ISSN 1343-3105

Annual Review
ofEnglish Learning and Teaching
No. 26

Article:Content Selection in Japanese Content and Language Integrated Learning
Saeun LEE1

Instructions for Contributors ・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・

25

・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・

The JACET Kyushu-Okinawa Chapter
November 30, 2021

－ Article －Content Selection in Japanese Content and Language Integrated Learning
Saeun LEE
Miyazaki Municipal University
E-mail: saeunlee@miyazaki-mu.ac.jp
Abstract
Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) has been frequently implemented in many
countries where there is a perceived need for foreign language instruction for academic andprofessional disciplines. Within this paradigm, content learning plays a significant role in
CLIL classrooms along with language learning. In Japan, CLIL instruction has become
popularly adopted in English classrooms (e.g., Lockley, 2014; Ohmori, 2014; Tsuchiya &Murillo, 2015; Yamano, 2013a). However, although CLIL aims for both content learning andlanguage development, Japanese CLIL teachers put more weight on language teaching thancontent teaching. They tend to underestimate content development and what content to teachin CLIL and the content is not taken seriously (Ikeda, 2012; Nishino & Watanabe, 2008).
Therefore, this study investigated the content selected for learning in a Japanese university
CLIL course and discussed preferred content topics. Students indicated that the integrated
content influences their classroom engagement, affective reaction, meaningful interaction,and the class level adjustment. In addition, participants preferred the content topics that are
relevant and familiar to them and desired to learn about study skill methods. As content
selection in CLIL cannot be arbitrary (Coyle, Holmes, & King, 2009; Snow, Met, & Genesee,
1989), this study invites Japanese CLIL practitioners to recognize the significance ofintentional content selection and may contribute to developing criteria for integrating
appropriate content in a Japanese CLIL context.
Keywords: content and language integrated learning (CLIL), content learning, the choice ofcontent, language learning, Japanese English education
Introduction
Content provides a primary motivational incentive for language learning insofar as it isinteresting and meaningful for learners. Language then will be learned as “it provides accessto content, and language learning may even become incidental to learning about the content”(Snow, Met, & Genesee, 1989, p. 202). Content cannot be separated from learning a language
as language cannot be used without content. On the basis of the importance of content
involvement in language learning, Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) has
been established in Europe as a teaching approach which combines language learning andcontent learning. Mehisto, Marsh, and Frigols (2008) defined CLIL as “a dual-focused
educational approach in which an additional language is used for the learning and teaching of－1－

both content and language” (p. 9). CLIL emphasizes both content and language to be taught
in one classroom.
CLIL has a 4Cs framework constructed by Coyle in 1999; Content, Communication,
Cognition, and Culture/Community. Content refers to a subject or theme that educators
selected to teach students “the knowledge, skills, and understanding” (Coyle, Hood, & Marsh,
2010, p. 53) and the communication domain indicates “learning to use language and using
language to learn” (Coyle, Hood, & Marsh, 2010, p. 53). CLIL also “creates new knowledge
and develop new skills through reflection and engagement in higher-order as well as lowerorder thinking” which refer to the third framework, cognition (Coyle, Hood, & Marsh, 2010,
p. 54). Through the last category, culture, CLIL hopes to “offer rich potential for developing
notions of pluricultural citizenship (local and global) and understanding” within learners(Coyle, Hood, & Marsh, 2010, p. 55).
Moreover, a CLIL approach creates a meaning-focused naturalistic language learning
environment (Dalton-Puffer, 2007; Dalton-Puffer & Smit, 2007). CLIL has been implemented
by many language educators in many different countries over the last two decades, and ample
studies have identified its positive effects on learning (e.g., Doiz, Lasagabaster, & Sierra,
2014; Ikeda, 2013; Korosidou & Griva, 2013; Lasagabaster, 2009; Llinares & Pastrana,2013).
A number of studies on CLIL implementation in Japan have outlined positive outcomes(e.g., Ikeda, 2013; Oi, Kato, & Kobayashi, 2014; Yamano, 2013a, 2013b). However, although
CLIL highlights both language and content development, many of these empirical studies
have neglected to explore content learning and/or the content choice. Among a handful of
empirical studies exploring content learning in CLIL classrooms, several of them haveindicated that content development is insufficient (e.g., Lockley, 2014; Ohmori, 2014;
Tsuchiya & Murillo, 2015). Content for a CLIL approach should be new, skilled, andunderstandable (Watanabe, Ikeda & Izumi, 2012). For CLIL in a European context, content
learning involves school subjects such as mathematics, biology, and history from the required
curriculum. Some Japanese CLIL practitioners integrate academic knowledge (e.g., Lockley,2014; Sasajima, 2011; Tsuchiya & Murillo, 2015) but some others integrate content that ismore topical and thematic as the conventional English classrooms from the previous in Japan(e.g., Ibaragi, 2013; Ikeda, 2013; Koseki, 2015; Pinner, 2013; Yamano, 2013a, 2013b). Thisis named as soft/weak CLIL and many Japanese CLIL practitioners have implemented it inJapanese language classrooms (Ikeda, 2013). Even with thematic content integration, content
learning is not incidental in soft/weak CLIL (Paran, 2013).
Despite the fact that researchers and practitioners integrate various types of content
knowledge as the goals of each class in different contexts, there is no standard or specificguideline of what content to integrate for Japanese learners (Izumi, Ikeda, & Watanabe,2012). Furthermore, Japanese CLIL teachers pay less attention to content learning and its
choice because as Mehisto, Marsh, and Frigols (2008, p. 98) addressed, “teachers are not in－2－

a habit of integrating both content and language, and as a consequence neither are students.”
This leads to CLIL not being significantly different from other traditional language teachingapproaches in Japan. For successful CLIL implementation, content selection and contemplating
what it means while teaching a language are predominant components to achieve meaningfulcontent learning as well as language improvement. Therefore, content choice is highly
significant and it should be thoroughly considered by CLIL practitioners.
In this regard, empirical studies regarding content selection are essential for simultaneous
learning of meaningful content knowledge and development of language skills in a CLIL
approach. To examine appropriate content selection to implement CLIL in a required English
course in Japanese universities, this study adopts various topics of content knowledge fromone of the commercial textbooks. The instructional devices are mainly consisted of content
reading notes, English lectures, authentic materials, discussions, various tasks and activities,
and journal writing; detailed sample lesson plan is written in the method section. This study
focuses on the important notion of content integration in Japanese CLIL classrooms byinvestigating how the content learning influences students’ learning and some of the aspectsof consideration on content choice.
Literature Review
Historical Background of CLIL
CLIL was initiated in European language education. A tremendous number of studies
have demonstrated the positive outcomes of its implementation including improving students’language (Aguilar & Muñoz, 2014; Chostelidou & Griva, 2014; Korosidou & Griva, 2013),
increasing motivation (Çekrezi, 2011; Harrop, 2012), developing new content knowledge(Theologou & Papadopoulos, 2015; Xanthou, 2011) and cultivating higher-order thinking
skills (Chostelidou & Griva, 2014; Coyle, Hood, & Marsh, 2010; Ioannou-Georgiou, 2012;
Korosidou & Griva, 2013). CLIL has also begun to proliferate in Japanese English classrooms
along with evidence of it being an effective teaching approach (e.g., Godfrey, 2013; Ibaragi,
2013; Ikeda, 2013; Koseki, 2015; Pinner, 2013; Yamano, 2013a, 2013b).
However, it cannot be ascertained that students positively experience content learning
integration in a language classroom. In advance of implementing CLIL in a language
classroom, investigating students’ perspectives on content integrated learning is necessary
with regard to the quality and nature of students’ experiences in order to enable their learning
to become more successful (Coyle, 2013). There are only a handful empirical studies to havebeen conducted and motivation is one of the noticeable aspects (e.g., Lasagabaster, 2011;
Lasagabaster & Doiz 2015; Oxbrow, 2018; Pérez-Vidal, 2013). To illustrate, Pérez-Vidal(2013) stated that students’ motivation increased notably due to the greater appeal of subjects
in English and from practicing various activities following the 4Cs principles. Moreover, asurvey result from primary and secondary students exhibits higher levels of motivation on
both language learning and content subject learning (Oxbrow, 2018). Lasagabaster and Doiz－3－

