【Research Article】

Content, Language, and Rock n’ Roll:
Finding the Harmony Between Content and Language
in a CLIL Course
Kevin Thomas

Abstract
This paper details how a Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL)
course was designed and the research conducted on two groups of students to
explore their attitudes to decisions made during its creation. CLIL was chosen
as the teaching approach to a Lecture and Discussion course at Rikkyo
University. The decision was based on the course’s fit in wider language
provision at the university and the assumed content goals and language needsof students. The CLIL course design outlines the Language Triptych, and the
4Cs: Content, Cognition, Communication, and Culture were considered when
designing the course along with different approaches to CLIL, namely hard andsoft. A harder approach to CLIL was taken, meaning the course was morebalanced more toward content than language support. Two studies were carriedout over two subsequent years, which found that students had overwhelmingly
positive attitudes toward the harder approach to CLIL. They showed appreciation
for the balance between content and language, which allowed for the opportunity
to focus on specialized content of interest. They also felt positively toward theflexible approach to language support allowed by the approach. Although theresearch results were seen as indicating student satisfaction with the course, it
was decided that the research method was flawed, and subsequent studies must
consider a more exploratory interview-based approach.
Keywords: CLIL course, British music, Course design, 4Cs

Introduction
Before starting work at Rikkyo University, teachers are asked to provide their preferenceof classes to teach. The Lecture and Discussion class is one such class. This is an advanced
level class and consists of two 100-minute classes per week for 14 weeks. It is an elective
course, meaning students can opt for it. The course is unavailable for first-year students, andstudents choosing this course will have taken mandatory English language classes and may
possibly still be taking language-focused classes.
The content and curriculum of this class is to be decided by the teacher. As a new28

Content, Language, and Rock n’ Roll: Finding the Harmony Between Content and Language in a CLIL Course

teacher, the author of this paper took this opportunity to propose a course based on his
passion for British politics, culture, and music. The author was assigned the course andstarted to think about materials to use. An abundance of materials were available to the author
such as CDs, streaming subscriptions, music magazines, books, newspaper articles,
memorabilia, and YouTube playlists of music-related documentaries, videos, interviews, andnews stories.
The material considered for use was intended for native speakers with a large amountof cultural knowledge assumed. It could be challenge for anyone unacquainted with British
culture and more challenging for people with English as a second language. Hence, it had to
be decided if the material should be adapted or presented in its original form. This led to an
investigation of Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL). The author had someawareness of CLIL due to its increasing popularity as a teaching approach both internationallyand in Japan. CLIL has been defined as an approach to teaching in which the delivery ofcontent and language teaching are combined. The teacher may decide to emphasize content
or language teaching, but both must be present for it to be considered CLIL (Coyle et al.,2010). CLIL was summarized by the author in a review of a book on CLIL as “not apedagogy in itself but as an approach that allows the course designer or teacher (provider)to choose between the best language supportive methodologies while delivering content in
the desired second language” (Thomas, 2021). This means there are different varieties of
CLIL used to fit different contexts. It seemed like a suitable approach to teach content on
British music and society while supporting students in their learning.
CLIL as a concept arose in Europe “during the mid-1990s to adhere to the European
Union’s (EU) multilingual policies” (Tsuchiya & Pérez Murillo, 2015, p. 26). At the time, it
was the EU’s objective for its citizens to speak two or more languages. CLIL at this time
was mainly conducted in schools and included content teachers teaching subjects such as
math or science in a second language. These teachers were usually non-native and untrained
language teachers (Tsuchiya & Pérez Murillo, 2015). The practice of CLIL spread toEuropean universities, and in the mid-2000s, inspired by these European countries, Japanese
universities started providing CLIL classes (Pinner, 2013). Since 2009, there has been
increasing awareness of CLIL at Japanese universities (MacGregor, 2016), and the government
has encouraged universities to include English medium education (Morizumi, 2015). In fact,
at the authors current institution, there has been an ongoing development of courses supportedby CLIL theory and methodology (Yamamoto & Nitta, 2021). However, according to Brown
and Bradford (2017), there has been no common approach to how CLIL is implemented, andthere has been confusion between CLIL and other English medium teaching approaches,
namely English medium instruction (EMI) and content based instruction (CBI). There has
also been reports of student resistance to CLIL due to its unfamiliarity and perceived lack ofusefulness (Smith & Ssali, 2019).

