This paper investigates the benefits of integrating maker education into content and language integrated learning curricula, suggesting improvements in language acquisition.
Traditional language teaching has often focused on language in isolation from real-world contexts. However, recognizing the inherent link between language and content, Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) emerged some time ago as a global standard ( Goris et al., 2019 ). Over time, CLIL has evolved and diversified to address new challenges. With current concerns about generative artificial intelligence (AI), global politics, and the role of education, enhancing CLIL with innovative methods that cater to local and global needs is vital. Maker Education, which combines hands-on projects with STEAM content (Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, and Mathematics), is a practical approach to merge action, knowledge, and skill development. Maker Education’s benefits in first language contexts are well-documented, but its application in language learning is still in its nascency. This paper investigates the benefits and drawbacks of integrating Maker Education into CLIL curricula. The results suggest that Maker Education provides linguistic and developmental advantages, complementing CLIL approaches.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lege et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: