International Perspectives on CLIL (International Perspectives on English Language Teaching) [1st ed. 2021] 3030700941, 9783030700942

This edited book offers culturally-situated, critical accounts of Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) approa

299 102 5MB

English Pages 328 [316] Year 2021

Report DMCA / Copyright


Table of contents :
Series Editor Preface
Notes on Contributors
List of Figures
List of Tables
CLIL: An Overview
The Start and Development of CLIL
CLIL Underpinnings
Definitions of CLIL
CLIL Features and Frameworks
The Language Triptych
CLIL Research
Structure of the Volume
CLIL Practices
Authenticity and Motivation in CLIL: Creating a Meaningful Purpose by Experiencing the Language in Use
Language and Authenticity (and Thus Motivation)
CLIL and Authenticity of Purpose
The Authentic Motivation Assumption in CLIL
How Educational Authenticity Relates to CLIL
Practical Strategies for Calibrating Authenticity Through Metacognition and Negotiation
The Writing Workshop Class
Finding an Authentic Purpose for Using Citations
Strategies, Metacognition and Negotiation
Conclusion and Pedagogical Implications
Suggested Further Reading
Engagement Priorities
Assessing Students’ Learning of History Content in Spanish CLIL Programmes: A Content and Language Integrated Perspective
Why a Chapter on Assessment in CLIL History?
The Challenge of Teaching and Learning History in CLIL
The Importance of Writing in History
Translating Educational Learning Objectives into Levels of Complexity and Specificity: The CDF Model
A Proposal of a Framework for an Integrated Analysis
Application of the Proposed Framework
Implications of the Study
Suggested Further Reading
Engagement Priorities
Appendix A: Rubric for Assessing History Content and Language Integration
Appendix B: Example of Assessment Through T/F Statements
Current Practice and Challenges of Assessment in CLIL in a Japanese University Context
Assessing Content and Critical Thinking
Assessing Factual Recall and Understanding
Assessing Thinking Skills
The Studies and Educational Context
Study 1: CLIL Practitioners’ Assessment Practices
Teachers’ Professional Background and Interview Procedures
Essay and Presentation Tasks
Assessment Criteria
Study 2: Student Perceptions of Assessment in CLIL Courses
Student Questionnaire
Student Perceptions Regarding Assessment on CLIL Courses
Student Opinions Regarding Assessment in CLIL Courses
Pedagogical Implications
Suggested Further Reading
Engagement Priorities
Translanguaging in Science Lessons: Exploring the Language of Science in L2 Low Achievers in a Public School Setting in Colombia
Why Translanguaging in CLIL?
CLIL in Colombia
Translanguaging in Science Lessons
Heating the Meaning of Global Warming
Translanguaging in the Language of Science
Concluding Remarks
Suggested Further Reading
Engagement Priorities
The Role of the Essential Question in Eliciting Critical Thinking in CLIL Classes at a Japanese University
Classroom Interaction
Types of Questions in Classrooms
The Learning Context
How we Analysed the Interactions
Dialogue in Teacher–Student Interactions
The Big Picture in Whole Class Discussions
The Role of Questions for Abstract Concepts
The Role of Questions for Eliciting Students’ Ideas
Dialogue in Student–student Interactions
The Big Picture in Student–student Interaction
The Role of Questions for Abstract Concepts
Lessons Learnt from This Study
Teacher–student Interaction
The Input Session
The Output Session
Student–student Interaction
Conclusions and Way Ahead
Suggested Further Reading
Engagement Priorities
Developing Intercultural Competence: A Comparison of CLIL and Language Majors Before and After Industrial Placements
Is (Inter)Cultural Awareness Missing from the CLIL Approach?
What is the CQS, and Why is CQ Important in CLIL Education?
Expanding Internationalisation at Home or Abroad for CLIL Learners
The Experience
CQ Performance in the Language-Driven and Content-Driven CLIL Programmes Pre- and Post-Internship
Overall CQ Performance Under the CLIL Approach Pre- and Post-Internship
Pedagogical Implications for Internationalisation at Home
Wrapping up
Suggested Further Reading
Engagement Priorities
Appendix A: CQS (Adapted from Ang et al., 2007)
CLIL Professional Development and Awareness
The Role of CLIL in Learning About TESOL: Reflections from an Australian Master of TESOL Course
The Role of CLIL in Framing TESOL as Bilingual Education
The Role of CLIL in Pedagogy
Suggested Further Reading
Engagement Priorities
CLIL-ising EMI: An Analysis of Student and Teacher Training Needs in Monolingual Contexts
Why a Study into Training Needs?
Which Topics are Covered in Previous Research?
How has the Study been Conducted?
What are the Results?
Overall Outcomes: Teacher Perspectives
Overall Outcomes: Student Perspectives
Across-cohort Comparison
Where are we Headed in the Future? Mapping out Future Pathways for Progression
Suggested Further Reading
Engagement Priorities
Top-Down and Bottom-Up CLIL Teacher Development: Lessons Learned from Austrian In-Service CLIL Teacher CPD
The Aims of the CLIL CPD Initiative in Austria
Factors in Austrian CLIL CPD
Managing CLIL CPD
Content Teachers
School Factors
Content, Methodology and Materials of Austrian CLIL CPD
Delivering Austrian CLIL in Schools and Colleges
Engagement means Enthusiasm
Structure means Guidance
Support means Training
Deploying Know-how and Training
Evaluating, Revising and Updating
Austrian CLIL: What makes it Successful
Suggested Further Reading
Engagement Priorities
Developing the C in Content and Language Integrated Learning: Teacher Preparation That Builds Learners’ Content Knowledge and Academic Language Through Teacher Collaboration and Integrated Pedagogical Training
The US Context: Roles and Responsibilities
Teacher Development and ENL Student Success
A Better Way to Prepare Teachers for CLIL Settings?
Teacher Collaboration: Promising Ways to Bring Teachers Together
Long-Term Benefits of Developing Collaborative Practices in the Teacher Preparation Setting
Research Questions
Findings and Discussion
Continued Collaboration
Continued Professional Growth
Pedagogical Implications
Suggested Further Reading
Engagement Priorities
Appendix A: Course Structure
Language-Driven CLIL in Primary Education: An Analysis of General English Coursebooks in Argentina
CLIL and Coursebooks
The Study
General Features
Sources of Input and the Four Skills
Grammar, Vocabulary, and Pronunciation
Key Learnings from the Analysis
Suggested Further Reading
Engagement Priorities
Sistemas Educacionais (SE) and CLIL Developments in Brazil: From Promises to Prospects
SE and CLIL in Brazil: Some Background
Looking into SE Discourse on CLIL
Global Mobility and Citizenship
The Bilingual Advantage
Natural/Easy Learning
Fun/Playful Learning
Hands-on Learning
Relevant Learning
Quality and Superiority
Foreign Authentication
Lessons from Brazil’s SE in the Expansion of CLIL
Suggested Further Reading
Engagement Priorities
Appendix A
CLIL: Present and Future
Lessons Learnt
CLIL Practices
CLIL Professional Development and Awareness
The Way Forward
Designing CLIL
Preparing for CLIL
Implementing CLIL
Recommend Papers

International Perspectives on CLIL (International Perspectives on English Language Teaching) [1st ed. 2021]
 3030700941, 9783030700942

  • 0 0 0
  • Like this paper and download? You can publish your own PDF file online for free in a few minutes! Sign Up
File loading please wait...
Citation preview


International Perspectives on CLIL Edited by Chantal Hemmi Darío Luis Banegas

International Perspectives on English Language Teaching

Series Editors Sue Garton Aston University School of Languages and Social Sciences Birmingham, UK Fiona Copland University of Stirling Stirling, UK

Global meets local in Palgrave’s exciting new series, International Perspectives on English Language Teaching. This innovative series is truly international, with each volume providing the opportunity to compare and learn from experiences of researchers and teachers around the world; is based on cutting edge research linked to effective pedagogic practice; shows how developing local pedagogies can have global resonance. Each volume focuses on an area of current debate in ELT and is edited by key figures in the field, while contributors are drawn from across the globe and from a variety of backgrounds. More information about this series at

Chantal Hemmi  •  Darío Luis Banegas Editors

International Perspectives on CLIL

Editors Chantal Hemmi Center for Language Education and Research Sophia University Tokyo, Japan

Darío Luis Banegas School of Education University of Strathclyde Glasgow, UK

International Perspectives on English Language Teaching ISBN 978-3-030-70094-2    ISBN 978-3-030-70095-9 (eBook) © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2021 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Cover illustration: CLEMENTE LASALA PARRILLA / Alamy Stock Photo This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG. The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Series Editor Preface

There are a number of topics that cause lively discussions in ELT circles, and we suspect that CLIL is often top of the list. Some of the questions we know which are discussed include, what exactly is CLIL? Is it about teaching language or about teaching content? Is it elitist? Isn’t it just the latest in a long line of language teaching methods? Who should teach it? The answers can lead to heated debate and disagreement, as well as to developing understanding. In taking a global perspective on current CLIL teaching and learning, this volume responds to these and many other questions and greatly enhances our knowledge of how CLIL is implemented around the world. In 2012, Pérez-Cañado described CLIL as “the increasingly acknowledged European approach to bilingual education” (p. 316). Since then, CLIL has rapidly spread, especially to Latin America (see for example, Banegas, Poole, & Corrales, 2020), and to Asia (see for example, Wei & Feng, 2015), where it has naturally been adapted to the local conditions. In chapter “CLIL: An Overview”, the editors of the volume trace this development as well as give an overview of the origins of CLIL, its theoretical underpinnings and the multiplicity of definitions that now exist. However, the editors maintain that despite the competing views of what CLIL is—which have inevitably arisen because of the diaspora—the dual approach of language and content remains (Coyle et al., 2010); it is certainly not the case that ‘anything goes’. The evolution of theoretical understandings can, however, be a source of controversy. One of us, working on a CLIL project in Ukraine, was confronted with the very strong conviction by a European partner that language-­ driven CLIL is not CLIL. However, it is important to recognise and accept the different versions of CLIL as examples of contextually appropriate v


Series Editor Preface

pedagogy (Holliday, 1994), which is a fundamental tenet of language teaching and indeed of education in general. One of the real strengths of the chapters in this volume is that they show how CLIL has grown and developed, adapting to the contexts in which it is implemented. The volume reinforces the message of the strength-in-diversity of CLIL by presenting a range of contexts, both geographical and educational. Thus, we have chapters from Argentina, Australia, Austria, Brazil, Colombia, Japan, Spain, Taiwan, and the United States, a focus on primary, secondary, and tertiary contexts and chapters written from the perspectives of both language and content teachers. However, as is perhaps to be expected in a volume in this series, it is languagedriven CLIL which dominates. The volume is divided into two parts, the first on practices and the second on professional development, reflects two of the areas that are key to successful CLIL implementation. The chapters on practices enrich our knowledge of contextual contingencies which affect how CLIL is both understood and implemented. Although there are notable exceptions, such as Spain, CLIL is generally still not well-established in national education systems and remains mainly a bottom-up movement, and this reality is also evident in these chapters. Chapters on practice include motivating students, assessment, language use in CLIL classrooms and developing intercultural competence. In the chapters on professional development, there is a focus on how teachers who want to introduce CLIL into their work, or who have to follow a CLIL approach—most of whom are language teachers—could do so. Even where national education policy establishes CLIL as the approach to be followed, lack of specific teacher training can be an obstacle to successful implementation (Sylvén, 2013). The chapters in this section demonstrate a concern with both pre- and in-service teacher education, specifically, identifying teachers’ needs, course content and curricula, materials, quality provision, and pedagogical enhancement. The volume therefore represents a timely, useful and welcome addition to the series. Birmingham, UK Stirling, UK

Sue Garton Fiona Copland

  Series Editor Preface 


References Banegas, D. L., Poole, P. M., & Corrales, K. A. (2020). Content and language integrated learning in Latin America 2008–2018: Ten years of research and practice. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 10(2), 283–305. Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Holliday, A. (1994). Appropriate methodology and social context. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Pérez-Cañado, M.  L. (2012). CLIL research in Europe: Past, present, and future. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 15(3), 315–341. Sylvén, L. K. (2013). CLIL in Sweden–Why does it not work? A metaperspective on CLIL across contexts in Europe. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16(3), 301–320. Wei, R., & Feng, J. (2015). Implementing CLIL for young learners in an EFL context beyond Europe. English Today, 31(1), 55–60.


We would like to thank our families, colleagues, IPELT series editors Sue Garton and Fiona Copland, and Palgrave associate editor Alice Green for their guidance and support.



This volume offers critical accounts of CLIL practices and professional awareness from 9 different countries and 12 educational contexts: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Brazil, Colombia, Japan, Spain, Taiwan, and the United States. Each chapter in Section I offers insight into how CLIL has been implemented around the world in different ways, and offers an insight into CLIL theory and approaches applied in practice. Section II shares different experiences in the training of CLIL at different levels and types: masters and undergraduate level, CLIL applied in EMI and in-service training on CLIL. This section ends with a critical account of coursebooks and an insightful chapter on how CLIL has taken off as a commercial commodity, leaving a number of methodological and educational challenges for practitioners and learners. This volume leaves the reader with a number of insightful pedagogical goals for the future to alter and navigate our approaches to CLIL in diverse educational developments.



 LIL: An Overview  1 C Chantal Hemmi and Darío Luis Banegas The Start and Development of CLIL    1 CLIL Underpinnings   2 CLIL Features and Frameworks    6 CLIL Research   8 Structure of the Volume   12 References  15 CLIL Practices  21  uthenticity and Motivation in CLIL: Creating a Meaningful A Purpose by Experiencing the Language in Use 23 Richard Pinner Introduction  23 Language and Authenticity (and Thus Motivation)   25 CLIL and Authenticity of Purpose   26 The Authentic Motivation Assumption in CLIL   27 How Educational Authenticity Relates to CLIL   28 Practical Strategies for Calibrating Authenticity Through Metacognition and Negotiation   30 Conclusion and Pedagogical Implications   37 Suggested Further Reading   38 Engagement Priorities  39 References  39 xiii

xiv Contents

 ssessing Students’ Learning of History Content in Spanish CLIL A Programmes: A Content and Language Integrated Perspective 43 Elena del Pozo and Ana Llinares Why a Chapter on Assessment in CLIL History?   43 The Challenge of Teaching and Learning History in CLIL   44 The Importance of Writing in History   46 Translating Educational Learning Objectives into Levels of Complexity and Specificity: The CDF Model   48 A Proposal of a Framework for an Integrated Analysis   49 Application of the Proposed Framework   50 Implications of the Study   54 Suggested Further Reading   55 Engagement Priorities  56 Appendix A: Rubric for Assessing History Content and Language Integration  56 Appendix B: Example of Assessment Through T/F Statements   58 References  59  urrent Practice and Challenges of Assessment in CLIL in a C Japanese University Context 63 Takanori Sato, Katsuya Yokomoto, and Graham Mackenzie Introduction  63 Assessing Content and Critical Thinking   64 The Studies and Educational Context   68 Study 1: CLIL Practitioners’ Assessment Practices   69 Study 2: Student Perceptions of Assessment in CLIL Courses   74 Pedagogical Implications  80 Suggested Further Reading   82 Engagement Priorities  83 References  83  ranslanguaging in Science Lessons: Exploring the Language T of Science in L2 Low Achievers in a Public School Setting in Colombia 85 Edgar Garzón-Díaz Introduction  85 Why Translanguaging in CLIL?   86 CLIL in Colombia   88 Translanguaging in Science Lessons   90



Translanguaging in the Language of Science   98 Concluding Remarks  101 Suggested Further Reading  102 Engagement Priorities  103 References 103  he Role of the Essential Question in Eliciting Critical T Thinking in CLIL Classes at a Japanese University107 Hiroko Aikawa, Emi Fukasawa, and Chantal Hemmi Introduction 107 Classroom Interaction  108 Types of Questions in Classrooms  109 The Learning Context  110 How we Analysed the Interactions  111 Dialogue in Teacher–Student Interactions  112 Dialogue in Student–student Interactions  118 Lessons Learnt from This Study  121 Conclusions and Way Ahead  124 Suggested Further Reading  124 Engagement Priorities  125 References 125  eveloping Intercultural Competence: A Comparison of CLIL D and Language Majors Before and After Industrial Placements129 Wenhsien Yang Is (Inter)Cultural Awareness Missing from the CLIL Approach?  129 What is the CQS, and Why is CQ Important in CLIL Education?  130 Expanding Internationalisation at Home or Abroad for CLIL Learners  132 The Experience  133 CQ Performance in the Language-Driven and Content-Driven CLIL Programmes Pre- and Post-Internship  135 Pedagogical Implications for Internationalisation at Home  139 Wrapping up  141 Suggested Further Reading  141 Engagement Priorities  142 Appendix A: CQS (Adapted from Ang et al., 2007)  143 References 145

xvi Contents

CLIL Professional Development and Awareness 149  he Role of CLIL in Learning About TESOL: Reflections T from an Australian Master of TESOL Course151 Marianne Turner Introduction 151 CLIL 152 Context 153 The Role of CLIL in Framing TESOL as Bilingual Education  154 The Role of CLIL in Pedagogy  158 Discussion 164 Implications 165 Suggested Further Reading  166 Engagement Priorities  166 References 167  LIL-ising EMI: An Analysis of Student and Teacher Training C Needs in Monolingual Contexts171 María Luisa Pérez Cañado Introduction 171 Why a Study into Training Needs?  172 Which Topics are Covered in Previous Research?  174 How has the Study been Conducted?  176 What are the Results?  177 Where are we Headed in the Future? Mapping out Future Pathways for Progression  183 Conclusion 186 Suggested Further Reading  187 Engagement Priorities  188 References 189  op-Down and Bottom-Up CLIL Teacher Development: Lessons T Learned from Austrian In-Service CLIL Teacher CPD193 Andreas Bärnthaler and Keith Kelly Introduction 193 The Aims of the CLIL CPD Initiative in Austria  194 Factors in Austrian CLIL CPD  195 Content, Methodology and Materials of Austrian CLIL CPD  199 Delivering Austrian CLIL in Schools and Colleges  205



Austrian CLIL: What makes it Successful  211 Implications 213 Suggested Further Reading  214 Engagement Priorities  214 References 215  eveloping the C in Content and Language Integrated Learning: D Teacher Preparation That Builds Learners’ Content Knowledge and Academic Language Through Teacher Collaboration and Integrated Pedagogical Training217 Margo DelliCarpini Introduction 217 The US Context: Roles and Responsibilities  219 Teacher Development and ENL Student Success  220 A Better Way to Prepare Teachers for CLIL Settings?  222 Teacher Collaboration: Promising Ways to Bring Teachers Together  223 Long-Term Benefits of Developing Collaborative Practices in the Teacher Preparation Setting  224 Research Questions  225 Findings and Discussion  227 Pedagogical Implications  232 Suggested Further Reading  233 Engagement Priorities  234 Appendix A: Course Structure  234 References 235  anguage-Driven CLIL in Primary Education: An Analysis of L General English Coursebooks in Argentina239 Darío Luis Banegas and Gabriela Tavella Introduction 239 CLIL and Coursebooks  240 The Study  242 General Features  243 Content 244 Culture 248 Communication 249 Cognition 252 Key Learnings from the Analysis  253

xviii Contents

Conclusion 255 Suggested Further Reading  255 Engagement Priorities  256 References 256  istemas Educacionais (SE) and CLIL Developments in Brazil: S From Promises to Prospects259 Julia Landau, Raul Albuquerque Paraná, and Sávio Siqueira Introduction 259 SE and CLIL in Brazil: Some Background  261 Looking into SE Discourse on CLIL  263 Lessons from Brazil’s SE in the Expansion of CLIL  271 Conclusion 274 Suggested Further Reading  276 Engagement Priorities  276 Appendix A  277 References 277  LIL: Present and Future281 C Darío Luis Banegas and Chantal Hemmi Introduction 281 Contexts 282 Lessons Learnt  284 The Way Forward  288 Conclusion 293 References 293 Index297

Notes on Contributors

Hiroko  Aikawa  is a Lecturer at Sophia University in Tokyo, where she teaches English language courses. Her research interests include sociolinguistics and TESOL, with a particular focus on intercultural interaction in the workplace and CLIL classroom discourse. Raul Albuquerque Paraná  is a teacher and educational consultant with the University of Jaén. He holds an MA from the University of Jyväskylä, Finland, and a BA from the Federal University of Bahia (UFBA), Brazil. He focuses on CLIL-based education and is particularly interested in stakeholder perspectives, especially as they relate to CLIL conceptualisation, curriculum development, and equity. Darío Luis Banegas  is a Lecturer in TESOL in the University of Strathclyde, UK. He is an associate fellow with the University of Warwick, UK, and an online teacher educator for Argentina. He has published articles and volumes on CLIL, initial English language teacher education, diversity and inclusion, and action research. Darío is an active member of teacher associations in Argentina and the Research SIG (IATEFL). Andreas  Bärnthaler  teaches at a technical college in Upper Austria. He heads the CLIL department at CEBS, a national in-service teacher training centre specializing in vocationally oriented language education and think-­ tank and advisory board affiliated to the Austrian Federal Ministry of Education, Science, and Research. Andreas has been a driving force behind the implementation of CLIL in the national curricula for technical colleges. Visit



Notes on Contributors

Margo DelliCarpini  is the Chancellor at Abington College, The Pennsylvania State University. Her prior appointments include Vice Provost for Strategic Educational Partnerships, Dean of the College of Education and Human Development, and Professor of TESOL at the University of Texas at San Antonio, Dean of the College of Education at Morehead State University, and Professor of TESOL and Chair of the Department of Middle and High School Education, CUNY. She received a Ph.D. in Linguistics from Stony Brook University. Her professional career and engagement focus on TESOL educator preparation. Her research interests include academic language development, teacher collaboration, educator preparation, and administrative issues in K-12 and higher education. Elena del Pozo  is Deputy Director at the Madrid Region Teacher Training Centre (CRIF). She has degrees in English Language, Geography, and History (UCM), and holds a master’s degree in International Education (Endicott College, Massachusetts). She is a PhD researcher at the Universidad Autónoma de Madrid. Her interests include research on bilingual programmes evaluation and CLIL teaching. She writes articles, does teacher training based on her teaching experience and cooperates with some publishers engaged in bilingual education. Emi Fukasawa  is a Lecturer at Sophia University, where she teaches English language courses. Her research interests are in interlanguage pragmatics and classroom interaction in CLIL. For the past five years she has been teaching as an EAP and CLIL practitioner and has been actively involved in participating in training and developing symposia in these areas. Edgar  Garzón-Díaz  is a lecturer at University of Los Andes in Bogotá, Colombia, and a member of the Commission on Education and Communication. He is also a tutor and consultant for SED Bogotá and the British Council. His research interests revolve around CLIL, bilingualism and multilingualism, action research, scientific citizenship, science teaching, environmental education, and global environmental change. Chantal Hemmi  is an Associate Professor at Sophia University in Tokyo. She works for Center for Language Education and Research and is presently developing EAP, CLIL, and EMI courses as a member of the English Curriculum Committee. Her research interests are in initial teacher education and critical thinking in CLIL. Keith  Kelly  is a freelance CLIL consultant and teacher-owner of Anglia School, a CLIL school in Plovdiv, Bulgaria. Keith delivered the initial Austrian CLIL CPD at the University of Education in Vienna and works closely with

  Notes on Contributors 


ongoing CLIL initiatives throughout Austria. Keith is co-author of OUP’s Putting CLIL into Practice and is coordinator of the international Forum for Across the Curriculum Teaching (FACTWorld). Visit Julia Landau  is a master’s student at the Federal University of Bahia (UFBA) and a programme coordinator at Girassol Bilingual School. She focuses on CLIL-based education, the role of first language in second language acquisition, translingual practices, and critical perspectives in language education. Ana  Llinares  is Professor in the English department at the Universidad Autónoma de Madrid. She teaches second language acquisition and content and language integrated learning (CLIL), at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels. She coordinates the UAM-CLIL research group (http://www. uam-­, and has published widely on content and language integrated learning, mainly applying systemic functional linguistic models. Graham  Mackenzie is a Project Associate Professor at the Center for Language Education and Research at Sophia University in Tokyo. As well as Japan, he has taught English in the Czech Republic and Thailand over a 22-year career. His research interests include English-Medium Instruction and Content and Language Integrated Learning. María Luisa Pérez Cañado  is Full Professor at the Department of English Philology of the University of Jaén, Spain, where she is also Rector’s Delegate for European Universities and Language Policy. Her research interests are in Applied Linguistics, bilingual education and new technologies in language teaching. She is currently coordinating the first intercollegiate MA degree on bilingual education and CLIL in Spain, as well as four European, national, and regional projects on attention to diversity in CLIL.  She has also been granted the Ben Massey Award for the quality of her scholarly contributions regarding issues that make a difference in higher education. Richard Pinner  works for the Department of English Literature at Sophia University as well as teaching with the Graduate School of Languages and Linguistics. He has over 15  years of experience as a language teacher and teacher trainer, and is the author of three research monographs, as well as ­having published articles in journals such as TESOL Quarterly, EFL Journal, English Today, and Language Teaching Research. He is particularly interested in the areas of authenticity and motivation in ELT and Content and Language Integrated Learning. His website is Takanori Sato  is an Associate Professor at the Center for Language Education and Research at Sophia University, Japan. His research interests include language assessment and English as a lingua franca. His work has appeared in


Notes on Contributors

Applied Linguistics, Language Testing, Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, Papers in Language Testing and Assessment, and Language Testing in Asia. Sávio Siqueira  is an Associate Professor of English and Applied Linguistics at Federal University of Bahia (UFBA) in Salvador, Brazil, with many years of experience in ELT and teacher education. He has conducted postdoctoral studies at the University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa, Honolulu, HI, USA, and among his research interests are English as a Lingua Franca, Critical Language Pedagogy, Decolonial studies, CLIL and Bilingual Education, Translanguaging, and Intercultural Education. Gabriela Tavella  is an Associate Professor in English for Specific Purposes and Director of Research Projects at Facultad de Lenguas, Universidad Nacional del Comahue, (Argentina). Her main research interests are ELT methodology, CLIL, and intercultural matters in ELT. Marianne Turner  is a Senior Lecturer in TESOL and Bilingual Education at Monash University, Australia. She researches context-sensitive approaches to the integration of language and content. Her interests include the leveraging of students’ linguistic and cultural resources for learning, the language production of students from different language backgrounds in contexts of bilingual education, and teacher collaboration. Wenhsien Yang  is Associate Professor of the Department of Applied English at National Kaohsiung University of Hospitality and Tourism, Taiwan. His main research and teaching interests are English for specific purposes, corpus analysis, and content and language integrated learning. Katsuya  Yokomoto is a Project Associate Professor at the Center for Language Education and Research at Sophia University, Japan, and holds an EdD TESOL/Applied Linguistics degree from the University of Bristol. He has been teaching ESL and EFL in the United States, China, and Japan for over 15 years. His research interests include needs analysis in language teaching, teacher cognition, and second language speech.


4 Cs Communication, Content, Cognition, and Culture AE Applied English BICS Basic Interpersonal Communicative Skills BMBWF Bundesministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft und Forschung BMUKK Bundesministerium für Unterricht, Kunst und Kultur CALP Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency CDF Cognitive Discourse Functions CEBS Center für berufsbezogene Sprachen CEFR Common European Framework of Reference for Languages CIC Cultural Intelligence Centre CLIL Content and Language Integrated Learning COOP Cooperation CPD Continuing Professional Development CQ Cultural Quotient CQS Cultural Intelligence Survey DQ Display Question EAL English as an Additional Language EAP English for Academic Purposes EFL English as a Foreign Language ELLS English Language Learners ELT English Language Teacher EMI English-Medium Instruction ENL English as a New Language ESP English for Specific Purposes FFI Form-Focused Instruction FL Foreign Language FLBE Foreign Language Bilingual Education FLE Foreign Language Education xxiii

xxiv Abbreviations

HEIs Higher Education Institutions HOTS Higher-Order Thinking Skills HTL Höhere Technische Lehranstalt IaH Internationalisation at Home IB International Baccalaureate ICLHE Integrating Content and Language in Higher Education ILIAS Integriertes Lern-, Informations- und Arbeitskooperations-System IRF Initiate-Response-Feedback ITM International Tourism Management L1 First Language L2 Second Language LGBT Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender LOTS Lower-Order Thinking Skills MATESOL Master of Arts in Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages Meta-c. RQ Meta-Cognitive Referential Question MLA Modern Language Association MOE Ministry of Education MTESOL Master of Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages NES Native English-Speaking NNES Non-Native English-Speaking ÖSZ Österreichisches Sprachen-Kompetenz-Zentrum PBL Project-Based Learning QIBB Qualität in der Berufsbildung RQ Referential Question SCHILF Schulinterne Lehrer/innenfortbildung SE Sistemas Educacionais SFL Systemic Functional Linguistics SLA Second Language Acquisition STEM Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics T/F True/False Test TBLT Task-Based Language Teaching TESOL Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages TLA Teacher Language Awareness TOEIC Test of English for International Communication USR University Social Responsibility VET Vocational and Educational Training VET Vocational Education and Training ZPD Zone of Proximal Development

List of Figures

CLIL: An Overview Fig. 1 The 4Cs of CLIL (Adapted from Mehisto, Marsh, & Frigols, 2008, p. 31)6 Fig. 2 The language triptych. (Coyle, Hood, & Marsh, 2010, p. 36) 7

Authenticity and Motivation in CLIL: Creating a Meaningful Purpose by Experiencing the Language in Use Fig. 1 Authentic motivation equation in CLIL


Assessing Students’ Learning of History Content in Spanish CLIL Programmes: A Content and Language Integrated Perspective Fig. 1 Students’ score distribution in the T/F test and the essay


Current Practice and Challenges of Assessment in CLIL in a Japanese University Context Fig. 1 Perceived methods of assessment in CLIL Fig. 2 Students’ opinions on evaluation methods for content in CLIL Fig. 3 Students’ opinions on evaluation methods for language in CLIL

76 77 78

Translanguaging in Science Lessons: Exploring the Language of Science in L2 Low Achievers in a Public School Setting in Colombia Fig. 1 Causes of global warming Fig. 2 Global warming and the greenhouse effect

94 94 xxv


Fig. 3 Fig. 4 Fig. 5 Fig. 6 Fig. 7

List of Figures

Calling for action Students’ reflections Definition of global warming Factors influencing global warming Visual aid supporting monologue

95 95 96 96 97

The Role of CLIL in Learning About TESOL: Reflections from an Australian Master of TESOL Course Fig. 1 A mind map by Fan Chen on teaching mathematics at a primary school in China


Top-Down and Bottom-Up CLIL Teacher Development: Lessons Learned from Austrian In-Service CLIL Teacher CPD Fig. 1 Fig. 2 Fig. 3 Fig. 4 Fig. 5 Fig. 6 Fig. 7

Marketing mix card sorting The filter process diagram Sales and profits graph for a product life cycle Language for explaining movement in a sales and profits graph Sample of components of an inset training scheme Sample components of a local on-site programme Teachers’ questionnaire: CLIL lessons

202 203 204 205 208 208 210

List of Tables

Authenticity and Motivation in CLIL: Creating a Meaningful Purpose by Experiencing the Language in Use Table 1 Words and citations


Assessing Students’ Learning of History Content in Spanish CLIL Programmes: A Content and Language Integrated Perspective Table 1 Students’ scores in the T/F test and essay


Current Practice and Challenges of Assessment in CLIL in a Japanese University Context Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4

Content-related abilities, assessment tasks, and criteria Participants and their CLIL courses Essay and presentation tasks in the teachers’ CLIL courses Essay and presentation assessment criteria in the teachers’ CLIL courses

68 70 70 72

Translanguaging in Science Lessons: Exploring the Language of Science in L2 Low Achievers in a Public School Setting in Colombia Table 1 Project planning sheet




List of Tables

The Role of the Essential Question in Eliciting Critical Thinking in CLIL Classes at a Japanese University Table 1 Distribution of teachers’ question types Table 2 Distribution of students’ question types

112 118

Developing Intercultural Competence: A Comparison of CLIL and Language Majors Before and After Industrial Placements Table 1 Overall CQ scale in AE and ITM students before/after internship


CLIL-ising EMI: An Analysis of Student and Teacher Training Needs in Monolingual Contexts Table 1 Statistically significant differences across cohorts


Top-Down and Bottom-Up CLIL Teacher Development: Lessons Learned from Austrian In-Service CLIL Teacher CPD Table 1 The filter process description matching


Developing the C in Content and Language Integrated Learning: Teacher Preparation That Builds Learners’ Content Knowledge and Academic Language Through Teacher Collaboration and Integrated Pedagogical Training Table 1 Complementary objectives for the math and ENL classroom


Language-Driven CLIL in Primary Education: An Analysis of General English Coursebooks in Argentina Table 1 General features of series A–D 244 Table 2 Comparison between topics in the series and the Argentinian curriculum246

CLIL: An Overview Chantal Hemmi and Darío Luis Banegas

The Start and Development of CLIL Content and language integrated learning (CLIL) emerged in the mid-1990s as a product of a European multilingual policy with the original aim of enabling each citizen to use three European languages (L1  +  2 objective) (Council of Europe, 2007). The policy was driven by the necessity to promote economic advances, cooperation within the European Union (EU), and the EU readjustment to migration flows and globalisation (Ruiz de Zarobe, 2017). However, the contemporary practice of integrating content and language learning dates back to bilingual and immersion programmes in the 1960s and 1970s in Canada (Eurydice, 2006; Spanos, 1989) as well as European settings such as the Netherlands, Finland, or Sweden which have usually favoured multilingual education (Hanesová, 2015). According to Mehisto, Marsh, and Frigols (2008), the term CLIL was first coined in 1994, and between 1995 and 2006 it appeared in plans and papers released by the European Commission to promote CLIL as a conducive approach to attain their multilingual policy (e.g., European Commission, 2005; Eurydice, 2006). Initially, it was implemented as micro-experiences in

C. Hemmi (*) Center for Language Education and Research, Sophia University, Tokyo, Japan D. L. Banegas School of Education, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 C. Hemmi, D. L. Banegas (eds.), International Perspectives on CLIL, International Perspectives on English Language Teaching,



C. Hemmi and D. L. Banegas

secondary schools in different European countries such as Austria, Italy, and Spain, and it consisted of teaching one or two school subjects, or units within a subject, through an additional language. CLIL provision began as part of mainstream school education or within pilot projects (Eurydice, 2006; Marsh, Maljers, & Hartiala, 2001; Marsh et al., 2009). While the primary aim of CLIL was to encourage citizens to become equipped with an additional language such as a foreign language, heritage, or community language (Coyle et  al., 2010), it has more recently become a methodology connected to teaching and learning English. This is partly because CLIL has flown its European nest and landed in many different countries globally, where the English is the language most often studied in schools. As Tedick (2020) says, “CLIL programmes have become synonymous with teaching English in mainland Europe, South America, Asia and elsewhere” (p. xi). As language is a “symbolic resource” (Norton, 2013, p. 49) providing access to higher level education, increased mobility, and ultimately, higher positions in society, it would not be too much to say that CLIL enhances the hegemony of English (Dalton-Puffer, Llinares, Lorenzo, & Nikula, 2014). The issue of which children and teachers have access to CLIL and which do not deserve further research. However, as the chapters in this volume show, the original principles and approaches of CLIL have been locally adapted and new practice models have emerged to ensure they are relevant to their new contexts. While these changes do not diminish the social justice issues with English, they do suggest that CLIL is flexible and adaptable and could potentially make learning and teaching more effective even in resource poor areas. This volume celebrates these new perspectives drawing together recent international research to examine how CLIL supports English language learning globally.

CLIL Underpinnings In this section, we discuss the theories underpinning CLIL; we start with Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory then go on to the development of thinking skills (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001) and finally examine how systemic functional linguistics (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2014) has influenced CLIL. Firstly, sociocultural theory, often referred to as a key tenet of CLIL methodology, is built on the notion that learning occurs through collaboration. Learners pass through the zone of proximal development (ZPD), that is, “the distance between the actual development level as determined by independent

  CLIL: An Overview 


problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers” (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 80). In CLIL it is in the ZPD that the content is scaffolded through the use of language (Jäppinen, 2005; Mahan, 2020), taking into account where the learners are in their learning, and the possible next step to maximise their potential to their learning goal. Thus, the role of the teacher is in the mediation of content through language to encourage student learning through interactions amongst student peers and student–teacher and teacher–student interactions. Llinares, Morton, and Whittaker (2012) therefore consider CLIL to be a “social process” (p. 11). Secondly, cognitive development and critical thinking skills are at the heart of learning in CLIL. In view of this, CLIL practices are expected to help learners’ transition from lower-order thinking skills such as remembering, understanding, and applying to higher-order thinking skills such as analysing, evaluating, and creating. (Coyle et al., 2010, p. 31). In CLIL, both the lower-­ order thinking skills such as remember and understand (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001, p. 5) are important in that one could not apply or evaluate their knowledge without understanding and remembering new content. Furthermore, it might be noted that create, which is at the top of the higher-order thinking skills, can be applied even with younger students at primary level, as they will be using their knowledge at their level to create a poster or a presentation in a project, for example. So, this transitioning from lower-order to higher-order thinking skills is certainly not a linear process; rather it is more of a cyclical process in which the building up of knowledge and skills are encouraged so as to help learners develop their thinking through CLIL. Thirdly, systemic functional linguistics (SFL), a theory of how language works in real-world contexts (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2014; Martin & Rose, 2007), can be applied to analyse the relationship between the learning of content and the language used to learn it (Coffin, 2017). This field of language teaching research often uses corpora (Frankenberg-Garcia, 2020)—collections of spoken and written texts—from teachers, students, materials writers, and academics to investigate how language is used in learning contexts. SFL can be applied to these corpora to examine how the language is used in different fields of studies in the process of learning of content and language, and how the content is processed through the language to convey meaning, both verbally and through written discourse. For example, SFL and corpora can contribute to understanding classroom language use in CLIL settings (chapter “The Role of the Essential Question in Eliciting Critical Thinking in CLIL Classes at a Japanese University”, this volume).


C. Hemmi and D. L. Banegas

Definitions of CLIL In this section we explore the definitions of CLIL. A commonly known general definition of CLIL states that it is “a dual-focused educational approach in which an additional language is used for the learning and teaching of both content and language” (Coyle, Hood, & Marsh, 2010, p. 1) and it is often thought of as an efficient way in which to teach subject content and language together (Tedick, 2020). This is supported by the idea that learning a language through a school subject produces better results in terms of proficiency in the language as well as scholastic achievement than learning the language on its own (Verspoor, de Bot, & Xu, 2015). Definitions of CLIL tend to depend on the emphasis that practitioners give to either content or language, or both. Definitions with a content-driven CLIL focus include the following: CLIL is related to all forms of education in which subjects are learned through L2 or through two languages simultaneously. (Ball, Kelly, & Clegg, 2015, p. 1) Although the label CLIL stands for content and language integrated learning, the term seems to be mainly used to describe bilingual educational contexts where content classes are taught through an additional language but where little integration of content and language actually happens. (Morton & Llinares, 2017, p. 2)

When content is the focus, CLIL is often in the hands of subject teachers and portions of the school curriculum are delivered in an L2 (e.g., Mahan, Brevik, & Ødegaard, 2018) or through translanguaging practices (e.g., Garzón-Díaz, 2018). Translanguaging practices may derive from the teachers’ belief that the learners’ L1 supports the learning of their L2 (chapter “Translanguaging in Science Lessons: Exploring the Language of Science in L2 Low Achievers in a Public School Setting in Colombia”, this volume). In classes delivered by content rather than language specialists, translanguaging may be the natural expression of teachers and students drawing on their linguistic repertoires to make meaning and understand the subject which is the focus. The second author of this chapter refers to an Argentinian context where language-driven CLIL is common and is defined as follows: CLIL lessons are in the hands of foreign language teachers while the emphasis is on language learning through school content. (Banegas, 2020, p. 244)

  CLIL: An Overview 


According to Cenoz (2013), as a language teaching approach, CLIL has become a pedagogical opportunity through which foreign language teachers can contextualise language teaching in topics which are familiar to learners and part of the school curriculum. In so doing, learners may revise content learnt in their L1 and acquire new content while learning more English (e.g., Banegas, 2020; Porto, 2018; Ravelo, 2013). While translanguaging may also be common in these contexts, it is usual for language teachers to try to conduct as much of the class as possible in the target language. Both approaches—content-driven and language-driven—seem to presuppose a formal educational context where the emphasis is on topics and themes that orient the curriculum. This is how it has been understood in Japan, for example, where the content included in high school textbooks is used to promote interest in students. Whereas in Argentina, the content is a conduit for language proficiency development. Here are two examples of definitions with a broader focus that foster integration: We use CLIL to refer to instruction that integrates the development of proficiency in an additional language in school contexts where authentic non-­ language content (such as Science and Mathematics) serves as a vehicle for language teaching and learning. (Genesee & Hamayan, 2016, p. 27) Content and language integrated learning (CLIL) needs to articulate substantial links between the pedagogies of different subjects like mathematics, history, or economics and the pedagogy of language teaching in order to fulfil its promise of dual focus. (Dalton-Puffer, 2016, p. 29)

The point made here by Dalton-Puffer (2016) highlights the importance of creating opportunities for content teachers and language teachers to come together to consider what needs to be learnt in the subject and to map out the language that needs to be taught together with the content. Although this may be ideal, the resource this requires in terms of staff time may be one reason it is not always achieved. The variety of conceptualisations has drawn criticism from scholars, as Pérez Cañado (2018a) has recently summarised. They claim that the variety masks confusion, that there is no clear methodology in CLIL, and that research findings are sometimes tainted by implementing CLIL with high achievers. If CLIL is to thrive, it needs to acknowledge and address these challenges and perhaps not be afraid of allowing different approaches to jostle for position as long as they are leading to successful learning experiences for students.


C. Hemmi and D. L. Banegas

CLIL Features and Frameworks In terms of the features and frameworks of CLIL, the 4Cs (content, communication, cognition, and culture) of CLIL outlined by Coyle et al. (2010) are helpful in understanding how CLIL can be conceptualised from a broader perspective. In Mehisto, Marsh, and Frigols’ (2008) model, community is one of the four Cs, but in Coyle et al.’s (2010) publication, it is replaced by culture. Culture here refers to “developing intercultural understanding and global citizenship” (Coyle et al., 2010, p. 41), whereas community refers to being part of a learning group and local and global community (Mehisto et  al., 2008). These two concepts are interrelated, as being part of the community requires one to have an awareness of intercultural understanding and sense of belonging to the world. In this volume, as can be seen in Fig. 1, we incorporate both culture and community as our view is that it is important to make both visible in our discussions of CLIL. The 4Cs framework places equal emphasis on each of the four Cs advocating an approach to learning where content is considered inter-twinned with and inseparable from communication, culture and cognition. One of the strongest features of CLIL is in the emphasis put on thinking and processing information/content rather than merely remembering and repeating. Therefore, cognition is central. Another underlying principle is that students process their understanding of content through communication, being scaffolded in this process by the teacher and other learners. Classrooms are considered cultures in which students exist in communities in order to learn through this scaffolding process.

Fig. 1  The 4Cs of CLIL (Adapted from Mehisto, Marsh, & Frigols, 2008, p. 31)

  CLIL: An Overview 


While constructivism is not one of the four Cs, it underpins the approach as tying together the content, communication, community/culture, and cognition. CLIL focuses on the development of the learners’ knowledge and skills (including the language used) through meaningful tasks that stimulate the learners to build knowledge together within a particular learning context. Through this collaborative work, learners develop their knowledge actively (Cupchik, 2001). As Aikawa et al. in this volume describe, this integration of the four Cs is adaptable for both inside and outside the classroom, so that concepts learnt inside can be challenged and tested outside.

