Challenges in the Implementation of CLIL in Higher Education: From ESP to CLIL in the Tourism Classroom




Content and Language Integrated Learning, CLIL, English for Specific Purposes, ESP, Content Based Instruction, CBI, intensity, language proficiency


Retos en la implementación de CLIL en la educación superior: de ESP a CLIL en el aula de turismo

Desafios na implementação do método AICL no ensino superior: do ESP à AICL na sala de aula de turismo

Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) has often been touted as an effective means of enhancing the language proficiency gains among its learners due to its focus on content over form and higher cognitive demand. However, cautions have been raised regarding the varying conditions and contexts that need to be taken into consideration in order to ensure its effectiveness. This study aimed to analyze the outcome of switching from an English for Specific Purposes (ESP) program to a CLIL program in the fourth and fifth semesters of the School of Tourism at the University of Azuay. Study participants were randomly divided into two groups: a CLIL (experimental) and a non-CLIL group (control), where the former received CLIL instruction and the latter received ESP instruction for an average of five hours per week over a period of two consecutive semesters. The findings revealed no significant increases in language proficiency or differences in achievement between the two groups, thus suggesting that the starting language level of learners influenced the results of the CLIL program.

To reference this article (APA) / Para citar este artículo (APA) / Para citar este artigo (APA)

Vega, M. V. & Moscoso, M. L. (2019). Challenges in the Implementation of CLIL in Higher Education: From ESP to CLIL in the Tourism Classroom. LACLIL, 12(1), 144-176. DOI:

Received: 24/04/2019

Approved: 03/10/2019


Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Melita Vanessa Vega, Universidad del Azuay

Adjunct Professor

School of International Studies

Universidad del Azuay

Maria de Lourdes Moscoso, Universidad del Azuay


School of Tourism

University of Azuay


Apsel, C. (2012). Coping with CLIL: Dropouts from CLIL streams in Germany. International CLIL Research Journal, 1/4, 47–56. Retrieved from

Arment, J., & Perez-Vidal, C. (2015). Linguistic outcomes of English medium instruction programmes in higher education: A study on economics undergraduates at a Catalan university. Higher Learning Research Communications, 5(1), 47–67. Retrieved from

Arribas, M. (2016). Analysing a whole CLIL school: Students’ attitudes, motivation, and receptive vocabulary outcomes. Latin American Journal of Content and Language Integrated Learning, 9(2), 267–292. doi:10.5294/laclil.2016.9.2.2

Banegas, D. L. (2012). Motivation and autonomy through CLIL: A collaborative undertaking. Views on motivation and autonomy in ELT: Selected papers from the XXXVII FAAPI Conference. Bariloche, Chile: APIZALS Asociación de Profesores de Inglés de la Zona Andina y Línea Sur.

Banegas, D. L. (2014). Sharing views of CLIL lesson planning in language teacher education. Latin American Journal of Content and Language Integrated Learning, 8(2), 104–130. doi:10.5294/laclil.2015.8.2.3

Broca, A. (2016). CLIL and non-CLIL: differences from the outset. ELT Journal, 70(3), 320–331.

Bruton, A. (2013). CLIL: some of the reasons why …. and why not. System, 41(3), 587–597.

Burger, S., Weinberg, A., & Wesche, M. (2013). Immersion studies at the University of Ottawa: From the 1980s to the present. Cahiers de L’ilob, 6, 21–43. doi:10.18192/olbiwp.v6i0.1130

Butler, G. (2005). Content-based instruction in EFL contexts: Considerations for effective implementation. JALT Journal, 27(2), 227–245. Retrieved from

Chamot, A. (2014). Developing self-regulated learning in the language classroom (Conference Presentation). The Sixth CLS International Conference CLaSIC 2014 (pp. 78–88). Singapore: National University of Singapore, Center for Language Studies.

Council of Europe. (2019, April 23). Using the CEFR: Principles of good practice. Retrieved from

Coyle, D. (2007). Content and Language Integrated Learning: Towards a connected research agenda for CLIL pedagogies. The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 543–561.

Coyle, D. (2009). Promoting cultural diversity through intercultural understanding: A case study of CLIL teacher professional development at in-service and pre-service levels. Linguistic Insights: Studies in Language and Communication, 105–124.

Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Crandall, J., & Tucker, G. R. (1990). Content-based instruction in second and foreign languages. In A. Padilla, H. Fairchild, & C. Valadez (Eds.), Foreign language education: Issues and strategies (pp. 83–85). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Cummins, J. (2008). BICS and CALP: Empirical and Theoretical Status of the Distinction. In B. &. Street, Encyclopedia of Language Education (pp. 71–83). New York, NY: Springer Science.

Cummins, J. (2013). Bilingual Education and Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL). Revista Padres y Maestros / Journal of Parents and Teachers(349), 6–10.

Dalton-Puffer, C. (2011). Content-and-language integrated learning: From practice to principles? Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 182–204. doi:10.1017/S0267190511000092

Doane, D. P. (2016). Applied statistics in business & economics (5th Ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

Dudley-Evans, T. (1997). An overview of ESP in the 1990s (conference paper). The Japan Conference on English for Specific Purposes. Aizuwakamatsu City, Fukushima, Japan.

