J-CLIL Survey Reporton CLIL Pedagogy
in Japan 2021

J-CLIL CLIL Survey Committee
Shigeru Sasajima, Mai Kuramoto, & 9 members
July 2022© 2022 J-CLIL

J-CLIL CLIL Survey Committee
Shigeru Sasajima
Mai Kuramoto
Makoto Ikeda
Keiko Tsuchiya
Miyako Nakaya
Miyuki Yukita
Yukari Takagi
Kentaro Koibuchi
Maki YazakiMichele Joel
Kyoiku Kaihatsu Shuppan co.ltd. (Hisahiko Kyozuka)
July 2022© 2022 J-CLIL

Contents
Executive Summary1

Preface3

1. Purpose6

2. Subjects and methods

7

3. General survey on CLIL pedagogy

8

3.1

Data summaries of general survey

8

3.2

The respondents' basic data of general survey

9

3.3

Featured results of general survey

11

4. Survey on CLIL pedagogy in university education

20

4.1

Data summaries in university education

20

4.2

The respondents' basic data in university education

22

4.3

Featured results in university education

24

5. Survey on CLIL pedagogy in primary & secondary education
5.1

Data summaries in primary & secondary education

5.2

The respondents' basic data

5.3

47
47

in primary & secondary education

48

Featured results in primary & secondary education

49

6. Survey on CLIL pedagogy in non-English languages

56

6.1

Data summaries in non-English languages

56

6.2

The respondents' basic data in non-English languages

57

6.3

Featured results in non-English languages

59

Items for the surveys

66

Executive Summary
Over the past ten years, CLIL theory and practices have been
gradually spreading out through the education system as one type ofdiverse integrated learning styles including language learning andsubject learning throughout Japan. However, there are no substantial
data of how teachers teach CLIL and think about it. The Japan CLIL
Pedagogy Association (J-CLIL) started its activities in 2017 and has
been actively providing many activities. A growing number ofteachers, researchers, and education businesspeople have become
interested in CLIL. However, nobody specifically knows how CLIL
has been identified by teachers in Japan. J-CLIL therefore conducted asurvey in 2021 to grasp the current situation and issues concerning
the implementation of CLIL methodology or pedagogy.
The surveys were conducted online through SurveyMonkey fromJanuary to March of 2021. There are two types of questionnaires (seeTable 1 on p. 7): Survey 1 (1.1 Japanese version and English version)and Survey 2 (2.1 tertiary, 2.2 secondary, 2.3 primary, 2.4 preprimary or others, and non-English). The respondents or teachers
were asked to answer both surveys. The J-CLIL survey team asked themembers to answer each questionnaire through its group email andwebsite over three month period (January to March of 2021).
Some questionnaire results show that: 1) the respondents are mostfamiliar with the 4Cs and least familiar with translanguaging; 2) CLIL
is considered appropriate for preparing for entrance examinations; 3)
many CLIL teaching materials are used but more and better materials
are needed; 4) CLIL is different from CBI, EMI, and bilingual
education; 5) many teachers are using the target language andJapanese in CLIL classrooms; 6) There is a lack of CLIL teachers; 7)
there is a necessity for teacher education; 8) more CLIL-relatedmaterials are needed; 9) more implementation of CLIL in tertiary
education is needed; 10) bilingual use is appropriate in CLIL; 11)
performance and writing are used as assessment; 12) CLIL is taught
by language or subject teachers; 13) students are motivated by CLIL;14) there is difficulty in teaching CLIL classes; 15) there is a feeling of1

uncertainty of CLIL teaching and lack of CLIL knowledge and skills;
16) there are needs for teacher collaboration; and 17) better CLIL
environment is needed; and18) CLIL is considered as an effective
approach but a challenge.
Some problems are related to understanding of CLIL pedagogy. For
example, there are still many teachers who do not understand CLIL,
although there are allegedly increasing number of students who liketo have CLIL classrooms. It is necessary to share more opportunities
for exchanging information and teaching ideas among teachers.
Another problem is lack of CLIL teaching materials.
To promote the implementation of CLIL in Japan, the outcomes ofthese surveys would be greatly valued. It is expected that non-CLIL
teachers would be inspired to expand their students’ learning
experiences through CLIL. As with increasing CLIL teachers, we hopethat these outcomes would help improve their teaching environment
so that CLIL teachers would gain cooperation from other teachers.
We also hope that the issues raised here will shed light on topics forfurther research for future development.
Shigeru Sasajima
Mai Kuramoto
J-CLIL Survey Committee
July 20222

Preface
In the past 10 years, Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL)
has become part of the mainstream education among English
teachers as well as other teachers and researchers who are not fully
satisfied with the traditional English language teaching in Japan. I, as
President of J-CLIL (the Japan CLIL Pedagogy Association), feel greatly
delighted to see the current development of CLIL pedagogy thanks tothe support of some 400 J-CLIL members. Since J-CLIL wasestablished in 2017, we have had a variety of activities: annual
bilingual conferences, research meetings, chapter conferences,seminars, workshops, etc. J-CLIL activities can be characterized to as‘friendly’ or ‘at home,’ which means that they do not always stick toacademic topics but focus on practical realities. The J-CLIL members
include pre-primary teachers, primary teachers, secondary teachers,
tertiary teachers, researchers, publishers, and businesspersons. All areengaged and interested in improving education. Many members
might not be satisfied with the current situations of language teaching
and learning as well as the traditional education systems.
CLIL in Japan was first expanded to English classes primarily atuniversity and secondary school some 15 years ago (Watanabe et al,
2011; Sasajima et al, 2011). That is because CLIL was not included ina curriculum at primary and secondary levels in Japan, but it could
only be introduced as part of English Medium Instruction (EMI),
which has been encouraged by the MEXT (Ministry of Education,
Culture, Sports, Science and Technology) to develop more young
people who can use English for globalization (MEXT, 2003). In
university education, therefore, it seems that CLIL has gradually
become a standard approach along with EMI or Content-based
Instruction (CBI). Some secondary schools have also chosen a CLIL
approach as EMI. However, each CLIL approach can be referred toanother educational approach in addition to bilingual education or
immersion, which has been in practice before CLIL came into
acceptance in Japan.
In 2020, English was officially introduced into the curriculum as a
subject at last in Japan, but it has not been appropriately supportedby the teacher education program. In these situations, the CLIL
approach, which can be taught by subject teachers if they are able touse English, was a good choice for English classrooms in primary3

education. However, the MEXT has not changed its language-focusedcurriculum policy to insist on teaching proper English forms andfunctions, such as pronunciation, vocabulary, and grammar, basedon the ‘native speaker’ model. The problem is that there is still noofficial English teacher education for primary education, althoughsome teachers and teacher educators assume that CLIL can be a good
approach for primary teachers to teach English by making use of theirprofessional teaching experiences even if they do not have sufficientteacher education to specifically teach English.
Since the grassroots start of CLIL in Japan, a growing number ofeducators have been committed to its implementation into theirclassrooms so far. J-CLIL has had a number of events, conferences,seminars and workshops, as well as journals and newsletters, which
you can see the digital archives on the J-CLIL website athttps://www.j-clil.com. However, nobody knew what had been
happening in CLIL research and practices in Japan as of 2019.
Therefore, J-CLIL decided to conduct the survey on CLIL Pedagogy inJapan in 2021 in order to understand the current status of theimplementation of the CLIL pedagogy in Japan. The survey team wasoriginally organized by Shigeru Sasajima, Mai Kuramoto, Miyako
Nakaya, Miyuki Yukita, Keiko Tsuchiya, Yukari Takagi, Kentaro
Koibuchi, Maki Takata, Makoto Ikeda, Yuki Yamano, Michele Joel,
Kyoiku Kaihatsu Shuppan, Kazuko Kashiwagi, Hazuki Nakada,
Yukiko Abe, Chizuko Aiba, Masayoshi Takahashi, and Kidai
Tadokoro. The team tried to cover a number of CLIL aspects: e.g.
teacher awareness of CLIL, CLIL classrooms, CLIL implementation in
education levels, CLIL references, and CLIL materials. The survey is
still ongoing and sustainable as of 2022. As the questionnaire survey
was conducted in 2021, we have decided to disseminate the interim
report of the questionnaire results of an ongoing study. We hope theprimary report will be published by adding some other results as theprimary report later.
The general purpose of the questionnaire research is to identify thecurrent status of the implementation of the CLIL pedagogy in Japan byasking teachers and people who are interested in language learningand teaching in all levels of education in Japan. Specifically, thequestionnaire was answered by the respondents who are interested in
CLIL, CBI, or bilingual education and mainly teach English (otherlanguages) or content subjects to their students who study in primary,4secondary and tertiary education in Japan. There are 6 types of thequestionnaire forms: 1 general CLIL pedagogy; 2 English CLIL
pedagogy in tertiary; English CLIL pedagogy in secondary; English
CLIL pedagogy in primary; English CLIL pedagogy for English
speakers; and CLIL pedagogy for the other language. Each form hassome 40 question items. The research was primarily conducted fromJanuary to March in 2021. For more details see each chapter.
J-CLIL defines its association purpose as follows:
To study and promote practices for the implementation of integrated
education called CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning) or
CBLT (Content-based Language Teaching).
- at J-CLIL website: https://www.j-clil.com/english-j-clil
CLIL should be applied to each learning and teaching context, so I
believe CLIL teachers need to develop their own CLIL pedagogies toprovide better education to their students. It is essential that teachers
try to develop better CLIL pedagogies to be contextualized in theircurrent situations. Therefore, we, the survey research members, hopethat these survey results will be helpful for each CLIL practitioner tounderstand what is happening in Japan, which may be slightly
different from other countries in Asia, and consider how to cooperatewith each other regarding CLIL implementation.
July 2022
Shigeru Sasajima
J-CLIL CLIL Survey Committee
Shigeru Sasajima Chair
Mai Kuramoto
Secretary general
Makoto Ikeda
Keiko Tsuchiya
Miyako Nakaya
Yukari Takagi
Kentaro Koibuchi Maki Yazaki
Kyoiku Kaihatsu Shuppan co.ltd. (Hisahiko Kyozuka)
Contact email: jclilresearchgroup@googlegroups.com

5

Miyuki Yukita
Michele Joel

1. Purpose
Since the importance of communication skills was emphasized
through the acquisition of the four skills (listening, reading, speaking,and writing) in Japan’s English education in 1980s, English teachers
have been seeking a more effective and suitable methodology thatwould help their students acquire English knowledge and skills in an
EFL environment. Thirty years later, the introduction of CLIL (Content
and Language Integrated Learning) to the education in Japan was a
breakthrough for teachers as well as learners seeking to improve theirknowledge and skills and create a better learning context. Over the
past ten years, CLIL theory and practices have been gradually
spreading out through the education system as one type of diverse
integrated learning combining language learning and subject learning
in Japan. However, there are no substantial data of how teachers
teach CLIL and think about it.
The Japan CLIL Pedagogy Association (J-CLIL) started its activities in2017 and has been actively providing many events such asconferences, seminars, and workshops, as well as the publications ofa journal and a newsletter. In addition, it has some chapters andcommittees, in which CLIL has been a standard educational
approach. Besides J-CLIL members, a growing number of teachers,
researchers, and businesspeople in education have been interested in
CLIL. However, nobody specifically measures how CLIL has been
identified by teachers in Japan. J-CLIL therefore conducted a survey in
2021 to grasp the current situation and issues concerning theimplementation of CLIL methodology or pedagogy in primary,secondary, and tertiary education, in addition to its influence onteachers of various languages teachers and miscellaneous education
sectors in Japan. To take a further step forward, J-CLIL is aiming toreflect on the survey results to provide more enriched activities forboth language and subject teachers who want to teach CLIL andshare ideas with each other.

