Facing CLIL Challenges at University Level

Carlo Granados Beltrán


Experiments in Content Language Integrated Learning have been carried out most of the time at primary and secondary education. However, not much is known about what higher education institutions are doing in this respect. This article aims to present an experience that occurred in the Languages Department at Universidad Central (Bogotá, Colombia) in relation to the inclusion of content in language classes bymeans of project work. The way project work was organised as well as how it was evaluated in the different levels will be explained. Finally, a discussion of some surveys applied to both students and teachers to evaluate the experience will be presented, taking into consideration the advantages and limitations of this kind of work for university contexts.


CLIL; Cross curricular work; curriculum design; ESP; project work

Full Text:



Aastrup, R. (2009). Writing the cross-curricular unit: Rationale and definition. Southern New England Conference, Greater Boston Academy. [Power Point Slides]. Retrieved from http://www.teacherbulletin.org/TB_VOL9/home.html#p7EPMc1

Brisk, M. (1998). Bilingual education: From compensatory to quality schooling. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Cerda, H. (2002). El proyecto de aula. Bogotá: Editorial Magisterio.

Council of Europe. (2001). Common European Framework. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dudley-Evans, T. & St. John, M. J. (1998). Developments in English for Specific Purposes: A multidisciplinary approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

García, O. & Baker, C. (Eds.), (1995). Policy and practice in bilingual education: Extending the foundations. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Genesee, F. & Boyson, B. (1999). Program alternatives for linguistically diverse students. Santa Cruz, CA: Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence.

Hutchinson, T. & Waters, A. (2006). English for specific purposes: A learning-centred approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Legutke, M. & Thomas, H. (1991). Process and experience in the language classroom. Harlow, UK: Longman.

McGroarty, M. (2001). Bilingual approaches to language learning. In Celce-Murcia, M. (Ed.) Teaching English as second or foreign language (pp. 345-356). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Savage, J. (2010). Cross-curricular teaching and learning 5: Definitions. Retrieved from http://jsavage.org.uk/?p=568

Stoller, F. (1997). Project work: A means to promote language content [Adobe Digital Editions version]. English Teaching Forum Online, 35(4). Retrieved from http://exchanges.state.gov/englishteaching/forum/archives/1997/docs/97-35-4-b.pdf

Strevens, P. (1988). ESP after twenty years: A re-appraisal. In M. Tickoo (Ed.), ESP: State of the art (pp. 1-13). Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.


  • There are currently no refbacks.

ASOCOPI is a TESOL affiliate and a member of IATEFL
Please send all correspondence to the HOW journal:
Carrera 27 A # 53 – 06 Of. 405, Bogotá, Colombia.
Phone/Fax: 57(1) 2115018
E-mail: how.journal.colombia@gmail.com
ISSN 0120-5927