CLIL beyond School Walls
Implications from a Language Experiential ProgramKatsuhiko Muto
Introduction
Considering the number of empirical studies on Content and Language Integrated
Learning (CLIL) conducted, the majority of them, though with varying researchscopes, has been focused exclusively on teaching content through language (or viceversa) in the classroom environment, where both the teacher and the students havedefinite roles as participants in learning. Whether CLIL is regarded either as alanguage teaching approach or as an educational approach (Cenoz, 2016), it seems
reasonable to suppose that CLIL confines itself in substantial school walls.
At the risk of equivocating over the rigorous difference in the definition oflearning and acquisition, the type of learning suggested in the CLIL approach can be
categorized as instructed (as opposed to naturalistic) second language acquisition,
where, according to Loewen (2014), acquisition occurs as a result of manipulating theprocess and conditions of second language learning. Indeed, a huge volume of studies
on CLIL have focused on the language competencies of students participating in
CLIL programs (Morton & Llinares, 2017). Only a handful of academic research on
CLIL, however, has been conducted in out-of-class/school settings with the least
amount of teacher’s instructional intervention. In those open-air lessons, often given
as a follow-up or supplementary activity to previous classes, learners, while doing aninterview or a survey, are asked to interact with local people living in the community,or to do minor research on the flora and fauna in their nearby natural environment.
Generally, the basic learning objective of such an activity is for students to ascertain
what they have studied in regular classes actually holds true out of school as well.
Taking into consideration the Community/Culture component of the 4Cs (i.e.,Content, Cognition, Communication, and Community/Culture) taxonomy, those outof-class learning opportunities are quite valuable in that students, now as
researchers or interviewers, are allowed to put into practice the knowledge they havegained through the lesson and the textbook. In regard of Community, Mehisto et al.
1

(2008) suggests that a successful CLIL lesson offers to students an ideal opportunity
where they can define their role within the classroom, the local and the global
context. Similarly, Ikeda et al. (2011) explains that as shown in Figure 1 Community
is a comprehensive concept that includes all the domains ranging from the classroom
where pair work and group work play a vital role in forming a learning community(Ikeda, 2017), to the world where ample opportunity for authentic communication isprovided. Moreover, Ball et al. (2015) goes beyond school and argues that “living in asociety in which exposure to the L2 is fairly high” may be beneficial to CLIL learners.

World
RegionCountry
Town/City
SchoolClassroom
Figure 1. Layers in Community (adapted from Ikeda et al., 2011: 9)

For all these specific claims, the concept of Community/Culture has not so far
been given a fair share of attention, compared to the other three Cs (Muto, 2017).
With regard to the disparity, Coyle et al. (2010) goes so far as to candidly describe
Culture, by his terminological preference, as the “forgotten C.” Given the potential
the least noticed component has in enhancing the potential of CLIL, the dearth ofresearch on linking it with learning contexts outside the classroom/school should be
duly recognized. In this paper, drawing on previous studies by the author, theimportance of fostering students’ awareness to broader communities in a language
experiential program will be discussed. Additionally, implications for conducting
CLIL activities with primary school students in an out-of-school environment will beoffered with practical illustrations of several language activities.

2Research Setting
Each of the studies being introduced in this article was conducted in summer
language experiential camps organized and provided by a Japanese private
educational organization, Kumon Educational Japan. Held annually since 2001,
though with administrative differences in location and length, the camps (English
Immersion Camps, hereafter EICs) offered under the same educational philosophy
boast the following common features.

The Aims and objectives
Compared with general English immersion camps where formal instruction isusually given, the EIC program, with the following three objectives in mind, is anexperience-oriented learning environment for campers to promote fluency rather
than accuracy.

1. To allow children to experience successful communication, using English as a
global language.
2. To allow children to share a communal lifestyle with people from different
countries and regions, learning about their cultures and ways of thinking, andrealizing the importance of understanding each other as members of the global
community.
3. To allow children to have confidence and the strength to actively challenge theunfamiliar, in addition to heightening the will to apply effort to strive forhigher goals.

In order to survive their camp life where English is “the communicative medium of
choice, and often the only option” (Seidlhofer, 2011), children need to communicate
with people with various first languages by use of English as Lingua Franca (ELF).
As Nikula et al. (2016) argues about immersion, it can be fairly said that the
program develops positive attitudes towards both the instructional language (i.e.,
English) and their speakers (i.e., camp leaders using ELF). Evidently, child campers
going through the unique program may consider English an important tool not only
for communicating with people, but for understanding differences in cultures and3respecting one another (Muto, 2012).