The Language Triptych In this section we consider how language is used in connection to the learning of content, and how language is learnt in that process. When conceptualising ways in which language is used as an essential tool for learning, the language triptych provides a useful visual tool for us to consider “the need to integrate cognitively demanding content with language learning and using” (Coyle et al., 2010, p. 36). Figure 2 shows the ways in which language is used in CLIL. It can be seen that the three dimensions, language of learning, language for learning, and language through learning, are interrelated in the progression of learning in CLIL. According to Coyle et al. (2010), language of learning is the language needed to learn core concepts and notions related to a particular subject. This includes the structure and functions used to talk about the topics

Fig. 2  The language triptych. (Coyle, Hood, & Marsh, 2010, p. 36)


C. Hemmi and D. L. Banegas

belonging to the subject. Language for learning is used in pair and group work activities, and includes the strategies that are used by the learners in cooperative group work in order to make learning happen. Language through learning is used in the interaction that takes place and refers to the dialogic activity that helps learners to think and co-construct new knowledge. The triptych not only offers an insight into lesson planning in CLIL in connection to its learning outcomes but is also helpful in considering learner training in CLIL, supporting students so that they can interact and make new knowledge collaboratively. It also highlights the role of language in critical thinking, both through the dialogues that take place in classroom context and in terms of the language students use to think. The pedagogical challenge is in introducing relevant language systematically and this can be supported through observing and reflecting on the outcome of learner talk observed/ recorded in class. In this section, we have reflected on the features of CLIL and theoretical frameworks that underpin CLIL as an educational approach to the learning of content and language. In the next, we consider current research in CLIL to situate the work in this volume.

CLIL Research Since the publication of Mehisto et al. (2008) and Coyle et al. (2010), CLIL research has mushroomed and appeared in books, book chapters, dissertations, research articles, reflective pieces, projects and lesson plans. This comes to show that CLIL is appealing to researchers as well as teachers and that it is growing not only in its theoretical rationale but also in systematised informed practice. It also reveals that CLIL can become stronger if practitioners and researchers work collaboratively and strive for integrating practice and theory (Anderson, McDougald, & Cuesta Medina, 2015). The intersection between theory and implementation can be evidenced through the different research frameworks utilised as we can find action research (Banegas, 2018), experiments (Piesche, Jonkmann, Fiege, & Keßler, 2016), and quantitative/quasi-­ experimental studies with large samples (Pérez Cañado, 2018b), comparative (Jiménez Catalán & Agustín Llach, 2017), and longitudinal studies (Pérez Cañado, 2018c). The CLIL research agenda is varied and includes areas such as curriculum development (e.g., Carrió-Pastor, 2020), assessment (e.g., chapters “Assessing Students’ Learning of History Content in Spanish CLIL Programmes: A Content and Language Integrated Perspective” and “Current Practice and

  CLIL: An Overview 


Challenges of Assessment in CLIL in a Japanese University Context”, this volume; Otto & Estrada, 2019), scaffolding (e.g., Mahan, 2020), classroom discourse (e.g., chapter “The Role of the Essential Question in Eliciting Critical Thinking in CLIL Classes at a   Japanese University”, this volume; Li & Zhang, 2020), policy for and challenges in implementation (e.g., chapter “Sistemas Educacionais (SE) and CLIL Developments in Brazil: From Promises to Prospects”, this volume; Pimentel Siqueira, Landau, & Albuquerque Paraná, 2018), materials (e.g., chapter “Language-­Driven CLIL in Primary Education: An Analysis of General English Coursebooks in Argentina” 12, this volume; Moore & Lorenzo, 2015), interculturality (e.g., chapter “Developing Intercultural Competence: A Comparison of CLIL and Language Majors Before and After Industrial Placements”, this volume; Porto, 2018), teacher development (e.g., chapters “The Role of CLIL in Learning About TESOL: Reflections from an Australian Master of TESOL Course”, “CLIL-­ ising EMI: An Analysis of Student and Teacher Training Needs in Monolingual Contexts”, “Top-­Down and Bottom-­Up CLIL Teacher Development: Lessons Learned from Austrian In-­Service CLIL Teacher CPD”, and “Developing the C in Content and Language Integrated Learning: Teacher Preparation That Builds Learners’ Content Knowledge and Academic Language Through Teacher Collaboration and Integrated Pedagogical Training”, this volume; He & Lin, 2018), psychological factors such as identity, motivation or emotions (e.g., Talbot, Gruber, & Nishida, 2021) and teachers’ and learners’ perceptions and attitudes (e.g., Fazzi & Lasagabaster, 2020; McDougald & Pissarello, 2020) among other topics that attract research attention. These areas mentioned above share a common aim: understanding how learners can successfully develop subject-matter knowledge in an additional language and L2 language systems (e.g., grammar, vocabulary) together with linguistic and cognitive skills (Pérez Cañado, 2020) through the CLIL approach(es). The research agenda covers this interest across all levels of formal education: kindergarten (Riera Toló, 2017; Švecová, 2011), primary (Martín-del Pozo & Rascón-Estébanez, 2021; Otwinowska & Foryś, 2017; Pladevall-Ballester & Vallbona, 2016), secondary (Bellés-Calvera, 2018; Gallagher & Colohan, 2017; Ikeda, 2013), and higher education (Fortanet-­ Gómez, 2013; Ruiz de Zarobe & Lyster, 2018; Sendur, van Boxtel, & van Drie, 2021; Yang, 2016). These studies agree that CLIL contributes to adding meaningfulness to the learners’ experience as they can use an additional language to talk about curriculum content and make sense of their practice at different levels and contexts.


C. Hemmi and D. L. Banegas

Below, we discuss CLIL research in more detail regarding the following areas: (1) motivation, (2) translanguaging, (3) genre and language awareness, and (4) explicit and implicit language learning. Motivation has been one of the most researched areas in CLIL, whether it is content-driven (e.g., chapter “Authenticity and Motivation in CLIL: Creating a Meaningful Purpose by Experiencing the Language in Use”, this volume; Doiz, Lasagabaster, & Sierra, 2014) or language-driven (e.g., Banegas, 2013). According to Lasagabaster (2019), studies coincide in that learners achieve better results in foreign language learning when it is integrated with content instruction. According to learners, their motivation is enhanced because they can contribute to the CLIL lesson and they build new knowledge in an L2 based on what they have learnt in their L1 in mainstream language of instruction. In this regard, it has been highlighted (Coyle et  al., 2010) that CLIL does not mean learning the same content twice; on the contrary there should be an element of newness and therefore they suggest that lessons move from familiar language to familiar content and new language to new content and that all activities are contextualised in the content in focus. Therefore, scaffolding and attention to ZPD enhance learner motivation in a CLIL environment. While the content element in CLIL is straightforward (as there is general consensus that it must come from the school curriculum, see above), language is more complex an element to tackle. For example, from a content-driven perspective, Ball et al. (2015) argue that CLIL is not for all and that it works best with learners with higher L2 levels. The reason is, quite understandably, that if language needs to be simplified to match learners’ elementary level of English, content is also simplified, thus running the risk of becoming too simple and therefore demotivating. On the other hand, one could also argue that the students’ interest in the content could be a motivator even for students with limited L2 proficiency or basic knowledge of the content, creating an opportunity to focus on vocabulary and language connected to the learning of concepts in the subject, language of learning (Coyle et al., 2010). Translanguaging as an approach goes beyond code-switching and it involves multiple discursive practices in which bilinguals engage in order to make sense of their bilingual worlds (García, 2009). In translanguaging, speakers treat the languages they use as one. In the CLIL literature, Nikula and Moore (2019) summarise the origin and development of the term and observe that in CLIL lessons translanguaging has evolved from being a pedagogical strategy to becoming a generalised discursive practice. Recent studies (e.g., Karabassova & San Isidro, 2020; Wu & Lin, 2019) show that a positive effect of translanguaging in CLIL is that the main languages spoken in the

  CLIL: An Overview 


classroom have equally high status and therefore the first language or language of schooling becomes a useful tool for learning and developing cognitive skills. Researchers have also been interested in genre and language awareness in CLIL and both content and language teachers, and learners are directed to pay attention to these two areas (Llinares, Morton, & Whittaker, 2012; Ruiz de Zarobe, 2017). Studies (e.g., Llinares & Pascual Peña, 2015; Lo & Jeong, 2018) have demonstrated that when learners are guided to identify and follow the specific genres, grammar and lexis of an academic discipline such as history or art, they exhibit an improvement in the transition between Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills (BICS) and Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP) (Cummins, 1979), CALP (Cummins, 1979), between oracy and literacy, and between subject-specific language and general academic language. For example, Lo and Jeong (2018) report that genre-­ based pedagogy, which includes systematic guided discovery and inductive teaching strategies based on real-life texts and examples, has a positive effect on learners’ understanding of how languages operate according to functions and purposes. In addition, language awareness promotes learners’ own reflections on their progress in language learning (Lasagabaster & Doiz, 2016). Research has also demonstrated that having clear language aims and an explicit linguistic component in CLIL lessons helps learners develop their language skills and become proficient L2 users (e.g., Arias, 2021; Genesee & Hamayan, 2016). To ensure the presence of systematic and explicit language learning, Ball et al. (2015) suggest that a CLIL syllabus can be constructed by paying attention to three dimensions: concepts, procedures, and language. According to recent studies (e.g., Banegas, 2020; Martín-del Pozo & Rascón-­ Estébanez, 2021), this model may help teachers become aware that language cannot be accidental or peripheral; it deserves careful planning in the CLIL lesson. In addition, the model allows the incorporation of the language triptych as it enables teachers to attend to different dimensions of language learning together with the procedures and activities that will scaffold content and language instruction. All in all, this section shows that even a cursory review of CLIL research shows that CLIL has been examined from a whole array of educational, linguistic, and psychological perspectives, given the spread and ramified development of CLIL across diverse settings around the world. In this volume, we have only included a small number of CLIL research areas since it would be almost impossible to illustrate all of them.


C. Hemmi and D. L. Banegas

Structure of the Volume In line with other volumes in the series (e.g., Kuchah & Shamim, 2018; Ushioda, 2013), what makes this current volume distinctive is that it respects the local teaching–learning contexts and it is from these starting points that CLIL departs. The volume is international in coverage as it includes chapters set in Argentina, Australia, Austria, Brazil, Colombia, Japan, Spain, Taiwan, and the USA.  Content-driven as well as language-driven models are represented through the hands of both internationally well-established authors and early-career researchers in the international arena. As mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, the contributions are organised in two parts: (1) CLIL practices (chapters “Authenticity and Motivation in CLIL: Creating a Meaningful Purpose by Experiencing the Language in Use”, “Assessing Students’ Learning of History Content in Spanish CLIL Programmes: A Content and Language Integrated Perspective”, “Current Practice and Challenges of Assessment in CLIL in a Japanese University Context”, “Translanguaging in Science Lessons: Exploring the Language of Science in L2 Low Achievers in a Public School Setting in Colombia”, “The Role of the Essential Question in Eliciting Critical Thinking in CLIL Classes at a Japanese University”, and “Developing Intercultural Competence: A Comparison of CLIL and Language Majors Before and After Industrial Placements”) and (2) CLIL professional development and awareness (chapters “The Role of CLIL in Learning About TESOL: Reflections from an Australian Master of TESOL Course”, “CLIL-­ising EMI: An Analysis of Student and Teacher Training Needs in Monolingual Contexts”, “Top-­Down and Bottom-­Up CLIL Teacher Development: Lessons Learned from Austrian In-­ Service CLIL Teacher CPD”, “Developing the C in Content and Language Integrated Learning: Teacher Preparation That Builds Learners’ Content Knowledge and Academic Language Through Teacher Collaboration and Integrated Pedagogical Training”, “Language-­Driven CLIL in Primary Education: An Analysis of General English Coursebooks in Argentina”, and “Sistemas Educacionais (SE) and CLIL Developments in Brazil: From Promises to Prospects”). Each of these contributions includes suggested further reading and a list of questions called engagement priorities to extend the discussion in the readers’ contexts. Below we present summaries of each chapter. In chapter “Authenticity and Motivation in CLIL: Creating a Meaningful Purpose by Experiencing the Language in Use” Pinner explores how complex and philosophical aspects of authenticity relate to CLIL in terms of generating a sense of congruence through teaching and learning in meaningful

  CLIL: An Overview 


contexts. Whilst keeping an emphasis on materials and content, Pinner examines how the target language is experienced in use, through what in CLIL is known as ‘authenticity of purpose’. In chapter “Assessing Students’ Learning of History Content in Spanish CLIL Programmes: A Content and Language Integrated Perspective”, del Pozo and Llinares position their study at the intersection between learning language and history content and explore an empirical model to assess the acquisition of content and language while fostering students’ written production (Llinares, Morton, & Whittaker, 2012). In chapter “Current Practice and Challenges of Assessment in CLIL in a Japanese University Context”, Sato, Yokomoto, and Mackenzie discuss CLIL practitioners’ approaches to assessing productive language performance and learners’ perception of being evaluated on language and content, based on empirical research conducted in a Japanese private university. The authors compare teachers’ assessment approaches in language-focused instruction, addressing the unique features and challenges of classroom-based assessment practice in CLIL. In chapter “Translanguaging in Science Lessons: Exploring the Language of Science in L2 Low Achievers in a Public School Setting in Colombia”, GarzónDíaz aims at depicting how students from a public school setting in Colombia have developed scientific competencies while building scientific literacy through Spanish and English as vehicular languages. The insights gained through this pedagogical intervention may serve as reference in CLIL contexts as it focuses on the key role that translanguaging may play while learners are constructing knowledge in bilingual and multilingual settings. In chapter “The Role of the Essential Question in Eliciting Critical Thinking in CLIL Classes at a Japanese University”, Aikawa, Fukasawa, and Hemmi discuss how interaction is conducted in a Japanese context, focusing on the development of learners’ critical thinking skills and interactional competence through a dialogic exchange. They discuss data analysed from five CLIL classes at a private Japanese university in Japan and identify what opportunities for content and English language learning are created in teacher–learner and learner–learner interactions. In chapter “Developing Intercultural Competence: A Comparison of CLIL and Language Majors Before and After Industrial Placements”, Yang investigates learners’ cultural awareness quotient gained from a Taiwan tertiary degree-based CLIL programme and compared it to a non-CLIL English department. The results demonstrate that the CLIL learners obtained slightly higher CQ scores than their non-CLIL English-majored peers, implying that


C. Hemmi and D. L. Banegas

CLIL seems to equip learners with a better ability to function successfully in diverse cultural settings. In chapter “The Role of CLIL in Learning About TESOL: Reflections from an Australian Master of TESOL Course”, Turner focuses on an educational context in an Australian masters in TESOL course where the participants of the course have a diversity of different linguistic backgrounds. In this chapter, Turner advocates a content-centred approach, offered in connection to actual teaching and showing that different kinds of content-based pedagogies in teaching CLIL are crucial elements for the learners. In chapter “CLIL-­ising EMI: An Analysis of Student and Teacher Training Needs in Monolingual Contexts”, Pérez Cañado addresses the research gap in pre- and in-service teacher development programmes for English medium instruction (EMI) at a tertiary level. While the author understands EMI as the curricular decision/institutional strategy of teaching an academic subject through the medium of English, she approaches CLIL as an educational approach that can support EMI. She focuses on evidence-based practice, and based on the outcomes of her research, sets forth a specific teacher-education proposal to address the chief areas in need of attention. The author addresses the need to include a language focus in the training for both students and teachers. There is a pedagogical implication to further develop CLIL approaches in EMI. In chapter “Top-­ Down and Bottom-­ Up CLIL Teacher Development: Lessons Learned from Austrian In-­Service CLIL Teacher CPD”, Kelly and Bärnthaler describe the content of the Austrian CLIL CPD programmes and highlight the need for a clear balance between course input and participant practice. Examples of lesson materials developed from a range of upper secondary curriculum subjects are presented and feedback from teachers and students about their experiences both in training and as learners are discussed. In chapter “Developing the C in Content and Language Integrated Learning: Teacher Preparation That Builds Learners’ Content Knowledge and Academic Language Through Teacher          Collaboration and Integrated Pedagogical Training”, DelliCarpini analyses the collaborative practice of TESOL and content teacher educators in a USA context where 10 percent of the population are English as New Language users. The author stresses the importance of academic registers used in specific fields of study and discusses teacher collaboration in teaching both content and language. In chapter “Language-­Driven CLIL in Primary Education: An Analysis of General English Coursebooks in Argentina”, Banegas and Tavella offer a critical analysis of data from primary-level coursebooks in Argentina by different international publishers and analyse the corpus from a descriptive and

  CLIL: An Overview 


exploratory approach. In their analysis, particular attention is be paid to (1) content and its relation to the Argentinian curriculum, (2) language skills development, (3) language focus (4) cognitive development, (5) sources of input and (6) the role of multimedia. In chapter “Sistemas Educacionais (SE) and CLIL Developments in Brazil: From Promises to Prospects” 13, Landau Paraná and Siqueira describe how Education Systems (ES) have played an important and sometimes controversial role in CLIL developments in Brazil. This chapter captures the different stakeholders’ perceptions of recommendations for CLIL-based education focusing on the not solely linguistic development but also on the development of culturally sensitive and globally engaged individuals. The volume includes a concluding chapter which analyses the contributions in terms of contexts, features, and lessons learnt from the authors’ perspectives. It also discusses future directions in CLIL drawing on the engagement priorities identified by the contributors. We hope this volume helps to fill the gaps in CLIL practitioner-based research, offering pedagogical implications that may offer insight for practitioners and researchers engaged in CLIL practices.

References Anderson, C., McDougald, J., & Cuesta Medina, L. (2015). CLIL for young learners. In C.  N. Giannikas, L.  Mclaughlin, G.  Fanning, & N.  D. Muller (Eds.), Children learning English: From research to practice (pp.  137–152). Faversham, UK: IATEFL. Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman. Arias, A. (2021). EFL teachers’ challenges to write content and language objectives for CBI lesson plans at a Mexican university. Latin American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning, 13(2), 215–240. Ball, P., Kelly, K., & Clegg, J. (2015). Putting CLIL into practice. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Banegas, D. L. (2013). The integration of content and language as a driving force in the EFL lesson. In E.  Ushioda (Ed.), International perspectives on motivation: Language learning and professional challenges (pp.  82–97). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave. Banegas, D. L. (2018). Learning subject-specific content through ESP in a Geography teaching programme: An action research story in Argentina. English for Specific Purposes, 50, 1–13.


C. Hemmi and D. L. Banegas

Banegas, D. L. (2020). Teacher professional development in language-driven CLIL: A case study. Latin American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning, 12(2), 242–264. Bellés-Calvera, L. (2018). Teaching music in English: A content-based instruction model in secondary education. Latin American Journal of Content and Language Integrated Learning, 11(1), 109–139. Carrió-Pastor, M. L. (2020). The implementation of content and language integrated learning in Spain: Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and strengths. In P. Mickan & I.  Wallace (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of language education curriculum design (pp. 77–89). London: Routledge. Cenoz, J. (2013). Discussion: Towards an educational perspective in CLIL language policy and pedagogical practice. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16(3), 389–394. Coffin, C. (2017). Systemic functional linguistics: A theory for integrating content-­ language learning (CLL). In A. Llinares & T. Morton (Eds.), Applied linguistics perspectives on CLIL (pp. 91–103). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Council of Europe. (2007). From linguistic diversity to plurilingual education: Guide for the development of language education policies in Europe. Retrieved from Council of Europe Language Policy Division: Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Cummins, J. (1979). Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingual children. Review of Educational Research, 49(2), 222–251. Cupchik, G. (2001). Constructivist realism: An ontology that encompasses positivist and constructivist approaches to the social sciences. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 2(1). urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs010177. Dalton-Puffer, C. (2016). Cognitive discourse functions: Specifying an integrative interdisciplinary construct. In T. Nikula, E. Dafouz, P. Moore, & U. Smit (Eds.), Conceptualising integration in CLIL and multilingual education (pp.  29–54). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Dalton-Puffer, C., Llinares, A., Lorenzo, F., & Nikula, T. (2014). “You can stand under my umbrella”: Immersion, CLIL and bilingual education – A response to Cenoz, Genesee, & Gorter (2013). Applied Linguistics, 35(2), 213–218. Doiz, A., Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. M. (2014). CLIL and motivation: The effect of individual and contextual variables. Language Learning Journal, 42(2), 209–224. European Commission. (2005). Europeans and languages. Special Eurobarometer 63.4, September. European Comission. Eurydice. (2006). Content and language integrated learning at school in Europe. Brussels, Belgium: Eurydice European Unit. Fazzi, F., & Lasagabaster, D. (2020). Learning beyond the classroom: Students’ attitudes towards the integration of CLIL and museum-based pedagogies. Innovation

  CLIL: An Overview 


in Language Learning and Teaching. 9.2020.1714630. Fortanet-Gómez, I. (2013). CLIL in higher education: Towards a multilingual language policy. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Frankenberg-Garcia, A. (2020). Corpora in ELT.  In G.  Hall (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of English language teaching (pp. 383–398). Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Gallagher, F., & Colohan, G. (2017). T(w)o and fro: Using the L1 as a language teaching tool in the CLIL classroom. Language Learning Journal, 45(4), 485–498. García, O. (2009). Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global perspective. Malden, MA/Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. Garzón-Díaz, E. (2018). From cultural awareness to scientific citizenship: Implementing content and language integrated learning projects to connect environmental science and English in a state school in Colombia. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. 0.2018.1456512. Genesee, F., & Hamayan, E. (2016). CLIL in context: Practical guidance for educators. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. I. M. (2014). Halliday’s introduction to functional grammar (4th ed.). Oxford, UK: Routledge. Hanesová, D. (2015). History of CLIL. In S. Pokrivčáková (Ed.), CLIL in foreign language education: E-textbook for foreign language teachers (pp.  7–16). Nitra, Slovakia: Constantine the Philosopher University. He, P., & Lin, A. M. (2018). Becoming a “language-aware” content teacher: Content and language integrated learning (CLIL) teacher professional development as a collaborative, dynamic, and dialogic process. Journal of Immersion and Content-­ Based Language Education, 6(2), 162–188. Ikeda, M. (2013). Does CLIL work for Japanese secondary school students? International CLIL Research Journal, 2(1), 31–43. Jäppinen, A. K. (2005). Thinking and content learning of mathematics and science as cognitional development in content and language integrated learning (CLIL): Teaching through a foreign language in Finland. Language and Education, 19(2), 147–168. Jiménez Catalán, R. M., & Agustín Llach, M. P. (2017). CLIL or time? Lexical profiles of CLIL and non-CLIL EFL learners. System, 66, 87–99. Karabassova, L., & San Isidro, X. (2020). Towards translanguaging in CLIL: A study on teachers’ perceptions and practices in Kazakhstan. International Journal of Multilingualism, 20, 1–20. Kuchah, K., & Shamim, F. (Eds.). (2018). International perspectives on teaching English in difficult circumstances: Contexts, challenges and possibilities. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave. Lasagabaster, D. (2019). Motivation in content and language integrated learning (CLIL) research. In M. Lamb, K. Csizér, A. Henry, & S. Ryan (Eds.), The Palgrave


C. Hemmi and D. L. Banegas

handbook of motivation for language learning (pp.  347–366). Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave. Lasagabaster, D., & Doiz, A. (2016). CLIL students’ perceptions of their language learning process: Delving into self-perceived improvement and instructional preferences. Language Awareness, 25(1-2), 110–126. Li, D., & Zhang, L. (2020). Exploring teacher scaffolding in a CLIL-framed EFL intensive reading class: A classroom discourse analysis approach. Language Teaching Research. Llinares, A., Morton, T., & Whittaker, R. (2012). The roles of language in CLIL. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Llinares, A., & Pascual Peña, I. (2015). A genre approach to the effect of academic questions on CLIL students’ language production. Language and Education, 29(1), 15–30. Lo, Y.  Y., & Jeong, H. (2018). Impact of genre-based pedagogy on students’ academic literacy development in content and language integrated learning (CLIL). Linguistics and Education, 47(1), 36–46. Mahan, K. R. (2020). The comprehending teacher: Scaffolding in content and language integrated learning (CLIL). Language Learning Journal. 0.1080/09571736.2019.1705879. Mahan, L., Brevik, M., & Ødegaard, M. (2018). Characterizing CLIL teaching: New insights from a lower secondary classroom. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. Marsh, D., Maljers, A., & Hartiala, A.-K. (2001). Profiling European CLIL classrooms. University of Jyväskylä, Finland and European Platform for Dutch Education, The Netherlands. Marsh, D., Mehisto, P., Wolff, D., Aliaga, R., Asikainen, T., Frigols-Martin, M. J., & Langé, G. (2009). CLIL practice: Perspectives from the field. Rovaniemi, Finland/ Jyväskylä, Finland: CLIL Cascade Network/University of Jyväskylä. Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2007). Working with discourse: Meaning beyond the clause. London: Continuum. Martín-del Pozo, M. Á., & Rascón-Estébanez, D. (2021). Thinking skills in exam models for CLIL primary subjects: Some reflections for teachers. In M. L. Carrió-­ Pastor & B. B. Fortuño (Eds.), Teaching language and content in multicultural and multilingual classrooms (pp. 339–368). Cham, Switzerland: Springer. McDougald, J., & Pissarello, D. (2020). Content and language integrated learning: In-service teachers’ knowledge and perceptions before and after a professional development program. Íkala, Revista de Lenguaje y Cultura, 25(2), 353–372. Mehisto, P., Marsh, D., & Frigols, M. J. (2008). Uncovering CLIL: Content and language integrated learning in bilingual and multilingual education. Oxford, UK: Macmillan. Moore, P., & Lorenzo, F. (2015). Task-based learning and content and language integrated learning materials design: Process and product. Language Learning Journal, 43(3), 334–357.

  CLIL: An Overview 


Morton, T., & Llinares, A. (2017). Content and language integrated learning (CLIL): Type of programme or pedagogical model? In A. Llinares & T. Morton (Eds.), Applied linguistics perspectives on CLIL (pp. 1–16). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Nikula, T., & Moore, P. (2019). Exploring translanguaging in CLIL. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 22(2), 237–249. Norton, B. (2013). Identity and language learning. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Otto, A., & Estrada, J.  L. (2019). Towards an understanding of CLIL assessment practices in a European context: Main assessment tools and the role of language in content subjects. CLIL. Journal of Innovation and Research in Plurilingual and Pluricultural Education, 2(1), 31–42. Otwinowska, A., & Foryś, F. (2017). They learn the CLIL way, but do they like it? Affectivity and cognition in upper-primary CLIL classes. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 20(5), 457–480. Pérez Cañado, M.  L. (2018a). CLIL and pedagogical innovation: Fact or fiction? International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 28(3), 369–390. Pérez Cañado, M.  L. (2018b). The effects of CLIL on L1 and content learning: Updated empirical evidence from monolingual contexts. Learning and Instruction, 57, 18–33. Pérez Cañado, M. L. (2018c). CLIL and educational level: A longitudinal study on the impact of CLIL on language outcomes. Porta Linguarum, 29, 51–70. Pérez Cañado, M. L. (2020). What’s hot and what’s not on the current CLIL research agenda: Weeding out the non-issues from the real issues. A response to Bruton (2019). Applied Linguistics Review, 000010151520200033. Piesche, N., Jonkmann, K., Fiege, C., & Keßler, J. (2016). CLIL for all? A randomised controlled field experiment with sixth grade students on the effects of content and language integrated science learning. Learning and Instruction, 44, 108–116. Pimentel Siqueira, D. S., Landau, J., & Albuquerque Paraná, R. (2018). Innovations and challenges in CLIL implementation in South America. Theory Into Practice, 57(3), 196–203. Pladevall-Ballester, E., & Vallbona, A. (2016). CLIL in minimal input contexts: A longitudinal study of primary school learners’ receptive skills. System, 58, 37–48. Porto, M. (2018). Intercultural citizenship in foreign language education: An opportunity to broaden CLIL’s theoretical outlook and pedagogy. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. 0.2018.1526886. Ravelo, L. C. (2013). The use of comic strips as a means of teaching history in the EFL class: Proposal of activities based on two historical comic strips adhering to the principles of CLIL. Latin American Journal of Content and Language Integrated Learning, 6(1), 1–19. Riera Toló, M. (2017). CLIL in preschool: An interdisciplinary approach. Unpublished project. Retrieved from memories/2017m.pdf


C. Hemmi and D. L. Banegas

Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (2017). Language awareness and CLIL. In J. Cenoz, D. Gorter, & S.  May (Eds.), Language awareness and multilingualism (pp.  1–10). Cham, Switzerland: Springer. Ruiz de Zarobe, Y., & Lyster, R. (2018). Content and language integration in higher education: Instructional practices and teacher development. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21(5), 523–526. Sendur, K. A., van Boxtel, C., & van Drie, J. (2021). Undergraduate L2 students’ performance when evaluating historical sources for reliability. English for Specific Purposes, 61(1), 17–31. Spanos, G. (1989). On the integration of language and content instruction. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 10, 227–240. Švecová, L. (2011). CLIL in very young learners. Unpublished diploma thesis. Masaryk University, Faculty of Education, Department of English Language and Literature. Talbot, K. R., Gruber, M.-T., & Nishida, R. (Eds.). (2021). The psychological experience of integrating content and language. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Tedick, D. J. (2020). Foreword. In K. Bower, D. Coyle, R. Cross, & G. Chambers (Eds.), Curriculum integrated language teaching (pp. xi–xv). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Ushioda, E. (Ed.). (2013). International perspectives on motivation: Language learning and professional challenges. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave. Verspoor, M., de Bot, K., & Xu, X. (2015). The effects of English bilingual education in the Netherlands. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 3(1), 4–27. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. The development of psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wu, Y., & Lin, A. M. (2019). Translanguaging and trans-semiotising in a CLIL biology class in Hong Kong: Whole-body sense-making in the flow of knowledge co-making. Classroom Discourse, 10(3-4), 252–273. Yang, W. (2016). An investigation of learning efficacy, management difficulties and improvements in tertiary CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning) programmes in Taiwan: A survey of stakeholder perspectives. Latin American Journal of Content and Language Integrated Learning, 9(1), 64–109.

CLIL Practices

Authenticity and Motivation in CLIL: Creating a Meaningful Purpose by Experiencing the Language in Use Richard Pinner

Introduction As the interest in and implementation of content and language integrated learning, hence CLIL, grows internationally, the definitions and criteria about what exactly makes something CLIL naturally complexify as well. At its simplest definition, CLIL is about education with two learning aims: foreign language proficiency and content mastery. However, a CLIL approach includes more than the mere sum of these parts, as it will often also feature sociocultural perspectives to learning. These perspectives include the integration of educational best practices such as the use of scaffolding, attention to Vygotskian concepts such as the Zone of Proximal Development, the balance between lower- and higher-order thinking skills (LOTS and HOTS) as well as a myriad of other expectations. Dalton-Puffer (2020) summarises: [I]n many cases additional expectations are associated with CLIL: that it will deepen the degree of subject learning through cognitive stimulation; offer access to knowledge repositories available in other languages; better prepare students for a professional career in an era of globalization; deepen intercultural

R. Pinner (*) Sophia University, Tokyo, Japan e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 C. Hemmi, D. L. Banegas (eds.), International Perspectives on CLIL, International Perspectives on English Language Teaching,



R. Pinner

­ nderstanding and language awareness; provide a more learner-centred and u innovative didactic approach; overcome traditional subject boundaries, to name but a few. (Dalton-Puffer, 2020)

Dalton-Puffer then goes on to say that there are many CLIL realities, and the diversification of contexts and programmes which identify as CLIL brings with it challenges and a certain definitional looseness, perhaps one reason why CLIL is sometimes referred to as an umbrella approach (Dalton-Puffer, Llinares, Lorenzo, & Nikula, 2014). Despite the clear focus on content, at its core, CLIL is still a bilingual approach to education with its main emphasis on foreign language acquisition. Content is the vehicle which makes the foreign language relevant, giving students a reason to use it for a genuine communicative function, rather than studying a language as an abstract collection of grammar points and vocabulary items. The content aspect of CLIL is regularly associated with a certain authenticity of the language and materials. This aspect of CLIL is best conceptualised as authenticity of purpose, which is further assumed to have a motivating effect on learners. Dalton-Puffer summarises this well when she says “[i]n short, CLIL could be interpreted as a foreign language enrichment measure packaged into content teaching” (2011, p. 184). A CLIL approach is not merely a combination of aims in learning but also about achieving praxis between sociocultural approaches to learning. Such an approach incorporates beliefs about how learning is best facilitated, how that learning is best assessed, and how the classroom is made into a supportive environment in which students thrive in both areas of content and language. In addition, CLIL seeks to simultaneously develop other skills prized by the local context of learning, such as critical thinking or other types of literacy. The early (and primarily descriptive or theoretical) literature on CLIL was often explicit about these strategies and practices in its presentation of the approach. Nevertheless, it was rarely explicit about the sociocultural nature of these practices, nor the underlying (and often culturally specific) approach to education being transmitted and spread through such policies (often referred to as technology transfer, see Holliday, 1994; Lowe, 2020). The political and critical connotations of CLIL being attached to such an approach is still in need of further elucidation. To that end, in this chapter I will attempt to take one of the inherent and defining assumptions about the CLIL approach and examine it critically: the concept of authenticity and its relationship to motivation. I will also discuss the pedagogical and practical implications.

  Authenticity and Motivation in CLIL: Creating a Meaningful Purpose… 


Language and Authenticity (and Thus Motivation) Banegas (2013) equates authenticity in language-driven CLIL to authentic content, that is, curricular content, in his examination of the impact of CLIL on motivating ELT students in Argentina. Together with content authenticity, materials authenticity is vital for motivation. By materials authenticity I refer to materials not produced for language teaching purposes. Mishan confirms that the “motivation factor is one of the key justifications for the use of authentic texts for language learning” (2005, p. 26), and Gilmore has pointed out the widely held assumption that there is a link between authenticity and motivation and its persistence over decades of teaching and research (2011). Within the literature on CLIL, authenticity is generally placed as one of the defining aspects or core benefits. Sylvén (2017, p. 55) argues that authenticity is “intrinsic to CLIL”, which in turn leads to the main claim as to why CLIL is more motivating potentially (and thus more likely to yield successful learning outcomes) than more traditional foreign language teaching approaches such as grammar translation or communicative language teaching. This assumed link between authenticity and motivation is an enduring trope in foreign language instruction, despite sparse empirical evidence (Pinner, 2019). It also forms the basis of a widely held assumption within CLIL, which goes something like this (Fig. 1): In this chapter, I will refer to this assumption as the authentic motivation assumption in CLIL. This assumption can be found in the early literature on CLIL (see, for example Marsh, 2002, p. 72) and also forms the justification of many subsequent studies into CLIL and motivation, of which there are still rather few. For example, Lasagabaster (2011) conducted a study which compared traditional EFL instruction with CLIL classes. Students reported not only higher motivation with CLIL, but also showed gains in language mastery as well. Doiz, Lasagabaster and Sierra (2014) also conducted a comparative study with similar findings, in that the CLIL group showed statistically significant improvements in their motivations towards studying when compared with the non-CLIL group. However, the authors are more cautious in this

motivation is essential for success in learning

CLIL provides 'authenticity of purpose'

authenticity leads to motivation

Fig. 1  Authentic motivation equation in CLIL

ergo, CLIL is more motivating than nonCLIL

CLIL leads to success in learning


R. Pinner

study and take care to point out that there are other significant influences to motivation which makes drawing hard and fast conclusions undesirable. As motivation is a complex psychological factor, broad generalisations about motivation are generally best treated with some caution. There are no simple panaceas to motivational concerns regarding foreign language learning, and contextual factors are certainly something that need to be considered (see Ushioda, 2015, 2016 for further discussion).

CLIL and Authenticity of Purpose Two decades before the term CLIL even existed, in the 1970s when Widdowson began championing the communicative approach to language teaching, he used the concept of authenticity as one of its central justifications, just as CLIL does now. Even then, Widdowson was aware of the potential value of combining subject teaching with foreign language education as a means of achieving greater authenticity, and thus (he hypothesised) motivation. He argued that by combining the teaching of a foreign language with other subjects in the students’ school curriculum “the foreign language is represented as having the same kind of communicative function as his [or her] own language” (1978, pp. 80–81). In other words, authenticity of purpose. As I have already stated, authenticity is commonly situated as a defining aspect of CLIL.  Dalton-Puffer (2007) compares CLIL with other forms of language instruction, stating that the content gives rise to genuine communication by tapping into a great reservoir of ideas, concepts and meanings, allowing for natural use of the target language (TL). Coyle, Hood and Marsh also criticise “conventional EFL methodologies” for lacking “authenticity of purpose” (2010, p. 5) which is supposedly something that just happens in CLIL classrooms through the mere virtue of it being CLIL.  Such assertions demonstrate that authenticity is more than merely an important feature of CLIL’s justification, but rather a defining aspect of the entire approach and one of its greatest strengths over other foreign language instruction pedagogies. However, although I have argued this point before in my own writing (Pinner, 2016), I now realise, upon looking back with a deeper understanding of the way authenticity is used in discourse, that such assertions are a textbook example of the concept of authenticity being used as a political concept in order to assert the moral dominance of one method or approach over another. What we see here is a discourse which follows the same patterns of other such

  Authenticity and Motivation in CLIL: Creating a Meaningful Purpose… 


discourses throughout history, when one new idea is presented in order to supplant an older way (Umbach & Humphrey, 2017). As I showed in the start of this section with the quote from Widdowson, this has happened before, such as when authenticity was used to champion communicative language teaching. There is an interesting discourse on authenticity within ELT which has been examined and scrutinised expertly by Will (2018), who found that the varying definitions of authenticity abound in ELT were as much a part of power negotiations as they were about trying to understand what authenticity actually means. It would seem that these same political motivations for invoking the concept of authenticity also apply to CLIL as well. I discuss this view in the following section.

The Authentic Motivation Assumption in CLIL At the root of this discourse are two basic mechanisms. The first is the intention to assert the moral or technical superiority of any new approach by using the concept of authenticity as a vehicle for progress. Such justifications are something that humans have done throughout history and are not, therefore, surprising or unusual, although they are rather insidious. The second mechanic, and in my opinion much more harmful, is the tendency to misunderstand and misappropriate the concept of authenticity within language teaching generally. Authenticity is not only frequently associated with motivation, but also materials in both ELT and CLIL. Within ELT there is a long-standing and established concept that we can have something called authentic materials, which generally means materials not designed for language teaching, and are thus authentic in that they were originally intended for “a real audience and designed to convey a real message” (Morrow, 1977, p.  13). This definition persists to this day (Gilmore, 2007; Harmer, 2015). I have problematised this view in much of my own writing (see for example Pinner, 2016) because of the tendency to not only gravitate towards so-called native speaker models of the language, but also because behind this is the implication that classrooms are somehow not real and thus all learning situations are inauthentic situations in which to be using a language. Under such a definition, a huge percentage of the work teachers do in class would be classed as inauthentic, and indeed the very act of studying a language would seem to be inauthentic by extension. The implied lack of authenticity in ordinary language teaching is stated rather explicitly in the following comment:


R. Pinner

It is challenging for language teachers to achieve appropriate levels of authenticity in the classroom. For example, even if “authentic” texts are used, and the subject matter is highly relevant to the lives of the learners, the predominant reasons for these texts being in the lesson remains language learning. (Coyle, Hood, & Marsh, 2010, p. 11 emphasis added)

In this quote, the implication that merely learning a language is not an authentic activity is strongly presented as a justification for CLIL, but it fails to recognise that the same criticism could be made of any act of compulsory learning in schools. Just as science, math and geography are part of the curriculum as subjects, so too is language. So there is a circular logic to this argument which it has taken me almost ten years to realise(!). To her credit, Sylvén (2017) does clearly warn us that authenticity being intrinsic to CLIL “does not mean that all CLIL students are necessarily enthusiastic about any subject content simply because it is taught through another language than their own L1”; however, she then explains that because the subject content is part of the curriculum that “students need to learn it” (p. 55). Yet, necessity does not equate with authenticity, although authority and authenticity are etymologically cousins and power relations play a big part in the way we invoke the concept of authenticity.

How Educational Authenticity Relates to CLIL How can we move away from this insidious, political use of the concept of authenticity and avoid the pitfalls of assuming that authenticity can be extrapolated or transposed intact into a classroom as a static trait of the materials being used, when clearly authenticity is very much dependent on context and individual meaning making? Interestingly, the concept of authenticity in the broader field of education has already undergone the kind of renaissance now being advocated in language learning and teaching, in which authenticity comes to be seen as a sense of congruence between our actions and our beliefs. At its simplest, authenticity is best seen as a process, not a static trait. We authenticate our actions if they match our expectations about what we should be doing and how we should be doing it. I will provide a heavily over-­ generalised example to illustrate this at the national level. In Japan where I teach, the Ministry of Education (MEXT) has decreed that English is a compulsory subject. Within the media and wider public discourses there is an established pressure that Japanese young people need to be able to speak English well in order to compete economically in an ever-globalising world.

  Authenticity and Motivation in CLIL: Creating a Meaningful Purpose… 


Now, students in primary school learn English, and the guidelines state that one of the aims of foreign language instruction at this level is “fostering a positive attitude toward communication” (MEXT, 2019, p.  1). All the way through the curriculum up to university entrance exams and even job applications for desirable companies, English proficiency is often desired or even a stipulated requirement, even for non-English majors or for work where English may not be an actual part of the immediate work being done. Students, for the most part, are explicitly aware of this societal pressure and they know that they are expected to be able to communicate in English. MEXT’s guidelines mention communication 25 times in a 4-page document. However, in the classroom, what students predominantly experience throughout their learning careers is a grammar-translation-based approach with a strong emphasis on exam preparation. Such practices have been linked to student demotivation in Japan (Kikuchi, 2015), particularly because the students are well aware of the “gap” between the communicative practices advocated by MEXT and the non-communicative methods actually applied in most classes (Kikuchi & Browne, 2009). This creates an authenticity gap, because students can see the mismatch with their own eyes. It is not difficult to see the duplicity of society’s pressure (belief in what should happen) and the actual reality of teaching (action). Thus, in Japan there is an authenticity gap because the actions do not match the beliefs, not just at an individual level but at a societal level, leading to a motivational dilemma (Ryan, 2009). In order to overcome this situation, there is little that individual teachers or even institutions can do, as this is about power structures that most ordinary teachers (or students) do not have direct access to. However, at the individual level of the classroom, there is a lot that teachers can do in order to help calibrate authenticity in the classrooms by creating a culture of meaningful purpose. Strategies to create this culture will have much in common with motivational strategies, as the overlap between authenticity and motivation becomes very clear when we conceptualise authenticity as a sense of congruence between action and belief in this way. So, authenticity is motivating because authenticity means doing what we believe we should be doing in the way we believe we should be doing it. Seen in this way, authenticity has much in common with autonomy, which is its etymological sibling. Just as autonomy is about having control over our own learning, authenticity is about actually doing the learning we believe is important. This approach to conceptualising authenticity, which has roots in existential and educational philosophy rather than an implicit link to the superiority of real speakers or a certain target culture group, has obvious advantages in terms of empowering learners and teachers. However, in terms of practical


R. Pinner

teaching it may seem at first to be too hypothetical to either achieve in practice or to research. In the next section, I will illustrate these ideas with more concrete examples from my own teaching and practitioner research.

 ractical Strategies for Calibrating Authenticity P Through Metacognition and Negotiation In this section, I will present practical examples from my own experience through a narrative of my own reflective practice. I will attempt to show how authenticity becomes a bridge in the classroom between content and language, creating connections between members of the class, as well as connecting the classroom to the wider world. CLIL is not a prerequisite for this bridge; however, I argue that engaging content is essential as the bridge is built with the materials used in class and the way the teacher helps to create a culture of authenticity which encourages students to authenticate content by investing in that process. First, a brief explanation of my own teaching context. I work in a Japanese university in Tokyo where I teach undergraduate courses to English Literature majors. Most of the students I work with would be between B1 and A2 on the CEFR, B2 being a very rough average. In order to cultivate a culture of authenticity in my classes, I utilise several motivational techniques aimed at helping the students to understand and validate their learning activities. They are mainly autonomy-facilitating and metacognitive strategies which involve reflection and critical thinking about the work we do in class (Ushioda, 2014), as well as personalising it around their own interests. To this end, I regularly negotiate content and syllabus with the students, make all assessments clear and make the purpose of the assessment equally clear; we also add a social dimension to the work we do in class, either by publishing our work or, at the very least, by making sure everyone in the class works together and sees one another’s work.

