Keywords
CLIL
CBI continuum
CLIL models
How to Cite
Number of views: 2847
Number of downloads: 1047
Abstract
In the last decade, there has been a major interest in content-based instruction (CBI) and content and language integrated learning (CLIL). These are similar approaches which integrate content and foreign/second language learning through various methodologies and models as a result of different implementations around the world. In this paper, I first offer a sociocultural view of CBI-CLIL. Secondly, I define language and content as vital components in CBI-CLIL. Thirdly, I review the origins of CBI and the continuum perspective, and CLIL definitions and models featured in the literature. Fourth, I summarise current aspects around research in programme evaluation. Last, I review the benefits and challenges of this innovative approach so as to encourage critically context-responsive endeavours.References
Airey, J. (2009). Estimating undegraduate bilingual scientific literacy in Sweden. International CLIL Research Journal, 1(2), 26-35.
Alonso, E., Grisaleña, J., & Campo, A. (2008). Plurilingual education in secondary schools: Analysis of results. International CLIL Research Journal, 1(1), 36-49.
Bailey, F., Burkett, B., & Freeman, D. (2010). The mediating role of language in teaching and learning: A classroom perspective. In B. Spolsky & F. M.Hult (Eds.), The handbook of educational linguistics (pp. 606-625). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Ballman, T. (1997). Enhancing beginning language courses through content enriched instruction. Foreign Language Annals, 30(2), 173-186.
Banegas, D. (2011). Content and language integrated learning in Argentina2008-2011. Latin American Journal of Content and Language Integrated Learning, 4(2), 32-48.
Banegas, D. (in press). Motivation and autonomy through CLIL. A collaborative undertaking. In D. Fernández (Ed.), XXXVII FAAPI Conference proceedings: Research on motivation and autonomy in ELT. San Martinde los Andes: FAAPI.
Barranco Pérez, J. (2007). La colaboración del discurso del profesor en la adquisiciónde una lengua extranjera. Revista Electrónica de Didáctica/Español LenguaExtranjera, 10. Retrevied from http://www.educacion.es/redele/revista10/JoseLBarranco.pdf
Barwell, R. (2005). Critical issues for language and content in mainstreamclassrooms: Introduction. Linguistics and Education, 16(2), 143-150.
Bebenroth, R., & Redfield, M. (2004). Do OUE students want content-based instruction? An experimental study. Osaka Keidai Ronshu 55, 4. Retrieved from www.bebenroth.eu/Downloads/CententBasedInstrucRube55.04DaiKeiDai.pdf
Bentley, K. (2010). The TKT course. CLIL module. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brinton, D., Snow, M., & Wesche, M. (2003). The content-based second language instruction (2nd ed.). Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
Brown, H. D. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching (5th ed.). White Plains, NY: Pearson Longman.
Bruton, A. (2011a). Are the differences between CLIL and non-CLIL groups in Andalusia due to CLIL? Applied Linguistics, 32(2), 236-241.
Bruton, A. (2011b). Is CLIL so beneficial, or just selective? Re-evaluating some of the research. System, 39(4), 523-532.
Butler, Y. G. (2005). Content-based instruction in EFL contexts: Considerationsfor effective implementation. JALT Journal, 27(2), 227-245.
Cammarata, L. (2009). Negotiating curricular transitions: Foreign language teachers’ learning experience with content-based instruction. The Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue canadienne des la languesvivantes, 65(4), 559-585.
Canagarajah, S. (2011). Code meshing in academic writing: Identifying teachable strategies of translanguaging. The Modern Language Journal,95(3), 401-417.
Chopey-Paquet, M., & Amory-Bya, N. (2007). Mission CLIL-possible: The quest to generate and support good CLIL practice in francophone Belgian state comprehensive catholic secondary schools. In D. Marsh & D. Wolff (Eds.),Diverse contexts – converging goals. CLIL in Europe. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Costa, F., & D’Angelo, L. (2011). CLIL: A suit for all seasons? Latin American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning, 4(1), 1-13.
Costa, M., & Godinho, M. (2007). Contributions from Portugal. In B. RozaGonzález (Ed.), Good practice in content and language integrated learning (pp. 70-79). BeCLIL: Gijón.
Coonan, C. (2007). Insider views of the CLIL class through teacher-self observation-introspection. International Journal of Bilingual Educationand Bilingualism, 10(5), 625-646.
