Cross-Curricular

Approaches to
Language
Education
Cross-Curricular
Approaches to
Language
Education
Edited by

Angeliki Psaltou-Joycey,
Eleni Agathopoulou
and Marina Mattheoudakis
Cross-Curricular Approaches to Language Education

Edited by Angeliki Psaltou-Joycey, Eleni Agathopoulou

and Marina Mattheoudakis

This book first published 2014

Cambridge Scholars Publishing

Lady Stephenson Library, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2PA, UK

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

Copyright © 2014 by Angeliki Psaltou-Joycey, Eleni Agathopoulou,

Marina Mattheoudakis and contributors

All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,
electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without
the prior permission of the copyright owner.

ISBN (10): 1-4438-6819-1

ISBN (13): 978-1-4438-6819-8
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables .............................................................................................. ix

List of Figures............................................................................................. xi

List of Abbreviations ................................................................................ xiii

Introduction ................................................................................................. 1
Cross-Curricular Approaches to Language Education
Angeliki Psaltou-Joycey, Eleni Agathopoulou and Marina Mattheoudakis

Cross-Curricular Approaches

Chapter One ............................................................................................... 14

Three Languages, Three School Subjects, One Thematic Framework:
A Cross-Curricular Approach to Language Learning in Muslim
Minority Schools
Lydia Mitits

Chapter Two .............................................................................................. 36

Χρησ(/i/)μότητα Καθημερινού Λεξιλογίου από 12χρονους Δίγλωσσους
στην Ελλάδα
Μαριέτα Παπουτσή (Marieta Papoutsi) and Γεωργία Κατσιμαλή
(Georgia Katsimali)

Chapter Three ............................................................................................ 54

On Spelling Awareness in Greek Education: Evidence from Essays
by Pupils of Greek and of Albanian Origin
George J. Xydopoulos, Argiris Archakis and Kyriakoula Tzortzatou

Chapter Four .............................................................................................. 71

“Once upon a Time in the English Classroom”: The Effects
of Implementing Fairytales in Primary Foreign Language Education
Marina Mattheoudakis, Filio Chasioti, and Thomaï Alexiou
vi Table of Contents

Chapter Five .............................................................................................. 98

The Emergence of an Interdisciplinary Perspective of Shortenings
through Qualitative Analysis of Greek Language and Mathematics
Curricula and Textbooks
Roula Kitsiou

Chapter Six .............................................................................................. 116

Creating New Classroom Communities and Student Identities
through a Cross-Curricular Perspective: An Exploration
into Pedagogical Change in Cyprus
Triantafillia Kostouli and Marios Stylianou

Chapter Seven.......................................................................................... 133

The Project as a Means of Developing Students’ Language Skills
according to Curriculum
Ifigenia Kofou, Angeliki Psaltou-Joycey
and Aikaterini Kiyitsioglou-Vlachou

Chapter Eight ........................................................................................... 152

Αξιολόγηση Παραγωγής Γραπτού Λόγου σε Τεστ Διαθεματικών
Γλωσσικών Δεξιοτήτων: Διαρκής Πρόκληση στο Σύγχρονο
Ελληνικό Πολυπολιτισμικό Σχολείο
Κωνσταντίνα Ηλιοπούλου (Konstandina Iliopoulou)

Intercultural Approaches to Teaching Immigrant and L2 Learners

Chapter Nine............................................................................................ 172

Η Βελτίωση του Εκπαιδευτικού Έργου των Τάξεων Υποδοχής στο
Ελληνικό Σχολείο: Παιδαγωγικές και Γλωσσολογικές Διαστάσεις
Ελευθερία Ζάγκα (Eleftheria Zaga), Αναστασία Κεσίδου (Anastasia
Kesidou) and Μαρίνα Ματθαιουδάκη (Marina Mattheoudakis)

Chapter Ten ............................................................................................. 191

Heritage Languages in Greek Public Schools? Immigrant Pupils’
Attitudes and Skills
Angeliki Kiliari

Chapter Eleven ........................................................................................ 208

Word Clusters in the Examination Papers of Irish Secondary School
Subjects: A Corpus-based Analysis and Pedagogical Implications
Stergiani Kostopoulou
 Cross-Curricular Approaches to Language Education vii

Chapter Twelve ....................................................................................... 225

Developing Teachers’ and Students’ Intercultural Metacognitive
Awareness in Business English Courses
Zoe Kantaridou and Iris Papadopoulou

CLIL at Primary, Secondary and Tertiary Levels

Chapter Thirteen ...................................................................................... 244

«Βλέποντας τον Κόσμο με Άλλα Μάτια: Φως, Χρώματα»:
Μια Προσέγγιση Διδασκαλίας των Φυσικών Επιστημών
μέσω της Νεοελληνικής ως Δεύτερης Γλώσσας
Άννα Αναστασιάδη-Συμεωνίδη (Anna Anastassiadis-Symeonidis),
Μαρία Μητσιάκη (Maria Mitsiaki), Ελένη Βλέτση (Eleni Vletsi),
Σμαρώ Οικονόμου (Smaro Εkonomou) and Κατερίνα Αλεξανδρή
(Katerina Alexandri)

Chapter Fourteen ..................................................................................... 273

