significant difference in vocabulary knowledge (t= 1.89, p= .079). The small mean
difference (1.86) could be attributed to out-of-school English language learning
experiences, such as taking private EFL classes.
A content post-test comparison between the experimental and control groups was
carried out. The test revealed non-significant differences, suggesting that both groups
learned subject-matter content (p= .413). A vocabulary post-test comparison between
the two groups showed a non-significant difference between the groups (p= .094),
although there was a mean difference (6.24), suggesting that more language oriented
activities could enhance L2 vocabulary development.
Experiment 2
The t-test showed that there were no significant differences between the two groups
on content (p= .527> .05) and vocabulary (p= .395) knowledge at the outset of the
study.
Paired sample t-tests showed that the CLIL experimental group exhibited a significant
increase in content knowledge (t= 6.29, p= .000) with a mean difference of 21.20. The
CLIL group also showed a significant difference t= 5.47, p= .000 on vocabulary
knowledge indicating a positive effect of the treatment. The mean difference (6.24)
indicated a positive impact of CLIL on L2 vocabulary knowledge, that is, students
acquired a significant amount of receptive vocabulary.
The group which was taught content through L1 exhibited a significant improvement
in content knowledge (t= 7.30, p= .000). The control group did not exhibit a
significant difference in vocabulary knowledge (t= .748, p= .463). The small mean
difference (0.38) could be attributed to out-of-school English language learning
experiences such as taking private EFL classes.
Content post-test comparison between the experimental and control groups was
carried out. The tests showed a non-significant difference, suggesting that both groups
were successful in learning subject-matter content (p= .086).
A vocabulary post-test comparison between the two groups revealed a significant
difference (p= .002; mean difference, 7.23) favouring the CLIL group, indicating the
beneficial effect of CLIL on L2 vocabulary development.
Experiments 1 and 2
The scores of both experiments were considered to investigate the effects of the
medium of instruction on content and vocabulary knowledge. Students were allowed a
40-minute period to complete each test.
Pre-tests showed non significant differences between the two groups in content (p=
.305) and L2 vocabulary (p= .769) knowledge at the outset of the study. Results
showed that CLIL instruction was significantly better (p= .001) than teaching through
L1, in promoting L2 vocabulary development. Further, a non-significant difference
(p= .078) was revealed in subjects post-tests, suggesting that students were able to

English Teaching: Practice and Critique

122

M. Xanthou

The impact of CLIL on L2 vocabulary development and content knowledge

learn science content equally well when they are taught through the medium of L2.
These outcomes seem to provide support for the two hypotheses.
Observation data
Acquiring language in meaningful settings
Observation data showed that CLIL provides opportunities for acquiring language in
meaningful settings. For example, the paper experiment enabled the pupils to learn the
word neutralise in a pleasant and meaningful way. The tin experiment helped the
children to conclude that by reducing part of the air from the inside, the pressure in
the inside of the tin was reduced and the tin was deformed by the pressure exercised
from the outside. Target words were encountered in a meaningful context, for
example, deformation. Such a meaning-focused processing enabled connections to
knowledge allowing exposure to language to be effective (De Graaff et al., 2007).
Interacting with the teacher
CLIL lessons provided numerous opportunities for the pupils to interact with the
teacher. For example, after the hypothesis formation of the tin experiment, the
experiment was carried out, and then teachers and students jointly formed the
conclusion.The teachers asked for explanations about some applications of the
atmospheric pressure. They asked questions such as What happens? Why? What
do you think?.
Teachers also repeated and expanded students answers, for example:
T:
S:
T:

What can you see on the picture?

An octopus.
Yes, the octopus hooks with its suction cups on the mans hand

The second teacher used the oral gap-filling strategy, that is, students completed the
teachers phrases, using target or other content words, for example:
T:
Ss:

The atmospheric pressure presses the suction cups on the mans

Hands

Building on prior knowledge

Pupils were invited to construct new learning on pre-existing knowledge. Codeswitching was used when necessary in order to facilitate knowledge retrieval. For
example, subjects were called to report how they realise the existence of air. They
reported answers such as, It moves the leaves, and It raises dust, and so on.
Students L1 was used to recall experiences (Experiments 1 and 2, Lesson 1).
Promoting both social and academic sides of the target language
The teachers drew students attention using phrases such as: Have a look, thereby
enriching their social language. Added to this, at the end of each experiment, the
teachers restated the conclusion using academic language in the L2.