Dueñas, M. (2003). A description of prototype models for content-based language instruction in higher education. BELLS: Barcelona English Language and Literature Studies, 12. Retrieved from

Dupuy, B. C. (2000). Content-based instruction: Can it help ease the transition from beginning to advanced foreign language classes? Foreign Language Annals, 33(2), 205–225. doi:10.1111/j.1944-9720.2000.tb00913.x

Eurydice. (2006). Content and language integrated learning (CLIL) at school in Europe. Brussels, Belgium: Eurydice European Unit.

Gonzalez, C. (2015). English for specific purposes: Brief history and definitions. Revista de Lenguas Modernas, 23, 379–386. Retrieved from

Grabe, W., & Stoller, F. L. (1997). Content-based instruction: Research foundations. In M. Snow, & D. Brinton (Eds.), The content-based classroom: Perspectives on integrating language and content (pp. 5–21). White Plains, NY: Longman.

Graham, K. M., Choi, Y., Davoodi, A., Razmeh, S., & Dixon, L. Q. (2018). Language and content outcomes of CLIL and EMI: A systematic review. LACLIL, 11(1), 19–37. doi:10.5294/laclil.2018.11.1.2

Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B., & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety. The Modern Language Journal, 70(2), 125–132. Retrieved from

Hunt, M. (2011). Learners’ perceptions of their experiences of learning subject content through a foreign language. Educational Review, 63, 365–378. doi:10.1080/00131911.2011.571765

Johnson, R. K., & Swain, M. (1997). Immersion education: International perspectives. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. New York, NY: Pergamon Press Inc.

Lasagabaster, D., & Doiz, A. (2016). CLIL students’ perceptions of their language learning process: delving into self-perceived improvement and instructional preference. Language Awareness, 25(1-2), 110–126.

Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (2013). How languages are learned (4th Ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Lorenzo, F. (2007). An Analytical Framework of Language Integration in L2 Content-based Courses: The European Dimension. Language and Education, 21(6), 502–514.

Lorenzo, F., Casal, S., & Moore, P. (2010). 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.

Lyster, R. (2007). Learning and teaching language through content: A counterbalanced approach. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.

Maíz-Arévalo, C., & Domínguez-Romero, E. (2013). Students’ response to CLIL In tertiary education: The case of business administration and economics at Complutense University. Revista de Lingüística y Lenguas Aplicadas, 8, 1–12.

Marsh, D., & Frigols, M. J. (2013). Content and language integrated learning. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics (pp. 1–10). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. doi:10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0190

Merino, J. A., & Lasagabaster, D. (2018). The effect of content and language integrated learning programmes’ intensity on English proficiency: A longitudinal study. International Journal of Applied Linguistics., 28(1), 18–30.

Met, M. (1999). Content-based instruction: Defining terms, making decisions. Washington, DC: The National Foreign Language Center.

Morgado, M., & Coelho, M. (2013). CLIL vs. English as the medium of instruction: The Portuguese higher education polytechnic context. Egitania Sciencia, 123–145.

Nieto, E. (2016). The impact of CLIL on the acquisition of L2 competences and skills in primary education. International Journal of English Studies, 16(2), 81–101. Retrieved from

Paran, A. (2013). Content and language integrated learning: Panacea or policy borrowing myth? Applied Linguistics Review, 4(2), 317–342.

Pica, T. (2010). Educating language learners for a world of change and opportunity: Policy concerns-research responses-practical applications. Working Papers in Educational Linguistics, 25(2), 1–21. Retrieved from

Ravelo, L. (2014). Demystifying some possible limitations of CLIL (content and language integrated learning) in the EFL classroom. Latin American Journal of Content and Language Integrated Learning, 7(2), 71–82.

Richards, J. C. (2006). Communicative language teaching today. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Snow, M. A. (2005). Content-based and immersion models for second and foreign language teaching. In M. Celce-Murcia, Teaching English as a second or foreign language (pp. 303–318). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.

Stoller, F. L. (2002). Content-based instruction: A shell for language teaching or a framework for strategic language and content learning? (Conference Presenation). TESOL Convention 2002. Salt Lake City, UT: TESOL. Retrieved from

Sylvén, K. L. (2013). CLIL in Sweden – why does it not work? A metaperspective on CLIL across contexts in Europe. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualis, 16(3), 301–320.

Tudor, I. (2008). The language challenge for higher education institutions in Europe. The specific case of CLIL. In J. M. Serra, El multilingüisme a les universitats en l’Espai Europeu d’educaió superior (pp. 41–64). Barcelona, Spain: Institut d’Estudis Catalans.

Vega, M. (2017). Content-based instruction for level 3 business majors in the EFL classroom at the University of Azuay: Incorporating content without sacrificing language (Master’s Thesis, University of Cuenca). Retrieved from

Vilkanciene, L. (2011). CLIL in tertiary education: Does it have anything to offer? Studies about Languages, (18), 111–116.

Wolff, D. (2009). Content and language integrated learning. In K. Knapp, & B. Seidhofer, Handbook of foreign language communication and learning (pp. 545–572). Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter.

Yang, W. (2016). ESP vs. CLIL: A coin of two sides or a continuum of two extremes? ESP Today, 4(1), 43–68.




How to Cite

Vega, M. V., & Moscoso, M. de L. (2019). Challenges in the Implementation of CLIL in Higher Education: From ESP to CLIL in the Tourism Classroom. Latin American Journal of Content &Amp; Language Integrated Learning, 12(1).