Η Διδασκαλία της Γλώσσας με Βάση το Περιεχόμενο ως Βασική
Καινοτομία των Νέων Προγραμμάτων Σπουδών της Νέας Ελληνικής
Γλώσσας για το Γυμνάσιο
Ελευθερία Ζάγκα (Eleftheria Zaga)

Chapter Fifteen ........................................................................................ 289

Integrating Content and Language in European Higher Education:
An Overview of Recurrent Research Concerns and Pending Issues
Emma Dafouz

Chapter Sixteen ....................................................................................... 305

Language Learning Strategies in CLIL and Non-CLIL Classes:
Which Strategies Do Young Learners Claim They Use?
Angeliki Psaltou-Joycey, Marina Mattheoudakis and Thomaï Alexiou

Chapter Seventeen ................................................................................... 323

Multimodal Input and Learners’ Linguistic and Emotional Engagement:
A Case Study of CLIL
Ioanna Ziaka
viii Table of Contents

Chapter Eighteen ..................................................................................... 341

Διδασκαλία γλώσσας μέσω Περιεχομένου σε Μικτή Τάξη: Παραγωγή
υλικού για το Μάθημα της Νεώτερης Ιστορίας, Διδακτικές Εφαρμογές
και Παιδαγωγικά Συμπεράσματα
Βαρβάρα Δημοπούλου (Barbara Dimopoulou), Ελένη Ριζίκοβα
(Helen Rizikova) and Αθανασία Σελέντη (Athanassia Selenti)

Chapter Nineteen ..................................................................................... 366

CLIL in Higher Education: A Study of Students’ and Teachers’
Strategies and Perceptions
Marina Tzoannopoulou

ICT Applications in Cross-Curricular Language Education

Chapter Twenty ....................................................................................... 386

Digital Literacies in International Literacy Education Curricula:
The Cases of Finland and Victoria, Australia
Dimitrios Koutsogiannis, Maria Pavlidou and Stavroula Antonopoulou

Chapter Twenty One................................................................................ 404

Digital Enrichment of EFL Textbooks
Bessie Mitsikopoulou

Chapter Twenty Two ............................................................................... 431

Assistive Technology Tools in the Foreign Language Classroom:
A Study on Collaborative Writing
Erifili Roubou

Chapter Twenty Three ............................................................................. 449

Modes de Réseautage Social et Leur Potentiel Pédagogique
dans les Communautés Web 2.0 d'Apprenants de Langues
Maria-Iliana Kontogianni

Contributors ............................................................................................. 469

Subject Index ........................................................................................... 480

 CHAPTER NINETEEN

CLIL IN HIGHER EDUCATION:

A STUDY OF STUDENTS’ AND TEACHERS’
STRATEGIES AND PERCEPTIONS

MARINA TZOANNOPOULOU

Abstract
This paper focuses on a research study into Content and Language
Integrated Learning (CLIL) at the tertiary level, in Greece. Its principal
aim is to identify the input presentation strategies used by four Greek
university lecturers teaching in their scientific fields and using English as a
medium of instruction to a group of Erasmus students from various
European countries. Qualitative data were obtained by means of the
recordings and transcriptions of the lectures, observations during lectures,
and semi-structured interviews with the teachers. Quantitative data were
drawn from a questionnaire designed to assess student perception and
evaluation of the strategies used by the teachers. The results reveal that the
CLIL lecturers show significant concern for meaning, but also allow for
focus-on-form, albeit to a lesser extent. The findings also indicate that
content teachers adopt a traditional lecturing approach and seem to be
rather reluctant to either change their lecturing style or to receive training
on how to teach more efficiently in a foreign language. The findings are
discussed in the context of effectively bringing together language and
content academics in the design of teacher training courses for CLIL
higher education.

1. Introduction
In recent years and all over Europe, English has been widely used as the
medium of instruction in higher education. This approach mainly reflects
the European language policy on the promotion and implementation of
 CLIL in Higher Education 367

multilingualism (Eurydice, 2006; High Level Group on the Modernisation

of Higher Education, 2013). The relevant literature on English-medium
instruction includes terms such as CLIL (Dalton-Puffer, Nikula & Smit,
2010), English-medium instruction (Hellekjaer, 2010), and ICHLE or
Integrating Content and Language in Higher Education (Wilkinson &
Zegers, 2007). Some studies use these terms interchangeably (Doiz,
Lasagabaster & Sierra, 2011) while others differentiate among them
pointing to their different focus. In this respect, CLIL is defined as “a
dual-focused educational approach in which an additional language is used
for the learning and teaching of both content and language” (Coyle, Hood
& Marsh, 2010, p. 1). ICLHE also falls under the CLIL conceptualisation
while English-medium instruction (EMI) is seen as involving content
learning only (Unterberger & Wilhelmer, 2011). In this paper, which
focuses on classroom discourse, we will adopt the term CLIL following
Smit and Dafouz’s (2012, p. 4) recommendations who claim that while the
distinction between CLIL and EMI “clarifies the pedagogical model
adopted, the notion of content and language integration can also be
interpreted with regard to discursive classroom practices, whereby the
interactants co-construct meaning and their topics”. Such a perspective
allows us to envisage the integration of content and language “as an
integral part of the teaching and learning practices” which can “be seen as
taking place irrespective of explicit teaching aims” (ibid: p. 4).
In the context of tertiary education, CLIL reflects the need for
internationalisation, the employability of home students in a globalising
economy and the attraction of international students. The growth of
student mobility (Wächter, 2004) and the rapid changes in the
epistemology of university disciplines in a global context have been
facilitating factors in the implementation of CLIL.
According to Eurydice (2006), Greece does not have any particular
tradition of CLIL with the exception of a state experimental school in the
northern region of the country, the first official attempt of Greece to
launch CLIL in state primary education (Mattheoudakis, Alexiou &
Laskaridou, 2014). In tertiary education Greece lags behind most
European countries in the number of English-taught programmes and
although universities are increasingly using English as the medium of
instruction, especially in postgraduate education, there still appears to be
little institutional provision for CLIL. Two types of such programmes
exist: The first type originated in the 1980’s and involves mainly private
universities which offer international degrees for national students. These
international courses provide students with a combination of studies in the
home country and universities abroad with a possibility for immersion in
368 Chapter Nineteen

