Feature Article
Comparison of Students’ Expectationsof CLIL and EMI
Sayaka Sugimoto
Waseda University
To internationalize learning environments, universities in Japan are increasingly offeringclasses in English. Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) and English Medium
Instruction (EMI) are the two most popular approaches to such bilingual education.
Although many researchers agree on the differences between these two approaches, theextent to which students share the same understanding remains unclear. Little is known
about what students expect to gain from CLIL/EMI classes and what types of learning
support they expect under the two approaches. This exploratory study aims to fill theseknowledge gaps by examining CLIL students’ expectations and support needs relative tothose of EMI students. To this end, a quantitative survey was conducted to examine CLIL
students’ expected learning outcomes and learning support needs, and their responses
were compared with those of EMI students. The comparative analysis demonstrated thatthe two groups’ expectations and support needs were largely similar. The majority of the
respondents from both groups expected to improve their English skills by attending theirclasses and expressed strong needs for both linguistic and content support, among others.
These findings suggest a possible discrepancy between the formal definitions of EMI/CLIL
and students’ expectations.
国際化に向け英語で授業を行う日本の大学が増加している。そのようなバイリンガ
ル教育のうち最も一般的な手法にCLILとEMIがある。研究者間でこの２つの違いについて同意に至っているような一方で、学生間でも同様の理解があるかは不明
瞭である。学生がそれぞれから何を得ることを期待し、どのような学習支援を必要とするかについてはあまり知られていない。当探索的研究はCLILとEMIにおいて学生が期待する成果および学習支援を比較し、知識の欠落を埋める努力に貢献することを目指す。本研究は量的質問紙調査を用いて期待される結果や学習支援
ニーズに焦点を当てながらCLIL受講生の経験を調査し、結果をEMI学生と比較した。比較分析では相違点よりも類似点が目立つ結果となった。両集団にて大多数
が英語能力の改善を成果として期待し、言語・内容支援に対するニーズの高いことが認識された。この結果は、CLIL/EMIの定義と学生間での期待とで相違がある可4

Comparison of Students’ Expectations of CLIL and EMI, OnCUE 14(1), pages 4-31
能性を示している。

Teaching academic subjects in English is becoming increasingly common inhigher education in Japan (MEXT, 2020). Content and Language Integrated
Learning (CLIL) and English Medium Instruction (EMI) are the two popular
approaches to such bilingual education. Although both approaches involve
teaching an academic subject in a student’s second language (i.e., English), theydiffer in terms of their backgrounds and instructional goals (Brown & Bradford,2017).
CLIL originated in Europe in the early 1990s with the aim of promoting
bilingualism and fostering unity among European countries (MacGregor, 2016).
Since then, various definitions and applications of CLIL have been developed(Coyle, 2005). For instance, “hard” or “strong” CLIL emphasizes content
learning more than language learning (Bentley, 2010) and with classes typicallytaught by non-native content experts (Ikeda, 2013). By contrast, “weak” or“soft” CLIL classes are taught by native or non-native language specialists witha stronger focus on language learning (Bentley, 2010; Ikeda, 2013). Either way, acommon feature is “a dual-focused educational approach in which an additional
language is used for the learning and teaching of both content and language”(Coyle, 2010, p. 1). The relatively balanced approach to language and content
learning in CLIL differentiates it from the other existing approaches.
EMI is distinguished by its exclusive focus on content learning. It is definedas “the use of the English language to teach academic subjects (other than English
itself ) in countries or jurisdictions in which the majority of the population’s first
language is not English” (Dearden, 2015, p. 2). EMI, too, originated in Europe in
the late 1990s as a part of the Bologna Process, an educational reform that aimed
to increase academic mobility within European countries (Brown & Bradford,2017), but its uptake has also been widespread in other non-English-speaking(Dearden, 2015). Many Asian countries, for instance, have implemented EMI tointernationalize their higher education systems and increase the competitivenessof their students in the labor market (Brown, 2014; Lo & Macaro, 2019). EMI isdistinct in that its primary objective is content learning. Thus, language learning
5

Sugimotois usually neither involved nor assessed in EMI (Brown & Bradford, 2017).
In practice, the extents to which content and language learning are involvedin actual CLIL and EMI classrooms often depend on individual instructors’
beliefs or disciplines. The results of overseas studies conducted with physics
lecturers (Airey, 2012) and engineering instructors (Aguilar, 2017) as subjects,
for instance, reveal that although they teach their subjects in English, they refuse
to teach the English language itself because they perceive their duties are content
instruction as opposed to language instruction. For this reason, they selectEMI as their teaching approach. Such attitudes are challenged to some extent
by a study conducted in an English-medium economics class in Japan (Iyobe &Li, 2013). Although those economics classes did not involve explicit language
instruction or language learning goals in their respective course descriptions,they did incorporate active interactions between instructors and students topromote language learning. Another study conducted in Japan reported thata few EMI instructors provided language and content support outside theirclasses through, for example, individual consultations and provision of glossaries(McKinley, 2018). In such cases, it remains unclear whether the courses should
be labeled “hard CLIL” or EMI, which suggests that the distinction may not be
as clear as the formal definitions of CLIL/EMI aim to establish.
Although researchers’ and instructors’ views on CLIL and EMI have been
considered extensively in the literature (Aguilar, 2017; Airey, 2012; Brown,
2015; Iyobe & Li, 2013; Macaro, 2018; MacGregor, 2016), few studies
have compared students’ expectations toward these teaching approaches.
Consequently, it remains ambiguous as to what students expect to gain from
CLIL and EMI classes and what types of learning support they wish to receive
under each system. The present exploratory study, therefore, aims to fill theseknowledge gaps by examining students’ expectations of CLIL and EMI. In
doing so, it aims to characterize the similarities and differences between CLIL
and EMI from students’ perspectives. Herein, I use the terms, “EMI students”
and “CLIL students,” simply to refer to the students who have registered for an
EMI course or a CLIL course. The use of these terms is operational rather thancategorical. I do not intend to assume that the students who attend EMI classes
6Comparison of Students’ Expectations of CLIL and EMI, OnCUE 14(1), pages 4-31