Literature Review
CLIL, EMI, and CBI
CLIL is an approach to teaching that integrates the provision of content knowledge with29

外国語教育研究ジャーナル

第4巻 （ JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 4）

language support. It is not simply providing content in English or as a science teacher wrote“a teacher blabbing about physics in English is not CLIL because CLIL attends to thelearners’ ability to use language” (Teresa Ting, 2011). However, as Mok (2021) argues, CLIL
classes should not be simply language classes with content themes “where content is still themeans to the end (language)” (p. 55).
According to Brown and Bradford (2017), CLIL has been confused by institutions andteachers with EMI and CBI. This has led to instructors not providing the balance between
content provision and language support integral to CLIL. EMI refers to content being taught
in English, wherein content provision is connected to the learners major and content
knowledge is the basis of assessment. As Bradford (2018) explains, “the goal of EMI issubject-content knowledge, not the acquisition of language” (p. 65). In EMI, there is no needto provide language support to help learners understand content or encourage retention;
therefore, it clearly is not CLIL. Alternatively, CBI has been described as a teaching method
wherein content is the medium for teaching language. The teacher teaches a subject andrelated content, but the learners understanding and learning of language is the focus of theteacher. CBI curricula can be organized sequentially, with tasks that require higher level
language comprehension placed later in the curricula. It seems safe to argue neither EMI nor
CBI can be seen as interchangeable with CLIL, which is supposed to integrate content andlanguage support. CLIL classes need to support students in understanding content unlike
EMI, but it should not let language dictate what is taught and when, as in CBI.
The Language Triptych
To guide teachers in creating CLIL courses, Coyle et al. (2010) created the Language
Triptych framework, which can be used to help select the language presented and activities
used in classes to enable students to tackle content and retain language. The Triptych isrepresented as a triangle, with the three points being Language of learning, Language
through learning, and Language for leaning with CLIL linguistic progression being in thecenter (Martin del Pozo, 2016). The first point of the triangle, language of learning, refers
to the language required to understand the meaning of the content. Instructors should consider
the functional and notional levels of difficulty demanded by the content. In other words, canlearners grasp the ideas being taught? Are they relatable to learners of a certain age, in acertain country, and in a certain context? The second point of the triangle, language forlearning, concerns the language that learners need to use in the process of learning, such asasking questions and discussions. The third point, language through learning, focuses on
how activities included in lessons can encourage language retention. By utilizing theLanguage Triptych, the teacher does not change the content to be presented or reorganize itin order of language difficulty. Rather, the teacher can use the framework to reflect on what
language support students can be given to help them benefit most from lessons in terms ofboth content and language.
The 4Cs
In addition to the Language Triptych, Coyle et al. (2010) proposed the concept of the
4Cs, which can be used as a framework for designing CLIL lessons, enabling course
30

Content, Language, and Rock n’ Roll: Finding the Harmony Between Content and Language in a CLIL Course

