In a world of global communication, it is becoming increasingly important to communicate in English. As English is shifting from being a foreign language (EFL) to becoming a second language (ESL) in particularly the Nordic countries, we are seeing a growing need to use English outside of the English classroom (Hellekjær, 2016; Rindal, 2014). Many European countries (e.g. Spain, Finland, the Netherlands) have turned to the alternative teaching method, Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL), in which a content subject (e.g., science, and math) is taught through a second or foreign language (Georgiou, 2012). It is believed that CLIL instruction can prepare students in Europe to express themselves in English outside of the traditional EFL/ESL classroom, and can be a future avenue for students who need to communicate internationally. The European Commission has put particular emphasis on CLIL as being a vial approach for this.

The main focus of CLIL research has been on language learning outcomes (Nikula & Mård-Miettinen, 2014). However, even internationally, there is limited data on how CLIL teachers teach their subject, and how CLIL is practiced in European schools (De Graaff, Koopman, Anikina, & Westhoff, 2007; Escobar Urmeneta, 2013; Relaño Pastor, 2015; Roiha, 2014; Tardieu & Dolitsky, 2012). It is unclear if the content subject is taught at a lower level or is of lower quality because the students are not proficient enough in the target language (Cummins, 1984). Another question is if the students are provided enough language scaffolding to understand the lesson (Coyle, Hood, & Marsh, 2010). This would point to teacher practices where content and language support each other, but to date there have been few studies that have examined this (Brevik & Moe, 2012). 

Our study investigates this dual aspect of content and language integrated learning by observing a Norwegian CLIL classroom where science and math were taught in English. By analyzing science, math and English teaching, this study sheds light on the quality of the teaching of content and language in these classes, and how and to what extent content and language are represented and taught in these subjects. By macro-analyzing teaching practices, we examine if the CLIL methods these teachers use represent and support content and language.

This study is informed by the importance of the interrelation between content and language in CLIL instruction (Coyle et al., 2010; Cummins, 1984). In classrooms where the language of instruction is not scaffolded, results have indicated that students do not have access to or understand the material (Brock-Utne, 2007; Hellekjær, 2016). We therefore need to identify the language needs of a student to understand their subject, and teachers must address this in their CLIL teaching. The relationship between content and language is vital for the CLIL classroom, and this is where we position our study in our framework and analysis.

Brevik, L. M., & Moe, E. (2012). Effects of CLIL teaching on language outcomes. In D. C. Tsagari, Ildikó (Ed.), Collaboration in Language Testing and Assessment (Vol. 26, pp. 213-227): Peter Lang AG. Brock-Utne, B. (2007). Language of instruction and student performance: new insights from research in Tanzania and South Africa.(Author abstract)(Report). International Review of Education/Internationale Zeitschrift fur Erziehungswissenschaft/Revue internationale l'education, 53(5 6), 509. Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). Content and Language Integrated Learning: Cambridge University Press. Cummins, J. (1984). Bilingualism and Special Education: Issues in Assessment and Pedagogy. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. De Graaff, R., Koopman, G., Anikina, Y., & Westhoff, G. (2007). An Observation Tool for Effective L2 Pedagogy in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL). International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(5), 603-624. doi:10.2167/beb462.0 Escobar Urmeneta, C. (2013). Learning to become a CLIL teacher: teaching, reflection and professional development. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16(3), 334-353. doi:10.1080/13670050.2013.777389 Georgiou, S. I. (2012). Reviewing the puzzle of CLIL. ELT journal, 66(4), 495-504. Grossman, P. (2015). Protocol for Language Arts Teaching Observations (PLATO 5.0). Palo Alto: Stanford University. Hellekjær, G. O. (2016). Arbeidsrelevante engelskferdigheter - Et udekket behov i norsk høyere utdanning. Uniped(01), 7-23. Nikula, T., & Mård-Miettinen, K. (2014). Language Learning in Immersion and CLIL Classrooms. In J.-O. Östman & J. Verschueren (Eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Relaño Pastor, A. (2015). The commodification of English in ‘Madrid, comunidad bilingüe’: insights from the CLIL classroom. Language Policy, 14(2), 131-152. doi:10.1007/s10993-014-9338-7 Rindal, U. (2014). What is English? Acta Didactica, 8 Temanummer om engelsk og fremmedspråk. Utviklingstrender fram mot 2030 [Thematic Issue about English and Foreign Languages. Developmental Trends toward 2030](2). Roiha, A. S. (2014). Teachers’ views on differentiation in content and language integrated learning (CLIL): Perceptions, practices and challenges. Language and Education, 28(1), 1-18. doi:10.1080/09500782.2012.748061 Tardieu, C., & Dolitsky, M. (2012). Integrating the task-based approach to CLIL teaching. In J. d. Dios (Ed.), Teaching and Learning English through Bilingual Education (pp. 3-35): Cambridge Scholars Publishing.