The Writing Workshop Class In order to provide a contextual example, I will describe my Writing Workshop class, which aims to make students familiar with the conventions of academic essay writing in English, as well as helping them to understand how to find and cite academic sources in order to produce a research essay of 1500 words or so. This class is taught in the second year of the Batchelor of Arts in English

  Authenticity and Motivation in CLIL: Creating a Meaningful Purpose… 


Literature. When students arrive in the class, they are usually quite capable of reading and writing in English. Several of the students may be CEFR C1 or C2 or balanced bilinguals in English and Japanese, but the majority of students will struggle to express advanced literary concepts clearly in English. As this is a year-long course, I have students work to produce one research paper in the first semester, then in the second semester they produce a second essay before choosing one of the two essays they have produced which they will then work into their final extended essay, which must be at least 2000 words long and contain in-text citations to at least five secondary sources (on top of primary sources, as many of the students are writing about literature which we have studied in the course). It is often challenging to balance the teaching of academic conventions, the specifics of academic English and the necessary grammar and vocabulary that accompany it, and the actual content which is quite high-level as students are required to read literary criticism as well as primary sources which they discuss and analyse in both written and spoken discussions. On top of this, I invariably find that students, although they may be familiar with literature by now, are rarely familiar with academic sources and cannot tell a journal article from an edited book chapter, and they do not know how to gauge the sources they find and often they find PDF documents shared online by the authors but cannot trace the original source or how to cite it. Boiled down and simplified, the true aim of this class, as stipulated by the department, is to learn how to use citations correctly in MLA format (Modern Language Association) ready for their graduation thesis, so this is really one of the main aims I have as a teacher, so that the students will be able to complete other requirements within the department in order to finish their degrees.

Finding an Authentic Purpose for Using Citations When I first started teaching this course, I would spend weeks and weeks having students read texts, use the MLA handbook to learn how to cite them, find their own texts, summarise them and then write an essay in which they cited these texts. In other words, I started with the citations and worked backwards. The results were a constant string of incorrectly cited references, a seemingly endless queue of students asking the same questions year after year, and then making the same mistakes again and again. Before I began teaching this course, I felt that teaching writing was something of a specialty of mine, but this course quickly made me feel that actually I was not able to successfully teach writing at all. At the same time, I was developing my own


R. Pinner

academic writing by completing my doctoral studies and composing and publishing research articles. Citations were at the centre of my life. As such, I felt they were extremely important, but I realised that the students, for the most part, did not find them particularly important at all, and in fact they seemed to find the matter of citations dull. To put all this in terms of this chapter, there was a gap between what I and my students felt was important, there was little congruence in what one group believed they should be doing and the actual reality of the actions in class. Students repeatedly told me they needed help with academic register; in their essays their English seemed adequate to me, but what they continually got wrong was the citations. They cited poor sources, they cited them wrongly, and it felt like the film Groundhog Day every time I came to evaluate their essays as I kept seeing the same mistakes again and again, even though I taught how to cite from the very beginning of the class and walked the students through the process. I realised that what was lacking was a sense of authenticity of purpose. Students wanted to write an essay and express their ideas, but they did not realise that the main aim of the course was to learn how to use citations in accordance with the MLA style which was used in our department. This was despite the fact that I explicitly told students that the aim of the class was to learn how to use citations. I realised that students were simply unfamiliar with the genre of an academic essay. They did not know why citations mattered at all. They knew what they had to do, but not why, and thus there was an authenticity gap because beliefs and actions were not matching up. They did not know about the strange world of citations, the power relations, politics and even citation cartels that exist in the world of academic publishing (Hyland, 2015). This was a world which was very much at the centre of my professional life, just as much as the teaching if not perhaps even more so, but to the students it was an alien landscape and they simply did not seem to understand why I cared so much about citations. They probably thought I was mad. What was lacking was any sense of authenticity of purpose. Note that this was technically a CLIL class as the course is specifically about English language learning and content aims; students were expected to produce a research essay on the topic of English literature in their L2, and few, if any of them had ever done so before. Despite the fact that this was CLIL, the authenticity of purpose was not a pre-existing condition necessarily, or if it was then the students did not seem aware of it and thus, I would call it merely a necessity of the curriculum. This is an important distinction, especially as I am framing authenticity as a sense of congruence between what we do and what we believe we should be doing. In other words, just because the content of the

  Authenticity and Motivation in CLIL: Creating a Meaningful Purpose… 


class is needed and posted as requirements by the institution or the curriculum does not mean that students are automatically invested or motivated by that content, and the dual-focused nature of the aims may indeed be unclear to students, especially if one aspect (such as either the language learning aims or the subject content) is given priority in the actual delivery and teaching of the course. This is an observation based on my own experience, but rather than me generalising to other contexts, what I am actually trying to impress here is that we need to un-generalise this notion of authenticity of purpose, and to challenge the oversimplified assumption that we have authenticity of purpose built into CLIL and that this will then be magically motivating for students. More work needs to be done in order to achieve the desired chemistry if we are seeking the authentic motivation assumption in CLIL.

Strategies, Metacognition and Negotiation Returning to my Writing Workshop class, how did I bridge the gap between the content aims of the class and the actual teaching and learning through the creation of authenticity of purpose? As I have already stated, with a combination of metacognitive strategies, autonomy raising practices, negotiations and reflections. I began by telling the students about the world of academic publishing. Rather than starting the course with the mechanics of citations and how to write a works cited list in MLA format, I began by telling them about writing itself, then the genre of academic writing. In order to help them understand the difference, I created a class blog, which was for informal writing on any topic the students chose to be published online, creating a social and meaningful outlet for students’ writing. Here they could express themselves in their wonderful English using their own voices without fear of me telling them that they did not sound “academic enough”. They also did not need to use citations, but naturally they did research in order to compose articles about the topics they chose. This allowed me to say things like “that sounds like it should be in a blog” without it sounding derogatory and hurting the students’ feelings. They also found that they could enjoy writing (especially as most blog articles were composed in pairs about self-selected topics), which seemed to assuage their aversion to writing academic essays a little. Rather than the starting point being citations, I now started by eliciting from students the difference between academic writing and other genres. I did this simply at first, by asking students to look at two words, one written in Calibri and the other in Comic Sans font. The students were easily able to choose which font was “more academic”.


R. Pinner

I then showed a sample of writing and asked them to choose the academic one. Both were on the same topic, but one contained facts and evidence and the other was merely about the authors’ preferences and opinions. After eliciting a brainstorm about the specific features of academic writing, I then proceeded to further confuse them by giving them the following readings, many of which were academic texts which clearly flouted the rules and conventions they had just listed; 1. 2. 3. 4.

Healy (2017) Schwartz (2008) Campbell (2014) Pinner (2014)

The first example, Healy’s paper entitled Fuck Nuance, often comes as a surprise to students because of the strong expletive used in the title and the tongue-in-cheek abstract which merely reads “seriously, fuck it”.1 Students have usually indicated the use of polite or formal language as a prerequisite for academic writing in the previous task. The second paper by Schwartz is all about the importance of stupidity in science, and starts with a personal anecdote, the opening words being “I recently saw an old friend for the first time in many years” (p.  1771). Students often arrive at my class believing they should not use the first person in academic writing. The third sample, by Campbell, starts with the delightful opening “On Saturday the twentieth of October 1660, the London diarist Samuel Pepys stepped into a pile of shit” (p. 103). The fourth sample, my own article about a class I taught, is research based on narrative and reflective practice, and is sadly the least interesting of the samples, but I use it to show the students that I am also engaged in this activity of academic writing. Sharing my own personal information is part of the bridge-building process towards authenticity, and in addition it can be motivating for students to hear self-disclosures from teachers (Henry & Thorsen, 2018). From this activity, the students learn quickly that academic writing is not just about learning a whole new grammar and vocabulary set in order to express themselves. I had far fewer requests to teach academic language once I started doing this activity in the first class. My intention with this activity was first to show students that academic writing is not “boring” and indeed it should avoid being boring if possible (especially as I have to score their work!), and indeed it does not need to be impersonal or dispassionate. Going back to  This abstract has since been revised but fortunately I have a copy of the original version.


  Authenticity and Motivation in CLIL: Creating a Meaningful Purpose… 


our genre analysis of what makes academic writing academic, I then begin to tell them about the importance of citations. I use the quote from Sir Isaac Newton that “If I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of giants” to show that citations are about giving credit where credit is due, that it is part of being in a community and it helps people to continue their own work by providing a breadcrumb trail for evidence and ideas. This situating of citations and introduction to the reality of academic publishing helps the students to authenticate their own essay writing, which is certainly a prerequisite for CLIL’s authenticity of purpose. I frequently did this genre-based comparison throughout the first semester, with students even turning their academic essay titles back into informal language so as to be click-bait for the blog, and I had them write informal summaries of their academic writing. This helped us with the language side of the course, but in a way that made it also part of the content whilst having a social aspect beyond the class as well. This in itself was not enough to achieve authenticity of purpose, however, as the students still needed to learn about citations and invest in their own academic writing. Therefore, in order to facilitate a more meaningful engagement with their essay writing, I attempted several strategies. The first was simply to continue the previous work of contextualising the act academic writing itself within the students’ own lives, in particular with reference to skills they would need in order to write a graduation thesis but also, going beyond the institutional context, we examined things like Fake News and discussed the fact that readers need to be critical, to check their sources and to double check facts. We used some light techniques from critical discourse analysis to examine how even respected sources can often print misleading or bipartisan reports which have a big influence on the way certain information is perceived. This process of providing the students with a pedagogic motive for activities in the class, as well as asking them reflect on why these skills might be useful to them beyond the class, is a process of manually calibrating the way they authenticate the content of the class and personalise the learning goals. This is further enhanced by the use of metacognitive reflective tools, such as self-assessments and reflection papers, as well as ad-hoc and group discussions. Wherever possible, I tried to elicit the reasons from students rather than putting words in their mouths. For example, when we conduct the self-­ assessments for their classroom participation, I do not tell them my reasons for believing that self-assessment is helpful in maintaining their motivation, but rather I simply ask them “why do you think we do this as a self-­assessment?” or “as a teacher, why do you think I want you to self-assess?”


R. Pinner

Although it is hard to pinpoint when exactly these strategies I used became foregrounded in my teaching, looking back at my previous cohorts I can see an improvement in their essay writing, especially in terms of the number of citations (Table 1). In 2017 when I was just finishing my PhD and had not brought to consciousness through reflecting on my own practice the fact that students might not know why citations were important, the average number of citations in the final essay was 4.9 for their second essay in the second semester (the minimum to pass was always set at three). In 2018 this number decreased slightly to 4.4; perhaps this was at the height of my frustration when I felt that I was in Groundhog Day as mentioned earlier. In 2019, the students’ average citations leapt to 6.0 sources cited in their second essay, but I saw an improvement in the types of essays they produced as well. In addition, the overall number of words had gone up too, although this is most likely to be as a result of the fact that the word count includes the works cited list. Another strategy which was very successful in terms of teaching students to use citations was simply to stop teaching them. This may sound counterintuitive, but I had become so frustrated with teaching students how to create a works cited list, learning how to make and format the list so that it complied with MLA conventions, and then finding students still making the simplest mistakes when they wrote their essays that I simply began telling students that “correct MLA format is compulsory” and that if they did not do it they would get an “instant F” for their essays. Having such a strict policy communicated the importance of citations as an aim for the class, and also reflected another important reality, that students do indeed lose marks for incorrect citations in their graduation thesis, and a graduation thesis with no works cited would certainly not get a passing score. What we then did was to work on a draft of the students’ essays, which was unmarked. At this point, once they had a works cited list that they had worked hard to create by themselves and read through their copies of the MLA handbook in order to help them, I began teaching about citations. This way, students already had their own list to be working on, rather than learning how to cite and format before they even had an essay or a works cited list. Citations had become much more relevant to them as they already had their own list of references that they could work on as they learned in class, so they could Table 1   Words and citations

Average words Average citations




1523 4.9

1369 4.4

1697 6.0

  Authenticity and Motivation in CLIL: Creating a Meaningful Purpose… 


retrospectively fix their citations before submitting the final version, making the whole process a lot more concrete for them and less abstract. The third strategy which I used for helping students to authenticate the essay writing process was the act of publishing their work to a wider readership. I originally did this through a printed Class Journal, which was meant to replicate the academic journals I was asking them to read for their own research. I found this to be very successful as the quality of students’ work was much higher than when they merely wrote an essay which they knew would only be read by me. I have found that, even the act of using peer review helps to add a more socially authentic dimension to the students’ work, but publishing was by far the most effective in terms of increasing the quality. As one of my learners commented in her reflection paper at the end of the course: When I was told to put my essay on the class journal, I was really nervous. I did not have confidence to write an essay that is good enough to be looked by everyone. I carefully think about how my classmates can be interested in my essay. I especially devised my topic that would attract them. (Mahoka)

Although simple, the use of publishing students’ work as a tool to make the assessment more meaningful and authentic has been very effective for my students, quite simply because of the social connection this adds to the assessments. Rather than writing an essay for the teacher which is used merely for assessments, the students know that the essay has other functions too, which go beyond the formality of the teacher–student and institutional context. In this way, the classroom becomes a real site of language use, and thus authenticity is achieved even if we revert to this simple definition.

Conclusion and Pedagogical Implications In this chapter, I have tried to critically examine the authentic motivation assumption in CLIL, and in particular I have tried to uncover the circular logic of CLIL’s concept of authenticity of purpose by showing that just because something is in the curriculum or required at a higher level of power does not mean that it is automatically authentic for the students who are forced to undertake that course. I have tried to show, through examples of my own practice, how I incorporate metacognitive strategies, negotiations of content and activities which attempt to expand the students’ locus of control in order to afford them greater autonomy in the classroom. These are prerequisites if the students are


R. Pinner

to authenticate the learning process and if content is to be a bridge towards authenticity of purpose in the class. In other words, students have to see why they are doing what they are doing, to personalise it and to internalise the reasoning for pedagogic activities if they are to achieve a sense of congruence between their actions and their beliefs about learning. Metacognition, reflection, explaining the pedagogic value and giving time to personalise those reasons. Teachers need to begin the practice of calibrating the authentication process through making purposes explicit and eliciting personal authenticity of purpose. This avoids the assumed presence of authenticity of purpose merely through the existence of a larger curriculum, much of which is political and orbits the students’ minds but may not land with them personally. I think that the implications for this chapter are not going to be a quick and easy list of points for materials writers or teachers looking for quick fixes. The primary point I am trying to make is that each class needs to be approached as its own unique entity, and each teacher needs to make their own choices about how to engage the students and communicate their aims in a way that allows the students to “get on board” with them and validate the classroom activities together. When the students and teachers share a sense in the value of what they are doing, this creates the valuable authenticity of purpose that we seek. It is important to remember that this, like authenticity more generally, is not something that just naturally arises in a CLIL class through the virtue of it merely being CLIL. For me, in my own teaching, it has all been about negotiating content with students and making sure I explain my own justifications for the activities we are doing in the class. Although clearly more practitioner-research in CLIL is needed in order to make wider generalisations about my own findings from my own practitioner research, I would like to say that these strategies are part of the family of best practices associated with CLIL, and thus they may help to achieve some of the other expectations association with a CLIL approach.

Suggested Further Reading Maley, A., & Tomlinson, B. (Eds.). (2017). Authenticity in materials development for language learning. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars. A very useful introduction to the concept of authenticity in relation to materials, which covers some of the main issues although it does not always engage with the problems behind the discourse on authenticity (See also Will, 2018).

  Authenticity and Motivation in CLIL: Creating a Meaningful Purpose… 


Mercer, S., & Dornyei, Z. (2020). Engaging language learners in contemporary classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. A truly brilliant and practical book. Although its focus is on motivation, many of the strategies and ideas in the book also relate directly to the ideas I have presented here about creating a culture of authenticity in the class. Vannini, P., & Williams, J. P. (Eds.). (2009). Authenticity in culture, self, and society. Surrey: Ashgate Publishing. A very good book on education and the vital role of authenticity in defining how we see ourselves and those around us.

Engagement Priorities • How is the term authenticity often understood in your professional context? Have your ideas on this matter changed over the years? • In what ways is the work you do in class authentic, in terms of providing opportunity to use the language? • How do you use content in your classrooms in order to motivate and engage your learners? • What criteria do you have, if any, when selecting materials to use for teaching within a CLIL approach?

References Banegas, D. L. (2013). The integration of content and language as a driving force in the EFL lesson. In E.  Ushioda (Ed.), International perspectives on motivation (pp. 82–97). London: Palgrave Macmillan. Campbell, G. J. (2014). Toilets tell truth about people: 150 years of plumbing for “Real Japan”. In R. Cobb (Ed.), The paradox of authenticity in a globalized world (pp. 103–122). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Dalton-Puffer, C. (2007). Discourse in content and language integrated learning (CLIL) classrooms (Vol. 20). Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Dalton-Puffer, C. (2011). Content-and-language integrated learning: From practice to principles? Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 182–204. Dalton-Puffer, C. (2020). CLIL in practice: what does the research tell us? Retrieved from


R. Pinner

Dalton-Puffer, C., Llinares, A., Lorenzo, F., & Nikula, T. (2014). “You Can Stand Under My Umbrella”: Immersion, CLIL and bilingual education. A response to Cenoz, Genesee & Gorter (2013). Applied Linguistics, 35(2), 213–218. Doiz, A., Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. M. (2014). CLIL and motivation: The effect of individual and contextual variables. The Language Learning Journal, 42(2), 209–224. Gilmore, A. (2007). Authentic materials and authenticity in foreign language learning. Language Teaching, 40(2), 97–118. Gilmore, A. (2011). “I prefer not text”: Developing Japanese learners’ communicative competence with authentic materials. Language Learning, 61(3), 786–819. Harmer, J. (2015). The practice of English language teaching (5th ed.). London: Pearson. Healy, K. (2017). Fuck nuance. Sociological Theory, 35(2), 118–127. Henry, A., & Thorsen, C. (2018). Teachers’ self-disclosures and influences on students’ motivation: A relational perspective. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 1–15. 0.2018.1441261. Holliday, A. (1994). The house of TESEP and the communicative approach: The special needs of state English language education. ELT Journal, 48(1), 3–11. Hyland, K. (2015). Academic publishing: Issues and challenges in the construction of knowledge. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Kikuchi, K. (2015). Demotivation in second language acquisition: Insights from Japan. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Kikuchi, K., & Browne, C. (2009). English educational policy for high schools in Japan ideals vs. reality. RELC Journal, 40(2), 172–191. Lasagabaster, D. (2011). English achievement and student motivation in CLIL and EFL settings. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 5(1), 3–18. Lowe, R. J. (2020). Uncovering ideology in English language teaching: Identifying the ‘Native Speaker’ frame (Vol. 19). Cham, Switzerland: Springer Nature. Marsh, D. (2002). CLIL/EMILE: The European dimension: Actions, trends and foresight potential. Retrieved from Strasbourg:­report.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y MEXT. (2019). Foreign language activities. Retrieved from component/english/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2011/03/17/1303755_011.pdf Mishan, F. (2005). Designing authenticity into language learning materials. Bristol, UK: Intellect Books. Morrow, K. (1977). Authentic texts and ESP. In S. Holden (Ed.), English for specific purposes (pp. 13–17). London: Modern English Publications. Pinner, R.  S. (2014). Trouble in paradise: Self-assessment and the Tao. Language Teaching Research, 20(2), 181–195. Pinner, R. S. (2016). Reconceptualising authenticity for English as a global language. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Pinner, R. S. (2019). Social authentication and teacher-student motivational synergy: A narrative of language teaching. London: Routledge.

  Authenticity and Motivation in CLIL: Creating a Meaningful Purpose… 


Ryan, S. (2009). Self and identity in L2 motivation in Japan: The ideal L2 self and Japanese learners of English. In Z.  Dörnyei & E.  Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp. 120–143). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Schwartz, M. A. (2008). The importance of stupidity in scientific research. Journal of Cell Science, 121(11), 1771. Sylvén, L. K. (2017). Motivation, second language learning and CLIL. In A. Llinares & T. Morton (Eds.), Applied linguistics perspectives on CLIL (Vol. 47, pp. 51–65). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Umbach, M., & Humphrey, M. (2017). Authenticity: The cultural history of a political concept. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Ushioda, E. (2014). Motivation, autonomy and metacognition: Exploring their interactions. In D. Lasagabaster, A. Doiz, & J. M. Sierra (Eds.), Motivation and foreign language learning: From theory to practice (pp. 31–49). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Ushioda, E. (2015). Context and complex dynamic systems theory. In Z. Dörnyei, P.  MacIntyre, & A.  Henry (Eds.), Motivational dynamics in language learning (pp. 47–54). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Ushioda, E. (2016). Language learning motivation through a small lens: A research agenda. Language Teaching, 49(4), 564–577. Widdowson, H.  G. (1978). Teaching language as communication. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Will, L. (2018). Authenticity in English language teaching: An analysis of academic discourse. Münster, Germany/New York: Waxmann.

Assessing Students’ Learning of History Content in Spanish CLIL Programmes: A Content and Language Integrated Perspective Elena del Pozo and Ana Llinares

Why a Chapter on Assessment in CLIL History? Assessment is one of the unresolved issues in content and language integrated learning (CLIL) research and pedagogy. Many CLIL teachers, particularly content specialists, do not know to what extent they should assess students’ language production as well as content knowledge. Most CLIL teachers in Europe assess content without attending to language (Coyle, Hood, & Marsh, 2010). However, research on learning and teaching history content using systemic functional linguistics (SFL) shows that it is key for students to be familiar with historical literacies in order to acquire and express historical knowledge (De Oliveira, 2011). Many of the written tests used by content teachers to assess historical knowledge focus mostly on what students are expected to express, not so much on how the students express it (or should express it). According to de Oliveira (2011), teachers can assess language by showing students the most appropriate ways to express historical knowledge, thus practicing assessment for learning as well as assessment of learning. It is necessary, then, for content E. del Pozo (*) Madrid Region Teacher Training Centre (CRIF), Madrid, Spain e-mail: [email protected] A. Llinares Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 C. Hemmi, D. L. Banegas (eds.), International Perspectives on CLIL, International Perspectives on English Language Teaching,



E. del Pozo and A. Llinares

specialists to work in collaboration with language specialists and applied linguists to identify ways in which language can be assessed to inform the students’ knowledge of content and not as something separate from it (Del Pozo, 2016). This integrated approach in the assessment of the language of history can, then, serve a double purpose: it can be used to assess learning and also as a tool to teach content (assessment for learning). In any research and implementation of assessment in CLIL it is necessary to take into account the assessment practices in the specific discipline (history, in this case) as well as the integration of language in those practices. One attempt to establish the link between content and language is Dalton-Puffer’s (2013) framework of cognitive discourse functions (hereafter, CDFs), designed as a construct to bridge “subject specific cognitive learning goals with the linguistic representations they receive in classroom interaction” (Dalton-Puffer, 2013, p. 220). In addition, variables that affect the teaching– learning process need to be considered: familiar, sociological, psychological or affective factors (Prats, 2002). This involves, for example, considering the socio-economic profile of the students involved, as well as the teaching methodology of instructors. Prats (2002) distinguishes between didactic historical knowledge (that of the teacher) and research in history didactics. In his opinion, “the effort has to come from the research practice that involves a methodological adaptation (…) and a delimitation of the object [of analysis], the objectives and intentions of the research projects that make up the space that we want to create” (p.  87). In this chapter, our content- and language-­ integrated assessment proposal for CLIL history lessons intends to be a methodological adaptation and we show its implementation in the assessment of a group of secondary school CLIL students’ knowledge of history by their content teacher (and co-developer of the proposal).

 he Challenge of Teaching and Learning T History in CLIL “The challenge in any linguistic research [on the teaching of a subject] lies in bridging the complexity of the linguistic description and its application to the different educational subjects” (De Oliveira, 2011, p. 130). Thus, the understanding of the linguistic needs required for the expression of historical knowledge in CLIL is key in order to meet the double challenge of successful teaching and learning of history in an L2. If history is the language of the past, then it is reasonable to think that language is a valuable tool for the expression of historical knowledge. Thus, a good command of linguistic skills is essential

  Assessing Students’ Learning of History Content in Spanish CLIL… 


because it will allow students to understand and produce history texts, to rethink their writing and describe, add details, clarify points, and provide solid examples (De Oliveira, 2011). Of course, these linguistic skills need to be related to the specific history genres (Coffin, 2006; Llinares, Morton, & Whittaker, 2012) and the CDFs (Dalton-Puffer, 2013) elicited in particular activities. History, perhaps more than any other subject, is about values. The examination and articulation of these values in relation to and on the basis of classroom experience is itself “an essential dimension of professional learning in history” (Pendry, Husbands, Arthur, & Davison, 1998, p.  148). There is a debate about the low value of skills versus conceptual content. Some researchers point out that “historical knowledge implies reflection and critical judgment, and cannot be acquired simply through repetitive practice of unconnected skills lacking proper reasoning and knowledge of key historical processes and concepts” (Gómez & Sáiz, 2017, p. 21). A clear understanding of the historical discipline and how historians explain the past and construct their historical narratives (Lorenzo, 2016; Seixas & Morton, 2013) should be a goal to achieve in schools for both CLIL and non-CLIL teachers. Students are often encouraged to make the best possible arguments based on evidence, but they also need to have coherent and substantive historical knowledge that allows them to reflect on this evidence. The challenge that teachers face is often the students’ misconceptions and lack of reflection before making a proper interpretation (Gómez & Sáiz, 2017). In CLIL, the additional language used in class must not be an obstacle for that purpose. Then, a good command of the vehicular language is key. A real integrated focus on content and language in different disciplines, including history, requires the collaboration between content specialists and applied linguists in the design of pedagogical tools for CLIL teaching and assessment. Although there has been a constant increase in publications on CLIL since the end of the 1990s, there are still few studies carried out by content specialists. There are some studies by content specialists on CLIL science, which have revealed that the results of CLIL students in science and mathematics are equal to (and sometimes better than) those of non-bilingual students, regardless of their socio-economic origin and nationality (Jameau & Le Henaff, 2018; Romanowski, 2018; Piacentini, Simões, & Marques Vieira, 2017). In fact, in studying this aspect in the United States, Tedick and Wesely (2015) observed that bilingual programmes even have the potential to shorten the distance between middle-class and minority ethnic students. In history, a recent study carried out in the Austrian context (Dalton-Puffer & Bauer-­ Marschallinger, 2019) has combined the CDF model and historical


E. del Pozo and A. Llinares

competences in an attempt to illustrate an integrated approach to content- and language-based on joint research collaboration between content specialists and applied linguists. The present study is also the result of the same type of collaboration, in this case, using the CDF model for assessment in CLIL history.

The Importance of Writing in History History is both the science of relationship and exercise of expression (Febvre, 1953). Expression of historical knowledge (and the language related to it) varies across genres (historical recount, historical explanation, etc.) but also according to mode (written or spoken) (see Llinares et al., 2012). In historical writing, the causes and relationships between processes and effects are important. Also, the conception of the plural temporality and the longue durée is a practical tool for historical inquiry (Braudel, 1980). Historians, philosophers of history and researchers distinguish several forms of historical explanation: intentional, empathic and causal (Cercadillo, 2015). The reason for the action, the role of the collective mentality, the general causes and the background that explain the historical processes must be taken into account when teaching students how to write history (Del Pozo, 2019). Historical explanations, as well as other history genres, require the attention to the language resources that characterize that genre. As Schleppegrell (2004) points out, every discipline has its academic language. The history subject has its own interpretations and linguistic genres and, perhaps more than any other school subject, it has the potential to improve students’ reading and writing skills. Writing on history can be used as an assessment tool as well as a way to help students develop their historical understanding or learn “how to write to learn” (De Oliveira, 2011, p. 129). Learning to write history involves a double challenge: the mastery of the linguistic resources needed to organise and ­construct any type of essay and the mastery of the linguistic resources n ­ ecessary to respond to the characteristics of the historical genre or CDF at hand. In history, students are not only expected to report on past events (historical recount) or explain causes and effects (historical explanation), but are also asked to provide their own interpretation of events (historical argument). When writing history as a CLIL subject, students meet a third challenge (in addition to the two mentioned above): the use of an L2. This will necessarily require more support for the students to reach a high level in Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development (ZPD), in terms of extra explanations by the teacher and/or classmates, gesturing, movement and support material, such as ­graphics, mind maps, photographs, etc. This support will ideally have a triple

  Assessing Students’ Learning of History Content in Spanish CLIL… 


effect: it can support comprehension of input, the school subject becomes meaningful, “worded in language, offering learners the possibility of paying close attention to how a language works” (Banegas, 2012, p. 115), and it will serve as oral scaffolding, through supporting or clarifying instructions, previous to the writing task (Llinares & Whittaker, 2010). In addition to content and language learning, there are other added values that are enhanced when writing history in CLIL.  Regarding specific socio-­ cultural and psychological factors, learning in a foreign/second language broadens the students’ perspective towards other types of societies and cultures (Méndez-García, 2013; Sudhoff, 2010). As for meaning construction, students become aware of the different connections, sometimes contradictory, between L1 and L2 (Jäppinen, 2005). Language closeness is particularly relevant for vocabulary use in history writing. As many academic terms used in history have a Latin origin, there are opportunities for positive transfer between romance languages, like Spanish and English (e.g., sovereignty-­ soberanía, patrimony-patrimonio, commissioner-comisionado, abolish-abolir). However, when the content to study is too abstract, some light language and meaningful examples are needed to equilibrate between content cognitive demand and language cognitive demand (Ting, 2011). The history teacher may certainly hope for students to think like a historian and write as one. In order to do so, it is necessary to show the transition from informal register and oral mode to formal register and written mode (Llinares et al., 2012). In the transition to academic history writing, students need to use the necessary lexico-grammatical structures to express knowledge and incorporate the multiple voices of history, -which represent the ideational and interpersonal functions, respectively, in systemic functional linguistics (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2014). However, students are also expected to expand their expression of historical content and use examples to support their claims; in other words, they need to learn how to link the ideas developed in their writing and connect them with their thesis (textual function), and this requires explicit teaching (De Oliveira, 2011). It is necessary that the contents and the prompts are meaningful to them (Cercadillo, 2006). They need to notice that history goes beyond a recount of events; it involves making connections and construing events and large processes (Greene, 1994; Spoehr & Spoehr, 1994). Rewriting, summarising, mind mapping, construing texts and writing in general as a tool for the learning of subjects are specified in the Spanish National Curriculum from the early levels of secondary education. Writing coherent and cohesive texts, with the appropriate genre and appropriate language is an educational objective. Upper-secondary syllabi include advertising


E. del Pozo and A. Llinares

and news media literacy as part of the learning standards and the production of more complex texts including argumentative, expositive, academic, journalist, professional and entrepreneurial genres. However, scaffolding students into the production of complex history texts is a must. Dalton-Puffer’s (2013) CDF model may bridge the gap between the genres and text types that students have to write and the lexico-grammar needed to do it. In this study, we apply the CDF model as a useful tool for the integrated assessment of content and language in CLIL history.

 ranslating Educational Learning Objectives into T Levels of Complexity and Specificity: The CDF Model Appreciating that CLIL students need to deal with a wide scope of cognitive functions and their linguistic realisations in an L2 in their different subjects, Dalton-Puffer (2013) developed a framework of cognitive discourse functions (CDFs). It is an instrument that permits mediation between the terminologies found in curriculum documents of content subjects, which teachers need to be familiar with, and the language used in textbooks and in the classroom to cover the curriculum. In her proposal, Dalton-Puffer (2013) identifies seven main categories of academic language functions closely linked to subject competences. These are describe, define, report, classify, explain, evaluate and explore. Giving students resources to interpret implies training them in the discipline of history. Helping them think like historians is a main objective and can only be achieved if they are able to read and write historical texts in a target language, either in the L1 or the L2. According to De Oliveira (2011), teachers can help students recognise patterns that help them establish parallels between historical events as well as increase their lexicon, thus improving their descriptions. Setting the interpretation of the learned history as an objective will help the student connect what he reads with what he will later write. (p. 133)

The CDF model may facilitate this link between thinking like historians and the language needed to verbalise this thinking. In addition, in this study we argue the potential of CDFs together with linguistic models (such as SFL) that help identify the lexico-grammatical features that characterise CDFs for the integrated assessment of content and language.

  Assessing Students’ Learning of History Content in Spanish CLIL… 


 Proposal of a Framework A for an Integrated Analysis In this section, we explain our proposed framework for the assessment of CLIL students’ history knowledge by paying attention to the language that students are expected to use to express historical meanings in a written text responding to a prompt. In the next section, we show a case study that illustrates the application of this model. The model (see Appendix A) has been designed in the form of a rubric, which integrates content and language in a joint effort made by the co-authors (a historian and an applied linguist), and it is conceived both for summative as well as formative assessment purposes. In other words, it is designed to measure students’ content- and language-integrated knowledge as well as for teaching purposes, that is, to scaffold them into that knowledge. The choice of a rubric as the assessment instrument has the intention of clarifying the qualities that the response to the prompt should have as well as specifying the success criteria for students. The rubric design overtakes the two dimensions stated by Cummins (1984) on which language and content tasks can be evaluated: according to the contextual information [content subject] and according to the cognitive demand in which language is used to construe knowledge. The level of cognitive demand of a particular question depends on the teacher’s goals, what the students have already learned and the point in the lesson at which the question is asked (Schleppegrell, 2004). For example, in the case of the prompt in the present study (Explain, providing as many details as possible, how the arrival of the first European expeditions to the American continent took place. Use the words: Columbus, Asia, Earth, caravels, August, October and San Salvador), the teacher would expect students, not only to know the content studied in that lesson, but also to be able to report on historical past events and explain how they took place. This means it is not just the teacher’s question or prompt that could be more or less cognitively demanding but also its relationship with the type of task (e.g., written or oral) and the learner’s previous knowledge. The reason for selecting this topic for the prompt lays on the revision that the Spanish history curriculum does over the expeditions that took place in the fifteenth century in Europe. Spain and Portugal were trying to find another way to reach India and China with the purpose of reinforcing the commercial links among them and avoiding the Mediterranean route, more prone to attacks by pirates. The students participating in the study belong to the same Year 7 group (12–13 years old). They had learnt to develop a view not only about what happened (report) but also about how the expeditions, studied in the history class, took place (explanation). The rubric shown in this


E. del Pozo and A. Llinares

chapter contributes to assess these aspects from the double perspective of the content and the target language. Two items of the rubric address general features of essay writing which are expected throughout the essay. The first item refers to fluency; in other words, how much students write. The second item, formal features, includes the characteristics of an essay format (marking sentences using capital letters and full stops, and adequate paragraphs), as well as the linguistic features that are common to both of the CFDs elicited: report and explain. These features are: adequate verb tenses, coherence, cohesion, and use of coordinate and subordinate clauses. The use of subordination in texts indicates a higher complexity level of the language. Research in the 1960s showed a correlation of use of subordinate structures with school success. Subordination shows a more mature and difficult form of language expression than simple parallel statements connected by and or but (Schleppegrell, 2004). In the example rubric, we also included verb tenses as a formal feature outside the specific CDFs because, in this case, the different CDFs elicited would require the same type of verb tenses. The second part of the rubric includes four items related to the CDFs involved: report and explain, including the linguistic features that are specific for each of these two CDFs (for example, time connectors in the case of report and cause/ effect connectors in the case of explain). Through report, students refer to what happened, who participated, when and where. That is the reason why we have distinguished different sections even though they represent the same CDF. Explain triggers the explanation of how the events happened. This conceptual framework, then, attempts to measure as specifically as possible the expression of students’ history knowledge (historical literacy) in response to a specific prompt.

Application of the Proposed Framework In order to illustrate the application of the proposed framework, the rubric was used to assess Year 7 students’ history knowledge in a state school following a CLIL programme, as part of the bilingual education programme in Madrid, Spain. The implementation of bilingual programmes in the Madrid region started at the end of the 1990s (Llinares & Dafouz, 2010) in an attempt to improve not only students’ acquisition of foreign languages (mainly English) but also the learning of content subjects. The school selected for the present study was considered an optimal setting for the implementation of an innovative methodology in the teaching of content and language using a CLIL approach, since it had developed a CLIL programme for six school years and it was an example of close collaboration between English language and CLIL content teachers.

  Assessing Students’ Learning of History Content in Spanish CLIL… 


The target individuals in the study were 25 students from the same Year 7 secondary school (12 years old). 88% percent of the participating students were Spanish and 12% were Moroccan. All of them had followed an English– Spanish bilingual programme during their primary education (from 3–12 years old), prior to their access to secondary education. At the moment of the study, most participants had an A2—three of them had a B1—CEFR level of English. The CLIL subjects they had in this particular school were English language, history, geography, science, arts, technology and physical education. In addition to the analysis of students’ written essays in response to the prompt, using the proposed rubric, a 10-statement true–false test was also provided (see Appendix B). These types of tests are more frequently used as assessment instruments by history teachers in the Spanish context than the essay format. A true–false test is easier for teachers to mark and students to answer. Even though these tests limit critical thinking analysis, they constrict the responses and make the answers more accurate, avoiding misinterpretations. The statements are both ordered chronologically and from the easiest to the most complex, so all students have the opportunity to answer some of the statements and prove their historical knowledge. Although a written essay on the topic contributes better to deepen students’ knowledge of the contents studied, it cannot be ignored that an essay is more difficult to code and analyse. It depends largely on how students manage to express what they know about the subject they are learning (historical literacy), expressions which may generate misunderstandings or other factors that may affect the quality of students’ responses (May, 2011). For this purpose, a rubric (Appendix A) was designed following the CDFs mentioned above in order to evaluate students’ responses as effectively as possible. The rubric assesses the students’ historical knowledge and language abilities to express the content. Both types of assignments, a more traditional true-–false (T/F) test and a more open task requiring students’ production (essay), were supplied, in order to compare students’ performance in both types of assessment tasks, once objectivity in the assessment of the essay was guaranteed by means of the rubric. The results of the scores obtained by the students in both assignments (test and essay) are presented in Table 1. The mean in the test scores was 5.36, lower than the one in the essay: 6.60 (Table 1). This result could be tentatively related to some experts’ agreement that developing writing skills in any topic contributes to activate the neurons and this benefit is expected to have a positive effect on both the language used to write and the subject content (Costa, Calabria, & Baus, 2019). In this study, the median was equivalent to the mean (5 in the test, 6 in the essay), which proves that the dataset was more or less distributed from the lowest to the highest values. The low standard deviation confirms this: most of the


E. del Pozo and A. Llinares

Table 1   Students’ scores in the T/F test and essay Students’ scores

T/F test



Student 1 Student 2 Student 3 Student 4 Student 5 Student 6 Student 7 Student 8 Student 9 Student 10 Student 11 Student 12 Student 13 Student 14 Student 15 Student 16 Student 17 Student 18 Student 19 Student 20 Student 21 Student 22 Student 23 Student 24 Student 25 Mean Median Mode St Deviation Variance

6 7 7 5 5 5 2 7 8 5 3 5 6 10 3 5 5 7 2 9 3 3 7 6 3 5.36 5 5 2.12 4.49

8.33 4.83 4.16 7.5 9.16 4.16 8.33 8.33 5 5.33 4.63 3.33 3.33 8 6.6 3.33 3.33 8 3.33 6.63 6 7.33 9.33 6 3.33 6.60 6 8 1.34 1.80

2.33 −2.17 −2.84 2.5 4.16 −0.84 6.33 1.33 −3 0.33 1.63 −1.67 −2.67 −2 3.6 −1.67 −1.67 1 1.33 −2.37 3 4.33 2.33 0 0.33

scores are next to the mean. The mode in the essay showed that the value that appeared more often was 8, higher than the one of the test: 5. These results seem to indicate that students’ writing in history helps them to show content knowledge and, thus, reveal the key role that language plays in the expression of that knowledge. The results, thus, tentatively support the positive effect of an assessment instrument that allows students to explain what they have learned and enhances their reasoning, beyond the mere learning of historical events as illustrated in a T/F test. As shown in Fig. 1 and Table 1, more than half of the students obtained better results in the essay than in the T/F test (56%). This proves the effectiveness of assessing linguistic and historical performance following a CDF model (Fig. 1). There was also a correlation between the results in both tests and the length of the essays: students who got good marks in both wrote longer essays (Student 14, 94 words; Student 20, 98 words; Student 23, 144 words) and those whose

  Assessing Students’ Learning of History Content in Spanish CLIL… 


12 10 8 6




Essay student1 student2 student3 student4 student5 student6 student7 student8 student9 student10 student11 student12 student13 student14 student15 student16 student17 student18 student19 student20 student21 student22 student23 student24 student25


Fig. 1  Students’ score distribution in the T/F test and the essay

marks were lower produced shorter essays (Student 19, 52 words; Student 25, 37 words). Most students used the correct format and suggested vocabulary for the essay, which activated recalling the historical contents previously studied. However, the lowest scoring students often used simple and coordinated clauses: Columbus discovered America but he was looking to another way to reach Asia. He had 3 caravels, the Santa Maria, the Pinta and the Niña. He arrived to America the 12th of October, to San Salvador. (Example 1, Student 25)

Students’ use of subordinate clauses with time, place, cause and consequence linkers showed how the learning of history contents through a foreign language stimulates their report and explanation skills (e.g., explanations through because): The discovery took place the 12th of October, 1492. Transport of Columbus were 3 ships: the Santa María, the Pinta and the Niña. The 3 ships sailed on August 3, 1492 from the port of Palos (Huelva). After many days, sailors began to get impatient because they saw nothing but water. The October 11 began to appear in the sea grasses and wood chips indicating that the land had to be very close. (Example 2, Student 20)

When and where events happened is an important issue in history learning. Not all students remembered dates and that was not a requirement in the essay, but many knew where to locate the expeditions to America, the direction of the trips and one of them even set the starting point (Palos de la Frontera), as in the example from Student 20 above. Ten students (40%) got better marks in the test than in the essay. However, it needs to be taken into account that a test is more prone to random answers.


E. del Pozo and A. Llinares

In any case, only in half of them the difference was higher than 2 points. In contrast, in the case of the students who scored higher in the essay, the difference was higher than 2 points in most of the cases (8 out of 14). There were two students (Student 19 and 25) whose scores were very low in both the test and the essay—between 2 and 3 points; their essays were also short (30–50 words), unfinished or inconsistent. It seems, then, that students with good writing skills are able to formulate arguments supported by reasoning and evidence better than in a T/F test, where they can get confused by the small piece of information, often unimportant, that makes the whole statement false. These results suggest the interest in combining assessment approaches to give students a variety of formats in which they can show their history knowledge.

