Exploring the changing face of CLIL - identifying and

evaluating methodologies employed.

This paper will investigate how the field of modern languages

might be most effectively researched by a practitioner in my

position as a professional involved in teacher education. For

the purpose of this assignment I aim to continue to develop

and build on the discussions and research surrounding CLIL. A

key aim is to attempt to define and further explore the field

of CLIL with a particular focus on the changing face of

language and discourse within a CLIL context, to evaluate my

own research as a practitioner within the wider field,

examining methodologies employed. I will refer to a selection

of other research by other researchers in order to

contextualise my own research, identify and evaluate

methodologies employed to date, appropriate methodologies for

my own research and impact on my current thinking and

practice.

To begin it is necessary to present and discuss what is meant

by the term CLIL, to identify and examine key methodological

stances on CLIL as a pedagogical approach to include

contrasting perspectives and methods.

CLIL emerged in response to the demands and expectations of

the modern age – globalisation, internalisation and increased

multilingual society. Globalisation and emerging technologies

have moved us into a new era, the Knowledge Age. This has

resulted in significant and sweeping changes in terms of how

societies and the educational systems that serve them now

operate. Three key characteristics can define this new

Knowledge Age: integration, convergence and participative

learning which have a direct and significant impact on

decisions about what and how young learners are taught. EURAB

(2007) identifies key performance drivers of the Knowledge Age

society as the ‘Knowledge Triangle’ which integrates

education, research and innovation all identified as being key

to manage successful change and adaptation. It is within this

context that CLIL is being promoted as a potentially

innovative methodological approach to language learning.

Graddol (2006:86) describes CLIL as the ‘ultimate

communicative methodology.’ He identifies a significant

difference between the communicative language teaching

methodology of the 1980s and the emergence of CLIL in the

1990s. For Graddol(2006) CLIL classroom practice provides a

more holistic, purposeful and authentic way of teaching and

learning languages, a view and hypothesis central to my own

small scale CLIL study. CLIL classroom practice lends itself

to the three core principles of the new knowledge age as

learners are active participants in acquiring knowledge

through inquiry (research) and complex cognitive processes in

complex problem solving activities (innovation). CLIL can

therefore potentially provide a powerful educational framework

and an empowering way to learn languages. However, at the

same time, it is in line with current European language

policies on the promotion and implementation of

multilingualism. As a result, most CLIL research is policy-

driven research.

The dual purpose and focus of CLIL pedagogy (Marsh, D. 2002)

can be argued does provide a more cognitively challenging and

more authentic platform for language acquisition and use.

However, this duality and variance of CLIL as a pedagogical

concept and method within a diverse range of contexts presents

a number of complex challenges for teachers, learners and

researchers alike. There are two key questions that need to

be addressed: what is meant by content and the role of

language as a medium for learning? Whilst curriculum and

syllabuses all have clear aims and objectives, often with a

prescribed content with goals and expected outcomes for

learners, they only address the what of content and not the

how of content. (Coyle, Hood& Marsh, 2010). In an attempt to

explore these questions in more depth it is necessary to

analyse what is meant by effective pedagogies in different

contexts. How individuals learn and general learning theory

do not always shape curriculum content and design but if CLIL

is to build on certain synergies, an analysis of what is meant

by effective pedagogies in different contexts is necessary.

Whether it is the language or content that adopts the dominant

focus, a fusion emerges from these methodologies and can

result in positive educational outcomes for teachers and

learners. It poses a significant challenge, opportunity and

threat to accepted language teaching.

To understand CLIL better, it is necessary to examine some

theoretical aspects of content learning. Different pedagogic

approaches have been discussed and researched. The dominant

model in many Western societies has emphasised the

transmission knowledge whereby the expert (the teacher)

imparts knowledge and skills to the novice (the learner).

This has been labelled a ‘banking model’ (Freire, 1972) and

tends to be teacher-controlled and teacher-led. A social

constructivist view of learning places the learner at the

heart of the experience and active rather than passive

learning or acquisition of knowledge is encouraged. (Cummins,

2005). The focus within social constructivist learning is on

interactive, mediated and student-led learning. This requires

social interaction between learners and teachers where the

learning is scaffolded by the teacher or someone more expert .

When learners are able to cope with the cognitive challenge or

new knowledge, it is likely they will interact with others

and their peers to develop their individual thinking.

