I am interested in developing language learning materials based on the Content

and Language Integrated Learning approach (CLIL) for 13-14 year old secondary
students preparing to enroll in International High Schools in Romania where
all/some classes are taught in English. These types of high schools offer a mixed
Romanian-British curriculum to ensure that all students are well prepared for the
future, independent of their choice to continue their studies in Romania or
abroad.

CLIL continues to grow in popularity in Europe according to Perez-Canado, 2012

in Dallinger, Jonkmann, Hollm, Fiege, 2016: 23 and Harrop, 2012 and is described
as superior to foreign language teaching and even Communicative Language
Teaching (CLT) or Task Based Teaching (TBT) because of its dual focus on content
and language, with an emphasis on the former. CLIL is claimed to foster students
active participation in the process of learning right form the start of instruction,
independent of learners language abilities. It has been successfully implemented
in countries such as Cyprus (Ioannou-Georgiou, 2012) or Spain, with the
specification that CLIL in Spain is presented as a tool for recycling previously
taught content as opposed to introducing new content through the target
language (Bruton, 2013). ulistov (2013; 47) further elaborates on the existent
different approaches to CLIL by making a distinction between hard and soft
CLIL, with the former focusing on content and the latter on language. In this case
we could argue that soft CLIL resembles Content Based Learning (CBL).
Ioannou-Georgiou (2012) argues that CLIL should continue to focus on content to
differentiate itself from approaches such as CLT, CBL or TBT.
There currently seems to be a debate concerning the advantages and
disadvantaged of implementing CLIL and whether the latter outweigh the former.
Bruton (2013) suggests that CLIL aims to replace foreign language teaching and
that it proposes a uniform pedagogy. Httner and Smit (2013) argue against
these claims explaining that CLIL is a flexible approach influenced by local
constraints, which complements foreign language classes.

In agreement with Ioannou-Georgiou (2012) I believe that successful CLIL

implementation lies in teacher and learner training. Therefore I think there is a
need for materials that support both teachers and learners to make the transition
form subject taught in L1/subjects taught in L2 to instruction through L2. Marsh
(2013) distinguishes between instruction in the target language and instruction
through the target language (CLIL), describing the latter as superior for
developing both content awareness and language ability. Course books such as
New Inspiration (Macmillan, 2012) or Network 2 (Oxford University Press, 2012)
offer CLIL materials targeted at an international audience.
CLIL is increasingly becoming popular in Romania as a growing number of schools
make the transition to a mixed curriculum and offer subject instruction through
English. There is hence a specific need for CLIL materials that are rooted in the
Romanian national curriculum but also address students needs of succeeding in
an international school setting where they are expected to think in English.