Summer TEFL Course

This content is protected, please login and enroll course to view this content!


Andrés López Schrader · May 8, 2019 at 12:43 pm

-Minimizing teacher talking time. CLT through communication and focus on expressing thoughts and ideas through new language skills. CLIL through learning and discussing content with new language skills.
-Both methods require scaffolding from the teacher. Initial support by addressing key vocabulary and providing example sentences easens the cognitive load and enhances learning in both cases.
-Structure is very similar. Warm up activities engage students, they learn new material and they use it creatively and independently to practice.

-CLIL requires students to learn in 2 separate categories (knowledge and language) in one class whereas CLT focuses on language that can be discussed without having to learn a new subject.
-CLIL will require teachers to plan for 2 parts of the class and the language proficiency as well as subject expertise/interests of students may considerably change the lesson plan.
-CLIL may motivate students more easily than CLT because there are 2 parts of the class to be excited about. It may be easier to keep students engaged through CLIL than with CLT.

Sneha Lala · June 2, 2019 at 8:21 pm

Similarities- A focus on learning languages more holistically- developing cultural awareness and enabling students to use language in context.
-Focus is on immersion in the language.
-Teacher talking time is minimum. Introduce and provide help but inter-activeness is key to both techniques.
-Student interests are focused on to facilitate the learning.

Differences- More of a focus on traditional teaching tools like worksheets with CLIL
-CLIL involves learning a new subject alongside the language.
–The dual focus on language and content learning could create difficulties for some students.

hespa001 · June 5, 2019 at 10:20 pm

– similar lesson plan layouts with a starter activity to introduce topic of class followed by activities of increasing difficulty to learn the material and then a consolidation activity and summary at the end.
– both CLT and CLIL focus on maximising student engagement by giving opportunities to creatively engage with the material.
– both focus on learning language in a context that is useful to the students to encourage them to engage with the language

– focus in CLT is purely on language whereas CLIL puts as much emphasis on language learning as it does on learning the subject.
– more challenges involved in CLIL in ensuring that students have sufficient language knowledge to grasp the subject and sufficient subject knowledge to grasp the language
– students may be more easily engaged with language in CLIL as they are applying it in a particular context which they may enjoy which helps them absorb the language more and understand how to apply it in different contexts.

jackmainwaring · June 7, 2019 at 2:01 pm

Both CLT and CLIL concern the teaching of language, albeit to different extents. CLT aims to focus solely on improving language communication skills, whereas CLIL combines the teaching of language with other subject learning, with a varied balance between language and subject learning, depending on the form of CLIL adopted.

With CLIL, the other subject being taught could limit the level of language learning and the variety of classroom activities. Also, the language capability of the students could limit the level of subject teaching. With CLT, such limitations don’t exist, as there is no additional subject being taught alongside the language itself.

Despite these differences, both CLT and CLIL aim to maximise student talking and minimise teacher talking times, put everything into a communicative context, and allow for as much time as possible for the students to put their knowledge into practice. Both CLT- and CLIL-based lesson plans follow a similar structure; they begin with a short starter, continue with material learning and appropriate practice, and end with a summary of what was learned, with similar activities being adopted for both CLT and CLIL.

jla2g18 · June 10, 2019 at 12:10 pm

– Both CLT and CLIL have similar lesson frameworks in that they use starter activities to introduce students to the lesson, and a summary/cool down activity to review the material that has been covered and draw the lesson to a close
– Both approaches aim to minimise teacher talking time and instead run student centred approaches that maintain engagement from the pupils

– CLIL has two aspects of learning; the subject specific terminology as well as the language, whereas CLT specifically focuses on new language skills
– CLIL relating to a specific subject rather than general conversational language could cause certain pupils to become more interested if they like the subject, and others to disengage if the topic isn’t one that it personally interesting to them

Evie Burrows · June 12, 2019 at 5:47 pm

• Minimise teacher talking time
• Teach language through activities and through real-life texts as much as possible, avoid lecturing on grammar.
• Teach vocabulary within a context
• Use of games and activities
• Incorporate students’ interests (if they are interested in the topic)
• Use of various types of scaffolding
• Focus on language use / communication
• Similar structure in terms of warmer, increasingly difficult activities, cooler / plenary
• CLT focusses on language on its own and content is only looked at in the L2 minimally or after acquisition. It is considered to be a separate learning process in CLT
• The language taught depends on the subject matter: this is especially relevant for CLIL. Technical vocabulary would probably be avoided in CLT
• Additional cognitive load in CLIL since new material is being learnt as well as language
• The knowledge cycle is absent in CLT, and the main part of the lesson is not combinatorial tasks but a time for ‘production’ – although these probably will look similar except for the absence of a focus on knowledge in CLT