Vygotsky (1978) refers to the ‘zone of proximal development’

to describe this kind of learning that is challenging but

always achievable. Within this socially constructivist

approach the teacher’s role is one of facilitator to ensure

there is appropriate balance between cognitive challenge and

support. Therefore, it can be suggested that in order for

CLIL learning to be effective the learners must be cognitively

engaged and learners need to be skilled in problem solving and

creative thinking to enable them to construct their own

framework through which they interpret meaning and

understanding. Nisbet (1991:27) states ‘if learning is to be

retained and to be readily available for use, then learners

must make their own construction of knowledge – make it their

own- and must learn to take responsibility of their own

learning.’ However, Beardsmore (1993) acknowledges that there

is no single model of content and language integration that

can be applied in the same way in different countries as the

social, cultural and educational frameworks differ sometimes

within and generally across countries.

As discussed in my earlier assignment, the duality of CLIL as

a pedagogical approach requires an investigation into what is

meant by language learning in CLIL contexts. Whilst the key

principles of a communicative approach to language teaching

and learning are fundamental to language learning within a

CLIL context, there would appear to be a gulf between theory

and practice. There is therefore a need to re-define what is

meant by language learning and the role of language within a

CLIL classroom context. In order to better understand the

nature and potential impact of discourse within a CLIL

classroom context, it is necessary to examine CLIL within an

Second Language Acquistion (SLA) framework. Examination of

the key SLA theoretical constructs can be used to try to

understand and explain the nature of language learning that

takes place in a CLIL setting. However, it can be argued that

no one SLA construct can effectively explain why and in what

way does language learning occur in a CLIL context. (Wolff,

2003). Mohan and van Naerssen (1997:2) provide a different

set of assumptions to those proposed previously in relation to

SLA as they did not take content learning into account. They

propose that language is a matter of meaning as well as form,

discourse does not just express meaning. Discourse creates

meaning. Language learning continues throughout our lives,

particularly our educational lives and as we acquire new areas

of knowledge, we acquire new areas of language and meaning.

However, Swain (2000) advocates greater emphasis on form in

content driven contexts, providing learners with problematic

grammatical forms which they can then use in meaningful

situations. She also argues that content teaching needs to

ensure that learners have full use of the functional range of

language and understand how form is related to meaning in

relation to content and stresses the importance of careful

monitoring and planning to ensure successful integration of

language, subject knowledge and thinking skills.

Within the CLIL setting it can be argued that using language

to learn is as important as learning to use language.

However, there is likely to be a disparity between cognitive

and linguistic functioning. Many CLIL learners have

significantly higher cognitive functioning skills and

significantly more advanced than their linguistic level in a

CLIL context. If we accept Freire’s (1972:8) view that

‘without dialogue there is no communication and without

communication there can be no true education’, classroom

communication and interaction between teachers and learners is

at the heart of learning.

CLIL can be viewed as an umbrella term to refer to an

educational approach in which a second language or language

that is not the mother tongue is used as the medium of

instruction to teach/deliver content in mainstream curriculum

subject areas. The last two decades have seen a significant

rise and spread of CLIL across Europe as a pedagogical

approach - both top down and bottom up processes.

Considerable support within the EU – White paper on Education

and Training (European Commission) 1995 – its vision and aim

were that all EU citizens should master two community

languages in addition to their mother tongue. However,

although interest in CLIL as a pedagogical approach has

increased in recent years, for much of Europe and its

classrooms, CLIL exists predominantly as pilot experiences.

Whilst across Europe there have been countless CLIL

initiatives by individual or groups of teachers and schools

and several EU policies, local and national educational

authorities have been slow to react. The result is CLIL

remains a fragmented and not fully articulate educational

model. A significant amount of work still needs to be done to

consolidate the theoretical framework of CLIL in order to

create a coherent conceptual framework that can be applied to

and implemented in different local contexts. For many

researchers, the common conceptual framework provided by

applied linguistics enables researchers to negotiate the often

very different local contexts within which CLIL operates.

Structures of information-sharing and cooperation are required

to facilitate the accumulation of research-based knowledge for

the benefit of practitioners. (Puffer and Nikula, 2006).

According to Puffer and Nikula (2003), it is only since 2003

that CLIL research has started to evolve and emerge onto the

international stage. What is increasingly apparent is the

need for further research to increase understanding of the

complex issues in relation to CLIL pedagogy, in order to

provide help and guidance for practising CLIL teachers and

those involved in development.