are fundamentally different from those who attend CLIL courses.
Japanese Students’ Views of CLIL
CLIL aims to teach an academic subject and a language, but research findings on
the extent to which Japanese students share this understanding of the purposeof CLIL are conflicting. Studies have reported that many Japanese university
students perceive CLIL as an avenue to improve their English skills. For example,
Larking’s (2018) semi-structured interviews with 25 CLIL students revealed thatthe students’ primary reason for enrollment was improving their English skills(speaking skills in particular). In other studies, Japanese students evaluated CLIL
positively because they believed it helped them to improve their English skills(Tsuchiya & Murillo, 2015; Yoshihara et al., 2013). By contrast, Ikeda’s (2013)
survey of 80 students revealed that the students appreciated their CLIL classes
because their content knowledge and their English skills improved. Brown’s(2015) qualitative study supplemented this finding, revealing that students felt
motivated to enroll in CLIL courses because of the dual focus of such classes. The
literature seems to suggest that while some students are aware of uniqueness of the
CLIL approach to language and content learning, others see it as an opportunity
to improve their English skills.
Studies have also reported the challenges that Japanese students experiencein their CLIL classes. For instance, many of the respondents in Tsuchiya andMurillo’s (2015) survey expressed concerns about the challenges they could
experience in understanding the subject covered in their classes due to theirlimited English proficiency. Several interviewees, in fact, remarked that students
could benefit from complementary English courses or additional vocabulary
support to improve their understanding of the course content. Furthermore,
Larking’s (2018) interviews identified specialized vocabulary as a major sourceof difficulty among CLIL students. These studies suggest that some CLIL
students need additional support, especially in the areas of vocabulary andlecture comprehension.

7

SugimotoJapanese Students’ Views of EMI
Studies on Japanese university students’ views of EMI courses have reported
that improving English proficiency is a key motivational factor driving students’
enrolment in EMI classes. For instance, a survey of 115 students reported that thestudents registered for EMI courses to “improve English ability,” followed by “makeforeign friends,” “experience real English,” and “course requirement” (Chapple,
2015, p. 4). Another survey of 93 students revealed that the main reason for theirenrollment was their interest in the subject, followed by the fact that the classes
were taught by native-English-speaking instructors (Sugimoto, 2021). However,when they were asked about the expected learning outcomes, improved listening
and speaking skills were the most frequently selected outcomes, and increased
content knowledge was selected by only 17% of the respondents. Another surveyof 71 students (Sugimoto, 2020) yielded similar results: while more than halfof the respondents enrolled in an EMI course because they were interested in
the subject, those who expected to improve their English skills outnumberedthose who expected to increase their content knowledge. These studies suggestthat Japanese students participate in EMI courses for a variety of reasons but
predominantly wish to improve their English proficiency through these classes.
Studies on Japanese EMI students’ experiences have consistently reported
the students’ struggles due to their limited English proficiency, indicating an
unmet need for additional linguistic support. Chapple’s (2015) study found that
72.4% of the students found EMI classes more difficult than they expected, and
34% failed to complete the courses. Other studies have reported that students
struggle in the areas of listening, speaking, and vocabulary (Sugimoto, 2020,2021), but they rarely consult formal sources of support (e.g., EMI instructors).
They either do nothing or depend on informal support, such as classmates andinternational students (Chapple, 2015; Sugimoto, 2020, 2021), possibly because
Japanese students tend to overestimate their abilities and underestimate thevalue of support from formal sources (Ishikura, 2015). Another reason could bethat their support-seeking endeavors were unsuccessful. EMI instructors tend to
think of themselves as content specialists and consider that providing language
support is not their responsibility (Galloway et al., 2017).
8

Comparison of Students’ Expectations of CLIL and EMI, OnCUE 14(1), pages 4-31

Knowledge Gaps
The literature suggests that Japanese EMI students tend to have unmet support
needs. Given that EMI instructors are not necessarily trained as language
instructors, the question of who should provide or coordinate support remains
unanswered. By contrast, CLIL, which by definition covers both subject andlanguage instruction, seems to offer more flexibility to instructors in terms of
responding to students’ needs for linguistic support. However, due to gaps inthe literature, the learning outcomes expected by CLIL students and the extent
to which CLIL serves students’ expectations remain unclear. Some studies in
the literature have examined students’ expectations of CLIL, but the results areconflicting. A few studies have investigated the areas of difficulty experienced by
CLIL students, but few studies have examined the types of support they wish
to receive to comprehensively manage these difficulties. To date, there has been
no comparative analysis of students’ expectations of CLIL and EMI. With thegrowing number of universities offering CLIL and EMI courses in Japan, there isa need to further clarify students’ expectations of each course and their support
needs.
Research Questions/Purpose of Study
To contribute toward filling the above knowledge gaps, the present exploratory
study aimed to investigate CLIL students’ expectations and support needs andcompare them with those of EMI students (Sugimoto, 2021). To this end, I
explored the following three research questions. 1) What learning outcomes do
CLIL/EMI students expect from their classes? 2) Which aspects of their CLIL/
EMI classes do the students find to be difficult? 3) What types of support do
CLIL/EMI students wish to receive to succeed in their classes? While the first
and the third questions are directly related to the research purpose, the second
question aims to elicit contextual information from the respondents that would
help the researcher to better understand their responses to question 3.