the FL. The second type, which has shown a slow but steady increase from
the late 1990s, involves official programmes offered by a number of public
universities, especially at the postgraduate level, targeted to the attraction
of both national and international students in an attempt to face the
growing globalised marketplace.
Generally, these programmes pay scant attention to teacher training
and education, especially regarding language competences. In the majority
of cases, classes are indeed taught by means of English instruction but
academic staff receives no specific training in the linguistic and
methodological demands of this new approach. It is within this context
that this study aims to shed some light on CLIL practices in higher
education with special reference to the language of lectures, as research in
the Greek educational setting has been found scarce. In particular, the
present paper supplies data at the local level on how CLIL lessons are
carried out in Greece by analysing the discourse of vehicular teaching at
the university level. It proposes an analysis of the lecturers’ discursive
practices with particular attention to the linguistic choices they make in the
delivery of content and form in their L2. Emphasis is placed on the extent
to which such teaching practices could be viewed under the CLIL
framework (where there is an explicit integration between language and
content). Student perception and evaluation of the teachers’ practices is
also analysed. A secondary aim of the study is to raise awareness among
university authorities and educational policy makers as to the specific
language needs of content teachers for a successful implementation of
CLIL in higher education.

2. Background
Subject-matter teaching through the use of L2 in CLIL settings has
attracted considerable attention as it exposes learners to what second
language acquisition (SLA) research describes as comprehensible input
(Krashen, 1985; Marsh & Wolff, 2007). CLIL employs content lessons as
the language input for learners. In this respect, the L2 as a medium of
instruction facilitates second language acquisition by offering learners a
large amount of comprehensible input. The teacher conveys content as a
way of promoting understanding and the input is represented by the
language to which the learners are exposed. Various techniques are
adopted by academic teachers, who lecture in a language other than the
native tongue of their audience, to make content more comprehensible to
their students. For example, previous research on lecture discourse has
focused on types of lecturing styles (Dudley-Evans & Johns, 1981;
 CLIL in Higher Education 369

Saroyan & Snell, 1997), on the relationship between lecturing styles and
discourse comprehension (Crawford Camiciottoli, 2005; Flowerdew,
1994) and more recently on the organisational features and role of
discourse markers in lectures based on genre analysis (Dafouz & Núñez,
2010). In the present study Coonan’s (2002) taxonomy of input
presentation strategies will be used, in an adaptive way, in order to identify
those strategies which facilitate linguistic and conceptual comprehension
in CLIL contexts. These presentation strategies used by the teachers
include: Using discourse markers, using synopsis, using examples,
repeating concepts, using definitions, explaining, re-using lexis, using
synonyms, reformulating, paraphrasing, asking questions, emphasising
through intonation, slowing down the pace of speaking and articulating
words clearly. These categories can be adjusted to make an evaluation of
the input strategies used by university teachers in academic settings (Costa
& Coleman, 2010).
The present study also seeks to determine to what extent the university
lectures studied here focus not only on content teaching but, also, whether
they include elements of focus-on-form (FonF) instruction, that is attention
devoted to phonology, grammar, lexis and pragmatics in the context of
performing a communicative task (Ellis, Basturkmen, & Loewen, 2001).
Focus-on-meaning is defined as “treat[ing] language as a tool for
achieving some non-linguistic goal rather than as an object to be studied
for the purposes of learning the language” (Ellis et al., 2001, pp. 412-413).
Focus-on-form, on the other hand, includes instances in which “the
participants momentarily abandon using language as a tool in order to treat
it as an object… such behavior is quite normal for adult motivated learners
who quite naturally look for opportunities to learn about form even in
activities that are meaning-centred” (p. 426). Focus-on-form is usually
contrasted with the more traditional focus-on-forms approach where
linguistic features are treated in a sequential manner (p. 426). We should
take under consideration the notion that an additional analytic component
in an otherwise communicative mode of instruction such as CLIL can
improve foreign language proficiency (Harley, Allen, Cummins, & Swain,
1990). Moreover, extensive research in the framework of the Canadian
immersion programmes points to the importance of FonF in the
communicative environment of integrated instruction (Genesee, 1987).
Furthermore, second language acquisition research has pointed to the
limitations of implicit teaching, especially as far as adult learners are
concerned−who can achieve better results if an explicit FonF approach is
added (DeKeyser, 2007). Indeed, Long too included focus-on-meaning
and focus-on-form in a combined model (Long, 1996; Long & Robinson,
370 Chapter Nineteen

