When I’m asked which language program model is the "most effective" for student learning—whether it’s immersion, traditional foreign language classes, content-based models, or something else—I often return to one article I’ve been referencing for years: “Outcomes and Processes in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL): Current research from Europe,” by Christiane Dalton-Puffer (2008). Though CLIL is not exactly the same as proficiency-based instruction (they are similar and both are forms of communicative language teaching), this study offers some of the clearest and most compelling evidence we have for why communicative teaching matters — especially for learners who don’t naturally excel at language study.
Too often, traditional grammar-based models assume that success in language learning is about mastering rules. But Dalton-Puffer’s review of research across Europe shows that when language is taught through real communication, students of all levels—not just those with a natural aptitude for languages—can succeed.
What This Study Looked At
Dalton-Puffer’s article synthesizes a large body of research on CLIL—Content and Language Integrated Learning—across multiple European countries. CLIL programs teach academic subjects like science or history in a second language, meaning students acquire language through use, not through direct grammar instruction. The article pulls together findings from placement tests, classroom observations, discourse analysis, and comparisons of student outcomes between CLIL and traditional foreign language classrooms.
Importantly, this is not a single classroom study—it’s a review of research trends and patterns across national contexts. It looks at real student data, performance on CEFR-aligned exams (the Common European Framework of Reference: a system for tracking learning outcomes equivalent to the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines), and the kinds of tasks and interactions students experienced in both CLIL and non-CLIL settings.
Key Takeaways
Not only does CLIL lead to stronger learning outcomes when compared to traditional program models, check out this powerful finding:
“CLIL significantly enhances the language skills of the broad group of students whose foreign language talents or interest are average.”
This means that while high-achieving students might do well with any language learning method, communicative programs like CLIL widen the range of students who succeed. They improve outcomes for students who may not have a natural aptitude but who thrive when language is used meaningfully—when they are solving problems, interacting, or learning academic content.
The research found that students in CLIL programs:
-
Reached higher levels of listening comprehension and vocabulary, especially in academic and content-specific areas.
-
Showed greater fluency and risk-taking, using the language more spontaneously in class.
-
Developed deeper conceptual understanding, sometimes even outperforming peers in content knowledge due to the mental processing involved in learning through an additional language.
However, the article also notes that writing and syntax did not show the same gains, highlighting the need for attention to form through meaningful communicative contexts (which my co-author Mike Travers and I explore in depth in our new book Proficiency-Based Instruction: Teaching Grammar for Proficiency).
What This Means for Proficiency-Based Instruction
Proficiency-based instruction—where language is taught through real-world, communicative tasks—is a type of communicative language teaching, just like CLIL. It shares the same foundational belief: students learn best when they are using the language to do something meaningful.
Like CLIL, proficiency-based classrooms focus on what students can do with language rather than what they know about language. And like CLIL, they center language as a vehicle for communication, not as a system to memorize.
This research supports what so many language teachers already know: students grow more—and more students grow—when we teach language through communication. It isn’t just about reaching the top few students. It’s about creating access and opportunity for all.
Why We Need More Research
While studies like this one are enormously helpful, the field needs more research on learner outcomes across different instructional models. Too many comparisons between grammar-based and communicative approaches rely on anecdotal evidence or limited classroom snapshots. We need more data on what helps learners—especially average or struggling learners—achieve higher levels of real-world proficiency.
In the meantime, this article remains a powerful reminder that communicative, proficiency-based instruction isn’t just a trend—it’s a research-backed path toward equity and excellence in language education.
References:
Comments
Post a Comment