Strengthening integrated learning: Towards a new era for pluriliteracies and intercultural learning


  • Do Coyle Author University of Aberdeen



AICLE impulsado por lenguaje, transposición didáctica, planes de lecciones, habilidades lingüísticas, la formación del profesorado de idiomas


Over the last two decades, the expansion of Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) on a global scale has brought to the fore challenges of how alternative, more holistic approaches to learning might transform classrooms into language-rich transcultural environments. Integrated approaches have the potential to offer learners the opportunity to engage in meaning-making and language progression through cognitively challenging and culturally-embedded sequenced activities, which are reflected in the 4Cs Framework (Content, Cognition, Communication, and Culture). However, the 4Cs also present many challenges—it is well documented that the potential of CLIL is difficult to realise due to the impact of complex contextual variables. The importance of classroom language is emphasised, as is the need for learners to access different kinds of language to enable them to learn effectively using a language which is not their first—as represented in the Triptych. Whilst the 4Cs bring together the components of CLIL, research by the Graz Group into how these might be integrated has led to the development of the Pluriliteracies Framework. The core of the Pluriliteracies model lies in the space where conceptualizing and communicating come together. Here learners are encouraged to language (or articulate) their learning in their own words. For this to happen, new ways of conceptualizing, planning, and sequencing activities that support learners in accessing new knowledge whilst developing existing and new language skills have to be shared and understood by teachers. The Pluriliteracies model is evolving, and there is a clearly a need for further work.


Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Do Coyle, University of Aberdeen

Do Coyle is Head of School of Education and professor in Learning Innovation at the University of Aberdeen, Scotland. Formerly at Nottingham University, she led an initial teacher education programme for future CLIL teachers, a Master’s programme for CLIL and supervised doctoral students in the field. Do is internationally renowned for her work in CLIL pedagogies and acts as advisor and consultant to ministries and organisations on a global scale. She is involved in a wide range of European initiatives and has published extensively in the field, including the national guidelines for CLIL. Her main research interests lie in furthering classroom pedagogies and professional learning rooted in teacher-learner class-based inquiry. Do’s current research involves teacher-learner networks for analysing effective CLIL practice using digital tools and virtual spaces. She is also carrying out collaborative research with colleagues in Austria and Australia to investigate pluriliteracies in CLIL settings and has launched an on-line Masters in Plurilingual Education.


Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York, NY: Longman.

Baetens Beardsmore, H. (1992). Bilingual education. In J. M. Lynch, C. Modgil, & Sohan Modgil (Eds.), Cultural diversity and the schools: Vol. 1. Education for cultural diversity: Convergence and divergence (pp. 273–283). London, England: Falmer Press.

Bernaus, M., Andrade, A. I., Kervran, M., Murkowska, A., & Sáez, F.T. (2007). Plurilingual and pluricultural awareness in language teacher education: A training kit. Retrieved from the Council of Europe, European Centre for Modern Languages website:

Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals, Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. London, England: Longmans.

Bonnet, A. (2012). Language, content and interaction: How to make CLIL classrooms work. In D. Marsh & O. Meyer (Eds.). Quality interfaces: Examining evidence and exploring solutions in CLIL (pp. 175–190). Eichstätt, Germany: Eichstaett Academic Press.

Bruner, J. (1982). The language of education. Social Research, 49(4), 835–853.

Crane, C. (2002, November 23). Genre analysis: A step toward understanding the different stages of advanced language instruction. Paper presented at the ACTFL/AATG conference, Salt Lake City, UT. Retrieved from

Council of Europe (2010). The languages of schooling. Retrieved from the Council of Europe website:

Coyle, D. (2002). From little acorns. In D. So & G. Jones (Eds.), Education and society in plurilingual contexts (37–55). Brussels, Belgium: Brussels University Press.

Coyle, D. (2007). Content and language integrated learning: Towards a connected research agenda for CLIL pedagogies. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(5), 543–562.

Coyle, D. (2009, February 27). CLIL for the new curriculum. Paper presented at CLIL conference, Willink Specialist Language College, Reading, UK.