1998). Consequently, FonF seems to be quite important in higher

education, especially when we consider the teaching of technical terms in
CLIL contexts. Ellis (2001), for example, argues that instances where a
term is explained are to be considered focus-on-form. In the same line of
argument Nation (2001, p. 2004) advises teachers to prepare learners to
deal with “the large number of technical words that occur in specialised
texts”. The CLIL classroom, which is by nature meaning-centred, could be
an ideal environment to combine FonF and focus-on-meaning, that is
instances of linguistic focus (where language is seen as an object)
interspersed into the meaning-centred content (where meaning is seen as
an object). Such a combination could help pave the way for more effective
input in CLIL contexts (Coonan, 2007).
So far, few studies have delved into the presence of FonF in CLIL
university classrooms. Costa (2012) investigated lecturer talk in Italian
universities and drawing on the FonF framework of second/foreign
language learning (Long & Robinson, 1998; Lyster, 2007) reported
instances of FonF comments. The FonF framework identifies pre-emptive
and reactive FonF sequences, the latter being used as corrective feedback
or repair mechanism on the part of the teacher. Pre-emptive FonF refers to
“occasions when either the teacher or a student chose to make a specific
form the topic of discourse” (Ellis et al., 2001, p. 407). This type of
sequence can be initiated by the teacher who based on his experience and
intuition realises that there might be comprehension difficulties in the
classroom (Ellis, 2001). Pre-emptive FonF can include grammatical,
lexical and phonological items but in the present study only lexical
sequences were identified.

3. The Study
The data of this study arises from both a questionnaire and four lectures
delivered in the framework of the International Programme in English
offered by the School of Journalism and Mass Communications (Aristotle
University of Thessaloniki) during the spring semester 2012. Each lecture
lasted approximately one hour. The topics and length of the four lectures
are summarized below:

Lecture I (58:44 minutes/5800 words): International Relations and the

Media.
Lecture II (61:32 minutes/6231 words): Globalization and the Arts.
Lecture III (62:33 minutes/6110 words): Media Management.
Lecture IV (59:00 minutes/6071 words): Television and Entertainment.
 CLIL in Higher Education 371

A total of 15 Erasmus students of seven different nationalities attended

the lectures. Their level of English satisfied the level B2 of the CEFR;
students are required to produce official documentation of their language
competence (e.g., certificate) in order for their application to be accepted
on the programme.
The lecturers who volunteered to participate in the study were three
male and one female native speakers of Greek, all members of the
academic staff of the School. As self-reported in an interview following
the lectures their levels of English ranged between high intermediate and
advanced and all of them had previous experience in lecturing in English.
The study uses a quantitative/qualitative approach which was
considered the best method to probe into the questions pursued in this
paper as, apart from increasing the strengths and eliminating the
weaknesses from both methods, it also offers improved validity and a
multi-level analysis of the issues under investigation (Dörnyei, 2007, p.
45). The quantitative study involves a questionnaire administered to the
group of Erasmus students in order to investigate student perception of the
practices that Coonan (2002) considers as positive for a CLIL teacher. The
qualitative part of the research can be defined as a case study since it
investigates a phenomenon in a real life context, it involves fieldwork and,
finally, it uses multiple sources of evidence (Gillham, 2000). More
specifically, the case study involves four university teachers and four
hours of lectures. Following the case study protocol (Duff, 2008), a
triangulation of the data was adopted in order to ensure validity of the
results (classroom observations, recordings and transcriptions of the
lecturers, and interviews with the lecturers).
Structured observations (i.e., observing the classroom with concrete
categories) were conducted for all four lectures. Extra care was taken in
order for the observations to be as unobtrusive as possible with the
researcher taking field notes (following a template) during the period of
lecturing (Dӧrnyei, 2007, p. 179). The lectures were observed with the use
of several checklists partly based on Coonan’s (2002) categories and other
categories considered as relevant. For every lecture the frequency of
occurrence of each of Coonan’s categories was measured. The following
categories were used: Using discourse markers, using synopsis, using
concrete examples, repeating concepts, using definitions, explaining, using
synonyms, reformulating, and asking questions. Each time a type of the
above-mentioned strategies occurred it was noted on the checklist. The
categories re-using lexis and paraphrasing were eliminated from the list
because they were similar to other classes and were difficult to identify in
terms of instances. It was also decided to remove from the list the
372 Chapter Nineteen

categories that focus on prosodic features and on speaking speed, (slowing

down the pace of speaking, articulating words clearly and emphasising
through intonation) since they were deemed to be too cultural-based for
standardisation.
In addition, two more checklists were used. The first one, based partly
on Kasper’s categories (2000) included the following items: Use of
PowerPoint, use of video, use of Internet, use of tables and graphs, use of
OHP, use of blackboard, and use of handouts. On this checklist the
number of instances was marked and the duration was noted. The second
checklist was created for the purposes of this study and included focus-on-
meaning and focus-on-form instruction. The number of instances was
noted on the checklist.
Each lecture was audio recorded with the use of a small pocket-sized
digital recorder. The lecturers had consented to the recordings.
Transcriptions of the recordings followed Jefferson’s system (2004).
One-to-one semi-structured interviews following the lectures were
conducted with the use of a protocol based on a set of prepared questions
and a set of open ones. This type of instrument is considered to be
appropriate for gaining insight into the lecturers’ behaviour and also
allows for spontaneity (Dörnyei, 2007). It included questions on key topics
(e.g., “How do you feel about receiving training on teaching in English?”)
and probes (e.g., “You have used the phrase ‘it intrudes to the learning of
the content’–what exactly do you mean by that…?”). The interviews were
conducted in Greek, the teachers’ native language.
A questionnaire was chosen as the most appropriate instrument to test
student perception of Coonan’s (2002) categories regarding the best
practices and behaviours of a CLIL teacher. The questionnaire was
anonymous and was distributed to the whole group after the end of each
lecture by the researcher. All the categories were explained to the students
with examples and a Likert-type scale (very helpful, helpful, a bit helpful,
not at all helpful) was used in order to evaluate students’ attitudes and
opinions (Dörnyei, 2007).