designers to incorporate theory in addition to needed functional language in their lesson plans(Iyobe & Li, 2013). The 4Cs stand for content, cognition, communication, and culture. Usedto guide teachers in the combination of content and language support, the 4Cs allow them toidentify whether a gap exists between a student’s language ability and the cognitive demandsof the given content. The first C, content, refers to the need in CLIL classes for content
learning, which is the knowledge and skills provided about the theme of the class. Content
does not just refer to the content presented; rather, a successful CLIL course should enable
students to research the theme further and create their own content knowledge (Meyer, 2010).
Coyle et al. (2010) suggest that language and communication should be viewed as inseparable.
In a CLIL class, students need to articulate observations on the meaning of content, whichof course will require essential communicative language. The second C, cognition, in otherwords, thinking and understanding, is considered the most important (MacGregor, 2016).
Cognition refers to the ability of learners to apply their newly acquired content knowledge
to contexts outside the class (e.g., with colleagues or friends). The final C, culture, refers tostudents understanding and interacting with the cultural community in which the content isbased. For example, if one was to teach a course on American movies, students would needto know the sociopolitical background against which certain movies were made if they wereto understand the aim of the person making the movie beyond the monetary benefit.
CLIL in Japan: Hard vs SoftIn Japan, English has been seen as an important element of education with the aim ofmaking the country and its citizenship globally competitive and able to participate in the
global society. However, English proficiency in Japan has remained comparatively low(Leontjev & deBoer, 2022).
The adoption of CLIL in Europe inspired the Japanese government, universities, andeducators to consider it as possibly useful in meeting the nation’s language learning goals(Lockley, 2015). Lockley (2015) argues that CLIL fosters international posture, which was
described by Yashima (2002) as an attitude that includes “interest in foreign or international
affairs, willingness to go overseas to stay or work, readiness to interact with intercultural
partners, and, one hopes, openness or a non-ethnocentric attitude toward different cultures”(p. 57). This aspect of CLIL, which is compatible with Japan’s English language goals, wasacknowledged by Ohmori (2014) who suggested that it encourages cultural understanding.
She suggests as learners are made to grapple with meaning in its original cultural context
and unchanged for Japanese consumption, they are given an insight of the culture usual
language classes fail to provide.
Sophia University and Saitama University, who started piloting CLIL courses in 2008
and 2010 respectively, were leaders in CLIL education in Japan (Ohmori, 2014). Inspired bythese examples, other universities attempted to provide CLIL classes, but these courses wereseen to take very different approaches (Brown & Bradford, 2017). One such institution is
Rikkyo University, which has started providing CLIL classes in an attempt to bridge its firstyear mandatory English language classes and EMI classes available to second to fourth year
students (Yamamoto & Nitta, 2021). The CLIL courses at Rikkyo University interweave
content with explicit instruction on study skills. This inclusion categorizes the course at31

外国語教育研究ジャーナル

第4巻 （ JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 4）

Rikkyo as a softer variety of CLIL.
Ohmori (2014) identifies hard and soft CLIL as varieties of approach to CLIL withdiffering emphasis on content and language. Hard CLIL concentrates on content, with theteacher providing no language support. It could be argued that such an approach would be
undistinguishable from EMI and inaccessible for only very proficient students. In contrast,soft CLIL is weighted toward language support, with content being the theme or delivery
method of language and not in its original cultural context. This may help learnercomprehension but would lose the cultural context desired by CLIL practitioners.
CLIL courses in Japan have tended toward soft CLIL (Leontjev & deBoer, 2022) due
to misunderstanding of CLIL, students being less proficient in English and needing more
help than their European counterparts, and the provision of CLIL being situated in language
learning departments. Ohmori (2014) suggests that the CLIL courses at Saitama University
tended to be weighted toward language learning to be considered as CLIL. This was due tothe courses being organized by the language department and teachers having insufficient
content knowledge to teach subjects effectively.
Curriculum Design and Assessment
When designing a CLIL curriculum, it seems reasonable to suggest a softer or harderstance rather than a completely soft or hard approach that would better accommodate thelanguage and content elements of CLIL. Using a softer or harder method would necessitate
significantly different approaches to curriculum design. However, the 4Cs and Language
Triptych frameworks can be applied to either form of CLIL. There are also recognizedfeatures of all CLIL curriculum.
CLIL courses should utilize authentic materials, i.e., material in its original context freefrom adaptations, although support should be given based on the learners’ language
proficiency (MacGregor, 2016). CLIL lessons should necessitate students to use higher order
thinking skills (Margana & Widyantoro, 2017). Higher order thinking entails students
critically interacting with authentic material and evaluating and discussing it (Tanaka, 2019).
This interaction with authentic material corresponds with the cognition aspect of the 4Cs.
CLIL courses should instill global human resources in students, allowing students toparticipate in the global society by enabling collection of information in English, thinking in
English, and sharing ideas in English (MacGregor, 2016). Margana and Widyantoro (2017)
argue that having students search for material in its original context is essential to CLIL,
which complements the culture element of the 4Cs.
If a softer approach is chosen when designing the curriculum, teachers must imagine
what challenges students may encounter with authentic materials and plan explicit support
for them. This means formally providing students with the language of and for learning
identified in the Language Triptych. Soft CLIL curricula should clearly state plannedinteractions (Leontjev & deBoer, 2022). For example, a CLIL debate course curricula at
Rikkyo University includes both language support and study skills in its curriculum. These
interventions are planned for specified times in the course to support student activities.
Language skills include teaching phrases for making propositions and rebutting, whereas
study skills include instructions on how to take notes (Nitta & Yamamoto, 2020). Another32