Leandra Thomson · June 13, 2019 at 3:04 pm

-Both CLIL and CLT framework encourage student involvement by keeping teacher talking time to a minimum.
-The lesson structures are organized and well-developed, making it easy for students to follow along.
-Both types of teaching allow teachers to customize parts of the lesson plan to best fit the needs of the students.
-CLIL instructs through a specific subject or topic where CLT focuses solely on the language.
-CLT allows for a bit more flexibility since it is not structured around a particular subject.

GeorgiaHarris · June 15, 2019 at 2:13 pm

Both communicative language teaching and content and language integrated learning aim to contextualize classroom based language learning. CLT does this through direct communication and conversational language, whilst CLIL uses language to teach other topics.

CLT focuses less on the grammatical accuracy of language and more on being able to communicate effectively, so that meaning is clear, even if it is not technically correct.
It also looks at developing a cultural awareness around language. eg. When and where certain words or phases are appropriate and consideration of the meaning conveyed in different situations

CLIL teaches language in combination with other subjects, helping to engage students by using topics they are interested in. Similarly to CLT, by choosing the right topics this can also be used to develop a cultural awareness of the language.

Patricia-Ioana Sfagau · June 18, 2019 at 3:54 pm

CLT implies minimizing for how long the teacher interferes in the lesson and focuses on topics which are of students’ interest in order to get them use the target language. The topics are planned using the SMART criteria to ensure that they are relevant to students. In a CLT class the goal is to be able to use the language in a vareity of day to day situations and to be able to work out the language from the context.
Secondly CLIL implies that language is taught the subject so the linguistics content depends on the subject that is being taught. Even though it has communication as a goal the language learned depends on what the topic of the specific lesson is. In the case of CLIL teachers need to provide a higher degree of support to their students as some may face a lack of motivation and confidence because of the simultan acquisition of the language and topic content.
What both of these teaching methods seem to have in common is that they both make references tonculture and maximize the communicative aspect of the lesson. Nevertheless the lesson structure is similar since in the case of CLT it implies warm up activities, the presentation of the topic, practice, production and cooler. Similarly in the case of CLIL the lesson begins with a starter, can contain teaching cycles, knowledge cycles, combination tasks and plenary.

caisealbeardow · June 19, 2019 at 8:29 pm

– Both CLT and CLIL advise minimising teacher talking time and maximising student talking time
– New vocabulary is taught within a specific context, either cultural or subject-based
– Scaffolding is used to support students’ learning and use of new language in the classroom
– Focus remains on communication skills (as opposed to grammatical accuracy)
– Lesson structures are similar in that they begin with a warmer/starter activity, a series of increasingly difficult activities in which new language is used, and a cooler or plenary to close the lesson
– Activities are modulated based on students’ ability and interests

-As a content-based approach, CLIL includes acquisition of technical vocabulary that would mostly not be present in a CLT lesson
– Extra cognitive load needs to be taken into account in CLIL lessons, where not only new language is being learned, but new technical concepts
– CLT’s main lesson activities focus on production (i.e. use of new language in creative/generative tasks), whereas in CLIL main activities include knowledge cycles of increasing difficulty

ear42 · June 20, 2019 at 2:06 pm

Both CLT and CLIL aim to improve the students’ ability to communicate in a foreign language. The teaching approach in the classroom is such that the student talking time is maximised whilst the teaching talking time is minimised. The lesson structure for both is similar with a starter to get the students interested, followed by the main part of the lesson were the students learn and practice vocabulary and speaking then finishing a cooler.
In CLT the vocabulary learned can be dictated by the students’ interests and is focused on conversations and descriptions and less so on grammar. In CLIL, language is taught in combination with other subjects, this enables students to use language in context. This approach means that the vocabulary learned is dictated by the subject matter, so sometimes time must be put aside to learning subject specific vocabulary and concepts.