Campers
ChildrenChild campers range from third to sixth grade (ages 8-12) in primary school, all ofwhom regularly go to the Kumon classroom in the vicinity of their home and study
English (mostly reading, writing and listening). Moreover, as eligibility forparticipation in the immersion program, each participant is required to have passed
EIKEN Grade 4 or above, and/or completed studying in the classroom English
worksheets equivalent to the EIKEN grade. Taking into account that Grade 4 ispractically intended for 8th graders, they are considered exceptional primary schoolers
with sufficient proficiency to get by in a milieu where they are advised to use English
only.

Camp leaders
Leaders are all university undergraduate or graduate students, most of whom attend
Ristumeikan Asia Pacific University. With diverse nationalities and cultural
backgrounds, they are all non-native speakers of English who have acquired thelanguage as their official or second one back in their home countries. Their duties
ranging from conducting camp activities to taking care of all of the children’s needs,
applicants for the role are screened by interview, and prospective leaders receive
intensive training sessions to the extent that their leadership and teaching skills are
essentially equal. Without doubt, the diverse backgrounds and the instructional
resources camp leaders have are the essentials required for the success of the
program.

Camp activities
With those camp leaders staying on-site, most activities can be focused on international
understanding, and “diversity”, “awareness”, “confidence”, and “understanding” areoften the themes of activities. The cultural array of camp leaders enables uniqueactivities. In an activity, Traveling around the World, for example, leaders introduce
their home countries in an interactive way while using realia, and children, while4listening, take notes and later ask questions. In another activity called Love Chain,children enjoy watching skits played by leaders, where several types of greetings andeating habits are demonstrated, which children then imitate themselves in a group. As

Table 1. Key activities in a six-day camp
Day 1

Day 2

Day 3

Day 4

Day 5

My

World Food

Hometown

MarketTraveling
EnglishAM――

Graduation

around theFestival

Day 6

&

World

My Dream

Reception &
PM

Team

Wonder-OutdoorDrama &

Land

Games

Show-Biz

Love Chain――

Building

shown in Table 1, most activities are entitled with a unique appellation such as Love

Chain and Wonder-Land. The meanings of which are fully understood among campers,
but the procedures of each activity are carefully explained to children in simple English
so that they can evoke an image of how it will proceed and what the end product should
be like. Regarding the learning experience of young people, Coyle (2016) argues that thequality and nature of learning experiences need to be understood from learners’
perspective in order to make the learning, whether or not it is CLIL-based, successful.
In this respect, the trained leaders and also the Japanese camp staff, having always been
second language learners and users, may well have a concrete idea as to what outcomeof each activity should be expected from learners’ perspective.
In the sections that follow, with empirical data collected through motivational
research (Muto et al., 2013), an account of international posture will be provided.

International PostureInternational posture, according to Yashima (2002), is a general attitude towards theinternational community that influences motivation and attitude toward learning asecond language, which “predicts proficiency and second language communication
confidence.” In this manner, international posture is a pivotal motivation or attitude
required for Japanese learners of English to master the language. As Ikeda et al.
5(2011) suggests that the idea of Community is germane to interculturalcommunication and global understanding, it seems reasonable to say thatinternational posturing assumes a central role in exploring Community.
In Muto et al. (2013), in order to investigate two research questions: 1) how
participants’ attitudes towards English change throughout the program, and 2) what
key factors are necessary for raising international posture, a questionnaire was madebased on a large-scale motivational research study by Taguchi, Magid, and Papi
(2009). The questionnaire, comprised of 42 statements in 18 motivational or
attitudinal categories (Table 2), was provided to 86 children participating in a six-day
EIC program with 32 camp leaders coming from 17 different countries or regions
around the world.

Table 2. Motivational/Attitudinal categories
1. Intended effort

10. Fear of assimilation

2. Ideal L2 self

11. Ethnocentrism

3. Ought-to L2 self

12. Interest in the English language

4. Parental engagement / Family influence

13. English anxiety

5. Instrumentality-promotion

14. Integration

6. Instrumentality-prevention

15. Cultural interest

7. Linguistic self-confidence

16. Attitudes toward L2 community

8. Attitudes toward Learning English

17. International posture

9. Travel orientation

18. Tolerance for World Englishes

The child campers, aged from 8 to 12 years, were all asked to evaluate themselves
against randomly-arranged statements on a six-point Likert-scale (see Appendix)
twice before and after participation. The data of which were later examined by a ttest and a correlational analysis. Out of the 42 statements, the four that pertained tointernal posture were (originally given in Japanese):

Item 3. Studying English is important to me because I would like to work in
different countries.
Item 15. I want to get along with people from different countries by studying
6English.
Item 28. I want to understand different cultures of various countries by studying
English.
Item 36. I study English because I want to contribute to the world.

As shown in Table 3, through an analysis employing a t-test, 3 out of 4 items (No. 3,
15, and 36) under the category of international posture showed significant difference(p < .05). Judging from the results, it is likely that the particular camp may haveaffected three aspects of participants’ motivation or attitude: (a) willingness to workoverseas (Item 3); (b) socializing with people overseas (Item 15); and (c) eagerness tocontribute to the world (Item 36).