Coyle, D. (2006). Content and language integrated learning: Motivating learners and teachers. Retrieved from http://blocs.xtec.cat/clilpractiques1/files/2008/11/slrcoyle.pdf
Coyle, D. (2007a). Content and language integrated learning: Towards a connected research agenda for CLIL pedagogies. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(5), 543-562.
Coyle, D. (2007b). The CLIL quality challenge. In D. Marsh & D. Wolff (Eds.),Diverse contexts – converging goals. CLIL in Europe (pp. 47-58). Frankfurt:Peter Lang.
Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL content and language integrated learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Crandall, J. (1993). Content-centered learning in the United States. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 13(1), 11-126.
Creese, A. (2005). Is this content-based language teaching? Linguistics and Education, 16(2), 188-204.
Creese, A., & Blackledge, A. (2010). Translanguaging in the bilingual classroom:A pedagogy for learning and teaching? The Modern Language Journal, 94(1), 103-115.
Dafouz Milne, E., & Guerrini, M. (Eds.). (2009). CLIL across Educational Levels.London: Richmond.
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2007). Discourse in content and language integrated learning (CLIL) Classrooms. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2009). Communicative competence and the CLIL lesson. In Y. Ruiz de Zarobe & R. M. Jiménez Catalán (Eds.), Content and language integrated learning. Evidence from research in Europe (pp. 197-214). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2011). Content and language integrated learning: From practice to principle? Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31(1), 182-204.
Dalton-Puffer, C., Hüttner, J., Schindelegger, V., & Smit, U. (2009). Technologygeeks speak out: What students think about vocational CLIL. International CLIL Research Journal, 1(2), 18-25.
Dalton-Puffer, C., & Nikula, T. (2006). Pragmatics of content-based instruction:Teacher and student directives in Finnish and Austrian classrooms.Applied Linguistics, 27(2), 241-267.
Dalton-Puffer, C., Nikula, T., & Smit, U. (Eds.). (2010). Language use and language learning in CLIL classrooms. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Dalton-Puffer, C., & Smit, U. (2007). Introduction. In C. Dalton-Puffer & U. Smit (Eds.), Empirical perspectives on CLIL classroom discourse (pp. 7-23). Wien: Peter Lang.
Davidson, C. (2005). Learning your lines: Negotiating language and content in subject English. Linguistics and Education, 16(2), 219-237.
de Carlo, M. (2009). Plurilinguisme et interculturalité pour la construction de lacitoyennete européene. Etudes de linguistique appliquee: revue dedidactologie des langues-cultures et de lexiculturologie, 153, 67-76.
de Guerrero, M., & Villamil, O. (2000). Activating the ZPD: Mutual scaffolding in L2 peer revision. The Modern Language Journal, 84, 51-68.
Eurydice Report (2006). Content and language learning (CLIL) at schools in Europe. Brussels: Eurydice. Retrieved from http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/resources/eurydice/pdf/0_integral/071EN.pdf
Favilla, M. (2009). Il ruolo dell’AItLA nella ricerca in Linguistica applicata in Italia. Rassegna Italiana de Linguistica Applicata, 41(3), 127-146.
Feryok, A. (2008). The impact of TESOL on maths and science teachers. ELT Journal, 62(2), 123-130.
Gibbons, P. (2002). Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning: Teaching second language learners in the mainstream classroom. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Gierlinger, E. M. (2007). The three pillar of modular CLIL: Findings from an Austrian research project. In D. Marsh & D. Wolff (Eds.), Diverse contexts– converging goals. CLIL in Europe (pp. 211-226). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Grabe, W., & Stoller, F. (1997). Content-based instruction: Research foundations. In M. Snow & D. Brinton (Eds.), The content-based classroom. Perspectives on integrating language and content (pp. 158-174). White Plains: Longman.
Guerrini, M. (2009). CLIL materials as scaffolds to learning. In D. Marsh, P. Mehisto, D. Wolff, R. Aliaga, T. Asikainen, M. Frigols-Martin, S. Hughes,& G. Langé (Eds.), CLIL practice: Perspectives from the field (pp. 74-84). University of Jyväskylä.