Emma Walsh · June 21, 2019 at 1:41 pm

– Both have a focus on communication and learning language appropriate to specific contexts (although these contexts differ)
– Both focus on student tasks over teacher talking time. The teacher is primarily there to provide scaffolding and support.
– They often have a similar lesson structure: starter-main-plenary
– CLIL has more of a focus on learning specific subject content, whereas CLT is more specifically focused on context specific language for the student’s interests / needs
– There is more specialised subject language needed to be taught in CLIL
– There is potentially additional cognitive load in CLIL as new subject content is being learnt alongside language

Lizzie Avery · June 23, 2019 at 12:15 pm


– Both have the aim of improving the students’ abilities in a target language (albeit that CLIL has the added emphasis on subject-specific content). Both also aim to improve language abilities in all skills: reading, writing, speaking and listening.

-Both CLT and CLIL aim to develop soft skills such as presenting and debating etc, and these activities can be found in both CLT and CLIL lessons.

-Both follow a relatively similar structure which is graded in difficulty (i.e. less support is given as the lesson progresses). Both have a warmer activity (CLT) or starter (CLIL) aimed to engage students into the lesson (although CLT warmer activities seem to be slightly more relaxed.) Similarly, both CLT and CLIL lessons finish with a conclusion; a cooler in CLT or a plenary in CLIL. These act in the same way: to summarise learning and assess the students’ understanding of the class.

– You can have variations in CLT, one of which being content-based whereby content from across the curriculum is taught in the target language, which is very similar to CLIL.


– CLT is purely focused on improving one’s skills in a particular language, whereas in CLIL it is about improving that particular language alongside/ in the context of learning the content of a subject. Even though global warming (for example) might be the topic of a CLT lesson, the lesson would be more focused on debating global warming as a social issue rather than the technicalities and processes of global warming (which may be taught in a CLIL lesson in science or geography, for example) In this sense, arguably there is a larger cognitive load.

– CLT is much more tailored to students’ interests, whereas CLIL is more tailored to the needs of the curriculum and the knowledge required for a particular subject (which may or may not be of interest to the students).

angolanta · June 24, 2019 at 2:25 pm

– Both focus on student and use interactive learning. The teacher shouldn’t be in the spotlight or become a “lecturer” in either of them.
– Both work towards improving communication skills and students’ confidence with using the language in question.
-Similar activities can be used, such as watching and analysing videos, debating, making posters and playing games.
– The structure of the lesson is similar, with a starter (CLIL) or warmer (CLT) to start the lesson, the main lesson with learning and activities and a plenary (CLIL) or cooler (CLT) to finish off, summarising or testing knowledge.
– Focus of both CLT and CLIL remains on effective communication rather than perfect use of the language and grammar.

– The language learnt in CLIL is more specialised and specific to the subject, whereas CLT revolves around every-day life vocabulary.
– CLIL requires some basic communication skills and is a step further than a language lesson. This means that students need to be comfortable with basic grammar and vocabulary and cannot start from absolute zero.
– CLIL deals with a more constrained syllabus that has to be covered, for example for a subject exam. In contrast, CLT is more flexible and can adapt to the students’ interests and areas that need improvement.
– CLIL involves combinatorial tasks that require a grasp of both language and subject knowledge. This is more challenging for students who are learning the language. CLT is more straight-forward and clear in its aims.

RebeccaRM · June 24, 2019 at 3:02 pm

-both encourage student-led conversation and minimise teacher talking time
-both require a level of scaffolding from the teacher to ease the learning of new material
-they are both very contextual, with CLIL having the context of another subject and CLT having the context of the lesson’s theme
-they have similar structure with a warm up exercise, main body and consolidation at the end, often incorporating games
-CLIL involves learning subject knowledge as well as a new language, which may be more of a cognitive load
-CLIL involves more subject specific vocab, CLT is often more general (could be more useful for beginners)
-CLIL is more similar to traditional learning styles

Ross Moncrieff · June 24, 2019 at 4:57 pm

The key similarities between the CLT and CLIL are that they are based on communicative teaching techniques and focus on student interaction. They also have a similar structure in that they begin with warm ups and then move onto the main content of the lesson, followed by consolidation at the end. The big difference, in contrast, is that CLIL is focused on wider content learning rather than just language, which results in more specialised vocabulary being needed.

jsm89 · June 25, 2019 at 12:31 pm

Both focus on maximising communicative fluency rather than grammatical perfection. They follow similar lesson plans, which always involve minimising teacher talking time and avoiding lecture-style learning.
They follow different approaches to learning the language, which may work differently for different students. CLIL may be more efficient and more suited to the students that can/are willing to handle the additional cognitive load, whereas CLT has the slightly more specific, attainable objective of learning the language.

juliazlot · June 25, 2019 at 3:34 pm

Both CLT and CLIL focus on learning a language through interaction, focusing on communication rather than grammatical accuracy. As a result, they both lead to a similar framework for lesson plans – lessons begin with introductory activities, leading up to activities which give students the opportunity to put the key ideas into practice before reflecting upon what they have learnt.