9Sugimoto

Methods
Overview
To explore the abovementioned research questions, I administered a questionnaire
survey to undergraduate International Liberal Arts students who enrolled for
CLIL courses in the 2016–17 academic year in a private university in Tokyo.
At the end of the fall semester, the students enrolled in the CLIL courses wereasked to participate in the online survey on a voluntary basis. The results werecompared with those reported in Sugimoto (2021), which investigated the EMI
experiences and support needs of medical students from the same university.
Research Context
The participants in the CLIL group were first- and second-year students fromthe Faculty of Liberal Arts, while those in EMI group were first-year students
from the School of Medicine in the same university. The university encourages all
departments to promote the internationalization of their learning environments
through TOEFL-based language education. The Faculty of Liberal Arts offersa highly interdisciplinary curriculum, providing students with courses in threebroad areas: cross-cultural communication, global society, and global healthservices.
Students from the Faculty of Liberal Arts are required to take two CLIL
courses during their first and the second years to improve their English
proficiency and gain basic knowledge of the three aforementioned content
domains. During the third and fourth years, students select one of the threeareas to gain deeper knowledge through more advanced CLIL and other nonCLIL, specialized courses taught in Japanese. All of the students enrolled in thisuniversity are required to take a TOEFL ITP exam at the start and end of eachacademic year, and the university president awards the students with the highest
scores as well as those with significantly improved scores.
The CLIL courses surveyed in this study included Interactive International
English designed for first-year students and English for Global Citizenshipdesigned for second-year students. In both courses, students are required toattend two lectures taught by a pair of native and non-native English-speaking
10Comparison of Students’ Expectations of CLIL and EMI, OnCUE 14(1), pages 4-31

instructors per week for the 15-week duration of each semester.
The School of Medicine, which offers EMI courses, provides students with acurriculum that strongly emphasizes improvement in English proficiency. In thiscurriculum, all first-year students were required to take one EMI course alongwith three full-year English language courses. They were required to select andattend one of the following seven EMI courses taught by native and non-native
English-speaking instructors: Origin of Medicine, Health Informatics, Surveyof Human Culture, Motivation, Language Testing, Photography, and Cinema.
These EMI courses were expected to provide students with opportunities tostudy a specialized subject in an English-speaking environment by utilizing the
linguistic skills they developed in English language courses. Similar to the CLIL
students from the Faculty of Liberal Arts, all first-year students from the Schoolof Medicine were required to take the TOEFL ITP exam at the start and end of
the academic.
Although the data of the CLIL and EMI groups were collected from
respondents studying at the same university, there were multiple contextual
differences between the two groups in terms of course content, course type,student major, and student English proficiency. While the CLIL courses weremandatory, the EMI courses were mandatory-elective, meaning that students
could choose from one of the seven EMI courses offered by the university.
These EMI courses were classified under general education for all first-year
undergraduate students and were taught by seven native and non-native English
speakers. While the participants in the EMI group had high English proficiency
levels (average TOEFL ITP score: 547), those in the CLIL group had basic
English proficiency levels (average TOEFL ITP score: 400).
Research Instruments
To allow for comparison, I used the questionnaire from Sugimoto (2021)
in Japanese, which consisted of open- and closed-ended questions divided
into four sections (Appendix). The first section examined students’ expected
learning outcomes. The second section queried about the aspects of EMI/CLIL
classes that students find challenging. The third section examined the types of11

Sugimotolearning support desired by students. The last section asked for the respondents’
information, including their latest TOEFL scores. SurveyMonkey, a web-based
survey software application, was used to administer the questionnaire. The survey
results were analyzed using descriptive statistics.

Results

The questionnaire was distributed to all 242 students (Nfemale = 144; Nmale= 98) who completed their CLIL courses at the end of the 2016 academic year.
Of the 242 students, 185 students (Nfemale = 119; Nmale = 66) responded. To
facilitate comparison, tables and figures were created to display the results of thepresent study and those of Sugimoto (2021).
Expected Learning Outcomes
The learning outcomes expected by the students from attending the CLIL and
EMI courses are summarized in Table 1. Both the CLIL and EMI students
reported that they were the most interested in improving their speaking andTable 1Comparison of Expected Learning Outcomes
Place of origin

CLIL (N = 185)

EMI (N = 93)

Frequency%(N=185)Frequency%(N = 93)• Improved speaking skills

146

78.9

25

26.9

• Improved listening skills

127

68.7

32

34.4

• Improved writing skills

126

68.1

9

9.7

• Improved reading skills

99

53.5

5

5.4

• Improved TOEFL score

62

33.5

10

10.8

• Improved content knowledge

37

20

16

17.2

• Become well-prepared to study abroad

25

13.5

3

3.2

• Other

5

2.7

2

2.2

Types of expectations

12

Comparison of Students’ Expectations of CLIL and EMI, OnCUE 14(1), pages 4-31

listening skills, although the percentages were two or three times as high among
the CLIL students. In both groups, significantly fewer students were interested in
improving their content knowledge. A major difference between the two groups
was that the EMI students were significantly more passionate about improving
their communicative English skills (i.e., listening and speaking skills) thantheir reading or writing skills, whereas the majority of the CLIL students wereinterested in improving all four skills.
Areas of Difficulty
Figure 1 summarizes the types and levels of difficulty experienced by students
in the CLIL and EMI classes. Among the CLIL students, the most frequently
identified area of difficulty was writing, followed by speaking. Among the EMI
students, speaking, listening, and vocabulary were the most prominent areas ofdifficulty. However, remarkably, more than 65% of both the CLIL and EMI
students felt that all five areas were “reasonable,” “easy,” or “very easy.”
Types of Support Desired by Students
Figures 2–5 show the types of support that CLIL/EMI students want theirinstructors to provide during and after class and the degree of importance thatthe students placed on these types of support.