4. Results and Discussion

As established by the research objectives, one step was to focus on the
types of presentation strategies used by the teachers during the lectures
and their frequency of occurrence. Consequently, the number of instances
each strategy occurred was counted. Table 19-1 shows the results for each
of the 9 strategies in terms of instances.
 CLIL in Higher Education 373

Table 19-1. Distribution of input presentation strategies in terms of

instances

Instances
Explaining 114
Asking questions 108
Using concrete examples 96
Using discourse markers 71
Using definitions 36
Using synopsis 27
Reformulating 16
Repeating concepts 12
Using synonyms 11
Total 491

The category explaining, which achieved the highest score, includes

the presentation of theories and models of the subject in question or
involves the description or evaluation of a process, as in the following
example (1) where the lecturer explains the way in which the students can
understand the political standing of a newspaper. The symbol (.) represents
a brief pause on the part of the lecturer.

(1) ...because (.) when you are trying to arrive at a particular

conclusion as to what the position of a particular newspaper is you
examine the title (.) you examine the position of the title (.) is it in
the front page or the inside if it is large or small you know you
examine the content of the article where does he get his
information? is he based in Greece? has he translated an article
from Greece? who does he talk to? who is talking in the article?
only officials of the French government? officials of the Greek
government? people from Greek society? and so on and then you
examine the comments of the readers

This part of the lecture is responsible for the expression of content,

which is crucial in CLIL contexts, especially since most reservations
relating to CLIL point to a possible loss of subject content (Creese, 2005).
In higher education this is a very serious issue as students are obliged to
meet the academic workload of their universities and the highly
competitive globalised marketplace. It seems, then, that the input provided
by the teachers in this study takes account of the content in question.
374 Chapter Nineteen

The asking questions category is used for maintaining contact with the
audience and checking content information. Yes-no questions and wh-
questions are mostly used here to interact with the audience as in (2):

(2) so (.) which newspapers in France eh are the newspapers that eh

shape public opinion? (a student answers)

The large number of instances in this category reflects the effort on the
part of the teachers to make their subject material comprehensible and
accessible to the students. However, it needs to be mentioned here that
from the observation it was noted that there was limited response on the
part of the students; at most times the students did not make an effort to
answer the teachers’ questions. This reluctance could be attributed to
difficulties in lecture comprehension and to their unfamiliarity with new
concepts and technical vocabulary, a concern that was voiced during
informal conversations between the researcher and the students after the
completion of the student questionnaires. Moreover, the frontal lesson
approach observed here, poses yet another problem to the degree of
interaction in the classroom. CLIL is by nature interactive and student-
centered and its implementation should be as dynamic as possible (Coyle
et al., 2010). These lectures allow for limited interaction, thus, eliminating
dialogue, a shared responsibility in the teaching-learning process. It seems,
then, that content teachers need to change their lecturing styles in order to
engage students more actively in classroom interactions and, thus, ensure
lecture comprehension.
It is no surprise that the use of concrete examples (3) has a high score
in our findings since, as research has pointed out, the role of illustrating
and offering examples in academic discourse is quite important (Young,
1994).

(3) for example (.) there have been cases where eh musicians or
photographers have been brought to court or prosecuted because
they used some other material to create their own works (.) so in
this sense it is an obstacle to diversity and creativity

As regards the use of discourse markers (4) the analysis reveals that
both explicit and implicit markers are used quite frequently in all four
lectures, as in the following example where the lecturer explicitly (now the
next item on the list) introduces a new topic:
 CLIL in Higher Education 375

(4) now (.) the next item on the list is the top global broadcasters (.)
the voice of America for one thing (.) it it has an audience of ninety
five million people

Repetition of concepts (5) and reformulating (6) are found in smaller

numbers. In extract (5) the lecturer repeats three times the phrase basic
features of newspapers in order to draw a response from the audience. In
extract (6) the lecturer reformulates the phrase will bring us new insight by
changing it into will enable us to understand in order to facilitate
comprehension.

(5) so let’s see (.) what are the basic features of newspapers? you
remember when we talked about the basic features of newspapers
last week? so just tell me one (.) basic features of newspapers

(6) social media (.) will bring us new insight will will enable us to
understand the new ways of communication

As of synopsis (7) it was found that lecturers use it mostly as a micro-

strategy to recapitulate parts of the lessons rather than as a macro-strategy
to make a summary of the whole lecture (in this case the topic of the
lecture was on international relations and the media):

(7) consequently the increase (.) ah in cable networks VCRs video

games and home video have caused TV to lose um part of its
audience

Finally, the use of definitions (8), (9) and synonyms (10), (11) is also
evident in smaller numbers in the lectures. These are instances of lexical
pre-emptive focus-on-form comments. Their presence is interspersed in
various parts of the lessons and it reflects the lecturers’ effort to explain or
provide a meaning for a lexical item during a discourse focused on
meaning.

