• Ivana Cimermanová University of Presov Facuty of Arts, Institute of British and American Studies (SK)




content and language integrated learning, developing materials, feedback, Likert scale, qualitative study


Content and language integrated learning (CLIL) is not an unknown term. In Slovakia, many schools communicate they apply CLIL methodology; however, there are numerous studies that are sceptical about CLIL application. The most significant problem defined by CLIL teachers is the lack of appropriate materials that follow dual aims. Based on this feedback the development of CLIL materials became a part of pre-service teachers’ methodology courses. The present study aimed to explore the attitudes of the pre-service teachers towards the possible application of the content and language integrated learning in their teaching. Questionnaires and pre-service teachers’ portfolios provided data from 63 participants. The study also presents the results of discussions on the problems faced by students, the attitudes of student teachers towards material evaluation and development, planning CLIL lessons and the analysis of the questionnaire focussing on students’ attitudes towards CLIL application. Data suggest that even though pre-service teachers are positive about CLIL application and are interested in doing CLIL lessons they do not feel confident especially in evaluating the outcomes of CLIL lessons and creating materials for CLIL lessons. Finally, the author summarises the pedagogical implications to pre-service teachers study programmes as well as recommendations for teaching practice.




Download data is not yet available.


Agudo, J. D. D. M. (2019). Which instructional programme (EFL or CLIL) results in better oral communicative competence? Updated empirical evidence from a monolingual context. Linguistics and Education, 51, 69–78. doi: 10.1016/j.linged.2019.04.008

Alonso, A. C. (2015). Receptive Vocabulary of CLIL and Non-CLIL Primary and Secondary School Learners. Complutense Journal of English Studies, 23(0). doi: 10.5209/rev_cjes.2015.v23.51301

Bruton, A. (2013). CLIL: Some of the reasons why … and why not. System, 41(3), 587–597. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2013.07.001

C4C - CLIL for Children. (2016). State of art report about use of CLIL methodology in primary schools. Retrieved from http://www.clil4children.eu/documents-and-media/state-of-art-report-about-use-of-clil-methodology-in-primary-schools/

Cañado, M. L. P. (2016). From the CLIL craze to the CLIL conundrum: Addressing the current CLIL controversy. Bellaterra Journal of Teaching & Learning Language & Literature, 9(1), 9–31. doi: 10.5565/rev/jtl3.667

Cañado, M. L. P. (2018). The effects of CLIL on L1 and content learning: Updated empirical evidence from monolingual contexts. Learning and Instruction, 57, 18–33. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.12.002

Chostelidou, D., & Griva, E. (2014). Measuring the Effect of Implementing CLIL in Higher Education: An Experimental Research Project. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 2169–2174. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.538

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. doi: 10.2167/beb459.0

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

Darn, S. (2006, January 10). Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL): A European Overview. Online Submission. Retrieved December 26, 2019, from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED490775.pdf

Isidro, X. S., & Lasagabaster, D. (2018). The impact of CLIL on pluriliteracy development and content learning in a rural multilingual setting: A longitudinal study. Language Teaching Research, 23(5), 584–602. doi: 10.1177/1362168817754103

Jäppinen, A.-K. (2005). Thinking and Content Learning of Mathematics and Science as Cognitional Development in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL): Teaching Through a Foreign Language in Finland. Language and Education, 19(2), 147–168. doi: 10.1080/09500780508668671

Marsh, D., & Frigols Martín, M. (n.d.). ntroduction: Content and Language Integrated Learning. Retrieved December 26, 2019, from https://www.uni-due.de/imperia/md/content/appliedlinguisticsdidactics/lingon/marsh__frigols__clil_intro__ts_me.pdf.

Mehisto, P. (2012). Criteria for producing CLILlearning material. Encuentro, 21, 15–33.

Morton, T. (2013). Critically Evaluating Materials for CLIL: Practitioners’ Practices and Perspectives. In Grey (ed.) Critical Perspectives on Language Teaching Materials, 111–136. doi: 10.1057/9781137384263_6

Piesche, N., Jonkmann, K., Fiege, C., & Keßler, J.-U. (2016). CLIL for all? A randomised controlled field experiment with sixth-grade students on the effects of content and language integrated science learning. Learning and Instruction, 44, 108–116. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.04.001

Pokrivčáková, S. (2013). Quality Survey of Slovak Teachers’ Personal Views on Content Language Integrated Learning (CLIL). International Journal of Liberal Arts and Social Science. 1(1), 83-93.

Pokrivčáková, S. (2015). CLIL in Slovakia: projects, research, and teacher training (2005-2015). In: CLIL in Foreign Language Education: e-textbook for foreign language teachers. Nitra : UKF, pp. 17-29.

Pokrivčáková, S., Menzlová B., Farkašová E. (2010) Creating conditions for effective application of CLIL methodology in Slovakia. In: Modernization of Teaching Foreign Languages : CLIL, Inclusive and Intercultural Education. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, pp. 23-28

Ouazizi, K. (2016). The Effects of CLIL Education on the Subject Matter (Mathematics) and the Target Language (English). Latin American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning, 9(1), 110–137. doi: 10.5294/laclil.2016.9.1.5

Ranjit, S. (2000). How to Develop and Produce Simple Learning Materials with Limited Resources at Community Level. Preparation of Continuing Education Materials in Rural Areas in Asia and the Pacific, the 18th Regional Workshop Retrieved December 30, 2019, from http://www.accu.or.jp/litdbase/pub/dlperson/pdf0106/rpp25.pdf.

Scott, A. G. (2009). CLIL: An interview with Professor David Marsh. IH Journal of Education and Development, Spring(26), 8–10. Retrieved from http://ihjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/journal/IHJournalIssue26Final.pdf

Sepešiová M. (2015). CLIL lesson planning. In: Modernization of Teaching Foreign Languages : CLIL, Inclusive and Intercultural Education. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, pp. 131-152

Straková, Z. (2015). CLIL at lower secondary level. In: Modernization of Teaching Foreign Languages : CLIL, Inclusive and Intercultural Education. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, pp. 60-76

Tomlinson, B. (2010). Principles and procedures of materials development. In Harwood, N. (ed.) English Language Teaching Materials: Theory and Practice (pp. 81–108). Camabridge University Press.

Vilkancienė, L., & Rozgienė, I. (2017). CLIL Teacher Competences and Attitudes. Sustainable Multilingualism, 11(1), 196–218. doi: 10.1515/sm-2017-0019

Zarobe, Y. R. D., & Cenoz, J. (2015). Way forward in the twenty-first century in content-based instruction: moving towards integration. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28(1), 90–96. doi: 10.1080/07908318.2014.1000927




How to Cite

Cimermanová, I. (2020). ON DEVELOPING MATERIALS FOR CLIL. SOCIETY. INTEGRATION. EDUCATION. Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference, 1, 86-96. https://doi.org/10.17770/sie2020vol1.4809