62. Subjects and methods
The surveys were conducted online through SurveyMonkey fromJanuary to March of 2021. The respondents included teachers
dedicated to all educational levels from pre-primary to tertiary
education, and also, some different types of teachers such as nativeand non-native speakers of English, as well as other people who arecommitted to education.
There are two types of questionnaires (see the table below): survey 1(1.1 Japanese version and English version), which focuses on generalbackground information about CLIL, and survey2 (2.1 tertiary, 2.2
secondary, 2.3 primary, 2.4 pre-primary or others, and non-English),which focuses on specific education areas. The respondents orteachers were asked to answer both surveys.
Table 1. Types of questionnaires
Survey 1
1. General survey on CLIL pedagogy
1.1 Japanese version
1.2 English version
Survey 2
2. Specific survey
2.1. CLIL pedagogy in university education
2.2. CLIL pedagogy in secondary education
2.3. CLIL pedagogy in primary education
2.4. CLIL pedagogy in pre-primary or others
2.5 CLIL pedagogy in non-English languages
Note. Survey 2: the respondents choose one survey in principle
The J-CLIL survey team asked the members to answer eachquestionnaire through its group email and website during a threemonth period (January to March of 2021). The collected data wasanalyzed by each group of the survey team, but some specificquestionnaires could not get sufficient numbers, so 2.2 and 2.3 werecombined and 2.4 could not be analyzed. These results are open to
the J-CLIL website in Japanese. Here in this report we have selected
some featured results including the data summaries, the basic data,
and featured results.

7

3. General survey on CLIL pedagogy
The purpose of this questionnaire survey is to identify the current
status of the implementation of the CLIL pedagogy in Japan. In thissurvey, the respondents are all types of teachers and educationrelated organizations, including native or bilingual English-speakers.
The questionnaire items include the following topics: English
language level based on the CEFR; educational activities; type oforganisation(s) or school(s); studies at university; current professionaland research interest; familiarity with CLIL terms; interest in CLIL,
CBI, bilingual education, IB (International Baccalaureate), language
immersion, EMI, ESP, and EAP; familiarity with CLIL principles; CLIL
vs. CBI, bilingual education, IB, immersion, EMI, and ESP or EAP;
teaching CLIL lessons; the activities that fit with CLIL pedagogies;
CLIL at your workplace; participation in CLIL conferences, seminars
or lecturers; books and articles related to CLIL pedagogy; CLIL
materials; and J-CLIL activities.
In addition, 5-point Likert Scale questions are asked about CLIL
regarding the following viewpoints: an effective pedagogy, language
teachers, subject teachers, the whole school curriculum, the school
curriculum, collaboration between language teachers and subject
teachers, English only, a fair command of English, the university
entrance exam, the traditional grammar translation method, thinking
about learning, and applying CLIL ideas in classroom activities.

3.1 Data summaries of general survey*”All” means the respondents for the questionnaire in Japanese and “EN” means
the respondents for the questionnaire in English.

l As for CLIL and curriculum, 70% of All and 90% of EN are
interested in CLIL.
l As for CLIL principles, more than 90% of All know the 4Cs, and
55% of All and 70% of EN apply the 4Cs framework.
l As for CLIL and entrance exams, 40% of All and 50% of EN
think that CLIL is an appropriate approach for students to
prepare for entrance exams.
8

l As for teaching materials for CLIL, 70% of All use some materials
appropriate for CLIL teaching and about 30% of them use MEXT
approved textbooks.
l As for CLIL and bilingual education, most respondents of All andEN think that CLIL is different from CBI/EMI/Bilingual Education,and most respondents of All and EN disagree with using English
only in the CLIL classroom.
l Comparing data and potential： Strategies for wider CLIL
diffusionØ Q02 Teachers’ age

Increasing teachers in their 30s (12.9%)

Ø Q03 School type Increasing junior high school teachers (7.2%)
Ø Q07 Institution type Increasing public school teachers (23.7%)
Increasing subject teachers (23.2%) (HardØ Q10 Subjects

CLIL in English & Japanese）
Ø Q35 Materials

Increasing CLIL pages in MEXT authorized

textbooks (34.5%)
Ø Q36 Training

Providing CLIL teacher education, which is inhigh demand (85.3%)
Ø Q45 Exams

Showing the effectiveness of CLIL in entrance

exam preparations (40.1%) (cf. J-CLIL Newsletter, vol. 7, ‘CLIL
and entrance examinations’ [Japanese]

3.2 The respondents’ basic data of general survey
Table 3.1 Demographics
Respondent’s Gender [All]
Total
Male
182
69

Female111

No response1

Respondent’s Gender [EN]
Total
Male
24
13

Female10

No response193.2.1 (Q3) School or Organizationl All (n=180): More than 50% are Japanese teachers of English
at universities.
l EN (n=24): 75% are native/bilingual English teachers atuniversities.
Figure 3.1 School or organization

Table 3.2 School or organization
Q3 School or organization
A ll

EN

① Pre-Primary

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

② Primary

24

13.3%

0

0.0%

③ Lower Secondary

13

7.2%

2

8.3%

④ Upper Secondary

34

18.9%

2

8.3%

⑤ Vocational

10

5.6%

0

0.0%

⑥ University

85

47.2%

18

75.0%

⑦ Cram School

3

1.7%

0

0.0%

⑧ Language School

7

3.9%

0

0.0%

⑨ Other

4

2.2%

2

8.3%

Answered180

24

Skipped20

3.2.2 (Q3/Q6) Types of Schoolsl More than 75% of respondents in tertiary education teach atprivate universities.
l The percentages of public school teachers increase in
primary/secondary. (All: n=177)

10

Figure 3.2 Types of Schools

Q3 x Q6 Types of Schools⑥ University

16.9%

4.8%

75.9%

⑤ Vocational

70.0%④ Upper Secondary0.0%③ Lower Secondary

0.0%10.0%

44.1%

20.0%

55.9%

7.7%

0.0%

61.5%

② Primary 4.2%
0.0%

2.4%

30.8%

62.5%
10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

National

0.0%

25.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

PublicPrivate

Other

70.0%

8.3%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

3.3 Featured results of general survey
3.3.1 (Q14) How interested are you in CLIL?
l About 70% (All) / 90% (EN) of respondents are interested in
CLIL. (All: n=173, EN: n=23)
Figure 3.3 Interest in CLIL

Q14 How interested are you in CLIL?

1.2%
0.6%

All

31.8%

36.4%

19.7%

10.4%
0.0%
0.0%

EN

0.0%

60.9%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

①Very interested/ Using CLIL
③Interested/Preparing for CLIL
⑤Know/Not interested⑦Not interested

60.0%

0.0%

30.4% 4.4% 4.4%

70.0%

80.0%

0.0%
90.0%

0.0%
100.0%②Interested/Trying out CLIL
④Somewhat interested/Not using CLIL
⑥Know/Don't intend to teach CLIL
⑧Other

3.3.2 (Q28 + Q29) CLIL Principles
l More than 90% of respondents know the 4Cs and more than
70% Scaffolding.

11l About 20% (EN) / only 3% (All) of respondents think
Translanguaging is important. (All: n=172, EN: n=22)
Figure 3.4 CLIL principles

Q28/Q29 CLIL Principles (Knowledge/Importance)⑦Other

⑥I don't know

13.64%

0.58%
1.2%
0.00%

9.30%

2.9%

⑤Translanguaging

2.91%④The language triptych

2.91%

18.18%
48.8%
31.82%
44.2%
50.00%③Bloom's Taxonomy

6.98%②Scaffolding

8.14%

59.3%
72.73%
72.1%
72.73%
69.19%

①4Cs

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

EN (Importance)

40.0%

50.0%

All (Importance)

60.0%

70.0%

94.2%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%All (Knowledge)

3.3.3 (Q30) Are you teaching CLIL based on CLIL principles?
l About 55% (All)/ 70% (EN) of respondents apply CLIL
principles to their teaching. (All: n=167, EN: n=21)
Figure 3.5 CLIL teaching

Q30 Implementing CLIL Principles
All

29.94%

EN

0.0%

25.75%

7.78%4.19%

33.3%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

38.1%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

12.57%

13.77%
2.99%
2.99%

9.5%
0.0%

14.3%
0.0% 4.8%

80.0%

90.0%

①Always②Sometimes③Only for project activities④Focusing on content⑤Not sure whether it is CLIL or not.

⑥No, but I would like to.

⑦Not at all.