Figure 1. Aspects of CLIL/EMI classes that students found difficult.
13SugimotoFigure 2 displays the types of language support intended to support
students’ comprehension and use of English in classrooms: providing a list of the
vocabulary terms that the instructors use frequently in lectures, expressions thatthe instructors use frequently in classrooms, and expressions that students canuse in classroom discussions. The CLIL students’ responses demonstrated theirstrong interest in receiving English language support, with more than 65% ofthem evaluating all of the three items positively. The EMI students’ responses,
too, indicated their strong interest, albeit to a lesser extent, with 47%–69% rating
the three types of language support as either “important” or “very important.”
Figure 3 presents the types of content support that are intended to support
students’ understanding of the subject covered in the classroom. More thanhalf of the CLIL students evaluated all of the three items highly. In particular,
their need for a list of definitions of key terms was stronger than those for theother types of support, with 80% of the respondents considering it “extremely
important” or “important.” Equally strong needs for content support were foundamong the EMI students. Except for their need for clear goal setting, almost thesame percentages of EMI students evaluated the other types of content support
as “extremely important” or “important.”
Figure 4 lists two examples of material support (i.e., sharing lecture

Figure 2. Types of language support and CLIL/EMI students’ evaluations of
them.
14

Comparison of Students’ Expectations of CLIL and EMI, OnCUE 14(1), pages 4-31

Figure 3. Types of content support and CLIL/EMI students’ evaluations ofthem.

Figure 4. Types of material/instructional support and CLIL/EMI students’evaluations of them.
recordings, providing copies of lecture slides) that are intended to help thestudents to comprehend the course content, along with two examples of
instructional support (i.e., instruction on pre-class preparation and post-classreview, instruction on notetaking strategies) that could assist the students in
15

Sugimotodeveloping academic skills independently.
The CLIL and EMI students’ responses were rather different with regard to
the importance of material support. While only 34% of the CLIL students felt it
was important to share lecture recordings, 70% of the EMI students supported
the idea. In contrast, more than half of the CLIL respondents favored the ideaof having a copy of the lecture slides, while only one in three EMI students
appreciated the idea. In terms of instructional support, both groups’ responses
were more similar than different, although a slightly higher proportion of CLIL
students (49%) supported the idea of receiving instructions on how to prepare
for and review the class than that of EMI students (38%), and a slightly lower
proportion of CLIL students (18%) appreciated the idea of learning how to takelecture notes than that of their EMI counterparts (28%).
Figure 5 presents the students’ opinions of the use of L1 in their classes. The
corresponding questionnaire items asked the respondents about the extents towhich they felt it was important to be allowed to speak in L1 in the class andoutside the class (e.g., asking their teachers questions during their office hours).
The CLIL and EMI students’ responses were similar, in that their opinions wereclearly divided with regard to in-class L1 usage. More students in both groups
seemed to prefer L1 support outside the class, although the opinions remained

Figure 5. Types of L1 support and CLIL/EMI students’ evaluations of them.
16Comparison of Students’ Expectations of CLIL and EMI, OnCUE 14(1), pages 4-31

divided, and 15% and 21% of the CLIL and EMI students, respectively, wereagainst the idea.

Discussion

This study explored Japanese students’ expectations of CLIL and compared themwith the responses of EMI students from a previous study (Sugimoto, 2021).
In terms of the expected learning outcomes, the majority of the CLIL students
expected to improve their English skills, especially communicative competencies(i.e., listening and speaking skills), while only 20% of them expected to enhancetheir content knowledge. The respondents from the CLIL and EMI groups
received the same instructions when the questionnaire was administered to them,and both sets of respondents were allowed to select multiple answer choices.
However, the students in the CLIL group appeared to have selected multiple
types of expectations, while most of the students in the EMI group selected one
type. Unfortunately, based solely on the collected data, it is difficult to explain thereason underlying this difference. One possible interpretation is that the students
in the CLIL group had lower English proficiency, and for this reason, they might
have had a stronger desire to improve multiple aspects of their English skills. By
contrast, many of the students in the EMI group might have felt confident about
their English skills and might, therefore, have listed fewer areas of improvement.
Another possibility is that the medical students might have had a low level ofinterest in improving their English skills because they may have consideredlanguage learning secondary to medical education. Follow-up interviews with asmall group of participants from both groups might have been able to provide
additional insights into the survey results.
The results of previous studies (Larking, 2018; Tsuchiya & Murillo, 2015;
Yoshihara et al., 2013) were conflicting in terms of students’ expectations of
CLIL. However, the findings of the present study support the idea that most
students consider CLIL as an avenue to improve their English skills, although
one in five saw CLIL as an opportunity to study domain-specific content. In
terms of students’ expectations of EMI, the results of the studies conducted inJapan (Chapple, 2015) and those conducted elsewhere (Bozdoğan & Karlıdağ,17

Sugimoto2013; Ellili-Cherif & Alkhateeb, 2015) revealed that improvement in English
proficiency was one of the most common reasons for which students enrolled in
EMI courses. Similarly, the EMI students surveyed in the present study expected
to improve their communicative English skills as a learning outcome.
Against the formal definitions of CLIL and EMI, the CLIL and the EMI
students in this study expected similar learning outcomes: enhancement ofEnglish skills. Because previous studies have reported similar expectations
among students, the findings of the present study seem to follow the patternthat appears to be common among CLIL/EMI students. However, notably, thecontextual factors unique to the data collection sites in this study might havestrengthened the students’ desire to improve their English skills relative to thosein the absence of the said factors. In particular, the university that both groups
belonged to requires all students to take the TOEFL. In the absence of any
similar university-wide pressure to improve content knowledge, both the CLIL
and the EMI students in this study might have hoped to improve their English
skills in their classes more than they would have hoped to improve their content
knowledge.
Moreover, this study asked the respondents about the aspects of their CLIL
classes that they found difficult. The areas of difficulty were not quite comparable
between the CLIL and the EMI students, owing to multiple contextual factorsthat are inherently different, including the subjects covered in each course and thenature of class activities and assignments. As I stated in the Research Questions
section, I asked this question not to compare the two groups’ responses but toobtain contextual information for a better understanding of the responses to thefollowing set of questions pertaining to students’ support needs.
From that perspective, it is interesting that the majority of students in the
CLIL and EMI groups did not consider any aspect of their classes difficult, but
relatively high percentages of the students in both groups still exhibited strong
interest in receiving multiple types of support. This finding is in sharp contrast
with the findings reported by Ishikura (2015), according to which the majorityof the students found the EMI course difficult, but only one in three students
stated they needed support. One possible explanation for the inconsistency
18