(8) if we wanted to say what developmental journalism is it means

that the eeh the role of the media is to support eh national interests
for economic and social development

(9) also we had live broadcasts the landing on the moon (.) athletic
championships (.) football matches and the divine liturgy it’s a
religious gathering of the orthodox church
376 Chapter Nineteen

(10) now (.) basic features of newspapers (.) features here means
um characteristics

(11) so for those of you that did not know it there was a
dictatorship (.) a military junta imposed on Greece for seven years
(.) the colonels eh obviously as any tyrant wanted total control over
the media

In extract (8) the lecturer explains the meaning of the term

developmental journalism, a technical term, which is essential for
understanding the rest of the discourse. In extract (9) during a discussion
on the early days of Greek television and of the types of programmes that
were broadcast at the time the teacher explains the meaning of the term
divine liturgy. In example (10) the lecturer in a discussion about the
features of newspapers offers an alternative to the word features without
being asked by a student, sensing that the word might not be known and
thus drawing on his intuition (Ellis, 2001). From the observation it was
also clear that the students did not know its meaning. Finally, in extract
(11) the lecturer again on the topic of Greek television uses a synonym for
dictatorship to make sure the students understand its meaning.
It seems, then, that while the lecturers in our study teach the content of
a subject they also, in a lesser degree, provide some form-focused
comments. Some examples of pre-emptive FonF were identified which
point to a degree of integration between content and language. Table 19-2
shows the occurrences of focus-on-form (definitions and synonyms) and
focus-on-meaning in terms of instances. Overall, the number of FonF
instances is not very high (roughly 10% of the total occurrences),
however, they do show some attention devoted to language matters. This,
of course, means that language objectives are of lesser importance for our
lecturers when compared to content, leaving aside the combined language
and content approach one would expect from CLIL, a point also
mentioned by Costa (2012) in her research on FonF comments made by
native Italian teachers lecturing in English. What is interesting in the
present study is that no grammatical instances of focus-on-form were
observed. This could be attributed to the reluctance of the lecturers to deal
with language teaching, an area they do not feel comfortable with, a
comment they also made in the interviews that followed. Another point to
be touched upon relates to the difficulty in making a clear distinction
between comments focusing on content and comments focusing on form,
especially in cases where we deal with the explanation of a technical term.
Nation (2001, p. 204) claims that “learning technical words is closely
 CLIL in Higher Education 377

connected with learning the subject”, a statement that points to the concept
of a balanced approach, an integration of content and form. In the same
line, Coyle et al. (2010, p. 35) argue that “…in CLIL contexts it is not a
question of whether to focus on meaning or form but rather that it is
fundamental to address both”.

Table 19-2. Focus-on-meaning and focus-on-form teaching in terms of

instances

Instances
Focus-on-meaning 444

Focus-on-form 47
(definitions and synonyms)

In terms of visual aids used during the lessons (Table 19-3) it was
observed that the lecturers made very limited use of visual aids to
complement their teaching. PowerPoint was used in Lecture IV for a
quarter of an hour. Occasional use of the blackboard was also noticed, and
the Internet was used in one occasion. Generally, no other effort was made
to complement teaching with either new technologies or supplementary
materials.

Table 19-3. Distribution of visual aids in terms of instances

Visual aids Instances

Use of blackboard 18
Use of PowerPoint 1 (15 min.)
Use of Internet 1 (15 min.)
Use of graphs and tables 0
Use of overhead projector 0
Use of handouts 0
Use of videos 0

With regard to teachers’ perception of CLIL, the following points may

be made based on the interviews that followed the lessons. The main
advantage of CLIL, according to the teachers, is that it offers a rounded
academic education with a clear focus on content. An added advantage for
the teachers is the existence of many textbooks in English, which facilitate
“authentic” communication, and the fact that CLIL classes are generally
378 Chapter Nineteen

smaller. Teachers, however, feel reluctant to provide focus-on-form

teaching because they, either, do not feel capable of handling the purely
linguistic aspects of learning or they do not feel it is right for linguistic
aspects to “intrude” into the learning of the content. Moreover, they seem
to be rather disinclined to receive training on how to teach in a foreign
language. They also appear to be content to teach independently and they
see no need to discuss issues with language teachers. Teachers also
comment on their difficulties with the foreign language, which lead to
slow rhythm, too much repetition, shortening their periods, and directly
translating from the Greek text (i.e., their own lecture notes). Some of
them admit that they simplify the content of the lessons because of their
lack of competence and fluency in English and also because of the
students’ difficulty with the foreign language and of differences in their
level, which leads to fatigue and frustration.
This final comment made by the teachers, concerning the
simplification of the content, reflects the concern as to the quality of the
content learned, a very important issue in the debate on CLIL (Creese,
2005). CLIL must guarantee the learning of content at a level which
adequately represents the standards expected to achieve in the native
language. If due to the language difficulties of the students (or teachers) an
excessive trivialisation takes place, then the CLIL approach is not properly
implemented as it does not contribute to the overall cognitive growth of
the students (Coyle et al., 2010).
Another comment to be made relates to the reluctance of teachers to
receive training on foreign language teaching, and to their preference for
the frontal lesson approach. This preference can be viewed as an
inheritance from the past, an approach which they experienced as students
and with which they feel comfortable (Willcoxson, 1998). During the
interviews they voiced the concern that activating students (e.g.,
incorporating discussions on relevant topics) requires time which they
would otherwise devote to teaching. They fear that there would be loss of
content which would subsequently affect student learning in a negative
way. It is clear that for a proper implementation of the CLIL approach
efforts should be made to sensitise content teachers as to the effectiveness
of more interactive approaches to teaching (e.g., task-based activities, peer
instruction) as previous research has suggested that student motivation,
study behaviour and learning results benefit significantly from a more
interactive lecturing style (Van Dijk & Jochems, 2002). Institutions should
give the opportunity to content teachers to actively collaborate with
language teachers for the design of CLIL courses, either by offering
teacher training courses or informal support and feedback (peer coaching,
 CLIL in Higher Education 379