⑧Other12

100.0%

3.3.4 (Q45) Is CLIL appropriate for entrance exams?
l About 40% (All)/ 50% (EN) of respondents think CLIL isappropriate to prepare students for entrance exams. (All:n=167, EN: n=21)
Figure 3.6 CLIL appropriate for entrance exams
Q45 CLIL for the University Entrance Exam

All

1.2%
10.8%

EN

0.0%
14.3%

0.0%

47.9%

30.5%

38.1%

10.0%

9.6%

38.1%

20.0%

30.0%

①Strongly disagree②Disagree

40.0%

50.0%

9.5%

60.0%

70.0%

③Neither agreee nor disagree

80.0%④Agree90.0%

100.0%⑤Strongly agree

3.3.5 (Q3/Q45) Is CLIL appropriate for entrance exams?
l More than 65% of upper secondary school teachers/ 75% oflower secondary school teachers think CLIL is appropriate toprepare students for entrance exams. (All: n=167)
Figure 3.7 School types & entrance exams
1.3%

Q3 x Q45 School Types x Entrance Exams
11.7%⑥ University

59.7%

19.5%

7.8%

0.0%
10.0%

⑤ Vocational
3.0%

60.0%

30.0%

0.0%

0.0%

④ Upper Secondary

42.4%

30.3%

24.2%

0.0%
③ Lower Secondary

16.7%

8.3%

75.0%

0.0%

0.0%

② Primary

13.6%

0.0%

10.0%

① Strongly disagree

59.1%
20.0%
② Disagree

22.7%
30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

③ Neither agreee nor disagree

13

70.0%
④ Agree

80.0%

4.5%
90.0%

100.0%⑤ Strongly agree

3.3.6 (Q35) Which materials are useful for CLIL?
l About 70% of respondents use materials for CLIL teaching andabout 30% of them use MEXT approved textbooks (All). (All:n=168, EN: n-21)
Figure 3.8 School types and materials

Q3 x Q35 School Types x Materials⑥ University

16.5%

44.7%

56.5%
51.8%

74.1%

25.9%
80.0%

⑤ Vocational

40.0%
40.0%

10.0%

30.0%
41.2%
44.1%
50.0%
32.4%
41.2%

④ Upper Secondary

38.5%③ Lower Secondary

46.2%
53.8%

37.5%

0.0%

66.7%

29.2%
33.3%
25.0%
20.8%
10.0%

67.6%

61.5%

38.5%

7.7%

② Primary

100.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

6Original Materials

5CLIL Textbook

3Imported Textbook

2MEXT Textbok (Trans.) 1MEXT Textbok

80.0%

90.0% 100.0%

4The Internet

3.3.7 (Q3/Q35) Which materials are useful for CLIL?
l Teaching materials for CLIL are used most in all levels except
lower secondary schools. (All: n=168)

14

Figure 3.9 Teaching materials for CLIL

Q35 Teaching Materials for CLIL
⑦other (please specify)

4.76%

19.05%
54.17%⑥self-made original materials⑤English materials made specifically for CLIL teaching75.60%

57.14%
50.60%④English articles from the Internet

66.67%

45.24%
42.86%③subject textbooks used in English-speaking countries
21.43%
19.05%②MEXT approved textbooks of each subject (English…
①MEXT approved English textbooks

85.71%

9.52%

34.52%

0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00% 80.00% 90.00%
AllEN

3.3.8 (Q22/Q23/Q26) Is CLIL the same as CBI, bilingual education,
or EMI?
l More than 60% (All)/ 70% (EN) of respondents think CLIL isdifferent from Bilingual Education. (All: n=173, EN: n=23)
Figure 3.10 CLIL and CBI, bilingual education & EMI

15

3.3.9 (Q43) Is CLIL taught only in English?
l About 70% (All)/ 80% (EN) of respondents (strongly) disagreewith teaching CLIL only in English. (All: n=166, EN: n=21)
Figure 3.11 CLIL only in English

Q43 CLIL is taught only in English

All

15.7%

52.4%

EN

0.0%

24.1%

28.6%

10.0%

20.0%

①Strongly disagree

52.4%

30.0%
②Disagree

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

③Neither agreee nor disagree

70.0%④Agree

19.1%
0.0%

80.0%

l More teachers in their 30s will be needed in CLIL.

16

90.0%

⑤Strongly agree

3.3.10 (Q2) What is your age?

Figure 3.12 Age & CLIL

6.6%
1.2%

100.0%

3.3.11 (Q3) What is the type of your school?
l More lower secondary school teachers will be needed.
Figure 3.13 Education levels & CLIL

3.3.12 (Q7) What is the type of your institution?
l More public school teachers will be needed.
Figure 3.14 School types & CLIL

17

3.3.13 (Q10) Which subject do you teach?
l More subject teachers will be needed.
Figure 3.15 CLIL teachers

3.3.14 (Q35) Which are appropriate for CLIL materials?
l More CLIL materials in authorized textbooks will be needed.
Figure 3.16 CLIL materials

18

3.3.15 (Q36) Do you participate in CLIL seminars/education
courses?
l More CLIL teacher education opportunities will be needed.
Figure 17 CLIL teacher education

3.3.16 (Q45) Is CLIL useful for exam preparations?
l More use of CLIL approaches in exam preparations will beneeded.
Figure 3.18 CLIL for exams

19

4. Survey on CLIL pedagogy in university education
The purpose of this questionnaire survey is to identify the current
status of the implementation of CLIL pedagogy in university
education including Kosen (college of technology) education. In thissurvey, most respondents are language teachers including native orbilingual English-speakers, but some are non-language teachers.
The questionnaire items include the following topics: English
language level based on the CEFR; educational activities; type oforganisation(s) or school(s); studies at university; current professionaland research interest; familiar CLIL terms; interest in CLIL, CBI,
bilingual education, IB (International Baccalaureate), language
immersion, EMI, ESP, and EAP; familiar CLIL principles; CLIL vs. CBI,
bilingual education, IB, immersion, EMI, and ESP or EAP; teaching
CLIL lessons; the activities that fit with CLIL pedagogies; CLIL at yourworkplace; participation in CLIL conferences, seminars or lecturers;
books and articles related to CLIL pedagogy; CLIL materials; and JCLIL activities.
In addition, 5-point Likert Scale questions are asked about CLIL
regarding the following viewpoints: an effective pedagogy, language
teachers, subject teachers, the whole school curriculum, the school
curriculum, collaboration between language teachers and subject
teachers, English only, a fair command of English, the university
entrance exam, the traditional grammar translation method, thinking
about learning, and applying CLIL ideas in classroom activities.

4.1 Data summaries in university educationl CLIL approaches are practiced among 81% of the respondents.
Ø Nearly half of the respondents actively teach CLIL in theirclasses. (Figure 4.1.,4.2.,4.3.)
Ø The majority of respondents implement CLIL approaches into
almost every class of their 15-classroom courses. (Figure 4.4.)
l CLIL is taught for part of the whole class time (90 minutes).
The majority of respondents implement CLIL for 25% of their classtime, followed by 50%, 75%, and 100%. Most teachers tend to20

teach CLIL partially in their class time, and only a small numberof teachers teach CLIL for the whole class time. (Figure 4.5., 4.6.)
l English is used for 80% of CLIL class time.
A large number of respondents assume that the most appropriate
ratio of language is 80% English and 20% Japanese in CLIL classtime. (Figure 4.7.,4.8.,4.9.)l Content taught in CLIL classes should be related to students’
academic specialization.
For CLIL classes, many respondents choose “Related to students’specialized field,” followed by “Global issues” and “Teachers'
field of interest.” (Figure 4.10.)
l Teachers like to create their CLIL materials.
Although some teachers use readymade textbooks (non-CLIL/CLILfocused textbooks) in their classes, more teachers create theirmaterials and use Internet resources. (Figure 4.11)
l Tasks, cognition, and ideas are common areas of needs for CLIL
teachers.
“Tasks,” “Enhancement of cognitive abilities,” and “Material andinformation” are common areas that respondents put a lot ofthought into when teaching (or trying to teach) CLIL, while“Human resources and fieldwork” is the least common. (Figure
4.12., 4.13.)
l Performance and writing are more common assessment in the
CLIL classroom.
Performance assessment and writing assessment are the two mostcommon evaluation methods used when teachers check students’English ability and understanding of the content in a CLIL class.
Self-assessment is the least common. (Figure 4.14.)
l Teachers need better CLIL materials for CLIL classes.
Many respondents select “English materials made specifically for
CLIL teaching” most appropriate for CLIL classes. “English articles

21

from the Internet” and “Self-made original materials” comesecond and third respectively. (Figure 4.15., 4.16.)l It is not clear whether or not language teachers should teach
CLIL.
About 56% of the respondents neither agree nor disagree that
CLIL should be taught by language teachers. (Figure 4.17., 4.18.)
Open-ended questionsl Mindset changes in students are identified after CLIL practices.
There are more mindset changes in students, such as “to help
improve students’ motivation” and “to help enhance students’learning effects.” (Figure 4.19.)
l CLIL can be effective and appropriate for language learning.
Many respondents think that CLIL is effective to help improvestudents’ comprehension of content and to help increase students’motivation of learning a language. So CLIL can be an appropriate
approach for learning a language. (Figure 4.20.)
l There are some problems in CLIL implementation: insufficientlanguage levels and motivation, unpractical CLIL methods andmaterials, and inappropriate education culture.
Ø Many respondents refer to students’ insufficient English levels
and “students’ lower motivation. They also need morepractical teaching materials, specific evaluation methods, andbetter teaching ideas or techniques.
Ø There are two major problems which may be attributed toboth students’ and teachers’ knowledge and skills in traditional
education culture and teacher education.
Ø Another problem for implementing CLIL is related to university
policies. (Figure 4.22.)

22

4.2 The respondents’ basic data in university education
Table 4.1

Respondent’s gender
Answer choices

Responses
31
72
2
105

Male
FemaleNo response
Total of responses
Table 4.2

Teaching experience
Answer choices

Responses
12
12
32
47
2
105

0-5 years
6-10 years
11-20 years
21 years or more
No response
Total of responses
Table 4.3

Major affiliation
Answer choices
Graduate, postgraduate universities a
Undergraduate universities
2-year junior collegesTechnical or vocational schools
Research institutions
OthersTotal of responses

Responses
15
85
5
9
0
7
121

Note. Multiple answers are allowed.
Two of the respondents are graduate students. The 7 respondents mainly work inprimary and secondary schools.

Table 4.4 Experience staying abroad
Answer choices
Resided abroad under the age of 20
Educated abroad in primary and secondary
education
Educated abroad in university education
Resided or educated in non-Englishspeaking countries
Educated in bilingual education with no23

Responses
13
6
54
24
5

experience abroad
Others*Total of responses

21123

Note. Multiple answers were allowed. *Including teaching abroad, studying
abroad for a short period, and participating in volunteer work activities abroad

Table 4.5

Self-assessment of English proficiency based on the CEFR
Answer choices
Responses
A2 (capable of using English in daily life)3
A1 (capable of using English in class)6
B2 (capable of using English in various
23
situations)C1 (capable of using English at work)
62
C2 (native or native-like English speakers)
9
Others1
Total of responses
104
Skipped response
1

4.3 Featured results in university education
4.3.1 (Q8) How do you use a CLIL approach in your class?
46% of the respondents actively teach CLIL.
The participants are divided into 3 groups by their CLIL teachingexperiences in Q 8.
Group A = a group of teachers who actively teach CLIL
Group B = a group of teachers who partially teach CLIL
Group C = a group of teachers who do not teach CLIL
Based on these 3 groups, we analyze the data using a crosstabulation.