Implications of the Study This study has contributed to illustrate the need to find content- and language-­ integrated frameworks and models in CLIL programmes, not only for teaching but also for assessment purposes. In this chapter we propose a model (in the form of a rubric), both for assessment of learning as well as for assessment for learning, where language plays an essential role. This contrasts with traditional assessment techniques, such as T/F tests, which do not involve learners’ use of language to express historical knowledge. The results have shown that the two assessment techniques are complementary (as about half of the students obtained similar marks in both) but the results in the essay were better, as measured through a content- and language-integrated rubric, such as the one proposed here. These findings should, of course, be considered tentatively, and more studies should be carried out to compare results obtained in different types of tests, as well as to prove the advantages of assessing students’ history knowledge through their writing, using an integrated rubric like the one proposed in this study. The rubric could also be a useful tool to measure the acquisition of content by students in CLIL programs in comparison with students studying the same content in their L1 (in non-CLIL programmes), to identify the possible effect of the L2 in students’ learning of history. Further studies should also address the applicability of this model in other disciplines such as science and mathematics. As illustrated in this chapter, in order to work on integrated assessment techniques, it is necessary to use models that consider content and language as inextricably linked with one another. Dalton-Puffer’s (2013) CDF model has proved useful to establish this link, offering a way for CLIL content teachers to

  Assessing Students’ Learning of History Content in Spanish CLIL… 


understand the role of language in their subject and find a way to integrate language in the assessment of content (as shown in this chapter in the case of history). This study, which portrays the case of bilingual programmes in Spain, has illustrated the challenge as well as shown some of the benefits of collaborative research between content specialists and applied linguists to design pedagogical teaching and assessment models that really integrate content and language. In addition, to guarantee the applicability of models such as the one proposed here, it is necessary to put them in practice with actual students’ data. The fact that one of the authors was not only a historian but also an experienced CLIL history teacher facilitated this task. More collaborative research between content teachers, language teachers and applied linguists would be necessary in the future in order for CLIL research to truly inform pedagogical practice. This could be applied both in content-oriented CLIL programmes as in the case of Spain, as well as in language-oriented ones in other parts of the world, where L2 academic literacies and writing could be developed through content- and language-integrated learning.

Suggested Further Reading De Oliveira, L. C. (2011). Knowing and writing school history: The language of students’ expository writing and teachers’ expectations. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. De Oliveira points out that learning history involves reading and writing, and it is essential for teachers to know the difficulties that students may encounter to develop a coherent historical discourse. Llinares, A., Morton, T., & Whittaker, R. (2012). The roles of language in CLIL. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. It examines how language functions in CLIL. The book tries to discover the possible connections between students’ linguistic choices in primary and secondary schools, the content literacies and the degree of success in terms of assessment. Schleppegrell, M.J. (2004). The language of schooling. A functional linguistic perspective. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. This book makes understandable the language demands in middle and secondary school, related to the different types of texts that students are asked to read and write. It seeks the collaboration between linguists and teachers to develop better learning strategies.


E. del Pozo and A. Llinares

Engagement Priorities • As explained in this chapter, content experts debate about skills versus conceptual concepts to become relevant in schools. Do CLIL programmes decrease the quality of contents for the sake of language? • Since everything that is scheduled in school needs to be assessed, should CLIL assessment address both the content and the language alike? To what scale should they be marked? By the content teacher or together with the language teacher? • Assessment seems to be the key question for CLIL teachers. To what extent can assessment frameworks, such as the one presented here, be used not only to measure learning but also as a tool to enhance learning (assessment for learning)?

 ppendix A: Rubric for Assessing History Content A and Language Integration 0.4 mark ESSAY PROMPT: 0.6 mark Explain, providing as many details as possible, how the arrival of the first European expeditions to the American continent took place. Use the words: Columbus, Asia, Earth, caravels, August, October and San Salvador (about 100 words) The student The student GENERAL writes writes FEATURES: between 75 between 100 Fluency and 50 words and 75 words

0.2 mark

0 mark

The student writes between 50 words or below

The student does not write at all


  Assessing Students’ Learning of History Content in Spanish CLIL… 


(continued) FORMAL FEATURES: Essay format: Marking sentences using capital letters and full stops and adequate paragraphs Coordinate and subordinate clauses Verb tenses Coherence Textual cohesion

Uses an essay format Coordinate and subordinate clauses Correct use of the past and/ or historical present It follows a cohesive discourse

REPORT 1 Who participated and what happened?

(WHO) The student mentions Columbus, the Catholic Monarchs, the Pinzon brothers, name of caravels or other historical characters involved in the event (WHAT) The student mentions correctly at least two details of the trip

Uses formal features and essay format but not completely correct Mainly coordinate clauses, poor tries on subordinates Past and present tenses (historical present may not be used correctly) The essay is coherent but may not follow a chronological order Cohesive discourse (WHO) The student mentions Columbus and both the Catholic Monarchs (or other historical characters or elements involved in the event) (WHAT) The student mentions one detail of the trip correctly

The student Uses formal does not use features but formal no essay format or the features opposite Only coordinate clauses or just chunks of information Incorrect use of the past and/or present tenses The essay is mainly coherent but sometimes lacks cohesion

The student (WHO) The neither student mentions mentions the Columbus participants and/or any of nor what the Catholic happened Monarchs (or other historical characters or elements involved in the event) (WHAT) The student mentions one detail of the trip but it is wrong



E. del Pozo and A. Llinares

(continued) REPORT 2 Where did it happen?

REPORT 3 When did it happen?

EXPLAIN How did it happen?

(WHERE) The student mentions correctly the place of setting off, direction East/West, landing or presumed destination (WHEN) The student mentions correctly the date of setting off and the date of events Time connectors are used (HOW) The student explains how they travelled and how the trip ended up Cause/effect connectors are used

The student (WHERE) The (WHERE) The does not student student follow the describes the describes the report trip but does trip but features. not mention confuses East The report is East or West. and West; the not The student student consistent mentions some mentions just one place places but may correctly miss one (WHEN) The (WHEN) The student student mentions dates mentions only one of but one is the dates incorrect Time connectors No time are used (some connectors may be wrong) are used

The student does not follow the report features. The report is not consistent

The student (HOW) The (HOW) The does not student tells student explain. The only how explains how they travelled explanation they travelled is not or how the and how the trip ended up consistent trip ended up No cause/effect but one is connectors incorrect are used Cause/effect connectors are used (some may be wrong)

 ppendix B: Example of Assessment Through A T/F Statements Statements

Correct answers

1. Fernando the Catholic was the king of Aragón 2. Christopher Columbus was looking for a way to the east by the west

True True (continued)

  Assessing Students’ Learning of History Content in Spanish CLIL… 


(continued) Statements

Correct answers

3. Boabdil surrendered Córdoba to the False. Boabdil surrendered Granada to the Catholic monarchs Catholic monarchs 4. Protestantism emerged in Spain False: Protestantism emerged in the Germanic region 5. The baroque followed the classical False: The renaissance followed the classical models of Greek and Roman models of Greek and Roman 6. After the war of succession, the False: After the war of succession, the Austrians started to rule in Spain bourbons started to rule in Spain 7. Napoleon invaded Spain in 1808 True 8. Franco lost the Spanish civil war False: Franco won the Spanish civil war 9. The current system of government False: The current system of government in in Spain is a republic Spain is a parliamentarian monarchy 10. Portugal is not a member of the False: Portugal is a member of the EU European Union

References Banegas, D. L. (2012). Integrating content and language in English language teaching in secondary education: Models, benefits and challenges. Studies in Second language Learning and Teaching, 2(1), 111–136. Braudel, F. (1980). History of civilizations. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Cercadillo, L. (2006). “Maybe they haven’t decided yet what is right”: English and Spanish perspectives on teaching historical significance. Teaching History, 125, 6–9. Cercadillo, L. (2015). Teachers teaching history in Spain: Aims, perceptions, and practice on second-order concepts. Joined-Up History, 1, 93–114. Coffin, C. (2006). Historical discourse: The language of time, cause and evaluation. London: Continuum. Costa, A., Calabria, M., & Baus, C. (2019). Cross-talk between language and executive control. In J. W. Schwieter (Ed.), The handbook of the neuroscience of multilingualism (pp. 447–466). Cleveland, OH: Wiley. Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Cummins, J. (1984). Bilingualism and special education: Issues in assessment and pedagogy. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Dalton-Puffer, C. (2013). A construct of cognitive discourse functions for conceptualizing content-language integration in CLIL and multilingual education. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 1–38. Dalton-Puffer, C., & Bauer-Marschallinger, S. (2019). Cognitive discourse functions meet historical competences: Towards an integrated pedagogy in CLIL history


E. del Pozo and A. Llinares

education. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 7(1), 30–60. De Oliveira, L. C. (2011). Knowing and writing school history. The language of students’ expository writing and teachers’ expectations. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Del Pozo, E. (2016). Learning history and English through drama and the CLIL approach. Pulso, 39, 125–139. Del Pozo, E. (2019). CLIL in the secondary classrooms: History contents on the move. In K. Tsuchiya & M. D. Pérez-Murillo (Eds.), Content and language integrated learning in Spanish and Japanese contexts: Policy, practice and pedagogy (pp. 125–152). Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave. Febvre, L. (1953). Combats pour l’histoire. Paris: Librairie Armand Colin. Gómez, C. J., & Sáiz, J. (2017). Narrative inquiry and historical skills: A study in teacher training. Revista Electrónica de Investigación Educativa, 19(4), 19–32. Greene, S. (1994). The problems of learning to think like a historian: Writing history in the culture of the classroom. Educational Psychologist, 29(2), 89–96. Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. (2014). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Routledge. Jameau, A., & Le Henaff, C. (2018). Content and language integrated learning (CLIL) teaching in science: A didactic analysis of a case study. Review of Science, Mathematics and ICT Education, 12(2), 21–40. Jäppinen, A. K. (2005). Thinking and content learning of mathematics and science as cognitional development in content and language integrated learning (CLIL): Teaching through a foreign language in Finland. Language and Education, 19(2), 147–168. Llinares, A., & Dafouz, E. (2010). Content and language integrated programmes in the Madrid region: Overview and research findings. In Y.  R. de Zarobe & D. Lasagabster (Eds.), CLIL in Spain: Implementation, results and teacher training (pp. 95–114). Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Llinares, A., Morton, T., & Whittaker, R. (2012). The roles of language in CLIL. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Llinares, A., & Whittaker, R. (2010). Writing and speaking in the history class. In C. Dalton-Puffer, T. Nikula, & U. Smit (Eds.), Language use and language learning in CLIL classrooms (AILA applied linguistic series) (pp. 125–144). Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Lorenzo, F. (2016). Historical literacy in bilingual settings: Cognitive academic language in CLIL history narratives. Linguistics and Education, 37(1), 32–41. May, T. (2011). Social research. Issues, methods and processes. Berkshire, UK: McGraw-­ Hill Open University Press. Méndez-García, M. C. (2013). The intercultural turn brought about by the implementation of CLIL programmes in Spanish monolingual areas: A case study of Andalusian primary and secondary schools. Language Learning Journal, 41(3), 268–283.

  Assessing Students’ Learning of History Content in Spanish CLIL… 


Pendry, A., Husbands, C., Arthur, J., & Davison, J. (1998). History teachers in the making: Professional learning. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. Piacentini, V., Simões, A. R., & Marques Vieira, R. (2017). The language focus of science education integrated with English learning. Enseñanza de las Ciencias: Revista de Investigación y Experiencias didácticas, Extra, 399–404. Prats, J. (2002). Enseñar historia: Notas para una didáctica renovadora. Mérida, Mexico: Junta de Extremadura. Romanowski, P. (2018). Early bilingual education in a monolingual environment. Showcasing Polish families. Complutense Journal of English Studies, 26(2), 143–164. Schleppegrell, M. J. (2004). The language of schooling. A functional linguistic perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Seixas, P., & Morton, T. (2013). The big six historical thinking concepts. Toronto, ON: Nelson College. Spoehr, K. T., & Spoehr, L. W. (1994). Learning to think historically. Educational Psychologist, 29(2), 71–77. Sudhoff, J. (2010). CLIL and intercultural communicative competence: Foundations and approaches towards a fusion. International CLIL Research Journal, 1(3), 30–38. Tedick, D. J., & Wesely, P. M. (2015). A review of research on content-based foreign/ second language education in US K-12 contexts. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28(1), 25–40. Ting, T. (2011). Towards brain-compatible science-education. In D.  Marsh & O. Meyer (Eds.), Quality interfaces: Examining evidence and exploring solutions in CLIL (pp. 12–26). Eichstaett, Germany: Eichstaett Academic Press.

Current Practice and Challenges of Assessment in CLIL in a Japanese University Context Takanori Sato, Katsuya Yokomoto, and Graham Mackenzie

Introduction In content and language integrated learning (CLIL), students aim to learn both an additional language and subject content. Coyle, Hood, and Marsh (2010) regard CLIL as a “dual-focused educational approach” (p. 1), whereas Ball, Kelly, and Clegg (2015) argue that it is “a single focus” (p. 25) approach as language and content are inseparable. Despite this difference, acquisition of content knowledge is an essential element of CLIL, which differs from many of the existing pedagogical approaches. Even in language-driven CLIL, where language development is emphasised, conceptual content determines lesson sequence and its mastery is an important objective, not to mention content-­driven CLIL (Ball et al., 2015). Mehisto and Ting (2017) also note that CLIL involves “a triple-focus on content, critical thinking and language” (p. 43). Thus, cognitive development is another indispensable objective of CLIL explicitly mentioned by the literature. This tenet of CLIL which involves learning content knowledge, language skills, and critical thinking simultaneously provides an important implication for the assessment of students’ learning through CLIL courses. Mastery of language is not the only focus of assessment, and the degree to which students develop content knowledge and critical thinking skills also needs to be

T. Sato (*) • K. Yokomoto • G. Mackenzie Sophia University, Tokyo, Japan e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 C. Hemmi, D. L. Banegas (eds.), International Perspectives on CLIL, International Perspectives on English Language Teaching,



T. Sato et al.

assessed. Ball et al. (2015) claim, “even in ‘soft’ CLIL, which is language-led, we could still argue that it is the conceptual content that should be tested, and not the language. The language is still the ‘vehicle’ carrying the content” (p. 215). Similarly, Genesee and Hamayan (2016) claim that CLIL practitioners should avoid using standardised tests that focus on language and do not reflect what is taught. The issue of what to assess is noteworthy because decisions that teachers make based on assessment (e.g., course grades, feedback for further learning) are intertwined with the interpretation of students’ ability inferred from performance on assessment tasks (Bachman & Damböck, 2017). If the ability to be assessed is narrowly defined, the interpretation of the ability as well as the decisions based on the interpretation are seriously undermined in the CLIL context. In reality, however, assessing language and content (as well as critical thinking) is a challenge for CLIL practitioners (Coyle et al., 2010). In particular, CLIL language teachers implementing language-driven CLIL appear to avoid assessing content (Massler, Stotz, & Queisser, 2014; Mehisto & Ting, 2017), probably because they may not be trained to assess content mastery and critical thinking. In addition, students who have experienced non-CLIL language instruction in their previous education may not be accustomed to the assessment of language and content. Because students’ perception of what is assessed potentially influences their learning behaviour (Sato, 2019), students may not focus on mastery of content or critical thinking unless they perceive that both are assessed. This chapter discusses how the principle of assessment in CLIL, especially assessment of content mastery and critical thinking, is realised in an actual educational context. Readers of this chapter will be able to gain an understanding of a theoretical perspective of assessing content and language. Also, we make practical recommendations for teachers in varied contexts wishing to introduce dual-focused assessment in their CLIL classes.

Assessing Content and Critical Thinking For assessing content (and cognition), it is necessary to understand what content is and how it is assessed, as much literature on CLIL attempts to do (e.g., Ball et al., 2015; Genesee & Hamayan, 2016; Mehisto & Ting, 2017). Coyle et al. (2010, p. 116) provide the following aspects of the content that could be assessed:

  Current Practice and Challenges of Assessment in CLIL in a Japanese… 


• factual recall (detail); • general understanding (major points); • ability to manipulate the content, using higher-level thinking skills such as interpretation, analysis, synthesis, or application; • ability to research more independently and extend the topic knowledge beyond what has been presented by the teacher.

Assessing Factual Recall and Understanding The first two aspects—factual recall and general understanding—are related to the assessment of the degree to which students have understood and accurately memorised content. Many CLIL researchers focus on these aspects, providing methods to elicit students’ content knowledge in a way that language does not intervene (e.g., Coyle et  al., 2010; Genesee & Hamayan, 2016; Mehisto & Ting, 2017). For example, Coyle et al. (2010) introduce an assessment task that involves matching information (combining two halves of definitions) or filling out the appropriate key vocabulary in a diagram or gaps in sentences, which is called a “keyword approach” (Lin, 2016, p.  111). Through these tasks, students can demonstrate a conceptual understanding with limited linguistic resources at their disposal. Their performance is assessed based on the accuracy of information selected or vocabulary rather than on linguistic forms. Open-ended response tests, including writing a summary or making an oral presentation about the learnt content, are also common in CLIL to assess mastery of content (Genesee & Hamayan, 2016; Hönig, 2010). Llinares, Morton, and Whittaker (2012) provide a sample rubric for assessing factual recall in an open-ended speaking task in which students explain Darwin’s journey on The Beagle and his theory of evolution. This is the descriptor for the highest score for content: Students will be able to provide accurate and detailed information about the journey of The Beagle, and an accurate summary of Darwin’s theory, including some technical information. Explanation of the theory is linked to what Darwin observed on his voyage. (p. 298)

It is worthwhile noting that providing accurate information alone is not sufficient to receive the highest score, and elaboration of explanation and inclusion of relevant information are regarded as another indicator of content knowledge (see Hönig, 2010). Inclusion of key points is also considered to be


T. Sato et al.

a component demonstrating content knowledge in open-ended response tests. For example, Ball et al. (2015) present an assessment task that requires students to write comments on the main points of population growth of five European countries from 1800 to 1910 having looked at the data. One of the criteria is to mention the countries that experienced the largest and smallest growth during the period and touch upon the factors that affected the phenomenon. They claim, “if students fail to do this, then their understanding of the concepts here will be questionable” (Ball et al., 2015, p. 218).

Assessing Thinking Skills The latter aspects of content that can be assessed, provided by Coyle et al. (2010)—ability to manipulate the content using higher-level thinking skills and ability to research and extend the topic knowledge—relate to critical thinking skills beyond recalling factual information. These aspects involve application of knowledge learnt, analysis of novel problems using knowledge, and evaluation of given information (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). Mehisto and Ting (2017) also regard the abilities to apply knowledge and do projects with others as foci of assessment in CLIL. Coyle et al. (2010) claim that cognition or higher-level cognition is best assessed through content assessment. Lin (2016) provides several CLIL assessment tasks tapping into the abilities to apply the content with three levels of language—vocabulary, sentences, and texts. In application assessment tasks, students are required to explain a new phenomenon by applying the knowledge they have learnt in class. For example, students are asked to explain why marine fossils are found in high mountains using their knowledge of the movement of the earth’s crust. Tasks of the analysis type are not always clearly distinctive from application tasks, but the former involve synthesis of given information to deduce the correct answer. For example, students are asked to design a scientific experiment to compare the amount of reducing sugars in two types of fruits they choose. They are required to use their knowledge of the topic and scientific experiment to write down the steps, conduct investigation, and summarize the results. Although Lin (2016) does not provide the criteria for assessing students’ language output in these tasks, it can be assumed that responses are assessed based primarily on the content accuracy of the explanations or responses (see Massler et al., 2014). Cloud, Genesee, and Hamayan (2000) provide a further task that involves application of knowledge gained. After students learn about John Smith’s voyage and settlement at Jamestown (in history class) and compare two points of

  Current Practice and Challenges of Assessment in CLIL in a Japanese… 


view of authors who wrote about their experience in America (in language arts class), their ability to apply their knowledge and take different perspectives is assessed. In the form of a written composition, they are asked to take the role of Native Americans who lived in Jamestown when John Smith landed, describe an incident that might result in conflict, and explain the different viewpoints of American Indians and settlers. Rubrics consist of Organisation, Sentence structure and variety, Vocabulary, Mechanics, and Content and originality. The last criterion, which focuses on originality of ideas and interestingness of details, seems to be related to thinking skills, as originality or novelty is regarded as an essential element of creativity (Bae, Bentler, & Lee, 2016). Assigning projects is another way to assess thinking skills, including application and analysis as well as the ability to research. A project is an activity in which students conduct performance or develop pieces of work, focusing on a single theme and demonstrating learnt knowledge (Dale, van der Es, & Tanner, 2011). Dale et al. (2011) state that projects require students to synthesise information from various sources, develop thinking skills by presenting complex problem-solving activities, and encourage independence and autonomy. They provide an example of project work in which students plan an expedition across the Sahara and write a brochure about it. In order to complete the project, they need to research the specific area they will be travelling in and consider the hazards they might face and ways to avoid them. The final product (brochure) is assessed through rubrics consisting of Language, Layout, Content and research, Practicality of the expedition, and Work habits. The highest score for Content and research is given to brochures which contain accurate information, are thorough, and include extra information (Dale et al., 2011). These components are similar to those used to assess factual recall as mentioned above. The extent to which the project is well researched might be judged through the three components (see Ball et  al., 2015, p. 243). Finally, in the Sahara project (Dale et al., 2011), practicality of the expedition, or the extent to which the expedition proposal is realistic, is also assessed. This criterion taps into students’ ability to manage the given problem-solving task, which is to lead an expedition across the Sahara. If students cannot present realistic plans for the expedition in their brochures, it cannot be said that the task is successfully achieved, and accuracy or depth of information would be pointless. Thus, this criterion appears to focus on whether students fulfilled the main task objective. Table 1 summarises content-related abilities and how they are assessed.


T. Sato et al.

Table 1  Content-related abilities, assessment tasks, and criteria Ability

Assessment tasks


Content knowledge

Gap filling Matching information Orally answering factual questions Summarisation (oral/written) Application tasks Analysis tasks Problem-solving tasks Projects Research presentations

Accuracy of information Richness of information Inclusion of key information

Thinking skills

Accuracy of information Originality of ideas Interestingness of ideas Richness of information Inclusion of key or extra information Relevancy of information Quantity of sources Fulfilment of task

The Studies and Educational Context As CLIL aims to foster not only language skills but also content knowledge and cognitive skills, assessment in CLIL should focus on all of these components. As discussed above, the CLIL literature proposes some tasks and criteria for assessing content mastery and critical thinking skills. The sections below show how these proposals are implemented and perceived in an actual CLIL setting. More specifically, we discuss two empirical studies addressing CLIL practitioners’ assessment practices (Study 1) and students’ perception of being evaluated on language and content (Study 2). The studies were conducted in a private university in Japan. In general, Japanese university students have studied English for six years in junior and senior high school, and may have studied for several years in elementary school, or in private English conversation classes. Although CLIL has been gradually gaining popularity in Japan, it has not been widely employed in elementary, junior high, and senior high schools in Japan yet. The university where the studies were conducted offers two-term English courses, which are compulsory for all the first-year students except for English majors and students in the departments offering English-taught programmes. The course offered in the first term (from April to July) is an English-for-­ academic-purposes (EAP) course, which aims to develop English proficiency that is needed to study effectively in international academic contexts. Teachers are required to use designated textbooks and teach effective study skills for university. The course offered in the second semester (from October to January) is a CLIL course, which aims to provide opportunities to apply the

  Current Practice and Challenges of Assessment in CLIL in a Japanese… 


study skills learnt in the EAP course and develop knowledge of a topic, language, and critical thinking skills. Each teacher decides the subject(s) to teach, chooses or develops teaching materials, and writes his or her own syllabus. Classes are held twice a week for 14 weeks per term, and each lesson is 90 minutes long. To grade the students, teachers are required to incorporate essays and presentations into the assessment system in both EAP and CLIL courses. 40% of students’ grade accounts for essays in the EAP courses, and for presentations in the CLIL courses. The teachers determine the details about these productive skills tasks, including the number of tasks given in a term, topics and format, and assessment criteria. Moreover, they are required to decide on how to evaluate for the remaining 60% and 50% of the grades in the EAP course and CLIL course respectively, as the score on a standardised English test accounts for 10% of the grades in the latter. The teachers need to decide on the weight given to presentations in the EAP courses and essays in the CLIL courses.

Study 1: CLIL Practitioners’ Assessment Practices  eachers’ Professional Background T and Interview Procedures We interviewed 10 teachers to solicit their methods of assessing students’ essays and presentations in their CLIL courses (Table 2). They were specialised in fields related to second language education. According to their self-­ reports, two teachers were extremely familiar with CLIL; seven teachers were moderately familiar with CLIL; and one teacher was somewhat familiar with CLIL. They learned about CLIL by attending seminars held at the university and by reading books such as Coyle et al. (2010) or Dale et al. (2011). They have implemented CLIL in the university and their previous workplaces for 1.5  years (T7) to 14  years (T1). During the interview, we primarily asked about (a) what essay and presentation tasks they assigned in their CLIL courses and (b) what aspects of language and content they assessed through essay and presentation tasks. Prior to the interviews, they were asked to provide information about the tasks and criteria as well as their demographic information through a questionnaire. The interviews were held based on the questionnaire to further examine their assessment approaches.


T. Sato et al.

Table 2  Participants and their CLIL courses Years of Gender Nationality teaching T1 T2 T3 T4

Female Male Female Male

Japanese Japanese Japanese British

41– 11–20 11–20 11–20


Female American






T7 T8 T9 T10

Female Male Female Female

Japanese Japanese Japanese Japanese

11–20 11–20 11–20 1–10

Content World Englishes Positive psychology Speech acts Countries, culture, science and technology American studies, Japanese history Olympics, UK culture, arts and entertainment, modern lifestyle Globalisation, history of English SLA Life and technology SLA

Students’ level 2 4 2 1 3 5

3 3 1 2

Note: Students’ proficiency: 1  =  Elementary; 2  =  Lower Intermediate; 3  =  Upper Intermediate; 4 = Lower Advanced; 5 = Upper Advanced SLA second language acquisition Table 3  Essay and presentation tasks in the teachers’ CLIL courses Essay task


Presentation task


Research paper Reflective journal/essay

8 2

Research presentation Debate Reflective presentation Explaining a learnt concept

8 1 1 1

Note: Two and three teachers used the same essay and presentation task in their EAP courses, respectively. T8 used two presentation tasks in his CLIL course

Essay and Presentation Tasks Table 3 presents the essay and presentation tasks that the 10 teachers assigned to their students in their CLIL courses. The numbers indicate how many teachers employed the tasks. The most popular tasks were research papers and research presentations. In these tasks, students were given a theme related to the content covered in the course and asked to collect information about it to present the findings in the form of essay and presentation. For example, in T3’s course, students learned about interlanguage pragmatics and speech acts (request, apology, and refusal). As an assignment, they were asked to interview international students on campus to investigate how English speakers express these speech acts. Subsequently, students gave presentations on the findings and wrote a paper summarising their research project. In addition, in T4’s course about

  Current Practice and Challenges of Assessment in CLIL in a Japanese… 


countries/cities, culture, and science and technology, students were required to select a subtopic (e.g., smartphones), formulate research questions, carry out research, and present the findings in their essay and presentation. These tasks tap into the ability to research and extend the content knowledge beyond what the teacher presented (Coyle et al., 2010). Furthermore, research papers and presentations require the cognitive process related to Create, where students synthesise sources into a novel structure (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). The majority of the teachers who incorporated research assigned this type of task. A variation of this were tasks that make students state their own opinions based on research. An example is an essay task given in T6’s course, where students learned about evidence that people are sceptical of, in relation to international organisations. The essay task was to choose one international organisation, collect information, and argue how worthwhile and sustainable it is. This argumentative research task does not only address the ability to research but also the ability to manipulate the content using higher-level thinking skills, including analysing and evaluating (Coyle et  al., 2010), because students need to critically engage in particular information and construct their own arguments. This type of research was assigned by T6 and T7. While some teachers assigned research papers and presentations in their EAP courses, others incorporated research tasks only in their CLIL courses. The reasons for assigning research tasks in CLIL were that research taps into higher-order thinking skills and is more challenging, academic, and CLIL-like (i.e., being associated with CLIL) than other kinds of task. This indicates that the teachers chose to assign essay and presentation tasks aiming to assess students’ use of higher-order cognition and critical thinking, realising that it is a key element of CLIL. They appeared to emphasise these skills more than in their EAP courses. In his course on second language acquisition (SLA), T8 is the only teacher who assigned tasks in which students need to directly demonstrate their content knowledge. The presentation task assigned to his students was to explain one of the four SLA concepts covered in class. This task, which is similar to one requiring students to write a summary of a learnt concept (Genesee & Hamayan, 2016), is different from the abovementioned research tasks, as students cannot successfully perform the tasks without an accurate understanding of the content. In this sense, his essay task examines general understanding of the content (Coyle et al., 2010). T8 also assigned a unique essay task in which students are required to apply the knowledge gained in the course. His students were asked to reflect on their own English learning experience and explain their successes and struggles using SLA concepts. Similar to Lin’s


T. Sato et al.

(2016) application assessment task, students do not only demonstrate their knowledge but also apply the knowledge to explain a new phenomenon.

Assessment Criteria Table 4 shows assessment criteria for the essay and presentation tasks used in their CLIL courses. The numbers indicate how many teachers (out of 10 teachers) used the assessment criteria. Most teachers explicitly assessed language and technical aspects of students’ essays and presentations in their CLIL courses. In the assessment of students’ essays, three to five teachers focused on rhetorical organisation (e.g., presence of a thesis statement and a concluding paragraph), lexicogrammatical accuracy, paragraph structure, and cohesion (e.g., the use of discourse markers and pronouns). Similarly, in the assessment of presentations, four to five teacher(s) assessed rhetorical organisation and lexicogrammatical and phonological accuracy. In addition to these linguistic criteria, six and eight teachers evaluated the use of required format in essays and delivery of presentations (e.g., eye contact, gesture, voice volume, fluency), respectively. The abovementioned criteria were not unique to the assessment in CLIL as they were also applied in the teachers’ EAP courses. This is not surprising because the participants are language teachers and these features have been ubiquitous in writing and speaking tests (Davies et al., 1999). In fact, three teachers (T1, T4, and T8) stated that they emphasised the assessment of language in CLIL courses with lower-proficiency students, rather than or not solely the content of ideas and content mastery. Students’ language proficiency may be a factor in how much teachers focus on language. The logical development of ideas or coherence was a criterion related to the content of essays and presentations. Seven teachers incorporated this criterion Table 4  Essay and presentation assessment criteria in the teachers’ CLIL courses Essay criteria


Presentation criteria


Format (e.g., convention) Organisation Language (e.g., grammar) Coherence (e.g., logicality) Cohesion Content Paragraph structure Others (e.g., clarity)

6 5 5 5 4 3 3 3

Content Delivery Organisation Language Teamwork Preparation (e.g., practice) Format Logicality Others (e.g., enthusiasm)

9 8 5 4 3 3 2 2 2

  Current Practice and Challenges of Assessment in CLIL in a Japanese… 


into the assessment. This feature, which is related to the sequencing of ideas in a text, is frequently included in assessment criteria for writing tests in general (Davies et al., 1999). However, in research-based papers and presentations, some teachers attended to features that general performance tests cannot elicit. For example, T1 and T5 evaluated whether resources obtained from research logically support students’ arguments or ideas, focusing on the relevancy of selected reference information or data. In particular, T1 stressed the importance of logicality of ideas in advanced-level CLIL courses more than in EAP courses. T3 also assessed the degree to which students analysed results of research logically and clearly. In the assessment of presentations, in particular, teachers assessed the content focusing on the amount of information, inclusion of required elements, interestingness of ideas, and informativeness of theme. For example, T2 focused on whether the message and content in students’ research presentations on positive psychology was mature and intriguing. T4 and T6, who had their students decide a research topic and give presentations about research findings, also assessed these points and explained that presenting information that the audience already know (e.g., Japanese food or festivals) is not interesting or useful. Thus, it seems that interestingness and informativeness appear to concern the novelty of the research findings, which resonates with the Content and originality component of assessment criteria used by Bae et al. (2016) and Cloud et  al. (2000). However, some teachers raised concerns about assessing the quality of content focusing on interestingness and informativeness. T3 stated that she did not assess the quality of research because the judgements would be too subjective. Similarly, T7 did not examine the quality of data and the content of in-text citations in detail because she was not an expert on the subject that students researched. Furthermore, even though T4 focused on interestingness of the content, he mentioned that saying “your ideas are not good” would demotivate students. These concerns need to be addressed if content quality is included as an assessment criterion for essays and presentations. It is necessary to carefully consider whether language teachers who are not necessarily experts of the subject can judge the degree to which the content is original, intriguing, and informative. Finally, a criterion that may be unique to assessment in CLIL among approaches to language learning was content accuracy or content mastery (see Llinares et al., 2012). This aspect of content was not assessed through research papers and presentations. Only T8 examined this aspect of essays and presentations, in which students described their successes and struggles using SLA concepts (essay) and explained an SLA concept they learned in the course (presentation). T8 intended to examine students’ understanding of SLA,


T. Sato et al.

which is an objective of his CLIL course, through these assessments. Content accuracy was assessed not only in a task requiring students to demonstrate understanding of the content but also in a task in which students needed to apply conceptual knowledge in explaining a new phenomenon. Other teachers examined content mastery using different assessment instruments, such as paper-and-pencil tests (tests in which students read questions and respond to them by writing or selecting the correct answer). To summarise, in their CLIL courses, the majority of the teachers employed essay and presentation tasks that required students to research and demonstrate findings or argue their opinions. Through these tasks, teachers assessed not only language aspects of texts but also higher-order thinking skills including logicality or interestingness of ideas. However, some teachers voiced their concerns about assessing the quality of content, including the quality of research findings, ideas, and information from research, in essays and presentations. Moreover, content accuracy and mastery of the content learnt in the course was seldom assessed through research papers and presentations. Although Study 1 identified a limited range of assessment tasks implemented by the teacher participants in their CLIL courses, it must be noted that a wider range of types of tasks to assess language, content knowledge, and critical thinking does exist, as discussed in the previous section, Assessing Content and Critical Thinking.

 tudy 2: Student Perceptions of Assessment S in CLIL Courses Student Questionnaire In order to understand students’ perceptions of assessment in CLIL courses, we conducted a questionnaire when the courses were over. In total, 248 university first-year  students responded, from 12 CLIL classes taught by eight teachers. The questionnaire survey consisted of two sections, both of which included six statements. The first section asked students about their perceptions regarding assessment methods. Two statements each for three modes of assessment (tests, presentations, and writing) were included to discover the extent to which students perceived having been assessed for content and language skills through those methods. In the second section, the six statements were designed to elicit students’ opinions on assessment. More specifically, to what degree the students believe their performance in terms of academic

  Current Practice and Challenges of Assessment in CLIL in a Japanese… 


content understanding as well as language skills should be evaluated through tests, presentations, and writing. A five-point Likert scale, where 1 indicated “strongly disagree” and 5 “strongly agree” was used to indicate to what extent the participants agreed or disagreed with each of the statements. In addition, each section included an open-ended item where the participants could provide the rationale for their numerical responses and any additional notes about their responses.

 tudent Perceptions Regarding Assessment S on CLIL Courses In terms of how students perceive they have been assessed in the CLIL courses, students largely felt that they had been assessed for both content and language in presentations, writing, and paper-and-pencil tests, although they perceived tests to have been used for assessment slightly less. This may be because paper-­ and-­pencil tests were not mandatory, whereas essays and presentations had to be incorporated into grading. Also, the extent to which students perceived having been assessed for content and language was very similar for presentations and writing, with slightly more perceiving they had been assessed for content than language in both. For tests however, the difference was greater, with 60% overall agreement that they had been assessed for language in tests compared to 71% overall agreement for content (Fig. 1). In this section of the questionnaire inquiring on the assessment methods employed in CLIL, 124 students provided written responses. Among them, 33 mentioned that both language and content were evaluated throughout CLIL: • Both content and grammar were evaluated in every evaluation method. (S108) • Both content and language were included in the criteria for both presentations and essays. (S58) • Tests and presentations evaluated content, and writing evaluated language skills in addition to content. (S68) Comments suggest that the principle of dual assessment in CLIL (e.g., Ball et al., 2015) appears to be have been realised in the CLIL courses at least from students’ perspective. Their written responses also reveal that the students were evaluated through different methods, including tests, presentations, and


T. Sato et al.

Tests were administered to evaluate understanding of content

Tests were administered to evaluate language skills Presentations were used to evaluate understanding of content Presentations were used evaluate language skills


Writing was used to evaluate understanding of content Writing was used to evaluate language skills 0%

20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Strongly disagree


Neither agree nor disagree


Strongly agree Fig. 1  Perceived methods of assessment in CLIL

writing and that the teachers evaluated students’ performance with these methods in terms of both content and language skills. Although 33 students reported that both content and language were assessed using various methods, 13 written responses revealed that some students felt the emphasis in assessment was on content rather than language skills: • Tests, presentations, and essays were all based highly on understanding of the content. (S50) • Content was emphasised more than grammar. (S79) • The main evaluation was the content. (S8) Although strong emphasis on the content in assessment may be appropriate for content-driven CLIL (Ball et al., 2015), it is a concern in language-driven CLIL because these respondents might focus primarily on demonstrating content mastery rather than linguistic elements learnt in the course during assessment. This may influence how students prepare for the assessments

  Current Practice and Challenges of Assessment in CLIL in a Japanese… 


(Sato, 2019); that is, they might make little effort to improve their language skills during preparation against teachers’ intention.

Student Opinions Regarding Assessment in CLIL Courses As can be seen from Fig.  2, overall, students have a preference for being assessed for understanding of content through presentations and writing, for which the results were broadly similar, over tests. For tests, it is notable that there was more strong disagreement and less strong agreement from students that they should be used in comparison to presentations and writing. This suggests that assessment tasks measuring students’ content knowledge proposed by the CLIL literature, including a keyword approach (Lin, 2016), may be perceived less appropriate by students. In contrast, open-ended response tests (see Genesee & Hamayan, 2016) may be regarded as suitable by students to demonstrate their content knowledge. As for how students feel about being assessed for language in CLIL, in a similar way to content, it can be seen in Fig. 3 that students have a clear preference for evaluation being done through presentations or writing rather than paper-and-pencil tests. This result is in line with Gorsuch and Griffee (2018) in that performance-based assessment, which measures the ability to perform

Understanding of content should be evaluated through tests Understanding of content should be evaluated through presentations Understanding of content should be evaluated through writing 0%



Strongly disagree


Neither agree nor disagree



80% 100%

Strongly agree Fig. 2  Students’ opinions on evaluation methods for content in CLIL


T. Sato et al.

Language skills should be evaluated through tests Language skills should be evaluated through presentations Language skills should be evaluated through writing





Strongly disagree


Neither agree nor disagree




Strongly agree Fig. 3  Students’ opinions on evaluation methods for language in CLIL

productive language tasks, is generally preferred by students over standardised tests and teacher-made examinations. As they claim, feedback on performance or multiple drafts for writing assignments may motivate students. When content and language assessment methods are compared, it is evident that slightly more students indicated agreement that they should be assessed for language in CLIL through presentations and writing (e.g., 72.2% overall agreement that language skills should be evaluated through presentations compared to 65% in terms of understanding of content). In contrast, fewer students believe they should be assessed for language skills in tests (50% overall agreement) than for content in tests (53%). In the section of the questionnaire soliciting students’ opinions on evaluation methods in CLIL, 126 students provided written responses regarding their opinions about how their performance in terms of language and content should be assessed in the CLIL course. Among those 126 students, the most common response concerned their preference of presentations and essays to paper-and-pencil tests. These responses taken together show that the students believe that presentations and writing should be employed to assess both the students’ language proficiency and understanding of content: • Presentations and essays are more appropriate than tests to evaluate how well students have understood the course content. (S170)

  Current Practice and Challenges of Assessment in CLIL in a Japanese… 


• Language skills should be evaluated based on the abilities to express the students’ own opinions and ideas about the given topic through essays and presentations. (S120) Some of the responses indicate that the reasons for their preference of presentations and writing over tests are based on the opportunity to put language into use, which they seem to value. • I think it is important to use the language skills through writing and speaking. (S179) • Presentations and essays are more practical and useful in the future than tests. (S182) Students’ perspectives on what assessment methods should be used must not determine teachers’ selection of methods. However, it must be noted that the students’ perception of assessment methods has an impact on their performance on the test. If students perceive that the test does not measure what it intends to measure, they do not try hard to demonstrate the ability measured by the test (Brown & Abeywickrama, 2019). Also, the responses from a further 18 students showed that they believe that various methods should be employed to evaluate their performance on both content and language in the CLIL course: • Both understanding of the content and language skills should be evaluated from different aspects. (S214) • It is the best that students are evaluated in a well-balanced way. (S216) • Tests, presentations, and essays are all important, so we should have all of them. (S233) To summarise, it seems that students recognise a content-based approach in CLIL courses and are generally comfortable with being assessed on those courses for both content and language. Written responses from the students also revealed that they agree that both understanding of the content and language skills should be evaluated using multiple methods including presentations and writing, although there was slight preference towards presentations and writing over tests.


T. Sato et al.

Pedagogical Implications We believe that there are a number of implications that will be reassuring for CLIL teachers in terms of assessment, in particular for those who are language teachers by training. Most of the teachers interviewed were not academic experts in terms of the content element of their courses. Perhaps partly because of this, they largely used research projects culminating in presentations and written work to assess content that the students produced, rather than forms of assessment that focused on content accuracy or mastery. Instead, teachers tended to focus on aspects such as critical thinking, logicality, and interestingness when assessing students’ work. To do this, research projects may be an expedient tool for teachers, especially those who are not content specialists, to assess content in CLIL. Additionally, teachers felt that having students do research and draw conclusions from data was an important aspect of their CLIL courses, and something that made CLIL more challenging than EAP, partly as students were assessed on the degree to which they logically support their own arguments using resources or research data. Since the ability to research independently is deemed an element of CLIL and critical thinking (Coyle et al., 2010; Mehisto & Ting, 2017), this perception does align with its principles of assessment. In this way it may be possible for CLIL practitioners who are not content specialists to implement the principles of assessment, especially regarding critical thinking skills, using research projects and the assessment criteria employed by the teachers presented in this chapter. Also, as has been shown, students recognise that they were being assessed for both language and content, indicating that they were comfortable with being assessed in this dual-focused way on CLIL courses. This may provide some guidance for CLIL teachers when considering the question of what to assess in terms of content, language or both (Ball et al., 2015), in that these students do not appear to have any resistance to being assessed for both. We also saw that students indicated a preference for being assessed through writing and presentations over paper-and-pencil tests. Students can allocate time for working on these tasks outside of class, and the research they do as well as their presentation of their work in productive language tasks can lead to a positive learning experience. As mentioned, it may be motivating for students to receive feedback on performance or drafts of their work. In short, whether teachers are content specialists or not, assessment on language-driven CLIL courses can be done in effective ways that students are satisfied with.

  Current Practice and Challenges of Assessment in CLIL in a Japanese… 


Thirdly, the significance of the impact of the language programme requirements in evaluation should also be considered. As described earlier, the teachers presented in this chapter employed academic essays and presentations as assessment tasks because the programme required them to include these components in the evaluation. The required components play a vital role when teachers decide what tasks to employ in their teaching. With academic essays and presentations being required by the programme, teachers could avoid heavily relying on paper-and-pencil tests to assess students’ performance in both language and content, which offer few options for assessing content, especially in terms of critical thinking skills. Also, as in the case of the programme in this study, if there is flexibility in allowing teachers to decide how they evaluate students’ essays and presentations, teachers have options in how they assess content as non-specialists and can consider student needs. The teachers could successfully incorporate research projects into their assessment tasks to assess content and critical thinking skills (i.e., logicality, interestingness, etc.) as well as language. As programme requirements have great impacts on the teachers’ decisions regarding the assessment tasks, unified components offering reasonable flexibility should be considered. Although much of the above may be reassuring, there are some notes of caution that should be highlighted. While teachers should be aware of students’ preferences for performance tests or task-based assessments, this should not necessarily mean that the use of paper-and-pencil tests to assess content and language should be restricted. They may be useful as part of a larger variety of assessment tasks to be employed to assess content mastery, including factual recall and general understanding (Genesee & Hamayan, 2016; Llinares et al., 2012), as research projects are not always suitable to measure an understanding of the content learnt in class. It is also worth noting that when paper-­ and-­pencil tests are used (e.g., Coyle et al., 2010; Lin, 2016), teachers may need to clearly inform their students of what the tests intend to measure so that students can fully grasp how to prepare for them. A further important consideration that emerged from the studies was that there may be at times a mismatch between teachers’ assessment practice and students’ perceptions. The teachers largely indicated that critical thinking skills was a main focus of assigning research projects which culminated in presentations and writing. Yet, the students seemed to perceive that the focus was content mastery. Critical thinking skills were never mentioned by the students in their comments. A critical thinking focus may need to be made clearer to students, with relevant critical thinking objectives outlined in rubrics. Also, although teachers assessed a variety of linguistic features of students’ performance in writing and presentations, there were some students


T. Sato et al.

who perceived that evaluation was mostly focused on content. The implication here is that teachers should specify what aspects of content (Coyle et al., 2010) are the focal points in these assessment tasks. In addition, it is necessary for teachers to clearly inform their students of assessment criteria (e.g., in the form of rubrics) to raise students’ awareness of what is required to receive a good score. Related to this, as teachers raised concerns about assessing informativeness and interestingness, this again is an aspect that should be clearly defined for the students in terms of their performance. In summary, we suggest that while assessment for content and language can work very well for both teachers and students on language-driven CLIL courses, the question of how content is to be assessed can be interpreted by teachers in many different ways which may lead to a lack of clarity for the students in exactly what they are being assessed for. In addition, as long as the content and language aims are clear to students, essays and presentations seem to be reasonable tasks as required assessment at the programme level. In order to achieve transparency in assessment, we argue that rubrics for assessment tasks such essays and presentations are essential on language-driven CLIL courses.

Suggested Further Reading Solano-Flores, G. (2016). Assessing English language learners: Theory and practice. New York, NY: Routledge. This book contains essential notions for assessing English language learners’ content knowledge. CLIL language teachers can benefit from Chapter 5 (Assessing Content Knowledge) in particular, which discusses the task types that are suitable for assessing different types of knowledge. Cheng, L., & Fox, J. (2017). Assessment in the language classroom. London, UK: Palgrave. This book covers a wide range of important and basic concepts related to classroom language assessment, including why, what, and how we assess. Through this book, CLIL practitioners can learn how to align learning goals and assessment. Brown, J. D. (Ed.). (2012). Developing, using, and analyzing rubrics in language assessment with case studies in Asian and Pacific languages. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i, National Foreign Language Resource Center. This book offers a step-by-step procedure for developing rubrics for assessment of productive language skills. The approach to rubrics development is

  Current Practice and Challenges of Assessment in CLIL in a Japanese… 


applicable to CLIL contexts where language and content are to be assessed through students’ communicative performance.

Engagement Priorities • Some teachers in Study 1 voiced their concerns about assessing the content of students’ presentations focusing on interestingness or originality. Do you think that teachers in your context might share similar concerns? • One of our most important implications is making evaluation criteria for assessing content and language clear to students. In your context, what should be the balance of assessment criteria focusing on content and on language? • One of the important purposes of assessment is to enhance students’ learning by giving feedback on or raising awareness of their weaknesses. How do your students usually respond to your feedback strategies in a CLIL environment? • In this study, performance-based assessments were preferred by the students. On the other hand, receptive skills still need to be assessed in CLIL as content can be learnt through reading and listening. What tasks can be included to assess the students’ receptive skills in CLIL courses?

References Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York, NY: Longman. Bachman, L., & Damböck, B. (2017). Language assessment for classroom teachers. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Bae, J., Bentler, P. M., & Lee, Y.-S. (2016). On the role of content in writing assessment. Language Assessment Quarterly, 13(4), 302–328. Ball, P., Kelly, K., & Clegg, J. (2015). Putting CLIL into practice. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Brown, H. D., & Abeywickrama, P. (2019). Language assessment: Principles and classroom practices (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Pearson. Cloud, N., Genesee, F., & Hamayan, E. (2000). Dual language instruction: A handbook for enriched education. Boston, MA: Heinle. Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.


T. Sato et al.

Dale, L., van der Es, W., & Tanner, R. (2011). CLIL skills. Haarlem, The Netherlands: European Platform. Davies, A., Brown, A., Elder, C., Hill, K., Lumley, T., & McNamara, T. (1999). Dictionary of language testing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Genesee, F., & Hamayan, E. (2016). CLIL in context: Practical guidance for educators. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Gorsuch, G., & Griffee, D. T. (2018). Second language testing for student evaluation and classroom research. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Hönig, I. (2010). Assessment in CLIL: Theoretical and empirical research. Saarbrüken, Germany: VDM Verlag Dr. Müller. Lin, A. M. Y. (2016). Language across the curriculum and CLIL in English as an additional language (EAL) contexts: Theory and practice. Singapore: Springer. Llinares, A., Morton, T., & Whittaker, R. (2012). The roles of language in CLIL. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Massler, U., Stotz, D., & Queisser, C. (2014). Assessment instruments for primary CLIL: The conceptualisation and evaluation of test tasks. The Language Learning Journal, 42(2), 137–150. Mehisto, P., & Ting, T. (2017). CLIL essentials for secondary school teachers. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Sato, T. (2019). An investigation of factors involved in Japanese students’ English learning behavior during test preparation. Papers in Language Testing and Assessment, 8(1), 69–95.

Translanguaging in Science Lessons: Exploring the Language of Science in L2 Low Achievers in a Public School Setting in Colombia Edgar Garzón-Díaz

Introduction This chapter provides an up-to-date perspective on the use of translanguaging in content and language integrated learning (CLIL) in Colombian schools. This chapter brings together insights from researchers and practitioners who have devoted their pedagogic resources to better understand science education in bilingual and multilingual settings. The ideas hereby presented are aimed at inviting educators to examine some assumptions about science learning, science literacy, and language learning. Several authors (e.g., García, 2009; García & Wei, 2014) have helped us understand the pedagogies that support languaging in the classroom. From a sociocultural perspective, languaging can be seen as using language not only as a means of communication but also as part of the system that mediates the formulation of concepts and problem-solving reasoning (Swain & Lapkin, 2013). In this landscape, translanguaging may be understood as communicative practices that involve several linguistic, semiotic, and ideological resources that contest the idea of monoglossic or monomodal perceptions of language (McKinney & Tyler, 2019; Nikula & Moore, 2019).

E. Garzón-Díaz (*) University of Los Andes, Bogotá, Colombia e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 C. Hemmi, D. L. Banegas (eds.), International Perspectives on CLIL, International Perspectives on English Language Teaching,



E. Garzón-Díaz

Translingual practices have the potential to facilitate the learning of both content and language. In addition, they can contribute to (1) enabling content teachers to teach language, and (2) to help learners transition from developing basic interpersonal communicative skills (BICS) to cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP) to explain scientific concepts across the curriculum (Cummins, 1979). Formal education seeks to enable learners to engage with and communicate knowledge through CALP. The idea of translanguaging across languages and disciplines has been evolving throughout my years of experience in Colombia while doing research and teaching Science and English at both public and private institutions. I begin this chapter by discussing the notion of translanguaging in CLIL as well as the current situation of CLIL in Colombia. This is followed by an analysis of how translanguaging pedagogies (teaching approaches that welcome more than one language in the classroom) may support the learning of content and language in science classrooms where some learners might be regarded as English low achievers. Finally, the chapter discusses some misconceptions in the teaching of science in bilingual and multilingual settings and proposes some reflections and potential changes in the traditional notions of science literacy and science teaching.

Why Translanguaging in CLIL? The integration of content and language in bilingual and multilingual classrooms requires CLIL teachers to move away from monolithic perceptions of language and content (e.g., Garzón-Díaz, 2018; Lin & He, 2017; McKinney & Tyler, 2019; Skovholt, 2018; Williams & Tang, 2020). CLIL practitioners may need to become flexible in how they understand not only content and language but also their interactions in the same learning environment. García (2009) reminds us that language should be viewed in CLIL settings as a dynamic set of resources that learners use to make and communicate meaning. The act of taking learners to a translanguaging space where both interlocutors negotiate meanings and forms is key in CLIL contexts where all languages involved coexist synergistically. Translanguaging in the classroom may be evident depending on teachers’ choices while planning lessons. A translanguaging classroom is one in which students are given the opportunity to deploy their complete linguistic resources without being limited to interact in one single dominant language or a single appropriate type of language such as CALP in the classroom and BICS in the playground. Consequently, these classrooms may empower learners to

  Translanguaging in Science Lessons: Exploring the Language… 


eventually become more aware of the important role that language plays when making meaning (e.g., Lin & He, 2017; Lin & Lo, 2017; Ortega, 2019). According to García, Johnson, and Seltzer (2017), the three main components of translanguaging are: (1) stand/beliefs, (2) class design, and (3) shift. Stand or beliefs refers to the ethos we set in our classroom. The framework that we use for defining what language is and for establishing with learners to what extent their voice will be heard throughout the learning process. In translanguaging classrooms, this set of beliefs goes beyond bounded language systems that interact in diverse educational settings. There is no second or foreign language instruction in the traditional sense. Teachers, instead, guide students in the learning of prior linguistic features (e.g., students’ funds of knowledge) and new ones (e.g., technical/academic terminology) simultaneously, without artificial separations. Hence, learners can create, modify, and include this learning into their own repertoires. This heteroglossic and dynamic perspective on students’ linguistic repertoires may also facilitate the transformation of solidified concepts of how learners perceive the world through a unique linguistic repertoire that do not recognise limiting barriers imposed by named languages or labels (e.g., British, German, Latino, native, non-native). Class design is key to the success of translanguaging pedagogies. Translanguaging may occur occasionally in any setting; however, to exploit its potential in the classroom, careful planning is a must. It is necessary for teachers to have clear objectives in terms of both language- and content-learning outcomes. Class design facilitates the integration of CLIL elements in a dynamic and seamless fashion where learners are encouraged to display their full linguistic repertoire regardless of languages or disciplines (e.g., Bravo & Cervetti, 2014; Garzón-Díaz, 2018; Jackson, Huerta, & Garza, 2020; Reed, Jemison, Sidler-Folsom, & Weber, 2019; Wallace & Coffey, 2019). Last, shift refers to the change in how languages are perceived by teachers, practitioners, and researchers who operate in bilingual and multilingual settings. In the past, bilingual classrooms were characterised by the two languages of instruction being sharply differentiated and the L1 was almost perceived as an enemy (García, 2009). García et al. (2017) highlight that translanguaging is not just scaffolding. Not only is it a tool to help newcomers in the classroom, but it also pertains to the transformations in the subjectivity of the bilingual learners even after schooling. From an ideological perspective, translanguaging is linked to dwelling in a border zone where there is an underprivileged language. To promote social justice and democracy of knowledge, it is important to redress the balance between the languages being used and the systems of power and control


E. Garzón-Díaz

established by colonial expansion and nation building. CLIL and translanguaging may promote a more egalitarian society since there is no hierarchy of languages (García & Leiva, 2014; García et  al., 2017). In sum, CLIL and translanguaging may work well in tandem insofar as there are commonly held beliefs, clear objectives, and agreed learning outcomes that promote students’ development of content- and language-learning capacities.

CLIL in Colombia In recent years, Colombia has been gaining a strategic position around the world as a key scenario for the study of bilingualism. Ofelia García, in the prologue to the book Bilingüismo en el contexto colombiano (Bilingualism in the Colombian Context) (de Mejía, López Mendoza, & Peña Dix, 2011), reminds Colombians of their rich linguistic and cultural heritage and has emphasised the fact that bilingualism has always been part of Latin-American history. Additionally, she highlights that with the arrival of European cultures the balance of power has been increasingly associated with “more prestigious” languages, such as Spanish, disregarding the extensive variety of those already existing. The new balance of power in a globalised world has dramatically changed the way bilingualism is perceived in Latin-American countries, where English has rapidly gained the status of an international language. The Colombian government has made a number of determined attempts to incorporate bilingual practices (generally perceived as English-Spanish) in Colombian schools. In response to these top-down initiatives, schools have tried to find the methods that best suit their particular populations and needs. One of the approaches adopted by many schools has been CLIL. However, the institutions that have implemented CLIL for a decade or more are mostly private institutions, whereas state schools have just started some piloting attempts (Garzón-Díaz, 2018). These attempts have been politically bound to local and national educational policies; therefore, they keep changing and adapting to different scenarios. Both private and state schools have mostly given preference to the area of science for their CLIL practices. This is probably due to the fact that the learning of science apart from involving new concepts, explanations, and arguments, also involves new ways of perceiving, analysing, and communicating (Vollmer, 2010). Furthermore, the teaching of science has developed particular types of discourse (such as reporting findings, engaging in evidence-based arguments, communicating laboratory protocols, and so on) that are suitable for specific purposes, thus favouring the use of CLIL.

  Translanguaging in Science Lessons: Exploring the Language… 


Central to the consideration and understanding of CLIL in Colombia and around the world is the juxtaposition of theory and empirical research. McDougald (2015) states that there is still great uncertainty as to the current state of the art of CLIL in Colombia, as well as to what teachers, stakeholders, and practitioners understand as CLIL.  Nevertheless, recent studies suggest that regardless of our support of prevailing views on CLIL or our advocacy of new ideas, the integration of content and language has triggered new perceptions on how education might evolve towards more holistic pedagogies that give room to context-oriented practices (Banegas, Corrales, & Poole, 2020; Garzón-Díaz, 2019). Despite the gap between theory and practice, not only in Colombia but also around the world, some studies have reported successful bilingual initiatives and not necessarily in bilingual contexts. For instance, in their book, de Mejía et al. (2011) report successful practices implemented by teachers in an attempt to strengthen the use of English in a non-bilingual school. Studies conducted at Universidad Tecnológica de Pereira within The Change Project have reported CLIL implementations that have taken advantage of translanguaging to apply a heteroglossic dynamic model of bilingualism (e.g., Burbano, Machado, & Pérez, 2016; Jaramillo, Ospina, & Reinoso, 2016; Henao & Ocampo, 2014). A study conducted by Ortega (2019) also highlights translanguaging practices aimed at fostering plurilingualism and social justice, ideas that tend to be inextricably interconnected in a plethora of educational settings. Teachers in Colombia have also reported that through the integration of CLIL and active learning pedagogies such as Project-Based Learning (PBL), students have improved their motivation and commitment to goal-oriented tasks. From my experience as a researcher and practitioner, I have observed that the integration of CLIL and PBL may ignite both students’ and teachers’ thinking. Through action research studies that have involved both content and language teachers, we have found that conducting projects in CLIL settings fosters students’ development of research skills, problem-solving competences, cooperative work and autonomy. Learners seem also to benefit from active learning pedagogies in terms of linguistic and cultural aspects of science by broadening the cultural filter in science lessons through the lens of scientific citizenship (Garzón-Díaz, 2018, 2019; Genesee & Hamayan, 2016).


E. Garzón-Díaz

Translanguaging in Science Lessons The emerging understanding of how languaging affects learners’ thinking has encouraged CLIL researchers and practitioners to explore at state schools in Colombia how the integration of content and language may shape learners’ views of the natural world. Throughout this decade, a group of teacher-­ researchers have been working with learners who have been mostly classified as lower achievers in English. Students who have been ranked as A1 or A2 according to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR), a level of English that is below B1 which is the benchmark set by the Ministry of Education in Colombia. Nevertheless, despite this classification, these students have displayed enormous potential to do science and to communicate their thinking effectively in different contexts. Working with this population has brought about some challenges but also a myriad of opportunities to study how these learners build scientific competencies while learning through Spanish and English. In the aforementioned setting, CLIL has played a key role in understanding how language and content interact in the same learning environment. As Coyle (2008) suggests, CLIL promotes the understanding of elements that interact in any learning environment such as content, cognition, communication, and culture. The idea of making science learners aware of the importance of language to construct and communicate knowledge has been a trigger to apply active learning pedagogies such as PBL framed by CLIL and supported through translanguaging. Inspired by translanguaging studies, teachers have encouraged learners to use their entire linguistic repertoire to do science through projects that require observing, collecting, analysing, and reporting data. Students have realised that the most recent discoveries in science are usually reported in English, an observation that has motivated them to use this language in different contexts. The following excerpt (Garzón-Díaz, 2018)  shows a sample of teachers’ views on the implementation of projects to learn Science and English in bilingual settings. In these settings, the main goal is the development of scientific thinking, scientific literacy, and scientific citizenship. There are no strict rules for using language other than encouraging learners to use both Spanish and English. For example, a teacher recorded in his diary something a student told him: I looked for information about the project online and it was very interesting because I looked for the information first in Spanish and then in English and the information was totally different. Thank you for making us learn things in two languages. (Teacher’s journal)

  Translanguaging in Science Lessons: Exploring the Language… 


The teacher who wrote this comment highlighted the fact that students understood how important it is to compare and contrast data while doing research and that this information may be distinctly different depending on languages and sources. By motivating students to do research, teachers guided them through self-­ discovery, and purposefully created an external need to use the target language despite students reporting lack of interest in using it, even in their English lessons. The following extract (Garzón-Díaz, 2018) was taken from an interview where students reported learning English more easily in Science lessons than in English lessons: I am not good in English, but for me it was easier to learn English in Science than in the English class. When you like topics you learn better. For instance, it was interesting to learn about the ozone layer, there were easy words that you can remember. (Student’s interview)

When sharing findings, students could select either Spanish or English. Most of them felt more comfortable using their L1 despite instructors encouraging them to use English. However, when writing reports, students were encouraged to use both languages again. At this point, some learners reported feeling empowered to use technical language since they realised how similar science vocabulary was in Spanish and English due to common Greek and Latin roots. Some students even present their project findings using a sort of interlanguage that we colloquially call Spanglish a mixture of Spanish and English. Moreover, they started to mix social and academic registers or what we may call BICS and CALP (Cummins, 1979, 1980/2001); colloquial and scientific language (Lemke, 1990); or mundane and scientific talk (Skovholt, 2018) to convey meaning depending on the audience. When they engaged in input, students felt that technical or specialised terminology in science was more easily digested than everyday terminology. Words such as turbidity, eutrophication, ecological niche, carbohydrates, and resilience, among others seemed to facilitate the understanding of not only the concept itself, but also, the similarities between English and Spanish. On the other hand, words such as weather and climate pose some difficulties since they tend to have the same translation into Spanish clima but their applications in science are explicitly different. In addition, the fact that learners were exposed to this terminology in an active learning environment (through doing projects) helped them construct knowledge in a more flexible fashion. Students seemed to be better equipped to understand that some words may have different meanings regardless of the language/register being used (either


E. Garzón-Díaz

English or Spanish, academic or social). At this point in time, learners and tutors agreed that what really matters for communicating effectively is the choices that individuals make from their entire linguistic repertoire depending on contexts and purposes. In general, when students do projects, they are encouraged to act as scientists carrying out systematic processes of observing, collecting data, and analysing findings in order to draw evidence-based conclusions. I believe that by doing so, learners are encouraged to transfer skills across disciplines, regardless of the language used, fostering cognitive development, content learning, and social development. The next pages show some samples from a project conducted by learners who used their entire linguistic repertoires to language their thinking.

Heating the Meaning of Global Warming The following is a sample of a project on climate change and global warming. The aim of the project was to enable learners to define key concepts and describe an issue in particular. Students were encouraged to set up a climatological station at home where they collected data on weather patterns such as temperature, humidity, cloudiness, and wind direction. With these data and also secondary data, students deepened their understanding of weather in Bogota. They formulated their own definition of global warming and its effects on the planet. Students also watched videos and critically analysed the two points of view defended by scientists and media. Finally, they created videos to share their definitions of global warming, its causes, and suggestions for mitigating this global issue. Table  1 shows the planning sheet for this project. When students finished their projects, videos were used to display their definitions of global warming. These videos provided evidence of the use of Spanish and English in their research. The following are some samples analysed. In the first product, PowToon was used as a tool to present findings. Students created avatars with their faces and wrote in Spanish the reasons they considered led to global warming. They claimed that in the Cretaceous period, particles accumulated in the atmosphere and so global warming started. We found no definition of global warming in this product but there was an attempt to establish its origins. In Fig.  1, the students provided the factors that contributed to global warming, including human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels. It is

  Translanguaging in Science Lessons: Exploring the Language… 


Table 1   Project planning sheet PROJECT Heating the Meaning of Global Warming Learning outcomes On completion of this project, students will be able to define the term “Global Warming” and recognise the factors that may contribute to this environmental issue. On completion of this project, students will be able to use English and Spanish to articulate their understanding of “Global Warming”. Weather vs climate, describe weather patterns, identify Content and Language instruments to measure weather and climate, revise (Language of learning, basic concepts (biotic, abiotic, resilience, sustainability, Language for learning, ozone layer, world biomes), analyse environmental Language through policies and the role of governmental organisations, learning) become aware of global environmental change. Engagement What is the difference between weather and climate? Watch videos related to the topic. Listen to foreigners talking about their countries. Set their project problem. Exploration Set a climatological station at home and collect data regarding weather patterns (air pressure, temperature, wind direction, pluviosity). Watch videos about global warming and global environmental change. Explanation Explain the difference between weather and climate, biotic and abiotic, world biomes, and the opposed positions held by scientists and politicians regarding global warming. Elaboration Analyse the data collected and what has been learnt from the research process to define the term global warming, its causes, and potential solutions. Make videos to language your thoughts on this topic. Evaluation Self-evaluation and co-evaluation using the rubric devised for this project.

interesting to see how students realised that the scientific community consider global warming a serious issue that needs to be tackled. Figure 2 shows how students harnessed emerging concepts to issues such as global warming and the greenhouse effect. Science learners are usually expected to make connections between different phenomena. The fact that learners attempted to establish connections to solve environmental issues might be evidence that scientific thinking was taking place regardless of the languages used during the projects. Figure 3 displays the students’ need to exercise their scientific citizenship with a call for action. At this point, learners seemed to become aware of the problems that global warming may pose for future generations and suggested potential scenarios connected to this environmental issue as well as the need to keep working cooperatively.


E. Garzón-Díaz

Fig. 1  Causes of global warming

Fig. 2  Global warming and the greenhouse effect

Figure 4 shows a reflection written by students in English. They again warned viewers against the potential threats posed by global warming but did not propose any solution to mitigate this issue. As Fig. 4 shows, there is an overuse of the determiner the (a problem that many Spanish speakers display), but this mistake does not affect meaning. The message is clearly conveyed, and students used vocabulary learnt in their research projects, such as soil, nutrients, diseases, poles melting, loss of fauna, and of course global warming. These terms are generally considered appropriate in scientific discourse. The fact that learners incorporated in their linguistic repertoire terminology which can be categorised as ­ CALP/scientific/ technical may reinforce the idea of translanguaging as a successful pedagogy in science lessons. It is fair to highlight that English and Spanish share Latin

  Translanguaging in Science Lessons: Exploring the Language… 


Fig. 3  Calling for action

Fig. 4  Students’ reflections

and Greek roots, which to the best of my knowledge, facilitates the development of scientific literacy due to commonalities between L1 and L2 specialised terminology. Figures 5 and 6 show students’ definition of global warming and the factors that they believed contribute to this environmental issue. Students decided to use Spanish to explain what global warming is and the factors that may contribute to it; they then used English to justify why they thought this is a real issue and why we should help mitigate this problem. The language used for the project output was negotiated between teachers and students, who decided


E. Garzón-Díaz

Fig. 5  Definition of global warming

Fig. 6  Factors influencing global warming

to use linguistic features that allowed learners communicate meaning at ease but at the same time reach a wider audience. This choice of languages was the result of students feeling more confident in using Spanish for explaining what they considered key points in their video. Then, they felt confident enough to use English to show evidence of the use of the target language, and by doing so, potentially reach a wider audience. It is interesting that students defined global warming (Fig. 5) in a straightforward manner and then, later in the video (Fig. 6) explained the three factors that they found were closely related to this issue. These factors were grouped into global environmental changes naturally experienced by the planet, global environmental changes due to anthropogenic influences, and the greenhouse effect.

  Translanguaging in Science Lessons: Exploring the Language… 


In the last part of the video, students recorded the following monologue: The issue of global warming is real! Since the past two yeurn [not clear] the natural cycles of the earth have had a rapid change and have thousands of iur decades [not clear] causing damage catastrophic and irreversible for the earth, this due to the lack of awareness that respect of the man towards nature. Other factors that affect the cycles are the creation of industries and technologies that withdraw materials toxic to the environment by not giving them a management suitable to these materials and collaborating with this deterioration of the planet. The world is in your hands.

The monologue was accompanied by visual aids (e.g., Fig. 7) to help watchers connect what they were saying in English with the images displayed on the video. From the beginning, students highlighted their position regarding global warming. They also attempted to use an academic style with sophisticated structures such as the present perfect (the earth have had), linking words (due to the lack of awareness), and gerunds (causing damage). They still struggled with the pronunciation of some words that were unintelligible and the order of adjectives in statements. It should be noted that the order of adjectives is different in Spanish and English. Overall, students achieved the learning goal set for this project. Mostly, they defined the term global warming using visual aids and their own reflections after searching for information and listening to videos that displayed opposed views on the topic. There was evidence of the use of both Spanish and English as vehicles for communication. Students displayed some of the

Fig. 7  Visual aid supporting monologue


E. Garzón-Díaz

words they were expected to learn, such as climate, weather, the ozone layer, global warming and showed some command of basic structures such as affirmative sentences, gerunds, and linking words. As I see it, it is fundamental to create opportunities where students are exposed to the target language and can use their mother tongue to facilitate the learning of an additional language. When students use different languages to articulate their thinking, they start becoming aware of how important language is in their learning process. These projects were co-constructed with students, taking into account their interests and school curricula. Students felt engaged from the beginning of their projects and through the time became used to setting goals and following procedures as scientists do. As mentioned previously, translanguaging might become salient in the classroom, as long as there is clear planning and all languages are deemed important while building and communicating meaning. I strongly believe that CLIL practices might benefit when researchers and practitioners do not underestimate learners’ capacity to learn while using their whole linguistic repertoire. In this project, students combined not only Spanish and English but also social and academic registers to construct knowledge and language their thinking. Despite the external label given of L2 low achievers, these learners have demonstrated that their L1 played a key role to foster the development and improvement of their L2 not only in terms of language production but also in terms of register and choice.

Translanguaging in the Language of Science Scientific practices are multifaceted and require learners to suggest hypotheses and explanations that allow them to participate in scientific argumentation and investigations. To conduct research, students need to engage in scientific practices that help them develop scientific literacy by doing what scientists do. However, to understand what scientists do, it is important to analyse carefully the initial and emerging language that scientists use to conduct experiments and communicate their findings. The language of science presupposes specialised forms of discourse that are more restrictive and often different from everyday usage. When learners are exposed to this complex language, they may struggle to understand complex and abstract nouns that usually require higher levels of conceptualisation. For instance nominalisation, which is a distinct trait in science discourse, is usually found in science texts and articles. Disciplinary language may pose extra challenges for learners who have to differentiate words with technical and

  Translanguaging in Science Lessons: Exploring the Language… 


non-technical meanings, such as power, theory, volume, eccentricity, and so on. Overall, the language of science is shaped by special linguistic patterns that are key for argumentation and communication about scientific ideas defined by the discipline. In Colombia, CLIL researchers and practitioners (Anderson, 2011) tend to use the concepts of BICS and CALP (Cummins, 1979, 1980/2001), to differentiate language instruction in the classroom and in other social contexts such as home or the playground. Other academics remind us of the need to include the development of BICS and CALP in bilingual political endeavours (Bonilla Carvajal & Tejada-Sánchez, 2016). It is true to say that BICS and CALP have played a key role in our understanding of language proficiency and that these concepts have been evolving from their origins to encompass cognitive and contextual factors. Nevertheless, it seems that in some bilingual settings, we have overgeneralised these concepts, and CLIL teachers whose job is to foster academic language proficiency in the disciplines tend to artificially separate what students may internally perceive as a unitary language repertoire. Based on translanguaging principles, I would say that BICS and CALP belong to the same unitary linguistic repertoire that learners build through experience and therefore are dependent not only on contexts but also on speakers’ choices. I also believe that translanguaging pedagogies may readdress the way we validate all types of language that might occur and interact in the classroom. Culturally diverse contexts may limit academic and social success on account of privileged or deprived learning environments. In these contexts, allowing students to use their entire linguistic repertoire to make intelligent choices for communicating their thinking should be an overriding priority for both content and language educators. If learners are used to social cognitively undemanding language (the one they might encounter outside school boundaries), they would have to translate this language into a more complex code in order to succeed through schooling and to gain access to scientific communities. In this rather bleak scenario, one may claim that the language learners may potentially use to articulate their thinking is virtually the same regardless of the social or academic tag we have externally placed on their linguistic repertoire. Through translanguaging pedagogies, we may have the opportunity to surpass unnatural boundaries and take advantage of students’ funds of knowledge to enrich the learning of both content and language. In the Colombian context, educators may wish to think beyond BICS and CALP and help students learn content and language in a more holistic fashion. In the project described above we observed how L2 low achievers were able to display academic register and grammar to communicate their


E. Garzón-Díaz

thinking. Translanguaging, then, seems to be a useful tool to give value not only to so-called languages such as Spanish, English, Palenque/Creole, Romani and about 100 indigenous linguistic codes officially recognised by Colombian constitution, but also to social and academic variations of language that may be exploited to do science and communicate its products to both lay and specialised audiences. Current educational policies on bilingual practices in Colombia have inclined towards narrowed perceptions of what bilingualism is and have framed it mostly through English and Spanish. Learners are expected to understand the correct use of words and grammatical forms, to achieve a B1 level of English at the end of secondary education. In line with these policies, teachers may need to bear in mind that they are co-learners who use their students’ existing resources and leverage them to make meaning. Grounded in translanguaging principles, educators are invited to design learning environments where students are able to perform in L1 and L2 with some flexibility to shift between languages and registers at times in a strategic fashion. Translanguaging may support not only students’ learning but also tutors’ learning through dynamic linguistic and cultural interactions. These exchanges have the potential to broaden teacher’s understanding of phenomena and to be more empathetic towards students’ views of the world. In Colombia, teachers who use English as Medium of Instruction (EMI) tend to eradicate the presence of L1 in their classrooms. As I see it, EMI teachers should consider the fact that learners come to their classrooms with funds of knowledge that should not be ignored and that it might be inconsistent to expect that learners will appropriate the new language without making reference to what they have already learnt in L1. In bilingual programmes, tutors may wish to avoid the complete isolation of both languages (Lewis, Jones, & Baker, 2012) because, as García and Lin (2016) emphasise, learners are bilingual individuals not two monolinguals hidden behind one identity; therefore, it is advisable to build language bridges to support students’ learning. Tutors may adapt their languaging or language use to suit what learners bring to the class. It is recommendable to plan meticulously, not only in terms of language- and content-expected learning outcomes but also in terms of input adaptations that facilitate translanguaging in the classroom. One of the issues I have faced in my experience was that those students who did not perform well in English (for instance, reading and reporting scientific texts) had the same issues in Spanish. This finding resonates with those found in Anderson (2011) on the development of CALP in Latin American CLIL settings. He found that the participants in his study reported significant

  Translanguaging in Science Lessons: Exploring the Language… 


difficulties in the development of L2 CALP associated to underdeveloped L1 CALP. In the project described above, students who did well in science were those who had developed stronger literacy skills in L1 and L2, which empowered them to build their entire linguistic repertoires. This was evident when students presented their research findings to visitors who came from different contexts and cultures. The students who had developed literacy skills in L1 and L2 exhibited greater confidence to display all their linguistic tools to communicate with their audience effectively. Bilingual practices should not be framed as a dichotomy where two languages are learnt independently. Conversely, there is a bilingual continuum that changes according to the skill that has been developed. What we may call a more formal use of English or of Spanish, refers simply to the codes that are recognised in an academic learning community. The proposed learning progression accepted for decades might be incomplete or speculative if learners are not considered holistically, without artificial snapshots of students’ competencies at a certain time. Students learn science by actively engaging in scientific practices. For that reason, their whole linguistic repertoire is key to articulate their thinking and understanding of the natural world.

Concluding Remarks In this chapter, I have provided an overview of how translanguaging pedagogies may support science learning in CLIL classrooms. Students bring with themselves a plethora of knowledge that is shaped throughout schooling or what we call formal education. This knowledge is then enriched with input through exposure to languages, genres, modes, and cultures characteristic of different disciplines. L2 lower achievers may benefit hugely from the integration of their L1 in the learning of L2, particularly in science lessons where Spanish and English are used to construct and communicate meaning. I believe that BICS and CALP are terms that we have to some extent overused to classify language that is relevant in particular contexts. What learners might use is simply a unique language repertoire that is developed through experience and that learners store, encode and retrieve depending on their interests and choices. The idea of translanguaging across disciplines and in CLIL is rooted on the premise that learners have a language repertoire that is enriched by their experiences, either formal or informal. Consequently, the use of more elaborate language or not is their choice. Our role as language facilitators is to expose students to as many opportunities of learning as


E. Garzón-Díaz

possible, placing emphasis on the importance of making language choices regarding contexts and purposes. The switch between academic language and colloquial language in bilingual settings is a decision speakers make when communicating thoughts and ideas according to audiences and purpose. Having laid out the mainstay of how languaging may influence the way we do science in CLIL, it is my hope that content and language teachers feel encouraged to design bilingual learning environments where decisions regarding language are systematically made. Teachers are also encouraged to switch from technical academic language to less sophisticated versions of language that may facilitate students’ understanding of phenomena. The decision of translanguaging across disciplines might depend on classroom dynamics and both content- and language-­ learning outcomes. Finally, CLIL science classrooms are encouraged to shift from a deficit model, where students are expected to acquire the language of science and learn by heart, to a dialogic model of science, where learners construct science through understanding how concepts have been refined and how myths have been debunked through experimentation. Integrating content and language through translanguaging pedagogies and inquiry-based science offers learners opportunities to explain phenomena while languaging their thinking. It is my hope that these learners will challenge well-established ideas to innovate and propose new ways to see the natural world and eventually help us, as human beings, evolve and develop collectively in more sustainable ways.

Suggested Further Reading Fang, Z., Lamme, L. L., & Pringle, R. M. (2010). Language and literacy in inquiry-based science. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. This book supports CLIL teachers with key aspects of science literacy and practical hands-on material to scaffold both science and English learning. National Research Council (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in Grades K-8. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. This volume makes a significant contribution to science education by challenging from a pedagogical perspective the way educators perceive language and content in science lessons. Peña Dix, B., Tejada Sánchez, I., & Truscott de Mejía, A. M. (Eds.). (2019). Interculturalidad y formación de profesores: Perspectivas pedagógicas y multilingües. Bogotá, Colombia: Ediciones Uniandes.

  Translanguaging in Science Lessons: Exploring the Language… 


A book that has been written in four languages (Spanish, English, French, and Portuguese) and displays research conducted in Colombian and French universities by language experts in multilingual contexts. I recommend it highly for pre-service teacher education programmes.

Engagement Priorities • BICS and CALP should be carefully analysed in educational contexts. Are these terms part of the unique linguistic repertoire students possess? Should BICS and CALP permeate students’ entire linguistic repertoire in any discipline/context? • Translanguaging seems to be an innovative approach to foster proficiency in two or more languages. Why do some educational institutions remain reluctant to the idea of integrating more than one language in the classroom? • Content teachers may need to become more aware of the role that language has in their classrooms. How can content teachers be supported to contribute to the development of literacies and language proficiency? • Cutting-edge research has debunked well-established myths in bilingual education. What other transformations may take place in bilingual classrooms through CLIL and translanguaging?

References Anderson, C. E. (2011). CLIL for CALP in the multilingual, pluricultural, globalized knowledge society: Experiences and backgrounds to L2 English usage among Latin American L1 Spanish- users. Latin American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning, 4(2), 51–66. Banegas, D. L., Corrales, K., & Poole, P. (2020). Can engaging L2 teachers as material designers contribute to their professional development? Findings from Colombia. System, 91, 102265. Bonilla Carvajal, C.  A., & Tejada-Sánchez, I. (2016). Unanswered questions in Colombia’s language education policy. PROFILE Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development, 18(1), 185–201. Bravo, M.  A., & Cervetti, G.  N. (2014). Attending to the language and literacy needs of English learners in science. Equity & Excellence in Education, 47(2), 230–245. Burbano, P.  A., Machado, L.  M., & Pérez, V.  M. (2016). Assessment of a bilingual program based on content and language integrated learning in a state


E. Garzón-Díaz

school of Pereira. Universidad Tecnológica de Pereira. Available at: https:// pdf?_ga=2.262319180.1721659583.1583196891-­418901298.1583196891 Coyle, D. (2008). CLIL—A pedagogical approach from the European perspective. In Encyclopedia of language and education (pp.  1200–1214). Cham, Switzerland: Springer. Cummins, J. (1979). Cognitive/academic language proficiency, linguistic interdependence, the optimum age question and some other matters. Working Papers on Bilingualism, 19, 121–129. Cummins, J. (1980/2001). The entry and exit fallacy in bilingual education. In C. Baker & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), An introductory reader to the writings of Jim Cummins (pp. 110–138). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. De Mejía, A. M., López Mendoza, A., & Peña Dix, B. (2011). Bilingüismo en el contexto colombiano: Iniciativas y perspectivas en el siglo XXI. Bogotá, Colombia: Ediciones Uniandes. García, O. (2009). Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global perspective. Malden, MA/Oxford, UK: Basil/Blackwell. García, O., Johnson, S., & Seltzer, K. (2017). The translanguaging classroom. Leveraging student bilingualism for learning. Philadelphia: Caslon. García, O., & Leiva, C. (2014). Theorizing and enacting translanguaging for social justice. In A. Blackledge & A. Creese (Eds.), Heteroglossia as practice and pedagogy (pp. 199–216). New York: Springer. García, O., & Lin, A. (2016). Translanguaging in bilingual education. In O. García & A. Lin (Eds.), Bilingual and multilingual education (pp. 1–14). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. García, O., & Wei, L. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism and education. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Garzón-Díaz, E. (2018). From cultural awareness to scientific citizenship: Implementing content and language integrated learning projects to connect environmental science and English in a state school in Colombia. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 24. 0.2018.1456512 Garzón-Díaz, E. (2019). How to understand the cultural component of CLIL in science classrooms: Scientific citizenship a key factor to be considered in the professional development of science teachers who operate in bilingual settings. In B.  Peña Dix, M.  I. Tejada Sánchez, & A.  M. Truscott de Mejía (Eds.), Interculturalidad y formación de profesores: Perspectivas pedagógicas y multilingües (pp. 211–230). Bogotá, Colombia: Ediciones Uniandes. Genesee, F., & Hamayan, E. (2016). CLIL in context: Practical guidance for educators. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Henao, T. M., & Ocampo, Y. R. (2014). Content and language integrated learning as dynamic bilingual education in two state schools. Universidad Tecnológica de

  Translanguaging in Science Lessons: Exploring the Language… 


Pereira. Available at: 0b299ca27ea3e25369f.pdf?_ga=2.38899683.1721659583.1583196891-­4189 01298.1583196891 Jackson, J.  K., Huerta, M., & Garza, T. (2020). A promising science and literacy instructional model with Hispanic fifth grade students. The Journal of Educational Research. Jaramillo, S.  G., Ospina, D., & Reinoso, P.  E. (2016). Analysis of a dynamic bilingual education model based on CLIL and translanguaging in state school. Universidad Tecnológica de Pereira. Available at: https://pdfs. pdf?_ga=2.266461262.1721659583.1583196891-­418901298.1583196891 Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, MA: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Lewis, G., Jones, B., & Baker, C. (2012). Translanguaging: Developing its conceptualisation and contextualisation. Educational Research and Evaluation, 18(7), 655–670. Lin, A. M. Y., & He, P. (2017). Translanguaging as dynamic activity flows in CLIL classrooms. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 16(4), 228–244. Lin, A. M. Y., & Lo, Y. Y. (2017). Translanguaging and the triadic dialogue in content and language integrated learning (CLIL) classrooms. Language and Education, 31(1), 26–45. McDougald, J. (2015). Teachers’ attitudes, perceptions and experiences in CLIL: A look at content and language. Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal, 17(1), 25–41. McKinney, C., & Tyler, R. (2019). Disinventing and reconstituting language for learning in school science. Language and Education, 33(2), 141–158. Nikula, T., & Moore, P. (2019). Exploring translanguaging in CLIL. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 22(2), 237–249. Ortega, Y. (2019). ‘Teacher, ¿puedo hablar en español?’ A reflection on plurilingualism and translanguaging practices in EFL. Profile: Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development, 21(2), 155–170. Reed, D. K., Jemison, E., Sidler-Folsom, J., & Weber, A. (2019). Electronic graphic organizers for learning science vocabulary and concepts: The effects of online synchronous discussion. The Journal of Experimental Education, 87(4), 552–574. Skovholt, K. (2018). Establishing scientific discourse in classroom interaction teacher students’ orientation to mundane versus technical talk in the school subject Norwegian. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 62(2), 229–244. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2013). A Vygotskian sociocultural perspective on immersion education: The L1/L2 debate. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 1(1), 101–129. Vollmer, H. (2010). Lingua(e) delle altre discipline. Italiano LinguaDue, 2(1), 271–283.


E. Garzón-Díaz

Wallace, C. S., & Coffey, D. J. (2019). Investigating elementary Preservice teachers’ designs for integrated science/literacy instruction highlighting similar cognitive processes. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 30(5), 507–527. Williams, M., & Tang, K. S. (2020). The implications of the non-linguistic modes of meaning for language learners in science: A review. International Journal of Science Education.

The Role of the Essential Question in Eliciting Critical Thinking in CLIL Classes at a Japanese University Hiroko Aikawa, Emi Fukasawa, and Chantal Hemmi

Introduction This chapter examines how teachers and students use interaction to facilitate the content knowledge, language and cognitive development in CLIL classrooms in a Japanese university context. The findings of our study showed that the essential questions (McTighe & Wiggins, 2013) set to frame the overarching quest for knowledge over a series of lessons played an invaluable role in eliciting student thinking with small utterances such as “And?” and “So?” in teacher talk. With the spread of content- and language-integrated learning (CLIL), particularly in Europe, various types of research studies on CLIL have been conducted (Pérez-Cañado, 2012). Among them, classroom discourse analysis plays an important role to understand what is actually happening in CLIL classrooms, and in Europe, there is extensive research in classroom interactions in order to illustrate a variety of discourse organisation and features in CLIL (e.g., Nikula, Dalton-Puffer, & Llinares, 2013). In recent years, CLIL has been implemented in some institutions in Asia including Japan (e.g., Tsuchiya & Pérez Murillo, 2019).

H. Aikawa (*) • E. Fukasawa Sophia University, Tokyo, Japan C. Hemmi Center for Language Education and Research, Sophia University, Tokyo, Japan © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 C. Hemmi, D. L. Banegas (eds.), International Perspectives on CLIL, International Perspectives on English Language Teaching,



H. Aikawa et al.

At tertiary level, the Japanese government has urged universities to improve their English-as-a-foreign-language (EFL) programmes and promote English-­ medium instruction (EMI) lectures for the internationalisation of higher education in Japan (Tsuchiya & Pérez Murillo, 2015). Furthermore, responding to the criticism on a traditional English education and a conventional lecture-­ style teaching approach, many educators have sought new educational approaches, and a few universities have introduced CLIL in their English programmes to encourage students to use English in facilitating and developing their English skills as well as critical thinking skills (e.g., Tsuchiya & Pérez Murillo, 2019). Although there is some research on CLIL implementations at different educational levels (e.g., Fukasawa, Aikawa, Yokoyama, & Hemmi, 2019; Sasajima, 2012), studies on CLIL classroom discourse in Japan (e.g., Tsuchiya, 2016, 2017) are still scant. In this chapter we examine two types of classroom interaction, teacher–student(s) and student–student, and discuss the lessons learnt about the role of questions.