(2015) also provided a survey to students from the results of which they perceived greater
development in CLIL classes compared to regular English classes, but the study was
specifically focused on language learning process without investigating content development.
As CLIL aims for simultaneous content and language development, it is crucial to explore thestudents’ perceptions on content learning integration and how the content learning influences
students learning experiences, however, there is less emphasis on students’ experiences ofcontent learning in Japanese language CLIL classes.
What is more, a number of CLIL scholars have offered criticism of content learning,such as its ineffectiveness in regards to the development of content knowledge (e.g., Apsel,
2012; Bruton, 2013; Makropoulus, 2010; Netten & Germain, 2009; Marsh, Hau, & Kong,
2000). Japanese CLIL implementation also faces this issue (e.g., Lockley, 2014; Ohmori,2014; Tsuchiya & Murillo, 2015). Paying insufficient attention to content choice has beenshown to result in inefficient content knowledge development (e.g., Lockley, 2014; Ohmori,2014; Sasajima, 2011; Tsuchiya & Murillo, 2015). For instance, Lockley taught history toJapanese university students. From students’ reflections, he found the learning of history wasdetermined to be an inappropriate choice because some of his participants questioned why
they had to learn Japanese history in English. Similarly content teaching of art and science
resulted in high linguistic demands on participants from a survey to explore students’
perceptions of CLIL in Tsuchiya and Murillo’s study (2015). In this respect, Ohmori (2014)
articulated that content learning improvement is unclear and insufficient in many Japanese
university CLIL classrooms because instructors emphasize language learning over content
learning. As aforementioned, studies resulted in ineffective content learning, content should
be intentionally selected along with a careful consideration of students’ needs, the scope ofcontent, and the sequence of content in order to achieve effective content learning for Japanese
students.
Strategies for Content Selection in CLIL Classrooms
In Europe, scholars of CLIL have published various trade books and resources. As
content selection cannot be arbitrary in any CLIL class, many researchers proposed guidelines
for content teaching and its choice. A CLIL trade book by Pavesi, Bertocchi, Hofmannová,
and Kazianka (2001) explained in detail how to integrate academic subjects and Mehisto(2012) emphasized grade-appropriate academic content integration to avoid cognitive
overload. It is suggested that instructors should re-sort, re-write, or reduce the text, and apply
non-verbal input as the need arises (Pavesi et al., 2001). Moreover, CLIL educators highlightthat content learning should be relevant for learners and interlinked with their daily life
(Coyle, Holmes, & King, 2009; Darn, 2006; Sepesiova, 2015). It is also emphasized that
integrated content should be related to learners’ interests. Moreover, familiarity is another key
for successful content learning in CLIL (Montalto, Walter, Theodorou, & Chrysanthou,2014). Overall, learners’ interests, needs, familiarity, and linking to learners’ lives are－4－commonly indicated in a content evaluation list. In addition, academic content subjects arealso frequently integrated in CLIL courses in European higher education.
Content Choice in Japanese CLIL Classes
As the Japanese educational environment is different from Europe, Japanese CLIL
courses integrate content topics regarding students’ interests, especially in primary andsecondary education settings (e.g., Ibaragi, 2013; Koseki, 2015; Yamano, 2013a, 2013b). The
content topic choice in elementary schools with lower levels of English learners is concernedwith increasing classroom engagement and results in the selection of topics such as cooking(e.g., Ibaragi, 2013). Admittedly, cooking could be an interesting topic that helps students to
pay attention, especially for lower level of English students. However, from the aim of the
CLIL approach, a question arises whether learning how to make a dish is pedagogicallymeaningful for students’ content knowledge development other than language learning
practices through cooking activities. It can be assumed that a needs analysis of content choice
to build content knowledge may be lacking in the process of designing CLIL lessons that use
such topics. Engaging students’ interests is important for successful lessons, however,educational benefits of content development should also be considered. Other primary CLIL
courses in previous studies (Yamano, 2013a, 2013b) integrated the content of animal species
and the life of frogs, which are related to other subjects such as biology and science. This
study demonstrated positive outcomes from students’ classroom tasks and classroom
observation that students were actively engaged with the content, even though the linguistic
demands were made on the young students regarding related scientific vocabulary (Yamano,
2013b). As shown, CLIL teachers should focus on content topics that result in meaningfulcontent knowledge development with younger and lower English level students in order todifferentiate with traditional English classes where language improvement is the main goal.
In another CLIL study, Koseki (2015) selected teaching about the country of Rwanda tobuild a global mindset to high school (CEFR A2-B1) and university students (B1). Even withthis unfamiliar topic, the content teaching from the final examination was effective because
the level of content did not require background knowledge about Rwanda. Moreover, thisstudy indicated that background knowledge about the selected content is another importantcriterion from students’ questionnaires. A study by Oi, Kato, and Kobayashi (2014) supported
this argument by demonstrating that the content teaching of electric signal generators to juniorhigh and high school students was effective even though the content is driven heavily byengineering, as students already had background knowledge from learning in previous classes.
Oi, Kato, and Kobayashi (2014) also articulated that students had strong interest in science.
Moreover, numerous secondary and university CLIL classes in Japan have adopted
international content topics such as the origin of chocolates, racism, global warming,
endangered species, human rights and peace, and conflict (e.g., Ikeda, 2013; Ohmori, 2014;
Yamano, 2013a). In these studies, CLIL instructors integrated teaching globalized content－5－topics as they are reasonable to learn in English. In contrast, learning Japanese history in
CLIL was abnormal for students (Lockley, 2014). Lockley implemented CLIL integrating
Japanese history as content choice in a Japanese university elective course and several
participants claimed in the reflections that they were confused why they had to learn Japanese
history in English and they felt odd from being taught Japanese history by a foreign looking
teacher even though it was world history of Japan related content. As a result, Lockley (2015)
integrated international history content that focused on international posture in the same
research site and observed that students were more engaged during CLIL lessons. Lockley
shows how the choice of content impacts students’ attitude toward the lessons.
In a slightly different vein, some CLIL instructors have integrated content teaching ofacademic subjects, particularly in higher education institutes, but many of those studies
resulted in insufficient achievement of academic content knowledge (e.g., Ohmori, 2014;
Sasajima, 2011; Tsuchiya & Murillo, 2015). To illustrate, in Sasajima (2011), CLIL teachers
selected biology and the human body for content learning because participants were medical
university students. The CLIL lessons included answering questions about medical related
content (e.g., “What is complementary/alternative medicines?”), lecturing about complementary
therapies and anatomical regions in the body, and discussing the content with authentic
materials in English. However, their content knowledge development was ineffective. Students
were able to understand the technical terms and their basic concepts, but they were not able
to thoroughly comprehended highly complex content that demanded cognitively challenging
academic lectures. Even with various attempts to explain the content knowledge, someparticipants experienced difficulty in comprehension. Ohmori (2014) also indicated similar
results from exploring recent CLIL practices with literature, anthropology and natural science,in that the degree of content learning improvement was not acceptable. Tsuchiya and Murillo(2015) also found that Japanese students experienced linguistic demands when learning art
and science in English. In this respect, they articulated that CLIL teachers should begin withan activity and a task about the content with low linguistic and cognitive demands, and thenlead learners to a task with several steps of high linguistic and cognitive demands. This issue
has been discussed from CLIL researchers: as more technical content renders less interaction(Smit, 2010), students may reach a threshold of learning content and language (Gierlinger,
2007; Marsh, Hau, & Kong, 2000; Várkuti, 2010). From the aforementioned studies, it isreductive to assume that academic content resulted in ineffective content development,
however, the studies provide an insight into the importance of integrating appropriate level
academic content in Japanese CLIL courses. Careful consideration and systematic analysis ofcontent choice is a vital process for designing CLIL classes to reach acceptable developmentof both content and language.
Research Aims and Research Questions
From the review of the previous literature, it can be ascertained that there seems to be an－6－imperative need for further empirical research into the students’ perceptions on integrated
content topics in Japanese CLIL classrooms and more exploration of appropriate content
integration in a Japanese university context. Hence, this study is aimed at exploring students’
perceptions on the integrated content topics and identifying some of the important aspects instudents’ content preferences and achievement. Moreover, this study discusses what types ofcontent topics would be beneficial for content and language learning in a Japanese university
English course. Two specific research questions were investigated:
1. How content influences a CLIL classroom for students?
-What is the role of content learning in a Japanese CLIL classroom?
-What do students say and/or write about content topics in a language classroom?
2. In what way should content be selected in a CLIL class?
-What topics of content do students prefer to learn in English?
MethodThis study follows a qualitative approach to provide thick descriptions for interpretingand understanding content integration in required English courses in a Japanese university.
The qualitative research method was adopted to allow for the collection of participants’experiences, thoughts, and feelings with ample time for deeper meanings to emerge from thestudents' interviews and reflective writing. A detailed explanation of the data collection andanalysis will be provided in the Instrument and Data Collection section below.
Participants and the Course Description
The research site was two CLIL classes (26 and 27 students) at a public university inSouthern Japan. The majority of students were from Kyushu and a handful of students werefrom mainland Japan. Nine students (two male and seven female) volunteered to participate
in the study. All nine participants used pseudonyms: Ai, Mai, Tomoko, Yuki, Shuhei, Fumi,
Hana, Saya, and Saki. They were all second-year students (20 years old). The participants’
English level was somewhere between B1 to A2 (CEFR). Some participants responded thatthey were interested in English and liked studying English, but not all participants expressedinterest in studying and improving their English skills.
The investigated course in this study was a required English course. The instructor wasfrom Korea and the primary classroom language was English. The class met face-to-face
twice a week (90 minutes) for 12 weeks. The integrated content knowledge was from atextbook, Prism Reading 3 (B1 to B2 CEFR) by Cambridge University Press (Kennedy &Sowton, 2018). It is composed of six units with 12 different content topics as shown in Table
1.