Content, Language, and Rock n’ Roll: Finding the Harmony Between Content and Language in a CLIL Course

example of language support in a softer CLIL class is the teaching of tenses before showing
a video to aid comprehension in a course for people in the hospitality industry (González
González et al., 2022).
When choosing a hard approach, language support needs to be given but does not need
to be included in the curricula. The elements of CLIL identified by the 4Cs and Language
Triptych should be present but need not be formally stated. The teacher is aware that
language is being taught, but this is not explicitly communicated to the learner. Language istaught inductively, presented in its original context with students able to learn from examples(Mok, 2021). This entails grammar or lexis being taught and then students should be asked
to notice it in its original context.
Although language support does not need to be stated in the curricula, language
comprehension can be supported both premeditatively and spontaneously. Teachers canpredict when students in a class may have problems and teach at this “episode” (Mok, 2021).
This could be done by priming students through the scaffolding of lexis (Valiukiene, 2017),
which means providing students with language they can use to decode a text for meaning.
This lexis is usually slightly above the students’ anticipated level. For example, before
students watch a video or read a text, the teacher could prepare them by voicing and visuallypresenting lexis contained in the material. This could also be done for background andcultural knowledge. Another way of priming students for possibly challenging material is toactivate their schemata (Korosidou & Griva, 2014). This means a teacher should conduct anactivity around or discuss what students already know on a topic before adding to it. Thisutilization of background knowledge is argued to make students aware that they have someknowledge on a topic, allowing them to more effectively grapple with new knowledge.
Not all language support needs to be anticipated, support can be given when problems
arise (Leontjev & deBoer, 2022). This could take the form of corrective feedback. Mok(2021) uses the notions of driver and co-driver to suggest how feedback can be given. He
uses the metaphor of how a co-driver can set a destination, the driver chooses their own routeand the co-driver corrects the drive along the journey if needed. This could be done byrepeating incorrect grammar and vocabulary, giving necessary phrases, or focusing on
phonology.
As there has been debate about the breakdown between how curricula should beweighted in terms of content or language in a curriculum, there has been similar debate
concerning assessment (Otto & Estrada, 2019). There is a broad agreement that weighting
should follow the curriculum, but there is an argument over how the two can be combinedin a rubric available to learners.

The Study
The study took place over two years with two groups of students taking a 14-weekcourse in the second semesters of 2021–2022 and 2022–2023.