24

Figure 4.1 Teaching CLIL
50
43

45
40

Group A
46%

35

Group B
35%

Group C
19%

30

23

25
18

20
15

10

15

10
5

5
0

CLIL is actively
CLIL is actively
practiced in all practiced in somesubjects/coursesof thesubjects/courses

CLIL isoccasionallypracticed

Uncertain about
Thinking about
Uncertain about
CLIL but focusing practicing CLIL but how to practiceon teaching
still studying it
CLILthrough content

20Understand CLIL No interest in CLIL
but no interest inpracticing it

Note. The answer choices for Q8 are categorized into three groups: Groups A, B,
and C. These groups are used in the cross-tabulation analysis.

Discussion
l Most of the respondents of this survey are members of the Japan
CLIL Pedagogy Association (J-CLIL). They are naturally interested
in CLIL.
l Although 46% of the respondents answer that they actively teach
CLIL, the first answer choice is “CLIL is actively taught in somesubjects or courses.” It is assumed that CLIL is not taught in all of
their courses due to the curriculum.
l The second answer choice is “Uncertain about CLIL but focusing
on teaching through content.” It implies that the respondents are
unsure whether or not their classes could be recognized as CLIL
approaches.
4.3.2 (Q6) Do you have any experiences of studying or living
abroad?
Many teachers who have experienced studying or living abroadtend to teach CLIL more actively.

25

Figure 4.2 Experiences of studying or living abroad
100%
90%

1

80%
70%

8

4

60%

11

32

11

1

50%
40%
30%
20%

2

10%
0%

7

3

12

13

3

9

2
Resided abroad
under the age of 20

3

1

Educated abroad in Educated abroad in Resided or educated Educated in billigual
primary andtertiary educationin non-Englisheducation with nosecondary education
speaking countries experience abroad

Unpracticed

Partially practiced

otherActively practiced

Note. This graph shows a cross-tabulation comparing “experiences of studying
and living abroad” with “Degree of CLIL teaching practices.”

Discussion
Teachers who actively teach CLIL (the blue section of the bar)
relatively covered a large percentage for each answer choice. This
result suggests that experiences of studying and living abroad may
have influenced teachers’ teaching styles to use CLIL approaches
actively.
4.3.3 (Q7) What is your English proficiency level on the CEFR?
Teachers who have a good command of English tend to teach CLIL
more actively.

Figure 4.3 English proficiency of the respondents
Group CGroup B
5.6%

5.6%

2.9%

11.1%

2.9%

8.8%

5.6%

C1+C2

44.4%

27.8%

C1+C2

50.0％
A2

55.9%

29.4%

58.8％
B1

B2

C1

C2

A2

other

26

B1

B2

C1

C2

Group A
13.5%

0.0%

Note. A cross-tabulation comparing“CEFR levels ” with “Degree of CLIL
teaching practices”

3.8%
15.4%

67.3%

C1+C2
80.8％
A2

B1

B2

C1

C2

Discussion
Teachers’ English proficiency levels may be closely related to CLIL
teaching practices. CLIL is also part of bilingual education, so they
may have been hesitated to select CLIL approaches if they are notconfident to use Engish.
4.3.4 (Q14) How often do you use CLIL approaches in your class?
Twenty eight respondents regularly teach CLIL in almost everyclass of their 15-class course.
Figure 4.430

CLIL approaches in class

28

25

23

20

17

15

13

13

10

8

5
0

3

In almost allclasses of the 15class course

In about halfof the15-class course

In a few classesof the15-class course

Occasionally
Have little
turned out to beexperience though
CLIL-like activities
interested

Never

OthersNote. According to many university curricula, one course has fifteen 90-minuteclasses in one semester.

27

Discussionl There are some comments about CLIL approaches which may
show a variety of CLIL contexts and teachers’ mindset on CLIL: “I
have taught CLIL occasionally, but I am not sure whether it is CLIL
or not.” “Some of the courses include some CLIL activities, andothers don’t.” “CLIL practices depend on students’ English ability
and learning content.”l This question can imply that there might be still vague
understanding of CLIL principles in the Japanese context,
compared to the European context where the EU promotes CLIL
as part of the language education policy.
4.3.5 (Q15) What percent of CLIL practices or activities do you
have in your 90-minute class time?
l Seventy-seven respondents teach CLIL over 25% of their classtime.
l Both experienced and less experienced teachers use 25% of
their class time for CLIL practices or activities, while others use
50% of their class time.
Figure 4.5 CLIL activities in a 90-minute class28

Figure 4.6 CLIL practice in class and teaching experience
5 or under years of teaching experience

6 to 10 years of teaching experience

0%

0%

8%
33%

17%
17%

8%

75%

50%

25%

25%

34%

100%

16%

17%

25%

0%

other

100%

11 to 20 years of teaching experience

75%

50%

25%

0%

other

over 21 years of teaching experience

6%
16%

16%

12%
31%

19%

100%

75%

50%

25%

0%

other

Note. These graphs show a cross-tabulation comparing “CLIL practices or
activities (%) in the class time (90 minutes)” with “teaching experience.”

Discussionl There are some negative comments about understanding CLIL: “I
am uncertain about whether my teaching could be called CLIL.”“CLIL practices or activities depend on the learning aims.” “Itwould be difficult to use CLIL approaches due to the course
syllabus.” They show that teachers are still unsure of how to
implement CLIL.
l The reason for this uncertainty when implementing or designing
CLIL cannot be identified from this questionnaire survey. Further
investigation is needed to understand teachers’ feelings of a lackof confidence about how and when to teach CLIL.
4.3.6 (Q17) What is an appropriate ratio for the use of English andJapanese in a CLIL class?

29

l Forty-three respondents assume that 80% English to 20%
Japanese is an appropriate ratio for a CLIL class.
l Teachers who actively teach CLIL tend to use 80% English and
20% Japanese in their classes, compared to other teachers who
do not use CLIL practices and activities very much.
l Teachers try to use English as much as possible in their classes
regardless of their teaching experience.
Figure 4.7 Using English and Japanese in class

Figure 4.8 Using English and Japanese in CLIL classes
Group CGroup B
5.6%

0.0%

16.7%

5.6%

0.0%

8.6%

2.9%

38.9%

11.1%

17.1%

5.7%

31.4%

0.0%
20.0%

22.2%

14.3%

E100%

E80% J20%

E100%

E80% J20%

E60% J40%

E50% J50%

E60% J40%

E50% J50%

E40% J60%

E20% J80%

E40% J60%

E20% J80%

J100%depending on situation

Others

J100%depending on situation

OthersGroup A
0.0%

3.8%

13.5%

9.6%

1.9%
9.6%
13.5%

48.1%

E100%

E80% J20%

E60% J40%

E50% J50%

E40% J60%

E20% J80%

J100%depending on the situation

OthersNote. A cross-tabulation comparing “anappropriate ratio for the use of English
and Japanese” with “Degree of CLIL
teaching practices”

30

Figure 4.9 Using English and teaching experience
5 or under years of teaching experience0%

6 to 10 years of teaching experience

8% 8%

8%

0%

8%

17%

8%

8%

34%

0%

59%

34%

Eng. 100%

Eng.80% Jap.20%

Eng.60% Jap.40%

Eng.50% Jap.50%

Eng.40% Jap.60%

Eng.20% Jap.80%

Jap.100% depending on the situation

Others

11to 20 years of teaching experience

Eng. 100%

Eng.80% Jap.20%

Eng.60% Jap.40%

Eng.50% Jap.50%

Eng.40% Jap.60%

Eng.20% Jap.80%

Jap.100% depending on the situation

Othersover 21 years of teaching experience

9%

3%

0% 8%

15%

0%

19%

3%
0%

6%

6%
0%

41%

17%

41%

13%
12%

15%

Eng. 100%

Eng.80% Jap.20%

Eng. 100%

Eng.80% Jap.20%

Eng.60% Jap.40%

Eng.50% Jap.50%

Eng.60% Jap.40%

Eng.50% Jap.50%

Eng.40% Jap.60%

Eng.20% Jap.80%

Eng.40% Jap.60%

Eng.20% Jap.80%

Jap.100% depending on the situation

OthersJap.100% depending on the situation

OthersNote. A cross-tabulation comparing “Use of English and Japanese” with“teaching experience.”

Discussionl The ratio of English to Japanese in a CLIL class is 80% to 20%,
60% to 40%, and 50% to 50% in descending order. It suggeststhat CLIL teachers should believe it is important to use English as
much as possible. It may mean that CLIL can be equal to EMI.
l Some comments say that CLIL language use depends on students’English levels and class contexts.
l Generally experienced teachers choose the class language use ofEnglish (80%) to Japanese (20%). It may imply that someexperienced teachers are more interested in translanguaging in
CLIL.
4.3.7 (Q18) What is the content topic of your CLIL class?
l As for the content topic, 58 respondents choose “Related to
students’ specialized field,” 47 choose “Global issues,” 46

31

choose “Teachers' fields of interest,” and 44 choose “Current
affairs.” Other content topics include “SDGs” and“Intercultural awareness.”
Figure 4.10 Content topics in class
70
60
50

58
46

44

40

42

47

35

30

24

21

20

9

10
0

3
Related toCurrent affairs
students'
specialized field

Academic
content

Teachers'
fieldof interest

General content
assigned by theuni.

Culturalcontent

Global issues Content learned
Content
CLIL classes
in high school. concerned with not practiced
students' future.