Table 3. International posture with significant difference (N = 57)
Cat.

17

Item

Mean

SD

p-value

pre

post

pre

post

3

4.561

4.929

1.124

0.988

.0126

15

5.196

5.446

0.989

0.822

.0378

36

4.232

3.821

1.253

1.151

.0368

Regarding a correlational analysis done on the 4 items under international posture(Table 4), the significant results obtained are summarized as follows: (1) Item 15 has
a strong positive correlation (0.7 < r < 1.0) with Item 6 and 35; (2) Item 28 with Item
6, 21, 35, and 40 respectively; and (3) no correlation is found with Item 3 and 36. The
following is the statements with their category.

Item 6. I want to get to know people from different countries.
(Cat. 16. Attitude toward L2 community)
Item 21. I am very interested in ways of thinking and customs of other cultures.
(Cat. 11. Ethnocentrism) *reversed statement
Item 35. I want to get along with people from countries where English is spoken.
(Cat. 14. Integration)

7

Item 40. I want to know more about people from different countries.
(Cat. 16. Attitude toward L2 community)

Table 4. Item numbers correlating with international posture
Positive Correlation

Item 3

Negative Correlation

Moderate

StrongModerate

Strong(0.4＜r≦0.7)(0.7＜r＜1.0)(- 0.7＜r≦- .4)(- 0.7＜r＜1.0)

6, 17, 18, 19, 21,

N/A

N/A

N/A

6, 35

7

N/A

6, 21, 35, 40

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

24, 25, 28, 30, 35,
37, 401, 2, 12, 14, 18,

Item 15

21, 28, 30, 31, 37,
38, 401, 2, 3, 12, 14, 15,

Item 28

17, 19, 22, 30, 32,
36, 37, 38, 42
2, 17, 20, 25, 28,

Item 36

29, 30, 39, 41

Discussion and conclusion
Based on the results, it may safely be assumed that the EIC program was effective innurturing three aspects of international posture: (1) willingness to work overseas; (2)socializing with people from different countries; and (3) contribution to the world.
Furthermore, it has been revealed that the posture may be strongly affected bymotivational/attitudinal attributes such as attitudes toward L2 community,
integration, and ethnocentrism.
In light of international posture, the language experiential camp that can utilize
abundant human and environmental resources is proven to be beneficial in fosteringawareness to communities beyond the school (i.e., foreign countries and the world).
The benefits of those out-of-class activities, as Nunan & Richards (2015) argues,
encompass not only the development of language and communication skills, also8

improvements in confidence and motivation, personal growth, and interculturalawareness. In the context of CLIL, Mehisto at al. (2008) suggests that the goals of aone-week CLIL camp should be for students to (1) experience success in living in asecond-language environment; (2) have fun and associate the CLIL language with an
enjoyable experience; (3) motivate students to continue second-language study; and(4) inspire students to continue learning the CLIL language.
One more feature to note about the camp program discussed above is that it isabundant with interactions among children doing translanguaging. According to
Garcia (2009), it is “the act performed by bilinguals of accessing different linguisticfeatures or various modes of what are described as autonomous languages, in orderto maximize communicative potential,” which is a natural and purposefulphenomenon in a bilingual context (Moore & Nikula, 2016). Obviously, in the campmost language activities are ones that require cognitive skills on the side of childparticipants, which often prompt them to use both languages. Those activities being
fun-oriented as well as goal-oriented, children feel disposed to communicate withpeers and leaders. This, in turn, leads to raising their willingness to communicate,
which can often be observed in CLIL and immersion contexts (Menezes & JuanGarau, 2015).

Implications
Lastly, as practical implications for CLIL classroom activities, I should like tointroduce synopses of four key activities from the EICs (Muto, 2016). Having been
conducted annually for several years, they are revised with definite objectives inraising communicative skills as well as intercultural awareness.

Love Chain
This activity enables participants to learn about and accept differences in cultures.
Camp leaders explain typical differences related to culture, such as food andgreetings. This activity is particularly concerned with two of the camps’ aims, toshare a communal lifestyle with people from different countries, and to realize theimportance of understanding each other.

9

Traveling Around the WorldIn this activity, participants learn about the different countries and cultures of thecamp leaders. The presentations are hands-on. Participants experience national
dance, food, traditional clothes, and so on. By doing this, participants are able toexpand their views, learn more, and boost their interest in other countries of theworld.

Wonder-Land
Participants listen to a presentation about world problems, such as global warming
and poverty. They learn about the reality of what is happening in the world. They
start to think about what they can do for society and take self-motivated action.