－7－

Table 1
Content Topics by Unit and Schedule
Unit
Content
Topic
RelatedAcademic
Disciplines
Content
Topic
RelatedAcademicdisciplines

Globalization Education
Medicine
EnergyArchitecture Art
Week 5
Week 1
Week 7
Week 3
Week 9Week 11
Homeopathy Alternative
Turkish Treats Choice ofForm orAll that Art is(Medicine) Energy(Cultural
majorsFunction(Design)(Communication)
Studies)(Engineering) (Urban
Planning)
Week 2
Week 4
Week 6
Week 8
Week 10
Week 12
Food
Distance vs.
Healthcare Reduce, reuse, Green
Photography
globalization Face-to-face Todayand recycle
buildings
as Art(Sociology)
learning(Health(Physics)(Architecture) (Fine Art)
(Education)
Sciences)

Each topic was based on different academic disciplines. The course was carefully designed
and planned for 12 weeks, on the basis of four CLIL principles: Content, Communication,
Cognition, and Culture/community (4Cs) (Coyle, 2005). Each CLIL lesson consisted of aseries of language learning tasks and follow-up activities designed to help the learners
leverage their prior content knowledge in developing new language competencies. Eachlesson began with a discussion of the reading passage and the instructor-provided reading
worksheet. Students could therefore share their questions in understanding the unit content
and vocabulary before moving into the main part of the lesson. This was followed by a
20-minute lecture, during which students were encouraged to take notes. The additional
content knowledge provided in the lecture was followed by discussions, role plays, and minipresentations designed to encourage students to transform their content understanding into
communication, cognition, and culture/community building activities. At the end of eachlesson, students were required to engage with the lesson content in English, before writing up
semi-structured journal reflections based on a series of comprehension questions designed to
provoke critical engagement with the content of each unit.
Instruments and Data Collection
All nine participants wrote an additional 1-page reflection after each unit discussing
what they had learned as part of class assignment (see Appendix). Students wrote the reflection
after the class and submitted on the same day of the class in order to avoid the situation where,
due to too much time passing between content learning and reflective writing, students wereunable to sufficiently recall the class. Moreover, students could choose to write either inJapanese or English to allow for the collection of detailed data. The second instrument was aninterview which was conducted at the end of the course to explore the experience of CLIL
throughout the semester and the students’ opinions about the role of integrated content
knowledge in English classes and the choice of topic. The individual interviews were generally
about 30 minutes in Japanese and recorded and transcribed by the author. Semi-structured
interview questions (see Appendix) were used and careful probing was facilitated by more
－8－