However, the crucial difference is that, whilst the sole purpose of CLT is language learning, CLIL combines language and subject learning together. Whilst this can help motivate language learning and can ensure a greater focus on the subject as a result of it being taught not in the student’s native language, it also brings with it additional challenges in ensuring that the content being taught is accessible to students both from a language and subject-knowledge point of view, a concern which does not apply to CLT.

Gayatri · June 25, 2019 at 4:32 pm

– Both minimise teacher talking time
– Less emphasis on textbooks
– Same overall structure of warm-up, actual learning, and cool-down
– Integrate learning and speaking

– Learning 2 things at a time for CLIL may be a bit daunting at times, but for more advanced students be more fun and engaging
– CLIL requires the use of more specialised vocabulary

mifei99 · June 25, 2019 at 8:33 pm

CLT is focused on conversational skills over grammar
CLT is tailored to students’ interests rather than the requirements of an academic subject
CLIL uses a knowledge cycle that it focused on learning subject matter rather than language learning, CLT does not

Both aim to teach cultural awareness/understanding of the different uses of language in different contexts
Both aim to teach language in real life contexts rather than in the abstract
Both reduce teacher instruction at the front of the class in favour of student-focused activities

SammyLappage · June 26, 2019 at 1:08 am

– They are both student-focused and emphasise student’s active learning
– They both involve clear lesson structures with each section having different, specific aims
– They both involve using language within useful real-life contexts rather than teaching chunks of language out of context
– They are both quite broad in how individual teachers can apply and use them
– Both involve scaffolding and support from the teacher

– CLIL includes other academic subjects rather than just language learning
– CLIL incorporates the knowledge cycle which goes beyond solely language understanding
– CLIL is more cognitively demanding as it involves subject and language learning

Stephen Grech · June 26, 2019 at 10:35 am

While CLT teaches language by communication through themed topics, CLIL incorporates an academic subject as its base for the language learning. CLIL is more focused on the learning of specific subjects such as physics, history, or geography while using the new language that the student is learning to teach them this material and therefore the language acquisition acts as a backdrop to the lesson.

Both frameworks attempt to engage the students’ interests with real-world use of the language and interactive activities through a structured lesson plan. They both encourage the students to speak more and the teacher to speak less. They both steer away from using textbook material.

Overall CLIL is more demanding in terms of its required cognitive level but manages to enforce language learning while not taking focus away from the learning of other academic subjects that are important for a child’s education. On the other hand, CLT is entirely focused on building a student’s understanding and use of the new language.

louisajc · June 26, 2019 at 1:29 pm

– Focus on maximising student talking time, the lessons are student-centred
– Emphasises importance of communication and discussion as opposed to lecturing style of teaching
– Both methods involve structured lessons with specific learning objectives and aims
– The teacher is responsible for supporting the children through scaffolding techniques
– Both methods are content-based to some degree – emphasis on learning through context

– CLIL integrates language learning with other subjects whereas CLT considers language as a more isolated subject
– There is the added challenge of the additional cognitive load in CLIL which is not present for CLT
– Arguably CLIL is a more immersive language learning experience than CLT
– CLT is more tailored to the individual’s interest whereas for CLIL, the content of the subject determines the language learned

gskaza · June 26, 2019 at 4:07 pm

-Both focus on minimising teacher talking time, instead increasing student speaking time
-Both tend to begin with a starter exercise to get the children engaged and let them know the objectives of the lesson, before moving onto practicing the language and concluding with a recap of the class
-Both allow students to input their own interests into the class discussions
-Both use games and informal language practice activities to make learning more fun and less intimidating for the children
-Both place less emphasis on grammatical accuracy and more on conversational fluency
-Both employ a small amount of scaffolding, where the teacher provides some structural support such as example sentences into which students may substitute words

