[1]Andrés, J. B. (2012). CLIL: Perspectives from a competency-based approach in the spanish context. In Estilos De aprendizaje. Investigaciones Y experiencias: [V Congreso Mundial De Estilos De Aprendizaje]. [2]Brown, H. (1980). Principles of language learning and teaching. London: Longman. [3]Byram, M. (1989). Cultural studies in foreign language education . 46. Multilingual Matters. [4]Byram, M. (1997). Cultural awareness’ as vocabulary learning. Language Learning Journal, 16(01), 51–57. [5]Chomsky, N. (2006). Language and mind. Cambridge University Press. [6]Coyle, D. (2002). CLIL/EMILE—the european dimension: CLIL — A PEDAGOGICAL APPROACH 109 actions (D. Marsh, Ed.). Trends and Foresight Potential Public Services Contract DG EAC: European Commission，Strasbourg. [7]Coyle, D. (2006). Content and language integrated learning: Motivating learners and teachers. Scottish Languages Review, 13(05), 1–18. [8]Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. [9]Cubero, K. (2021). Theoretical proposal: Exploring the symbiosis of CLIL and PBL to foster an intercultural learning experience in EFL. DEDiCA Revista de Educação E Humanidades (Dreh), 2021(19), 267–288. [10]Dooly, M., & Vinagre, M. (2022). Research into practice: Virtual exchange in language teaching and learning. Language Teaching, 55(03), 392–406. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444821000069 [11]Eslami, Z., & Garver, R. (2022). English language learners and project-based learning. Sense Publishers, 119–128. STEM project-based learning. [12]Fontecha, A. F. (2008). Review of CLIL implementation tools:The forgotten factor. In Global Practices of Language Teaching: Proceedings of the 2008 International Online Language Conference , 38–50. [13]Gao, Y., & Liu, X. (2019). A case study on effects of CLIL on college english curricula: Guided by the teaching guidelines of college english. Journal of Xi’an International Studies University. https://doi.org/10.16362/j.cnki.cn61-1457/h.2019.02.012 [14]Glickman, C. (1991). Pretending not to know what we know. Educational Leadership, 48(08), 4–10. [15]Hampel, R. (2006). Rethinking task design for the digital age: A framework for language teaching and learning in a synchronous online environment. ReCALL, 18(01), 105–121. [16]Helm, F., & Guth, S. (2010). The multifarious goals of telecollaboration 2.0: Theoretical and practical implications. Telecollaboration, 02(01), 69–106. [17]Hunter, L. E., & Daw, N. D. (2021). Context-sensitive valuation and learning. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 2021(41), 122–127. [18]Joseph, H., & Nation, K. (2018). Examining incidental word learning during reading in children: The role of context. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 2018(116), 190–211. [19]Kurek, M., & Müller-Hartmann, A. (2017). Task design for telecollaborative exchanges: In search of new criteria. System, 2017(64), 7–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2016.12.004 [20]Lialikhova, D. (2019). We can do it together!”–But can they? How norwegian ninth graders co-constructed content and language knowledge through peer interaction in CLIL. Linguistics and Education, 2019(54), 100, 764. [21]Liddicoat, A. J., & Scarino, A. (2013). Intercultural language teaching and learning. John Wiley & Sons. [22]Luther, A. (2000). The" old" method of teaching vs. the" new" method of teaching. Journal of Thought, 35(02), 59–69. [23]Müller-Hartmann, A., & Kurek, M. (2016). Virtual group formation and the process of task design in online intercultural exchanges. Online Intercultural Exchange: Policy, Pedagogy, Practice, 131–149. Routledge. [24]Netten, J., & Germain, C. (2024). A new paradigm for the learning of a second or foreign language: The neurolinguistic approach. Neuroeducation, 01(01), 85–114. [25] Ó Ceallaigh, T. J., Ní Mhurchú, S., & Ní Chróinín, D. (2017). Balancing content and language in CLIL: The experiences of teachers and learners. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 05(01), 58–86. [26] O’Dowd, R. (2016). Emerging trends and new directions in telecollaborative learning. Calico Journal, 33(3), 291–310. [27]O’Dowd, R. (2018). From telecollaboration to virtual exchange: State-of-the-art and the role of UNI collaboration in moving forward. Journal of Virtual Exchange, 2018(01), 1–23. [28]O’Dowd, R. (2021). Virtual exchange: Moving forward into the next decade. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 34(03), 209–224. [29]O’Dowd, R., & Waire, P. (2009). Critical issues in telecollaborative task design. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 34(03), 173–188. [30]Pan, G., Seow, P., & Koh, K. (2021). An exploration into key roles in making project-based learning happen: Insights from a case study of a university. Journal of International Education in Business, 14(01), 109–129. [31]Rastelli, S. (2018). Neurolinguistics and second language teaching: A view from the crossroads. Second Language Research, 34(01), 103–123. [31]Potvin, A., Boardman, A., & Stamatis, K. (2021). Consequential change: Teachers scale project-based learning in English language arts. Teaching and Teacher Education, 2021(107), 1–13. [32]Rastelli, S. (2003). Task-based instruction. Language Teaching, 36(01), 1–14. [33]Vygotsky, L., & Cole, M. (1978). Mind in society: Development of higher psychological processes. Harvard university press. [34]Wicking, P., Barrera, J., & Suzuki, S. (2021). International virtual exchange: Task design, implementation and assessment. Meijo University Journal of the Faculty of Foreign Studies, 2021(04), 6–71. [35]Zhao, Y., Chang, J., & Liu, Z. (2020). Localization of content and language integrated instruction at the universities in china. Foreign Languages in China. https://doi.org/10.13564/j.cnki.issn.1672-9382.2020.05.009