Classroom Interaction Previous research shows that the most frequent and dominant interaction pattern in classroom discourse is the IRF (Initiation-Response-Feedback) pattern, where a teacher asks a question, students respond and the teacher gives feedback (Sinclair & Coulthard, 1975; Walsh & Li, 2020). However, this teacher-initiated IRF pattern has been criticised (e.g., van Lier, 1996) because it may tightly control classroom interactions, not providing students with ample opportunities to express their ideas. In CLIL contexts, Nikula’s (2007) comparative study on IRF in EFL and CLIL classrooms found that although the IRF pattern was frequently used, IRF sequences in CLIL lessons seemed to be less rigidly structured, and the non-evaluative, discursive feedback was often followed by another student’s move (IRF-R). As Nassaji and Wells (2000) have argued, if the teacher avoids making a judgement and instead requests students to explain and justify their viewpoints in the feedback slot, which is “expanding feedback” (Llinares, Morton, & Whittaker, 2012, p. 81), students are encouraged to make contributions to co-construct the understanding of an issue from different perspectives. Thus, the choice of follow-up questions for student responses is essential in creating opportunities for deeper learning (Llinares & Pascual Peña, 2015; Pascual Peña & Basse, 2017).

  The Role of the Essential Question in Eliciting Critical Thinking… 


Types of Questions in Classrooms Teachers’ questions have various functions and play an important role in scaffolding students’ learning (Brown, 2007; McCormick & Donato, 2000; Walsh, 2011). Extensive research has been conducted on how teachers use questions in classrooms and identified different types of questions and their features (Llinares & Pascual Peña, 2015). Amongst these, one of the most frequently used typologies is the well-known display and referential questions (Mehan, 1979). Display questions are those whose answers are known by the questioners (e.g., What is the capital city of Japan?) while referential questions are asked to seek for unknown information and opinions by the questioners (e.g., What do you think of Japanese culture?). Previous studies have found that display questions are asked more frequently in classrooms; students’ responses to these questions tend to be limited (e.g., one-word comments), the interaction being a “one-way flow of information from teachers to students” (Brock, 1986, p. 49). In contrast, since referential questions are authentic in that the questioner is genuinely seeking for an answer created by the students, they tend to elicit long and complex answers from students (e.g., Long & Sato, 1983). However, as Dalton-Puffer (2007) and Llinares et al. (2012) have argued, display questions are still useful in activating students’ prior knowledge and “aim at putting a topic or a knowledge item center stage, thus making it available for collective access and reference” (Dalton-Puffer, 2007, p.  95). This suggests that there is a need to examine how these questions are framed in the whole lesson because the selection of the series of questions can illustrate how a teacher intends to proceed with the class activities toward the lesson goal. Another influential typology, particularly used in CLIL classroom discourse analysis, is the “classroom questions according to goal” (Dalton-Puffer, 2007, p. 98). This classification applies a cognitive approach based on types of information asked for and consists of five categories (Dalton-Puffer, 2007; Llinares & Pascual Peña, 2015): 1. Questions for facts: to ask for existing factual knowledge (e.g., Where is Syria?) 2. Questions for explanation: to ask for how something has happened and/or encourage students to elaborate it (e.g., What’s the difference between a refugee and a migrant?) 3. Questions for reasons: to ask for why something has happened (e.g., Why are so many people migrating to Europe?)


H. Aikawa et al.

4. Questions for opinion: to ask for what students think of something in question (e.g., What do you think of the Europe crisis in 2015?) 5. Meta-cognitive questions: to ask for students’ reasoning or mental processes (e.g., Why do you think so?). Dalton-Puffer’s (2007) study on teachers’ questions in secondary CLIL classrooms in Austria found that although questions for reasons and meta-­cognitive questions (i.e., cognitively demanding questions) triggered longer and more complex responses, these types of questions were infrequent, and the more abundant were questions for facts. Llinares and Pascual Peña (2015) studied teachers’ academic questions and students’ responses in secondary CLIL history classes in Spain. They found that frequently asked questions for facts usually elicited shorter and simpler responses, whereas meta-cognitive questions triggered more elaborate responses. Regarding questions in group/pair work, Llinares et al. (2012) noted that although students’ questions were rare, clarification requests, rhetorical questions, and metacognitive questions were observed in their data. Llinares et al. (2012) shed light on the importance of questions in classroom pedagogy in the European context; however, there is a dearth of research on questions in CLIL classrooms in the Asian context. Furthermore, most of this line of research investigated primary and secondary CLIL classroom interactions, and research on more cognitively demanding contexts at the tertiary level has been barely sufficient. In the light of this, we look into teacher–student as well as student–student interactions to investigate the role of questions in engaging students in CLIL classes at a Japanese university.

The Learning Context The Academic Communication programme (henceforth AC), launched in 2014 at Sophia University in Tokyo is a two-term compulsory course for first-­ year university students. Approximately 2500 students take this programme with 46.7 hours of class contact time. These courses are taught by instructors who are expert users of English of a multi-national, multi-lingual background, and are holders of an MA or PhD in various fields of study including Applied Linguistics, History, Literature, Philosophy, Psychology, Science and Sociology. The first term consists of English for Academic Purposes (EAP) with skills integration in listening, speaking, reading and writing; critical thinking, “an active interpretation and evaluation of observations and communications, information and argumentation” (Fisher & Scriven, 1997,

  The Role of the Essential Question in Eliciting Critical Thinking… 


p. 21) being a central component in the curriculum. The second term is a content-driven CLIL course where an academic subject or topic is taught with much language support and study skills application, such as note-taking, summarising, debating and essay writing. The students’ levels of English range from A2 to C1 (CEFR), English being their first foreign language, and for others, it is their second foreign or additional language. In this chapter, we examine five classes from the output sessions in terms of teacher–student interactions in whole-class discussions and also student–student interactions in the same classes; in the input sessions, students learn about new academic content together with “the language of learning” (Coyle, Hood, & Marsh, 2010, p. 60). In the output sessions, they use the knowledge and skills they learnt to talk about the concepts or issues to enable them to internalise and deepen their knowledge further. The audio-recorded data came from five different 90-minute lessons taught by five different teachers. Each lesson had 16–29 students and included teacherfronted class discussions as well as some group work with four or five students. One of the lessons was taught by the third author; however, she was not informed of how the data would be analysed in this study before her lesson. To collect the data for this study, the first or second author observed each lesson, took notes on how the lesson was conducted, and set a recorder on the teacher’s desk and one recorder for each group. Although these five lessons were from the same programme, each lesson had different topic, goals, and activities.

How we Analysed the Interactions The analysis of these interactions was twofold: the first step was a quantitative analysis based on Llinares et al.’s (2012) approach where the quantitative findings of a qualitative interactional research is first presented to get a grasp of the big picture of the features of discourse observed. The second step was qualitative, which is a more thorough analysis of the functionality of questions based on Dalton-Puffer’s (2007) framework and other discourse functions observed in context. However, as we analysed the data, in assigning categories of questions there emerged a number of questions asked to define concepts or terminology connected to the subject being taught. Therefore, for this study, we decided to add another question type, question for defining, because some of the classes discussed complex, abstract academic concepts, which could not fit into question for facts. The first two authors cross-checked the interpretations of the data together with the third author to draw the findings that emerged and documented the pedagogical implications.


H. Aikawa et al.

Dialogue in Teacher–Student Interactions This section examines the types of questions the teachers asked, the output students produced in response, and types of questions that triggered extended turns in teacher–student interactions in whole-class discussions in order to seek how teacher’s questions can create a social context to engage students in deep thinking and exploring different perspectives.

The Big Picture in Whole Class Discussions A total of 123 questions were asked during the whole-class discussions in five classes by five different teachers, which means that all teachers asked one question every 30–40 seconds on average during the teacher-fronted discussion. In this study, instructional questions will be examined for inquiry into the dialogic nature of CLIL pedagogy. All the instructional questions were classified into the six categories adapted from “types of information asked for” (Dalton-Puffer, 2007, p. 98) in order to find out the teachers’ intentions and purposes. Table 1 shows that question types asked during the whole-class discussion were diverse; however, most of the teachers asked questions for facts, which are the most frequently asked questions in any language classrooms including CLIL (Dalton-Puffer, 2007; Llinares et al., 2012). The distribution of teachers’ other question types varied quite considerably depending on topics, lesson goals, tasks, and so forth; questions for opinion and meta-cognitive questions were frequently asked in Class B as students were asked their opinions for problem-solving and the reasoning for their solutions.

Table 1  Distribution of teachers’ question types A





Discussion time







Q for defining Q for facts Q for explanation Q for reasons Q for opinion Meta-cognitive Q Total

19 3 2 5 0 6 35

0 9 3 0 14 7 33

0 9 0 0 2 1 12

0 12 0 3 0 0 15

0 9 1 3 0 0 13

19 42 6 11 16 14 108

Adapted from Dalton-Puffer’s (2007) typology

  The Role of the Essential Question in Eliciting Critical Thinking… 


The Role of Questions for Abstract Concepts This section examines how a teacher used questions for the purpose of teaching terminology in psychology in the input session. In teaching what an academic concept is, the teacher unravelled the abstract concept by having students evaluate several what-if examples, which meant that questions for defining played an important role in facilitating students’ critical thinking where they used “questioning new concepts” (Fortanet-Gómez, 2013, p. 134) and identified contexts in which the concepts are applied. Example 1 is an excerpt from Class A where Advanced 1-level (B2 CEFR) students studied various concepts in psychology in English. Before this excerpt, the teacher first explained that aggression is a complex concept and psychologists have difficulty defining it. Then, he presented the goals of the class: (1) to understand how psychologists have defined aggression, (2) to create its new definition. In other words, a question for defining, “What is aggression?”, was set as an essential question to keep the focus of student thinking in teasing out the concept of aggression. After that, in scaffolding the concept of aggression, the teacher showed the students several examples of someone being aggressive (e.g., Two brothers are punching each other in a playground.). The teacher asked the students if each of the examples can be categorised into aggression or not. In Example 1, the teacher (T) is leading the students to evaluate more complex situations in order to include different factors to consider. Example 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18



S1 T

Another example, in London, a police officer, he saw a terrorist running through the station and he shot the terrorist and the terrorist died, right? The terrorist had a bomb, so he saved many many lives, hundreds of lives, this police officer. Is it aggression? (Question for defining) In this case, he harmed the terrorist. The terrorist died. But he could save hundreds of lives. Is that aggression? (Question for defining) Jaa [Then], one minute. (SS start discussing the question) So, a police officer kills a terrorist to save lives. Is that aggression? (Question for defining) Shaking your heads … no, right? Why do you think so? (Meta-cognitive question) The purpose is not harming the terrorist himself, but he saved others’ lives. OK, very good. So, the purpose is not to be aggressive, right? So, the purpose is important. Very good.



H. Aikawa et al.

(continued) 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

S2 T

S3 T

Is there any other answer we could say? (Meta-cognitive question) So, a police officer killed the terrorist and saved many lives. How about if a teacher like me kills the terrorist at a station to save many lives? Is it different? (Question for defining) I hope so. You can get to be a hero. Eh, I can be a hero. That’s good. But what’s the difference? A teacher and a police officer? (Question for explanation) A police officer is asked to kill the terrorist. It’s their job. Oh, OK OK. That’s their job. Duty. Maybe sometimes we could say aggression is not aggressive. It’s for a job and for a duty.

This excerpt shows how the teacher guides the students to argue a particular position and deepen their understanding of an abstract concept. After discussing whether this police officer’s action is considered “aggression” or not in pairs, the teacher initiates the class discussion by repeating the same question, “Is that aggression?” (line 12). He invites the students to speak freely and asks for their reasoning on why this action is not aggression (line 14). This meta-­ cognitive question is crucial in the exploration of factors in each example, which successfully elicits one of the important factors for determining whether the example is aggression or not (See S1, lines 15–16). However, the teacher seems to find the factor, “purpose”, too broad to fully argue the position and tries to elicit different ideas by asking another meta-cognitive question, which means, ‘Why do you think so?’ (lines 19–20). Since the students seemed to have difficulty in responding to this question, he decides to change the doer of the conduct from a police officer to a teacher, someone more familiar, for the students to try out a different perspective (lines 22–24). Finally, S3 explains, “A police officer is asked to kill the terrorist. It’s their job.” (lines 29–30), where the teacher paraphrases “job” as “duty” in the end (lines 31–33). As shown above, the questions for defining asked the students to take a stance for each example, and the meta-cognitive questions followed, encouraging the students to engage actively in exploring factors and this in turn triggered extended dialogic exchanges. One of the prominent points regarding the functions of the questions for defining would be that they kept the students’ focus on taking a clear stance. Many studies criticise the fact that these known questions, which are called display questions, are restrictive and

  The Role of the Essential Question in Eliciting Critical Thinking… 


do not leave much space in extended talk (Long & Sato, 1983; Nikula, 2007). S3 answered the question for defining (line 12) and the meta-cognitive questions (lines 14, 19), not to the question asked right before (lines 27–28). Moreover, her response is well-organised and straight to the point, even though it was a spontaneous reaction to the teacher’s question, rather than a well-planned one. One of the reasons why she was able to give a logical argument may be that this question, “Is it aggression?” was framed within a larger enquiry, namely the essential question, “What is aggression?” presented as an overarching aim of the class. Here, the findings might suggest that as all the teacher’s questions were connected to this essential question, thus both the teacher and the students were able to share the same goals during the entire discussion. The pedagogical implication is that one factor which guided the students to think and make logical reasoning was the use of the simple question for which the answer was known, in connection to the essential question.

The Role of Questions for Eliciting Students’ Ideas The previous section analysed an input session to understand an academic, abstract concept. Here, we focus on an output session in a problem-solving task to find out how teachers’ questions in the whole-class discussion encourage students to generate ideas and scaffold the construction of their arguments. The following example comes from Class B, Advanced 1-level (B2 CEFR) students, and the course topic is negotiation of identities in global communities. The class observed and audio-recorded for this study dealt with a simulated problem-solving case study on the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) community and the campus climate. The aim of the discussion was to think how to make a safe campus environment for LGBT students. First, the students read about a fictitious international LGBT student from the UK who appears in the scenario; Peter is her official name on the passport, and she wants to be called Serena. Students were asked two comprehension check questions: (1) Who is Serena? (2) What is the issue? Then, they discussed these two questions in groups without looking at their handouts, followed by the whole-class discussion to confirm the context. After checking Serena’s profile, the students worked on the problem-­solving tasks from these three angles: what students can do to include Serena in the campus community, what teachers can do to support LGBT students, and what the university can do to provide all students with a safe and fair learning environment. These three questions derive from the essential question, “What can people on campus do in order to include LGBT students?” In Example 2, one of the groups is reporting their solutions to the class.


H. Aikawa et al.

Example 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

T S1 T S1


S1 T

S1 T S1 S2 T S1 T

OK, how about this group? What can students do? (Question for opinion) We think mmm … students need to have more information about LGBT? Right, they need to have more information? (Meta-cognitive question) Yeah, mmm … Personally, since 2017, we, I’m here as a university student, I met a lot of people, but I didn’t met LGBT students (humhum), so, maybe some people don’t know there’re LGBT students in Sophia University. Exactly, you are the same age, but you haven’t really noticed them (yes), and maybe we don’t know. We don’t know that LGBT. Maybe they don’t tell us. Yes, that’s true, so? (Meta-cognitive question) So … mmm, we need more information about LGBT. Yeah, we need more information. It’s difficult to ask them, isn’t it? If we don’t know, how can we find out more information? (Question for opinion) Ah mmm, try to communicate? Yep, if we knew they were, yes? (Question for opinion) Ummmm, just umm, seken-banashi te nan te iuno?[How do you say “seken banashi” in English?] Ummmm? OK, so you want to talk to different people in a general way? (Question for facts) Yes. Have a conversation, yeah talk about it with other friends. OK, well done.

This excerpt illustrates how the teacher’s follow-up questions trigger extended dialogic exchanges and guide the students to engage in further understanding of LGBT. When the teacher asks one of the groups a question for opinion (line 1), one of the group members reports their idea, saying “We think mmm, students need to have more information about LGBT?” (lines 3–4). Her initial response is expressed in sentence form, yet it is a general idea not supported by any evidence or reasons. This group appears to be still brainstorming the context and has not suggested any practical solutions. As feedback, the teacher simply repeats S1’s comment for clarification request (line 5); however, this seems to push her to speak more. Perhaps, she might have taken the teacher’s repetition of her comment as a prompt to ask why students need to have more information on LGBT. This simple echoing with a rising tone seems to function as a meta-cognitive question (i.e., Why do you think so?). The strategy results in eliciting an extended turn where she explains why

  The Role of the Essential Question in Eliciting Critical Thinking… 


more information on LGBT is necessary, referring to her lack of personal experience on campus (lines 7–11). Thus, she is actively linking the interaction with her real life to deepen her understanding. Moreover, S1’s contribution spurrs on more dialogic exchange. After the teacher summarises S1’s comment, she suggests another possibility by saying, “Maybe they don’t tell us” (line 14) and continues the dialogue by saying “so?” (line 15). Although this “so?” is a short, informal question, it appears to encourage S1 to consider what she would do if LGBT students did not talk about their identities. Thus, this question is considered as a meta-cognitive question to encourage students to evaluate their own ideas and explore different perspectives. Furthermore, the teacher asks the same question more explicitly by using questions for opinion (lines 18–19, 21); still, it seems to be very difficult for S1 and her group members to generate any ideas for how students find the LGBT students in order to support them. In the end, S1 finally comes up with a solution for that; however, she is not able to express her idea in English and asks for help (lines 23–24). The teacher feeds the language in the form of asking a question for facts (lines 26–27) and finally gives evaluative feedback to the group to move on to the next group (lines 29–30). As examined above, even when students’ initial ideas might be vague and insufficient, the teacher was able to create space for exploring their ideas together by expanding feedback (Llinares et al., 2012, p. 81). In addition, this example suggests that as long as both the teacher and students are clear about the final goals of the discussion, the students might know that they are ultimately asked to answer the essential question of the class. The teacher’s informal feedback, for example, simple repetitions of student’s response as well as short questions, such as “So?” and “And?”, might function as negotiatory follow-up questions, which may enable the teacher-fronted discussion to become “reciprocal” (Alexander, 2008, p. 28) and work as a personal dialogic exchange. In conclusion, it can be said that although Class A and Class B were at different stages of the lesson, both groups were engaged in thinking about their topics using interaction in achieving their learning aims. The teachers selected different types of questions depending on their decision; however, both of them used meta-cognitive questions (e.g., “Why do you think so?”) to scaffold students’ critical thinking, which triggered extended dialogic exchanges. These questions were often intended to bring about a particular position held by students. Furthermore, it was found that when the class discussion was oriented toward a shared inquiry, namely an essential question, teachers’ simple feedback functioned as questions that facilitate students to seek for their


H. Aikawa et al.

reasoning and search for different perspectives. The teacher’s questions are interpreted not on the spot, but within the whole classroom discourse in the context set out by the essential question.

Dialogue in Student–student Interactions Here we examine the types of questions in pair/group work of students. Collaborative work was employed to stimulate students’ thinking, such as to discuss certain topics, classify examples, and find solutions. The use of English was abundant, but in some cases, Japanese was used as a means of communication in pair/group work, especially when students were trying to make sense of new concepts.

The Big Picture in Student–student Interaction First of all, this section shows the proportional overview of the questions. The result was obtained from one group which was randomly selected from each class. Table 2 shows the distribution of students’ questions in group/pair work according to Dalton-Puffer’s (2007) question types. The most frequent type of questions were questions for facts. Among them, questions which are related to vocabulary were especially frequent (e.g., “Close? Familiar?”). Another type of questions for facts was confirmation check; students asked questions to make sure what they understood was correct (e.g., “Teigisuruttekoto? [(What the teacher is telling us to do is) to define the word?]”). Although the interactions about vocabulary and confirmation checks were short, confirming the understanding of vocabulary and the purpose of the task was an important Table 2  Distribution of students’ question types A





Discussion time







Q for defining Q for facts Q for explanation Q for reasons Q for opinion Meta-cognitive Q Total

0 7 0 0 3 0 10

0 6 0 0 7 0 13

0 21 0 3 3 0 27

0 10 2 8 0 0 20

0 45 1 1 3 1 51

0 89 3 12 16 1 121

Adapted from Dalton-Puffer’s (2007) typology

  The Role of the Essential Question in Eliciting Critical Thinking… 


first step to build consensus amongst the group. For this purpose, students scaffolded the information with each other and learned the vocabulary cooperatively in context.

The Role of Questions for Abstract Concepts This section examines how students used questions for opinion for the purpose of understanding abstract concept. This type of question is produced through an understanding of the content, application of knowledge, and analysis of the application; students’ processing of their thinking can be observed in the data. Class C was the class in which Intermediate 2-level (B2 CEFR) students studied second-language acquisition. The class observed and audio-recorded for this study discussed the theory of multiple intelligences (MI) (Gardner, 2006) which identifies eight intelligences such as spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, musical, linguistic, logical-mathematical, naturalistic, inter- and intra-­ personal intelligences. At the beginning of the class, the teacher explicitly stated the goals of this class, which were to understand the concepts of MI and make a summary of it. In other words, a question for defining, “What are MI?”, was set as an essential question. In order to accomplish this, the teacher organised various tasks in the class as follows. First, students shared with a group what they had found from their research on intelligence in second-­ language acquisition. Secondly, students in pairs made a list of characteristics of an imaginary friend called Susan, who is very intelligent (e.g., Susan can solve very difficult math problems). This task made the students aware of their current ideas of intelligence. Then the whole class watched a short video which explained each concept of eight intelligences and checked their understandings in pairs. Afterwards, the teacher explained each intelligence with the whole class. Next, the students worked with a pair on the task to categorise Susan’s characteristics into the eight intelligences (e.g., achieving a high score on the math exam is classified as logical-mathematical intelligence). While attending to this task, the students said “Katayotteru [our ideas are one-­ sided]!” by looking at their ideas and realised that the concept of intelligence that they had had was strongly biased toward academic achievement. Example 3 was taken from an interaction after the categorisation task where two students started to talk about their own intelligences, asking each other “Jibun dore ga tokui? [Which one do you think you are good at?]” They further developed their dialogue as follows.


H. Aikawa et al.

Example 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8


S2 S1

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Musical ga arunara art mo atte iiyone. Mou ikko kategorii. [If there is musical category, don’t you think there could be art? Like one more category?] (Question for opinion) Demo… [But…] Watashi, e ga sukidakara, e tokaga. Aato no kategorii ga naino wa cyotto. [I like pictures and others. I can’t believe that there is not an art category.]

S2 S1 S2

Kore wa sensei ni iubeki jyanai? [Don’t you think we should tell the teacher?] (Question for opinion) Uttaeru? [Shall we make a claim?] (Question for opinion) Uttaeru. [I agree, we should.] 8 ko dake? [Only eight items?] Aato ga nai desuyo. [There is no art category.] Demo tashikani soudane. [But, certainly it is.] Chotto kiite miyou. [Let’s ask him.] Why it not it has … It has no art category. I want to nani? [what?] Adding in this sheets

In Example 3, S1 wondered whether there should be one more intelligence (lines 1–4). They discovered that it is unusual that there is no category referring to art; if there is a musical intelligence, S1 thinks that certainly, there should be an artistic intelligence category. This utterance can be categorised as question for opinion as it ends with “yone [shouldn’t we]”. We can assume that she wanted to confirm that her idea was right. Her opinion came from her own experience as “Watashi, e ga sukidakara, e tokaga. Aato no kategorii ga naino wa chotto. [I like pictures and others. I can’t believe that there is not an art category]” (lines 6–9). Finally, S2 says that art could be added as a category; this part shows “creation”, the highest level of thinking in Bloom’s taxonomy (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001), which describes six hierarchical cognitive categories: remembering, understanding, applying, analysis, evaluation, and creation, as art is her own original category. What is illuminating here is that the students autonomously went beyond the classification task and thought which intelligences applied to themselves. We can observe how deeply they were engaged in the content of the class from the interaction. It is noticeable that translanguaging (García & Wei, 2014) occured in the student–student interactions where L1 was used to tease out the meaning and naming of the categories. This may have been due to the fact that all students shared the same L1, Japanese, and that it was instinctive for them to do the cognitively challenging task in L1.

  The Role of the Essential Question in Eliciting Critical Thinking… 


It is also enlightening that the excerpt shows that critical thinking can indeed be observed in the dialogue; interaction of critical thinking emerged naturally from students’ pair work. As Llinares et al. (2012) state, referring students’ personal experience may encourage the development of communicative functions. Hence, we can assume from this data that having the students think about the content as if it was their own experience could also trigger critical thinking in pair work. The students made questions for opinions based on their own experience (i.e., there should be an art category because she likes art), which encouraged critical thinking in the discussion. This type of question based on the students’ personal experiences can be called personalised questions. It is also suggested in Musumeci (1996) that referential questions “may act as links from the subject matter to the students’ personal experience” (p. 299). Thus, asking personalised questions can be a useful way to foster critical thinking in student–student interaction because it can require higher-order thinking skills such as applying and creating (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001) based on an understanding of the content of the class. As we saw in the excerpt where the pair work functioned well to have the students deepen their understandings of abstract concepts by asking personalised questions, there are two points to note as premises to make a successful pair/group work. First, setting and sharing a clear goal of the class; in other words, establishing an essential question (in this class, “what are MI?”) served a crucial role because it could make students understand with ease where they are heading to. Thus, the students could deepen their understanding of the abstract concept collaboratively in the pair work without losing their direction. Second, organising tasks in a proper way is important to lead the students gradually to have them understand abstract concepts. In Class C, we found the teacher arranged various tasks competently to be able to scaffold students’ understanding. These tasks could allow them to be autonomous learners who are highly engaged and collaborative, and to go beyond the teacher’s task arrangement. Therefore, the findings of this section suggest that a clear essential question and proper task organisation could foster students’ autonomy in student–student interaction to comprehend the academic concept.

Lessons Learnt from This Study The pedagogical implication of this study is that having clear objectives indicating what students will learn in the lesson is crucial in making questions activate the dialogue in the CLIL classroom. In both the teacher–student as


H. Aikawa et al.

well as student–student interactions, the essential question designed to lead students to the important concepts (McTighe & Wiggins, 2013) played an important role in eliciting more than one answer. The overarching essential questions, such as “What are the multiple intelligences?” and “How can we create an LGBT friendly campus environment?” were set by the teachers, and these questions were shared with the whole class (notes from third author’s teaching observation journal, 2018). They activated the teacher’s questions for which the answer was known, and showed that the students were thinking about new concepts and making meaning of what they learnt. In student–student interaction, negotiated scaffolding of information was observed in confirmation checks in learning the new vocabulary. A significant finding was that students applied their individual experience and understanding and used personalised questions to create new knowledge which was not offered in the materials provided by the teacher.

Teacher–student Interaction The Input Session Through learning about some concepts in psychology: • the meta-cognitive questions facilitated the exploration of reasons for certain opinions, triggering extended dialogic exchanges. • under the overarching essential question, the teacher’s questions for which the answer was known worked well for scaffolding of new knowledge. These findings resonate with Llinares et al.’s (2012) research that expanding feedback worked to co-construct the understanding of an issue. The pedagogical implication is that, under the overarching essential question, the questions for which the answer was known elicited more than one answer and facilitated an extended dialogue in understanding new content.

The Output Session Through a problem-solving activity: • Repeating the student utterance with a rising tone worked as a metacognitive question.

  The Role of the Essential Question in Eliciting Critical Thinking… 


• A short utterance “So?” functioned as a meta-cognitive question. • “So?” and “And?” functioned as negotiating follow-up questions, eliciting different perspectives held by the students. The implication is that when the goal of the lessons is shared by the whole class, the short utterances, such as “So?” and “And?” prompted students to share their answers, allowing them to “explore, and thereby discover gaps in student understanding of subject content” (Mehisto & Ting, 2017, p. 15). The data here resonates with dialogic teaching in which the practice is collective, reciprocal, supportive, cumulative and purposeful (Alexander, 2010). In other words, teachers support students in making meaning, and they head together with the same goal of unpacking the essential question through their interactions.

Student–student Interaction When scaffolding information with each other collaboratively within the CLIL class, • The most frequent question type was questions for facts. • Questions for opinion were asked to understand abstract concepts. In creating a new concept, students applied their individual experience and understanding and asked personalised questions to tease out the concepts taught, and in doing so, they discovered an original idea to add another category to Gardner’s multiple intelligences (Gardner, 2006). Quite clearly, the students took their own initiative in deconstructing the meaning of the intelligences and in so doing, one student wondered why there was no art intelligence. The students were engaged in making meaning together through their group work and student engagement became the “engine of learning” (Genesee & Hamayan, 2016, p. 6). Putting forward a new category, art intelligence, fits into “create” (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001, p. 31), the highest category of the “cognitive process dimension and related cognitive processes” (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001, p. 31). Through the interaction in groups, in teasing out Gardner’s (2006) multiple intelligences, the students identified a perceived missing category, art intelligence, the category that they created by applying their own personal experience while being autonomous in discovering meaning.


H. Aikawa et al.

Conclusions and Way Ahead In this small study focusing on the interaction in CLIL classes, we observed that there is much evidence of the scaffolding of new concepts in teacher–student as well as student–student interaction. The important role of the shared essential question worked in a way that not only the meta-cognitive question but also small utterances such as “So?” and “And?” triggered more responses from students; sharing the learning goals with the whole class had good effects in eliciting personalised responses from students. Secondly, through the CLIL classes, students worked collaboratively to understand new concepts and create a new notion to add to what they were studying. Although the data that we analysed came from just five classes from first-year university-level students, the implication is that, setting a meaningful essential question (McTighe & Wiggins, 2013) for a series of lessons helps to focus on the student inquiry into the important concepts introduced. In future it would be meaningful to examine how the interactions may differ depending on the discipline of the subject being taught in the CLIL classes.

Suggested Further Reading Dalton-Puffer, C. (2007). Discourse in content and language integrated learning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. This book provides a detailed, comprehensive analysis of classroom interactions in CLIL context applying several discourse analytic frameworks. The analysis describes various instructional and interactional features and developments and suggests some important implications for understanding the role of interaction in CLIL classrooms. Llinares, A., Morton, T. and Whittaker, R. (2012). The roles of language in CLIL. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. This book offers in-depth analysis of language used in CLIL classroom. Readers can understand how language is used in the classroom to construct content knowledge and develop interpersonal language. The analysis was conducted using a corpus of CLIL classroom data from European contexts, but the insights are applicable to other parts of the world. Walsh, S. (2011). Exploring classroom discourse: Language in action. London: Routledge. This book aims to help language teachers and trainers better understand the complex relationship among language, interaction and learning and

  The Role of the Essential Question in Eliciting Critical Thinking… 


improve the “classroom interactional competence” of both teachers and students for gaining more learning opportunity. It provides teachers with the practical SETT framework to reflect on teacher talk in class.

Engagement Priorities • In what ways can you observe how teachers encourage student thinking and active engagement in processing new information/concepts in content-­ driven CLIL courses? • Can you think of different ways in which to encourage learners to interact with each other to construct meaning of new content together? • Could recording your own lessons and identifying the types of questions used be a possible way to examine the above two questions?

References Alexander, R.  J. (2008). Toward dialogic teaching: Rethinking classroom talk. York, UK: Dialogos. Alexander, R. J. (2010). Children, their world, their education: Final report and recommendation of the Cambridge Primary Review. London: Routledge. Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman. Brock, C. A. (1986). The effects of referential questions on ESL classroom discourse. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 77–59. Brown, D. H. (2007). Teaching by principle: An interactive approach to language pedagogy (3rd ed.). New York: Longman. Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Dalton-Puffer, C. (2007). Discourse in content and language integrated learning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Fisher, A., & Scriven, M. (1997). Critical thinking: Its definition and assessment. Point Reys, CA: Edge Press. Fortanet-Gómez, I. (2013). CLIL in higher education. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Fukasawa, E., Aikawa, H., Yokoyama, T., & Hemmi, C. (2019). Dialogic learning through bilingual CLIL at an elementary school in Tokyo. Lingua, 30, 97–104. García, O., & Wei, L. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism and education. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Gardner, H. (2006). Multiple intelligences: New horizons in theory and practice. New York: Basic Books.


H. Aikawa et al.

Genesee, F., & Hamayan, E. (2016). CLIL in context. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Llinares, A., Morton, T., & Whittaker, R. (2012). The roles of language in CLIL. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Llinares, A., & Pascual Peña, I. (2015). A genre approach to the effect of academic questions on CLIL students’ language production. Language and Education, 29(1), 15–30. Long, M., & Sato, C. (1983). Classroom foreigner talk discourse: Forms and functions of teachers’ questions. In H. Seliger & M. Long (Eds.), Classroom-oriented research on second language acquisition (pp. 268–285). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. McCormick, D. E., & Donato, R. (2000). Teacher questions as scaffolded assistance in an ESL classroom. In J. K. Hall & L. S. Verplatse (Eds.), Second and foreign language learning through classroom interaction (pp.  183–201). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. McTighe, J., & Wiggins, G. (2013). Essential questions. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, MA/London: Harvard University Press. Mehisto, P., & Ting, T. (2017). CLIL essentials. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Musumeci, D. (1996). Teacher-learner negotiation in content-based instruction: Communication at cross-purposes? Applied Linguistics, 21, 376–406. Nassaji, H., & Wells, G. (2000). What’s the use of ‘triadic dialogue’?: An investigation of teacher-student interaction. Applied Linguistics, 21(3), 376–406. Nikula, T. (2007). The IRF pattern and space for interaction: Comparing CLIL and EFL classrooms. In C. Dalton-Puffer & U. Smit (Eds.), Empirical perspectives on CLIL classroom discourse (pp. 179–204). Frankfurt, Germany: Peter Lang. Nikula, T., Dalton-Puffer, C., & Llinares, A. (2013). CLIL classroom discourse: Research from Europe. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 1(1), 70–100. Pascual Peña, I., & Basse, R. (2017). Assessment for learning in CLIL classroom discourse: The case for metacognitive questions. In A.  Llinares & T.  Morton (Eds.), Applied linguistics perspectives on CLIL (pp. 221–235). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Pérez-Cañado, M.  L. (2012). CLIL research in Europe: Past, present, and future. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 15(3), 315–341. Sasajima, S. (Ed.). (2012). CLIL: Content and language integrated learning. Tokyo, Japan: Sanshusha. Sinclair, J., & Coulthard, R. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils. London: Oxford University Press. Tsuchiya, K. (2016). Focusing on content or language?: Comparing paired conversations in CLIL and EFL classrooms, using a corpus. In J.  Romero-Trillo (Ed.),

  The Role of the Essential Question in Eliciting Critical Thinking… 


Yearbook of corpus linguistics and pragmatics 2016 (pp.  179–201). Cham, Switzerland: Springer. Tsuchiya, K. (2017). Co-constructing a translanguaging space: Analysing a Japanese/ EFL group discussion in a CLIL classroom at university. Translation and Translanguaging in Multilingual Contexts, 3(2), 229–253. Tsuchiya, K., & Pérez Murillo, M. D. (2015). Comparing the language policies and the students’ perceptions of CLIL in tertiary education in Spain and Japan. Latin American Journal of Content and Language Integrated learning, 8(1), 25–35. Tsuchiya, K., & Pérez Murillo, M. D. (Eds.). (2019). Content and language integrated learning in Spanish and Japanese contexts. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave. van Lier, L. (1996). Interaction in the language curriculum: Awareness, autonomy and authenticity. New York: Longman. Walsh, S. (2011). Exploring classroom discourse: Language in action. London: Routledge. Walsh, S., & Li, L. (2020). Classroom talk, interaction and collaboration. In G. Hall (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of English language teaching (pp. 486–498). London: Routledge.

Developing Intercultural Competence: A Comparison of CLIL and Language Majors Before and After Industrial Placements Wenhsien Yang

Is (Inter)Cultural Awareness Missing from the CLIL Approach? The 4 Cs (communication, content, cognition, and culture) framework has been viewed as the fundamental concept in developing and implementing the content and language integrated learning (CLIL) approach (Coyle, 1999). This conceptual structure provides an essential and holistic outlook that brings together different dimensions of CLIL and supports the development of CLIL pedagogies. It indicates that high-quality CLIL relies on “understanding and operationalising approaches which will not be found solely in the traditional repertoires of either language teaching or subject teaching” (Coyle, 2007, p. 549). In the 4 Cs framework, subject knowledge, communication, learning and thinking, and awareness of others and self are closely connected. Among them, facilitating learners’ intercultural learning and understanding is considered central in deploying CLIL education (Coyle, 2009). However, there is still limited research in this area compared to the other three Cs: content knowledge, communicative skills, and cognitive development (Coyle, 2007). W. Yang (*) National Kaohsiung University of Hospitality and Tourism, Kaohsiung City, Taiwan e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 C. Hemmi, D. L. Banegas (eds.), International Perspectives on CLIL, International Perspectives on English Language Teaching,



W. Yang

In Taiwan, most tertiary level English-taught CLIL programmes by using either language-driven mode or content-driven mode such as EMI (English-­ medium of instruction). They aim not only to support local students’ mobility and employability with proficient language skills and professional knowledge for a competitive job market but also to attract international students in the hope of simulating an international learning environment. The effect of attracting international students may not yet be clear, but the distribution of the 31,167 students in 2018 across different disciplines was uneven, with 24% in the humanities, 35% in the social sciences, and 40% in technology (MOE, 2020). Some disciplines, such as foreign languages, receive fewer international students. However, it is argued that it is not only the number of international students but the CLIL approach itself that can help contribute to the development of learners’ intercultural awareness in a para-­homogeneous learning environment. Thus, in this chapter, I examine to what extent learners involved in two different CLIL programmes demonstrated intercultural competence and whether it would persist when CLIL provision was temporarily suspended.

 hat is the CQS, and Why is CQ Important W in CLIL Education? Ang and Van Dyne (2008) developed the CQS (Cultural Quotient Scale), a standardised survey instrument, to measure and improve individuals’ mobility, work, and study effectiveness in diverse cultural situations. CQ is categorised into global and domestic CQ and divided into four dimensions: motivational, cognitive, meta-cognitive, and behavioural CQ.  Global CQ refers to one’s ability to work and interact with others effectively across cultures. A person with global CQ can move effectively across national or cultural borders and interact with peers, colleagues, and customers from different national backgrounds. In contrast, domestic CQ signifies one’s ability to work and interact effectively with others from various cultural backgrounds in one’s home country (CIC, 2019). Thus, it is assumed that university graduates or interns equipped with high global and domestic CQ are able to work, study, and travel effectively at home or abroad. CQ includes four linear directions and dimensions. At first, one becomes intrinsically interested, motivated, and confident in cross-cultural contexts (motivational CQ). Then, one develops a personal drive to understand and obtain knowledge of the similarities and differences between cultures

  Developing Intercultural Competence: A Comparison of CLIL… 


(cognitive CQ). Next, strategies have to be deployed in order to keep alert to the similarities and differences and to examine them after intercultural encounters. Finally, one needs to act and behave flexibly and appropriately to adapt to a multicultural repertoire and interaction (behavioural CQ). This linear cycle has to be continuously refined in accordance with cultural settings (CIC, 2019; Yang, 2019). CQ, rather than intelligence quotient, or professional knowledge, is said to be a precise indicator of one’s future work success in intercultural settings (Livermore, 2011). The CQS has been applied in many commercial sectors, and numerous studies have been conducted to check its accuracy in predicting an individual’s potential for overseas work (e.g., Chen, 2015; Lee & Sukoco, 2010; Winn, 2013). At the tertiary level, it is used to assess whether students are eligible to join overseas exchange programmes for study or job placements. Varela and Gatlin-Watts (2014) used the CQS to measure students’ CQ performance in four dimensions after they completed their overseas study and argued that studying abroad for a short period can effectively develop cognitive CQ and enhance motivational and behavioural CQ. Chao, Takeuchi, and Farh (2017) also found that cross-cultural exposure from participation in international exchange programmes greatly affects students’ CQ acquisition and performance. Students who return to their home country after overseas exchange programmes are also able to demonstrate positive relationships in the four dimensions of CQ competence across cultural boundaries (Holtbrügge & Engelhard, 2016). Hence, courses that prepare students to act appropriately in intercultural encounters have been offered in the hope of enhancing university undergraduates’ CQ competence. Many experimental studies with a comparative control group have also been carried out, most of which concluded that an explicit instruction on intercultural knowledge and a simulated mode of intercultural exchanges scaffolding helped increase the learners’ overall CQ performance (Buchtel, 2014; Bücker & Korzilius, 2015). CLIL is expected to fulfil learners’ needs for development of intercultural awareness in the classroom (Sudhoff, 2010), teaching them to cope with others of different cultural backgrounds outside the classroom, and some studies have demonstrated this benefit (e.g., Méndez García, 2012; Rodríguez & Puyal, 2012). However, most previous studies have been based on learners’ perceptions and used self-reported data. There have been few comparisons or empirical studies using the CQS to measure actual progress. A few exceptions can be found in Diab, Abdel-Haq, and Aly’s (2018) and Yang’s (2019) explorations, which used the CQS to determine learners’ change in CQ performance after an explicit intervention to raise cultural awareness in CLIL courses. They found significant positive evidence of improvements in CQ


W. Yang

competence. Yet, similar attempts to study larger degree-based CLIL programmes over a long period are rare, particularly in infant Asian CLIL contexts such as Taiwan.

 xpanding Internationalisation at Home or E Abroad for CLIL Learners Similar to CLIL, which is used as a general term to accommodate both content and language focus, internationalisation at home (IaH) is an umbrella term which refers to any internationally related exposure, except for outbound students and staff mobility (Crowther et al., 2001). It is the direct opposite of international exchange programmes (i.e., internationalisation abroad). The aims of IaH include helping higher education institutes equip undergraduates with mobility and employability when they cannot join outbound international exchange (study or internship) programmes due to concerns such as cost or graduation delay (Shaftel, Shaftel, & Ahluwalia, 2007). Thus, IaH aims to simulate an international context for those who stay in their home country to develop their global citizenship, intercultural knowledge, skills, and mobility (Beelen & Jones, 2015). Its strategies may include intentionally recruiting international students and staff with various cultural backgrounds, developing international curricula (including teaching, learning, and assessment) or joint degrees, establishing a bilingual/multilingual campus, using foreign languages for instruction, and promoting international academic cooperation or competitiveness. Many studies have indicated the positive effects of IaH. For instance, Luo and Jamieson-Drake (2013) found an improvement in American students’ cross-cultural experiences and understanding, as well as their willingness to reflect on their own values and beliefs. The inclusion of foreign students in the classroom is evidenced to help home students meet global goals of engagement, better their language proficiency, and develop cross-cultural skills and competencies (Soria & Troisi, 2014; Urban & Palmer, 2014). Establishing degree-based CLIL or EMI programmes is one IaH strategy adopted by Taiwan’s government to develop learners’ international and intercultural competence at home. The CLIL programmes can ensure that all students have equal opportunities to study in international or intercultural learning environments. However, since the introduction of CLIL or EMI programmes, to what extent the learners’ intercultural competence has been cultivated is still unclear. In addition, as De Wit et al. (2015) argue, more research

  Developing Intercultural Competence: A Comparison of CLIL… 


on the effects of IaH strategies is needed. In this chapter, I hope to bridge the gap in the literature and unveil how internationalisation at home and abroad may impact CLIL learners’ development of CQ competence from a longitudinal empirical perspective. Therefore, I asked the following questions: 1. How is students’ CQ performance in the language-driven and content-­ driven CLIL modes before and after the one-year industrial internship? 2. Are there any significant differences between the two modes after the one-­ year internship?