Haataja, K. (2007a). A definition of CLIL as an umbrella term: A historical perspective. In B. Roza González (Ed.), Good practice in content and language integrated learning (p. 9). BeCLIL: Gijón.
Haataja, K. (2007b). Contributions from Finland. In B. Roza González (Ed.),Good practice in content and language integrated learning (pp. 37-54). BeCLIL: Gijón.
Halbach, A. (2009). The primary school teacher and the challenges of bilingual education. In E. Dafouz & M. Guerrini (Eds.), CLIL across educational levels (pp. 19-26). London: Richmond.
Hall, J. (2010). Interaction as method and result of language learning.Language Teaching, 43(2), 202-215.
Harris, V. (2008). A cross-curricular approach to “learning to learn” languages:Government policy and school practice. The Curriculum Journal, 19(4),255-268.
Hermann, J. (2008). The ‘language’ problem. Language & Communication,28(1), 93-99.
Hernández Herrero, A. (2005). Content-based instruction in an English oral communication course at the University of Costa Rica. Retrieved, fromhttp://revista.inie.ucr.ac.cr/articulos/2-2005/archivos/oral.pdf
Hofmannová, M., Novotná, J., & Pípalová, R. (2008). Assessment approaches to teaching mathematics in English as a foreign language. International CLIL Research Journal, 1(1), 20-35.
Huang, K. (2011). Motivating lessons: A classroom-oriented investigation of the effects of content-based instruction on EFL young learners’ motivated behaviours and classroom verbal interaction. System, 39(2), 186-201.
Hymes, D. H. (1972). On communicative competence. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Johnson, K. (2008). An Introduction to foreign language learning and teaching (2nd ed.). London: Pearson Longman.
Kennedy, T. (2006). Language learning and its impact on the brain: Connecting language learning with the mind through content-based instruction.Foreign Language Annals, 39(3), 471-486.
Kiely, R. (2011). Understanding CLIL as an innovation. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 1(1), 153-171.
Kong, S. (2009). Content-based instruction: What can we learn from content trainedteachers’ and language-trained teachers’ pedagogies? The Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue canadienne des languesvivantes, 66(2), 233-267.
Kong, S., & Hoare, P. (2011). Cognitive content engagement in content-based language teaching. Language Teaching Research, 15(3), 307-324.
Langman, J. (2003). The effects of ESL-trained content-area teachers: Reducing middle-school students to incidental language learners. Prospect, 18(1),14-26.
Lantolf, J. (Ed.). (2000). Sociocultural theory and second language learning.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lantolf, J., & Thorne, S. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2000). Techniques and principles in language teaching.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lasabagaster, D. (2011). English achievement and student motivation in CLIL and EFL settings. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 5(1),pp. 3-18.
Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. (2009). Language attitudes in CLIL and traditional EFL classes. International CLIL Research Journal, 1(2), 4-17.
Lasagabaster, D. & Sierra, J. (2010). Immersion and CLIL in English: More differences than similarities. ELT Journal, 64(4), 367-375.
Lasagabaster, D. & Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (Eds.). (2010). CLIL in Spain: Implementation, results and teacher training. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Llinares, A., & Whittaker, R. (2009). Teaching and learning history in secondary CLIL classrooms: From speaking to writing. In E. Dafouz & M. Guerrini (Eds.), CLIL across educational levels (pp. 73-88). London: Richmond.
Loranc-Paszylk, B. (2009). Integrating reading and writing into the context of CLIL classroom: Some practical solutions. International CLIL Research Journal, 1(2), 47-53.
Lorenzo, F., Casal, S., & Moore, P. (2010). The effects of content and language integrated learning in European education: Key findings from the Andalusian bilingual sections evaluation project. Applied Linguistics,31(3), 418-442.
Lotherington, H. (2004). Bilingual Education. In A. Davies & C. Elder (Eds.), The handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 695-720). Oxford: Blackwell.
Lucietto, S. (Ed.). (2008). …e allora…CLIL! . Trento: Editore Provincia Autonomadi Trento-IPRASE del Trentino.
Łuczywek, I. (2009). Three models of integrating school subjects in Poland. InD. Marsh, P. Mehisto, D. Wolff, R. Aliaga, T. Asikainen, M. Frigols-Martin,S. Hughes, & G. Langé (Eds.), CLIL Practice: Perspectives from the field(pp. 44-54). University of Jyväskylä.