33

外国語教育研究ジャーナル

第4巻 （ JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 4）

Study 1
Context
The class studied was a Lecture and Discussion class, which consists of two 100-minuteclasses over 14 weeks. This class is an elective class. The class is not available to first-year
students, and students are required to have an advanced level of English. The university
stipulates that in this class, students should be given a university style academic lecture andgiven opportunities to discuss given and related contents. Alongside gaining content
knowledge, it is explicit in the online curriculum available to students that they will practicestudy skills such as taking notes and conducting research. British music and society was
selected as the content for this class due to the authors interest and assumed interest of thestudents. The title of the course was “British Music 1960 – Present: How music reflects andinspires social change.”
It was chosen to split the lecture and discussion elements between classes, so there
would be one 100-minute lecture class per week and one 100-minute discussion. One music
movement would be the focus for each of the first eleven weeks. During the lecture, theteacher would give a slideshow presentation detailing the narrative of the movement, withauthentic materials embedded in the lecture. During the discussion, following a teacher-led
model discussion, students would present something they had researched connected to thetheme of the previous lecture and lead a discussion on it (Rikkyo University, 2021).
A CLIL approach to the class was taken as it was believed believed the content andlanguage elements of CLIL would be present throughout the curriculum and in each class.
As for content, authentic materials would be presented in English by someone involved in
the culture concerned, as a music enthusiast in this case. As for language, the class isprovided by the language department, so it would seem safe to suggest students had somelanguage goals by choosing to take the class. Although the students possessed an advanced
level of English, it was anticipated that they would at times need language support tonavigate challenging notions and material. It was also stated to students in the curriculumthat they would have opportunities to practice study skills related to language learning.
A hard approach to CLIL was chosen. The students would have already taken mandatory
language classes, such as discussions, debates, and presentations, and possessed an advanced
level of English. The students taking the course would have also chosen it over morelanguage-based elective courses, suggesting that they were seeking something different.
Brown (2015) suggests that students choose CLIL courses due to the challenge it presents
and the opportunity to interact with authentic materials.
Authentic materials embedded in lectures included music videos, clips fromdocumentaries, TV news features, and quotations from newspapers, music magazines, andbooks. Magazine quotations included excerpts of music reviews, opinion pieces, and articles
on artists and movements, whereas book excerpts included biographies, autobiographies, andgenre explorations. Between the lecture and discussion classes, students were given a choiceof materials to further aid their research for the discussions; these included Apple and Spotify
playlists, books and magazines from my personal library, and links to online newspaper
articles. Students would also be encouraged to find their own materials related to the lecture,
which could be focused on a similar movement in another country. For the discussion classes,
34

Content, Language, and Rock n’ Roll: Finding the Harmony Between Content and Language in a CLIL Course

sometimes the teacher would bring their own realia or memorabilia to instigate the discussion.
Language support would be both planned and spontaneous. Narrative slides before focus
on authentic materials would include lexis and background knowledge key to aid
comprehension, giving students a scaffold of the language to aid comprehension. For
example, students would be provided with lexis and information about the West Indies,empire, immigration, integration, and assimilation, before a documentary video clip on theexperiences of British reggae artists as this language and knowledge would be essential forcomprehension the video. The teacher would also attempt to elicit students’ backgroundknowledge and schemata on cultural context of musical movements such as the British
economic situation at the time of punk rock. Language support would also be provided
spontaneously when needed.
The class would be assessed mainly on content. Students would be assessed on theunderstanding they showed of the materials they selected for discussions. The final assessment
would be a presentation with students assessed on breadth of research and understanding of
the topic. Language would only be considered if it hindered expression of meaning.
The curriculum created followed the Language Triptych and 4Cs framework. Languageof learning would be given in the scaffolding of language in lecture slide presentations andthe modeling of discussions. Language for learning would also be modeled by the teacher
when leading and participating in discussions. Students taking notes in lectures and needing
to retain language for use in discussions and assessments would correspond with language
from learning. As for the 4Cs, the class would be built on content and feature authentic
materials. Communication would be the basis of discussion classes. Cognition would bepresent in discussion involving giving opinions, cultural comparisons, and lyric interpretation.
The course is based on culture, and the students would have to make comparisons to life andmusic in Japan during the relevant eras.
Participants
The members of the study group were three males from the third year. During orientation,
they all appeared to possess a similar upper-intermediate to advanced level of English. Twoof them displayed a wide knowledge of British music and identified this as the reason theychose the course, whereas one said he did not know much about music but was interested in
the sociological and political elements of the class. The students in the study will be referred
to as Students 1, 2, and 3.
Objectives
The main objective of the study was to investigate the student’s opinions concerning thehard approach to CLIL. To discover this, whether the students’ reasons for taking the course
were content or language related needed to be investigated. If they were mainly language
related, a softer approach in the future would need to be considered. Whether the content
weighted breakdown of the course was perceived to be conducive to learning and enjoymentof the course would also be a research objective. If students felt a content-focused approach
was impeding their ability to learn, it seems a softer approach should be taken. Enjoyment
is arguably an important element of any class, especially an elective class that students
35外国語教育研究ジャーナル

