






































Sebuah Kajian Pustaka:


English Language Teaching Educational Journal   E-ISSN: 2621-6485 

Vol. 4, No. 1, 2021, pp. 1-14  1 

  

       10.12928/eltej.v4i1.3702                        http://journal2.uad.ac.id/index.php/eltej/index          eltej@pbi.uad.ac.id  

The suitability of foreign language teaching in childhood 

according to the CLIL approach: The foreign language 

teachers' attitudes 

Tilen Smajla  

Elementary School Pier Paolo Vergerio Il Vecchio, Gimnazijski trg 7, 6000 Koper, Slovenia 

tilen.smajla@gmail.com  

 

 

A R T I C L E  I N F O 

 

ABST RACT  

 

 

Article history 

Received 17 February 2021 

Revised 08 April 2021 

Accepted 20 April 2021 

 This paper presents the results of a research into the foreign teachers' 
attitudes towards the first foreign language (FL 1) teaching according 
to the CLIL approach. The first foreign language teachers (FL 1 
teachers) should have carried out their FL 1 lessons using the CLIL 
approach. The results of the twelve interviews: teachers agree upon the 
importance of the education process of teachers-to-be, for any teacher 
working at an early level should have completed a BA in class teaching 
and should have acquired a degree in the methodology of early 
language teaching. Most teachers who used the CLIL approach in the 
first year of its introduction (school year 2014–2015), refrained from 
it in the second year, or only used some elements of the CLIL 
approach, for they felt that it was impossible to follow the guidelines 
of the “hard” CLIL. Consequently, they only used some elements or 
strategies of the CLIL approach, which some authors call “soft” CLIL. 
Although some teachers claimed to have encountered numerous 
obstacles in teaching according to CLIL, they nevertheless considered 
it to be a suitable approach in the FL 1 classroom and they feel that 
CLIL has contributed significantly to the learning outcomes.  

   

   

This is an open access article under the CC–BY-SA license. 

    

 

 
Keywords 

Attitudes 

CLIL approach 

early age 

foreign language teacher 

foreign language teaching 

 

 

 

 

 

How to Cite: Smajla, T. (2021). The suitability of foreign language teaching in childhood according to the 

CLIL approach: The foreign language teachers' attitudes. English Language Teaching Educational Journal, 

4(1), 1-14. doi.org/10.12928/eltej.v4i1.3702 

1. Introduction 

In the member states of the European Union, children start learning foreign languages at a very 
early age, for it was determined that early language learning has a positive impact on mother tongue 
proficiency and it increases motivation for learning foreign languages in the subsequent period 
(Čok, 2008; Lipavic Oštir & Jazbec, 2010). In contrast, many parents and teachers expressed 
considerable concern over the possibility that too early exposure to a variety of languages might 
slow down children's cognitive development (Dagarin Fojkar & Skubic, 2017, p. 87). The research, 
however, showed that bilingual children, for example, develop certain types of cognitive flexibility 
and metalinguistic consciousness earlier and to a greater extent than their monolingual peers 
(Cummins, 2000; King & Mackey, 2007). According to foreign language teaching methodology, 
foreign language lessons should be continuously carried out using the “vertical approach” (early 

https://doi.org/10.12928/eltej.v4i1.3702
http://journal2.uad.ac.id/index.php/eltej/index
mailto:eltej@pbi.uad.ac.id
mailto:tilen.smajla@gmail.com
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.12928/eltej.v4i1.3702&domain=pdf
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6214-067X


2 English Language Teaching Educational Journal   E-ISSN: 2621-6485 

 Vol. 4, No. 1, 2021, pp. 1-14 

 

 Smajla (The suitability of foreign language teaching in childhood according to the CLIL approach) 

learning of the first foreign language, the second foreign language is introduced later) in parallel 
with the “horizontal approach”, establishing different connections with children’s mother tongue, 
other languages and other subjects (music class, art class, learning about the environment, etc.) 
(Lipavic Oštir & Jazbec, 2010). Learning and teaching in the first educational period (EP 1) is 
specific, which is why these processes must be conducted in accordance with the principles for 
teaching young pupils. The school curriculum for the first foreign language (FL 1) at an early age 
(in the second and third grades of primary school) (Pevec Semec et al., 2013) emphasises the 
advantage of early FL 1 learning, as this stresses children's characteristics in this period, such as 
curiosity, the desire to learn, the need to communicate as well as the willingness and capability to 
imitate new and unfamiliar sounds (Pevec Semec et al., 2013, p. 6). The thesis briefly outlines how 
the CLIL approach was implemented in Slovenia on a statewide level for the first time and 
describes the circumstances of introducing foreign language lessons according to the CLIL 
approach.  

Based on what was written in the aforementioned text we would like to highlight the valuable 
contribution of the efforts of FL teachers in their attempts to boost the learning outcomes of young 
foreign language learners, which is exactly what our research has concluded.  

1.1. The CLIL Approach 

The introduction mentions the CLIL approach, which was first recognized in 1995 in the 

Council Resolution of 31 March 1995 on improving and diversifying language learning and 

teaching within the education systems of the European Union. The CLIL approach is known under 

various names, such as language bath, language showers, integrated lessons, bilingual lessons, 

total or partial immersion, or – as stated in Lipavic Oštir et al., 2015 – non-language subject in a 

foreign language. During its development and implementation it has been compared and/or 

considered as a synonym to integrated thematic instruction (school model designed by Kovalik, 

see Kovalik & Olsen, 1993), immersion (Lasagabaster & Sierra, 2009), content-based instruction 

(Cenoz, 2015), task-based language teaching (Ortega, 2015), English for specific purpose (Yang, 

2016; Taillefer, 2013; Tzoannopoulou, 2015) or bilingual education (Nikula, 2018). CLIL 

programmes are an approach to learn English or another foreign language by combining language 

and content subjects. In some contexts, CLIL is selective and this selection can be based on 

cognitive abilities or may also be linked to socio-economic backgrounds (Van Mensel et al., 

2020). 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). Karabassova (2018, p. 2) claimed that there is a 

"dichotomy of teaching the content subject and teaching the language instead of utilizing an 

integrated approach towards teaching". This dichotomy exists because most teacher education 

degrees are oriented either to language or to content, particularly in the case of secondary 

education. This problem arose because content teachers believed they should give priority to 

content (DaltonPuffer, 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).  

As a language of instruction, the CLIL approach uses a language that is not the children’s first 

language or their mother tongue. Baïdak et al., (2006, p. 10) claim that the CLIL approach uses 

an additional or second language, which helps children learn. According to Eurydice (Content 

and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) at School in Europe, 2006, p. 11), the additional 

languages can be English, German, French, Spanish or Russian – altogether, they represent 95 % 

of all languages learnt by pupils in the EU. Georgiou (2012, p. 495–496) notes that “the CLIL 

approach is the highest developmental stage of communicative approach to language teaching”. 

