Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) is an umbrella term that was launched at the end of the 90´s to describe educational methods where “subjects, or parts of subjects, are taught through a foreign language with dual-focused aims, namely the learning of content, and the simultaneous learning of a foreign language” (D. Marsh, 2002) . Language becomes thekey to a full understanding of the subject matter whereas the essence of the approach is the teaching and learning of the content.
As a result, the richness of Europe’s cultural and linguistic diversity has led to a wide variety of CLIL policies and practices which provides us with many examples of CLIL in different stages of development. This diversity of models and the incapacity of exportingthem from a context to another have been seen as a strong shortcoming of the newly approach. Sauli Takala (2002:42) affirms that “CLIL needs to be tailor-made to fit the national and local circumstances ”. Though bilingual educational systems have being implemented globally, the exact form of implementation, in terms of 2L, of the proportion of teaching hours and of subjects integrated varies amongthe different educational systems. A good example of this variety is Spain where the degree and characteristics of implementation vary greatly from a region to another since the political structure of Spain compromises 19 Autonomous Regions granted with political and administrative power. In the bilingual communities (Balearics Islands, Basque Country, Catalonia, Galicia, Navarre and Valencia)where the regional languages have an official status, these have been included in the Regional Curriculum. Thus, in Spain, though the curriculum may be covered in at least 2 different languages and there are 3 models of CLIL implementation, two very different modes: one where it may be taught in the official language of the State (Spanish) but also in a joint official language other than Spanish(Basque, Catalonian, Valencian and Galician); the other on where it may be taught in the official language of the State (Spanish) but also partly in one or two foreign languages (Eurydice, 2006). A third mode must be added to these two, in which it may be taught partly in the official language of the State (Spanish), partly in a joint official language other than Spanish (Basque, Catalonian,Valencian and Galician), and partly in one or two foreign languages (English, French and German) .
Due to the globalisation and the role of the Information and Communication Technologies (ICT), English has become undoubtedly the world’s dominant language of our time and everybody clearly sees and assumes the need to be proficiency in English. Therefore, the demand for content teaching in English ishigher than in any other languages that is why for some people CLIL is acting as a Trojan Horse, that is, as David Marsh (2005) explains “carrying English ever deeper into the European National education systems” and consequently into the European society, he accepts this metaphor but he also points out that for others “CLIL is a means of driving even better teaching and learning practice into theheart of education” . Along with the processes of joint political, economic and cultural activity and increased mobility across borders has come the realisation that a United Europe contains a huge diversity of languages and within this context, communication plays a central goal. Because CLIL is seen not only as a subject and language learning approach but also as a broader educational context, as ameans of improving understanding but also intercultural awareness and as a way of developing wider and multicultural interests and attitudes while providing different perspectives of content study and while preparing for future studies and working life. Dafouz (2007: 91-101) justifies the relation between CLIL and English by saying that
“As a response to the role of English in this globalized...