specific questions, if necessary, to elaborate participants’ opinions. During the interviews, theresearcher emphasized creating a relaxed atmosphere and ample time for students to respondto the interview questions because the questions about content learning could be difficult andunfamiliar making it challenging for students to give their opinions (Rubin & Rubin, 2005).
In addition, the participants were encouraged to use examples of content topics from English
textbooks in rephrasing their responses to the interview questions. This recalling of students’
past experiences in their English classes proved crucial to helping participants express
opinions more clearly. Written informed consent forms were obtained from all participants.
The interview was the major instrument used to answer the two research questions, and thereflections were analyzed to understand participants’ opinions and perspectives regarding thefirst research question, along with gaining holistic thoughts on content learning in a language
class. Reflections and interviews were translated by the author and checked by two native
speakers.
Data Analysis
Content analysis methodology was employed to analyze reflections and interviews bycoding and categorizing the data into key themes, patterns, ideas, and concepts (Hesse-Biber& Leavy, 2006). Both reflection and interview analysis followed the five steps of responsible
interviewing analysis technique outlined by Rubin and Rubin (2005):
1) Recognition: finding the concepts, themes, events, and topical markers;2) Clarify and Synthesize: through systematic examination of the different interviews
and reflections to begin understanding the overall narrative;3) Elaboration: generating new concepts and ideas after clarification and synthesis;4) Coding: systematically labeling concepts, themes, events and topical markers, giving
them a brief label to designate each and then marking in the interview and reflective
text where they are found;5) Sort: sorting the data units and ranking them and building relationships toward atheory(p. 207)
This process was repeated multiple times to refine and evaluate codes and categories thatanswer the research questions from participants’ reflections and interviews. Then, thereflections and interview data were synthesized and converged to delineate findings using
themes, patterns, connections and relationships. (Weston, Gandell, Beauchamp, McAlpine,
Wiseman, & Beauchamp, 2001). In the process of data analysis, an audit trail, member checks,
transparency in decision making and checking with other colleagues were carried out
throughout the whole process to enhance the trustworthiness of the study (Houghton, Casey,
Shaw, & Murphy, 2013).
Results and Discussion
In this section, the result and discussion of two research foci are described: 1) how the－9－integrated content influenced students’ learning, 2) the considerations for content selection
based on students’ preferences. Firstly, this section demonstrates four aspects of the effects
from content themes in a Japanese English course with CLIL approach.
The Influence of Content in CLIL Classrooms
The class reflections and interview scripts were analyzed to explore the role of content
in content integrated English classes. The collected data indicated that the role of content isrelated to four aspects: engagement, affective reaction, meaningful interaction, and cognitive
demand of content level.
Engagement. According to participants, content plays a role as a motivational boost for
their engagement in CLIL classes. In other words, depending on the integrated content topics,
participants manifested different levels of engagement, which is defined as “the amount ofphysical and psychological energy that the student devotes to the academic experience”(Astin, 1993, p. 297). Hana, Fumi, Saya, and Ai described their physical and psychologicalinvolvement during learning each content topics and their energies toward CLIL lessons wereup-and/or-down depending on the topics.
•	If the content is interesting to me, I become more curious… If I am not interested in
the content, my motivation decreases, so I lost my concentration (physical energydown). [When the content topics are interesting,] I forgot that I was learning in
English. I was more motivated (psychological energy up) even though I did notunderstand English sometimes. (Hana, Interview)•	When the content is not interesting, I easily get bored. X-reading (extensive readingmaterials) is very much so. When I have to read a book about boring stuff, I do notwant to read (psychological energy down) and stop reading [it] (lost physical energy).
(Fumi, Interview)•	Students (our group members) were quiet (physical energy down) today. They had
less opinion about homeopathy, than other topics. (Saya, reflection)•	I am usually sleepy (physical energy down) because the class is 1st period, but I
remember that I loved learning about art on that day. (Ai, Interview)The data suggests that the topics of content is an important factor for students’ motivation andengagement toward tasks and readings. It echoes with a previous study of Yamano (2013b)
that when students were interested in what they learn, students’ engagement and motivation
increased regardless of the language challenge. In this regard, content topics of readings play
an important role for active engagement to students’ performances, which echoes with thestatement of Guthrie and Wigfield (2000) that reading motivation relate to the processes ofengagement, the topics, and the outcomes of a reading.
Affective reaction. Furthermore, content topics determine participants’ emotional
response. Participants experienced negative emotional responses for specific content.
•	Homeopathy was not interesting (negative emotional response: boring) because it－10－

does not really relate to me. I do not remember much of the details and I do not havemuch opinion about it. It was difficult, too. (Yuki, Reflection)•	For example like Homeopathy, I thought it [the class] was hell (extremely negative
emotional response). I never want to (negative emotional response: boring) study
about it again. For me, the content that I am studying is very important. (Shuhei,Interview)
Such remarkable excerpts from the interviews reveal that content themes influence participants’emotional responses toward learning, which was also recognized in several previous studies(Lockley, 2014, 2015). In addition, positive aspects such as enjoyment with favorable content
topics also revealed.
•	Food globalization and art content was exciting (positive emotional response). I
enjoyed (positive emotional response) learning both content in English. (Saya,
Reflection)•	It was very interesting (positive emotional response) to learn different types of art andthe stories behind them. Although it was an English class, I felt it was an Art class(depicted positive emotional response). I was happy (positive emotional response) tolearn about Art. (Ai, Interview)
As shown, depending on the content topics, participants felt enjoyment or lethargy whilelearning the given content. Negative emotions prevent learning from occurring as it is difficult
to become better at something if one dislikes it and positive emotions magnify learning to be
more effective and enjoyable (Erickson, 1987). From the participants’ excerpts, consideringlearners’ affection is an important component when selecting content to integrate in CLIL
courses.
Meaningful interaction. Furthermore, integrated content topics are related to an active
and meaningful interaction during CLIL lessons. The content teaching about education fromthe textbook led participants to interact with peers from discussing what it means to be
educated to taking an active approach to college study. Participants’ reactions toward learning
Education content illustrated meaningful interaction in the thorough classroom discussion of
the content.
•	When we learned about Kurt Wüthrich for the Education major unit, our group
discussed more actively [than before] even we were talking in English. We had a lot
to talk about. I learned a lot from sharing information. It was very meaningful andbeneficial for us. I thought about education and my future and now. I have to thinkmore. It was a great opportunity to think about education and my future. (Mai,Interview)•	We have often discussed “general (common/trivial)” topics such as global warming,
aging populations, but I remember that the discussion was superficial and banal. I
want to have a meaningful conversation [for me] with good content topics. News andspecific issues that are happening now would make us discuss the current situation－11－

and are more important than just talking in English about trivial content for me. I cansay more about the recent news than simply practicing conversation such as asking for
hobbies and weekend plans with friends. (Saki, Interview)
As shown, accessing, demonstrating, and constructing meaningful content knowledge forstudents represents practical and real-world learning, which participants desire to think anddiscuss about in class. These two excerpts demonstrate one of the advantages of CLIL that
CLIL classes provide interaction in a social environment that leads to conversations that are
relevant for students about the content while practicing English (Coyle, Holmes, & King,
2009). Moreover, Pinner (2013) claims that content integrated instruction of a second/foreign
language takes place in social interactions with others. As students learn a language efficiently
in meaningful and purposeful social interactions (Snow, Met, & Genesee, 1989), integrating
content learning in CLIL allows the language learning to occur as a social activity and thecontent plays a role as a vehicle for socially constructed learning from meaningful interactions
while improving language skills unintentionally and naturally.
Cognitive demand of content level. Another fascinating result reveals from data that
integrated content determines the level of the CLIL class. In other words, when the topic is
unfamiliar and/or technical, students perceived the class as too challenging. The data indicatesthat depending on the content, the class difficulty increases, decreases, or is appropriate forstudents.
•	The content topics are very important. I mean, choosing an ‘easy and light’ content[that is an appropriate level for us] is important. If the content is difficult, I think,
English also becomes difficult like the Homeopathy unit. Homeopathy was difficult.
There were many medical terms that I had never heard before. It seems that topics
regarding science are always difficult in some degree and have technical terms.
Architecture unit was also the same. (Shuhei, Interview)•	Homeopathy’s class was more difficult than other classes. I couldn’t understand many
[English] words and it was difficult to grasp the [content] meaning in the passage.
Education related content and the recycling unit were easy to understand [the content]
and there was no vocabulary that I have seen for the first time. (Ai, Reflection)
According to excerpts, integrated content enables adjusting the class level; unfamiliar andhigh cognitive loading content result in difficult language learning and familiar and lesstechnical content result in easy learning of content and language. This finding aligns tonumerous previous literature that one of the major reasons for insufficient content learning
outcome is from integrating difficult content because it renders linguistic demands (e.g.,Ohmori, 2014; Sasajima, 2011; Tsuchiya & Murillo, 2015). The aforementioned excerpts
from Shuhei and Ai provide insight into the value of content choice as integrated content
plays an important role to determine the CLIL class level.
In summary, the data in this study reveals that integrated content influences students’
engagement, motivation, and emotional response toward CLIL classes. Moreover, integrating－12－