The CLIL approach allows pupils reasonable communication and at the same time provides them 

with an excellent opportunity to use a foreign language in an exercise. In this process, pupils can 

experience continuous learning, which is natural, unforced and thus more effective (Georgiou, 



E-ISSN: 2621-6485 English Language Teaching Educational Journal 3 
 Vol. 4, No. 1, 2021, pp. 1-14 

 

 Smajla (The suitability of foreign language teaching in childhood according to the CLIL approach) 

2012, p. 495–496). It offers a highly scaffolded environment and the support to students in 

developing the skills needed for memorizing, describing, asking questions, cooperative group 

work, pair work, debating and so on for the assignments to be successful (Coyle et al., 2010). 

CLIL students have been shown to obtain greater oral communication, speaking fluency and 

social interaction skills in the foreign language, than students who only attend standard foreign 

language education (De Diezmaz, 2016; Dalton-Puffer, 2011; Mayo & Ibarrola, 2014; Perez 

Canado, 2017; Arribas, 2016). Although CLIL is sometimes used as the term to exclusively refer 

to specific European bilingual education programmes using English as the language of instruction, 

CLIL shares the same essential characteristics as other Content-Based Instruction (CBI) 

programmes such as immersion programmes (Cenoz, 2015; Cenoz et al., 2013; Cenoz & Ruiz de 

Zarobe, 2015). The CLIL approach creates a learning environment in which pupils acquire 

language skills through their immediate use and not in language lessons, where languages skills 

were acquired and developed for a future use.  

1.2. Background of the Research 

Considering the fact that the paper deals with teachers’ attitudes, and to a certain extent belief, 

citing the monumental work of Krosnick and Perth (1995) is inevitable. It is assumed that there 

is a certain level of interchangeability of the terms attitude and belief and the following part will 

be dedicated to the teachers’ beliefs. As Artner would put it (2016, p. 50) “the term ‘belief’ is 

easily understandable and readily used in day-to-day conversation. As a subject of research 

teachers’ beliefs have developed from the 1940’s onwards with an increased interest over the last 

20 years.” The author continues by stating that “some researchers see beliefs as something stable, 

unable to be changed, whereas others view them as dynamic.” Both understandings are based on 

research findings and have influenced research and practice in equal measure (2016, p. 53).  

Across the globe, the CLIL approach has proven to be timely and has been supported on all 

levels by all stakeholders, as Cross reported (2013). Particularly, in the state of Victoria, the 

authors claimed that “teachers reported even higher levels of support from content teachers by the 

end of the trial” (Cross, 2013, p. 69) on the one hand, while “principals expressed possible concern 

about how the approach had been perceived by the broader school community on the other hand.” 

(Cross, 2013, p. 69). The discrepancy was reported by teachers related specifically to non-

language/content teachers with whom language teachers collaborated in developing the CLIL 

programme.  

Cross also concluded that “CLIL has the potential to impact other curriculum areas. With 

immersion programs, the likelihood that it will impact other areas is very high, since at least 50% 

of the curriculum is being delivered in the target language (Baker, 2006, as cited in Cross, 2013, 

p. 70; see also Gorjian & Hamidavi, 2017). The authors pointed to an important consideration, 

that should a language teacher “attempt CLIL in an unsupportive school, and then have the 

program fail, will only reinforce existing negative perceptions/uncertainty about its potential. 

CLIL’s success therefore ultimately depends on the quality of individual or small groups of 

teachers, working within supportive school environments.” (Baker, 2006, as cited in Cross, 2013, 

p. 70-72; see also Gorjian & Hamidavi, 2017). Studies have also revealed a great impact of CLIL 

on foreign language performance, content knowledge and also the impact on mother tongue, 

classroom interaction (Pastrana, Llinares & Pascual, 2018), the influence of affective factors 

(Lasagabaster & Doiz, 2015; Otwinowska & Foryś, 2017), household structure (Mensel, 

Hilligsmann, Mettewie & Galand, 2020), time and intensity (Surmont, et al., 2016; Merino & 

Lasagabaster, 2017), age (Roquet, 2015), motivation (Fontecha & Canga Alonso, 2014), gender 

(Canga Alonso, 2016; Fontecha & Canga Alonso, 2014), strategies (Zarobe, 2017; Straková, 

2020).  

It is important to bring down language barriers and boost interest in English as a school subject 

(Rumlich, 2014). Researches in Japan, for example, mentioned “good points of CLIL” (Yamano, 

2013; Ito, 2018a) through practices and investigations. Ito (2018b, p. 60) specifically highlighted 

the following: “students are less anxious about making mistakes in English as they are focused 



4 English Language Teaching Educational Journal   E-ISSN: 2621-6485 

 Vol. 4, No. 1, 2021, pp. 1-14 

 

 Smajla (The suitability of foreign language teaching in childhood according to the CLIL approach) 

on lesson content; many students feel as though lessons are fun because their intellectual curiosity 

is fulfilled; and, many students feel that CLIL lessons are easy to understand as teachers tend to 

use visual aids.”, thus bringing the CLIL approach’s effectiveness to the sustainable level. 

2. Method 

2.1. Research Problem, the Aim of the Research and Research Questions 

In the 2014/2015 school year, FL 1 pilot lessons were first carried out in the second grade of a 
state primary school, while all other state schools saw its initial introduction in the 2016/2017 
school year. Teachers were asked to carry out FL 1 lessons according to the CLIL approach, which 
the school curriculum describes as a didactic recommendation, not as a compulsory approach to 
teaching (Pevec Semec et al., 2013). As a language of instruction, the CLIL approach uses a foreign 
language; however, according to constitutional provisions (Ustava Republike Slovenije, 1991), 
lessons in state schools cannot be carried out in a foreign language (except for the areas of 
autochthonous Italian and Hungarian national communities, where lessons in state schools are 
carried out in either Italian or Hungarian) (Ustava Republike Slovenije, 1991). We assumed that 
teachers had partly adopted their attitudes towards the introduction of FL 1 teaching according to 
the CLIL approach, which is why we wanted to investigate what they thought. We examined the 
teachers’ attitude towards the introduction of FL 1 teaching according to the CLIL approach, their 
attitude towards foreign language learning and teaching according to the CLIL approach and their 
attitude towards the suitability of the CLIL approach in FL 1 lessons. Based on the aforementioned 
premises we aimed to determine whether the introduction of the CLIL approach changes the FL 1 
teachers’ attitude towards FL 1 learning and teaching in childhood. We also wanted to examine 
whether there are significant differences between FL 1 teachers’ attitudes towards the suitability 
of the CLIL approach in FL 1 teaching. Lastly, we sought to find out whether there are significant 
differences in FL 1 teachers’ attitude towards FL 1 learning and teaching in childhood and the 
CLIL approach with regard to gender, years of experience and acquired education of FL 1 teachers. 
See the Appendix for the list of questions for the semi-structured interview. 

