The need to integrate the teaching of both content and language means that the identity of

the teacher and the competences s/he possesses becomes a major issue. CLIL is generally
implemented in formal educational contexts, but content teachers, who are supposed to be
the CLIL teachers, may not be proficient in the target language, while language teachers
may have problems with content. At primary level, language and content demands may be
more easily coped with, but at secondary level they are usually high and difficulties relevant.
Both language and content teachers can also encounter problems with methodology (Deller
& Price, 2007:6,7) since three types of methodology have to be taken into account : the
methodology of the specific subject; the methodology of language teaching; and, in
particular, the specific methodology associated with CLIL.

Balancing the focus on language and content

When we plan a CLIL lesson, it is important to balance the teaching of theoretical
knowledge and the development of communicative competence. This may sound
obvious, since CLIL aims at integrating the learning of content and language.
However, depending on the teacher’s background and on the institution’s focus,
one or the other may be set aside even unconsciously. I have witnessed contexts
in which so much effort was given to teaching the content, that it seemed that the
language could not be tackled by the teacher. In other contexts, the language was
so important that the content became just the context of the language learning.

An element that can contribute to successful learning of both language and

content is the development of learning strategies, such as inferring meaning from
context, using images and visual prompts to aid understanding and memory, etc.

Content vs. language teachers in CLIL

The integration of content and language is one of the main characteristics of the
CLIL approach, as the relationship between these two elements is at the core of
any implementation (Llinares & Morton, 2017; Nikula et al., 2016; Ruiz de Zarobe
& Jiménez Catalán, 2009). However, the balance between content and language
is not easily achieved, and programmes can be more content-driven or language-
driven (see also Dalton-Puffer, 2007; Paran, 2013; Tedick & Cammarata, 2012).
Many years ago, Met (1998) proposed a continuum for different types of CBI
ranging from content-driven to language-driven programmes.

Several studies have shown that teachers find it difficult to integrate content and
language (Cammarata & Tedick, 2012; Koopman et al., 2014; Oattes et
al., 2018). After reviewing several studies, Karabassova (2018) considers that
there is a ‘dichotomy of teaching the content subject and teaching the language
instead of utilising an integrated approach towards teaching’ (p. 2). This
dichotomy exists because most teacher education degrees are oriented either to
language or to content, particularly in the case of secondary education. The
problem of integration could be both for content and language teachers because
programmes can be more towards the content-driven or the language-driven end
of Met’s continuum (1998). However, as research on CLIL is mainly conducted in
the field of applied linguistics, the main problems have been identified in the case
of content teachers being too content-driven because they do not integrate
language as much as expected. The potential problem of language teachers
being too language-driven and not focusing enough on content has not received
much attention, and it may be less common because content subjects are usually
taught by content specialists.

When examining the lack of language orientation in CLIL classes, one of the
main reasons is that content teachers believe they should give priority to content
(Dalton-Puffer, 2011; Karabassova, 2018; Lo, 2019). Beliefs are essential to
understand how each CLIL teacher conceptualises CLIL or her/his role as a
teacher in the approach. Beliefs have been described as ‘a complex set of
variables based on attitudes, experiences and expectations’ (Skinnari &
Bovellan, 2016, p. 146). Research carried out in different contexts has
consistently shown that CLIL teachers often see themselves as content teachers
and not as language teachers. For example, Tan (2011) found that science and
math teachers in CLIL programmes in Malaysian secondary schools saw
language as secondary in their lessons, because subject matter mastery was
their main goal for successful performance in national exams. In the Austrian
context, Hüttner et al. (2013) reported that teachers admitted that the lack of
linguistic elements, specific English language aims and assessment of language
created a relaxed atmosphere in the class, making it very dynamic and
successful. Karabassova (2018), in her study in the trilingual context of
Kazakhstan, concluded that teachers in this setting saw CLIL ‘merely as just
teaching through another language’ (p. 1) and declined any responsibility to pay
explicit attention to language. Skinnari and Bovellan (2016) also confirmed that
teachers in CLIL programmes in Austria, Finland, and Spain saw their role as
that of content specialists in their subjects even though they also reported some
diversity in their beliefs about the role of language in their lessons.

Another reason for content teachers not to pay attention to language is their lack
of awareness regarding the integration of language and content as the aim of
CLIL programmes. As Lazarević (2019) reported in a study conducted on high
school teachers in Serbia, ‘The teachers did not consider organising instruction
differently for their CLIL classes’ (p. 8). Karabassova (2018), in the study already
mentioned, found that teachers had little awareness of ‘the pedagogical
intentions behind CLIL’ and of ‘the role of language in learning content’ (p. 9). As
has already been seen, CLIL programmes share the basic idea of language and
content integration, but they are implemented in different ways. In fact, practices
in the classroom are linked, among others, to the teachers’ previous experience
and knowledge as well as to their opinions and perceptions (Lyster &
Tedick, 2014). There can also be differences related to the content subjects
taught (Lo, 2019). Studies on classroom practices have confirmed that explicit
attention to language is not common in CLIL classes, but content-oriented
teachers can encourage the active use of the language. In Pérez-Vidal (2007),
classroom observations showed that students had plenty of opportunities to use
the language in context, as the activities created a very communicative setting.
These interactions, however, were usually related to content matter, while focus
on language moments were not identified. The Dutch teachers in Koopman et al.
(2014) believed that it was the English teacher’s job to focus on language and
was therefore not their responsibility. However, in their analysis of CLIL
classroom pedagogies, it was found that the notion of CLIL as a ‘language bath’,
only allowing for increased exposure to English, was not the predominant idea in
this context. In fact, they reported the use of pedagogical procedures supporting
language learning. In the same way, studies on pedagogical practices reported
by Van Kampen et al. (2018), and Oattes et al. (2018) show that while focus on
form is not common in the classrooms, teachers are aware of the importance of
giving students opportunities to listen, read, write and interact in English in CLIL.
In Mahan et al. (2018), the math and science lessons observed were content-
driven and lacked any pedagogy related to language learning. Students in these
lessons were given many opportunities to use the language in interaction, but
few for reading and writing in English.

Even though pedagogical practices that require the active use of the language
can improve language competence, the need to pay explicit attention to language
forms in CLIL has also been highlighted. Lyster’s (2007, 2017) counterbalanced
approach, for instance, defends proactive and reactive approaches, focusing on
form and correcting language forms as a way to systematically integrate
language and content in the classroom. Lo (2019) highlights the need for
students to understand the academic language associated with the subject
matter and explains that this goes beyond the teaching of specific vocabulary. In
fact, there are linguistic features that are used across subjects and involve
complex skills, connecting ideas logically or packing and unpacking dense
information (Barr et al., 2019; Lin, 2016). These features are necessary to
understand and produce language in content subjects.

Studies on CLIL have contributed to the analysis of teachers’ beliefs and

practices in the classroom, but it is important to examine the specific differences
between teachers with a language and a content background. This comparison
can reflect different ways to understand CLIL and may have implications for
improving the quality of CLIL in different subjects.