7

Others

4.3.8 (Q19) What kind of materials do you use in your CLIL
classes?
52 teachers create their own materials, and 48 teachers use theInternet sources, although some teachers use readymade
textbooks.
Figure 4.11 Materials in CLIL classes

32

Discussion
13 teachers use textbooks published in English-speaking countries or
not specialized for EFL situations. This suggests that creating
appropriate CLIL textbooks for EFL situations should be essential tomeet students’ and teachers’ needs.
4.3.9 (Q21) What types of CLIL ideas do you regard as importantwhen or if you teach CLIL?
l Eighty respondents choose “Tasks;” 76 choose “Materials andinformation,” and 75 choose “Enhancement of cognitive
abilities.”l Teachers who actively teach CLIL (group A) tend to choose“Lesson study” and “Human resources and fieldwork” morethan other groups.
Table 4.6 CLIL class ideas
Answer choices
1. Material and Information (e.g. websites,
newspapers, journals)
2. Human resources and fieldwork (e.g. collaboration
with experts, hands-on experience, practices,
research)
3. Tasks (e.g. offering chances to use English)

Responses
76
20

80

4. Lesson study (e.g. teacher training）

31

5. Media and ICT40

6. Communicative activities

65

7. Enhancement of cognitive abilities

75

8. Awareness of different cultures

50

9. Autonomous learning54

10. Others

333Figure 4.12

CLIL class ideas

Figure 4.13

CLIL class ideas

Note. A cross-tabulation comparing “Points that you put a lot of thought into
when practicing (or trying to practice)” with “Degree of CLIL teachingpractices”
34

Discussion
Group A teachers are more willing to go beyond the classroom tolook for better lesson skills, to do more hands-on activities, or to havemore collaboration with experts than Group C teachers.
4.3.10 (Q29) How do you assess your students in your CLIL class?
Performance and writing are the most common assessment in a
CLIL class. Most teachers do not take students’ self-assessment
into account.
Figure 4.14 CLIL assessment
50

46

46

45
40

36

37

41

39

36

35
30
25

24

20
15
9

10

5

5
0

0

35

4.3.11 (Q 39) Which CLIL materials are appropriate for yourclassroom?
l Seventy-four teachers choose “English materials madespecifically for CLIL teaching,” 66 teachers choose “English
articles from the Internet,” and 63 choose “Self-made original
materials.”l Group A teachers like to use “Subject textbooks used in
English-speaking countries.”
Discussion
Group A teachers consider authentic materials to be better for theirstudents than Group C teachers. Many teachers think that “English
materials made specifically for CLIL teaching” are appropriate,
though Q19 show that not many teachers use them. They use“English articles from the Internet” and “Self-made original
materials,” which implies that CLIL textbooks published so far are notentirely satisfactory to CLIL teachers.
Figure 4.15 CLIL materials

36

Figure 4.16 CLIL materials and teacher experience
100%
90%

1

80%
70%

12

14

60%

34

37

23

26

9

11

36

35

50%
40%

5

30%
20%

6

10%
0%

9

7
1
MEXT approved
English textbooks

MEXT approved
textbooks of eachsubject (English
translated version)

Unpracticed

8

20

8

Subject textbooks English articles from English materials Self-made originalused in Englishthe Internet
made specifically formaterials
speaking countries
CLIL teaching

Partially practiced

2

Other (please
specify)

Actively practiced

4.3.12 (Q42) CLIL should be taught by language teachers in tertiary
education.
About 56% (59 out of 105) of the respondents neither agreed nor
disagreed that CLIL should be taught by language teachers.
Figure 4.17 CLIL for language teachers37

4.3.13 (Q43) CLIL should be taught by subject teachers in tertiary
education.
About 65 of the respondents neither agreed nor disagreed that
CLIL should be taught by subject teachers.
Figure 4.18 CLIL for subject teachers

Discussion
More than half of the respondents are not sure whether CLIL should
be taught by language or subject teachers. They seem to wonder who
should teach CLIL. It may mean that CLIL pedagogy is vague formany teachers.
4.3.14 (Q 47) Have you had any changes in yourself, yourcolleagues, or your students through teaching CLIL?
(descriptive answers)
There are a variety of interesting descriptive answers for this question
item, but there is no space to describe all here. The answers areanalyzed and coded by the researchers to disseminate the results. All
the descriptions are thus categorized into 1) helping improvestudents’ motivation, 2) enhancing students’ learning effects, and 3)
developing teachers’ CLIL pedagogical knowledge and skills.

38

The primary changes through teaching CLIL can be summarized
as follows:
1) helping improve students’ motivation
2) enhancing students’ learning effects3) developing teachers’ CLIL pedagogical knowledge and skills
Figure 4.19 Changing through CLIL
30
25

25

24

20
15

15
10
5

3

3

Unknown

Others0
Improved
student motivation

Enhanced student
learning effectEnhanced teacher
skills and knowledge

4.3.15 (Q48) What has motivated you to teach CLIL? If you don’t
teach CLIL, why not? (e.g., student needs)
There are a variety of interesting descriptive answers for this question
item. They are analyzed and coded by the researchers to disseminate
the results. All the descriptions can be categorized into the following
factors: 1) helping improve students’ content learning, 2) increasing
students’ motivation for language learning, 3) providing anappropriate approach for language learning, and 4) developing
students’ language knowledge and skills.
There are some primary motivation factors to be noted:
1) helping improve students’ content learning2) increasing students’ motivation for language learning3) providing an appropriate approach for language learning394) developing students’ language knowledge and skills
Figure 4.20 CLIL motivation
30
28

25

21
20

19

15

11
10

9

6
5

4

4

2

0
T o im provest ude nt
c om pre he nsionof c ont e nt s

T o inc re a se
st ude nt
m ot iva t ion
for le a rning
la ngua ge

I t is a n
a ppropria t e
a pproa c h forle a rning
la ngua ge

T o e nha nc e
st ude nt
la ngua ge
sk ills

U npra c t ic e d

T o ga inuse fulla ngua ge
sk ills a nd
k now le dge
for st ude nt s
in soc ie t y

For t e a c he rs
t o ha ve funt e a c hingla ngua ge
w it h c ont e nt

U nive rsit ypolic y(c urric ulum )Ot he rs

Table 4.7 CLIL motivation
Categoriess
Responses
1. Helping improve students’ content learning28
2. Increasing students’ motivation for language learning21
3. Providing an appropriate approach for language
19
learning
4. Developing students’ language knowledge and skills
11
5. Not teaching CLIL
6
6. Helping develop students’ social knowledge and4skills7. Encouraging teachers to enjoy teaching4
8. Following the curriculum regulation
2
9. Others
9
Discussion
Many teachers support CLIL, have positive thinking for CLIL
principles, and want to help develop their students’ content and40language learning. Also, they seem to strongly feel their students are
motivated by CLIL pedagogy.
4.3.16 (Q49) What is the current problem in your class?
There are a variety of problems, but it is hard to show all here. So
they are analyzed and coded by the researchers to disseminate theresults. All the descriptions are thus categorized into several factors:e.g., students’ English proficiency levels, students’ motivation,teaching materials, assessment or evaluation methods, and teachingknowledge and skills.
l It seems that teachers have many different types of problems.
Some common problems are students’ English proficiency
levels and learning motivation. Other familiar problems
include teaching materials, assessment or evaluation methods,
knowledge and skills, and the curriculum policy.
l There are two types of problems: teachers themselves (e.g.,time to prepare for CLIL class, online learning, and English use)
and their students (e.g., cooperation among students).
l Teachers with 11 years of experience or more mention
cooperation among students, online learning, university
policies, and cooperation among teachers. Teachers with morethan 21 years of experience mention university policies.
Teachers with 5 or under years of teaching experience mention
teaching materials and improvement of teaching skills.
l Group A teachers mention time needed to prepare for CLIL
classes, cooperation among students, and online learning.
Groups B and C mention student motivation, teachingmaterials, and improvement of teaching skills.
l There are also some specific problems: e.g.,
Ø Students are not familiar with CLIL.
Ø Students insist on their own learning culture.
Ø There are many different types of students.

41

Figure 4.21 Problems in CLIL teaching
20
18
16

18

15

14
12
10
8
6

9

8

7
5

5

4

4

4

3

2

2

3

2

3

3

0

Note. The light-blue colored bars = causes related to students
The green bars = causes related to teachers

Table 4.8 Problems in CLIL teaching
Categories
1. Students’ English levels
2. Students’ motivation
3. Teaching materials
4. Improvement of teaching knowledge and skills
5. Assessment and evaluation methods
6. Cooperation among students
7. Time needed to prepare for CLIL classes
8. Online learning
9. University policies
10. Cooperation among teachers
11. Language use
12. Others (students)
13. Others (teachers)
14. Not teaching CLIL
15. No specific problems

42

Responses
18
15
9
8
7
5
5
4
4
3
2
3
2
3
3

Figure 4.22 Problem factors in CLIL teaching
45

41

40

40
35
30
25
20
15
10

4

5

3

3

Unpracticed

No specific problems

0

Causes related to
students

Causes related toteachers

University policies

Figure 4.23 Problem factors in CLIL teaching experiences 1
100%
90%
80%

6

70%

2

1
2

3

2

2

7

1

4

3

1

2

1
2

30%
4

10%
0%

2

2

3

40%

20%

4

9

60%
50%

1

2

1

2
2

3

2
3

3

2

1

2
1

1

1

0-5 years

1

6-10 years

11-20 years

43

21 years or more

Figure 4.24 Problem factors in CLIL teaching experiences 2

Figure 4.25 Problem factors in CLIL teaching practices
100%

1

90%
80%
70%

6
10

4

1
4

3

3

60%
50%
40%
30%

1
4

7

3
3

20%
10%
0%

2

2

3

4

1

2

4

2

2

Unpracticed

2

1

4
1

1

1

Partially practiced

44

2

2
1

Actively practiced22Discussion
Students’ English levels and students’ motivation are the mostcommon problems for the respondents, which may be directly related
to the success or failure of CLIL teaching in class. Many teachersrequire creative ideas and research, and students also have problems
in terms of English learning. The results imply that even university
teachers have many different kinds of problems in their classes. CLIL
may possibly be one of the solutions. However, Groups B and C
teachers seem to hesitate in beginning to teach CLIL. Many teachers
might need to improve their CLIL teaching knowledge and skills,
along with access to proper CLIL teaching materials.
Suggestions based on the survey results in university education
Identified problems
Teachers are uncertain whether
they can teach CLIL.
Teachers lack confidence inteaching CLIL.
Teachers need to know theeffective use of English andJapanese in class.
Teachers can’t find good CLIL
textbooks.

Teachers can’t share creative
CLIL practices and activities.
Teachers don’t know how to
use students’ self-assessment.
Teachers feel the need forcooperation between teachers.
Teachers can’t teach CLIL wellbecause they don’t have goodteacher education.

Suggestions
Teachers use a CLIL teaching
checklist.
Teachers participate in CLIL
workshops and discuss CLIL
teaching.
Teachers do CLIL research andattend some workshops.
Teachers share CLIL textbooks,
CLIL teaching resources, and CLIL
ideas with other teachers and on
websites.
Teachers should exchange
information about CLIL teaching.
Teachers do research on usefulstudents’ self-assessment.
Teachers need to have open
communication and flexibility.
Teachers should seek sufficientteacher education to share CLIL
ideas.