The main focus of these pilot studies has centred around the

impact on learners' target language (TL) performance and

content mastery (Brutton, 2011). It is therefore interesting

to examine the interrelationship between L1 and L2. In

traditional L2 classrooms, the use of L1 was discouraged based

on the view that this would hamper the acquisition of L2.

However, in today's increasingly multilingual society, the

validity and potential benefits of code-switching are

increasingly acknowledged (Costa 2009; Cenoz 2011), a strategy

adopted by all multilingual language learners dependent on the

situation, topic, purpose or nature of the dialogue. (Centro

Virtual Cervantes 2009). Given that a CLIL classroom is likely

to be a multilingual environment where learners usually share

one common L1, it is natural therefore for them to 'tap into'

all the linguistic resources available, including their

knowledge of L1 in order to access more cognitively demanding

tasks. (Perez-Vidal 2002).

CLIL is not an entirely new or innovative pedagogical approach

to language teaching and learning. It is possible to trace its

roots and links to other forms of bilingual education – the

Canadian immersion programme and Content Based Instruction

(CBI) developed in North American contexts. Coyle (2005)

provides a useful distinction between CLIL and immersion

education. She suggests that despite differences in approach

in relation to content and language within and across

educational contexts, CLIL is not perceived as "immersion

education(e.g the Canadian model) but rather a flexible

European approach which responds to a very wide range of

situational and contextual demands." (Coyle, 2005). A

further, very significant and real distinction has often be

made between CLIL and other forms of bilingual or immersion

programmes in terms of the fact that the language of

instruction is a foreign language and therefore rarely present

if at all in the social context outside the classroom.

However, some advocates of CLIL argue that a key concern of

CLIL should be to create conditions to facilitate naturalistic

learning. (Snow and Britton, 1997). This view of CLIL

requires an integrative approach whereby topics, texts and

tasks are taken from content or subject-matter classes with a

focus on the cognition and academic language skills required

to enable learners to participate effectively in the content

instruction (Crandall and Tucker,1990). Another significant

distinction that can be identified relates to the role and

nature of language in a CLIL classroom. In a CLIL classroom

language is both content and medium. It is particularly this

aspect of a CLIL classroom and the role of language that will

form a significant aspect of the discussion within this paper.

It is my intention to explore further the role and nature of

language and language interactions within a CLIL classroom and

explore the implications for classroom discourse. Whilst

within some immersion or bilingual contexts, the language of

instruction is present outside the classroom, as in the case

of the Canadian or Catalonia models, many other immersion or

CBI settings can be identified as being very similar to CLIL.

So, how do CLIL or bilingual classroom settings differ? What

are the key characteristics/features of a CLIL classroom?

It has become widely accepted within research circles that

there is an acknowledgement of the need for flexibility in

terms of any attempts to identify CLIL practice, that

multiple versions are required and are evolving, being adapted

and developed to operate effectively within different social,

cultural and educational settings. However, it is possible to

identify a number of common features present in each of these

dIfferent contexts. A key common feature and widely

acknowledged educational argument in support of CLIL, is that

it offers learners more meaningful opportunities for authentic

language use. Within the CLIL paradigm there is a

misconception held by many researchers who interpret the goal

or function of content delivered in the foreign language for

the sole purpose of improving learners' language proficiency.

Recent research concludes that whilst language proficiency

does improve as a result of a content led approach, CLIL,

there are significant benefits in terms of the subject

content. Why? My own small scale study into the impact of a

CLIL approach to the teaching of an aspect of the primary

Geography curriculum echoes the findings of much larger

studies that support the view that learning subject content

through a foreign language increases motivation when compared

with traditional subject content classrooms. Perhaps the most

intriguing finding of this research is that learners develop

more precise concepts when another language is involved

(Lamsfuss-Schenk, 2002). Moreover, there is significant

evidence within CLIL research circles to suggest that not only

does CLIL promote potential cognitive gains and L2 proficiency

but that learners' L1 appears to benefit from this bilingual

experience. (Nikolov and Mihaljevic Djigunovic 2006). In

an attempt to do full justice to this duality in CLIL research

has increased awareness of the importance of recognising the

simultaneous learning and teaching of language and content.

What would appear to be the key to this is that language and

content are acquired in integration, are related or

interrelated and are therefore dealt with as a whole rather

than as two separate aspects of learning within CLIL.