appropriate content topics invites students’ learning to be more socially constructed andrender meaningful and active discussions while reflecting on the integrated content andinteracting with others. In addition, students experienced challenges with the content that was
cognitively difficult. In conclusion, content plays various important roles in Japanese
university CLIL classrooms, thus, what content to integrate in Japanese CLIL classrooms
cannot be underestimated and requires thorough consideration.
Considerations for Content Selection
Preference of content topics. Investigating students’ preferences provides insight on
selecting content in a language classroom. Participants liberally listed preferred content topics
for CLIL lessons during the interviews are shown in Table 2.
Table 2Preferred Content Topic List
Preferred content topics
College e.g., Study abroad, Part-time work (3); College life in foreign countries (5); Reallife experiences (3)How to e.g., Study strategies (3); Use money; Communicate with foreigners (5); Usecomputers; Live independently
Future Job hunting (3); Jobs (CA, teachers) (6)Health e.g., Diet (2); Food (4); Self-management
Content for improving critical thinking skills (2)Didactic (Instructive) content e.g., Biography of famous and successful people;
Successful stories (2); Liberal arts subjects
Current
Japanese social issues e.g., Declining birth-rate; Gender problem; Aging population (2)issuesMedia e.g., SNS (4); Smart phone (4); IT (2)Worldwide news e.g., Poverty; Environmental issues; Politics; Religion; Global manners(2); Working in foreign; Countries (3); Cross-cultural issues (4)Novel topics TV celebrities (4); Movies (6); Animation (3); Game (2); fairy tales; Trivia (4); Fashion(3); Sports (4); Animals; Disney; Love (3); Death; Life (2)CulturalCultural differences (4); Japanese culture (2); Foreigners’ thought (5); Various countries
relatedand Culture (6); Stereotype (2); World heritages; World Landmarks (2)Personal
relatedNote. Participants’ general preferences regardless of the CLIL course in this research and the numbers in parenthesis
are the number of students’ references.

Overall, the topics the students found especially interesting were predictable, however, there
are several important features to deliberate for appropriate content selection to result in
effective content learning. The list of students’ preferences in Table 2 involves importantfeatures for determining appropriate content to integrate in CLIL; relevance, study skills,
background knowledge, and novelty, which will be discussed in the following section.
Relevance. Relevance of content is one of the salient components for selecting content
topics for effective CLIL classes. Participants preferred content that is associated withthemselves as self-relevant content motivates students to pay attention and learning becomes
more meaningful.
－13－•	I want to learn about something that is related to my daily and future life, something
like... college life, future career, how to increase motivation to do things. And,something that can stimulate us for self-disciplinary and living in general. When I
hear other real experiences of being successful or instructive content, it makes me dosomething. I think English class is good for learning and talking about it because we
can easily use English. (Tomoko, Interview)•	Today’s class (Homeopathy) was not interesting to me because I did not really careabout homeopathy. I do not know anything about it. I still do not understand what it is
and why we learned it, to be honest. (Shuhei, Reflection)
The interview and reflection of Tomoko expressed satisfaction after the CLIL lesson of
Education because the content was beneficial and closely related to her. In contrast, Shuhei
reported feeling apathetic about the lesson on homeopathy. This indicates that relevant content
choice entails an important role for beneficial content learning by encouraging students tohave a real conversation in a targeted language. The examples of relevant content were
illustrated from the data of students’ preferences: real life-related, studying strategies, didactic(instructive) content, managing college life, life-living tips and careers. Such relevant topics
can be appropriate in that CLIL aims to provide opportunities for ‘real communication’ from
integrating content learning and tapping into them for meaningful and natural use of thetargeted language (Dalton-Puffer, 2007). As indicated, a number of Japanese CLIL educators
integrated relevant content that is closely related to students’ lives (e.g., Ibaragi, 2013;
Yamano, 2013a, 2013b). The study by Algee (2012) is also evidence to the outcome that
personal oriented content invites learners to be more engaged and motivated within language
learning.
Study skills. In addition to relevance, content topics related to learning how to study
effectively were preferred by participants. For instance, a number of participants describedthat they want to learn educationally influential and instructive content topics which arepractical for them to apply in their studying: learning strategies, study methods, study habits,
how to manage college life, successful case learning (e.g., biographies), and didactic(instructive) content.
•	I want to learn how to study effectively. I remember when we study about Kurt
Wüthrich, it was very beneficial. I know that I have to study vocabulary and listen to
many audio-clips and so on to improve my English, but actually, I want to know more
specific and practical methods. I want to know how other people really improved theirEnglish skills. We can learn about that, right? It will be helpful to learn and we can dothat in English. (Hana, Interview)•	[I want to learn] some knowledge and methods about how to manage college life welland keep good grades. I want to understand how to study more effectively. Suchcontent would be good to learn and discuss in English class. There is no class that welearn and talk about how to study. I feel like I need to learn that in university…I think－14－

English class can be good for that. I would feel more relaxed talking [in English]
about those topics, because it does not seem too difficult to learn in English. (Saki,
Interview)
Teaching language learning strategies is an important component in language classroom
teaching (e.g., Chamot, 2008; Cohen, 2011; Cohen & Macaro, 2007; Oxford, 1990), and alsoin CLIL classes (e.g., Gutiérrez Martínez, & Ruiz de Zarobe, 2017; Ruiz de Zarobe, & Zenotz,
2015; Yang, 2017). Many CLIL instructors employ language learning strategies and teachingas a part of the instructions (Marsh, Mehisto, Wolff, & Frigols, 2010; Mehisto, 2012).
Furthermore, Saki and Hana explicitly depicted that they desire to learn about a variety ofsuccessful studying scenarios and study methods. Hence, in addition to teach effective study
skills and methods, it would be beneficial to go further teaching in-depth, such as the functionof the actual process of studying and in what way human’s learning generates integratingsome of the liberal arts subjects that are related to studying, such as philosophy, pedagogy,
psychological approach of learning, cognitive development process of human. These content
topics are generally taught for students of education major, however, learning about
aforementioned content topics could benefit all college students who are aiming for higher
academic achievement. This outcome is fascinating as it broadens viewpoints of content
choice in English classes and it is another robust support of the first feature, relevance, fordetermining what content to teach in Japanese CLIL.
Background knowledge. Having background knowledge is another significant criterion
for content learning choice. Knowing in some degree about the content is necessary forparticipants.
•	I would like to learn content that is familiar to me some extent. It would be difficult tolearn in English if I do not know about it. The homeopathy and architecture units werelike that. I actually do not remember what I learnt about the content detail. (Mai,Interview)•	Among various topics, I realized that my comprehension [the degree of understanding]
is different between the content that I know and I don’t. I have learned about alternative
energies before [when I was in high school]; thus, I was able to understand the content
very well and comprehended the reading text easily. In contrast, I felt it was difficult
to study about the medicine unit, particularly homeopathy. Of course, the technicalterms were difficult but more importantly, I could not imagine or grasp the content
even I was reading multiple times. In class, we searched about homeopathy and you
explained, so I was able to understand, but still don’t know much, haha. I think, thecontent that I have some knowledge of, or am familiar with, is very important because
it relates to my understanding because we are learning about it in English. (Yuki,
Interview)
As indicated from two excerpts, integrating familiar content learning is one of the keys when
designing CLIL classes because students learn the content in a second/foreign language.
－15－