Comparison of Students’ Expectations of CLIL and EMI, OnCUE 14(1), pages 4-31

between the findings of the two studies is the possibility that the instructors
adjusted the levels of their class to match the attendees’ English proficiency
levels. Heigham’s (2018) study involving EMI students, for example, reported
the EMI instructors’ tendency to simplify the course contents or to use Japanesefrequently in the class. This might have been the case in the classes that the
respondents of this study attended.
The results revealed a keen interest in receiving linguistic and content
support among both the CLIL and EMI students. Their strong interest inreceiving linguistic support is probably related to the expected outcome thatboth groups selected most frequently: improvement in English proficiency.
These expectations from the CLIL and EMI courses are, in fact, consistent withthe findings of previous studies (Bozdoğan & Karlıdağ, 2013; Ellili-Cherif &Alkhateeb, 2015). Several approaches to provide linguistic support to students
have been described in the CLIL literature. Brown (2013), for example,
introduced several methods to provide vocabulary support in CLIL classes,
such as conducting “vocabulary tests focused on form and meaning,” promoting
understanding of “contextualized usage” in which students learn new vocabulary
in conversations, and recycling “previously studied vocabulary in order topromote learning and retention” (p. 282). According to the EMI literature,
EMI instructors tend to refuse to teach language because they do not consider
themselves language teachers (Airey, 2012; Aguilar, 2017), but a few of themhave, nonetheless, provided vocabulary support in the form of glossaries andtranslations (McKinley, 2018; Moncada-Comas & Block, 2019). Future studies
could comprehensively examine the explicit and implicit forms of linguistic
support that CLIL/EMI instructors provide by conducting in-depth interviews.
In addition, it would be beneficial to investigate how CLIL/EMI students
evaluate and utilize various forms of linguistic support through quantitative
surveys and qualitative interviews.
Although increased content knowledge was not as frequently selected
as a desired outcome, many students from both groups highly valued content
support. One possible interpretation is that both CLIL and EMI involve theteaching of an academic subject, and arguably, both types of courses assess
19

Sugimotostudents’ understanding of the course content. Thus, both the CLIL and EMI
students in this study valued content support highly because it could help themto perform well in the class and exams. Given that evaluation methods are likely
to affect CLIL/EMI students’ opinions of various types of support, futurestudies should consider how CLIL/EMI instructors evaluate their students
by conducting interviews with instructors or by analyzing their course syllabi.
Alternatively, one could conduct in-depth interviews with CLIL/EMI students
to investigate why they wish to receive specific types of support.
Multiple approaches to provide language and content support effectively
have been suggested. For instance, McKinley (2018) proposed that in addition
to providing glossaries of key terms, instructors could provide comprehension
check questions and devise additional writing tasks that focus on the areasthat their students find difficult. In terms of delivery formats, Iyobe and Lee(2018) argued that collaborations between content and language-teachingspecialists can benefit students because the students will not only have accessto more opportunities for individual consultations but will also gain varying
perspectives from their interactions with instructors. Horie (2018) suggested
that instructors utilize various Internet-based communication tools to help
students to understand course contents. Learning management systems, suchas Moodle, Google Classroom, and Canvas, for example, can be used as online
platforms to reiterate important instructions and facilitate the exchange ofideas after classes. The findings of the present study demonstrated the students’interests in receiving linguistic and content support, but I did not examine why
and how they wanted to receive these types of support. In this light, futurestudies could conduct additional surveys or in-depth interviews with students
to further explore the purposes for which (e.g., preparation, review) and theformats in which (e.g., online platform, peer-interactions) they wish to receive
the aforementioned types of support.
In fact, the CLIL/EMI students’ interests were not limited to linguistic orcontent support. They expressed interest in receiving other types of support,
albeit to varying degrees. The CLIL/EMI respondents’ opinions were divided
in terms of material support, while their evaluations of instructional support
20

Comparison of Students’ Expectations of CLIL and EMI, OnCUE 14(1), pages 4-31

were similar. The divided opinions on material support probably reflect thedifferences between EMI and CLIL as teaching practices. Because EMI does
not assess students linguistically, a high percentage of EMI students appreciatedthe provision of lecture recordings. Considering the relatively high English
proficiency of the EMI respondents, they would be able to comprehend thesubject better after reviewing the lecture contents repeatedly rather than by
merely receiving copies of lecture slides. By contrast, CLIL involves teachingof the English language itself, and a higher percentage of the CLIL students
favorably rated the provision of lecture slides because it would help them tobetter engage in the in-class activities. To test these hypotheses, future studies
should further explore the reasons underlying CLIL and EMI students’preferences for specific types of support in the classroom.
The respondents’ evaluations of instructional support and support in L1
were similar. With regard to instructional support, the CLIL and EMI students’
responses most likely reflected their stage in the curricula. Both types of
respondents were either first- or second-year students from Japan, and thus, mostof them were likely to have had limited exposure to CLIL or EMI. This probably
explains why both groups highly rated instructions on how prepare for andreview the class. Relatively lower ratings of instructions on how to take lecturenotes among both groups might be ascribed to both groups’ lack of awareness ofthe benefits of taking lecture notes. Studies on self-access learning suggest that
Self-Access Learning Centers (SALCs) could serve as outlets where students candevelop general academic skills and improve their language skills independently(Mynard & Stevenson, 2017). The SALC at Kanda University of International
Studies, for example, aims to foster learner autonomy and assist foreign language
acquisition by providing non-credit courses, consultations with advisors, andpeer learning opportunities (Kato & Sugawara, 2009). Its self-access courses
focus on “learning how to learn a language” (p. 460) rather than learning specificlanguages. From this perspective, SALCs can potentially support CLIL or EMI
students who are interested in learning how to prepare for or review classes.
Moreover, CLIL/EMI instructors can consider collaborating with SALCs tobetter fulfill students’ learning support needs.
21