第4巻 （ JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 4）

choose to take due to personal interest. Therefore, it was important to know how the hard
approach to CLIL affected enjoyment. Moreover, students’ opinions about a harder CLIL
approach changed over the course would be explored. Resistance to CLIL has been reported
due to its unfamiliarity to Japanese students (Smith & Ssali, 2019). Therefore, it would benecessary to ascertain if such resistance is present and whether it changed as students become
accustomed to the approach.
Data Collection
Three questionnaires were given to the participants, a pre-course after the first lesson(Appendix A), mid-course after Week 7 (Appendix B), and post-course after Week 14(Appendix C). Questionnaires were translated into Japanese by a bilingual associate and both
Japanese and English were used in the document; only English has been included in the
appendices due to word count limitations. Permission for the research was granted by theuniversity ethics committee, and a consent form for each document was prepared according
to the institution’s regulations. The documents were given and received via the course’s
Google Classroom. The questionnaire comprised six questions with a seventh space for othercomments.
The research tool for the questionnaire was chosen as they can be used to collectattitudinal data (Dornyei & Taguchi, 2010), and as the research was conducted during the
pandemic, it was seen as a safe and reliable way to collect information. The majority of
information gathered was qualitative in that the questionnaire comprised open-ended
questions but did contain a quantitative element in one question. A mainly qualitative method
was chosen as it would hopefully produce more data, and the possibility of a small numberof participants was anticipated.
The first and second questions in the pre-course questionnaire differed from that of themid- and post-course questionnaires. The other questions remained the same to assess any
change in attitudes with the wording being changed to reflect the stage of the course. The
first question in the pre-course questionnaire related to why students chose the course tojudge whether they had content- or language-related goals, whereas the first question on thelater questionnaires considered enjoyment of the course. The second question on the
pre-course questionnaire concerned a more detailed questioning of student’s language andcontent goals, whereas the later ones were concerned with difficulty. The third question
involved how much language support students felt they should receive to ascertain whether
their attitudes complemented the chosen harder approach to CLIL. The fourth question
included students desired balance of content and language, asking them to explain andquantify their preferred balance This was again to gauge how students’ opinions aligned withthe chosen approach of the course design. The fifth and sixth questions were concerned withassessment and the course’s cohesion with other studies and was outside the remit of thiscourse but was included for further research.
Results
Quantitative data collected was put into Excel and converted into graphic data to allow
results and patterns of change over the course to be more easily observed. Japanese responses
36

Content, Language, and Rock n’ Roll: Finding the Harmony Between Content and Language in a CLIL Course