2.2. Research Paradigm, Data Acquisition, Data Processing and Presentation of the 

Research Sample 

In the research, the qualitative research paradigm is used. The data were acquired by conducting 
semi-structured interviews, which allowed us to gain a detailed insight into the interviewees’ 
attitudes. Ten interviews were carried out face-to-face, two by mail. The interviews were 
conducted in the period from 15. 2. 2016 to 31. 3. 2016. The obtained material was processed and 
analysed using neither measurement process nor operations between numbers (Mesec, 1998). In 
the process of systematic coding of units obtained from the material, we formed theoretical 
explanations (Zhang & Wildemuth, 2009). 

 The research sample was obtained by applying convenience sampling and as a result, 12 semi-
structured interviews with interviewees from all over Slovenia, except for its Central region, were 
carried out. There are no participants from the Central region of Slovenia, since none of the foreign 
language teachers whom we reached out to, had chosen to participate in our research. All 12 
interviewees were female foreign language teachers at state elementary schools. Below is a detailed 
presentation of the sample. 

Interviewee 1: female FL 1 class teacher with additional training in foreign language teaching 
methodology at an early age, 19 years of service and 8 years of teaching experience at an early age, 
born 1972. 

Interviewee 2: female FL 1 class teacher with additional training in foreign language teaching 
methodology at an early age, 12 years of service, born 1988. 

Interviewee 3: female FL 1 class teacher with additional training in foreign language teaching 
methodology at an early age, 26 years of service and 2 years of teaching experience at an early age, 
born 1963. 



E-ISSN: 2621-6485 English Language Teaching Educational Journal 5 
 Vol. 4, No. 1, 2021, pp. 1-14 

 

 Smajla (The suitability of foreign language teaching in childhood according to the CLIL approach) 

Interviewee 4: female FL 1 class teacher with additional training in foreign language teaching 
methodology at an early age, 7 years of service and 2 years of teaching experience at an early age, 
born 1989. 

Interviewee 5: female FL 1 class teacher with additional training in foreign language teaching 
methodology at an early age, 12 years of service, born 1984. 

Interviewee 6: female FL 1 class teacher with additional training in foreign language teaching 
methodology at an early age, 8 years of service and 4 years of teaching experience at an early age, 
born 1986. 

Interviewee 7: female FL 1 class teacher with additional training in foreign language teaching 
methodology at an early age, 10 years of service and 6 years of teaching experience at an early age, 
born 1983. 

Interviewee 8: female FL 1 class teacher with additional training in foreign language teaching 
methodology at an early age, 10 years of service and 2 years of teaching experience at an early age, 
born 1981. 

Interviewee 9: female FL 1 class teacher with additional training in foreign language teaching 
methodology at an early age, 13 years of service, born 1979.  

Interviewee 10: female FL 1 class teacher with additional training in foreign language teaching 
methodology at an early age, 7 years of service, born 1983.  

Interviewee 11: female FL 1 class teacher with additional training in foreign language teaching 
methodology for the second cycle (classes 4 to 6 in the nine-grade Slovenian state elementary 
schools) of elementary schools, 10 years of service, born 1981. 

Interviewee 12: female FL 1 and sociology teacher with additional training in foreign language 
teaching methodology at an early age, 17 years of service and 12 years of teaching experience at 
an early level, born 1973. 

3. Findings and Discussion 

The results of the research are presented in individual categories that are derived from research 
questions. Some categories were combined with regard to the research questions. 

3.1. Category 1: The FL 1 Teachers’ Attitude towards FL 1 Learning and Teaching in 
Childhood has Changed due to the Introduction of the CLIL Approach 

Most of the interviewees changed their attitudes during the introduction of the FL in the EP 1. 
We determined that most of the interviewees, who taught according to the CLIL approach at least 
for one year, only partly preserved the teaching methods according to this approach, as they 
observed that they can no longer strictly follow its teaching guidelines; consequently, they only 
used some of the elements or only the strategy of the CLIL approach in teaching. Interviewee 1, 
FL 1 teacher with 19 years of service, born 1972, stated: “I think that CLIL is still a very good 
approach, although I didn’t often use it in the second year of the trial introduction, mostly due to a 
strict timetable and due to a different way of teaching.” They preferred to adopt interdisciplinary 
integration strategies and some of them followed the guidelines set by the National Education 
Institute Slovenia in the second year of the introduction of the FL 1 in the EP 1, which recommend 
the use of the softer version of the CLIL approach. As would the Interviewee 5, FL 1 teacher with 
12 years of service, born 1984, say: “The first year of the FL 1 trial introduction, 2013/2015, I had 
lots of support, CLIL was a recommended approach in the EP 1, but I later found out that I could 
not test the students’ knowledge by using the traditional textbook approach, so now I mainly use 
cross-curricular links.” As reasons for abandoning this approach, the interviewees stated different 
obstacles, from organizational problems (placement in the school schedule, remuneration for work, 
too large groups, combined lessons, etc.) to the particularity of modern generations of pupils. They 
also stressed the need to adapt their work to children’s needs and establish a relationship with 
pupils. When asked about this, Interviewee 8, FL 1 teacher with 10 years of service, born 1981, 



6 English Language Teaching Educational Journal   E-ISSN: 2621-6485 

 Vol. 4, No. 1, 2021, pp. 1-14 

 

 Smajla (The suitability of foreign language teaching in childhood according to the CLIL approach) 

said: “What matters is that you have a feeling for teaching children and the persons’ character. A 
great factor at work is the personal touch.” We can summarize that, due to the aforementioned 
problems, most of the interviewees do not apply the CLIL approach in foreign languages lessons 
in entirety, but only partly. Some of them did not adopt this approach because they felt themselves 
underqualified to carry out lessons using the CLIL approach, so they provided lessons using other 
approaches, of which interdisciplinary integration and the communication approach were the most 
commonly mentioned. 

3.2. Category 2: There are Differences in FL 1 Teachers’ Attitude towards the Suitability of 
the CLIL Approach in FL 1 Teaching  

Three of twelve interviewees evaluated the CLIL approach as particularly suitable, whereas the 
others deemed it suitable in foreign language lessons, which are not carried out entirely in 
accordance with the CLIL approach due to several obstacles. As would Interviewee 11, FL 1 
teacher with 10 years of service, born 1981 say: “Working according to CLIL is very demanding, 
your need to go through a lot of adjusting and cooperation with class teachers, which requires a lot 
of joint planning, exchange of materials and sources.” This approach was applied by some 
interviewees from time to time and on occasions where this was reasonable, while others used it 
all the time. Some interviewees mentioned the use of the CLIL matrix, which was used in the 
second year of the introduction of the FL 1 in foreign language lessons, while others were aware 
of the suitability of the CLIL approach for carrying out foreign language lessons, yet they preferred 
to use interdisciplinary integration and learning approaches similar to the CLIL approach in that 
same period. To sum up, we perceived much insecurity regarding what expectations the experts 
formulating language policies set up about the FL 1 teachers in the EP 1, what type of the CLIL 
approach the FL 1 teachers were supposed to adopt with children at an early age, where they could 
get qualified for this type of work and whether they would be remunerated for the additional work 
that they do. Some interviewees claimed that they were prepared to provide FL 1 lessons in 
accordance with the CLIL approach if they could acquire the appropriate qualification, since they 
had a positive attitude towards this approach. When directly asked about the suitability of the CLIL 
approach in FL 1 teaching, Interviewee 2, FL 1 teacher with 12 years of service, born 1988, said: 
“If I understand CLIL correctly, strictly speaking, it’s not useful, because I have to teach my kids 
the names of the objects in their mother tongue first. Some elements are ok, for example the 
communication.” Interviewee 3, FL 1 teacher with 26 years of service, born 1963 added: “I think 
CLIL is not useful, its elements are, though, but not the whole. So, not the whole, just at times and 
occasionally, where it’s possible and feasible.”  

