Anyway, I can see the deep impact of CLIL proposals both on the whole learning-teaching process and on the classroom climate.

First of all, the CLIL methodology is really inclusive: contents and language are both involved in a CLIL project, and usually teachers introduce a variety of tools (technological or not) to help pupils working. As a consequence, each pupil can find his own way through CLIL work, feeling engaged and involved in an individual learning path.

This is, in my opinion, the main strenght of the CLIL approach.

As a second benefit, I noticed how both content and language are implemented and improved during a CLIL project: even weak pupils can express themselves and become more confindent in the use of language..

So, CLIL can be considered an excellent opporunity to welcome and include new pupils, or pupils coming from different countries: the language of CLIL becomes the shared language and it reduces the differences. Peer-to-peer work is an essential part of CLIL, and this enriches the positive relations among students.

Of course, planning and realizing a CLIL project requires to teachers an effort in terms of collaboration among colleagues; organization; use of time and materials; flexibility; professional training and self-assessment. And this is, in my experience, the main weakness of CLIL; a weakness that can also be considered a professional threat, specially on the side of collaboration and cooperation.

My favorire webtools is quizlet: so useful for primary school pupils! I can create games and activities for my pupils and they can use the tool autonomous, even learning to create their wn contents.

https://quizlet.com/" target="_blank">https://quizlet.com

As my second favorire tool, learningapps ne!ps me with younger or weaker students.

Technology, in this view, is an useful help to engage and involve even weaker pupils, offering them the wider variety of tools.