45

Recommendation topics for further research on CLIL in university
education
1. CLIL teaching for students with basic English levels
2. CLIL teaching for less motivated students
3. Preparation for CLIL teaching
4. Cooperation between students
5. Online CLIL teaching and learning
6. CLIL materials development
7. Development of CLIL teaching knowledge and skills46

5. Survey on CLIL pedagogy in primary & secondary
education
The purpose of this questionnaire survey is to identify the current
status of the implementation of the CLIL pedagogy in primary andsecondary education. In this survey, there are rather few respondents
and the two questionnaires are combined and represented in thissection as basic education including upper secondary education.
The two questionnaire items are slightly different but almost thesame. They include the following topics: CLIL practices, CLIL
materials, CLIL assessment, CLIL ideas, 5-point Likert Scale questions,and opinions on CLIL. Different from Europe, English was not taught
as a proper school subject in primary education until 2020. Also inlower secondary schools, the English curriculum is fixed and CLIL is
hard to implement. However, in upper secondary education, there
are some schools which practice enhanced English educationconsidering global views. However, CLIL is not so popular among
primary and secondary school teachers. The survey can suggest some
aspects of the current situation of CLIL pedagogy in primary andsecondary education in Japan.
5.1

Data summaries in primary & secondary educationl It is important to show that CLIL is effective for university
entrance examination. In Japan, the university entrance
examination is very influential in secondary education as well as
primary education. The most important goal for students andparents is to enter prestigious universities. In such situations, CLIL
becomes recognized as a more suitable approach.
l It may be necessary to hold workshops of CLIL teaching forteachers. Primary and secondary teachers are gradually interested
in CLIL approaches, so they need to know more about CLIL.
However, it seems they are busy and do not have time to study
CLIL.

47

l CLIL is considered to be an effective approach in terms of content
learning, language learning, affective factors, cognition, andteacher and student perceptions. It means that CLIL has thepotential to develop the learning culture in Japan.
l There are teachers who are unable to incorporate CLIL due totheir lack of preparation time and workplace environment. Someteachers are interested in CLIL but many do not know what CLIL
is. That is because they have much work to do and no time tothink about CLIL.
l It may be necessary to develop ready-made CLIL materials forteachers to incorporate CLIL more easily in their classes. The
primary and secondary English language curriculum is stable.
Teachers do not have time to develop CLIL materials themselves.
It is necessary to create appropriate CLIL materials.
l There have been challenges regarding the goal setting, lack of
preparation, the balance between content and language, use ofJapanese, scaffolding, and lack of cooperation among teachers.
Although many teachers realize that CLIL is an interesting
approach, it will take time and a lot of effort to implement CLIL in
primary and secondary education in Japan.
5.2

The respondents’ basic data in primary & secondary education

Table 5.1 Total number of respondents (teachers)
Total
Primary school teachers
Secondary school teachers
62
24
38
Table 5.2 Self-assessment of English proficiency based on the CEFR
CEFRPrimary school teachers
Secondary school teachers
C2
1
2
C1
4
15
B2
5
14
B1
10
6
A2
2
0
A1
1
0
N/A
1
1
48

5.3

Featured results in primary & secondary education

5.3.1 (Q9 & Q13) In which subject class do you teach CLIL?
CLIL is taught most in the English class in primary & secondary
education. CLIL may be part of English language learning (softCLIL).
Figure 5.1.1 Subjects in primary education
80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%

s
o
10

ra
t

ed

th
er

rn
in
g
le
a

cr
a
&

6.
a

rt
s

9

in
te
g

ar
ts

7
fi
ne
8

ho
m
&

ft
s

si
c
m

u

ic
s

e

ec

on
om

5.
P.
E.

at
h
4.
m

ec
e
3.
s

ci
n

ie
s
tu
d

oc
ia
ls
2.
s

1.
E

ng
lis
h

0.00%

Figure 5.1.2 Subjects in secondary education

ot
he
rs

CL
IL
9

2

ot
he
r

1.
Eu
En
ro
gl
pe
ish
an
la
ng
ua
3
ge
As
s
ia
n
la
4
n
m
gu
at
ag
h,
es
sc
ie
nc
e
or
5
hu
IC
T
m
an
sc
ie
6
nc
ar
es
ts
,P
7
.E
Ja
,o
pa
rH
ne
.E
se
or
8
cu
in
l tu
te
re
gr
s
at
ed
le
ar
ni
ng

100.00%90.00%
80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%

Discussion
CLIL is taught by 67% in part of English classes in primary education,and it is taught by 90% in English classes in secondary education. It isvery different from the European context. It may be called soft CLIL,
but this contextualized CLIL can be considered a different aspect of
CLIL.
49

5.3.2 (Q12) Are you teaching CLIL?
Almost half of teachers are teaching CLIL, and 30 to 40% of them
are trying to teach CLIL in primary & secondary education.
Figure 5.2 Teaching CLIL in primary & secondary education
50.00%

60.00%

45.00%

50.00%

40.00%
35.00%

40.00%

30.00%

30.00%

25.00%
20.00%

20.00%

15.00%
10.00%

10.00%

5.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1 teaching ClIL

2 trying to teach CLIL

3 not teaching CLIL

4 others

1 teaching CLIL

2 trying to teach CLIL

3 not teaching CLIL

4 others

Discussion
In general, many teachers (48% of primary and 47% of secondary)including teachers who are trying to teach CLIL are interested in CLIL
approaches. Although CLIL is becoming popular among English
teachers, many teachers can have some difficulties in teaching CLIL
due to the traditional curricular system in Japan.
5.3.3 How much do you use English in your CLIL classes?
Primary school teachers do not use much English in their classes,
but many secondary school teachers use English in their classes
and consider using English for 80% of class time as appropriate.
Figure 5.3.1 Teaching CLIL in primary education
30.00%
25.00%
20.00%
15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
1 100％

2 80％

3 50％

4 30％

5 d epenid non activit ies

50

6 greet ings,
vocabul ary,
read ingalou nd

7 d on't use
English8 n otteach ing CL IL

9 o thersFigure 5.3.2 Teaching CLIL in secondary education
30.00%
25.00%
20.00%
15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
1 100％

2 80％

3 50％

4 30％

5 d epenid n on
acti vities

6 greetings,
vocabul ary,
read ingalou nd

7 d on't use
English8 n ot teachin g
CL IL

9 o thers

Discussion
Primary school teachers are not qualified as English teachers, so thisresult is natural. It means that English proficiency levels and English
teacher education are essential for CLIL teaching.
5.3.4 (Q27) Do you think it is significant to teach CLIL?
Almost 100% of the primary and secondary teachers think it issignificant to teach CLIL as long as they actually teach CLIL.
Figure 5.4 Significance of CLIL in primary & secondary education
60.00%

80.00%
70.00%

50.00%

60.00%
40.00%

50.00%
40.00%

30.00%

30.00%

20.00%

20.00%
10.00%

10.00%
0.00%

0.00%
1 verysignificant

2 slightly
significant

3 yes and no 4 not much
5 not
6 not teachingsignificant significant at
CLIL
all

1 verysignificant

7 others

2 slightly
significant

3 yes and no 4 not much
5 not
6 not teachingsignificant significant at
CLIL
all

7 others

Note. The graph on the left is for primary education, the right is for secondary education

Discussion
The number of the respondents is very small, but almost all of themthink it is significant to teach CLIL, which may mean that teaching
CLIL can have the potential to change the current English learningand teaching in primary and secondary education.

51

5.3.5 (Q29) Is it fun to teach CLIL?
Besides some teachers who do not teach CLIL, almost 100% of theteachers think it is fun to teach CLIL.
Figure 5.5 Fun to teach CLIL in primary & secondary education
35.00%

70.00%

30.00%

60.00%

25.00%

50.00%

20.00%

40.00%

15.00%

30.00%

10.00%

20.00%

5.00%

10.00%
0.00%

0.00%

1 very fun 2 slightly 3 yes and 4 not 5 not at all 6 not
7 others
to teach fun tonomuch fun fun to teachingteach
to teach teachCLIL

1 very fun 2 slightly 3 yes and 4 not 5 not at all 6 not
7 others
to teach fun tonomuch fun fun to teachingteach
to teach
teach
CLIL

Note. The graph on the left is for primary education, the right is for secondary education

5.3.6 (Q33) Do you want to study the theory and practice of CLIL
more deeply?
Secondary school teachers (53%) want to study the theory andpractice of CLIL more than primary school teachers (33%),
although most teachers want to do so.
Figure 5.6 CLIL study needs in primary & secondary education
60.00%

60.00%

50.00%

50.00%

40.00%

40.00%
30.00%

30.00%

20.00%

20.00%

10.00%
10.00%

0.00%
1 study 2 study 3 yes and
them
them
no
more
deeply0.00%
1 study
them moredeeply2 study 3 yes and no4 don' study 5 don't
6 don'tthem
them much study them teach CLILat all7 others

4 don'
study
them
much

5 don't 6 don't 7 others
study
teach
them at CLIL
all

Note. The graph on the left is for primary education, the right is for secondary education

52

5.3.7 (Q34) Do you think it is hard to prepare for CLIL class?
Secondary school teachers (40%) think it is harder to prepare for
CLIL class than primary school teachers (5%). However, 83% of
the secondary school teachers and 76% of the primary school
teachers find preparing CLIL classes difficult.
Figure 5.7 Preparation for CLIL teaching
80.00%

50.00%

70.00%

45.00%
40.00%

60.00%

35.00%

50.00%

30.00%

40.00%

25.00%
20.00%

30.00%

15.00%

20.00%

10.00%

10.00%

5.00%

0.00%

0.00%
1 too
much
hard

2 hard3 yes 4 not so 5 not 6 not 7 others
and no much hard at teaching
hard
all
CLIL

1 too
much
hard

2 hard3 yes 4 not so 5 not
6 not 7 others
and no much hard at teaching
hard
all
CLIL

Note. The graph on the left is for primary education, the right is for secondary education

Discussion
These results (Q27, Q29, Q33, and Q34) suggest that CLIL should be
an appropriate approach for primary and secondary teaches, but they
may also imply that many teachers cannot enjoy teaching English andhave to follow the traditional English curriculum. Both primary andsecondary school teachers seem to be interested in CLIL pedagogy,
but they are busy doing their schoolwork and do not have sufficient
time or efforts to study CLIL, although they can enjoy teaching CLIL if
they actually have opportunities to teach CLIL. These results may
show some complicated, stable and hard-to-change traditional
curriculum, in which teachers cannot easily adopt integrated learning
such as CLIL. In primary and secondary education, the educational
system, such as curriculum, teacher education, teacher roles, teacher
workload, and teacher mindset, should be more flexible and diverse.
Primary and secondary school teachers need easier ways to adopt
CLIL approaches than CLIL teachers in Europe. Now in Japan,
teaching careers are not popular among young people, since it is not53

an attractive job and there are some serious problems due to lack ofyoung teachers. CLIL approaches may be a solution for the problem.
5.3.8 (Q50) What are the advantages of teaching CLIL? What are
the advantages of NOT teaching CLIL?
Primary and secondary teachers think that teaching CLIL has
advantages for students’ learning motivation. Secondary school
teachers also think that CLIL has advantages for students’ cognitive
development and CLIL pedagogy is flexible and suitable for
qualitative class activities.
Table 5.3 Advantages of teaching CLIL
Categorization
Positive effects on students’ learning motivation
Positive effects on teachers’ teaching motivation
Improvement of students’ cognitive development
Meaningful studies related to other subjects
Enhancing flexible and qualitative class activities