3.3. Category 3: There are Differences in the FL 1 Teachers’ Attitude towards FL 1 Learning 
and Teaching in Childhood and towards the CLIL Approach with Regard to Gender, Years 
of Experience and the Acquired Education of FL 1 Teachers 

The interviewees all agreed upon the importance of the acquired education of FL 1 teachers 

in the EP 1, who should have completed a BA in class teaching and acquired a degree in the 

methodology of early English/German teaching. According to the interviewees, teachers with 

such education are suitable for this type of work, as they are the most familiar with teaching 

approaches and methods used with children at an early age. Some interviewees stressed the 

importance of a relationship established by teachers with younger pupils. Interviewee 3, FL 1 

teacher with 26 years of service, born 1963 believed that “this depends on the personality, on how 

teachers can approach children”. The interviewees thought it better for class teachers to carry out 

lessons with younger pupils, as they are more familiar with the children’s needs and the school 

curriculum for this period, they find it easier to follow teaching guidelines and they know the 

teaching didactics appropriate for children at an early age. Three interviewees, who recognized 

years of experience as an important factor, stressed that teachers teaching FL 1 in the EP 1 should 

have more experience. Following up the last statement, Interviewee 9, FL 1 teacher with 13 years 

of service, born 1979 stated that “a teacher with more years of experience has more knowledge 

on the characteristics of younger pupils and more authority over them”. Interviewee 11, FL 1 

teacher with 10 years of service, born 1981 believed that “years of experience bring more 



E-ISSN: 2621-6485 English Language Teaching Educational Journal 7 
 Vol. 4, No. 1, 2021, pp. 1-14 

 

 Smajla (The suitability of foreign language teaching in childhood according to the CLIL approach) 

confidence”. In addition to the importance of years of experience, Interviewee 12, FL 1 teacher 

with 17 years of service, born 1973 stressed that “years of experience are fairly decisive, but they 

are not the most important factor. If a teacher with many years of experience refrains from trying 

something new or does not follow new didactic recommendations and techniques, years of 

experience can only be a burden /.../. Younger teachers have an advantage in this field but lack 

broader knowledge.” To summarize, approximately a half of the interviewees agree with the 

statement that years of experience in carrying out FL 1 lessons for children in the EP 1 have an 

important role; nonetheless, they also stress the importance of teachers’ personality, the 

willingness to introduce changes in how to carry out lessons and the awareness of the particularity 

of younger pupils. 

In the research, all the interviewees stated that the CLIL approach would be more suitable for 

providing lessons with older pupils from the EP 2 or 3: “The CLIL approach is more suitable in 

the EP 2, if not even in the EP 3, for pupils have enough foreign language competencies” 

(Interviewee 4). However, Coyle et al., (2010, p. 4) stress this exact aspect of the CLIL approach: 

neither a language lesson nor a non-language lesson, but a combination of both. This approach 

merges what looks like fragments at first glance, such as independent school subjects, into one 

comprehensive learning experience (Coyle et al., 2010). 

Some interviewees in our research often mentioned the problems that arose when they tried 

to introduce the CLIL approach in the FL 1 lessons. The most frequent problems were of 

organizational nature (placement of a foreign language lesson in the school schedule, compliance 

with the EP 1 school curriculum, lack of time for coordination with class teachers, lack of 

understanding by the school management and other staff, remuneration for work). Some teachers 

did not quite grasp the aim of the CLIL approach, they misplaced their attention to language and 

misregarded their awareness regarding the integration of language and content, which is the aim 

of CLIL programmes. As Lazarević (2019, p. 8) reported in a study conducted on high school 

teachers in Serbia, "teachers did not consider organizing instruction differently for their CLIL 

classes". These problems could be the result of distress experienced by the said interviewees 

because the expectations towards the FL 1 class conducting in accordance with the principles of 

the CLIL approach in the first year of its introduction were very high. Only two of 12 interviewees 

had used the CLIL approach or approaches similar to the CLIL approach for a long time directly 

before its formal introduction in the FL 1 lessons. Some have even considered abandoning entirely 

the use of the CLIL approach. Cammarata (2009) emphasizes that the use of the CLIL approach 

partly re-establishes the teachers’ identity as such, for the CLIL approach makes teachers question 

their self-beliefs as professionals in a certain field. This can lead to a crisis and the abandonment 

of the CLIL approach, as was reported by the interviewees and as is noted by Cammarata (2009). 

The reasons for abandoning the CLIL approach can also be found in the perceived lack of 

participation between FL 1 teachers, their co-workers and other parties. Another reason for 

abandoning CLIL in the difficulty of integrating content and language, which ahs been the core 

of many of the problems FL teachers had to face and is also reported in many studies (Cammarata 

& Tedick, 2012; Koopman et al., 2014; Oattes et al., 2018). Moreover, according to Cammarata 

(2009, 2010), the abandonment of this approach can be a result of the lack of control in the CLIL 

lessons planning process, pressure from evaluation and the excessive emphasis that teachers are 

responsible for the pupils’ progress. This means that most of the participants in the qualitative 

part of the research had been made aware of the CLIL approach before the introduction of the FL 

1 in the second grade or even during this process. At the same time, this indicates that we talk 

about the profile of a classical FL 1 teacher whom the CLIL approach appeared unfamiliar or 

mostly unfamiliar. On the other hand, the CLIL approach and approaches similar to the CLIL 

approach stress the significance of extraordinary possibilities for professional development of 

teachers (European Commission, 2017), as this approach presents some sort of a challenge that 

makes them rethink and reshape their own practice methods as well as consider their own 

professional integrity, which is discussed in the works by Cammarata (2009), Viebrock (2009) 

and Moate (2011). The interviewees participating in our research reported on similar experience; 



8 English Language Teaching Educational Journal   E-ISSN: 2621-6485 

 Vol. 4, No. 1, 2021, pp. 1-14 

 

 Smajla (The suitability of foreign language teaching in childhood according to the CLIL approach) 

considering they had mostly had no experience in teaching according to the CLIL approach, they 

faced a great challenge in the first year of its introduction (2014/2015). They were aware that 

teachers applying the CLIL approach must have special knowledge in the field of language 

competence as well as teaching and methodological skills and thorough knowledge of the non-

language subject to be taught (Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) at School in 

Europe, 2006). It has also been revealed that teachers in CLIL contexts seem to struggle to focus 

on language and content at the same time and find it challenging to know how to focus on language 

(Cammarata & Tedick, 2012; Costa, 2012: Goris et al., 2019).  