Lyster, R., & Ballinger, S. (2011). Content-based language teaching: Convergent concerns across divergent contexts. Language Teaching Research, 15(3),279-288.
Maley, A. (2011). Squaring the circle – reconciling materials as constraint with materials as empowerment. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), Materials development in language teaching (2nd ed., pp. 379-402). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Marsh, D. (Ed.). (2002). CLIL/EMILE – The European dimension: Actions, trends and foresight potential. European Commision, DG EAC.
Marsh, D. (2008). Language awareness and CLIL. In J. Cenoz & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education (2nd ed., pp.233-246). Springer Science + Business Media LLC: Vol. 6. Knowledge about Language. New York: Springer.
Marsh, D., & Wolff, D. (Eds.). (2007). Diverse contexts – converging goals. CLIL in Europe. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Mehisto, P. (2008). CLIL Counterweights: Recognising and decreasing disjuncture in CLIL. International CLIL Research Journal, 1(1), 93-119.
Mehisto, P., & Asser, H. (2007). Stakeholder perspectives: CLIL programme management in Estonia. Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism,10(5), 683-701.
Mehisto, P., Marsh, D., & Frigols, M. (2008). Uncovering CLIL: Content and language integrated learning in bilingual and multilingual education. Oxford: Macmillan.
Met, M. (1999). Content-based instruction: Defining terms, making decisions.NFLC Reports. Washington, DC: The National Foreign Language Center.
Moate, J. (2010). The integrated nature of CLIL: A sociocultural perspective.International CLIL Research Journal, 1(3), 38-45.
Moate, J. (2011). Reconceptualising the role of talk in CLIL. Journal of Applied Language Studies, 5(2), 17-35.
Mohan, B. (1986). Language and content. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Mohan, B., & Slater, T. (2005). A functional perspective on the critical theory/practice relation in teaching language and science. Linguistics and Education, 16(2), 151-172.
Monte, A. & Roza, B. (2007). Contributions from Spain. In B. Roza González(Ed.), Good practice in content and language integrated learning (pp. 16-36). BeCLIL: Gijón.
Moore, P., & Lorenzo, F. (2007). Adapting authentic materials for CLIL Classrooms:An empirical study. Vienna English Working Papers, 16(3), 28-35.
Morton, T. (2010). Using a genre-based approach to integrating content and language in CLIL. In C. Dalton-Puffer, T. Nikula, & U. Smit (Eds.),Language use and language learning in clil classrooms (pp. 81-104). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Navés, T. (2009). Effective content and language integrated learning (CLIL) programmes. In Y. Ruiz de Zarobe & R. M. Jiménez Catalán (Eds.),Content and language integrated learning. Evidence from research inEurope (pp. 22-40). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Nikula, T. (2007). Speaking English in Finnish content-based classrooms. WorldEnglishes, 26(2), 206-223.
Nunan, D. (2004). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.
Ohta, A. (2005). Interlanguage pragmatics in the zone of proximal development.Pragmatics in Instructed Language Learning, 33(3), 503-517.
Pavón Vázquez, V., & Rubio, F. (2010). Teachers’ concerns and uncertaintiesabout the introduction of CLIL programmes. Porta Linguarum, 14, 45-58.
Paz, G. & M. Quinterno (2009). Teachers in action or teachers’ inaction? Acritical approach to an active implementation of the latest trends in ourlocal context. In D. Fernández (Ed.), XXXIV FAAPI Conferenceproceedings: Teachers in action. Making the latest trends work in theclassroom (pp. 25-32). Bahía Blanca: FAAPI.
Pena Díaz, C. & Porto Requejo, M. (2008). Teacher beliefs in a CLIL educationproject. Porta Linguarum, 10, 151-161.
Pérez-Vidal, C. (2009). The integration of content and language in theclassroom: a European approach to education (the second time around).In E. Dafouz & M. Guerrini (Eds.) CLIL across educational levels (pp. 3-16). London: Richmond.
Pica, T. (2002). Subject matter content: How does it assist the interactionaland linguistic needs of classroom language learners? The ModernLanguage Journal, 85(1), 1-19.
Ramos, F. (2009). Una propuesta de AICLE para el trabajo con textos ensegundos idiomas. Porta Linguarum, 12, 169-182.