-CLIL requires students to learn a new subject alongside the language, such as learning specific vocabulary about climate change as well as practicing their English which could be beneficial to some students as more is learnt but could be challenging for some students as there is greater cognitive load
-CLIL has a greater focus on the use of formal teaching materials such as textbooks and worksheets
-CLIL is more easily tailored to a curriculum or exam as it uses subject specific vocabulary, and CLT focuses more on the individual interests of the students

Laura Fantuzzi · June 26, 2019 at 5:19 pm

CLT focuses on giving the students the most opportunities to communicate between each other and favours the ability to get one’s message across rather than being grammatically accurate. The approach is more of a progressive one: it follows the PPP structure, i.e. presentation, practice, production. In other words, it starts easy and gets more difficult. CLIL teaches a subject as the focus, and the language is learned alongside it. It introduces the words to slip into the subject, while CLT introduces the ‘topic of the day’ in order to learn the vocabulary in a context. However, CLT and CLIL share an emphasis on the students communicating and being creative, with the teacher being supportive and encouraging rather than lecturing them and following textbooks.

OliviaDaly · June 27, 2019 at 10:59 am

Comparing CLT and CLIL
-Both teach language in context and emphasise use in the real world.
-Fluency is prioritised over accuracy and errors are considered a natural part of learning in both methods. Learners develop fluency by using language to communicate for a variety of purposes.
– Both methods aim to introduce students to a wider cultural context.
– CLIL demonstrates less of a focus on student-led lessons than in CLT.
– In CLIL reading is the essential skill, whereas in CLT the four core skills of reading, writing, listening and speaking are all prioritised.
– As a result of its more text-based nature, CLIL focuses more explicitly on grammar than CLT would. However, the focus is still more on lexis or vocabulary than on grammar.
-CLIL has a more lexical approach where students are asked to notice language while reading more than in a CLT-based lesson.
-CLT regards the study of thematic content and language as separate processes. Meanwhile CLIL combines the two.

serenalhayes · June 27, 2019 at 1:42 pm

– Both CLT and CLIL lesson structures are planned in detail, with a similar structure of a starter (warmer), main task or a series of activities and then a plenary (cooler).
– Both CLT and CLIL lessons contextualise language learning, either through the interests of the students (CLT) or through the subject studies which students are already literate in.
– Both CLT and CLIL lessons minimise teacher talking time and maximise student talking time.
– Both CLT and CLIL lessons focus on improving communication when speaking a foreign language.

– CLIL focuses more on the curriculum, instead of the everyday use of vocabularly when learning a foreign language.
– CLIL relies on an existing basic level of language ability and demands a more cognitive workload.

sk948 · June 27, 2019 at 5:50 pm

Both methods focus on practical methods to improve confidence and develop skills. Content and language integrated learning adopts a more structured approach and has a greater focus on detail and developing specific skills whereas communicative language teaching focuses more on the practical skill of communication. Both methods contextualise the vocabulary which is beneficial for the practical uses of language. CLIL is more curriculum-orientated rather than focusing on the everyday use of language which is more in the field of communicative language teaching. CLIL demands a more cognitive workload as the students are doing two things at once.

ioanadiac · June 28, 2019 at 4:10 pm

The main difference between CLT and CLIL teaching is that the former generally focuses on students’ conversational fluency whilst the latter also improves students’ subject knowledge on a specific topic such as climate change for instance. The CLT allows for different variations which include it being content-based as in CLIL but also skills-based, task-based, text-based and competency-based whereas learning in CLIL is defined along the conceptual continuum (subject literacy) and the communication continuum (language literacy) axes. In this way, CLIL aims to move students to a higher literacy level along both axes, not progress them in solely one as in CLT which just focuses on language literacy. This means that in CLIL, students need to not only understand the subject-specific content, but also have the linguistic skills to express that understanding.

As such, CLT and CLIL have slightly different lesson structures given their differing aims. A CLT lesson follows the structure of warmer, presentation, practice, production and cooler where as a CLIL lesson plan follows a starter, language cycle, knowledge cycle, combinatorial tasks and plenary structure. This is because for CLIL, students need to first grasp basic language skills before applying it to their subject learning in the later combinatorial tasks. CLIL is made up of the four different components of content, cognition, communication and culture and such a method could be met with several potential challenges given the additional ‘cognitive load’ of learning two things at once which is not present in CLT teaching. Whilst in CLT the language that is taught to students is mainly for communication purposes, CLIL teaching also enables students to use language to further learn about a specific subject matter which can be beneficial in that it provides motivation if the students enjoy the other subject, develops students’ cultural awareness, provides for a more immersive language learning environment and enables more hours of the school day to be spent learning languages without reducing time on other subjects.