on-line discussion groups on teaching). For example, some European

universities have implemented compulsory language courses for content
teachers as well as courses on pedagogical skills on English-medium
instruction (Klaassen, 2008). However, since it is hard to imagine that
high-ranking academic staff in Greece would accept training in FL
methodology it is crucial that they receive some advice on how to perform
their lectures more effectively though English. Informal training could
take place in the form of meetings with language colleagues where the two
groups, content and language academics could work together on
difficulties with language content taken from the existing corpus of
lectures (see Jacobs, 2007, for the collaboration between content and
language lecturers at the Peninsula Technikon in Cape Town). In this way
we would promote attention to language content, which already exists in
subject-matter lectures, as revealed in this corpus. In particular, it could be
useful to analyse videotaped material of the CLIL lessons with the
language colleague pointing to language difficulties that arise in class in a
non-judgmental manner while at the same time highlighting the positive
aspects of the content teacher and the parts where attention is given to
language matters. Special emphasis could be given to the use of discourse
markers needed for a clearer organisation of the lectures, and also to the
range of stylistic choices that are offered in the foreign language (see
Dafouz & Núñez, 2010, for the use of organisational and linguistic
features of lectures in CLIL settings). Generally speaking, careful planning
on the part of university authorities seems to be the key for an effective
implementation of CLIL courses.
The issue of successful implementation of tertiary CLIL should also
take into account students’ experiences of CLIL. In the present study
students were asked to fill in a questionnaire in order for the researcher to
obtain information about their perception and evaluation of the input
presentation strategies used by the teachers. All students (n=15) reported
that they had had no previous experience in integrated learning before. The
results show that the most appreciated strategy is the presentation of
examples during lectures. In addition, all students opted for more visual
aids in the classroom (handouts, power point presentations, use of the
Internet). Some of them (n=7) also regarded as positive the effort on the
part of the teacher to employ, more frequently, repetition of the main
points and synopsis. These last perceptions could be taken into
consideration in the design of CLIL courses. Informally, the students
reported that their experience from CLIL was positive and useful, but also
demanding due to the higher levels of concentration needed to understand
the lectures in English and because of the complexity of the subject
380 Chapter Nineteen

content, a finding also reported by Dafouz, Núñez, Sancho and Foran

(2007) in a study on tertiary teachers’ and students’ perspectives on CLIL.
Overall, it seems that both students and teachers take a positive view
towards CLIL, however they seem to differ in their level of willingness to
participate. Teachers positively reflect on the “authentic” advantages this
approach offers in terms of content by referring to the abundance of
textbooks and other material in English, but also comment on their own
and the students’ difficulties with the English language. Students, on the
other hand, seem to be more enthusiastic, a fact most probably related to
the nature of Erasmus studies, since they all reported to be extremely
interested in the international programme and in the opportunity to study
in Greece and meet students from all over the world.

5. Conclusion
The growth of multilingual programmes in Europe reflects the aim of
restructuring higher education under the guidelines of the Bologna
framework which favour internationalisation. This study has examined the
input presentation strategies which non-native teachers adopt during their
lectures in a CLIL university context. The CLIL lectures analysed here
show that emphasis is placed on exemplification, explanation, asking
questions and the use of discourse markers. Moreover, the lectures show
significant concern for meaning, and a lesser one for form. Currently, it
seems that CLIL at the tertiary level in Greece is often performed in a
casual manner as academics seem reluctant to receive training on how to
teach in an additional language.
All in all, this paper aims to contribute to applied linguistics research
since students’ and teachers’ strategies and perceptions, together with
classroom discourse and English-medium educational policy, can offer a
comprehensive view of this extremely dynamic and flexible approach to
education which is widely expanding in European Higher Education.