Content topics that are familiar to learners provide less cognitive demand. Particularly in alanguage classroom, students’ poor performances are correlated with the limited prior content
knowledge (Waxman & Tellez, 2002). Having background knowledge about the integrated
content is considered as an essential component in CLIL guideline books. Montalto, Walter,
Theodorou, and Chrysanthou (2014) stated that new content must build from what students
already know. Furthermore, Meltzer and Hamann (2004) claimed that clear connections of
new and background knowledge become a vehicle for future learning. As Mai and Yuki
described and Coyle, Holmes, and King (2009) and other numerous CLIL scholars proposed,
appropriate content involves previous knowledge for discovering new knowledge in CLIL.
Given that, it could be worthwhile to identify students’ background knowledge when
determining what content to teach, and systematically organizing the sequence of content isalso crucial for CLIL classes.
Novelty. While considering students’ background knowledge for content learning isfundamental, participants pointed out the repetition of content topics in many of their previous
English classes. They stated that they wish to learn new and novel content. Japanese students
have been learning English since elementary education with various topics regarding global
issues repeatedly because they are related to the foreignness for learning in English.
•	We’ve been learning and discussing a lot about social issues like aging population,birth-rate decline, environmental issues like saving energy etc. They are not interesting
anymore because we already know and talked too much about them in high school. I
want to learn about something new and interesting [in English classes], no moreglobal warming. (Tomoko, Interview)•	We have talked a lot about saving energy in junior and high school classes, so it[Alternative energy unit] was too easy to understand. I didn’t feel that I learned
something [for content learning]. It was boring, to be honest. (Shuhei, Interview)•	I want to learn interesting content that gives me more stimulated interests. Some of thecontent like saving energy, recycling, distance and face-to-face learning because they
are too easy and I have already learned and talked about them in many high school
English classes. Art unit was very good because I learned many new things about Art.
And architecture unit was interesting as well because I could learn important functions
for building and how to build. I made me to build my house. (Yuki, Interview)
As Tomoko, Shuhei, and Yuki noticeably described, similar content topics of learning fromthe past leads to no additional content development which fails to meet the CLIL content
learning goal. It has been discussed in a study of Kim and Tracy-Ventura (2013) that repeated
topics and tasks often demotivated students, and result in less learning engagement. In the
CLIL guideline, appropriate content should invite students to discover and learn new
knowledge, develop existing skills, and deepen understanding (Coyle, Holmes, & King,
2009). There are several attempts to avoid the repetition of content topic integration fromconventional English classes of secondary education and teach academic content knowledge－16－

in university CLIL classes (e.g., Ohmori, 2014; Sasajima, 2011; Tsuchiya & Murillo, 2015).
As participants found it boring to study some of the repeated content topics, new and novel
content topics integration in CLIL is important. However, the data also showed that backgroundknowledge and the sequence of content integration is also an essential component to consider.
Therefore, these two components, novelty and background knowledge, should be considered
together depending on the purpose of the classes. For the general English classes in thisresearch site, students should have new and interesting input to attract their attentions, andbackground knowledge could be more important if the course goal is integrating academic
content learning. From this aspect, pre-assessment and needs analysis are essential for CLIL
practitioners.
Conclusion
In conclusion, active research on how integrated content topics influence both content
and language learning is crucial for successful CLIL implementation in Japan. This study
suggests that selecting appropriate content is the necessary first step toward increasing
students’ classroom engagement and motivation. Moreover, meaningful conversations occur
depending on the content that students learn. Integrated content also influences the students’
perception of content difficulty. In taking the students' content preferences into account,relevancy is a key element for enhancing content integration into developing language learnercompetencies. Students want to learn how to develop their study skills, and learn about new/novel content that is related to their daily lives. Moreover, choosing content that is age
appropriate and that can leverage students’ existing background knowledge is also necessary
in developing more engaging learning environments and practices.
This study reinforces the notion that deliberate planning of what content to teach is
crucial for effective content learning as well as in developing language competencies in a
Japanese CLIL course. As Coyle, Hood, and Marsh (2010) stated that “[t]he operational
success of CLIL has been in transferability, not only across countries and continents, but also
across types of school” (p.1), investigating this particular research site contributes toknowledge of appropriate content selection for Japanese CLIL classes. For CLIL to help
students develop their literacy skills and communicative competencies in English, it isnecessary for teachers to analyze students’ needs, interests in the process of lesson planningfrom students’ side and contemplate what to teach for meaningful content learning. Moreover,active research on what content topics to teach as the needs of current society is also one of
the important tasks for CLIL instructors. The time required for instructors to develop
appropriate CLIL materials is thus an essential aspect of making CLIL successful in thevarying socio-cultural and institutional settings. In addition, more professional development
workshops and tailor-made hands-on guidelines for Japanese CLIL practitioners may also
prove crucial to the successful integration of CLIL into Japanese university language classes.
Lastly, further empirical investigation of content integration will likely prove critical to the－17－effective data collection necessary for the further integration of content learning in Japanese
CLIL courses.
Acknowledgements
First and foremost, my sincere gratitude goes to Professor Tom Salsbury, who expertly
guided me through an earlier stage of the research and whose unwavering support has kept
me engaged with the current study. Furthermore, my deepest appreciation also extends tothree anonymous reviewers for their insightful and valuable comments and suggestions. Last
but not least, I would like to thank all of the research participants for sharing their time andgenuine opinions.
References
Aguilar, M., & Muñoz, C. (2014). The effect of proficiency on CLIL benefits in engineering
students in Spain. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 24(1), 1–18. doi:
10.1111/ijal.12006
Algee, L. M. (2012). Exploring English language learners (ELL) experiences with scientificlanguage and inquiry within a real-life context (unpublished doctoral dissertation).
University of California , Santa Cruz.
Apsel, C. (2012). Coping with CLIL: Dropouts from CLIL streams in Germany. International
CLIL Research Journal, 1(4), 29–35. http://www.icrj.eu/14/article5.html
Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Bruton, A. (2013). CLIL: Some of the reasons why... and why not. System, 41, 587–597. doi:
10.1016/j.system.2013.07.001
Çekrezi, R. (2011). CLIL and teacher training. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15,3821–3825. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.04.379
Chamot, A. U. (2008). Strategy instruction and good language learners. In C. Griffiths (Ed.),
Lessons from good language learners (pp. 266–281). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Chostelidou, D., & Griva, E. (2014). Measuring the effect of implementing CLIL in higher
education: An experimental research project. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences,
116, 2169–2174. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.538
Cohen, A. D. (2011). Second language learner strategies. In E. Hinkle (Ed.), Handbook of
research in second language teaching and learning (Vol. 2, pp. 681–698). New York:
Routledge.
Cohen, A., & Macaro, E. (Eds.). (2007). Language learner strategies: Thirty years of researchand practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Coyle, D. (1999). Supporting students in content and language integrated contexts: Planningfor effective classrooms. In J. Masih (Ed.), Learning through a foreign language:－18－