SugimotoThe use of L1 has been a controversial topic across CLIL/EMI literature,and opinions are divided. In foreign-language teaching, it is believed that L1
usage interferes with students’ learning of the target language (Richards &Rodgers, 2001). Several researchers have advocated refraining from the use of L1(Polio & Duff, 1994), while others believe that L1 usage can facilitate content
learning in EMI classes (Karabinar, 2008) and “serve to scaffold language andcontent learning” in CLIL classes (Lasagabaster, 2013, p.1). In the present
study, the CLIL/EMI students’ responses were similar in that their opinions
were rather divided within both groups, although a slightly higher percentage
of CLIL respondents tended to evaluate such support favorably. This canprobably be ascribed to the differences in the language proficiency levels of the
CLIL and EMI respondents. It is possible that owing to their lower English
proficiency levels the CLIL students sought opportunities to ask questions intheir first language outside of the class. According to Sugimoto (2020), differing
motivation levels affected the students’ preferences for the use of L1 inside andoutside the class. Students with high motivation levels preferred an English-onlyrule because it would give them more opportunities to practice English andcontribute to the creation of an environment similar to that encountered whenstudying in an English-speaking country. Future studies should examine whether
the same notions exist among CLIL students.

Limitations

This exploratory study has three major limitations. The first is related to themethods used herein. Due to the limitations of quantitative survey instruments,
the data generated cannot explain why the participants responded in the way theydid. For instance, in this study, high percentages of students expressed interest inreceiving various types of support, although many of these students found theirclasses to be manageable. Further studies are necessary to explain the underlying
reasons. Similarly, although the EML and CLIL groups expressed high levels ofinterest in receiving linguistic and content support, there were differences between
the two groups in terms of their needs for specific types of material support.
Different teaching practices (i.e., CLIL and EMI), students’ English proficiency
22

Comparison of Students’ Expectations of CLIL and EMI, OnCUE 14(1), pages 4-31

levels, and students’ motivations possibly led to these differences in their responses.
However, on the basis of the datasets obtained herein, it is difficult to identify themost definitive factor. To investigate the reasons underlying the similarities anddifferences between the CLIL and EMI groups, future studies should conduct
follow-up surveys or qualitatively investigate students’ experiences with a focus
on the nature of classroom interactions between instructors and students.
The second limitation is related to the generalizability of the findings ofthis small-scale, exploratory study that compared the experiences of students
from one university. This limitation does not allow for any generalization of thefindings to other university contexts.
Finally, I prioritized gathering the data that allowed me to compare theexperiences of the students who attended CLIL classes with those of the students
who attended EMI classes. Consequently, I sacrificed the contextual similarities
in which these classes were offered and the synonymity of the students who
attended them. Ideally, the more similar the student bodies, the more accurately
one can make comparisons pertaining to CLIL and EMI students’ expectations
and support needs. Both groups of students in this study belonged to thesame university but to different institutions with different curricula. Thus, theextents to which the findings of this study reflect institutional and disciplinary
differences remain unclear. Herein, I compared the experiences of CLIL
and EMI students belonging to different disciplines because neither of theirdepartments offered both types of courses. However, if possible, future studies
should compare the CLIL and EMI experiences of students belonging to thesame department to minimize the influence of independent variables.

Conclusion

While CLIL and EMI have become popular in universities across Japan, theirimplementations and the associated teaching practices can vary depending on
university-specific contexts. Even though researchers in these fields are aware of
the differences between the two approaches, students may not necessarily havethe same understanding or expectations. To fill these knowledge gaps, I examined
CLIL students’ expectations in terms of learning outcomes, areas of difficulty, and23

Sugimototypes of learning support they wished to receive and compared the results withthose of EMI students (Sugimoto, 2021). Although this was an exploratory study
and further research is required to arrive at any generalization, the findings of thisstudy yielded valuable insights that can be useful for CLIL/EMI researchers andpractitioners.
First, the study findings revealed the inconsistency between the formal
definitions of CLIL/EMI and students’ expectations from these courses. The
CLIL and EMI students’ expectations were more similar than different in thatthe majority from both groups viewed CLIL/EMI classes as avenues to improvetheir English skills. This finding implies that there possibly exist discrepancies
between the students’ expectations and the actual learning experiences that
instructors offer, which could result in the students becoming dissatisfied. To
avoid such discrepancies, the mere labeling of courses as either CLIL or EMI
seems insufficient. Ideally, in the early stages of registration (e.g., orientation for
freshmen), students should be informed about the characteristics of the available
CLIL/EMI courses, such as in-class activities and assignments, as well as theratio of content and language learning that students can expect.
Second, findings clearly demonstrated CLIL students’ interest in receiving
diverse types of support. Unlike EMI, CLIL seems to offer the flexibility required
to fulfill students’ needs for both language and content support. Against thisassumption, the findings of this study demonstrated that the CLIL students’desire for linguistic and content support was as strong as that of the EMI
students. The CLIL students’ needs extended to other types of support, such as
material and instructional support, as well as support through L1, although theirevaluations of those types of support varied. If CLIL/EMI instructors are notto respond to students’ needs in their classes, it is strongly recommended thatthey direct their students to other resources available on campus, such as writing
centers, academic support centers, and libraries, where students can access thelearning support they wish to receive.