References
Coonan, C. M. (2002). La lingua straniera veicolare. Turin: UTET.
—. (2007). Insider views of the CLIL class through teacher self-
observation–introspection. International Journal of Bilingual
Education and Bilingualism, 10(5), 625-646.
Costa, F. (2012). Focus on form in ICLHE lectures in Italy. In U. Smit &
E. Dafouz (Eds.), AILA Review 25 (pp. 30-48). Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
 CLIL in Higher Education 381

Costa, F., & Coleman, J. (2010). Integrating content and language in

higher education in Italy: Ongoing research. International CLIL
Research Journal, 3, 19-29.
Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and language
integrated learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Crawford Camiciottoli, B. (2005). Adjusting a business lecture for an
international audience: A case study. English for Specific Purposes, 24,
183-199.
Creese, A. (2005). Is this content-based language teaching? Linguistics
and Education, 16(2), 188-204.
Dafouz, E., & Núñez, B. (2010). Metadiscursive devices in university
lectures. In C. Dalton-Puffer, T. Nikula & U. Smit (Eds.), Language
use and language learning in CLIL classrooms (pp. 213-233).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Dafouz, E., Núñez, B., Sancho, C., & Foran, D. (2007). Integrating CLIL
at the tertiary level: Teachers’ and students’ reactions. In D. Wolff &
D. Marsh (Eds.), Content and language integrated learning in Europe–
converging and diverging goals (pp. 91-102). Frankfurt am Main:
Peter Lang.
Dalton-Puffer, C., Nikula, T., & Smit, U. (Eds.). (2010). Language use
and language learning in CLIL classrooms. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Doiz, A., Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. (2011). Internationalisation,
multilingualism and English-medium instruction. World Englishes,
30(3): 345-359.
Dӧrnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
DeKeyser, R. (2007). Practice in a second language: Perspectives from
applied linguistics and cognitive psychology. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Dudley-Evans, A., & Johns, T. F. (1981). A team teaching approach to
lecture comprehension for overseas students. In The teaching of
listening comprehension: ELT documents special (pp. 30-46). London:
British Council.
Duff, P. (2008). Case study research in applied linguistics. New York:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ellis, R. (2001). Introduction: Investigating form-focused instruction.
Language Learning, 5, 1-47.
Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2001). Preemptive focus on form
in the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 35(3), 407-432.
382 Chapter Nineteen

Eurydice, (2006). Content and language integrated learning (CLIL) at

school in Europe. European Commission: Brussels. Retrieved from
http://ec.europa.eu/languages/documents/studies/clil-at-school-in-
europe_en.pdf.
Flowerdew, J. (1994). Academic listening: Research perspectives.
Cambridge: CUP.
Genesee, F. (1987). Learning through two languages: Studies of
immersion and bilingual education. Cambridge: Newbury House.
Gillham, B. (2000). Case study research methods. London: Continuum.
Harley, B., Allen, P., Cummins, J., & Swain, M., (1990). The development
of second language proficiency. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Hellekjaer, G. (2010). Language matters: Assessing lecture comprehension
in Norwegian English-medium higher education. In C. Dalton-Puffer,
T. Nikula, & U. Smit (Eds.), Language use and language learning in
CLIL classrooms (pp. 233-258). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
High Level Group on the Modernisation of Higher Education, (2013).
Luxemburg: Publications Office of the European Union. Retrieved
from http://ec.europa.eu/education/higher-education/doc/modernisation
_en.pdf.
Jacobs, C. (2007). Integrating content and language: Whose job is it
anyway? In R. Wilkinson & V. Zegers (Eds.), Researching content and
language integration in higher education (pp. 35-47). Nijmegen:
Valkof Pers.
Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction.
In G. H. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first
generation (pp. 13-31). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins
Kasper, L. F. (2000). Content-based ESL instruction. Mahwah, N. J.:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Klaassen R. (2008). Preparing lecturers for English-medium instruction. In
R. Wilkinson & V. Zegers (Eds.), Realising content and language
integration in higher education (pp. 32-42). Maastricht: Maastricht
University Press.
Krashen, S. D. (1985). Second language acquisition and second language
learning. Pergamon: Oxford.
Long, M. (1996). The role of linguistic environment in second language
acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of
second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). San Diego: Academic
Press.
Long, M., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form. Theory, research and
practice. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in
 CLIL in Higher Education 383

classroom second language acquisition (pp. 15-41). Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.
Lyster, R. (2007). Learning and teaching languages through content.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Marsh, D., & Wolff, D. (Eds.). (2007). Diverse contexts-converging goals:
CLIL in Europe. Peter Lang: Frankfurt.
Mattheoudakis, M., Alexiou, T., & Laskaridou, C. (2014). To CLIL or not
to CLIL? The case of the 3rd experimental primary school in Evosmos.
In N. Lavidas, T. Alexiou & A. M. Sougari (Eds.), Major trends in
theoretical and applied linguistics (pp. 215-234). Berlin: De Gruyter
Open.
Nation, P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Smit. U., & Dafouz, E. (Eds.). (2012). AILA review 25. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Saroyan, A., & Snell, L. (1997). Variations in lecturing styles. Higher
Education, 33, 85-104.
Unterberger, B., & Wilhelmer, N (2011). English-medium education in
economics and business studies: Capturing the status quo at Austrian
universities. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 161, 90-110.
Van Dijk, L.A., & Jochems, W. M. G. (2002). Changing a traditional
lecturing approach into an interactive approach: Effects of interrupting
the monologue in lectures. International Journal of Engineering
Education, 18(3), 275-284.
Wilkinson, R., & Zegers, V. (Eds.). (2007). Researching content and
language integration in higher education. Nijmegen: Valkhof Pers.
Willcoxson, L. (1998). The impact of academics' learning and teaching
preferences on their teaching practice: A pilot study. Studies in Higher
Education, 23, 59-70.
Wächter, B. (2004). Higher education in a changing environment.
Lemmens: Bohn.
Young, L. (1994). University lectures, macro-structures and micro-
features. In Flowerdew, J. (Ed.), Academic listening (pp. 159-176).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.