If we explore the example of learners negotiating meaning, it

becomes apparent that they are co constructing content as much

as negotiating meaning. Using the studies of negotiation of

meaning in L2 classroom contexts, in a CLIL context, research

seeks to check two basic hypotheses: whether a) CLIL lessons

with their focus on meaning offers learners more negotiation

opportunities than FL lessons and thereby creating a richer

language learning context, more akin to the 'real' meaning

negotiation that occurs outside the language classroom

(Lochtmann, 2007) and b) whether CLIL lessons allows learners

to develop more carefully considered construction of subject

specific knowledge than is achieved when subject content is

delivered in L1, which then enables them to construct

knowledge about content using imperfectly known language.

(Badertscher & Bieri, 2009). The point of comparison is either

the foreign language (FL) classroom or teaching subject

specific content in L1, depending on the research focus,

whether it is on language or content teaching.

From a classroom based research perspective, this has involved

the development of theoretical and methodological tools to try

to account for this inherent connection between language and

content, of form and meaning. In this respect, the most

fruitful research orientation is Systematic Functional

Linguistics(SFL), with a number of studies adopting SFL

approaches to investigate CLIL classroom discourse. The

approaches, discussed in more depth later, proposed by

Llinares, Morton & Whittaker (2012) and Nikula, Dalton-Puffer

& Llinares (2013), provide a framework for combining the

different areas of CLIL classroom discourse research. One

such pedagogical or methodological tool is the Language

Triptych (Coyle 2000, 2002), constructed to enable teachers to

strategically plan and sequence their language and content

objectives. It supports learners in language using from three

interrelated perspectives: language of learning, language for

learning and language through learning. Language of learning

is an analysis of language needed for the learners to be able

to access the basic skills and concepts of the subject or

theme. Language for learning relates to the language needed

for learners to function effectively in the foreign language

environment. Here learners need strategies to enable them to

be able to understand and use language that will enable them

to learn effectively. Learning through language is centred

around the concept that effective learning cannot take place

without active language use and thinking. The CLIL classroom

demands a different type and level of classroom talk,

interaction and dialogic activity. It is therefore possible

in CLIL settings to generate new meanings which in turn

requires new, emerging language.

In contrast to outcome focused studies which construct

language learning in terms of a product, CLIL classroom

discourse research adopts a more process orientated view of

language learning. This view of language learning sees

language learning taking place via learner participation in

sequentially structured discourse activities which are

determined by local pedagogical designs and facilitate

opportunities for participant interaction. (Hua, Seedhouse,

Wel & Cook, 2007).

Research studies on CLIL classroom discourse have also

incorporated a number of positions developed in SLA research

in the 1990s. Many other studies we have seen are grounded in

some form of sociocultural and/or social constructivist

learning theory. A common feature in many of these studies

has been their focus on teacher actions, making the gradual

transition to more pedagogical and educational approaches.

What becomes increasingly apparent from a study of these three

perspectives is the overlap that exists between the three.

The multi faceted and complex nature of CLIL, its diverse

nature both in terms of implementation and research, make it

extremely challenging to draw generalised conclusions about

CLIL. Bonnet (2012) calls for a concerted effort to

consolidate research that would help incorporate both

qualitative and quantitative methods as well as process,

product and participant perspectives that would take into

account individual, social and cultural concerns relevant to

CLIL. Such research has begun to emerge with studies such as

Llinares and Morton (2012) who combine quantitative and

qualitative methods to explore interaction and language

learning in a CLIL classroom.

It is evident that classroom discourse studies form an

integral area within CLIL research and it is an area that

continues to grow. However, it can be misleading to assume

that whilst the label “research on CLIL classroom discourse”

is functional and represents a very broad area of interest ,

it does not account for the multi-faceted and diverse nature

within this domain, dependent on the various theoretical and

methodological interpretations and stances that can be adopted

to explore classroom discourse. However, there exists one

unifying factor within CLIL classroom research that dominates

the discussion: the majority of studies report on teacher-led

classrooms or whole class interactions.

Nikula, Dalton-Puffer & Llinares (2013) identify and discuss

research in relation to CLIL classroom discourse from three

principle perspectives – a) classroom discourse as an

evidence-base for language learning, b) to language use and

social-interactional aspects of CLIL classroom interaction, or

c) to processes of knowledge construction in and through CLIL

classroom discourse. Given its status as an emerging area of

research these advances signify how the field of CLIL

classroom research has developed from its early focus on its

suitability and viability as a method to teach and learn

languages. It is this focus that has shaped the approach

adopted by numerous studies into classroom discourse , to

develop a deeper understanding of CLIL classrooms as contexts

for language acquisition and use. Emerging research is

concerned with paying appropriate attention and developing a

greater awareness and understanding of the duality in CLIL,

the question of simultaneous language learning and teaching of

language and content. This has required the development of

appropriate theoretical and methodological tools to try to

facilitate language and content, in essence, form and meaning.