Models, methods and outcomes (pp. 46–62). London: CILT.
Coyle, D. (2005). Developing CLIL: Towards a Theory of Practice. APAC Monograph 6,
APAC. Barcelona.
Coyle, D. (2013). Listening to learners: An investigation into ‘successful learning’ across
CLIL contexts, International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16(3),244–266. doi: 10.1080/13670050.2013.777384
Coyle, D., Holmes, B., & King, L. (2009). Towards an integrated curriculum: CLIL national
statements and guidelines. Guidelines/dp/0956425607. London: The Languages
Company.
Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and language integrated learning.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2007). Discourse in content and language integrated learning (CLIL)
classrooms. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Dalton-Puffer, C., & Smit, U. (Eds.). (2007). Empirical perspectives on CLIL classroom discourse. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Darn, S. (2006). Content and language integrated learning (CLIL): A European overview.
ERIC Education Resources Information Center. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/
fulltext/ED490775.pdf
Doiz, A., Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. M. (2014). CLIL and motivation: The effect ofindividual and contextual variables. Language Learning Journal, 42(2), 209–224. doi:
10.1080/09571736.2014.889508
Erickson, F. (1987). Transformation and school success: The politics and culture of educational
achievement. Anthropology and Educational Quarterly, 18, 335–356. doi: 10.1525/
aeq.1987.18.4.04x0023w
Gierlinger, E. M. (2007). Modular CLIL in lower secondary education: Some insights from a
research project in Austria. In C. Dalton-Puffer, & U. Smit (Eds.), Empirical perspectives on CLIL classroom discourse (pp. 79–118). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Godfrey, C. (2013). Readdressing EFL approaches: CLIL curriculum in a Japanese medical
university context. The Asian EFL Journal, 15(4), 365–371. Retrieved from http://asianefl-journal.com/wp-content/uploads/mgm/downloads/45155200.pdf
Guthrie, J. T., & Wigfield, A. (2000). Engagement and motivation in reading. In M. L. Kamil,
P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3,
pp. 403–422). Mahwah, NJ: Lawerence Erlbaum Associates.
Gutiérrez Martínez, A., & Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (2017). Comparing the benefits of a metacognitive
reading strategy instruction programme between CLIL and EFL primary school students.
Estudios de lingüística inglesa aplicada (ELIA), 17, 71–92. doi: 10.12795/ELIA.2017.
I17.04Harrop, E. (2012). Content and language integrated learning (CLIL): Limitations andpossibilities. Encuentro, 21, 57–70. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/－19－

ED539731.pdf
Hesse-Biber, S. N., & Leavy, P. (2006). Emergent methods in social research. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Houghton, C., Casey, D., Shaw, D., & Murphy, K. (2013). Rigour in qualitative case-study
research. Nurse Researcher, 20(4), 12–17. doi: 10.7748/nr2013.03.20.4.12.e326.
Ibaragi, A. (2013). CLIL (Naiyou Gengo Tougo Gakusyu) teki gaikokugo katsudou no Jissen
to sono Kouka [CLIL in foreign language practice and effect]. Joetsu Kyoiku Daigaku
Gakukou Jissen Kenkyu Senta [The Bulletin of Joetsu University of Education Practiceand Research Center], 23, 13–18.
Ikeda, M. (2013). Does CLIL work for Japanese secondary school students?: Potential for the‘weak’ version of CLIL. International CLIL Research Journal, 2(1), 31–43. Retrieved
from http://www.icrj.eu/21/article3.html
Izumi, S., Ikeda, M., & Watanabe, Y. (2012). CLIL (content and language integrated learning): New challenges in foreign language education at Sophia University. Volume 2:
Practice and Applications. Tokyo: Sophia University Press.
Ioannou-Georgiou, S. (2012). Reviewing the puzzle of CLIL. ELT Journal, 66(4), 495–504.
doi: 10.1093/elt/ccs047
Kennedy, A. S., & Sowton, C. (2018). Prism reading 3. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Kim, Y., & Tracy-Ventura, N. (2013). The role of task repetition in L2 performancedevelopment: What needs to be repeated during task-based interaction? System, 41(3),829–840. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2013.08.005
Korosidou, E. I., & Griva, E. A. (2013). “My Country in Europe”: A content-based project forteaching English as a foreign language to young learners. Journal of Language Teaching
and Research, 4(2), 229–243. doi: 10.4304/JLTR.4.2.229-243
Koseki, K. (2015, August). Enhance English language and global learning in the CLIL
framework. Paper presented at 6th International Conference on TESOL, Ho Chi Minh:
Vietnam. Retrieved from http://www.vnseameo.org/TESOLConference2015/Materials/
Fullpaper/Ms.%20Kimiko%20Koseki.pdf
Lasagabaster, D. (2009). Language attitudes in CLIL and traditional EFL classes. International
CLIL Research Journal, 1(2), 4–16. Retrieved from http://www.icrj.eu/12/article1.html
Lasagabaster, D. (2011). English achievement and student motivation in CLIL and EFL
settings. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 5(1), 3–18. doi:
10.1080/17501229.2010.519030
Lasagabaster, D. & Doiz, A. (2015). CLIL students’ perceptions of their language learning
process: Delving into self-perceived improvement and instructional preferences.
Language Awareness, 25 (1–2), 110–126. doi: 10.1080/09658416.2015.1122019
Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. M. (2014). Language attitudes in CLIL and traditional EFL
classes. International CLIL Research Journal, 1(2), 4–16. Retrieved from http://www.
－20－icrj.eu/index.php?vol=12&page=73
Llinares, A., & Pastrana, A. (2013). CLIL students’ communicative functions across activities
and educational levels. Journal of Pragmatics, 59(1), 81–92. doi: 10.1016/j.
pragma.2013.05.011
Lockley, T. (2014). Some learning outcomes and contextual factors of history as content andlanguage integrated learning (CLIL) in a Japanese context. Studies in Linguistics andLanguage Teaching, 25, 165–188. Retrieved from file:///Users/gc004/Downloads/
gengo25_12Lockley-1.pdf
Lockley, T. (2015). Promoting international posture through history as content and language
integrated learning (CLIL) in the Japanese context. Studies in Second Language Learning
and Teaching, 5(1), 87–108. doi: 10.14746/ssllt.2015.5.1.5
Makropoulos, J. (2010). Students’ attitudes to the secondary French immersion curriculum ina Canadian context. Language, Culture, and Curriculum, 23, 1–13. doi:
10.1080/07908310903494525
Marsh, H. W., Hau, K. T., & Kong, C. K., (2000). Late immersion and language of instructionin Hong Kong high schools: Achievement growth in language and non-language subjects.
Harvard Education Review, 70, 302–346. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/
fulltext/ED443297.pdf
Marsh, D., Mehisto, P., Wolff, D., & Frigols, M. J. (2010). The European framework for CLIL
teacher education. Graz: European Centre for Modern Languages.
Mehisto, P. (2012). Criteria for producing CLIL learning material. Encuentro, 21, 15–33.
Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED539729.pdf
Mehisto, P., Marsh, D., & Frigols M. J. (2008). Uncovering CLIL: Content and language
integrated learning in bilingual and multilingual education. Oxford: Macmillan.
Meltzer, J., & Hamann, E. (2004). Meeting the needs of adolescent English language learners for literacy development and content area learning, Part 1: Focus on motivation andengagement. Providence, RI: The Education Alliance at Brown University.
Montalto, S. A., Walter, L., Theodorou, M., & Chrysanthou, K. (2014). CLIL guide book.
Retrieved from https://www.languages.dk/archive/clil4u/book/CLIL%20Book%20En.
pdf
Netten, J., & Germain, C. (2009). The future of intensive French. Canadian Modern Language
Review, 65, 757–786. doi: 10.3138/cmlr.65.5.757
Nishino, T., & Watanabe, M. (2008). Communication oriented policies versus classroom
realities in Japan. TESOL Quarterly, 42(1), 133–138. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.
org/stable/pdf/40264432.pdf
Ohmori, A. (2014). Exploring the potential of CLIL in English language teaching in Japanese
universities: An innovation for the development of effective teaching and global
awareness. Rikkyo Daigaku Langeji Senta Kiyo [The Bulletin of Rikkyo University
Language Center], 32, 39–51.
－21－