The interviewees expressed the fear that they are not qualified enough to apply the CLIL 

approach and that they do not use this approach due to the lack of its skilful application. This is 

not surprising as most of the interviewees had more than five years of experience, while the CLIL 

approach was not a widely used approach in Slovenia in that period, except for some minor 

projects (for example, at the Bojan Ilich Primary School (Jazbec & Lovrin, 2015, p. 70), at the 

Manko Golar Kindergarten in Gornja Radgona, at the Josip Vandot Kindergarten and Primary 

School in Kranjska Gora, and elsewhere). Moreover, the CLIL approach and approaches similar 

to the CLIL approach were regularly applied in FL 1 lessons by only two of 12 interviewees. The 

problem behind effective application and use of the CLIL approach probably lies in the fact that 

most teachers, who apply the CLIL approach to FL 1 lessons, are either language teachers (of 

English or German) or have completed a BA in class teaching and acquired a degree in the 

methodology of early language teaching. This can be challenging for teachers as they have to 

obtain adequate skills in either a foreign language or in the field to be taught with the help of a 

foreign/additional language; teachers must be able to regulate their knowledge of the subject and 

the language (Cammarata & Tedick, 2012). In order to make the transition into the full CLIL 

lesson smoother, FL teachers might consider to have a content teacher and a language teacher 

working together in the class (Méndez García & Pavón Vázquez, 2012; Pavón Vázquez & Ramos 

Ordóñez, 2018), although that is no common. Some of the teachers also reported having problems 

with form and could focus on language pedagogies that would direct their attention to this issue 

(Gierlinger, 2017; He & Lin, 2018; Lo, 2019). This indicates that teachers must acquire skills that 

encourage the formulation of supporting strategies for foreign language teaching (Boutin, 1993). 

Inspite of all the setbacks and difficulties most FL teachers still deem CLIL to be a suitable 

approach in language teaching in the early age (Anderson, McDougald & Cuesta Medina, 2015; 

Griva & Kasvikis, 2014; Pfenninger, 2016).  

There are also other considerations. Nikula (2016) claims that while research has provided a 

sound evidence base for the effects of CLIL on language learning, there are doubts regarding the 

CLIL approach’s fitness for all types of learners. The author also raises another question, namely 

the question of equity, is the CLIL approach suitable for students with learning difficulties and 

also, the fact that availability of CLIL programmes tends to concentrate in bigger towns and 

municipalities has raised concerns about CLIL compromising equity (Nikula & Järvinen, 2013). 

This has been a particularly felt issue among the interviewees, since many came from small 

communities with little support from neither their school authorities nor from their peers in school 

or from the National Board of Education. On the other hand, Suhandoko (2019) reported positive 

attitudes of the English teacher regarding the use of CLIL approach, which results sustainable. 

The examination of foreign language lessons in accordance with the CLIL approach will probably 

need more attention in the future and as Wei and Feng (2015, p. 60) would put it” that the benefits 

of CLIL programmes for young learners can only be maximized when people’s language 

practices, beliefs and the authorities’ management are consistent with each other”, which is 

exactly the reason why the majority of FL teachers included in our research stated that they would 

continue using the CLIL approach in their EFL class (Smajla, 2019). Moreover, considering the 

pragmatic nature of CLIL it will be crucial for FL teachers to continue developing their skills, the 

"so called soft skills", which are as much pivotal for them as for their students (Moraleja Novillo, 

2018, p. 18). It is also, as Pérez Cañado (2021, p. 31) put it "an uncontested fact that we are living 

in times of profound change in English language teaching", hence all the FL teachers should 



E-ISSN: 2621-6485 English Language Teaching Educational Journal 9 
 Vol. 4, No. 1, 2021, pp. 1-14 

 

 Smajla (The suitability of foreign language teaching in childhood according to the CLIL approach) 

rethink their teaching approaches and find a set of those who cater for the most of their students' 

needs, since it is them who will eventually prepare them "for authentic international/intercultural 

communication (Vettorel & Corrizzatto, 2016, p. 503). It has also been established that teacher 

educators should, and that goes for the National Board of Education as well, in order not to be 

considered illiterate of the twenty-first century", make themselves willing to learn, unlearn and 

relearn" (Siqueira, 2017, p. 400). 

4. Conclusion 

The research results have revealed the undisputed usefulness and suitability of the 

CLIL approach in FL teaching. It has been established that the FL teachers must also be aware 

that lesson planning strategies have to be revised. The same goes for educational authorities 

and teacher educators. The urge to develop a new teacher development paradigm has to be 

put into place and into practice, one that would include relevant premises, practices, 

conceptions, strategies and tools that are in their core very diverse form the ones teacher 

educators have been utilizing so far. FL teachers’ main goal should remain the focus on 

constant and lifelong participative learning and cooperation with their peers. They should 

keep up their motivation to bring innovation into the FL teaching and think outside the box. 

All too often quitting the safety zone is not an option for many a teacher, yet new 

circumstances in and outside of FL teaching, in the community and their organization may 

force many FL teachers to tackle the difficult task of unlearning the old ways and relearning 

some new approaches.  

 

 

Declaration 
Author contribution : The author confirms sole responsibility for the following: study 

conception and design, data collection, analysis and 

interpretation of results, and manuscript. 

Funding statement : The research has not received any funding whatsoever.  

Conflict of interest : The author declares no conflict of interest. 

Additional information : No additional information is available for this paper. 

 

REFERENCES 

Anderson, C. E., McDougald, J. S. in Cuesta Medina, L. (2015). CLIL for young learners. In C. N. 

Giannikas, L. McLaughlin, G. Fanning and N. D. Muller (Eds), Children learning English: From 

Research to Practice (pp. 137152). Garnet Education. Available at: 

https://blog.ufes.br/kyriafinardi/files/2017/10/CLIL-for-Young-Learners.pdf  (accessed May 4 2019). 

Arribas, M. (2016). Analyzing a whole CLIL school: students attitudes, motivation, and receptive 

vocabulary outcomes. Latin American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning 9(2): 267-

292.  

Artner, S. (2016). Pre-service and in-service teacher beliefs about content and language integrated 

learning (CLIL) in physical education (PE) in Austria (Doctoral dissertation, uniwien). doi: 

10.25365/thesis.42360 

Baïdak, N., García Mínguez, M.L., & Oberheidt, S. (2006). Eurydice. Content and Language Integrated 

Learning (CLIL) at Schools in Europe. Brussels: European Commission. Available at: 

https://www.indire.it/lucabas/lkmw_file/eurydice/CLIL_EN.pdf (accessed 18 January 2021). 

Baker, C. (2011). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism. Britstol: Multilingual matters.  