Coyle, D. (2010). Language pedagogies revisited: Alternative approaches for integrating language learning, language using and intercultural understanding. In J. Miller, A. Kostogriz, & M. Gearon (Eds). Culturally and linguistically diverse classrooms: New Dilemmas for teachers (pp. 172–195). Bristol, England: Multilingual Matters.

Coyle, D. (2011). Investigating student gains: Content and language integrated learning. (ITALIC Research Report 09-0670). Retrieved from the University of Aberdeen, ITALIC website:

Coyle, D., & Baetens Beardsmore, H. (2007). Research on content and language integrated learning (CLIL). International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(5), 541–542.

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

Dahllöf, U. (1991). Towards a new model for the evaluation of teaching. In U. Dahllöf, J. Harris, M. Shattock, A. Staropoli, & R. Veld (Eds.), Dimensions of Evaluation (pp. 116–152). London, England: Jessica Kingsley.

Dalton-Puffer, C. (2007). Discourse in content and language integrated learning (CLIL) classrooms. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.

Eagleton, T. (2000). The idea of culture. Oxford, England: Blackwell.

Eurydice. (2006). Content and language integrated learning (CLIL) at school in Europe. Retrieved from the Istituto Nazionale di Documentazione, Innovazione e Ricerca Educativa website:

Fullan, M., & Langworthy, M. (2014). A rich seam: How new pedagogies find deep learning. London, England: Pearson. Retrieved from

Gee, J. P. (1989). What is literacy? Journal of Education, 171(1), pp. 18–25.

The Graz Group. (2014). Literacies through content and language integrated learning: Effective learning across subjects and languages. Retrieved from the Council of Europe, European Centre for Modern Languages website:

Halliday, M. A. K., & Mathiessen, C. M. I. M. (2004). An introduction to systemic functional grammar. London, England: Arnold.

Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. (2010). Immersion and CLIL in English: More differences than similarities. English Language Teaching Journal, 64(4), pp. 376–395.

Llinares, A., Morton, T., and Whittaker, R. (2010). The Roles of Languages in CLIL. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Marsh, D. (2002). CLIL/EMILE – The European dimension: Actions, trends and foresight potential (European Commission Report, Public Services Contract DG EAC 36 01 Lot 3). Retrieved from the University of Jyväskylä, UniCOM Continuing Education Centre website:

Meyer, O., Coyle, D., Halbach, A., Schuck, K., & Ting, T. (2015). A pluriliteracies approach to content and language integrated learning – Mapping learner progressions in knowledge construction and meaning-making. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28(1), 41–57.

Orban, L. (2008, September 26). Address to the EU Language Strategy Conference, Paris, France.

Polias, J. (2007). Assessing learning: a language-based approach. In M. Olofsson (Ed.), Symposium 2006: Bedömning, flerspråkighet och lärande. Stockholm, Sweden: HLS förlag: Nationellt centrum för SFI och svenska som andraspråk.

Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (2013). CLIL implementation: From policy-makers to individual initiatives. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16(3), 231–243.

Stigler, J.W., & Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap. New York, NY: Free Press.

Van Lier, L. (2008). Ecological-semiotic perspectives on educational linguistics. In B. Spolsky & F. M. Hult (Eds.), The handbook of educational linguistics (pp. 596–605). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Veel, R. (1997). Learning how to mean – scientifically speaking: Apprenticeship into scientific discourse in the secondary school. In F. Christie & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Genre and institutions: Social processes in the workplace and school (pp. 161–195). London, England: Continuum.

Vollmer, H. J. (2008). Constructing tasks for content and language integrated learning and assessment. In J. Eckerth & S. Siekmann (Eds.), Task-based language learning and teaching: Theoretical, methodological and pedagogical perspectives (pp. 227–290). Frankfurt-am-Main, Germany:Peter Lang.

Wolfe, S., & Alexander, R. (2008). Argumentation and dialogic teaching: Alternative pedagogies for a changing world. Retrieved from the Beyond Current Horizons: Technology, Children, Schools, and Families website:




How to Cite

Coyle, D. (2015). Strengthening integrated learning: Towards a new era for pluriliteracies and intercultural learning. Latin American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning, 8(2), 84–103.



Proceedings of the 5th Biennial CLIL Symposium