Content and Language Integrated Learning in Castilla-La Mancha, Spain: Exploring Pedagogical Practices and Experiences through Classroom Observations


  • Devika Rani Devika Rani Assistant Professor-Senior Scale, Department of Humanities and Management, Manipal Institute of Technology, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, Karnataka, India-576104
  • Prof Neeta Inamdar Head--Manipal Centre for European Studies, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, Karnataka 576104, India



Content and Language Integrated Learning, Classroom observations, Holistic Learning, Multilingual-Competence,Pedagogical Practices


Background: Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) is a European innovative interdisciplinary educational convergence that intends to promote multilingual competence among students through the learning of the subjects in a second/foreign language. This approach is considered one of the significant developments in the field of education that emerged in the last decade of the twentieth century garnering massive acceptance and implementation in schools and universities in Europe and other parts of Asia.

Purpose: Although one can see a growing number of research studies and classroom experiments on CLIL in diverse educational contexts, in other countries such as India, education exhibits lacuna in terms of knowledge, research and practice. Therefore, a research study was designed with the objective of exploring and understanding the nature and method of CLIL practices prevalent in bilingual primary and secondary school classrooms in Castilla La Mancha, Spain. Spain was chosen because it is one of the pioneering countries that steered an exhaustive variety of research and experiments in CLIL practices in its diverse educational contexts.

Methods: Adopting qualitative research method Participant Classroom Observations, twenty classes of two bilingual schools—fifteen classes of Natural Science and Social Science in primary school and five classes of Music at Secondary School that used CLIL approach were observed and findings recorded using observation template.

Results: The findings provided a myriad view of the bilingual experiences in the classrooms, diversity and range of pedagogical practices used, student teacher interaction dynamics present, positive learning environment provided for the students in the classes to mention a few.

 Conclusion: The study concludes with the understanding of the ‘added value’ and the numerous benefits the approach provides for the students. As a fresh and innovative approach, CLIL promotes holistic and meaningful learning catering to the needs of twenty first century education systems.



Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Prof Neeta Inamdar, Head--Manipal Centre for European Studies, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, Karnataka 576104, India

Prof Neeta Inamdar, PhD

Jean Monnet Chair 

Head-Manipal Centre for European Studies 

Jean Monnet Centre of Excellence 
Chief Editor - Manipal Universal Press (MUP) 



Agudo, J. D. D. M. (2019). Which instructional programme (EFL or CLIL) results in better oral communicative competence? Updated empirical evidence from a monolingual con-text. Linguistics and Education, 51, 69-78.

Baker, L. (2006). Observation: A complex research method. Library trends, 55(1), 171-189. Library Trends v.55, no. 1, 2006 (

Ballinger, S., Lyster, R., Sterzuk, A., & Genesee, F. (2017). Context-appropriate crosslinguistic pedagogy: Considering the role of language status in immersion education. Journal of Immer-sion and Content-Based Language Education, 5(1), 30-57.

Codó, E. (2020). The dilemmas of experimental CLIL in Catalonia. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 1-17.

Costa, F., & D’Angelo, L. (2011). CLIL: A suit for all seasons. Latin American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning, 4(1). doi:10.5294/ laclil.2011.4.1.1 ISSN 2011-6721.

Coyle, D. (2007). Content and language integrated learning: Towards a connected research agenda for CLIL pedagogies. International journal of bilingual education and bilingual-ism, 10(5), 543-562.

Coyle, D., Holmes, B., & King, L. (2009). Towards an integrated curriculum–CLIL National Statement and Guidelines. London: The Languages Company.

Swain, M., & Cummins, J. (1979). Bilingualism, cognitive functioning and education. Language Teaching, 12(1), 4-18.

Dalton-Puffer, C. (2008). Outcomes and processes in Content and Language Integrated Learn-ing (CLIL): current research from Europe.

Dalton-Puffer, C., Nikula, T., & Smit, U. (Eds.). (2010). Language use and language learning in CLIL classrooms (Vol. 7). John Benjamins Publishing Amsterdam.

Darvin, R., Lo, Y. Y., & Lin, A. M. (2020). Examining CLIL through a critical lens. English Teaching & Learning, 44(2), 103-108.

Díaz Pérez, W., Fields, D. L., & Marsh, D. (2018). Innovations and challenges: Conceptualiz-ing CLIL practice. Theory Into Practice, 57(3), 177-184.

