Enseignement de Matière par l'Intégration d'une Langue Étrangère (EMILE)

Strategy 3: Implementing Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL).

The third proposed strategy to realise the plurilingual vision of the Barcelona Summit Agreement is the introduction and adaptation of the Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) model in second-level schools in Ireland.

What is CLIL?

Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) is a two-pronged educational approach where an additional language is employed to teach and learn both the content (e.g., maths) and the language (e.g., MFL) (Coyle et al., 2010: 1). Using the CLIL approach, both the content and language are interwoven; the focus can be stronger on one or the other as required. This twofold aim is where CLIL enhances the experience of learning a language, and where it differs from traditional language-teaching approaches.

The CLIL approach incorporates both language learning and language acquisition. Language learning is the active learning of an additional language, whereas language acquisition is incidental learning (i.e., learning that is done in passing, subconsciously). Coyle et al. note that effective language learning can be realised when the two come together: students receive formal instruction while being simultaneously exposed to real-life situations that allow them to acquire the additional language in a more naturalistic way (2010: 11).

Rationale for adopting CLIL and some key benefits

As discussed in strategy 1, over the course of students’ post-primary schooling in Ireland, they receive a minimum of 380 MFL class-contact hours. With that limited number of hours, it is only realistic to expect students to achieve a CEFR B1 standard. If the desired outcome is for students to achieve a B2 level, students would generally require between 560 and 650 MFL hours. If those extra MFL hours cannot be added throughout students’ second-level schooling, CLIL could provide additional hours of exposure that could help elevate student MFL standards to a low B2 level and possibly higher.

Achieving a B2 level would allow learners to use the additional language with significantly greater independence, which would strongly support their plurilingual development. The CEFR defines a B2 user as one who:

Can understand the main ideas of complex text on both concrete and abstract topics, including technical discussions in his/her field of specialisation. Can interact with a degree of fluency and spontaneity that makes regular interaction with native speakers quite possible without strain for either party. Can produce clear, detailed text on a wide range of subjects and explain a viewpoint on a topical issue giving the advantages and disadvantages of various options (Council of Europe, 2001: 24).

An additional benefit to employing CLIL is that in the case where students are struggling to reach a B1 standard, CLIL could help to develop and reinforce these students’ MFL competences so that they can achieve a minimum standard of B1 level.

Logistics of implementation

From an administrative and operational point of view, one of the benefits of adopting the CLIL approach is that it can be easily adapted into the national curriculum. Indeed, CLIL offers more exposure to the language without overloading the existing curricula (European Commission, 2004: 19). Providing students with extra MFL tuition time would be very problematic due to timetabling constraints (i.e., the other subjects students study). CLIL thus presents an opportunity for students to gain extra exposure to their MFL without having to drop or lose tuition time in another school subject. In addition, as CLIL offers a flexible approach, it allows for considerable latitude amongst stakeholders to establish a programme that can be tailored at an individual class level.

Acknowledging disadvantages

Notwithstanding the numerous benefits that CLIL bestows, the approach should not be considered a panacea (Dalton-Puffer, 2011: 195). Initially, in terms of CLIL research, CLIL advocates greatly exceeded its detractors. Cenoz, Genesee and Gorter (2013) refer to this as the bandwagon effect; as CLIL enjoyed largely unequivocal support, many authors essentially jumped on the CLIL proverbial bandwagon. Indeed, Bruton argues that any outside observer should be suspicious of claims that simply changing the language a content class is taught through is essentially problem-free and advantageous to everyone (2013: 588).

For a detailed analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of CLIL, please see Chapter 4 of Dr Edward Flynn’s book.

Proposed CLIL strategy at post-primary level

In the Irish second-level education system, at present, it would be very difficult to introduce a significant CLIL programme nationwide. The reality is that there is a considerable shortage of modern foreign language teachers. The problem is so serious that given the lack of MFL teachers, schools may discontinue foreign languages (O’Brien, 2019). A nationwide CLIL programme across all second-level schools involving many content subjects (e.g., maths, business, science) being taught through different MFLs is realistically a medium- to long-term goal.

However, in the short term, partial CLIL could work where the MFL teacher is also qualified to teach a content subject. For those who are not, CLIL could be implemented through content areas that do not require a degree-equivalent qualification—such as Wellbeing, SPHE, CSPE, or short courses. In the initial stages, delivering even 20% to 30% of a content class through the MFL may be sufficient. Indeed, as Graddol points out, there is no single right way to deliver CLIL (2006: 86).

Partial CLIL instruction may be achievable in the Irish context as teachers would not be required to have a high C1 or C2 level in the target foreign language, nor would students need any significant level of fluency. However, it should be noted that CLIL is difficult to put into practice if the subject teachers themselves are not bilingual (Graddol, 2006: 86).

Some Key Research Findings

The findings also indicate that students favour a reduced amount of class time through their MFL, compared to their MFL teachers. Of those students supportive of its introduction, 16% believe that 5% to 10% of content class time should be spent teaching through the MFL. 24% stated that it should be 11% to 20% of class time, 33% advised that between 21% and 30% of class time should be spent teaching through the MFL. 19% of respondents indicated that up to 50% of class time should be spent teaching through the MFL, while 4% think that it should be up to 75%. The final 4% believe that the MFL should be taught for “almost all the class”. 17% of MFL teachers believe that the MFL should be spoken between 11% and 20% of class time. Another 17% think that up to 50% of class time should be spent using the MFL. The remaining 66% of teacher respondents stated that they believe the MFL should be spoken for “almost all the class”.

This is a preprint of the following work: Edward P. Flynn, Cross-age Teaching and Plurilingualism: Realising the Barcelona Summit Agreement, 2026, Palgrave Macmillan, reproduced with permission of Springer Nature. The final authenticated version is available online at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-96656-9.