24Comparison of Students’ Expectations of CLIL and EMI, OnCUE 14(1), pages 4-31

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by Juntendo University under the Gakucho tokubetsu
kyoudou purojekuto kenkyuhi 2016 [Dean’s Special Collaborative Project Grant
2016]. I am grateful to Professors Junko Imai and Keiko Asada for their assistancewith data collection.

References

Aguilar, M. (2017). Engineering lecturers’ view on CLIL and EMI.
International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 20(6),722–735.
Airey, J. (2012). I don’t teach language: The linguistic attitudes of physics
lecturers in Sweden. AILA Review, 25, 64–79.
Bentley, K. (2010). The TKT course: CLIL module. Cambridge University Press.
Bozdoğan, D., & Karlıdağ, B. (2013). A case of CLIL practice in the Turkish
context: Lending an ear to students. Asian EFL Journal, 15(4), 89–110.
https://www.academia.edu/15194198/A_ Case_of_CLIL_Practice_in_
the_Turkish_Context_Lending_an_ear_to_Students
Brown, H., & Bradford, A. (2017). EMI, CLIL, & CBI: Differing approaches
and goals. In P. Clements, A. Krause, & H. Brown (Eds.), Transformation inlanguage education (pp. 328–334). JALT.
Brown, H. G. (2014). Contextual factors driving the growth of undergraduate
English-medium instruction programmes at universities in Japan. The Asian
Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 50–63.
Brown, H. G. (2015). Factors influencing the choice of CLIL classes atuniversity in Japan. ELTWorldOnline.com. http://blog.nus.edu.sg/
eltwo/?p=4810
Brown, P. S. (2013). Teaching a medical English CLIL course with vocabulary
learning strategies instruction in Japan. Asian EFL Journal, 15(4), 274–
304.
Chapple, J. (2015). Teaching in English is not necessarily the teaching ofEnglish. International Education Studies, 8(3), 1–13.
Coyle, D. (2005). Developing CLIL: Towards a theory of practice. APAC
25

Sugimoto

Monograph 6. APAC.
Coyle, D. (2010). Foreword. In D. Lasagabaster & Y. Ruiz de Zarobe (Eds.),
CLIL in Spain: Implementation, results and teacher training (pp. vii–viii).
Cambridge Scholar Publishing.
Dearden, J. (2015). English as a medium of instruction—A growing global
phenomenon. British Council.
Ellili-Cherif, M., & Alkhateeb, H. (2015). College students’ attitude toward the
medium of instruction: Arabic versus English dilemma. Universal Journal of
Educational Research, 3(3), 207–213.
Galloway, N., Kriukow, J., & Numajiri, T. (2017). Internationalisation, higher
education and the growing demand for English: An investigation into theEnglish medium of instruction (EMI) movement in China and Japan. The
British Council.
Heigham, J. (2018). Center stage but invisible: International students
in an English-taught program. In A. Bradford & H. Brown (Eds.),
English-medium instruction in Japanese higher education (pp. 161–179).
Multilingual Matters.
Horie, M. (2018). Faculty training for non-native speakers of English at
Japanese universities: Effective English-medium teaching for a culturally
diversified student population. In A. Bradford & H. Brown (Eds.),
English-medium instruction in Japanese higher education (pp. 207–224).
Multilingual Matters.
Ikeda, M. (2013). Does CLIL work for secondary school students? Potential
for the “weak” version of CLIL. International CLIL Research Journal, 2(1),31–43.
Ishikura, Y. (2015). Realizing internationalization at home through Englishmedium courses at a Japanese university: Strategies to maximize student
learning. Higher Learning Research Communications, 5(1), 11–28.
Iyobe, B., & Li, J. (2013). CLIL to what degree: A trial in English medium
education at a Japanese university—Is it CLIL or not? Asian EFL Journal,
15, 373–382.
Iyobe, B., & Li, J. (2018). Factors for success and sustainability of an elective
26

Comparison of Students’ Expectations of CLIL and EMI, OnCUE 14(1), pages 4-31

English-medium instruction program. In A. Bradford & H. Brown (Eds.),
English-medium instruction in Japanese higher education (pp. 225–237).
Multilingual Matters.
Karabinar, S. (2008). Integrating language and content: Two models and theireffects on the learners’ academic self-concept. In R. Wilkinson & V. Zegers(Eds.), Realizing content and language integration in higher education (pp.
53–63). Maastricht University Press.
Kato, S., & Sugawara, H. (2009). Action-oriented language learning advising:A new approach to promote independent language learning. The Journal of
Kanda University of International Studies, 21, 455–475.
Larking, M. P. (2018). Discovering students’ needs for a content and language
integrated learning (CLIL) course. The 2017 PanSIG Journal, 119–127.
Lasagabaster, D. (2013). The use of the L1 in CLIL classes: The teachers’
perspective. Latin American Journal of Content and Language Integrated
Learning, 6(2), 1–21.
Lo, Y. Y., & Macaro, E. (2019). Getting used to content and language integrated
learning: What can classroom interaction reveal? Language Learning
Journal, 4 (3), 239–255.
Macaro, E. (2018). English medium instruction. Oxford University Press.
MacGregor, L. (2016). CLIL in Japan: University teachers’ viewpoints. In P.
Clements, A. Krause, & H. Brown (Eds.), Focus on the learner (pp. 426–
432). JALT.
McKinley, J. (2018). Making the EFL to ELF transition in English-medium
instruction at a global traction university. In A. Bradford & H. Brown(Eds.), English-medium instruction in Japanese higher education (pp.
238–249). Multilingual Matters.
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. (2020).
Heisei 29-nendo no daigaku ni okeru kyōiku naiyō-tō no kaikaku jōkyōni tsuite (gaiyō) [The status of educational reform in universities in
2017: An overview]. https://www.mext.go.jp/content/20200428-mxt_
daigakuc03-000006853_1.pdf
Moncada-Comas, B., & Block, D. (2019). CLIL-ised EMI in practice: Issues
27