Oi, K., Kato, T., & Kobayashi, I. (2014). Reexamining the program “science and experiments
through English for junior and senior high school students” from a perspective of CLIL.
Chiba Daiigaku Kyouiku Gakkubu Kenkyu Kiyo [The Bulletin of Education, Chiba
University], 62, 283–291.
Oxford, R. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. New
York: Newbury House.
Oxbrow, G. (2018). Students’ perspectives on CLIL program development: A quantitative
analysis. Porta Linguarum, 29, 137–158. doi: 10.30827/Digibug.54026
Paran, A. (2013). Content and language integrated learning: Panacea or policy borrowing
myth? Applied Linguistics Review, 4(2), 317–342.
Pavesi, M., Bertocchi, D., Hofmannová, M., & Kazianka, M. (2001). CLIL guidelines forteachers. Retrieved from http://www.ub.edu/filoan/CLIL/teachers.pdf
Smit, U. (2010). CLIL in an English as a lingua franca classroom: On explaining terms andexpressions interactively. In C. Dalton-Puffer, T. Nikula, & U. Smit (Eds.), Language
use and language learning in CLIL classrooms (pp. 259–278). Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Pérez-Vidal, C. (2013). Perspectives and lessons from the challenge of CLIL experiences. In
C. Abello Contesse, P. Chandler, M. D. López Jiménez, & R. Chacón Beltrán (Eds.),
Bilingual and multilingual education in the 21st century: Building on experience. (pp.
59–82). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Pinner, R. (2013). Authenticity and CLIL: Examining authenticity from an international
CLIL perspective. International CLIL Research Journal, 2(1), 44–54. Retrieved fromhttp://www.icrj.eu/21/article4.html
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2005). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. & Zenotz, V. (2015). Reading strategies and CLIL: The effect of training
in formal instruction. Language Learning Journal, 43(3), 1–15. doi: 10.1080/09571736.
2015.1053284
Sasajima, S. (2011). CLIL: New ideas for classes [in Japanese]. Tokyo, Sanshusha.
Sepesiova, M. (2015). CLIL lesson planning. CLIL, 131–152. doi: 10.17846
Smit, U. (2010). CLIL in an English as a lingua franca classroom: On explaining terms andexpressions interactively. In C. Dalton-Puffer, T. Nikula, & U. Smit (Eds.), Language
use and language learning in CLIL classrooms (pp. 259–278). Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Snow, M. A., Met, M., & Genesee, F. (1989). A conceptual framework for the integration of
language and content in second/foreign language instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 23(2),201–219. doi: 10.2307/3587333
Theologou, E., & Papadopoulos, I. (2015). CLIL community of students: A longitudinal
project for developing content-based material within a learning community in primary－22－

education. MIBES Transactions, 9(2), 71–84. Retrieved from http://mibes.uth.gr/vol9_
issue2_2015/Theologou%20Papadopoulos.pdf
Tsuchiya, K., & Murillo, M. D. P. (2015). Comparing the language policies and the students’
perceptions of CLIL in tertiary education in Spain and Japan. Latin American Journal ofContent and Language Integrated Learning, 8(1), 25–35. doi: 10.5294/laclil.2014.8.1.3
Várkuti, A. (2010). Linguistic benefits of the CLIL approach: Measuring linguisticcompetences. International CLIL Research Journal 1(3), 67–79. Retrieved from http://
www.icrj.eu/13/article7.html
Watanabe, Y., Ikeda, M., & Izumi, S. (2012). CLIL (Content and Language Integrated
Learning—New Challenges in Foreign Language Education at Sophia University –Volume 1: Principles and Methodologies (pp. 1–13). Tokyo: Sophia University Press.
Waxman, H., & Tellez, K. (2002). Research synthesis on effective teaching practices forEnglish language learners. Publication series. Philadelphia: Mid-Atlantic Laboratory
for Student Success. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED474821.pdf
Weston, C., Gandell, T., Beauchamp, J., McAlpine, L., Wiseman, C., & Beauchamp, C.
(2001). Analyzing interview data: The development and evolution of a coding system.
Qualitative Sociology, 24(3), 381–400. doi: 10.1023/A:1010690908200
Xanthou, M. (2011). The impact of CLIL on L2 vocabulary development and content
knowledge. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 10(4), 116–126. Retrieved fromhttps://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ962609.pdf
Yamano, Y. (2013a). CLIL in a Japanese primary school: Exploring the potential of CLIL ina Japanese EFL context. International CLIL Research Journal, 2(1), 19–30. Retrieved
from http://www.icrj.eu/21/article2.html
Yamano, Y. (2013b). Shogakkou gaikokugo katudouni okeru CLIL no jissento kanousei[Implication and possibility of CLIL in primary education]. STEP Bulletin, 25, 94–126.
Yang, W. (2017). From similarity to diversity: The changing use of language learning
strategies in content and language integrated learning at the tertiary level in Taiwan.
English Teaching and Learning, 41(1), 1–32. doi: 10.6330/ETL.2017.41.1.01
AppendixStudents’ Reflection
今日学んだコンテンツトピックについての感想を書いて下さい。

－23－

Semi-structured interview questions
1.		 どんなコンテンツトピックについて読み、学びたいですか。
2.		 学問知識を英語で学ぶことに関してどう思いますか。
3.		一つのコンテンツに関する知識を深く学びたいですか、それとも、基本的だが多様なコンテンツを学びたいですか。
4.		どのようなコンテンツトピックが英語授業に適すると思いますか。また、どのようなコンテンツトピックが英語授業に不適だと思いますか。
5.		今学期、授業で取り入れた内容に関して、上手く学習が出来たトピックはなんでしたか。反対に、あまり学びが出来なかったトピックはなんでしたか。
6.		一番興味深い、引き込んだ、または、授業に参加できたコンテンツトピックは何でしたか。それはなぜですか。
7.		過去の英語の授業で、どのようなコンテンツトピックを学びましたか。例をあげて下さい。また、過去の英語授業でのコンテンツ学習についての経験を教えて下さい。

－24－