Primary Secondary
teachers teachers
12
11
1
2
4
7
4
1
2
10

Table 5.4 Advantages of NOT teaching CLIL
Primary Secondary
teachers teacherssaving time for class preparation and assessment
1
1
Positive effects on university exams
0
1
Giving consideration to slow learners
01
No particular advantages of NOT teaching CLIL
10
Categorization

Summaryl Students seem to enjoy learning in CLIL classes autonomously andeagerly.
l Some teachers have positive reactions toward CLIL teaching. They
enjoy teaching CLIL, regardless of the extra effort and preparation.
l Teachers need more flexibility and want to teach wide-ranging
world issues.
l CLIL materials can easily be used in different class contexts.
54

5.3.9 (Q54) What are your current issues in teaching CLIL?
Primary teaches choose English but secondary teachers choose
preparation and effort in addition to work constraints.
Table 5.5 Current issues
Categorization
Much preparation and effort for CLIL classSome work constraints surrounding teachers
Lack of teachers’ English knowledge and skills
Lack of teachers’ CLIL knowledge and skills
CLIL assessment and evaluation

Primary Secondary
teachers teachers
1
9
8
7
6
2
1
4
1
2

Summaryl There are still some traditional beliefs to teach English in a certain
way, which may make it difficult for some teachers to teach CLIL.
l Some students like traditional grammar-based teaching.
l Regular school exams and university entrance exams areconstraints for CLIL teaching.
l Some teachers try to teach CLIL using a MEXT-authorized
textbook.
l There is less time for some teachers to teach CLIL due to their lackof preparation time.
Discussion
CLIL is considered to be an effective teaching approach in terms ofteaching content, languages, affective factors, cognition, andteacher/student perceptions. However, there are teachers who areunable to teach CLIL due to their lack of preparation time and/or
workplace environment. There may be a need to create ready-made
CLIL materials that could be easily used in class, requiring aminimum amount of preparation time for teachers. In addition, there
is a necessity to represent positive results of CLIL on entrance
examinations in order for students to consider CLIL as an effective
learning approach.
55

6. Survey on CLIL pedagogy in non-English languages
The purpose of this questionnaire survey is to identify the current
status of the implementation of the CLIL pedagogy in non-English
languages. In this survey, the respondents include teaching nonEnglish languages, but most of them are Japanese and Spanish
teachers, which may mean they do not appropriately demonstrate thefeatures of all non-English languages learning and teaching in relation
to CLIL.
CLIL implementation in the English language is actually themainstream, but in Europe, CLIL in other European languages
including French, German and Spanish has been conducted to someextent in many EU countries. The CEFR is aimed at plurilingualism
and pluriculturalism in Europe, so CLIL originally regards some
European languages as equally important. Although the questionnaire
respondents are few, they can give some insight to CLIL
implementation in Japan.
The questionnaire items include the following topics: languages, CLIL
knowledge, CLIL practices, CLIL materials, CLIL assessment, CLIL
ideas, 5-point Likert Scale questions, and opinions on CLIL. Unlike
education in Europe, not so many foreign languages are not taught asa school subject in primary and secondary education in Japan.
English is the most common language even in university education.
The fact is that young people exclusively learn English and have very
little time for learning other languages in public education.
6.1

Data summaries in non-English languagesl The number of the respondents are 11 Japanese language and 14
Spanish language teachers among 39 in total, which means thatthe results might be biased but possibly helpful to see the current
CLIL situation in Japan.
l 80% of the teachers are interested in CLIL (Figure 6.1).
However, 29% of them do not teach CLIL.

56

l The 4Cs framework is the most characteristic of CLIL. 82% of
the teachers choose it. (Figure 6.2)
l Although many teachers are interested in CLIL and 46% of them
do not teach CLIL, 30% of the teachers would like to teach CLIL.
(Figure 6.3)
l 68% of the teachers do not talk about CLIL in their workplace.
This indicates that CLIL is still not popular among othereducational staff in each workplace. (Figure 6.4)
l 97% of the teachers agree that CLIL is effective learning. (Table
6.10)
l 53% of the teachers are not sure that language teachers should
teach CLIL.
l 59% of the teachers are not sure that subject teachers should
teach CLIL. (Table 6.10)
l 97% of the teachers agree that CLIL is best taught in a teamteaching situation. (Table 6.10)
l 66% of the teachers agree that CLIL starts from thinking about
learning. (Table 6.10)
l 81% of the teachers want to take in CLIL ideas. (Table 6.10)
l 62% of the teachers agree that CLIL is well learned intranslanguaging contexts. (Table 6.10)
6.2

The respondents’ basic data in non-English languages

Table 6.1

GenderAnswer choices

Responses
5
33
1
39

Male
FemaleSkippedTotal of responses
Table 6.2 Age
Answer choices
20s
30s
40s

Responses
2
12
32
57

50s
60s
No response
Total of responses

47
4
0
39

Table 6.3

Affiliation
Answer choices
Pre-primaryPrimary
Lower secondary
Upper secondary
Institute of technology
University
Cram school
Language schools, etc.
OthersTotal of responses

Responses
0
0
0
2
0
33
0
4
6
39

Table 6.4 Teaching language
Answer choices
Japanese
ChineseKoreanFrenchGermanSpanishItalianRussian
Portuguese
EnglishOthersTotal of responses

Responses
11
2
6
1
1
14
1
1
0
4
1
39

Table 6.5 Self-assessment of language proficiency based on the CEFR
Answer choices
Responses
C2
19
C1
11
B2
4
B1
0
A2
1
58

A1
OthersSkippedTotal of responses
6.3

2
1
1
39

Featured results in non-English languages

6.3.1 (Q15) How interested are you in CLIL?
80% of the teachers are interested in CLIL. However, 29% ofthem do not teach CLIL.
Figure 6.1 Interest in CLIL
30.00%
25.00%
20.00%
15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%① Very②③④⑤ Know ⑥ Know ⑦ Don't ⑧ Others
interested Interested Interested Interested about it about it know or
andand trying and going but not
but not but don't
teach
teaching
best toto teach teaching interested
teach
now
teach

Table 6.6 Interest in CLIL
Answer Choices

Responses

1. Very interested and teaching now

22.86%

8

2. Interested and trying best to teach22.86%

8

3. Interested and going to teach17.14%

6

4. Interested but not teaching

28.57%

10

5. Know about it but not interested

2.86%

1

6. Know about it but don't teach

0.00%

0

7. Don't know or teach

5.71%

2

8. Others

0.00%

0

Skipped4

Answered3559Discussion
Most teachers are interested in CLIL, but it seems that they have somedifficulties in starting to apply CLIL pedagogy in their classrooms.
However, as with teaching CLIL in English, it is clear that using CLIL
approaches in their classrooms is actually popular. It may suggest that
all languages teachers will benefit from cooperation with one anotherand sharing ideas in terms of CLIL pedagogies and classroom
practices.
6.3.2 (Q23) There are some familiar CLIL principles. Which of thefollowing is the most characteristic of CLIL?
The 4Cs framework is the most characteristic of CLIL. 82% of theteachers choose it.
Figure 6.2 CLIL principles
90.00%
80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
4Cs (Content,

Scaffolding

Bloom's

The language Translanguaging

Cognition,

Taxonomy ofCommunication,

Educational

language

Cul ture)

Objectives

of/for/through

Otherstriptych:learning

Table 6.7 CLIL principles
Answer Choices

Responses

4Cs (Content, Cognition, Communication, Culture)

82.14%

23

Scaffolding

7.14%

2

Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives

0.00%

0

The language triptych: language of/for/through learning

3.57%

1

Translanguaging

3.57%

1

Others

3.57%

1

60

Skipped11

Answered28

Discussion
It appears that the 4Cs framework has become the standard of CLIL
pedagogy in most aspects of language teaching and learning,
compared to other CLIL-related terms. The most interesting point isthat almost all the teachers choose the 4Cs framework, but they do
not choose other characteristics such as scaffolding, the language
triptych, and translanguaging. Perhaps, there may be some different
types of CLIL activities in Japanese and Spanish from CLIL in English.
6.3.3 (Q31) Are you teaching with some CLIL approaches?
Although many teachers are interested in CLIL and 46% of them
do not teach CLIL, 30% of the teachers would like to teach CLIL.
Figure 6.3 CLIL teaching
35.00%
30.00%
25.00%
20.00%
15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
1 Yes, a lot.

2 Yes.

3 Yes,
4 Yes,
5 No, but I
sometimes focusing on would likein somecontent.
to.
projects

6 No.

9 Others.

Table 6.8 CLIL teaching
Answer Choices

Responses

Yes, a lot.

15.15%

5Yes.

12.12%

4

Yes, sometimes in some projects.

9.09%

3

Yes, focusing on content.

15.15%

5No, but I would like to.

30.30%

10No.

15.15%

5

Others

3.03%

1

61

Skipped6

Answered33

Discussion
The results show that only a few teachers do not teach CLIL, althoughmany teachers want to teach CLIL. It seems that teachers have some
substantial reasons for not teaching CLIL, which are not clear fromthis survey.
6.3.4 (Q33) Are you talking about CLIL in your workplace?
68% of the teachers do not talk about CLIL in their workplace. Itmeans that CLIL is still not popular among other educational staff
in each workplace.
Figure 6.4 CLIL talks in workplace
35.00%
30.00%
25.00%
20.00%
15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
1. Yes, often.

2 Yes.

3 Yes,
sometimes.

4 No, a little 5 No, not at allbit.

6 Others

Table 6.9 CLIL talks in workplace
Answer Choices

Responses

Yes, often.

12.12%

4

Yes.

9.09%

3

Yes, sometimes.

21.21%

7

No, a little bit.