Sugimotoarising. The Language Learning Journal, 49(6), 686–698.
Mynard, J., & Stevenson, R. (2017). Promoting learner autonomy and selfdirected learning: The evolution of a SALC curriculum. Studies in SelfAccess Learning Journal, 8(2), 169–182.
Polio, C., & Duff, P. (1994). Teacher’s language use in university foreign
language classrooms: A qualitative analysis of English and target language
alternation. Modern Language Journal, 78, 313–326.
Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. (2001). Approaches and methods in language
teaching (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Sugimoto, S. (2020). Comparing student experiences of English-medium
instruction in two Japanese universities. Language Education & Technology,
57, 31–60.
Sugimoto, S. (2021). Students’ experience of English medium instruction classes
in medical school in Japan. JALT Journal, 43(1), 33–60.
Tsuchiya, K., & Murillo, M. D. (2015). Comparing the language policies andthe students’ perceptions of CLIL in tertiary education in Spain and Japan.
Latin American Journal of Content and Language Integrated Learning, 8(1),25–35.
Yoshihara, R., Takizawa, K., & Oyama, K. (2015). Students’ perceptions of
CLIL and topics in EFL university classrooms. The Journal of Humanities
and Sciences, 21(1), 19–37.

Author Bio

Sayaka Sugimoto is an Assistant Professor with the Faculty of Human Sciences,
Waseda University. Her research focuses on EMI. She is currently involved in studies
identifying the support needs of EMI students and instructors and in projects toconstruct support systems for effective EMI implementation. sayakasugimoto@aoni.
waseda.jp
Received: March 26, 2021
Accepted: August 25, 2022

28

Comparison of Students’ Expectations of CLIL and EMI, OnCUE 14(1), pages 4-31

Appendix

Questionnaire on Academic Courses Taught in English
My name is OOO, and I am an Assistant Professor in the Faculty of OOO
at OOO University. I would appreciate it if you would consider participating
in my study. The study aims to examine the experiences of students who haveattended courses delivered in English.
This is not a test or an examination. Thus, there are no “right” or “wrong”
answers. Your participation is voluntary, and you may withdraw from the survey
at any time, at any cost. Your participation or any of your responses to the survey
questions will never affect your evaluation in your course. I would appreciate
your honest opinion.
If you are willing to participate in the survey, please proceed to the following
questions. If you choose not to participate, please leave the questionnaire on thedesk. Thank you for your consideration.
Year/Month/Date
AUTHOR NAME
I. About Your Course
What learning outcome(s) did you expect from taking this course? (You may
select more than one answer.)
1. Improvement in listening skills
2. Improvement in writing skills
3. Improvement in speaking skills
4. Improvement in reading skills
5. Improved understanding of the subject covered in the course
6. Improvement in TOEFL score7. Better preparedness for studying abroad
8. Other (Please explain in detail: )29

Sugimoto

II. About Your Experience in the ClassIn terms of the level of difficulty of the following aspects of the course youenrolled in, please select an answer option that is the closest to your experience.
1. Listening (e.g., understanding the instructor’s or classmates’ expressions)(a) Very difficult (b) Difficult (c) Reasonable (d) Easy (e) Very easy
2. Reading (e.g., reading materials used in class or as homework)(a) Very difficult (b) Difficult (c) Reasonable (d) Easy (e) Very easy
3. Speaking (e.g., expressing opinions during classes, participation in
discussion/presentation)(a) Very difficult (b) Difficult (c) Reasonable (d) Easy (e) Very easy
4. Writing (e.g., English essay assignment, English composition)(a) Very difficult (b) Difficult (c) Reasonable (d) Easy (e) Very easy
5. Vocabulary (e.g., vocabulary needed to understand the content coveredin the class)(a) Very difficult (b) Difficult (c) Reasonable (d) Easy (e) Very easy
III. About Learning Support
To improve your performance in the class, to what extent do you feel it isimportant to receive the following types of learning support? Please circle theanswer choice that is the closest to your opinion
1. Provide a list of vocabulary that instructors use frequently in their lectures(a) Very important (b) Important (c) Neither (d) Unimportant (e) Very
unimportant
2. Provide a list of expressions that instructors use frequently in their classes(a) Very important (b) Important (c) Neither (d) Unimportant (e) Very
unimportant
3. Provide a list of expressions that students can use in discussion(a) Very important (b) Important (c) Neither (d) Unimportant (e) Very
unimportant
4. Set clear goals at the beginning of the class(a) Very important (b) Important (c) Neither (d) Unimportant (e) Very
30

Comparison of Students’ Expectations of CLIL and EMI, OnCUE 14(1), pages 4-31

unimportant
5. Provide a list of definitions of the key terms covered in the class.
(a) Very important (b) Important (c) Neither (d) Unimportant (e) Very
unimportant
6. Introduce relevant literature(a) Very important (b) Important (c) Neither (d) Unimportant (e) Very
unimportant
7. Share lecture recordings(a) Very important (b) Important (c) Neither (d) Unimportant (e) Very
unimportant
8. Provide a copy of lecture slides(a) Very important (b) Important (c) Neither (d) Unimportant (e) Very
unimportant
9. Teach how to prepare and review(a) Very important (b) Important (c) Neither (d) Unimportant (e) Very
unimportant
10. Teach how to take lecture notes(a) Very important (b) Important (c) Neither (d) Unimportant (e) Very
unimportant
11. Allow the use of Japanese language in the class(a) Very important (b) Important (c) Neither (d) Unimportant (e) Very
unimportant
12. Allow the use of Japanese language outside the class (e.g., asking
instructors questions in their office)(a) Very important (b) Important (c) Neither (d) Unimportant (e) Very
unimportantThank you for your participation!

31