The Experience I surveyed students at a national polytechnic university in southern Taiwan, well-known for its sandwich curriculum that requires all students to complete a one-year internship either domestically or overseas in their third year before returning to the university for the final year. The internship can take the form of all-year-round work in Taiwan or overseas or half-work/half-study overseas. Students mainly work in hospitality- and tourism-related industries and can choose any overseas destination if they meet the language requirements and pass the interview selection process. Before going overseas, the students are expected to be equipped with sufficient language skills, content knowledge, and intercultural sensitivity in order to adapt to the new environment and successfully engage in the experience. Each year, approximately 200 students go overseas on internships. The students I worked with came from an undergraduate department, Applied English (AE), and an undergraduate degree-based programme, International Tourism Management (ITM), both of which are affiliated with the International College of the University. The major differences between these two units are: AE has its own full-time teaching faculty with both Taiwanese and native English-speaking teachers, while ITM does not have its own academic faculty and thus needs teachers from other departments to support the teaching; in AE, the language courses (70% of all courses), including many English for specific purposes (ESP) courses and some content courses, are taught in English; in ITM, all the content courses are conducted in English only, using the EMI method, except for some courses in General Education. Thus, according to the various definitions of CLIL, AE can be viewed as taking a language-driven CLIL approach, with many ESP courses


W. Yang

focusing on both language skills and partial content knowledge, whereas ITM can be regarded as using a content-driven CLIL approach, in which the learning objective mainly lies in the disciplinary knowledge and language skill is considered a bonus, without much explicit emphasis. ITM attracts many more international students than AE does. Both require their students to obtain an English proficiency level of at least TOEIC 750 (CEFR B2)1 before graduation. In June 2017, I invited two classes to join the study before they started their one-year internship: the sophomore class of 54 AE students, 24 of whom stayed in Taiwan, 24 of whom went to English-speaking countries, and six of whom who chose non-English-speaking nations for their internship, and the sophomore class of 33 ITM students, 13 of whom stayed in Taiwan, 13 of whom went to English-speaking countries, and seven of whom chose non-­ English-­speaking nations for their internship. I administered a questionnaire survey to measure their CQ performance prior to their internship and then again in September 2018 to investigate if their CQ had changed. The modified questionnaire survey was adapted from Ang et al.’s (2007) CQS,2 which is a seven-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) (see Appendix A). In addition to the first four items about the respondents’ demographic information, there are 37 items across four dimensions, nine in motivational CQ (e.g., I thrive on the differences in cultures that are new to me), 10 in cognitive CQ (e.g., I can describe the different cultural value frameworks that explain behaviours around the world), nine in meta-cognitive CQ (e.g., I think about possible cultural differences before meeting people from other cultures), and another nine in behavioural CQ (e.g., I vary my verbal behaviours (accent, tone, rate of speaking) to fit specific cultural contexts). The CQS is widely used in international management (Bücker, Furrer, & Lin, 2015) to evaluate if employees are suitable for overseas dispatch; higher education institutes apply it to help to determine if students can join international exchange study/work programmes. Our bilingual (English/Chinese) survey was administered online and took 10–15 minutes to complete.

 AE has increased its requirement to TOEIC 785, starting from the year 2020.  Sale Source: Cultural Intelligence Centre 2014. Used by permission of the Cultural Intelligence Centre. Use of this scale is granted to academic researchers for research purposes only. For information on using the scale for purposes other than academic research (e.g., consultants and non-academic organizations), please send an email to [email protected] 1 2

  Developing Intercultural Competence: A Comparison of CLIL… 


 Q Performance in the Language-Driven C and Content-Driven CLIL Programmes Pre- and Post-Internship Table 1 shows the data for the CLIL learners’ CQ scales in AE (language-­ driven CLIL) and ITM (content-driven CLIL) in their second and fourth year of study. Both groups showed a moderate to high level of CQ performance, which increased even after a one-year break from formal school education during their job placement. In other words, the results indicate that once students are instructed under the CLIL approach, their CQ level is not only sustained but gradually increases. Cultural awareness developed in the CLIL classroom can possibly extend its effects and be carried into contexts outside the classroom, becoming usable and beneficial for their work and study. Although there was no significant progress within the individual groups, the gap between the AE and ITM groups narrowed after the internship. The ITM students always showed higher CQ than the AE students across the one-­ year span. Possible reasons are the relatively higher exposure to English, which motivated them to understand and respect the target culture and its people, and the student selection policy. About half of the ITM students were selected based on their language proficiency and overseas study or living experience, leading to a high CQ level at entry. Furthermore, a higher percentage of degree-based international and non-degree-based exchange students (ITM: 34%; AE: 7%) in the ITM programme might also have enhanced the home students’ domestic CQ, which they had to develop to study or work effectively with the international students. The AE and ITM learners showed significantly different CQ levels across many indicators. Among the four dimensions of CQ, the cognitive CQ between the two groups demonstrated huge divergences before they began their internships. As noted previously, ITM was composed of students from a variety of nations; thus, they were able to acquire proper competence in learning the norms, practices, and conventions when studying and working with people from different cultural backgrounds (Ang et  al., 2007; Ang & Van Dyne, 2008). Through intense interaction, ITM learners better learned to Table 1   Overall CQ scale in AE and ITM students before/after internship

AE before the internship AE after the internship ITM before the internship ITM after the internship


Std. deviation

4.97 5.20 5.43 5.57

0.75 0.68 0.94 0.74


W. Yang

describe the economic, legal, and social systems of different cultures (Ang et al., 2007) than their counterparts did. The diverse cultural backgrounds in the ITM classroom also helped the students learn how to accommodate cultural differences. Another major difference is their motivational CQ competence, with the content-driven CLIL learners more capable than the language-driven ones of “directing attention and energy toward learning about and functioning in situations characterised by cultural differences” (Van Dyne, Ang, & Koh, 2015, p. 17). The ITM students may have had an intrinsic interest in working, living, or studying in cross-cultural situations and more confidence in their own cross-cultural effectiveness (Ang et al., 2007) than the AE learners. Students’ higher scores on this CQ dimension could mirror their higher level of self-efficacy (Ng & Earley, 2006) and greater interest in novel settings. This might also explain why slightly more ITM students chose overseas countries for their internship than English-major learners did (60% vs 56%). However, after the third year of internship, the differences between the two groups’ CQ shrank noticeably and were distributed more evenly across three CQ dimensions, excluding behavioural CQ. The learners in both programmes either worked one-year full-time in their home country or stayed overseas for one year of full-time work or six months each of study and work. This internship provided them with ample opportunity to exercise their domestic and international CQ while interacting with people from various cultural backgrounds. Content-driven CLIL learners, due to their previous experiences of studying in a more international class at university, showed stronger interest and ability in using other languages and enjoyment of fitting into a multicultural working environment. This indicates that, compared to the AE learners, who mainly treated English as their major or area of expertise, the ITM students, who viewed English only as a medium to learn subject matter, were often more open-minded toward other languages and cultures. In other words, they were more flexible in different cultural contexts. Their higher CQ competence shows that IaH may effectively cultivate CLIL learners’ intercultural knowledge and prepare them well for multicultural settings (Pérez-Vidal, 2015; Pérez-Vidal & Juan-Garau, 2010). One interesting finding is that the students modified how closely they stood when interacting with people from different cultures. In hospitality and tourism work environments, interpersonal distance between patrons and servers is crucial. Appropriate interpersonal spatial distance often depends on cultural distance, and this behaviour greatly affects the customers’ judgement of service quality (Weiermair & Fuchs, 2000). Servers’ distance from customers is also strongly associated with tipping (Jacob & Guéguen, 2012). This

  Developing Intercultural Competence: A Comparison of CLIL… 


non-­verbal behaviour plays an important role in hospitality and tourism jobs, and the ITM learners reported greater competence on this indicator than the AE students did. This appropriateness of spatial knowledge should be well balanced between intercultural awareness and working cultures and is thus vital for hospitality and tourism student interns working in multicultural contexts. There was no significant difference in the CQ competence of the two groups either before or after the internship. However, the investigation still yielded some interesting results. For instance, female students in AE showed greater progress in CQ competence after the internship. Male students in ITM had the highest performance before the job placement, but their CQ level dropped one year later. About 67% (8) of these students went overseas for their internships, so further probing is needed to understand why their CQ knowledge diminished, as it contradicts the literature claiming that positive intercultural awareness is enhanced after international internships (e.g., Batey, 2014; Batey & Lupi, 2012). Second, the international students in the AE and ITM groups initially exhibited higher CQ competence than the home students did, which is manifest in the fact that they left home and came to Taiwan to study and so had to be equipped with better cultural understanding in order to succeed in their studies. Yet, surprisingly, their CQ level reduced after their one-year job placement to even lower than that of the home students. This may be because many of these international students were forced to stay in Taiwan to complete their internship because of visa requirements. Lacking chances to use their higher CQ competence overseas, their jobs in Taiwan could not promote their growth in CQ, as they had already been in Taiwan for three years. This result indicates that students’ CQ competence may quickly increase if they stay in exotic cultures for a short period but can decrease if they stay in the same cultural context for a longer timeframe. Finally, AE learners who went to NNES (non-native English-speaking) countries had reduced CQ performance, but ITM learners who travelled to NES (native English-speaking) countries showed the highest CQ competence after their internships. Learners in both groups who went to NES settings for their internships showed very high CQ ratings. The reason may be that those NES English contexts, such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Singapore, and Australia, are multicultural societies which require intercultural knowledge. On the other hand, the English expanding circle countries, such as Japan, Korea, and Thailand, where the culture is less diverse and more familiar to the learners, are less able to offer Taiwanese student interns new cultural encounters to develop obvious cross-cultural sensitivity.


W. Yang

It can be argued that the greater cultural distance one experiences, the higher intercultural competence and tolerance one should possess (Papatsiba, 2006; Weiermair & Fuchs, 2000). In addition, national cultural distance under a homogeneous culture setting could also easily decrease their intern job satisfaction (Froese & Peltokorpi, 2011). Hence, intimacy between cultures may lead to no progress in AE students’ CQ competence. However, the case is completely opposite in the ITM group, as those who went to NNES countries were mainly international students and the settings were novel to them. To conclude this section, it seems that learners in the content-driven CLIL mode generally displayed higher CQ competence at both the entry and exit levels than those in the language-driven CLIL mode, and their CQ level would continuously increase if they were immersed in the context where the target language is used as the first language.

 verall CQ Performance Under the CLIL Approach O Pre- and Post-Internship Combining the AE and ITM students into a large generic CLIL group and comparing their pre- and post-internship CQ performance identified several significant differences which differ slightly from those discussed above. Before the internship, male students reported that they could speak and understand many languages and describe different leadership styles in diverse cultural situations. The main reason may be that the international students in both programmes were all males and all able to speak at least three languages. However, after the internship, these significant differences disappeared. It may be because the students did not perceive their multilingual ability as being useful while working or studying in Anglophone or other singular cultural settings, where mastering one language may be sufficient. In contrast, Taiwanese female students valued their experiences of working or living in a different culture significantly more. For them, the internship year might have been their first time staying overseas for an extended period. Thus it was a cherished experience in terms of exercising their cross-cultural competency. One cause of the international students’ significantly better CQ performance for the variable nationality before the internship is similar to the previous explanation. However, after the internship, home students showed higher CQ competency in two motivational and three cognitive indicators than the international learners did. They became more motivated and acquainted with

  Developing Intercultural Competence: A Comparison of CLIL… 


diverse cultures, and it is assumed that their previous experiences of IaH in the CLIL classroom and cross-border mobility came into effect. IaH in the researched CLIL classrooms was achieved through the institutional strategies of promoting internationalisation with the active and selective recruitment of foreign students, overseas internships, and the integration of the learning and teaching of the target language in the curriculum (Kehm & Teichler, 2007). Unfortunately, the foreign students did not benefit much from the IaH policy in terms of CQ performance; rather, they were recruited specifically to help establish CLIL programmes. Lastly, the variable internship destinations greatly affected CLIL learners’ CQ competence across motivational, cognitive, and meta-cognitive dimensions after the internship. That is, their cross-cultural attention, knowledge, and awareness were significantly raised. It is believed that the opportunity for international exposure contributed to this increment. The benefits of students doing internships in foreign countries have also been documented, particularly in the hospitality and tourism industries. Students nowadays see internships as a way to become more competitive in the globalised labour market and usually return home as more well-rounded individuals with alternative views about the world, cultures, and peoples (Van Hoof, 2000). International exposure enables CLIL learners to better their communication skills, critical thinking, and ability to work with peers (Verney, Holoviak, & Winter, 2009), and these are exactly what the 4 Cs framework highlights in the CLIL approach. In short, we show that clearly integrating IaH and international exposure/internships can help CLIL learners raise their intercultural awareness and achieve higher CQ performance.

Pedagogical Implications for Internationalisation at Home What does this mean for higher education institutes and CLIL practitioners considering implementing the CLIL approach in order to help accommodate the 4 Cs and the aim of internationalisation? Firstly, intercultural awareness should be consolidated and explicitly included in curriculum design. International exchange work/study programmes such as internships proved to be very effective in our study, as part of a sandwich curriculum design. In this way, intercultural competence becomes applicable, sustainable, and measurable. International exposure has gradually become popular and is being


W. Yang

specifically promoted by higher education institutions (Cross, Mhlanga, & Ojo, 2011). Its benefits correspond to the conceptual framework of the 4 Cs in the CLIL approach in global contexts (Gilin & Young, 2009; Verney, Holoviak, & Winter, 2009). However, if there is no chance to implement the above measures due to concerns such as expense, distance, or a fixed curriculum structure, then developing domestic CQ with explicit instruction and creating an IaH environment within the domestic learning environment is an alternative. IaH aims to integrate international and intercultural dimensions into formal or informal curricula in a domestic learning setting (Beelen & Jones, 2015) and has no recognised formula or approach (Robson, Almeida, & Schartner, 2018). Thus, recruiting foreign students to simulate an intercultural classroom is definitely not the only method. Rather, it may also involve but not be limited to the integration of foreign languages for communication purposes; designing an internationalised formal curriculum and an intercultural campus environment where interaction between home and international students can be motivating and rewarding (Leask, 2009); and adopting new pedagogical approaches such as translanguaging, recruiting international teaching faculty, or establishing bi/multilingual platforms (Wächter, 2003). In the classroom, CLIL practitioners can purposefully make good use of the cultural diversity of international and domestic students to design inclusive learning, teaching, and assessment practices. In addition, using target or local languages or a lingua franca interchangeably to deliver subject matter also helps facilitate global thinking and generate new viewpoints. Outside the classroom, they can adopt informal curriculum activities such as study buddy programmes, intercultural communication workshops (e.g., Toastmasters), service-learning activities (e.g., USR: University Social Responsibility), or cultural programmes, providing local CLIL learners with opportunities to engage with “cultural others” in the local society (Jones & Reiffenrath, 2018). Furthermore, technology not only allows working online with overseas partner universities but can also helps raise learners’ awareness, knowledge, and understanding of their disciplines from an internationalised perspective (Lawson, White, & Dimitriadis, 1998). Distance or online learning facilitated by technology advancement shortens not only the unequal resource provisions between urban and rural schools but also the distance between home and international communities. In particular, when international mobility becomes unlikely, such as during a school lockdown or global pandemic, technology may still keep the CLIL approach working in terms of offering

  Developing Intercultural Competence: A Comparison of CLIL… 


internationalised immersion and global vision. In other words, CLIL programmes embedded with the concepts and measures of international exposure and IaH can effectively promote learners’ cross-cultural understanding and foster international and domestic CQ competence, helping higher education institutions to achieve one of the aims of delivering CLIL programmes.

Wrapping up This chapter compares and contrasts the changes in the CQ competence of learners in a content-driven and language-driven CLIL programme before and after their one-year industrial internship. I used the CQS to measure their cross-cultural intelligence to understand possible differences when CLIL education was temporarily suspended and the learners were placed in contexts where they could apply their CQ in their life, work, or study, either domestically or globally. The results suggest that the CLIL learners were able to demonstrate an intermediate to high level of CQ under CLIL education. However, learners studying in the content-driven CLIL mode context exhibited significantly higher performance than those in the language-driven CLIL mode at both the entry and exit levels, though the divergence shrank upon completion of the internship. Female learners seemed to benefit more than male ones from the elevation of CQ. In addition, after their internship, the Taiwanese students exhibited a more obvious increase in CQ competence than the foreign students, who had higher CQ scores in the beginning. In other words, the international students in our study appeared not to have an equal advantage of maintaining or advancing their CQ competence in CLIL education. I believe the university’s policies of promoting internationalisation mainly contributed to these gaps. Apparently, integrating IaH measures and CLIL approach can benefit CLIL learners’ CQ development under both language-­ driven and content-driven modes.

Suggested Further Reading Carrió-Pastor, M. L. (Ed.). (2009). Content and language integrated learning: Cultural diversity. Berlin: Peter Lang. This edited book collects contributions to the topic of how CLIL learners develop multicultural awareness while learning a foreign language and offers


W. Yang

implications for CLIL practitioners to follow in multicultural learning environments. Deardorff, D. K., & Arasaratnam-Smith, L. A. (Eds.). (2017). Intercultural competence in higher education: International approaches, assessment and application. London: Routledge. This edited cutting-edge exploration of developing university students’ intercultural competence with the provision of international encounters, is contributed by scholars from 19 countries. Killick, D. (2014). Developing the global student: Higher education in an era of globalisation. London: Routledge. This theory-based book addresses how university students can act effectively and comfortably in a globalised community and pays specific attention to transforming students’ life experiences and community cultures for the development of global selves. Berardo, K., & Deardorff, D.  K. (2012). Building cultural competence: Innovative activities and models. Sterling, VI: Stylus Publishing, LLC. This practical book provides school educators and administrators with innovative exercises and step-by-step guidelines for designing cultural competence courses to build learners’ intercultural skills.

Engagement Priorities • In your context, what measures can you or your institute take to realise internationalisation at home (IaH)? What are the challenges of IaH? • How do you define “intercultural awareness” in your context? Are there any norms to follow? • Do you place increasing learners’ (inter)cultural awareness as one of your CLIL lesson aims? Why or why not? If yes, how do you assess it? • Do you believe that L1 speakers of the target language are more eligible than L2 speakers to teach (inter)cultural knowledge in CLIL classrooms? Why or why not? Acknowledgements This study was sponsored by the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST- 108-2410-H-328-002-) and the Project of Higher Education Sprout, Ministry of Education (MOE), Taiwan.

  Developing Intercultural Competence: A Comparison of CLIL… 


Appendix A: CQS (Adapted from Ang et al., 2007) (I)

Demographic information

Gender (female, male); nationality (Taiwanese, international student); year (2nd, 4th); internship destination (home country, overseas English-­ speaking country, overseas non-English speaking country) (II) CQS (from 1 [strongly disagree] to 7 [strongly agree])

1.1 I truly enjoy interacting with people from different cultures. 1.2 I thrive on the differences in cultures that are new to me. 1.3 Given a choice, I prefer workgroups composed of people with different (rather than similar) cultural backgrounds. 1.4 I value the status I would gain from living or working in a different culture. 1.5 Given a choice, I value the tangible benefits (pay, promotion, perks) of an intercultural rather than a domestic role. 1.6 I value the reputation I would gain from developing global networks and connections. 1.7 I am confident that I can persist in coping with living conditions in different cultures. 1.8 I am sure I can deal with the stresses of interacting with people from cultures that are new to me. 1.9 I am confident I can socialise with locals in a culture that is unfamiliar to me. 2.1 I can describe the different cultural value frameworks that explain behaviours around the world. 2.2 I can describe similarities and differences in legal, economic, and political systems across cultures. 2.3 I can describe differences in kinship systems and role expectations for men and women across cultures. 2.4 I can describe different views of beauty and aesthetics across cultural settings. 2.5 I can speak and understand many languages. 2.6 I can describe the ways that leadership styles differ across cultural settings. 2.7 I can describe how to put people from different cultures at ease. 2.8 I can describe effective negotiation strategies across different cultures.


W. Yang

2.9 I can describe different ways to motivate and reward people across cultures. 2.10 I can describe effective ways for dealing with conflict in different cultures. 3.1 I develop action plans before interacting with people from a different culture. 3.2 I think about possible cultural differences before meeting people from other cultures. 3.3 I ask myself what I hope to accomplish before I meet with people from different cultures. 3.4 I am aware of how my culture influences my interactions with people from different cultures. 3.5 I pay attention to how cultural aspects of the situation influence what is happening in that situation. 3.6 I am conscious of how other people’s culture influences their thoughts, feelings, and actions. 3.7 I adjust my understanding of a culture while I interact with people from that culture. 3.8 I double check the accuracy of my cultural knowledge during intercultural interactions. 3.9 I update my cultural knowledge after a cultural misunderstanding. 4.1 I change my use of pause and silence to suit different cultural situations. 4.2 I vary my verbal behaviours (accent, tone, rate of speaking) to fit specific cultural contexts. 4.3 I modify the amount of warmth I express to fit the cultural context. 4.4 I modify how close or far apart I stand when interacting with people from different cultures. 4.5 I change my non-verbal behaviours (hand gestures, head movements) to fit the cultural situation. 4.6 I vary the way I greet others (shake hands, bow, nod) when in different cultural contexts. 4.7 I modify the way I disagree with others to fit the cultural setting. 4.8 I change how I make requests of others depending on their cultural background. 4.9 I vary the way I show gratitude (express appreciation, accept compliments) based on the cultural context.

  Developing Intercultural Competence: A Comparison of CLIL… 


References Ang, S., & Van Dyne, L. (2008). Conceptualization of cultural intelligence: Definition, distinctiveness, and nomological network. In S. Ang & L. Van Dyne (Eds.), Handbook of cultural intelligence: Theory, measurement, and applications (pp. 3–5). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe. Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., Koh, C., Ng, K. Y., Templer, K. J., Tay, C., & Chandrasekar, N. A. (2007). Cultural intelligence: Its measurement and effects on cultural judgment and decision making, cultural adaptation and task performance. Management and Organization Review, 3(3), 335–371. Batey, J.  J. (2014). Education diplomacy: Global diplomacy awareness developed through short-term international internships. Childhood Education, 90(1), 77–80. Batey, J. J., & Lupi, M. H. (2012). Reflections on student interns’ cultural awareness developed through a short-term international internship. Teacher Education Quarterly, 39(3), 25–44. Beelen, J., & Jones, E. (2015). Redefining internationalisation at home. In A. Curaj, L. Matei, R. Pricopie, J. Salmi, & P. Scott (Eds.), The European higher education area: Between critical reflections and future policies (pp.  59–72). Cham, Switzerland: Springer. Buchtel, E. E. (2014). Cultural sensitivity or cultural stereotyping? Positive and negative effects of a cultural psychology class. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 39(1), 40–52. Bücker, J., Furrer, O., & Lin, Y. (2015). Measuring cultural intelligence (CQ): A new test of the CQ scale. International Journal of Cross-Cultural Management, 15(3), 259–284. Bücker, J. J., & Korzilius, H. (2015). Developing cultural intelligence: Assessing the effect of the Ecotonos cultural simulation game for international business students. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 26(15), 1995–2014. Chao, M. M., Takeuchi, R., & Farh, J. L. (2017). Enhancing cultural intelligence: The roles of implicit culture beliefs and adjustment. Personnel Psychology, 70(1), 257–292. Chen, A.  S. Y. (2015). CQ at work and the impact of intercultural training: An empirical test among foreign laborers. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 47, 101–112. CIC (Cultural Intelligence Centre). (2019). Culture. Available at http://culturalq. com/about-­cultural-­intellignece/culture/. Accessed 25 Dec 2019. Coyle, D. (1999). Theory and planning for effective classrooms: Supporting students in content and language integrated learning contexts. In J. Masih (Ed.), Learning through a foreign language: Models, methods, outcomes (pp. 46–62). London: CILT.


W. Yang

Coyle, D. (2007). 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. (2009). Promoting cultural diversity through intercultural understanding: A case study of CLIL teacher professional development at in-service and pre-­ service levels. In M. L. Carrió-Pastor (Ed.), Content and language integrated learning: Cultural diversity (pp. 105–124). Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang. Cross, M., Mhlanga, E., & Ojo, E. (2011). Emerging concept of internationalisation in South African higher education: Conversations on local and global exposure at the University of the Witwatersrand (Wits). Journal of Studies in International Education, 15(1), 75–92. Crowther, P., Joris, M., Otten, M., Nilsson, B., Teekens, H., & Wächter, B. (2001). Internationalisation at home: A position paper. Amsterdam: EAIE. De Wit, H., Deca, L., & Hunter, F. (2015). Internationalisation of higher education: What can research add to the policy debate? In A. Curaj, L. Matei, R. Pricopie, J. Salmi, & P. Scptt (Eds.), The European higher education area: Between critical reflections and future policies (pp. 3–12). Cham, Switzerland: Springer. Diab, A. A. M., Abdel-Haq, E. M., & Aly, M. A. S. (2018). The effectiveness of using content and language integrated learning (CLIL) approach to enhance EFL student teachers’ cultural awareness. Online Submission, 1–27. Available at https:// Accessed 3 Oct 2019. Froese, F. J., & Peltokorpi, V. (2011). Cultural distance and expatriate job satisfaction. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35(1), 49–60. Gilin, B., & Young, T. (2009). Educational benefits of international experiential learning in an MSW program. International Social Work, 52(1), 36–47. Holtbrügge, D., & Engelhard, F. (2016). Study abroad programs: Individual motivations, cultural intelligence, and the mediating role of cultural boundary spanning. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 15(3), 435–455. Jacob, C., & Guéguen, N. (2012). The effect of physical distance between patrons and servers on tipping. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, 36(1), 25–31. Jones, E., & Reiffenrath, T. (2018). Internationalisation at home in practice. Available at­at-­home-­practice. html. Accessed 25 Apr 2020. Kehm, B. M., & Teichler, U. (2007). Research on internationalisation in higher education. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3-4), 260–273. Lawson, D., White, D. S., & Dimitriadis, S. (1998). International business education and technology-based active learning: Student-reported benefit evaluations. Journal of Marketing Education, 20(2), 141–148. Leask, B. (2009). Using formal and informal curricula to improve interactions between home and international students. Journal of Studies in International Education, 13(2), 205–221.

  Developing Intercultural Competence: A Comparison of CLIL… 


Lee, L. Y., & Sukoco, B. M. (2010). The effects of cultural intelligence on expatriate performance: The moderating effects of international experience. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 21(7), 963–981. Livermore, D. (2011). The cultural intelligence difference: Master the one skill you can’t do without in today’s global economy. New York: AMACOM. Luo, J., & Jamieson-Drake, D. (2013). Examining the educational benefits of interacting with international students. Journal of International Students, 3(2), 85–101. Méndez García, M. D. C. (2012). The potential of CLIL for intercultural development: A case study of Andalusian bilingual schools. Language and Intercultural Communication, 12(3), 196–213. MOE (Ministry of Education). (2020). The statistical database of the international students in Taiwan. Available at StatisticSearchD.html. Accessed 5 Jan 2020. Ng, K. Y., & Earley, P. C. (2006). Culture + intelligence: Old constructs, new frontiers. Group and Organization Management, 31(1), 4–19. Papatsiba, V. (2006). Study abroad and experiences of cultural distance and proximity: French Erasmus students. In M. Byram & A. Feng (Eds.), Living and studying abroad: Research and practices (pp. 108–133). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matter. Pérez-Vidal, C. (2015). Languages for all in education: CLIL and ICLHE at the crossroads of multilingualism, mobility and internationalisation. In M.  Juan-­ Garau & J. Salazar-Noguera (Eds.), Content-based language learning in multilingual educational environments (pp. 31–50). Cham, Switzerland: Springer. Pérez-Vidal, C., & Juan-Garau, M. (2010). To CLIL or not to CLIL? From bilingualism to multilingualism in Catalan/Spain. In Y. Ruiz de Zarobe & D. Lasagabaster (Eds.), CLIL in Spain: Implementation, results and teacher training (pp. 115–139). Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholar. Robson, S., Almeida, J., & Schartner, A. (2018). Internationalization at home: Time for review and development? European Journal of Higher Education, 8(1), 19–35. Rodríguez, L. M. G., & Puyal, M. B. (2012). Promoting intercultural competence through literature in CLIL contexts. Atlantis, 34(2), 105–124. Shaftel, J., Shaftel, T., & Ahluwalia, R. (2007). International educational experience and intercultural competence. International Journal of Business and Economics, 6(1), 25–34. Soria, K. M., & Troisi, J. (2014). Internationalisation at home alternatives to study abroad: Implications for students’ development of global, international, and intercultural competencies. Journal of Studies in International Education, 18(3), 261–280. Sudhoff, J. (2010). CLIL and intercultural communicative competence: Foundations and approaches towards a fusion. International CLIL Research Journal, 1(3), 30–37. Urban, E. L., & Palmer, L. B. (2014). International students as a resource for internationalization of higher education. Journal of Studies in International Education, 18(4), 305–324.


W. Yang

Van Dyne, L., Ang, S., & Koh, C. (2015). Development and validation of the CQS: The cultural intelligence scale. In S. Ang & L. Van Dyne (Eds.), Handbook of cultural intelligence: Theory, measurement, and applications (pp. 34–56). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe. Van Hoof, H. B. (2000). The international internship as part of the hospitality management curriculum: Combining work experience with international exposure. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Education, 12(1), 6–15. Varela, O. E., & Gatlin-Watts, R. (2014). The development of the global manager: An empirical study on the role of academic international sojourns. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 13(2), 187–207. Verney, T. P., Holoviak, S. J., & Winter, A. S. (2009). Enhancing the reliability of internship evaluations. The Journal of Applied Business and Economics, 9(1), 22–33. Wächter, B. (2003). An introduction: Internationalisation at home in context. Journal of Studies in International Education, 7(1), 5–11. Weiermair, K., & Fuchs, M. (2000). The impact of cultural distance on perceived service quality gaps: The case of alpine tourism. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality and Tourism, 1(2), 59–75. Winn, B. (2013). Learning to lead with cultural intelligence (CQ): When do global leaders learn best: Recent academic research on people and strategy. People & Strategy, 36(3), 10–14. Yang, W. (2019). Developing tertiary level CLIL learners’ intercultural awareness with a self-produced coursebook integrating content and language. The Journal of Teaching English for Specific and Academic Purposes, 7(3), 329–347.

CLIL Professional Development and Awareness

The Role of CLIL in Learning About TESOL: Reflections from an Australian Master of TESOL Course Marianne Turner

Introduction In this chapter, I will discuss content and language integrated learning (CLIL) in the broader context of teaching English to speakers of other languages (TESOL), and reflect on how, as a teacher educator, I have come to understand two different roles for CLIL in TESOL. My understanding of these roles is closely linked to my experience of teaching a module on bilingualism and content-based programmes in a Master of TESOL (MTESOL) course in an Australian university. Given the nature of the course, it has been important to prioritise language progression as well as the scaffolding of language for the teaching of content. I have also had a strong focus on considering TESOL in relation to other languages, and have found CLIL to help with this. Practical literature on TESOL developed to guide English language teaching can have a sole focus on English, which might seem logical, but can lead to a lack of clarity around the use of other languages in formal education and, ultimately, to institutional monolingualism. Taken-for-granted or explicitly sanctioned monolingualism has been increasingly contested in discourses that privilege bi/multilingual students’ language practices as a resource for learning and as a way to affirm bi/multilingual identities (e.g., Blommaert, 2010; Cummins, 2007; García & Li, 2014). Over 30  years of evidence from the field of

M. Turner (*) Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 C. Hemmi, D. L. Banegas (eds.), International Perspectives on CLIL, International Perspectives on English Language Teaching,



M. Turner

bilingual education has also found that minority language speakers who learn in the minority language as well as in English do better than their counterparts who are only learning in English (Collier & Thomas, 2017). My own teaching is informed by this asset-based perspective on languages and the importance of understanding the relationship between languages in the study of TESOL. The two roles I perceive for CLIL are (1) contextual: an exploration of languages in relation to each other in particular contexts of use, and (2) pedagogical: guidance for language teachers in the implementation of content-based programmes. I will first give a very brief overview of CLIL before outlining my teaching setting. I will then discuss CLIL in relation to the contextual and pedagogical roles it can play in the teaching and learning of TESOL. Contextually, CLIL is considered to be one of three approaches that can help a diverse body of MTESOL students navigate the degree of exposure students have to a target language both inside and outside their classes. Pedagogically, CLIL can complement English-as-an-additionallanguage (EAL) approaches that are advocated in the field of TESOL in Australia. The two sections on the roles of CLIL, as well as the final discussion, are very much based on my reflections as a teacher educator.

CLIL CLIL is an umbrella term, established in Europe, for the learning of content alongside a target language. There has been some debate as to whether CLIL offers anything conceptually distinctive (Cenoz, Genesee, & Gorter, 2014); it can be considered to align with North America’s content-based instruction (Cenoz, 2015). Even so, the explicit focus on integration of content and language has been positioned as beneficial (Dalton-Puffer, Llinares, Lorenzo, & Nikula, 2014). This emphasis on integration has been coupled with a great deal of organisational flexibility. For example, Coyle (2007) stated that, in CLIL, “both language and content are conceptualised on a continuum without an implied preference for either” (p. 545). This has led to categorisations of content-driven CLIL, where content is the priority, and language-driven CLIL, where language learning is the focus (e.g., Ball, Kelly, & Clegg, 2015). Massler, Stotz and Queisser (2014) interpreted this in relation to classes: CLIL type A (content-driven CLIL) is taught in subject area lessons and CLIL type B (language-driven CLIL) in theme-based language lessons. Massler et  al. (2014) also included a type C where the teaching and learning of a language was fully integrated with the teaching and learning of a subject area, but called this type a ‘rare phenomenon’. Empirical studies of CLIL have tended to

  The Role of CLIL in Learning About TESOL: Reflections… 


investigate content-driven CLIL, or situations where content is being taught in the target language and the content is being assessed (Dalton-Puffer, Llinares, Lorenzo, & Nikula, 2014; Pérez-Cañado, 2012). CLIL—or at least content-driven CLIL—has had a strong focus on the English language (see Dalton-Puffer et al., 2014), but this has been in contexts where English is not the usual language of formal education. The term CLIL entered Australia more than a decade ago as a result of the popularity of CLIL in Europe (see Turner, 2013). However, it is generally reserved for the languages domain in schools, not the TESOL domain. For example, the term CLIL is used for the content-driven teaching and learning of foreign and heritage languages, but not for content-based English language programmes for migrants and international students. TESOL in English-speaking countries has its own history of pedagogical approaches to teaching and learning in content-based programmes. I will discuss this body of knowledge in relation to CLIL later in the chapter. In the languages domain in the Australian state of Victoria—the state where I live—CLIL is understood to be a flexible approach whereby school commitment or school-level organisational change can be present but is not required for a teacher to implement CLIL (Cross & Gearon, 2013; Turner, 2015, 2019). In this conceptualisation, CLIL is a pedagogical approach with a strong focus on integration as a teaching tool (Cross, 2015). A lack of emphasis on school structures that help to increase the amount of a target language students are exposed to at school can be understood as a way to help dedicated teachers make changes in educational settings where languages education is often marginalised (see Turner, 2019).

Context The context of my discussion is a Master of TESOL (MTESOL) course designed both for domestic teachers already qualified to work in Australian schools to upskill in TESOL and for international students. It does not lead to an accredited Australian primary or secondary teaching qualification (Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority, 2020), but it does offer a short teaching practicum with adult learners. There is a completely online option to the course, and Australian students often choose this, whereas international students overwhelmingly opt to study face to face. International students mainly come from China and Indonesia, but a minority come from a diverse range of countries—Vietnam, Chile, India, Bangladesh and Iran for example. The course is taught over two years with two modules


M. Turner

taught every 12-week semester, making eight modules in total.1 These modules are delivered in a blended mode with online presentations and videos, readings and activities, a mix of face-to-face and asynchronous discussion for the on-campus students and asynchronous discussion for the online students. The module I will be discussing in this chapter is called Bilingualism and content-based programmes, and falls in the second semester of the second and final year of the course.2 In the unit, there is a strong focus on framing TESOL as bilingual education. The learning outcomes include the ability to explain the political, sociocultural and pedagogical issues surrounding bilingualism and bilingual education, and how content-based programmes are positioned in the field of second language acquisition and applied linguistics. Students also need to be able to apply what they learn in the module to their own educational settings. The first assessment requires students to display their understanding of a particular bilingual or content-based approach in relation to a teaching and learning context of their choice. The approaches will be discussed in the next section. Allowing a choice of context is important given the diversity of the students. Students’ educational settings can differ substantially depending not only on their countries, but also on whether they are interested in primary, secondary or higher education, or in special programmes, such as international schools in China. In the second half of the unit, classroom pedagogy becomes the focus, and the final assessment requires students to programme a 12–15-hour module of work in a learning institution, and then rationalise their pedagogical choices. Following the sequence of the unit, I will now reflect on the role of CLIL in understanding TESOL through the lens of bi/multilingualism and then move on to its pedagogical role.

 he Role of CLIL in Framing TESOL T as Bilingual Education CLIL has the potential to play an important role in TESOL by acting as one kind of contextual frame for bilingual education. A diverse student profile brings into sharp relief the importance of context. My realisation that context could be made central to the structuring of content and that different lenses could be adopted on this basis occurred gradually. In the unit, the content was

 The MTESOL course has since been restructured and is set to include a greater number of shorter units.  In the newly restructured MTESOL course, the content of this unit has been expanded and divided over three units with two of these scheduled early in the two years. 1 2

  The Role of CLIL in Learning About TESOL: Reflections… 


originally structured around a typology of programme models for bilingual students (see Baker & Wright, 2017, p. 199). This typology is divided into three main forms of education: (1) monolingual forms of education, where the majority language is the only focus (English in Australia), or there is forced use of the minority language (in the case of apartheid); (2) weak forms of bilingual education, which include transitioning to the majority or national language, learning another language in a language classroom and (opt-in) minority language education with no focus on the majority language (learning only in Korean in an English-speaking country, for example); and (3) strong forms of bilingual education, where language enrichment is the goal and there is a significant educational focus on two or more languages in the educational setting. This latter programme type includes immersion (students speak the majority language at home), maintenance/ heritage language (students speak the minority language at home), two-way/ dual language (half the students speak the minority language—often Spanish in the United States—and half speak the majority language—English—at home) and mainstream bilingual (where two majority languages are the languages of the classroom). I continue to find the typology useful and employ it in my teaching. However, a significant challenge in guiding students’ thinking about diverse settings is that what they have seen, or what they can imagine when they consider particular institutions of learning, is frequently difficult to align with the typology. For example, transitional programmes (gradually reducing the instructional amount of minority language in order to transition from the minority language to a majority or national language) are understood to be a weak form of bilingual education and maintenance/heritage language a strong form. However, maintenance/heritage language programmes might be community programmes that run for two hours a week, and transitional programmes might be offered at school and provide a lot more exposure to the heritage language. CLIL—conceptualised in the immersion programme type—is also categorised as a strong form of bilingual education, but language-­ driven CLIL could only be happening in the language classroom, or CLIL can be taken up with 50 percent (or less) use of the target language in a particular subject area classroom (e.g., Czura & Papaja, 2013; Turner, 2019). The challenge in showing students the relevance of what they were reading to their own settings led to a stronger focus on context in the module. Following are the three contextual factors currently used to guide the students: (1) the extent to which students are exposed to the target language (English or another language, depending on the context) outside class; (2) whether or not the English language learning environment is monolingual (in


M. Turner

English), as it is in Australia; and (3) the way specific language(s) can be considered by schools, parents and wider communities to be more useful than others. The three approaches that derive from this highlighting of context are termed CLIL, English-as-an-additional-language (EAL)-in-the-mainstream and heritage bilingual education. In all three approaches, the aim is to explore how TESOL can be understood in relation to the teaching and learning of other languages, whilst allowing for a diversity of educational settings. The role allocated to CLIL is the learning of English in a non-English-­ speaking country, or the learning of a foreign language in an English-speaking country. The CLIL approach is one of enrichment because more than one language is prioritised in the learning institution (see Baker & Wright, 2017). In the module, students have sometimes chosen to think about how they would implement a CLIL programme in Australia, with a focus on a different language, such as Japanese or Chinese. Although a deviation from English language teaching, this is encouraged as a way to think about TESOL in relation to other languages, and also as a way to consider how TESOL might look in different countries where students may have little or no opportunity to speak English outside scheduled classroom use. Common issues related to this approach are how to increase the use of English (or the language under study) and how to deal with variables such as teachers’ degree of communicative proficiency in the language and the influence of exam-driven learning. The term CLIL, rather than immersion or content-based instruction, was chosen for its flexibility (the amount of target language used in the classroom, or structured into the school timetable, can differ widely in studies on CLIL) and for the way it is so often linked to foreign language learning. The strong emphasis on integration, the way CLIL encompasses language-driven CLIL, which can take place in a language classroom, and content-driven CLIL also make it attractive as an umbrella term for this context. The second approach of EAL-in-the-mainstream refers to situations where emergent bilinguals are studying English in an English-speaking country. The approach focuses on discussing how TESOL can move towards an asset-based perspective of languages by leveraging students’ extended linguistic resources inside and outside class. This approach maps well against Baker and Wright’s (2017) monolingual forms of education. However, it aims to counter the societal and educational aim of assimilation by making explicit links between home languages and English (as the dominant school language), encouraging heritage language maintenance in the community through these links, and generally privileging bi/multilingual knowledge in the classroom. This approach has also come to include situations in which studying English in an English-speaking country is emulated by a learning institution. For example,

  The Role of CLIL in Learning About TESOL: Reflections… 


some of my Chinese students have wanted to explore international schools in China, where they say that students are only allowed to speak English at school and all their classes are in English. This is not the same context as leaving the school and continuing to hear English, as an EAL student would in Australia. However, it is a situation in which students are not given the opportunity to learn bilingually, and TESOL is being framed as monolingual rather than bilingual education. The third approach refers to heritage bilingual education. Learning a heritage language is positioned differently from learning a foreign language because it is an identity language, and can often involve speaking to family members who have little or no proficiency in the majority language. Nevertheless, there can still be a great range of attention paid to the heritage language in the family. Success, both social and academic, can frequently be measured by students and also by their parents in terms of the majority language. Further, there might be a substantial gap between oracy and literacy, especially when the heritage language has a different script, or is logographic, because students might not be writing the language at home. Finally, a heritage language can range from Indigenous languages with comparatively few speakers to a lingua franca, such as Mandarin Chinese and French. The status of lingua franca is important in terms of the kinds of learning opportunities students (and teachers) can access. The degree of importance placed on a language by a regional government is also an important contextual factor, for example Catalan or Welsh, respectively, in Catalonia and in Wales. Some of my local students have chosen to investigate Indigenous contexts in Australia, and, increasingly, Chinese students have taken an interest in minority languages in China. The latter students explore these minority languages in relation to Mandarin Chinese and not English, but this is considered to be a way to understand issues surrounding teaching and learning a powerful language if the goal is for students to access bilingual education. These three approaches are structured according to the different kinds of issues brought to light by my students. There is certainly overlap. I particularly struggle with the emulation of English-only environments in non-­ English-­speaking countries. In Baker and Wright’s (2017) typology, this is categorised as a weak form of bilingual education. Nevertheless, as one of my Chinese students pointed out when discussing her own learner experience of an English international school in China, she felt that she had missed out on learning Chinese. Perhaps the overall view is that this is a weak form of bilingual education—she was speaking Chinese at home—but the programme type chosen by the international school was monolingual. This kind of issue positioned the school under EAL-in-the-mainstream, and not CLIL. However,


M. Turner

if the student’s intention was to take her desire to learn in Chinese as a point of departure, and consider how some Chinese-medium subject areas might be included in this setting, literature on CLIL would be more useful for her than literature on EAL-in-the-mainstream. Even with this kind of overlap among the approaches, I have found that highlighting context is a useful way to guide students’ thinking about bilingual education as a frame for TESOL in a meaningful way. Contextualising content and language integration has encouraged students to reflect more deeply on how their own learning and teaching experiences fit with literature on bilingual education.