The overlapping nature of different areas has to be

acknowledged and the three approaches will no doubt encourage

further discussion and research to widen the knowledge base

and seek to combine them.

It is evident from existing research studies and an

examination of a number of the key research methodologies

employed, that the why and how learning takes place in a CLIL

context is the focus of ongoing debate. In the case of this

study, the interrelationship between language and content,

CLIL as an empowering and powerful vehicle to learn language

and the potential impact on learners' motivation are central

themes. The study presented as part of this discussion

attempted to explore the impact of CLIL on learners'

attitudes, motivation and language learning by collecting

empirical data. The research involved a small number of

participants in four primary schools in the UK, France and

Spain, thereby helping to minimise any potential clashes with

current educational policies. As stated earlier, CLIL as a

pedagogical approach is not widespread and varies across

educational contexts. That said, it still presents

opportunities to bring about change within each of the

educational settings, affecting change in educational thinking

and practice both in the project schools and in the MFL

teaching units at both undergraduate and postgraduate level.

Changes to the content of some of the MFL teaching units

generates potential to influence and shape both current and

future practice. Our undergraduate and postgraduate students

provide a vehicle for the dissemination of the key principles

of CLIL and its potential to have a positive impact on

language teaching and learning. A key requirement of the

funding application process was that the prospective project

was innovative and involved collaboration with schools and

practitioners with a view to producing teaching materials for

use in primary schools, for the dissemination and sharing of

good practice and lessons learnt. It would therefore be

important at the write up and publication stage to consider

which journals, magazines and practitioner networks to

consider in order to ensure ease of access for practitioners,

our intended target audience. Given that long-term action

based research has always been the preferred research method

for language immersion programmes on which it could be argued,

the CLIL approach is based, the preferred research method for

this small scale study is action-based research. Whilst the

promotion of change might be the aim of action-based research,

it is also possible that new knowledge is generated in terms

of pedagogy and teaching materials that are grounded in

teachers' daily practice. Although some researchers advocate

that classroom based research is not generalizable, it is

possible to suggest that publication of research findings

might promote reflexion among practitioners and opportunities

for the transference of knowledge to new contexts.

Action research is concerned with both 'action' and 'research'

and the relationship between the two. It is this distinct

combination that distinguishes it from other forms of enquiry.

However, there exist several schools of thought within action

based research, often used to refer to research that has been

conducted by educational practitioners such as 'classroom

research' (Hopkins, 1985), 'self-reflective enquiry'(Kemmis,

1985); 'educational action research' (Carr & Kemmis, 1986) and

'exploratory teaching and learning' (Allwright& Bailey, 1991).

For the purpose of this study, the preferred term and method

employed is 'educational action research'. Kemmis and

McTaggart (1992) provide a useful distinction between

teachers' normal practice and practitioners engaging in action

based research. It allows for a more systematic and

collaborative approach to the collection of evidence to inform

their group reflection and practice. Kemmis & McTagart (1992)

also propose that action research is not just about problem

solving but problem posing. It is therefore motivated by a

desire to improve and gain a better understanding of the world

by bringing about change and learning how to improve practice

in response to these changes. Action based research is not

research done on other people. In an educational context,

practitioners engage in research to help them improve their

own practice and how they work with and for others, a

motivation and shared goal of all research participants in

this small scale study. However, action based research is not

without its potential difficulties. Questions can be raised

about the identity politics of the 'facilitator' or

'researcher', particularly in the area of practitioner

research. It was therefore necessary to challenge and address

this potential uneven balance of power between myself as

'researcher' and the research participants in an effort to to

ensure that the appearance of participation is not merely on a

superficial level. Acknowledging the potential significant

role of power relations between myself as researcher and the

teachers and learners, the research structure aimed to create

a space where all of the participants were empowered and had a

voice within the research. To this end, it was clearly

outlined at the outset that the teachers in the project

schools and learners were themselves researchers trying to

establish the impact of CLIL on their practice and thinking in

relation to attitudes and motivation towards second language

learning. The systematic recording of what actually occurs

has the potential to act as a powerful political tool with

regards to educational policy and practice. There can often

be a mismatch between what has been identified as textbook

pedagogical 'good practice' and the reality of the classroom.