Gándara, D. G. (2017). The Role of the Students in the CLIL Classroom A New Perspective to Identify Types of Tasks. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Litera-ture, 6(4), 5-10.

Gibbons, P. (2002). Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Scaffolding Learning

Gold, R. L. (1997). The ethnographic method in sociology. Qualitative inquiry, 3(4), 388-402.

Gorman, G. E., Clayton, P. R., Shep, S. J., & Clayton, A. (2005). Qualitative research for the information professional: A practical handbook. Facet Publishing.

Hayakawa, S., & Marian, V. (2019). Consequences of multilingualism for neural architec-ture. Behavioral and Brain Functions, 15(1), 1-24.

Hunt, M. (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).

Kharkhurin, A. V., & Wei, L. (2015). The role of code-switching in bilingual creativi-ty. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 18(2), 153-169.

Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition.

Lasagabaster, D. (2011). English achievement and student motivation in CLIL and EFL settings. Innovation in language Learning and Teaching, 5(1), 3-18.

Lialikhova, D. (2019). “We can do it together!”–But can they? How Norwegian ninth graders co-constructed content and language knowledge through peer interaction in CLIL. Linguistics and Education, 54, 100764.

Llinares, A., & Morton, T. (Eds.). (2017). Applied linguistics perspectives on CLIL (Vol. 47). Linguistics_Perspectives_on_CLIL/

Lo, Y. Y., & Fung, D. (2018). Assessments in CLIL: the interplay between cognitive and lin-guistic demands and their progression in secondary education. International Journal of Bilin-gual Education and Bilingualism.

Mahan, K. R., Brevik, L. M., & Ødegaard, M. (2018). Characterizing CLIL teaching: New in-sights from a lower secondary classroom. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bi-lingualism.

Mehisto, P., Marsh, D., & Frigols, M. J. (2008). Uncovering CLIL: Content and language inte-grated learning in bilingual and multilingual education. Oxford: Macmillan Education UK.

Leung, C., & Morton, T. (2016). Conclusion: Language competence, learning and pedagogy in CLIL–Deepening and broadening integration. In Conceptualising integration in CLIL and mul-tilingual education (pp. 235-248). Multilingual Matters.

Marsh, D., Cañado, M. L. P., & Padilla, J. R. (Eds.). (2015). CLIL in Action: Voices from the Classroom. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Oattes, H., Oostdam, R., De Graaff, R., & Wilschut, A. (2018). The challenge of balancing content and language: Perceptions of Dutch bilingual education history teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 70, 165-174.

Salthouse, T. A. (1996). The processing-speed theory of adult age differences in cogni-tion. Psychological review, 103(3), 403.

Silverman, S. L. (2009). From randomized controlled trials to observational studies. The Amer-ican journal of medicine, 122(2), 114-120.

Vázquez, V. P., & García, M. D. C. M. (2017). Analysing teachers' roles regarding cross-curricular coordination in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL). Journal of english studies, 15, 235-260.

Vázquez, V. P., Lancaster, N., & Callejas, C. B. (2020). Keys issues in developing teachers’ competences for CLIL in Andalusia: training, mobility and coordination. The Language Learning Journal, 48(1), 81-98.

Pérez-Vidal, C., & Roquet, H. (2015). The linguistic impact of a CLIL Science programme: An analysis measuring relative gains. System, 54, 80-90.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Socio-cultural theory. Mind in society, 6, 52-58.

Walqui, A., & Van Lier, L. (2010). Scaffolding the Academic Success of Adolescent English Language Learners: A Pedagogy of Promise. WestEd. 730 Harrison Street, San Francisco, CA 94107-1242.

Ziegler, J. C., & Goswami, U. (2005). Reading acquisition, developmental dyslexia, and skilled reading across languages: a psycholinguistic grain size theory. Psychological bulletin, 131(1), 3.




How to Cite

Devika Rani, D. R., & Neeta Inamdar. (2022). Content and Language Integrated Learning in Castilla-La Mancha, Spain: Exploring Pedagogical Practices and Experiences through Classroom Observations . Issues and Ideas in Education, 10(1), 39–47.



situs judi online terbaik yang rekomendasi daftar situs judi slot online deposit pulsa, live casino online, dan bandar judi bola dengan jackpot slot gacor terbesar di Indonesia.