The Role of CLIL in Pedagogy In the previous section, linguistic context was considered central to the role of CLIL in TESOL.  However, CLIL can also be understood as a pedagogical approach, and has been viewed in this way in the languages domain in Australia (Cross, 2015; Turner, 2019). In English-speaking countries, the mainstreaming of migrant and international students, coupled with the high-­ stakes nature of English language proficiency, has generated an abundance of TESOL literature that caters to EAL students across the curriculum (Turner, 2020). CLIL-as-pedagogy can be understood to fall within this content-based literature, and, in this section, I will reflect on what I see pedagogy developed under the CLIL umbrella as offering to content-based programmes in general. In order to make sense of pedagogies that focus on content-based programmes, I have generated four overlapping categories: form-focused instruction (FFI), functional language, language scaffolding and crosslinguistic pedagogy (Turner, 2019). These categories focus, to differing degrees, on learning language developmentally, ensuring understanding (and the ability to display understanding) of a subject area and leveraging the full extent of students’ linguistic resources in their learning. FFI is a pedagogical approach used to counter the effect that prioritising meaning over form can have on the accuracy of students’ language production. It has been defined as “any planned or incidental activity that is intended to induce language learners to pay attention to linguistic form” (Ellis, 2001, pp. 1–2). Functional language refers to the kind of linguistic understanding students need to access in order to comprehend and produce language in particular contexts of use. For example, language can be understood in relation to register—field (content), tenor (interpersonal nature of communication) and mode (oral, written, multimodal)—and also in relation to different genres, such as persuading, describing and narrating (see Halliday, 1993,

  The Role of CLIL in Learning About TESOL: Reflections… 


2009). In Australia, this systemic functional linguistics approach to language has been particularly influential in English policy documents (Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority, 2020), and has been taken up in different settings such as the United States (e.g., Schleppegrell, 2004) and China (Lin, 2016). A functional language approach has also been adopted in CLIL in Europe (e.g., Dalton-Puffer, 2016; Llinares, Morton, & Whittaker, 2012; Lorenzo, 2013). The third category of language scaffolding refers to a strong focus on helping students understand and display content knowledge; language development is not necessarily a goal. For example, strategies for scaffolding can include clarity and structure of lessons, explicit correction, repetition, using visual aids and connecting to students’ prior knowledge (see Navés, 2002; de Graaff, Koopman, Anikina, & Westhoff, 2007 for a summary of strategies in the context of European CLIL programmes). Finally, crosslinguistic pedagogy refers to the presence of more than one language in the classroom, and how language resources can be leveraged strategically for learning language and content. CLIL pedagogy offers a structural frame for these four overlapping categories, and can help to guide students’ understanding of the relationship between scaffolding learning of content, learning languages developmentally and leveraging students’ linguistic resources in a holistic sense. This structural frame relies on the 4Cs pedagogy in particular (e.g., Coyle, 2007; Coyle, Hood, & Marsh, 2010). The point of departure for the 4Cs is the co-construction of meaning with students (Coyle, 2007) that, from the outset, steers thinking away from highly transmissive teaching settings to classrooms where students are learning actively. The 4Cs refer to the importance of content, communication, cognition and culture/community. The communication dimension is further divided into language of, for and through learning. Language of learning is the language directly related to the content that is being taught, language for learning is the language of the activities the teacher chooses to guide the learning of content, and language through learning is the unanticipated language that arises as students take part in the activities. The focus on communication is thus directly related to the content of the lesson. The cognition and culture/ community dimension are also content driven. The cognition dimension connects well with teacher education in Australia, where the idea of cognitive demand is taught through what is frequently termed ‘higher-order and lower-­ order thinking skills’. In language classes, cognition can be constrained to the lower-order memorisation and comprehension of texts. In subject areas, students often need to analyse, synthesise and evaluate, and generally engage in what is understood to be higher-order thinking. The final dimension of


M. Turner

culture is conceptualised as surrounding the other ‘C’s, and can refer to a learning community as much as to cross-cultural learning. Although content is only one of the 4Cs pedagogy and no explicit preference is given to this dimension (see Coyle, 2007), the other three dimensions can frequently be harnessed to think about the scaffolding of this content knowledge (Turner, 2019, 2020). For example, the language needed to learn content and complete particular activities can take priority, not the linguistic progression of the students. This interpretation of the 4Cs allows subject area teachers who do not have a deep knowledge about language to scaffold the language needed through more general teaching strategies, such as visual aids, clarity and structure of lesson, and repetition. Quite logically, in an MTESOL course, students tend to be interested in TESOL, and not necessarily interested in the teaching and learning of content other than the English language. This has led to a sticking point with some of my students, who struggle to understand the relevance of what they are learning to a language classroom. The connection with language development—the practical content of what they understand themselves to be studying in the course—is not immediately clear to them. The 4Cs framing is a useful way to address students’ initial misgivings by demonstrating how a very strong form of task-based language teaching (TBLT), and the consideration of content and cognition, can be aligned with linguistic progression and strategic use of students’ linguistic repertoire in class. In reality, this alignment might happen in a distributed way: language teachers may collaborate with subject area teachers for example, or they may link their language and subject area classes if they are dually qualified (see Turner, 2019). We consider how it might happen in the same classroom in the module. The main topics that relate to pedagogy are academic and communicative language, focus on form, classroom language(s) use, genre theory (taking a systemic functional perspective), assessment, receptive skills and productive skills. In our discussion of communicative and academic language, we focus on a continuum of contextualised and decontextualised language. This adds to the 4Cs’ positioning of cognition as embedded in learning about content by showing the range of cognitive demand that is embedded in the choices we make about language. The importance of these choices (or register) and the associated cognitive demand is our entry point into pedagogy, and mapping the 4Cs is our next step. The communication dimension of the 4Cs lends itself well to a discussion on form-focused instruction, and how this might be used both to recycle and to teach new language in a holistic way; that is to say, to link language use directly to students’ linguistic progression. Next, the students are given the

  The Role of CLIL in Learning About TESOL: Reflections… 


opportunity to begin thinking about a module of work by laying out the content, activities (cognition) and language of, for and through learning in five intersecting mind maps (see Coyle et al., 2010, pp. 56–64, for an example). The preliminary feedback students receive on their mind maps relates to their choice of content and activities, and whether the communication dimension in particular fits well with their choice. Traditional TESOL pedagogy, whereby language is based around grammar and taught via a series of discrete familiar and/or engaging micro-themes can be conspicuous in these maps. The maps thus provide a platform to discuss how developing unified content over a number of hours can help to control, as well as to extend, language, and how working towards projects or activities with higher cognitive demand can be engaging for students. An example of a student’s mind map is given in Fig. 1. The context was a Year 4 primary mathematics class in China in which the children had begun learning English at an early age, and could express themselves using simple sentences and basic grammar. The aim was a 60 percent English and 40 percent Chinese distribution of language in the classroom. Subsequent topics can all then be related back to these mind maps, in order to discuss the topics as they relate to specific contexts. The content of the mind maps is incorporated by the students into their programme, under content objectives, language objectives and activities. Many students choose to write the language objectives and then the content objectives because they choose a setting of content-based language teaching (language-driven CLIL). In either case, the language objectives need to relate to a bigger picture of language progression, and not only to understanding the content of the module. Once the students have completed the five intersecting mind maps, they can then formulate a plan (and a rationale) for strategic use of languages in the classroom. In the assignment, students often colour-code which languages they are going to use and when in different activities. For the assessment topic, there is a strong emphasis on the extent to which language or content is being assessed, and CLIL literature is very useful for this (e.g., Bentley, 2010; Coyle et al., 2010; Mehisto et al., 2008). There is also an additional focus on the way that assessment might not only be in one language, and how this can be navigated. The other topics—genre theory, receptive and productive skills—emphasise language-in-context, or functional language. In genre-based pedagogy, genres are types of texts that have different functions, such as explaining, persuading, informing, instructing and entertaining (Derewianka & Jones, 2016). It is important to consider that the genre of what students need to understand might not be the same as the genre they need to produce. For example, students might read reports of a phenomenon in order to write an


M. Turner

The basic rules of addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division

The order of operations 1: addition/subtraction, OR multiplication/division


Implementation in reality

The order of operations 2: addition/subtraction, and multiplication/division

Review of the orders of operations by calculating prices of some items

Exchange results to get prices of all items


Explain the reason of selection

Carrying out the implementation by purchasing appropriate items Fig. 1  A mind map by Fan Chen on teaching mathematics at a primary school in China

essay. Functional language can be considered through the 4Cs communication lens of language of, for and through learning in that the lens can help students think through what language is embedded in, and central to the displaying of content knowledge. The genre of the assessment can be viewed as the language of learning, and the genre of other activities, language for learning. If students need to create an informative poster for an assessment,

  The Role of CLIL in Learning About TESOL: Reflections… 

Key vocabulary and phrases


Language of request, answer, and explaining

Language of learning

Effective use of future tense, conditional forms for cause

Grammatical progression in using modal verbs to express willingness for specific items

Enhancing Q&A skills

Extending presentation skills

Language through learning

Dictionary skills

Communicative strategies

Language to build arguments & build explanations

In groups: asking & answering questions with own resources

Language for learning

Writing a simple purchasing report Fig. 1  (continued)

the kind of language that the teacher expects this poster to contain becomes the language of learning. Negotiating essential and not-so-essential language in the classroom, and looking for connections between them, can guide understanding on how language can be scaffolded and recycled. This is


M. Turner

especially important in situations of low proficiency: thinking about effective ways to improve communicative language may involve students’ extended language practices, or leading students from what they know how to say in one language towards greater dexterity in the target language.

Discussion In this chapter, I have discussed CLIL as an acronym embraced in Europe and exported to different parts of the world, including Australia. CLIL has been critiqued as not being conceptually distinct from other kinds of content-based instruction (see Cenoz et  al., 2014). Nevertheless, if contextual factors are taken into account, CLIL has the potential to be incorporated into the way we frame the learning of English, in relation to both other languages and other kinds of learning. In Europe, CLIL generally has an enrichment focus: the target language is not the only cross-curricular language of instruction. This cannot be taken for granted in TESOL, especially in English-speaking countries, where instruction so often takes place solely through the medium of English. In contexts of diversity, such as an Australian MTESOL course that attracts both local and international students, drawing attention to the framing of TESOL is key to reflecting on differences between settings. For example, there seems to be little value in taking the usual Australian mainstream EAL approach to helping a student understand the factors involved in implementing an English content-based programme in a Chinese primary school. CLIL as a form of bilingual education also does not presuppose any family or community exposure to the target language. CLIL has certainly been used to refer to the teaching and learning of heritage and regional languages (e.g., Ó Ceallaigh, Ní Mhurchú, & Ní Chróinín, 2017), but the majority of literature on CLIL has a focus on foreign languages. Putting loose, contextual parameters around CLIL can help students from diverse settings navigate literature on bilingual education. For example, these parameters fit with literature on one-way immersion in the well-researched Canadian French immersion context.3 Linking TESOL to other kinds of learning is equally important. The 4Cs pedagogy in CLIL offers a lens that fits well with student-centred, enquiry-­ based approaches to education. It further allows content and language to be  In the unit, dual-language immersion in the United States is considered under heritage bilingual education because the minority language speakers were the catalyst for the approach (see de Jong, 2016). 3

  The Role of CLIL in Learning About TESOL: Reflections… 


positioned on a continuum, and this is a useful way to think about content-­ based programmes from a TESOL perspective. However, the pedagogy also draws attention to the nuanced relationship between language-driven and content-driven CLIL. The position of language teachers in CLIL has been cited as a pressing concern (see Dalton-Puffer, 2018), and guiding language teachers’ understanding of CLIL in relation to their own teaching is a potential way to address this concern. Language-driven CLIL done well is a complex endeavour that stands to reinforce content-driven CLIL implemented in subject area classes. It can also serve language teachers to understand the possible pitfalls—as well as the value—of content-based programmes to students’ linguistic progression. The field of expertise of language teachers is language (Harper & de Jong, 2009). CLIL can act as an effective frame for content-­ based programmes in TESOL, but it is the tip of the iceberg and different pedagogical approaches can then be leveraged to explore what lies beneath.

Implications In this chapter, I have reflected on CLIL in the context of an Australian MTESOL course that attracts students from diverse educational settings. Europe and North America hardly ever count amongst students’ regions of origin, and yet much of the literature on CLIL and content-based instruction (at least, the literature written in English) derives from these two continents. There are at least two main implications of this disjuncture; it is important to put context front and centre when analysing approaches, and also to show explicitly the relationship between different kinds of content-based pedagogies. A way to address the former is to consider the possible teaching and learning objectives of content-based programmes and seek to understand how well these objectives (both explicit and implicit) fit with different settings, whilst also working towards enrichment, rather than assimilationist, goals. Immediately beginning with a how-to approach to CLIL in TESOL can leave students with far more questions than answers, as they struggle to align what they are learning with the realities of their context. The second implication—showing the relationship between various content-­based pedagogies—includes the complexities that arise from a teacher’s body of knowledge, or area of specialisation. In an MTESOL course, learning about content-based programmes is important given the prevalence of these kinds of programmes delivered through the medium of English. However, the language progression of students may not be the chief concern in content-driven classes, especially when there is a large gap between the


M. Turner

language proficiency of the students and what they need to understand: point-­ of-­need scaffolding can take precedence. An implication for teacher educators in the field of TESOL is to clearly demonstrate to English language teachers how they can link content-based learning to longer-term language progression. One way to do this is to examine the relationship between the kinds of functional language needed for content-based learning and more traditional grammar-based language teaching. Sustained delivery of content can lend itself well to language progression. Exploring content-based pedagogies in an MTESOL course can help to focus on this, with CLIL pedagogy as an accessible point of entry.

Suggested Further Reading Baker, C., & Wright, W.E. (2021). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism (7th ed.). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. This book situates TESOL in bilingual education. Currently in its seventh edition, it gives the reader a comprehensive tour through issues related to bilingualism and bilingual education, and includes more assimilationist (monolingual) forms of education in the discussion. Lin, A. M. Y. (2016). Language across the curriculum and CLIL in English as an additional language (EAL) contexts: Theory and practice. Singapore: Springer. This book focuses on pedagogy and on connecting theory to classroom practice. It has a strong focus on functional language, including such concepts as genre and register. It is very useful for thinking about how to scaffold language in content-based classrooms where English is a language of instruction. Turner, M. (2019). Multilingualism as a resource and a goal: Using and learning languages in mainstream schools. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. This book considers other languages in relation to English and highlights the various ways languages can be integrated across the curriculum and the opportunities to learn (through) languages. It then discusses language integration and learning opportunities identified in empirical studies of primary and secondary schools in Australia.

Engagement Priorities • How can TESOL be promoted in relation to other languages, or from an enrichment perspective, in very different contexts? How can we ensure that context is central to advocacy for CLIL programmes in different parts of the world?

  The Role of CLIL in Learning About TESOL: Reflections… 


• What is the place of language teachers in content-based pedagogies? Can content area teachers be reasonably expected to have a deep knowledge of functional language, form-focused instruction and crosslinguistic pedagogies? • How can knowledge distributed between language teachers and content area teachers maximise students’ understanding of both language and content? How can the language students use to learn content be connected to their language progression in a holistic way (and vice versa)?

References Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). (2020). Australian Curriculum: English. Retrieved May 23, 2020, from­10-­curriculum/english/ Baker, C., & Wright, W. E. (2017). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism (6th ed.). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Ball, P., Kelly, K., & Clegg, J. (2015). Putting CLIL into practice. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Bentley, K. (2010). The TKT course: CLIL module. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Blommaert, J. (2010). The sociolinguistics of globalization. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Cenoz, J. (2015). Content-based instruction and content and language integrated learning: The same or different? Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28(1), 8–24. Cenoz, J., Genesee, F., & Gorter, D. (2014). Critical analysis of CLIL: Taking stock and looking forward. Applied Linguistics, 35(3), 243–262. Collier, V. P., & Thomas, W. P. (2017). Validating the power of bilingual schooling: Thirty-two years of large-scale, longitudinal research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 37, 203–217. Coyle, D. (2007). 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., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Cross, R. (2015). Creative in finding creativity in the curriculum: The CLIL second language classroom. The Australian Educational Researcher, 39(4), 431–445. Cross, R., & Gearon, M. (2013). Research and evaluation of the content and language integrated learning (CLIL) approach to teaching and learning languages in Victorian schools. Melbourne, Australia: Melbourne Graduate School of Education: The University of Melbourne.


M. Turner

Cummins, J. (2007). Rethinking monolingual instructional strategies in multilingual classrooms. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics (CJAL), 10(2), 221–240. Czura, A., & Papaja, K. (2013). Curricular models of CLIL education in Poland. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16(3), 321–333. Dalton-Puffer, C. (2016). Cognitive discourse functions: Specifying an integrative interdisciplinary construct. In E. Dafouz & T. Nikula (Eds.), Conceptualising integration in CLIL and multilingual education (pp.  29–54). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Dalton-Puffer, C. (2018). Postscriptum: Research pathways in CLIL/immersion instructional practices and teacher development. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21(3), 384–387. Dalton-Puffer, C., Llinares, A., Lorenzo, F., & Nikula, T. (2014). “You can stand under my umbrella”: Immersion, CLIL and bilingual education. A response to Cenoz, Genesee & Gorter (2013). Applied Linguistics, 35(2), 213–218. de Graaff, R., Koopman, G. J., Anikina, Y., & Westhoff, G. (2007). An observation tool for effective L2 pedagogy in content and language integrated learning (CLIL). International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(5), 603–624. de Jong, E. J. (2016). Two-way immersion for the next generation: Models, policies, and principles. International Multilingual Research Journal, 10(1), 6–16. Derewianka, B., & Jones, P. (2016). Teaching language in context (2nd ed.). Melbourne, Australia: Oxford University Press. Ellis, R. (2001). Investigating form-focused instruction. Language Learning, 51(Suppl. 1), 1–46. García, O., & Li, W. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism and education. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Halliday, M. A. K. (1993). Towards a language-based theory of learning. Linguistics and Education, 5(2), 93–116. Halliday, M. A. K. (2009). The essential Halliday. London: Continuum. Harper, C. A., & de Jong, E. J. (2009). English language teacher expertise: The elephant in the room. Language and Education, 23(2), 137–151. Lin, A.  M. Y. (2016). Language across the curriculum and CLIL in English-as-an-­ additional- language contexts: Theory and practice. Singapore: Springer. Llinares, A., Morton, T., & Whittaker, R. (2012). The roles of language in CLIL. New York: Cambridge University Press. Lorenzo, F. (2013). Genre-based curricula: Multilingual academic literacy in content and language integrated learning. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16(3), 375–388. Massler, U., Stotz, D., & Queisser, C. (2014). Assessment instruments for primary CLIL: The conceptualization and evaluation of test tasks. Language Learning Journal, 42, 137–150. Mehisto, P. D., Marsh, D., & Frigols, M. J. (2008). Uncovering CLIL. Oxford, UK: Macmillan Education.

  The Role of CLIL in Learning About TESOL: Reflections… 


Navés, T. (2002). Successful CLIL programmes. In G. Langé & P. Bertaux (Eds.), The CLIL professional development course (pp. 93–102). Milan, Italy: Ministero della’ Instruzione della’ Universitá e della Ricerca. 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, 5(1), 58–86. Pérez-Cañado, M.  L. (2012). CLIL research in Europe: Past, present, and future. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 15(3), 315–341. Schleppegrell, M. J. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Turner, M. (2013). CLIL in Australia: The importance of context. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16(4), 395–410. Turner, M. (2015). The significance of affordances on teachers’ choices: Embedding Japanese across the curriculum in Australian secondary schools. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28(3), 276–290. Turner, M. (2019). Multilingualism as a resource and a goal: Using and learning languages in mainstream schools. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan. Turner, M. (2020). Knowledge about (English) language across the curriculum in EAL and CLIL contexts. In P. Mickan & I. Wallace (Eds.), Handbook of language education curriculum design (pp. 90–106). London: Routledge.

CLIL-ising EMI: An Analysis of Student and Teacher Training Needs in Monolingual Contexts María Luisa Pérez Cañado

Introduction The rapid growth of English-medium instruction (EMI) within higher education (HE) programmes is an increasingly documented fact. EMI is seen as “an irresistible global trend” (Yeung & Lu, 2018, p.  35), since “the number of courses delivered through English-medium instruction (EMI) has grown at an exponential rate across the world, especially sweeping across Europe” (Karakas, 2017, p. 1). EMI is defined (Macaro, Curle, Pun, Jiangshan, & Dearden, 2018) as “the use of the English language to teach academic subjects (other than English itself ) in countries or jurisdictions where the first language of the majority of the population is not English” (p. 37). It is regarded as a more appropriate choice for most university settings than content and language integrated learning (CLIL) or integrating content and language in higher education (ICLHE), as it has fewer explicit language learning aims (Schmidt-Unterberger, 2018). Indeed, as Pecorari and Malmström (2018) have underscored, “language development is frequently ignored or deprioritized in EMI contexts” (p. 497). Its use of English as the vehicular language of instruction, the fact that it is not as European-oriented as CLIL, or its stronger association to

M. L. Pérez Cañado (*) University of Jaén, Jaén, Spain e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 C. Hemmi, D. L. Banegas (eds.), International Perspectives on CLIL, International Perspectives on English Language Teaching,



M. L. Pérez Cañado

higher education are further attributes which are regarded as criterial for EMI (Dearden, 2015; Dearden & Macaro, 2016). Bolstered by what Dalton-Puffer (2012) terms ‘strategic motives’ (associated to the international visibility and improved rankings of universities), ‘pedagogical reasons’ (related to the desire to prepare students for increasingly international and globalised job markets), and ‘substantial drivers’ (connected to essentially pragmatic aspects deriving from the status of English as a lingua franca), the research base on EMI has also been growing steadily (Macaro et al., 2018, for an overview). However, there is still a conspicuous research gap in pre- and in-service teacher development programmes for EMI at tertiary level. It is precisely this niche that the present chapter seeks to fill by reporting on a very recent investigation which supersedes the main deficiencies of previous studies. It works with a numerically representative cohort, factors in intervening variables to determine how these modulate the results, compares for the first time the views of frontline stakeholders in EMI, uses originally designed and validated instruments which it places at the service of the broader educational community for further iterations, and makes pedagogical decisions based on actual needs analyses, thereby constituting an instance of evidence-based practice. In approximating the study, the chapter seeks to address five main whquestions. It begins by justifying why we stand in need of an investigation of this nature and by canvassing which topics the previous research covers on teacher and student training needs for EMI. It then reports on how the study has been conducted and discusses what its chief results have been. On the basis of these outcomes, it finally charts where we are headed in the future by mapping out pathways for progression on the pedagogical front, applicable to broader educational contexts.

Why a Study into Training Needs? Four main reasons substantiate the need for a study such as the present one. To begin with, EMI is an increasingly burning issue on the language learning agenda: whereas it was previously regarded as an accessory, it is now seen as a pressing need for the internationalisation of higher education institutions (HEIs) (Bazo, 2019). Indeed, as Dearden and Macaro (2016) have put it, “the EMI phenomenon has been described as displaying a momentum unlikely to be reversed for the foreseeable future” (p. 456), being largely considered “an unstoppable train which has already left the station” (Macaro, 2019, p. 232).

  CLIL-ising EMI: An Analysis of Student and Teacher Training Needs… 


Despite its upsurge, there is still a well-documented paucity of research on EMI (Macaro et al., 2018). This research gap is particularly notable in professional development for EMI (Halbach & Lázaro, 2015; Macaro et al., 2018; O’Dowd, 2018). On this front, studies tend to cluster around three main areas: top-down approaches from the perspective of governing bodies in higher education institutions (HEIs), studies on student and teacher satisfaction with EMI which peripherally or indirectly focus on teacher education issues, and full-fledged investigations on professional development for EMI (see Pérez Cañado, 2020, for an overview of these three strands). However, these investigations are not instances of evidence-based research tapping into pre- or in-service teacher training which is solidly grounded on previously diagnosed needs. There is equally sparse evidence of the impact and overall success of these professional development programmes. In addition, the specialised literature has revealed a lack of top-down push to homogenise language and teacher training policies on EMI within and across universities and countries, together with a clear lacuna in the establishment of criteria for linguistic and methodological accreditation. Finally, a dearth of quality assessment methods for EMI teaching has also conspicuously transpired. Furthermore, the existing research is still plagued with problems and deficiencies (Dearden & Macaro, 2016; Macaro et al., 2018) which are reminiscent of the first stages of CLIL. There is a paucity of outcome-oriented studies on language and content impact; these fail to guarantee the homogeneity of experimental and control groups (something which compromises their validity, as EMI students tend to be better at baseline). There is scant comparative supranational research, issues of elitism have as yet been under-explored, no intervening or identification variables have been factored into existing studies on stakeholder perceptions, and there is clearly a dearth of research data on teacher education programmes for EMI. In this sense, we uphold that many of the lessons gleaned from research on CLIL can be productively applied to EMI: the convergence between CLIL and EMI research needs to be built upon in order to continue pushing the research agenda forward. Finally, we stand in definite need of further evidence-based practice. Needs analyses should be conducted to feed directly into pedagogical proposals which are solidly grounded on such empirical evidence and the success of the latter should, in turn, be gauged via satisfaction surveys in order to tweak them as necessary. In other words, pedagogical proposals of EMI courses should be aligned with training needs, as there is a documented mismatch between the actual needs of target academic situations and what is actually


M. L. Pérez Cañado

provided by EMI training programmes (Jiang, Zhang, & May, 2019). This is precisely the chief remit of the present investigation.

Which Topics are Covered in Previous Research? Despite the deficiencies pinpointed above in existing prior research, the latter does allow us to identify some interesting patterns vis-à-vis the training needs of the frontline stakeholders in EMI. Regarding teachers, several concurrent themes emerge in studies which gauge this cohort’s outlook on EMI programmes. The overarching one is that “the training of teachers in EMI is far from being treated as an important issue in European university education” (O’Dowd, 2018, p. 557). This is the case since important deficiencies transpire. A first one affects the heterogeneity of language policies at university. Existing studies craft a compelling case (Halbach & Lázaro, 2015; Lasagabaster, 2019) for the need to provide a solid top-down push to the homogenisation and coordination of language policies, as well as common EMI guidelines within universities, nationwide, and also internationally. Lack of benchmarking for teacher language proficiency is another recurring lacuna that exists (Briggs, Dearden, & Macaro, 2018; Lasagabaster, 2019). As Briggs et al. (2018) put it, “EMI is being introduced without […] clear policies on levels of teacher expertise” (p. 674). In line with the foregoing, the need to establish criteria for accreditation and descriptors to guarantee quality control of EMI programmes now also acquires a particularly sharp relief (O’Dowd, 2018). Yet, another oft-cited concern in the specialised literature is that for student and lecturer language proficiency (Jiang et al., 2019; Macaro et al., 2018). Both cohorts generally consider themselves to be ill-equipped linguistically, especially vis-à-vis the productive skills (Fortanet-Gómez, 2012), feeling especially vulnerable in terms of their accent (Doiz & Lasagabaster, 2018). Nevertheless, teachers seem to harbour a more positive outlook on their own language skills (as opposed to those of their students), which could be ascribed to what Doiz and Lasagabaster (2018) consider the prevalence of the ideal self (their view of themselves as competent users of the L2) over the ought-to self (other people’s vision of the individual). Two areas of language proficiency particularly stand out as being in need of being stepped up: discipline-specific literacy in English (Jiang et al., 2019) and communicative interactional academic competence (Kim, Kim, & Kweon, 2018). Discipline-specific literacy could be assimilated to English for specific purposes (ESP) or cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP) (Cummins, 1999). In turn, ­

  CLIL-ising EMI: An Analysis of Student and Teacher Training Needs… 


communicative interactional academic competence could be equated with English for academic purposes (EAP) or basic interpersonal communication skills (BICS) (Cummins, 1999). Both should be firmly embedded in EMI programmes: there should be a “language-conscious implementation of English-medium education that would entail the integration of ESP and EAP teaching” (Schmidt-Unterberger, 2018, p. 536). Both types of language, in fact, comes across as a sine qua non for EMI training and development. A further deficiency that conspicuously comes to the fore is the lack of methodological training observed in existing EMI courses, which tend to centre almost exclusively on language skills (Ball & Lindsay, 2013; Tuomainen, 2018; Zenkova & Khamitova, 2017). Methodological issues require increased salience because as Cots (2013) claims, the introduction of EMI entails a significant shift of methodology, with which non-language lecturers might well not be familiar. Finally, other important aspects which should be part and parcel of EMI teacher provision courses, according to the teachers’ views (Dafouz, 2018; Margić & Vodopija-Krstanović, 2018; Tsui, 2018), are materials review and design, simulated instruction of model EMI cases through micro-teaching scenarios, feedback provision from experts on lecturers’ practice, and opportunities for reflective practice on ideological and identity issues relating to the lecturers’ self-image. The need to heighten collaboration between discipline experts and language specialists is equally underscored (Jiang et  al., 2019). Schmidt-Unterberger (2018) considers incentives should be provided on this score (e.g. monetary compensation or teaching load reduction) in order to foster team teaching and collaborative curriculum planning. While teacher training needs cluster around several areas, student needs tend to centre almost exclusively on one: linguistic aspects. Studies tapping into learners’ views have reported, overwhelmingly, insufficient levels of proficiency (Çankaya, 2017). Although most students are pleased with their teachers’ linguistic competence and subject expertise (Karakas, 2017), they consider efforts need to be stepped up in order to equip learners to meet the language challenge (Yeung & Lu, 2018). Greater student confidence has been found to lead to more positive attitudes towards EMI (Bukve, 2018), and the benefits of language enhancement programmes offered by HEIs have also been amply documented (Cosgun & Hasirci, 2017). The research concurs on the concrete linguistic aspects which should be integrated in language support programmes: academic (vs general skill-based) English (Alkandari, 2017; Karakas, 2017; Yeung & Lu, 2018). Alongside this language focus, active learning methods should also be promoted (Alkandari, 2017). As Ozer and


M. L. Pérez Cañado

Bayram (2019) have put it, “teaching through EMI requires not only effective use of English but also effective use of pedagogical skills” (p. 67). None of these studies, which are furthermore very limited in number, have, however, been based on specific needs analyses, worked with numerically representative samples, carried out across-cohort comparisons, or offered originally validated instruments for their replication in comparable contexts. A study is now presented which overcomes all these deficiencies, thereby constituting an instance of evidence-based practice in professional development for EMI.

How has the Study been Conducted? The broad goal of this investigation is to conduct a large-scale analysis of the main training needs which lecturers and students at a Spanish university have in order to step up to bilingual education in an EMI context and, based on those outcomes, derive the necessary pedagogical implications to address the main areas in need of attention. It canvasses teacher and student perceptions vis-à-vis their training needs on the theoretical underpinnings of EMI, linguistic competence, methodology, materials and resources, evaluation, ongoing professional development, and mobility. It also determines the existence of statistically significant differences between the perceptions of both cohorts. The present investigation is a cross-sectional concurrent triangulation mixed methods study with four types of triangulation (data, methodological, investigator, and location triangulation). In terms of sample, the study has worked with an ample cohort of students and teachers, with 794 participants in all, from 165 subjects, 28 bachelor’s degrees, and 8 master’s degrees. Specifically, 641 students and 153 teachers have partaken in the investigation. They are all primarily Spanish, so that the EMI programme at this University favours internationalisation at home.1 Both cohorts have been polled via two chief instruments: questionnaires (self-administered and group-administered) and semi-structured interviews. The teacher questionnaire includes a total of 50 items and the student one, 45. Both begin with some general questions on the respondents’ background (e.g. age, gender, nationality, teaching experience), which correspond to the identification variables of the study. Then five blocks (in the case of the  “The process of integrating an international, intercultural, or global dimension into the purpose, functions or delivery of post-secondary education” (Knight, 2004, p. 11). It involves “the purposeful integration of international and intercultural dimensions into the formal and informal curriculum for all students within domestic learning environments” (Beelen & Jones, 2015, p. 69). 1

  CLIL-ising EMI: An Analysis of Student and Teacher Training Needs… 


teachers) and four sections (in the student survey) of closed-response, Likerttype questions are included, with an open-response question at the end of each block for the cohorts to elaborate on those aspects they deem necessary. In turn, interviews were the second tool employed for qualitative information gathering. Semi-structured interview protocols were used, where clear-cut questions had been established beforehand, but always with a view to allowing further elaboration on each of the areas of concern. The questions comprised in the interviews correspond to the main thematic blocks parallel to those included in the questionnaires for the comparability of both instruments. All of them were face-to-face focus group interviews, normally conducted in groups of approximately ten lecturers/students. The data obtained on the questionnaires was analysed statistically, using the SPSS programme in its 25.0 version. Descriptive statistics were used to report on the results obtained for teacher and student perceptions. Both central tendency (mean, median and mode) and dispersion measures (range, low-high, standard deviation) were calculated. In turn, paired sample T tests were used to determine the existence of statistically significant differences between both cohorts. To calculate effect sizes, Cohen’s d was employed. For the analysis of the interview protocols, Grounded Theory analysis (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) was used to code the data and draw meaning from it. Data coding, memoing, and conclusion drawing for the responses on the semi-structured interview were used in order to categorise, synthesise, and identify emerging patters in the open-response data.

What are the Results? Overall Outcomes: Teacher Perspectives This initial heading on global teacher perspectives paints a comprehensive picture of the main training needs which EMI lecturers at the University of Jaén have to step up to the bilingual challenge. To begin with, it transpires that teachers in our monolingual context are not well versed in the theoretical underpinnings and information about EMI.  They are only familiarised with the bilingual programme at the University of Jaén and with its system of incentives,2 but are unaware of the main models and variants of bilingual education, its legislative frameworks, or  Some of these incentives include teaching rebates, reduced fees in the language courses offered by the university, or priority access to mobility schemes. 2


M. L. Pérez Cañado

the results of empirical studies vis-à-vis its functioning. The most highly rated item is the one pertaining to the need for additional incentives to be set in place for EMI lecturers. This concurs with the claims made by SchmidtUnterberger (2018) to scale up incentives for participants in bilingual programmes at tertiary level. The focus group interviews drilled down into the specific types of incentives for which the lecturers clamoured and these hinge on six main fronts. To begin with, they would like extra support in class, especially by native or fully competent speakers of the language who can act as language assistants and can also help correct their written materials. Lecturers are also vocal about the need to intensify training, especially at advanced levels and through intensive courses. This goes hand in hand with the need for increased mobility programmes: teachers explicitly ask for greater funding for language and methodological training abroad. Economic incentives equally come to the fore, in terms of both salary increase and gratuity of language courses and language-level certification exams. Teaching rebates are also actively demanded, as they consider this type of teaching should be assigned greater weight in credit recognition, accreditation and promotion purposes, and decisions to downsize bilingual groups. Finally, it is also interesting to note that teachers mention their desire to extend EMI courses well beyond individual subjects with foreign students; they would like to see them spill over into entire degrees with Spanish students, thereby favouring internationalisation at home. Very interesting insights are also gleaned when we examine issues related to language competence. In general, teachers tend to harbour a quite self-­ complacent view of their own language skills, especially those pertaining to written expression and specific academic vocabulary. This echoes Doiz and Lasagabaster’s (2018) finding that the ideal self tends to predominate over the ought-to self in the case of lecturers. However, their oral expression skills and vocabulary for communicative interaction (EAP) in the classroom are not as updated, an outcome which reinforces the claims made by Schmidt-­ Unterberger (2018) as regards the need to embed EAP teaching within EMI training courses. The outlook held by teachers vis-à-vis their students’ linguistic competence is an altogether different story. Indeed, they consider it is deficient in all the skills and this negatively impinges on their capacity to follow EMI lessons without difficulty. When asked whether they focus on linguistic aspects in class, they overwhelmingly claim not to, something which is consistent with the fact that the language learning objective is a second-order one in EMI (Dearden & Macaro, 2016; Pecorari & Malmström, 2018). The major takeaways which emerge from the methodology and materials section are that, while information and communications technologies (ICTs)

  CLIL-ising EMI: An Analysis of Student and Teacher Training Needs… 


have acquired a sharp relief in EMI and online/blended learning is increasingly a reality, there are still major niches to be addressed as regards methodologies and materials. While the teachers claim that the teacher-fronted lockstep lecture has largely taken a backseat in bilingual programmes, the array of student-centred methodologies and types of groupings is still not being fully capitalised on. These findings are in complete harmony with the specialised research, which has considered methodological training should run through EMI courses as a chief strand (Ball & Lindsay, 2013; Zenkova & Khamitova, 2017). While it appears that teachers can access a wide variety of original materials for their subject and even design them themselves, they still consider them inadequate, on the whole, to cater to all students’ needs and claim that they do not include guidelines in Spanish to foster their comprehension. A much more positive view is sustained on evaluation by the practitioners polled. They prioritise content mastery over linguistic competence, do not penalise incorrect use of English, and use a diversified, holistic, and ongoing type of evaluation, where the use of Spanish is not normally allowed. Completely in line with the foregoing, when explicitly asked about their ongoing professional development and mobility needs, teachers at our institution do not consider they need training on evaluation, specific vocabulary, or materials design and adaptation. They also do not want to be directly observed in their bilingual sessions. However, they would appreciate direct counselling and feedback in the implementation of their subjects, greater participation in mobility programmes, increased methodological training, familiarisation with the theoretical underpinnings of EMI, and language training to communicate within and manage their bilingual classroom (EAP). In the interviews, they further expound on the desirability of learning from the good practices of others, having conversation classes with native speakers, and support in the correction of materials. This fully concurs with the outcomes of studies canvassed on teacher perceptions in the literature review (Dafouz, 2018; Jiang et al., 2019; Kim et al., 2018), where the training proposal which transpired included not only linguistic aspects, but all these other issues which our cohort has also explicitly touched upon.

Overall Outcomes: Student Perspectives If we now turn to the student cohort, we detect both commonalities and divergences with the teachers. To begin with, vis-à-vis language competence, it is interesting to ascertain that, while the learners consider they have a


M. L. Pérez Cañado

relatively adequate oral and written comprehension, their perception of their productive skills (especially the oral ones) is that they are definitely not up to scratch. They claim to have important deficiencies particularly on oral expression, general language for carrying out oral presentations, and specific and classroom language for interaction (academic English). This outlook concurs with that harboured by teachers as regards their students’ linguistic needs and also with the findings of the specialised literature (Alkandari, 2017; Karakas, 2017; Yeung & Lu, 2018). However, the learner cohort sustains a quite positive view of their teachers’ linguistic competence on practically all fronts considered, especially in those that pertain to specific vocabulary (ESP or CALP) and written expression. This is in harmony with the teachers’ own perspectives of their language level and also with the outcomes of prior research (Karakas, 2017). In the interviews, however, some concerns are voiced as regards lecturers’ deficient pronunciation or inadequate oral expression, which are found wanting on occasions. Overall, the learners consider they can follow the EMI class without too much difficulty, but they do admit to experiencing problems of participation due to their language level, which causes them to have to resort to Spanish due to comprehension or communication issues. In line with what was upheld by the lecturers, they claim that a language focus does not run through the EMI classroom, thereby evincing, once again, that language-related aspects take a backseat in these contexts. The key findings from the data set on methodology and materials reveal another very interesting tendency. It clearly transpires that students hold an overwhelmingly positive view of materials: they consider they have an adequate variety to develop their subject in English correctly, and these meet different learners’ needs, something which diverges from the teachers’ views. However, like their lecturers, they claim that these materials do not include guidelines in Spanish. They once more differ from their teachers, however, in harbouring a more dismal outlook on the use of student-centred methodologies, learning modalities, and ICTs. This concurs with the findings of prior research, which point to the need to promote active learning methods (Alkandari, 2017; Ozer & Bayram, 2019). All these methodological and technological options are not being fully capitalised on, according to the student cohort, being limited to the use of group work, oral presentations, PowerPoint, YouTube, and the Integriertes Lern-, Informations- und Arbeitskooperations-­ System (ILIAS) virtual platform. Much more harmony is detected between both cohorts on the block pertaining to evaluation. The students, like their lecturers, consider that content area prioritised over linguistic competence, and, although the use of Spanish is not normally allowed, incorrect use of English is not penalised either. They

  CLIL-ising EMI: An Analysis of Student and Teacher Training Needs… 


also believe that a diversified and ongoing type of evaluation is employed, in line with their teachers’ outlook. Finally, the outcomes on ongoing development, mobility, and incentives are largely concurrent with those found in the first section, thereby reinforcing the results for linguistic competence. Students voice a pressing need to obtain more training on oral comprehension and production, on oral presentation preparation, and on specific and updated vocabulary (the lexicon they tend to use to communicate in the classroom is slightly stilted). They also request greater participation in mobility programmes. They are not fully familiarised with all the incentives offered by the university for the participation in bilingual programmes, but are vocal about the need for more, requesting an increase in the number of credits of EMI subjects, a credit recognition for certain levels of language competence, or a greater number of subjects offered in English and enhanced training for their teachers. This last view is in keeping with the lecturers’ desire to extend bilingual programmes to full strands or degrees.

Across-cohort Comparison Are these differences which have been informally observed in the descriptive analyses statistically confirmed? This next section on across-cohort comparison allows us to confirm patterns in this sense, and very interesting ones transpire. To begin with, it becomes evident that teachers harbour a more self-complacent view of their language competence, especially as regards written expression and comprehension. They also have a significantly more negative outlook on their students’ proficiency, practically across the board, particularly on their oral comprehension, written expression, and updated vocabulary for the EMI classroom. Vis-à-vis methodology, teachers also sustain a more optimistic view of their use of varied methods and groupings and of technological options, which they again claim to use to a greater extent than their students uphold. The same applies to evaluation: lecturers consider they use a more diversified and ongoing evaluation than their students give them credit for. The learners also believe that they are penalised for their incorrect use of English on exams to a greater extent than their teachers claim. Finally, only one statistically significant difference transpires on training: students need more specific vocabulary than their teachers, who believe they master it to a greater extent (Table 1).


M. L. Pérez Cañado

Table 1   Statistically significant differences across cohorts Items Teacher_Student 9_11 10_12 14_1 17_4 18_5 19_6 23_18 24_19 25_20 26_21 27_22 28_23 30_25 31_26 35_30 36_31 37_32 38_33 39_34 42_41



Standard deviation

Cohen’s d

p value

Teacher Student Teacher Student Teacher Student Teacher Student Teacher Student Teacher Student Teacher Student Teacher Student Teacher Student Teacher Student Teacher Student Teacher Student Teacher Student Teacher Student Teacher Student Teacher Student Teacher Student Teacher Student Teacher Student Teacher Student

3.68 3.37 3.50 3.34 2.83 3.15 2.83 3.09 2.66 2.86 2.77 3.02 2.05 2.16 1.97 2.44 3.19 2.90 3.16 2.86 3.15 2.69 2.68 2.34 3.27 3.00 3.19 2.91 3.36 2.75 3.29 2.80 3.53 3.02 1.61 1.88 3.38 2.77 2.30 2.74

0.47 0.79 0.55 0.80 0.82 0.74 0.71 0.69 0.69 0.73 0.68 0.79 1.06 1.03 0.95 0.96 0.91 1.09 0.91 0.95 0.71 0.90 0.92 0.81 0.74 0.89 0.69 0.91 0.78 1.07 0.73 0.91 0.74 0.91 0.63 0.82 0.67 0.90 0.89 0.85