Boutin, F. (1993). A study of early French immersion teachers as generators of knowledge. Foreign 

Language Annals, 26(4), 511-525. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.1993.tb01184.x 

https://blog.ufes.br/kyriafinardi/files/2017/10/CLIL-for-Young-Learners.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.1993.tb01184.x


10 English Language Teaching Educational Journal   E-ISSN: 2621-6485 

 Vol. 4, No. 1, 2021, pp. 1-14 

 

 Smajla (The suitability of foreign language teaching in childhood according to the CLIL approach) 

Cammarata, L. (2009). Negotiating curricular transitions: Foreign language teachers' learning experience 

with content-based instruction. Canadian Modern Language Review, 65(4), 559-585. 

https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.65.4.559 

Cammarata, L., & Tedick, D.J. (2012). Balancing content and language in instructing: The experience of 

immersion teachers. The Modern Language Journal 96(2): 251–296. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-

4781.2012.01330.x 

Canga Alonso A (2013). The receptive vocabulary of Spanish 6th-grade primary school students in CLIL 

instruction: A preliminary study. Latin American Journal of Content and Language Integrated Learning 

6(2): 22-41. https://doi.org/10.5294/laclil.2013.6.2.2 

Cenoz, J. (2015). Content-based instruction and content and language integrated learning: The same or 

different? Language, Culture & Curriculum 28(1): 8–24. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2014.1000922 

Cenoz, J., Genesee, F., & Gorter, D. (2013). Critical analysis of CLIL: Taking stock and looking forward. 

Applied Linguistics 35(3): 243–262. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amt011 

Cenoz, J., & Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (2015). Learning through a second or additional language: Content based 

instruction and CLIL in the 21st century: An introduction. Language, Culture and Curriculum 28(1): 1–

7. https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2014.1000921 

Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) at School in Europe (2006). Brussels: European 

Commission. Available at: http://bookshop.europa.eu/en/content-and-language-integrated-learning-

clic-at-school-in-europe-pbNCX106001/ (accessed 18 January 2021). 

Costa, F. (2012). Focus on form in ICLHE lectures in Italy: Evidence from English-medium science lectures 

by native speakers of Italian. AILA Review 25, 30–47. https://doi.org/10.1075/aila.25.03cos 

Council Resolution of 31 March 1995 on improving and diversifying language learning and teaching within 

the education systems of the European Union. (1995). Brussels: Publications Office of the European 

Union. Available at: https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/2f401f44-afaa-424c-a85e-

cbf8ee3cb251/language-en (accessed 18 January 2021). 

Coyle. D., Hood, P., and Marsh D .(2010). CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge: 

Cambridge University Press. 

Cross, R. (2013). Research and evaluation of the content and language integrated learning (CLIL) approach 

to teaching and learning languages in Victorian schools. Victorian Department of Education and Early 

Childhood. Retrieved from: http://hdl.handle.net/11343/55778 

Cummins J (2000) Language, power and pedagogy. Clevendon: Multilingual Matters. 

https://doi.org/10.21832/9781853596773 

Čok, L. (2008). Zgodnje učenje jezikov v povezavi s celostnim razvojem otroka. In: J. Skela (Ed) Učenje 

in poučevanje tujih jezikov na Slovenskem. Pregled sodobne teorije in prakse. Ljubljana: Tangram, pp. 

18¬29. 

Dagarin Fojkar, M., & Skubic, D. (2017). Prepričanja študentov predšolske vzgoje o učenju in zgodnjem 

poučevanju tujega jezika v Sloveniji. CEPS Journal 7(4): 85–104. Retrieved from: 

http://pefprints.pef.uni-lj.si/id/eprint/4966 

Dalton-Puffer, C. (2011). Content and language integrated learning: from practice to principles? Annual 

Review of Applied Linguistics 31: 182–204. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190511000092 

De Diezmas, E. M. N. (2016). The impact of CLIL on the acquisition of language competencies and skills 

in L2 in primary education. International Journal of English Studies 16(2). 

https://doi.org/10.6018/ijes/2016/2/239611 

European Commission (2017) Key data on teaching languages at school in Europe – 2017 edition. Available 

at: https://eacea.ec.europa.eu/national-policies/eurydice/content/key-data-teaching-languages-school-

europe-–2017-edition_en (accessed 18 January 2021). 

Fontecha, A. F., & Canga Alonso, A. (2014). A preliminary study on motivation and gender in CLIC and 

non- CLIL types of instruction. International Journal of English Studies 14(1): 21-36. 

https://doi.org/10.6018/ijes/14/1/156681 

Gierlinger, E. M. (2017). Teaching CLIL? Yes, but with a pinch of salt. Journal of Immersion and Content-

Based Language Education 5(2): 187–213. https://doi.org/10.1075/jicb.5.2.02gie 

https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.65.4.559
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2012.01330.x
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2012.01330.x
https://doi.org/10.5294/laclil.2013.6.2.2
https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2014.1000922
https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amt011
https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2014.1000921
https://doi.org/10.1075/aila.25.03cos
http://hdl.handle.net/11343/55778
https://doi.org/10.21832/9781853596773
http://pefprints.pef.uni-lj.si/id/eprint/4966
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190511000092
https://doi.org/10.6018/ijes/2016/2/239611
https://doi.org/10.6018/ijes/14/1/156681
https://doi.org/10.1075/jicb.5.2.02gie


E-ISSN: 2621-6485 English Language Teaching Educational Journal 11 
 Vol. 4, No. 1, 2021, pp. 1-14 

 

 Smajla (The suitability of foreign language teaching in childhood according to the CLIL approach) 

Gorjian, B., & Hamidavi, N. (2017). Using CLIL method in teaching vocabulary to intermediate EFL 

learners. Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods 7(3): 13-23. 

Goris, J., Denessen, E., & Verhoeven, L. (2019). Effects of content and language integrated learning in 

Europe A systematic review of longitudinal experimental studies. European Educational Research 

Journal 18(6): 675-698. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474904119872426 

Griva, E., & Kasvikis, K. (in press, 2014). CLIL in primary education: Possibilities and challenges for 

developing L2/FL skills, history understanding and cultural awareness. In N. Bakić-Mirić and D. 

Erkinovich Gaipov (Eds), Current trends and issues in education: an international dialogue. 

Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Available at: 

https://enl.auth.gr/gala/pubs/files/1_Griva&Kasvikis.pdf (accessed May 4 2019). 

He, P., & Lin, A. (2018). Becoming a “language-aware” content teacher: Content and Language Integrated 

Learning (CLIL) teacher professional development as a collaborative, dynamic, and dialogic process. 

Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education 6(2): 162–188. 

https://doi.org/10.1075/jicb.17009.he 

Georgiou, I.S., (2012) Reviewing the puzzle of CLIL. ELT Journal, Special Issue, 66(4): 495–496. 

https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccs047 

Ito, Y. (2018a). Kankakukikan to umamino CLIL (naiyougengo tougougata gakushuu) wo tooshite erareru 

shou/ chuugakusei no ibunka ni taisuru manabi ni tsuite no kousatu [a study of cross-cultural learning 

patterns within elementary school and junior high school students through CLIL on the sensory organs 

and umami.]. Osaka-Kyoiku University. Shotou kyouiku kouza jissen gakkou kyouiku kenkyuu, 20: 9-

18.  