24.24%

8

No, not at all

33.33%

11

Others

0.00%

0

62

Skipped6

Answered33

Discussion
The results clearly show that CLIL is still being implemented byteachers of languages other than English. Fundamentally, thelanguage education policy focusing on English as the only foreign
language and Japanese as the national language can affect thedevelopment of learning languages other than English in Japan.
6.3.5 5-likert scale questionnaire(Q 38) CLIL is an effective learning.
(Q 39) CLIL Is taught by language teachers.
(Q 40) CLIL Is taught by subject teachers.
(Q 41) CLIL is taught as part of a school subject.
(Q 42) CLIL is taught as a school subject.
(Q 43) CLIL is taught In a team teaching.
(Q 44) CLIL is taught only t in the target language.
(Q 45) CLIL students can speak the target language well.
(Q 46) CLIL starts from thinking about learning.
(Q 47) I want to take in CLIL ideas.
(Q 48) CLIL is well learned in translanguaging contexts
l 97% of the teachers agree that CLIL is effective learning.
l 53% of the teachers are not sure that language teachers teachCLIL.
l 59% of the teachers are not sure that subject teachers teachCLIL.
l 97% of the teachers agree that CLIL is taught in a teamteaching situation.
l 66% of the teachers agree that CLIL starts from thinking about
learning.
l 81% of the teachers want to take in CLIL ideas.
l 62% of the teachers agree that CLIL is well learned intranslanguaging contexts.
(Table 6.10)

63

２No.

34.4%

11

32

Total

7

Skipped32

Answered

５Yes,
certainly.

12

32

４Yes.

37.5%

7

３Yes and no.

8

32

25.0%

1

0

3.13%

0.0%

9

1

28.13
%

32

3.1%

17

7

53.13%

32

4

1

12.50
%

3.13%

1

8

3.13%

25.00
%
19

32

59.38%

7

4

32

12.50
%

5

0

15.63
%

0.00%

１No, not atall.

Table 6.10 5-likert scale questionnaire

Q 38 CLIL is an effective
learning.
Q 39 CLIL Is taught by language
teachers.
Q 40 CLIL Is taught by subject
teachers.

9

53.13%

17

1

32

3.13%

7

0

32

17

1

53.13%

3.13%

2

9

6.25%

32

3

7
5

32

32

15.63%

7

32

11

0

32

7

32

34.38
%
0.00%

4

32

7

16

0

16

8

32

32
50.00%

11

13

16

7
8

34.38%

11

10

32

32
4

34.38%

6

7

0

4

25.00
%
12.50
%

0

18.75%

32

0.00%
1

0.00%

0

5

4

0

0.00%

12

12

0

37.50%

12.50
%
25.00
%
50.00
%
15.63
%
0

15

0.00%

28.13
%
28.13
%
50.00
%
12.50
%
37.50
%
40.63
%
31.25
%
46.88
%
0

Q 41 CLIL is taught as part of a
0.00%
school subject.
Q 42 CLIL is taught as a school
9.38%
subject.
Q 43 CLIL is taught in a team0.00%
teaching.
Q 44 CLIL is taught only in the12.50%
target language.
Q 45 CLIL students should
3.13%
speak the target language well.
Q 46 CLIL starts from thinking
0.00%
about learning.
Q 47 I want to take in CLIL
0.00%
ideas.
Q 48 CLIL is well learned in
0.00%
translanguaging contexts

64Discussion
Most teachers of languages other than English think that CLIL is
effective, and they agree that it is taught in a team-teaching. They
probably need support in terms of content knowledge andbackground. That is partly because many of the teachers also want tohave CLIL teaching ideas. Many teachers do not have any clear ideasof who teaches CLIL, but many teachers agree that thinking about
learning and translanguaging are both important for learners. These
results are similar to the teachers who teach CLIL in English. Theysuggest that CLIL can have the same potential for almost all language
teachers who are interested in it, so all language teachers as well as
subject teachers need to share ideas in global contexts.

65

Items for the surveys
1. General survey on CLIL pedagogy (Japanese and English
versions)
・ Demographic Data
gender, age, type of school or organization, teacher
language/cultural background, self-assessment of English
ability, special activities conducted in the institution, type oforganization or school, type of employment, teachingexperience, teaching field, major(expert) field, current
professional and research interest
・ Knowledge of CLIL
CLIL-related terms, interest in CLIL/CBU/CBLT/bilingual
education/IB (International Baccalaureate) programs/
language immersion programs/EMI (English Medium
Instruction)/ ESP (English for Specific Purposes) and EAP(English for Academic Purposes) CBI or CBLT, knowledge of
CLIL principles, CBI and CBLT, CLIL and bilingual education,
CLIL and IB, CLIL and immersion, CLIL and EMI, CLIL and
ESP/EAP, CLIL pedagogy,
・ CLIL practice・ Colleagues’ Interest in CLIL・ Participation in CLIL conferences, seminars, or lecturers
・ Reading books and articles related to CLIL pedagogy
・ Teaching Materials for CLIL・ Opinions of CLIL
the effect of CLIL in the school curriculum, CLIL taught by
subject /English (language) teachers, implementation of CLIL
in classroom activities, CLIL implemented partially in eachsubject, CLIL as one subject, a collaboration of English andsubject teachers, language use, students’ English ability,
CLIL for preparation of university entrance exam, applicationof CLIL in grammar and translation, the initiative for CLIL
classes, implementing CLIL ideas in classroom activities

662. Survey on CLIL pedagogy in university education
・ Demographic Data
gender, age, teaching experience, type of school ororganization, classes in charge (language/subject classes),language background, experience studying abroad, selfassessment of English ability, implementation of CLIL,
teaching/research experience of CLIL, introduction to CLIL
・ CLIL practiceteachers (language/subject classes) implementing CLIL, CLIL
practiced in15-class courses, CLIL practiced in a 90-minuteclass, goals for CLIL classes
・ Language usage in CLIL classes
・ Content taught in CLIL classes
・ Teaching Materials for CLIL・ Creativity applied to CLIL classes
developing thinking skills, developing communication skills,
developing writing skills, developing reading skills,
developing study skills, developing cooperation skills,
developing intercultural awareness・ Assessment in CLIL classes
・ Participation in CLIL conferences, seminars, or lecturers
・ Hosting CLIL seminars, lectures, and workshops.
・ Knowledge of CLIL
・ Colleagues’ Interest in CLIL・ Reading books and articles related to CLIL pedagogy
・ Materials for CLIL classes
materials currently used in CLIL classes, appropriatematerials for CLIL classes
・ Opinions of CLIL
interest in CLIL, the effect of CLIL practice, CLIL in theschool curriculum, teachers in CLIL classes, cooperation
among teachers for CLIL classes
・ Motivation to practice CLIL,
・ Issues in CLIL practice67

3. Survey on CLIL pedagogy in secondary education
・ Demographic Data
gender, age, teaching experience, type of school ororganization, self-assessment of English ability, special
activities conducted in the institution, type of employment,teaching experience, teaching field, major(expert) field,
current professional and research of interest,
・ CLIL practiceclasses implemented in CLIL, goals for CLIL classes, amountof CLIL practiced in the classes, language usage, classcontent and activities (grammar, group work, pair work,translation into Japanese, discussion, presentation,reflection)
・ Teaching Materials for CLIL・ Assessment in CLIL classes
・ Creativity applied to CLIL classes
developing thinking skills, developing communication skills,
developing writing skills, developing reading skills,
developing study skills, developing cooperation skills,
developing intercultural awareness・ Opinions of CLIL
purpose of CLIL, the effect of CLIL practice (for students,
teachers), experiencing the CLIL practice, knowledge of
CLIL, studying CLIL more deeply, preparation for CLIL
classes, assessment, cooperation among teachers for CLIL
classes, CLIL for preparation of university entrance exam,use of ICT, team teaching with ALTs, effect in juniorhigh/high schools, teachers(English, subject) for CLIL classes
in junior high/high schools, cooperation among teachers for
CLIL classes in junior high/high schools, implementing CLIL,
issues for CLIL classes

4. Survey on CLIL pedagogy in primary education
68

・ Demographic Data
gender, age, teaching experience, type of school ororganization, self-assessment of English ability, special
activities conducted in the institution, type of institution,
type of employment, teaching experience, assigned subject,major(expert) field, current professional and research ofinterest,
・ CLIL practiceclasses implemented in CLIL, goals for CLIL classes, amountof CLIL practiced in the classes, language usage, classcontent, and activities (grammar, group work, pair work,
reading, discussion, presentation, reflection)
・ Teaching Materials for CLIL・ Assessment in CLIL classes
・ Creativity applied to CLIL classes
developing thinking skills, developing communication skills,
developing writing skills, developing study skills, developing
cooperation skills, developing intercultural awareness・ Opinions of CLIL
purpose of CLIL, the effect of CLIL practice (for students,
teachers), experiencing the CLIL practice, knowledge of
CLIL, studying the CLIL practice more deeply, preparation for
CLIL classes, assessment, cooperation among othersubjects/English/homeroom teachers for CLIL classes, CLIL
for preparation of university entrance exam, use of ICT, teamteaching with ALTs, the effect of CLIL in primary schools,
English/homeroom teachers for CLIL classes in primaryschools, implementing CLIL, positive effects for CLIL
implementation, issues for CLIL classes

5. Survey on CLIL pedagogy in non-English languages
69

・ Demographic Data
gender, age, type of school or organization, self-assessmentof English ability, special activities conducted in theinstitution, type of employment, teaching experience,teaching field, major(expert) field, current professional andresearch interest
・ CLIL practice
implementation of CLIL, goals for CLIL classes, amount of
CLIL practiced in the classes, language usage, class content,
and activities (grammar, group work, pair work, reading,
discussion, presentation, reflection)
・ Teaching Materials for CLIL・ Assessment in CLIL classes
・ Creativity applied to CLIL classes
developing thinking skills, developing communication skills,
developing writing skills, developing study skills, developing
cooperation skills, developing intercultural awareness・ Opinions of CLIL
purpose of CLIL, the effect of CLIL practice (for students,
teachers), experiencing the CLIL practice, knowledge of CLIL,
studying the CLIL practice more deeply, preparation for CLIL
classes, assessment, cooperation among other teachers for
CLIL classes, team teaching with teachers of other fields,
usefulness of CLIL for preparation of entrance exams, use of
ICT, team teaching with ALTs, the effect of CLIL in
kindergartens and English language schools, English teachers
for CLIL classes in kindergartens and English language
schools, subject teachers implementing CLIL, English teachers
cooperating with teachers of other fields for CLIL classes,
positive effects for CLIL implementation, issues for CLIL
classes70

J-CLIL Survey Report on CLIL Pedagogy in Japan 2021

© 2022 J-CLIL