Reiss, J. (2005). Teaching content to English language learners. Strategies forsecondary school success. White Plains, NY: Pearson Education.
Ricci Garotti, F. (2007). Five methodological research questions for CLIL. In D.Marsh & D. Wolff (Eds.), Diverse contexts – converging goals. CLIL inEurope. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Richards, J., & Rodgers, T.S. (2001). Approaches and methods in languageteaching (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rodgers, D. (2006). Developing content and form: Encouraging evidence fromitalian content-based instruction. The Modern Language Journal, 90(3),373-386.
Rogers, T. (2000). Methodology in the New Millennium. English TeachingForum, 38(2), 2-13.
Roza, B. (2009). Assessment and benchmarking: A new challenge for contentand language integrated learning. In E. Dafouz & M. Guerrini (Eds.), CLILacross educational levels (pp. 127-139). London: Richmond.
Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (2008). CLIL and foreign language learning: A longitudinal studyin the Basque Country. International CLIL Research Journal, 1(1), 60-73.
Ruiz-Garrido, M., & Fortanet Gómez, I. (2009). Needs analysis in a CLIL context:A transfer from ESP. In D. Marsh, P. Mehisto, D. Wolff, R. Aliaga, T.Asikainen, M. Frigols-Martin, S. Hughes, & G. Langé (Eds.), CLIL Practice: Perspectives from the field (pp. 179-188). University of Jyväskylä.
Savage, J. (2011). Cross-curricular teaching and learning in the secondaryschool. Abingdon: Routledge.
Savignon, S. (2007). Beyond communicative language teaching: What’s ahead?Journal of Pragmatics, 39(1), 207-220.
Seikkula-Leino, J. (2007). CLIL learning: Achievement levels and affectivefactors. Language and Education, 21(4), 328-341.
Serragiotto, G. (2007). Assessment and evaluation in CLIL. In D. Marsh & D.Wolff (Eds.), Diverse contexts – converging goals. CLIL in Europe.Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Short, D. (2002). Language learning in sheltered social studies classes. TESOL Journal, 11(1), 18-24.
Spada, N. (2010). Beyond form-focused instruction: Reflections on past, present and future research. Language Teaching, 44, 225-236. doi:10.1017/ S0261444810000224
Stoller, F. (2004). Content-based instruction: Perspectives on curriculum planning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 261-283.
Stryker, S., & Leaver, B. (Eds.). (1997). Content-based instruction in foreignlanguage education: Models and methods. Washington, DC: GeorgetownUniversity Press.
Sudhoff, J. (2010). CLIL and intercultural communicative competence: Foundationsand approaches towards a fusion. International CLIL Research Journal, 1(3),30-37.
Swain, M., & Johnson, R. (1997). Immersion education: A category within bilingual education. In R. Johnson & M. Swain (Eds.), Immersion education: International perspectives (pp. 1-16). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Tasker, T., Johnson, K., & Davis, T. (2010). A sociocultural analysis of teacher talk in inquiry-based professional development. Language Teaching Research, 14(2), 129-140.
Várkuti, A. (2010). Linguistic benefits of the CLIL approach: Measuring linguistic competences. International CLIL Research Journal, 1(3), 67-79.
Vázquez, G. (2007). Models of CLIL: An evaluation of its status drawing on the German experience. A critical report on the limits of reality and perspectives. Revista española de lingüística aplicada, Volumen Extraordinario, 1, 95-111.
Warford, M. (2010). ¿Enseñar gramática y cultura en la lengua extranjera? Empezando en las zonas de mayor resistencia. Hispania, 93(2), 292-304.
Waters, A. (2009). Managing innovation in English language education. Language Teaching, 42(4), 421-458.
Wesche, M. (Ed.). (2001). French immersion and content-based language teaching in Canada (Special Issue). Canadian Modern Language Review, 58(1).
Wesche, M., & Skehan, P. (2002). Communicative, task-based, and content based language instruction. In R. Kaplan (Ed.), The Oxford handbook ofapplied linguistics (pp. 187-208). New York: Oxford University Press.
Wolff, D. (2003). Content and language integrated learning: A framework for the development of learner autonomy. In D. Little, J. Ridley, & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Learner autonomy in the foreign language classroom: Teacher,learner, curriculum and assessment (pp. 198-210). Dublin: Authentik.