Stenhouse suggests that action research should contribute to a

theory of education and teaching which is accessible to all

teachers.' (1975 cited in Cohen & Manion, 1989, p.217).

Accessibility to research findings was a key consideration

when writing up the project report and deciding which

materials and in what format to make available to a range of

target audiences from head teachers to classroom practitioners

and our trainee teachers.

In an education context, ethnography provides a method of

gathering and interpreting rich data about teaching and

learning, therefore making it an appropriate and effective

method for this study. (LeCompte &Preissle, 1993). An

ethnographic approach to the study was also perhaps

appropriate as it allowed me as researcher to act as both

observer and participant. It is easy to see the potential

benefits of adopting an ethnographic approach as the

researcher (me) was already part of the educational context

with access to insider knowledge but adopting an observational

role resulted in an outside perspective being introduced to

the research . Ethnography would the therefore provide

opportunities for the research findings to contribute to the

creation of new knowledge and understanding and identify a gap

in the field of study, in this case, CLIL. An ethnographic

approach to the research provided a space in which to examine

constructs of 'motivation' and 'attitudes' and facilitated an

understanding of complex situations, helping to ensure data,

explanations and findings can be located in their cultural

contexts. Furthermore, the use of technology, in this case

video ethnography enabled the researcher (me) to capture,

represent and analyse both teachers' practice and children's

interactions and behaviour within each of the three different

social and cultural classroom contexts. The complexities of a

classroom environment were captured and it provided the

opportunity to conduct a detailed examination of the teaching

and learning from multiple perspectives. (Hollingsworth,

2005). From a practical perspective, it facilitated and

generated opportunities for discussion between the teachers,

learners and researchers, thereby helping to generate a deeper

shared knowledge and understanding of CLIL practice. From an

action research perspective, the contribution to a general

pool of knowledge would be of less significance than

addressing the issue, devising and intervention or changing

the status quo and then transforming knowledge. In action

research the researcher would be looking to influence or bring

about a change in learners' thinking. In the case of this

intervention, both an action research and ethnographic

approach are valid, helping to avoid taking issues and

contexts at face value and to seek out the wider view when

interpreting the data.

The aim was to investigate the impact of CLIL pedagogy on

learners' attitudes and motivation to language learning, to

bring about a positive change in learners' language learning

and identify opportunities to affect positive changes to

practice. Whilst it has been important to contextualise this

research through identifying the nature of SLA within a CLIL

context, it has been equally important to examine or

demonstrate an awareness of the social, cultural and political

pedagogical realities within each of the these different

contexts. This is a viewpoint supported by Bakhtin (1986)

where he notes that the sociocultural, historical and economic

environment feed into the acquisition and use of language.

Therefore, it is possible to suggest that either in CLIL on

non CLIL language learning contexts, language cannot be

separated from its context. Within the confines of this

research study, context can be said to hold dual meaning or

representation, both in terms of the wider external social,

cultural and political contexts within each of the three

countries and at micro level, the context of the CLIL

classroom. When interpreting the qualitative and quantitative

data collated across the three countries, acknowledging the

potential significance of these factors in relation to the

potential impact of CLIL methodology on learners' attitudes

and motivation to second language learning is key.

In conclusion, at the outset this paper sought to examine and

understand the different research methods within the field of

CLIL and contextualise my own research approaches within this

discussion in an effort to identify the most appropriate. It

is apparent that the research landscape within the CLIL field

is complex and that careful consideration and an open mind are

essential in the research design process. Much of the

research methods are informed by SLA theoretical frameworks

and reflects a range of paradigms. Earlier it was suggested

that CLIL research is predominantly policy driven, in line

with Europe's policy and drive for a multilingual Europe.

This potentially creates a pressure/dichotomy for researchers

given that at national and local levels there are few if any

educational policies or strategies to support the coherent

implementation of a CLIL programme. However, when evaluating

the research methods most appropriate for the nature of this

study, adopting both an ethnographic and action research

approach provides a broad range of data collection

opportunities. The action research approach provides the

framework to promote criticality and opportunities to apply

theory to practice. From an education perspective, Action

Research also acknowledges and mirrors the knowledge and

understanding that participants bring to the research as well

as offering opportunities to change their understanding of

practice to facilitate change. It is my view that a critical

approach to Action Research would be an effective method to

employ when engaging in research with teachers, student

teachers and learners in schools and classrooms as it has the

potential to empower participants and act as a vehicle for

positive change.