English Teaching: Practice and Critique

123

M. Xanthou

The impact of CLIL on L2 vocabulary development and content knowledge

PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS
In general, findings seem to provide support for the positive impact of CLIL on
content and L2 vocabulary development. CLIL provides increased opportunities for
exposing learners to L2 vocabulary knowledge in meaningful situations. Attaching
words to their surroundings increases the likelihood of comprehension and retention
(Schmitt & Schmitt, 1995, p. 133). Teacher-student interaction allows scaffolding
and constructing knowledge. Further, activating background world and linguistic
knowledge (Piaget, 1963) through discussion creates a fertile ground for content and
language learning. Certainly, linguistic interaction carried out exclusively in L1 can
allow more opportunities for interaction than in L2. However, the L2 benefits
occurring alongside content learning in CLIL environments may justify employing the
approach.
CLIL students may encounter difficulties in conveying and constructing contentrelated meaning in the way CLIL is delivered, that is, task-based learning on its own.
Therefore, CLIL methodology needs to be developed. Strategies that make input
comprehensible seem to be necessary. Perhaps the use of particular strategies by the
teacher such as visuals may enhance the communication of content (Short, 1994).
Simultaneously, drawing attention to language features through both L2 medium
strategies, that is, through synonyms or paraphrasing, and L1 medium strategies, that
is, through code-switching, may enhance L2 benefits (Coonan, 2007; De Graaff et al.,
2007).
LIMITATIONS: DIRECTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
The current research raises a number of issues requiring further investigation. To
begin with, variables such as habits, student motivation and personal exposure to
other language learning environments were not controlled in the present study.
Added to this, some variables related to lesson delivery could not be controlled, such
as the teachers personality, abilities and attitudes, all of which could have made a
difference to the outcomes.
Certainly, more rigorous research in the area of CLIL is required to corroborate and
enhance the present findings and to fill in gaps.The small sample employed in the
study imposed limitations on interpretation. Both space and time triangulations are
required to ensure the validity of this type of study. Further comparative research is
required across specific populations.
The post-tests administered in this study examined subjects immediate performance.
However, a delayed test might have examined whether learning is retained or
atrophied over time. Re-testing participants in the years to come is likely to shed more
light on the long-term benefits of CLIL. CLIL could be implemented using as content
areas, subjects other than Science, such as History, Geography and Maths, in order to
enhance the generalisability of findings.
Another line of investigation is to explore the experimental groups oral and written
discourse level (productive skills) in relation to that of the students being taught the
content subject in L1.

English Teaching: Practice and Critique

124

M. Xanthou

The impact of CLIL on L2 vocabulary development and content knowledge

Equally pressing is the need to explore the optimal conditions of language and content
integrated programs, such as the choice of texts either adapted to students level or
authentic, and the kind of instructional strategies being used. A lesson planning tool
may need to be developed.
Although definitive conclusions cannot yet be reached regarding the exact value of
CLIL in content and language learning, the results of the present study suggest that
the issue of learning content through a foreign language is a fertile ground for further
research.
CONCLUSION
Empirical evidence derived from this study suggests that learning content through the
medium of the L2 provides opportunities for learning content and language in
meaningful settings, activates background knowledge, allows linguistic interaction
with teacher and peers which allows scaffolding to occur, and promotes both the
academic and social aspects of the target language. Clearly, language development
depends heavily on various factors such as cultural and linguistic affiliation with the
teacher and the teachers pedagogical approach.
The results of the two small-scale experiments provide support for Kaufmans (2004)
claim that the symbiosis of foreign language and content seems to be promising in
enhancing foreign language acquisition. The findings also indicate benefits in content
learning. However, they also highlight the need for developing CLIL methodology for
primary-school learners that would allow reaping more benefits out of this approach.
REFERENCES
Coonan, C. M. (2007). Insider views of the CLIL class through teacher selfobservation-introspection. The International Journal of Bilingual Education and
Bilingualism, 10(5), 625-646.
Council of Europe. (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages:
Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
Press. Retrieved December 4 from
http://www.coe.int/T/DG4/Linguistic/Source/Framework_EN.pdf.
Cummins, J. (1981). The role of primary language development in promoting
educational success for language minority students. In C. F. Leyba (Ed.),
Schooling and language minority students: A theoretical framework, (pp. 3-49).
Los Angeles, CA: Evaluation, Dissemination and Assessment Centre,
California State University.
De Graaff, R., Koopman, G., Anikina, Y., & Westhoff, G. (2007). An observation
tool for effective L2 pedagogy in content and language integrate learning
(CLIL). The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism,
10(5), 603- 624.
European Commission. (1995). White Paper. Teaching and learning towards the
learning society. Retrieved from at
http://europa.eu/documents/comm/white_papers/pdf/com95_590_en.pdf.

English Teaching: Practice and Critique

125

M. Xanthou

The impact of CLIL on L2 vocabulary development and content knowledge

Harley, B., Allen, P., Cummins, J., & Swain, M. (1990). The development of second
language proficiency. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Kaufman, D. (2004). Constructivist issues in language learning and teaching. Annual
Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 303-319.
Krashen, D. S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. New
York, NY: Pergamon Institute of English.
Langman, J. (2003). The effects of ESL-trained content-area teachers: Reducing
middle-school students to incidental language learners. Prospect, 18(1), 14-26.
Mehisto, P., & Asser, H. (2007). Stakeholder perspectives: CLIL programme
management in Estonia. The International Journal of Bilingual Education and
Bilingualism, 10(5), 683-701.
Piaget, J. (1963). The origins of intelligence in children. New York, NY: Norton and
Company.
Schmitt, N., & Schmitt, D. (1995). Vocabulary notebooks: Theoretical underpinnings
and practical suggestions. English Language Teaching, 49(2), 133-143.
Short, D. (1994). Expanding middle school horizons: Integrating language, culture,
and social studies. TESOL Quarterly, 28(3), 581-608.
Solano-Flores, G., & Trumbull, E. (2003). Examining language in context: The need
for new research and practice paradigms in the testing of English-language
learners. Educational Researcher, 32(2), 3-13.
Stoller, F. L. (2004). Content-based instruction: Perspectives on curriculum planning.
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 261-283.
Van de Craen, P. (2001). Content- and language- integrated learning, culture of
education and learning theories. In M. Bax & J-W Zwart (Eds.), Reflections on
language and language learning In honour of Arthur van Essen (pp. 209220). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamin.
Van de Craen, P., & Mondt, K. (2003). Multilingual education, learning and the brain:
The end of (language) education as a pre-scientific field. In L. Mondada & S.
Pekarek Doehler (Eds.), Plurilinguisme Mehrsprachigkeit, plurilingualism (pp.
209-217). Tbingen, Germany: Francke.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher psychological
Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Manuscript received: August 12, 2011
Revision received: November 4, 2011
Accepted: December 7, 2011

English Teaching: Practice and Critique

126