Wolff, D. (2007). CLIL: Bridging the gap between school and working life. In D.Marsh & D. Wolff (Eds.), Diverse contexts – converging goals. CLIL inEurope (pp. 15-25). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Wolff, D. (2010). Developing Curricula for CLIL: Issues and Problems. In B.O’Rourke & L. Carson (Eds.), Language learner autonomy. Policy,curriculum, classroom. A festchrift in honour of David Little (pp. 103-120). Bern: Peter Lang.
Yassin, S. M., Tek, O. E., Alimon, H., Baharom, S., & Ying, L. Y. (2010). Teaching science through English: Engaging pupils cognitively. International CLILResearch Journal, 1(3), 46-59.
License
1.1 The Author hereby warrants that he/she is the owner of all the copyright and other intellectual property rights in the Work and that, within the scope of the present Agreement, the paper does not infringe the legal rights of another person. The owner of the copyright work also warrants that he/she is the sole and original creator thereof and that is not bound by any legal constraints in regard to the use or sale of the work.
1.2. The Publisher warrants that is the owner of the PRESSto platform for open access journals, hereinafter referred to as the PRESSto Platform.
2. The Author grants the Publisher non-exclusive and free of charge license to unlimited use worldwide over an unspecified period of time in the following areas of exploitation:
2.1. production of multiple copies of the Work produced according to the specific application of a given technology, including printing, reproduction of graphics through mechanical or electrical means (reprography) and digital technology;
2.2. marketing authorisation, loan or lease of the original or copies thereof;
2.3. public performance, public performance in the broadcast, video screening, media enhancements as well as broadcasting and rebroadcasting, made available to the public in such a way that members of the public may access the Work from a place and at a time individually chosen by them;
2.4. inclusion of the Work into a collective work (i.e. with a number of contributions);
2.5. inclusion of the Work in the electronic version to be offered on an electronic platform, or any other conceivable introduction of the Work in its electronic version to the Internet;
2.6. dissemination of electronic versions of the Work in its electronic version online, in a collective work or independently;
2.7. making the Work in the electronic version available to the public in such a way that members of the public may access the Work from a place and at a time individually chosen by them, in particular by making it accessible via the Internet, Intranet, Extranet;
2.8. making the Work available according to appropriate license pattern Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) as well as another language version of this license or any later version published by Creative Commons.
3. The Author grants the Publisher permission to reproduce a single copy (print or download) and royalty-free use and disposal of rights to compilations of the Work and these compilations.
4. The Author grants the Publisher permission to send metadata files related to the Work, including to commercial and non-commercial journal-indexing databases.
5. The Author represents that, on the basis of the license granted in the present Agreement, the Publisher is entitled and obliged to:
5.1. allow third parties to obtain further licenses (sublicenses) to the Work and to other materials, including derivatives thereof or compilations made, based on or including the Work, whereas the provisions of such sub-licenses will be the same as with the Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) Creative Commons sub-license or another language version of this license, or any later version of this license published by Creative Commons;
5.2. make the Work available to the public in such a way that members of the public may access the Work from a place and at a time individually chosen by them, without any technological constraints;
5.3. appropriately inform members of the public to whom the Work is to be made available about sublicenses in such a way as to ensure that all parties are properly informed (appropriate informing messages).
6. Because of the royalty-free provision of services of the Author (resulting from the scope of obligations stipulated in the present Agreement), the Author shall not be entitled to any author’s fee due and payable on the part of the Publisher (no fee or royalty is payable by the Publisher to the Author).
7.1. In the case of third party claims or actions for indemnity against the Publisher owing to any infractions related to any form of infringement of intellectual property rights protection, including copyright infringements, the Author is obliged to take all possible measures necessary to protect against these claims and, when as a result of legal action, the Publisher, or any third party licensed by the Publisher to use the Work, will have to abandon using the Work in its entirety or in part or, following a court ruling in a legal challenge, to pay damages to a third party, whatever the legal basis
7.2. The Author will immediately inform the Publisher about any damage claims related to intellectual property infringements, including the author’s proprietary rights pertaining to a copyrighted work, filed against the Author. of liability, the Author is obliged to redress the damage resulting from claims made by third party, including costs and expenditures incurred in the process.
7.3. To all matters not settled herein provisions of the Polish Civil Code and the Polish Copyright and Related Rights Act shall apply.