In this way, CLT and CLIL are similar in that both methods ultimately improve students’ communication abilities and language literacy, yet the crucial difference is that CLIL goes beyond this in also improving students’ knowledge about a specific subject which CLT often does not.

Gigi Michie · June 28, 2019 at 4:46 pm

Both CLT and CLIL focus more on students using the language directly and minimises explanation by the teacher.
Both require a similar lesson structure: for instance a brief piece of introductory material, with the main part of the lesson focused on the students putting into practice the new information, and a summary of what has been learnt at the end of the lesson.

CLT is focused predominantly on communication of language, whereas CLIL places equal esteem to learning a specific topic as well as the language
Potentially CLIL involves more written work by the pupils in order to help consolidate more technical language, whereas CLT prioritises the role play and discussion aspect of ideas
CLIL might be more challenging for pupils due to its double agenda of learning a subject as well as language, thus a task might require adaptation regarding its level of difficulty depending on the ability of each pupil

JArmers · June 29, 2019 at 5:03 pm

– time is majority devoted to pupils’ linguistic interaction
– no grammar
– both designed to maximise pupil attention

– CLT has no new subject content as such, rather just generic, pre-known knowledge
– CLIL better for older pupils, CLT suitable for both; CLIL better geared towards preparing students for further education
– CLIL requires more resourcing eg paper printed out; CLT is more easily transportable
– CLT has speaking as primary skill; CLIL reaches to more

SabrinaA · June 29, 2019 at 10:39 pm

– Both CLT and CLIL emphasise contextual language learning
– Both CLT and CLIL minimise teacher talking time
– Both CLT and CLIL use starters to ease into the lesson.

– CLIL focuses both on learning the language and on learning a subject. with the language being learnt through a subject-specific context, whereas CLT’s emphasis on contextual language learning is more general and related to everyday situations.

jonasblack · June 30, 2019 at 6:38 am

– The focus of both remains on building communication skills
– The activities are modulated depending on the skillset and interest of the students
– CLT and CLIL both advise against extensive teacher talking and promote maximising student talking time
– Cultural or subject based are the two contexts within which new vocabulary will be taught

– CLIL is content-based and would involve learning more complex, technical vocabulary (unlike in a CLT lesson)
– CLIL’s activities generally include knowledge cycles (of increasing complexity), whereas CLT’s main lesson activities tend to focus on production
– technical concepts, as well as the new language learned, must be taken into account in a CLIL lesson

lun3rzhu · June 30, 2019 at 9:46 pm

-General structure in lesson planning: with activities including a warm up, presentation of content, and cool-down
-Both focus on the principle of maximising student talking time and minimising teachers lecturing at the students
-Both still focus on the principle of the students applying their knowledge, not simply robotic learning from textbooks and worksheets: the idea of student focus and not requiring grammatical perfection but instead language proficiency is still there.

-CLIL focuses on learning the language with proficiency in combination with other subjects also, which may be slightly more demanding. Therefore there are two principle focuses, both the language itself and the content of the subject taught. CLT is more generalised, adapted to everyday topics and conversations.

Alec · July 1, 2019 at 8:47 am

-Both follow a similar structure with a starter, some task to further their learning and a cooler
-Both minimise teacher talking time and aim to get students involved in some sort of task for the majority of the lesson
-Both try to contextualise language learning with less of a focus on correct grammar
-CLIL focuses on 2 subjects instead of 1
-The structure of a CLILI lesson differs in that a portion of learning has to be devoted to the general understanding of the subject that isn’t the target language
-CLIL focuses more on learning some vocabulary whilst CLT is more focused on becoming more fluent with vocabulary previously learnt
-CLIL has writing and reading aspects to learning the target language whereas CLT is focused purely on conversation

Issy · July 1, 2019 at 4:47 pm

1. Focus on maximizing the students active practice of the language.
2. Use content to keep students interested.
3. both involve structured lesson plans with clear objectives.
4. both are clearly attempts to move away from uninspiring, textbook heavy teaching.

