TKT: CLIL common mistakes
TKT: CLIL · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
On items asking what distinguishes CLIL from other approaches, the candidate chooses options describing full immersion or simply 'teaching a subject through English', and rejects options that mention planning for both content and language.
Candidates rely on the everyday meaning of 'content and language integrated' and have not internalised the dual-focus principle (the 4Cs: content, communication, cognition, culture), where language is both a medium and an object of instruction.
What to do instead
For every option ask two questions: is subject content taught, and is language explicitly planned for/assessed? Learn the defining features of CLIL (dual focus, cognition, culture, language as a tool for learning) and use them as a checklist against each option.
When asked which of several tasks is most suitable for a class, the candidate judges difficulty from surface vocabulary alone and picks a task that actually requires high-order thinking (e.g. hypothesising, evaluating) because the words in it are simple.
The candidate conflates linguistic demand with cognitive demand and is unfamiliar with Cummins' BICS/CALP distinction and the high/low cognitive demand quadrant.
What to do instead
Analyse every task on two separate axes: cognitive demand (identify/describe vs. compare/explain/evaluate) and linguistic demand (context-embedded with visuals vs. abstract, decontextualised). Practise sorting tasks into the four quadrants before choosing.
The candidate selects lesson aims or objectives that mention only content or only language, e.g. accepting 'Learners will learn about volcanoes' as a complete CLIL aim.
Candidates transfer habits from subject teaching (content-only aims) or from EFL (language-only aims) and do not expect a CLIL aim to carry two outcomes.
What to do instead
Rewrite each aim so it has a content outcome and a language outcome, distinguishing language OF learning (key subject vocabulary), FOR learning (functions such as explaining, comparing) and THROUGH learning (incidental classroom language). Check the plan shows evidence for each outcome.
The candidate mislabels stages of a lesson plan: calling a schema-activating lead-in 'presentation of new language', or calling a stage 'practice' when learners are using language freely and independently.
The candidate matches stage names to the surface features of the activity (e.g. a picture on the board) rather than to the teacher's purpose at that point in the sequence.
What to do instead
For each stage ask what the teacher's purpose is: activate prior knowledge, present/model, controlled practice, freer production, review, or assessment. Learn the typical purposes of CLIL stages, especially the scaffolding stage that precedes a demanding production task.
The candidate chooses whole-class, teacher-fronted interaction for a task that requires learners to negotiate meaning, and rejects pair or group work on the grounds that learners may talk to each other or use L1.
The candidate equates a quiet, controlled classroom with effective learning and underestimates the role of collaborative interaction in developing both content understanding and language.
What to do instead
Match grouping to the communicative purpose of the task: collaborative tasks give learners comprehensible output, peer scaffolding and chances to rehearse subject language. Learn the advantages of each interaction pattern and when each is appropriate.
The candidate treats any use of the learners' first language as wrong, rejecting options such as a brief L1 explanation of a difficult concept, a bilingual glossary, or L1 used to plan a task.
The candidate applies an 'English-only' rule imported from general EFL teaching and does not recognise L1 as a legitimate scaffold in CLIL.
What to do instead
Distinguish planned, limited L1 used for clarification and checking understanding from L1 used as a substitute for target-language output. Accept judicious L1 support while ensuring learners still produce the subject language.
The candidate identifies 'giving learners the answers', 'translating the text' or 'deleting the difficult sentences' as examples of scaffolding.
The candidate equates support with making the work easier, rather than with enabling access to demanding content while keeping the thinking demand intact.
What to do instead
Learn specific scaffolding techniques - modelling, worked examples, graphic organisers, substitution tables, sentence frames, visuals, glossaries, key questions - and test each option with the question: does this keep the cognitive challenge or remove it?
When asked how to prepare learners to read a subject text, the candidate chooses an option that uses an authentic text unchanged and rejects options that add headings, visuals, a glossary or a pre-reading task.
The candidate values authenticity over accessibility and does not know that difficulty can be reduced through support around the text rather than by changing the text.
What to do instead
Adapt by supporting, not simplifying: add visuals, headings, glossed key terms, and pre-reading tasks that build schema. Grade the task rather than damaging the text, and remember that deleting connectives and shortening sentences can make a text harder to follow.
When selecting which language to pre-teach from a subject text, the candidate lists only technical nouns from the topic and misses the functional language learners need to complete the task (e.g. 'this causes...', 'the result is...', 'it is bigger than...').
The candidate thinks of subject language as vocabulary only and does not distinguish content-obligatory language from content-compatible language.
What to do instead
For a given task, list the language needed to understand the input and produce the output: technical terms plus the functions and structures required by the task. Classify remaining useful but non-essential language as content-compatible.
The candidate labels an end-of-unit test as an example of formative assessment, or selects a language-accuracy mark scheme as the only assessment for a task whose aim is content understanding.
The candidate equates assessment with testing and has not separated the purposes of assessment (evidence to adjust teaching vs. end-point grading) or the two CLIL outcomes.
What to do instead
Define formative assessment as ongoing evidence used to adapt teaching (questioning, concept checks, self- and peer assessment, exit tickets) and summative as end-of-unit judgement. For CLIL tasks use separate, explicit criteria for content and for language, including content-obligatory language.