Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

1 results

  • 6 - Three Schools, Three Models

  • from Part II - Current Aspects of Practice in CLIL
  • Edited by Kim Bower, Sheffield Hallam University, Do Coyle, University of Edinburgh, Russell Cross, University of Melbourne, Gary N. Chambers, University of Leeds
  • Book:
    Curriculum Integrated Language Teaching
    Published online:
    27 July 2020
    Print publication:
    09 July 2020, pp 107-123

  • Summary

    This chapter addresses the book’s questions about how different models of CLIL can be implemented and why school leaders adapt their curriculum to include CLIL projects, set against the absence of a national policy for modern languages and a resulting paucity of cross-curricular language learning in the secondary sector. I begin by reviewing a range of models undertaken in schools before focusing on three more substantial models in this study and exploring school leaders’ rationale for CLIL and how they implemented the approach in their school. It draws on findings from the empirical research study referred to in Chapter 2, which investigated the extent to which CLIL promotes learner motivation in England and explored the transferability of CLIL to other schools. Leaders’ perceptions of, confidence in and professional commitment to CLIL in three contrasting models and settings are explored.