Impact of CLIL on Conceptual Understanding and Language Proficiency in Science Education

Abstract

Background: Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) is a teaching methodology that integrates learning subject content with acquisition of proficiency in a foreign language (skills), developing both linguistic and conceptual competence. The approach aligns with the recommendations of the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, which emphasizes the development of bilingual skills and cognitive abilities.

Purpose: The present study explores the efficacy of CLIL in science teaching, with particular emphasis on its influence on content knowledge, cognitive development, and bilingual language acquisition among pre-service teachers.

Method: A quasi-experimental pre- and post-test single-group design was adopted. The study was conducted on 20 pre-service teachers enrolled in the B.Ed. program at Chitkara University. A mixed-method approach was employed, incorporating both quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis.

Results: Findings indicated that CLIL enhances vocabulary related to subject matter, deepens conceptual understanding through bilingual instruction, and increases student motivation and interest. It also positively impacts problem-solving skills and overall cognitive development, alongside improving language proficiency.

Conclusions: The study concludes that CLIL holds significant potential to enrich science education by fostering both cognitive and linguistic growth. However, challenges such as teacher preparedness and effective assessment strategies remain. The research highlights the need for further investigation into long-term outcomes and teacher training to maximize the educational benefits of CLIL.

  • Page Number : 1-6

  • Published Date : 2025-08-10

  • Keywords
    Content and language integrated learning, Science education, English as a foreign language, Quasi-experimental design

  • DOI Number
    10.15415/iie.2025.131001

  • Authors
    Nishtha Vohra, Jyotika Guleria, Kanchan Gupta

References

  • Aravind. (2018). CLIL pedagogy: An overview. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 39(7), 591–603. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2018.1435666
  • Baker, C. (2011). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism (5th ed.). Multilingual Matters.
  • Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge University Press.
  • Dalton-Puffer, C. (2011). Content-and-language integrated learning: From practice to principles? Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 182–204. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190511000092
  • Hüttner, J., & Smit, U. (2014). CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning): The bigger picture. AILA Review, 27(1), 19–37. https://doi.org/10.1075/aila.27.02.hut
  • Kelly, K., & Clegg, J. (2015). Innovative CLIL strategies for STEM education. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
  • Kim, H., & Graham, S. (2022). A systematic review of CLIL teachers’ needs and professional development. ERIC. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1364876.pdf
  • Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. M. (2009). Language attitudes in CLIL and traditional EFL classes. International CLIL Research Journal, 1(2), 4–17.
  • Llinares, A., & Morton, T. (2017). Applied linguistics perspectives on CLIL. John Benjamins Publishing.
  • Lorenzo, F., Casal, S., & Moore, P. (2009). The effects of content and language integrated learning in European education: Key findings from the Andalusian Bilingual Sections evaluation project. Applied Linguistics, 31(3), 418–442. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp041
  • Marsh, D. (1994). Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL): The European dimension – Actions, trends and foresight potential. Cambridge University Press. https://assets.cambridge.org/9780521130219/excerpt/9780521130219_excerpt.pdf
  • Marsh, D., & Lange, G. (2000). Using languages to learn and learning to use languages. University of Jyväskylä.
  • Morton, T. (2013). Measuring content and language outcomes in CLIL programs: Challenges and solutions. Language Teaching Research, 17(2), 193–210. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168812466248
  • Pavesi, M., & Coonan, C. M. (2015). CLIL in science education: Benefits and challenges. In D. Marsh & O. Meyer (Eds.), Quality interfaces: Examining evidence & exploring solutions in CLIL (pp. 87–108). Peter Lang.
  • Pérez-Cañado, M. L. (2012). CLIL research in Europe: Past, present, and future. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 15(3), 315–341. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2011.630064
  • Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2001). Focus on form through collaborative dialogue: Exploring task effects. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching, and testing (pp. 99–118). Pearson Education.