1. CLIL aims to teach a subject as well as a language, at roughly the same pace. Whilst students may learn some subject knowledge from CLT this is a byproduct and not intentional.
2. In CLT language features and communication are a clear focus and students are able to practice a large amount of simple communication, with appropriate communication features for different contexts. CLIL helps students with cognitive understanding whilst speaking and listening in a different language.

ciaran duncan · July 2, 2019 at 2:37 pm

Both approaches seek to maximise student talking time and minimise teacher talking time- the teacher is a facilitator not a lecturer.
Both approaches have similar structures, featuring a starter, then activities (as interactive as possible) of increasing difficulty and finally a summary.
Both approaches aim to teach language in context, teaching through activities and honing in on students’ interests rather than through dry grammatical tables.


With CLT the emphasis is firmly on communication whereas with CLIL language is taught in conjunction with the teaching of another subject.
Therefore there can be a greater cognitive load for students in a CLIL lesson.

laiq.nagi · July 2, 2019 at 4:41 pm

– Minimises teacher talking time
– They both take a holistic approach and focus on building communication skills
– They both have lesson plans that are structured so that there is an intro and then aided build up, ‘scaffolding’ so to speak
– CLIL almost aims to kill two birds with one stone, teach a subject as well as alanguage but they go hand-in-hand
– CLT therefore is more generalised, it’s not as specific as CLIL because you would have to learn technical language as well

Francesca Smith · July 5, 2019 at 7:06 pm


Detailed and highly structured lesson plans: starter, main task, plenary.
Contextualise language learning, either through the interests of the students (CLT) or through the subject studies which students are already literate in.
Intends to improve communication when speaking a foreign language.
Minimise teacher talking time and maximise student talking time.

CBI is less focused on the curriculum (language immersion)
CLIL requires a basic level of language ability already and requires greater cognitive load

JasminSahota · July 6, 2019 at 12:10 am

– Both incorporate language and subject to some degree
– Content is used to direct and substantiate the lesson
– Both have a focus on student engagement and interaction rather than textbook/grammar practice
– Different structure for the lesson between them
– There is a broader spectrum of approaches for CBT
– less focus is placed on the language learning aspect in CBT

dkatsanos · July 6, 2019 at 12:58 am

Similarities between CLT and CLIL:

– The speaking time of the teacher is minimized and speaking time of students is maximized.
– Structure of the lesson is similar i.e. warm-up, main lesson, quiz/recap
– In both cases, scaffolding is used.
– Use of activities which focus on how to communicate in different situation and which don’t focus so much in grammar but more on the effectiveness of the communication.

– A CLIL requires 2 categories to be learnt by the students.
– CLIL already assumes a basic level of English knowledge whereas a CLT lesson could probably be used to teach students with no previous experience.
– CLIL requires more cognitive load which would most likely make it more challenging.

keyasajip · July 6, 2019 at 6:58 pm

– Both CLIL and CLT focus on language learning through communication and participation in lessons
– In both styles of lessons there can be a hook/ warmer to start, followed by practice and consolidation
– Both encourage active participation of students (and minimise teacher talking time) and aim to improve conversational fluency
– Both have themes/ topics and allow language learning in context
– CLIL has the added information load of the content of the subject being taught as well as language learning
– In CLIL language is used for both communication and understanding other concepts
– CLT doesn’t have as much technical vocabulary as CLIL, in which subject specific words may be learnt
– IN CLT lessons plans, most of the lesson consists of production of the language where students can incorporate their own interests, whilst CLIL consists of language cycles followed by knowledge cycles and then a combination of the two (there may be less scope to include own interests)

mustafaazhar30 · July 7, 2019 at 2:42 am

– similar structure of a warmer following up to the main assignment
– contextualise language learning through subjects and interests to help make learning a language more feasible
– minimise teacher talking time

– CLIL is dual focused on both the language and the different subject to make it more engaing
– CLIL can be more demanding due to this dual focus on subject and language with children of varying ability

philippakirby · July 7, 2019 at 3:20 pm

– Both techniques encourage a broad focus on learning language and communication in useful topical contexts without learning purely for the purpose of an exam
– The overall lesson trajectory is similar with a warmer activity, the use of new knowledge and language employed in interactive activities and consolidation through a quiz or similar activity
– opportunities for interactive learning such as class discussions and debates in both which minimize teacher talking time
– new language and grammar is still taught within a cultural context

