An extensive body of research has credited Content & Language Integrated Learning (or CLIL) with numerous (extra)linguistic benefits since its inception under the auspices of the European Union in the 1990s. For a few years though, there have been a growing number of scientific controversies on CLIL. Criticisms fundamentally revolve around the elitism of CLIL, which has been obscured in many studies (Bruton 2013). The purportedly difference between CLIL and immersion has also been sharply debated (Cenoz et al 2013). Last but not least, CLIL would have been mainly developed by EFL specialists (Cenoz et al 2013).
In this contribution, I aim to analyse research's enthusiasm for CLIL in the light of CLIL ideological context of birth (Heller & McElhinny 2017). To do so, I analyse a key document on CLIL, i.e. the Marsh (2002) Report. This EU-funded report was authored by the founding father of CLIL, David Marsh. Since 2002, the report has been abundantly quoted and validated as a scientific source in CLIL research. Notably, I unveil how the report covertly constructs selective learner characteristics as prerequisites for future CLIL learners, despite its claim that CLIL is more egalitarian than immersion.
In my conclusions, I discuss my findings in the light of language ideologies and suggest new angles of research for CLIL.
References
Bruton, A. (2013). CLIL: Some of the Reasons Why… and Why Not, System, 41(3). 587-597.
Cenoz, J., Genesee, F. & Gorter, D. (2013). Critical Analysis of CLIL: Taking Stock and Looking Forward, Applied Linguistics, amt011. 1-21.
Heller, M. & McElhinny, B. (2017). Language, Capitalism, Colonialism: Toward a Critical History. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Marsh, D. (2002). CLIL/EMILE-The European Dimension: Actions, Trends and Foresight Potential. Public Services Contract DG EAC 36 01 Lot 3. Brussels: European Commission.