World Food Market
Participants learn how to negotiate in English as well as have fun and discoverdifferent foods of the world. They are given a set amount of money and a recipe forone international dish. Camp leaders work at a market, selling ingredients for the
foods at stalls. Participants go shopping and buy the necessary ingredients bynegotiating for a lower price.

With these activities incorporated into CLIL classes on intercultural communication
or global understanding, the status of the “forgotten C” may be restored while raising
students’ awareness to broader communities.

References
Ball, P., Kelly, K., & Clegg, J. (2015). Putting CLIL into Practice. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Cenoz, J. (2016). Discussion: Towards an educational perspective in CLIL language
policy and pedagogical practice. In Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (Eds.) (2016). Content andLanguage Integrated Learning: Language Policy and Pedagogical Practice. (pp.
159-164). New York: Routledge.
Coyle, D. (2016). Listening to learners: An investigation into ‘successful learning’
across CLIL contexts. In Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (Eds.) (2016). Content and Language
10Integrated Learning: Language Policy and Pedagogical Practice . (pp. 14-36). New
York: Routledge.
Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and language integrated

learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Garcia, O. (2009). Bilingual Education in the 21st Century: A Global Perspective .
Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Ikeda, M. 池田真. (2011).「CLIL の基本原理」．In Ikeda, M., Watanabe, Y. & Izumi,
S. 池田真・渡部良典・和泉伸一．(2011).『CLIL 内容言語統合型学習：上智大学外
国語教育の新たなる挑戦 第 1 巻原理と方法』上智大学出版．
Ikeda, M. 池田真. (2017).「言語能力から汎用能力へ―CLIL によるコンピテンシーの育成―」．In Institute for Advanced Studies in Education, Waseda University 早稲田
大学教育総合研究所.（監修）(2017).『英語で教科内容や専門を学ぶ―内容重視指導（CBI）、内容言語統合学習（CLIL）と英語による専門科目の指導（EMI）の視点から―』学文社.
Loewen, S. (2014). Introduction to Instructed Second Language Acquisition. New
York: Routledge.
Mehisto, P., Marsh, D., & Frigols, M. J. (2008). Uncovering CLIL: Content andLanguage Integrated Learning in Bilingual and Multilingual Education. Oxford:
Macmillan.
Menezes, E., & Juan-Garau, M. (2015). English learners’ willingness to communicate
and achievement in CLIL and formal instruction contexts. In Juan-Garau, M. &Salazar-Noguera, J. (Eds.) (2015). Content-based Language Learning in

Multilingual Educational Environments (pp. 221-236). Berlin: Springer.
Moore, P., & Nikula, T. (2016). Translanguaging in CLIL classrooms. In Nikula, T.,
Dafouz, E., Moore, P., & Smit, U. (Eds.) (2016). Conceptualising Integration in

CLIL and Multilingual Education (pp. 212-233). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Morton, T. & Llinares, A. (2017). Content and language integrated learning (CLIL):
Type of programme or pedagogical model? In Llinares, A. & Morton, T. (Eds.)(2017). Applied Linguistics Perspectives on CLIL (pp. 1-16). Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Muto, K. (2012). Roles English immersion camps play: Through the outcome ofKumon EIC. In Underwood, P., & Takano, N. (Eds.) (2012).『言語文化の諸相』, メ11

ディアイランド.
Muto, K. (2016). Developing can-do lists for stay-over type language programs.『人文・社会科学論集第 33 号』, 東洋英和女学院大学.
Muto, K. 武藤克彦．(2017).「CLIL beyond the classroom～英語キャンプの事例から～」. Presentation at 第 2 回 CLIL Seminar 2017, 早稲田大学.
Muto, K., Shinohara, T., Adachi, M., & Kikuta, M. (2013). English immersion camp
and international posture. In Sonda, N. & Krause, A. (Eds.), JALT2012,
Conference Proceedings. Tokyo: JALT.
Nikula, T., Dalton-Puffer, C., Llinares, A. & Lorenzo, F. (2016). More than content
and language: The complexity of integration in CLIL and bilingual education. In
Nikula, T., Dafouz, E., Moore, P., & Smit, U. (Eds.) (2016). Conceptualising

Integration in CLIL and Multilingual Education (pp. 1-25). Bristol: Multilingual
Matters.
Nunan, D. & Richards, J. C. (2015). Language Learning Beyond the Classroom. New
York: Routledge.
Seidlhofer, B. (2011). Understanding English as a Lingua Franca. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Taguchi, T., Magid, M. & Papi, M. (2009). The L2 motivational self system among
Japanese, Chinese and Iranian learners of English: A comparative study. In Z.
Dörnyei & Ushioda, E. (Eds.), Motivation, Language Identity and the L2 Self. (pp.
66-97). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Yashima, T. (2002). Willingness to communicate in a second language: The Japanese
EFL context. The Modern Language Journal, 86 (1), 54-66.

12

Appendix
The Motivational/Attitudinal Questionnaire1314