– in CLIL there is as much a focus on the subject content as on the language learning meaning in order to reduce language barriers there will sometimes be opportunities to have discussions in the native language etc
– CLIL might have to be changed more radically for groups of different abilities. While for CLT you could just adapt your activity but talk about the same theme e.g. food, for CLIC you have to adapt subject depending on ability- difficult scientific concepts and historical debates would be more suited to higher abilities while beginners would benefit more from art/drama
– Visual representations such as flowcharts will be needed for CLIC meaning it may be harder to adapt to different classroom settings

ld557 · July 7, 2019 at 4:59 pm

– both minimise teacher talking time and focus on lessons being led by discussion or activities being completed by students.
– both focus on language within context, emphasising important topics whether for education, fluency, or other social situations.
– Use similar concepts of warm-up introductions and coolers/ summary tasks at the end of lessons within their structure.
– Similar activities can be used within lessons such as debates and discussions, producing posters/ presentations, etc.
– Both methods try and avoid textbook based teaching and emphasise more engaging activities
– CLIL places added emphasis on learning and understanding content as well as language, and so may be more challenging.
– CLIL may require larger amounts of vocabulary since teaching of a subject may involve both language related to new content and language related more broadly to the subject being taught.
– CLT lesson structures end with production, whilst CLIL is more broadly focused on integrating language ability and subject knowledge through a variety of activities.

christianmadla · July 7, 2019 at 10:41 pm

– Both methods aim to reduce teacher speaking time. This is in order to encourage the thought and speech of students to enhance their language abilities
– Both utilise similar methods in language-learning. For example, both use creative means to learn language, such as games and activities
– Both aim to engage the student’s interest to facilitate their learning

– CLT is mainly used for language-based learning, whereas CLIL places a focus upon both language and subject-based learning
– Due to the above difference, CLIL may be challenging as students must have sufficient knowledge of the language in order to learn and understand subjects being learnt
– CLIL employs the concept of a knowledge cycle, whereas CLT does not

cbourne · July 8, 2019 at 6:07 pm

Both seek to place language in context
Both follow a similar structure, using a ‘starter’ activity before a main
Both use scaffolding
Both have clear lesson objectives

CLIL places a greater importance on the subject content in addition to language, requiring a greater cognitive load
CLIL perhaps requires a greater degree of fluency in the language taught, as opposed to CLT which might work for beginners

Jenni.Visuri · July 9, 2019 at 12:09 pm

– Both try and maximise student talking time and minimise teacher talking time
– They teach language in a context that is subject-specific
– Both develop cultural awareness
– CLT is more for communication whereas CLT is for understanding more subject-specific information because it can be used to teach a different subject
– CLIL can be more difficult because students will be learning two things at once whereas CLT is about things they are often already aware of
– CLIL can involve more vocabulary because students need to learn language of learning, language for learning and language through learning

Hayley Hilson · July 9, 2019 at 8:34 pm

-Teacher talking time is minimised, focussing more on interaction between students to encourage them to interact and engage with the language
-Focus on language learning in a useful context
-Similar lesson structure
-CLT focuses on learning language on its own, with content considered to be a separate learning process
-CLIL vocabulary is more technical and subject specific whereas CLT focuses more on language relevant to the student’s interests and everyday communicative needs
-CLIL may require a greater cognitive load as they are learning two different things at the same time, and thus it may be more suited for students who already have some knowledge of the language

SDH · July 10, 2019 at 5:28 pm

-Minimise teacher talk time to keep students engaged and learning. CLIL does it by using content to introduce new language while CLT uses the expression of new ideas to learn language
– both encourage the use of games and activities over lecture type learning

-CLIL may be more interesting as it is wider than just learning new language
-CLT focuses on new language primarily while CLIL introduces new language and content
– The knowledge cycle is missing in CLT the main section is not combinatorial tasks but learning new language

Nefeli Angelidaki · September 26, 2019 at 12:46 pm

-Both CLT and CLIL focus on communication skills between the students.
-In both cases, teacher participation is minimum, giving the students the maximum talking/practicing time
-Both incorporate learning language in a context
-they both encourage games and interactive activities as a way of learning

-CLT focuses solely on learning new language while CLIL has an additional cognitive load as it requires more subject-based vocabulary
-CLT is more flexible and CLIL is a bit more structured when it comes to lesson planning.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.