Ito, Y. (2018b). CLIL in practice in Japanese elementary classrooms: An analysis of the effectiveness of a 

CLIL lesson in Japanese traditional crafts. English Language Teaching; 11(9): 59-67. 

https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v11n9p59 

Jazbec, S., & Lovrin M. (2015). Koncept CLIL – novost ali stalnica pri učiteljih na OŠ v Sloveniji. Journal 

of Elementary Education, 8(1/2), 65-80. Retrieved from 

https://journals.um.si/index.php/education/article/view/416 

Karabassova, L. (2018). Teachers’ conceptualization of content and language integrated learning (CLIL): 

Evidence from a trilingual context. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 1 –

13. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2018.1550048 

King, K. A., & Mackey, A. (2007). The bilingual edge: Why, when, and how to teach your child a second 

language. New York: Collins. Retrieved from 

http://languageonthemove.com/downloads/PDF/king_mackey%20preprint.pdf  

Koopman, G. J., Skeet, J., & de Graaff, R, (2014). Exploring content teachers’ knowledge of language 

pedagogy: A report on a small-scale research project in a Dutch CLIL context. Language Learning 

Journal 42(2): 123–136. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2014.889974 

Kovalik, S., & Olsen, K. (1993). ITI: The model: Integrated thematic instruction. Alaska: S. Kovalik & 

Associates. 

Krosnick, J. A. & Perth, R.E. (eds) (1995) Attitude strength: Antecedent and consequences. New York: 

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.   

Lasagabaster, D., & Doiz, A. (2015). A longitudinal study on the impact of CLIL on affective factors. 

Applied Linguistics. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amv059 

Lazarević, N. (2019) CLIL teachers’ reflections and attitudes: Surviving at the deep end. International 

Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 1–14. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2019.1703897 

Llinares, A., & Morton, T (eds). (2017). Applied linguistics perspectives on CLIL. Netherlands: John 

Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.47 

Lipavic Oštir A and Lipovec A. (2018). Problemorientierter soft CLIL ansatz. Wina: LIT Verlag. 

Lipavic Oštir A., Lipovec A., & Rajšp M. (2015). CLIL – orodje za izbiro nejezikovnih vsebin . Journal of 

Elementary Education, 8(1/2), 11-26. Retrieved from 

https://journals.um.si/index.php/education/article/view/413 

Lo, Y. Y. (2019). Development of the beliefs and language awareness of content subject teachers in CLIL: 

Does professional development help? International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 

https://doi.org/10.1177/1474904119872426
https://doi.org/10.1075/jicb.17009.he
https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccs047
https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v11n9p59
https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2018.1550048
https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2014.889974
https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amv059
https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2019.1703897
https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.47


12 English Language Teaching Educational Journal   E-ISSN: 2621-6485 

 Vol. 4, No. 1, 2021, pp. 1-14 

 

 Smajla (The suitability of foreign language teaching in childhood according to the CLIL approach) 

22(7): 818–832. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2017.1318821 

Mayo García, del Pilar María and Lázaro-Ibarrola Amparo. (2014). Do children negotiate for meaning in 

task-based interaction? Evidence from CLIL and EFL settings. System 54: 40-54. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.12.001 

Méndez García, M. C., & Pavón Vázquez, V. (2012). Investigating the coexistence of the mother tongue 

and the foreign language through teacher collaboration in CLIL contexts: Perceptions and practice of 

the teachers involved in the plurilingual programme in Andalusia. International Journal of Bilingual 

Education and Bilingualism 15(5): 573–592. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2012.670195 

Merino, J. A., & Lasagabaster, D. (2017). 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12177 

Mensel, L. V., Hiligsmann, P., Mettewie, L., & Galand, B. (2020). CLIL, an elitist language learning 

approach? A background analysis of English and Dutch CLIL pupils in French-speaking Belgium. 

Language, Culture and Curriculum 33(1): 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2019.1571078 

Mesec, B. (1998). Uvod v kvalitativno raziskovanje v socialnem delu. Ljubljana: Visoka šola za socialno 

delo. 

Moate, J. M. (2011). The impact of foreign language mediated teaching on teachers' sense of professional 

integrity in the CLIL classroom. European Journal of Teacher Education 34(3): 333–346. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2011.585023 

Moraleja Novillo, S. (2018). Educar el talento: Guía para desarrollar nuevas habilidades en jóvenes y 

niños. Barcelona: Editorial AMAT. 

Nikula, T., & Järvinen, H. M. (2013). Vieraskielinen opetus Suomessa (’CLIL in Finland’). In L. Tainio 

and H. Harju‐Luukkanen (Eds), Kaksikielinen koulu‐ tulevaisuuden monikielinen Suomi (’Bilingual 

school – the multilingual Finland of the future’) (pp. 143–167). Helsinki: Suomen Kasvatustieteellinen 

Seura. 

Nikula, T. (2016). CLIL: A European approach to bilingual education. In N. V. Deusen-Scholl, & S. May 

(Eds), Second and foreign language education (pp. 1-14). Springer International Publishing. 

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02323-6_10-1 

Nikula, T., Dafouz, E., Moore, P., & Smit, U (eds). (2016). Conceptualising integration in CLIL and 

multilingual education. Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783096145 

Oattes, H., Oostdam, R., de Graaff, R., & Wilschut, A. (2018). The challenge of balancing content and 

language: Perceptions of Dutch bilingual education history teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education 

70: 165–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.11.022 

Ortega, L. (2015). Researching CLIL and TBLT interfaces. System 54, 103-109. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.09.002 

Otwinowska, A., & Foryś, M. (2015). They learn the CLIL way, but do they like it? Affectivity and 

cognition in upper-primary CLIL classes. International Journal of Bilingual Education and 

Bilingualism 20(5): 457-480. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2015.1051944 

Pastrana, A., Llinares, A., & Pascual, I. (2017). Students’ language use for coconstruction of knowledge in 

CLIL group-work activities: A comparison with L1 settings. Zeitschrift Für Erziehungswissenschaft 

21(1): 49-70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11618-017-0802-y 

Pavón Vázquez, V., & Ramos Ordóñez, M. C. (2018). Describing the use of the L1 in CLIL: An analysis 

of L1 communication strategies in classroom interaction. International Journal of Bilingual Education 

and Bilingualism 22(1): 35–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2018.1511681 

Pérez Cañado, M. L. (ed) (2021). CLIL and ELF: Friends or Foes? In: M L Pérez Cañado (ed) Content and 

Langauge Integrated Learning in Monolingual Settings, (pp. 31¬53). Multilingual Education 38. 

Springer Nature Switzerland AG. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-68329-0 

Pérez Cañado, M. L. (2017). The effects of CLIL on L1 and content learning: Updated empirical evidence 

from monolingual contexts. Learning and Instruction. 57: 18¬33. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.12.002 

Pérez Vidal, C., & Roquet, H. (2015). CLIL in context: Profiling language abilities. Content-based 

Language Learning in Multilingual Educational Environments (pp.237-255). 

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11496-5_14 

https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2017.1318821
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.12.001
https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2012.670195
https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12177
https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2019.1571078
https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2011.585023
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02323-6_10-1
https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783096145
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.11.022
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.09.002
https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2015.1051944
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11618-017-0802-y
https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2018.1511681
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-68329-0
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.12.002
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11496-5_14


E-ISSN: 2621-6485 English Language Teaching Educational Journal 13 
 Vol. 4, No. 1, 2021, pp. 1-14 

 

 Smajla (The suitability of foreign language teaching in childhood according to the CLIL approach) 

Pevec Semec, K, Kač L Šečerov N Cajhen S Lesničar B Lipavic Oštir A and Strmčnik L. (2013). Učni načrt 

za drugi tuji jezik kot neobvezni izbirni predmet v osnovni šoli. [Curriculum of Foreign Language 

Teaching and learning in 2nd and 3rd grade]. Ljubljana: Zavod RS za šolstvo. Available at: 

http://www.mizs.gov.si/fileadmin/mizs.gov.si/pageuploads/podrocje/ 

os/devetletka/program_razsirjeni/Drugi_TJ_izbirni_ neobvezni.pdf (accessed 18 January 2021). 

Pevec Semec K, Kač L Šečerov N Cajhen S Lesničar B Lipavic Oštir A, & Strmčnik L. (2013). Učni načrt. 

Program osnovna šola. Drugi tuji jezik v 4. do 9. Razredu: neobvezni izbirni predmet. [Curriculum of 

Foreign Language Teaching and learning from4th to 9th grade]. Ljubljana: Ministrstvo za 

izobraževanje, znanost in šport, Zavod Republike Slovenije za šolstvo Retrieved from 

http://www.fmalgaja.si/files/2017/05/Drugi_TJ_izbirni_neobvezni.pdf (accessed 18 January 2021).  

Pfenninger, S. E. (2016). All good things come in threes: Early English learning, CLIL and motivation in 

Switzerland. Cahiers de l'ILSL, 48, 119¬147.  

Rumlich, D. (2014). Prospective CLIL and non-CLIL students interest in English (classes): A quasi-

experimental study on German sixth-graders. Utrecht Studies in Language and Communication 28: 

75¬95.  

Siqueira, S. (2017). Intercultural language educators for an intercultural world: Action upon reflection. 

Intercultural Education 28(4): 390-407. https://doi.org/10.1080/14675986.2017.1334396 

Skinnari, K., & Bovellan, E. (2016). CLIL teachers’ beliefs about integration and about their professional 

roles: Perspectives from a European context. In T Nikula, E Dafouz, P Moore, and U Smit (eds), 

Conceptualising integration in CLIL and multilingual education (pp. 145–167). Multilingual Matters. 

https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783096145-010 

Smajla, T. (2019). Odnos do uvajanja vsebinsko in jezikovno integriranega učenja tujega jezika v zgodnjem 

obdobju. [Attitudes toward the introduction of content and language integrated learning at an early 

age.] (Doctoral Thesis). Koper: Univerza na Primorskem,  

Straková, Z. (2020). CLIL and global education: A meaningful match. Society. Integration. Education. 

Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference 5: 546-557. 

https://doi.org/10.17770/sie2020vol5.4819 

Suhandoko. (2019). CLIL-oriented and task-based EFL materials development. ELT Worldwide 6(2): 144-

162. https://doi.org/10.26858/eltww.v6i2.10662 

Surmont, J., Struys, E., Noort., M. V., & Craen, P. V. (2016). The effects of CLIL on mathematical content 

learning: A longitudinal study. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching 6(2): 319-337. 

https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2016.6.2.7 

Taillefer, G. (2013). CLIL in higher education: The (perfect?) crossroads of ESP and didactic reflection. 

ASp (63): 31-53. https://doi.org/10.4000/asp.3290 

Tzoannopoulou, M. (2015). Rethinking ESP: Integrating content and language in the university classroom. 

Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 173: 149- 153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.02.045 

Ustava Republike Slovenije /URS/ [The Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia] (1991) Uradni list RS, št. 

75 (23. 12. 1991). Available at: http://pisrs.si/Pis.web/pregledPredpisa?id=USTA1 (accessed 18 January 

2021).  

Van Mensel, L., Hiligsmann, P., Mettewie, L., & Galand, B. (2020). CLIL, an elitist language learning 

approach? A background analysis of English and Dutch CLIL pupils in French-speaking Belgium. 

Language, Culture and Curriculum 33(1): 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2019.1571078 

Vettorel, P., & Corrizzato, S. (2016). Fostering awareness of the pedagogical implications of worlds 

Englishes and ELF in teacher education in Italy. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching 

6(3): 487¬511. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2016.6.3.6 

Viebrock, H. J. (2009). Bilingualer erdkundeunterricht. subjektive didaktische theorien von lehrerinnen 

und lehrern. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. 

Wei, R., & Feng, J. (2015). Implementing CLIL for young learners in an EFL context beyond. English 

Today 31(1): 55-60. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266078414000558 

Yamano, Y. (2013). CLIL in a Japanese primary school: Exploring the potential of CLIL in a Japanese EFL 

context. International CLIL Research Journal, 2 (1), 19-30. Retrieved from 

http://www.icrj.eu/21/article2.html 

Zarobe Y R (2017) Improving reading strategy knowledge in young children: What self-report 

https://doi.org/10.1080/14675986.2017.1334396
https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783096145-010
https://doi.org/10.17770/sie2020vol5.4819
https://doi.org/10.26858/eltww.v6i2.10662
https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2016.6.2.7
https://doi.org/10.4000/asp.3290
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.02.045
http://pisrs.si/Pis.web/pregledPredpisa?id=USTA1
https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2019.1571078
https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2016.6.3.6
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266078414000558


14 English Language Teaching Educational Journal   E-ISSN: 2621-6485 

 Vol. 4, No. 1, 2021, pp. 1-14 

 

 Smajla (The suitability of foreign language teaching in childhood according to the CLIL approach) 

questionnaires can reveal. Estudios de Lingüística Inglesa Aplicada (17): 15-45. 

https://doi.org/10.12795/elia.2017.i17.02 

Zhang, Y., & Wildemuth, B.M. (2009) Qualitative analysis of content. In: B M Wildemuth (ed) 

Applications of Social Research Methods to Questions in Information and Library Science (pp. 

308¬319.) Westport: Libraries Unlimited. 

  

Supplementary Material 

List of questions for the semi-structured interview: 

1. What is your attitude towards the teaching and learning of a foreign language at an early age? 

2. What is your attitude towards the CLIL approach?  

3. What is your attitude towards the teaching and learning of a foreign language and towards the CLIL 

approach regarding the gender, years of service, and education level of the foreign language teacher? 

4. Have your attitudes changed and why? 

5. How suitable is the CLIL approach in foreign language teaching? 

 

https://doi.org/10.12795/elia.2017.i17.02