were anonymized and translated by a bilingual assistant. Qualitative data was read several
times and then color-coded according to the theme. For example, when exploring students’reasons for joining the course, language- and content-related aims were highlighted indifferent colors. These were then collated to explore similarities and differences inperspectives, so pertinent observations could be communicated when writing up the results.
Pre-Course Questionnaire. Students 1 and 2 indicated that their primary motivation
was not only interest in class content but also a wish to develop listening and speaking skills.
Student 3 was purely interested in the content. Students 1 and 2 believed that the teacher
should give explicit language support to students. Explanation of the vocabulary and “teachways of listening” was requested by Student 1, whereas Student 2 requested “a key vocab
list” to be given. Student 3 desired no help. Students 1–3 desired a breakdown of 75% / 25%,
50% / 50%, and 80% / 20% between content and language, respectively.
Mid-Course Questionnaire. Student 2 was unable to submit his questionnaire. Students
1 and 2 both indicated they were enjoying the course, whereas Student 3 said “it was hardto listen” to lectures “for over an hour.” Students 1 and 2 were satisfied in terms of language
support, indicating “enough help provided” and “given enough help.” Both were unchangedin their desired class time breakdown between language support and content with Student 1
stating “if you want to learn language, there is a dedicated class.” Student 1 said listening
was difficult, but he was “able to grasp” the meaning of the content.
Post-Course Questionnaire. All students indicated they enjoyed the class. Student 1
indicated “British music was the reason I chose the class, so I enjoyed it.” The opinion thatthe class has a relaxed atmosphere and there was ample speaking time was shared by all
respondents. Further, all respondents felt that the difficulty was appropriate. The three
students felt they were given enough language help. Student 1 said help was always given
if needed, whereas Student 2 said “help given was flexible. Teacher gave important
vocabulary when necessary. When the class becomes huge, flexibility may be more difficult.”
Students 1 and 3 were unchanged in their ideas about the ideal balance between content andlanguage with Student 3 indicating the balance “was appropriate for the students in theclass.” Student 2 said an appropriate balance for a future course should be 70% content to
30% language, changing from his initially stated equal split. All students indicated they foundthe lectures hard to concentrate on for the duration of the lesson.
Discussion
Overall, the results suggest the harder CLIL approach was justified. Content was given
as the primary goal for joining the course with a lesser emphasis on skills practice. This wasindicated throughout the course with students expressing appreciation for the content
knowledge provided. Student 2 who initially favored an equal weighting, moved toward
prioritizing content.

37

外国語教育研究ジャーナル

第4巻 （ JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 4）

Figure 1
Study 1 Students’ Desired Class Time Focus

Difficulty was seen as appropriate with listening indicated as a challenge by Student 1,
but the content was still graspable. Although explicit language support such as vocabulary
lists and listening skills strategy focus were not provided, students felt they received sufficient
help. Student 2 indicated the “flexibility” of the approach to language support allowed aid
to be given when needed. This corresponds to the harder CLIL approach of dealing withlanguage problems when they arise. However, he questioned whether such support could begiven if dealing with a larger group. All students said they found it difficult to listen andconcentrate for an entire lesson.
These concerns inspired me to conduct the research again with the following year’s
students. If the group was bigger, I would be able to assess whether the flexible harder CLIL
approach to language support was seen as appropriate for larger classes. I would also attempt
to deal with the issue of students finding concentration difficult during lectures.
Study 2
Context
In 2022, I taught the Lecture and Discussion course to a second group of students. The
curriculum remained the same and the same harder approach to CLIL was taken. The onlyintervention was three 7-minute discussion intervals were added after authentic content had
been viewed. For example, after a lecture on British hip-hop artists of the 80s and 90s andviewing a selection of music videos, students were asked the following: If they liked any ofthe music? If it has a different sound and image from US hip-hop and rap? How Britishsocial conditions influenced the subject matter? The inclusion of these intervals meant cuttingsome lecture points and shortening videos.
The intervals as well as giving students a break as requested by the Study 1 students
could have benefits for learning. Discussions after content presentation have been suggested
to help students process and retain language (Puspitasari, 2016), which corresponds with the38

Content, Language, and Rock n’ Roll: Finding the Harmony Between Content and Language in a CLIL Course

language through learning point of the Language Triptych. Discussion can also help integratestudents’ schemata with newly taught content and encourage comradery. Student 2 of Study
1 identified the bond between students as contributing to learning as students felt free toexperiment with language.
Participants
The students were four females and three males from the third and fourth years who
had participated in the same mandatory English language programs as the previous study
group. All students said they had an interest in British music during the orientation. Students
were all of an advanced level apart from one who seemed considerably lower. They all
appeared keen to take the course. The participants will be referred to as Students 1–7.
Objectives
Objectives remained the same apart from additionally wanting to investigate if including
discussion intervals would result in students not indicating difficulty maintaining concentration
during lectures.
Results
Similar to the first group, the quantitative data was converted into graphic form foranalysis. The qualitative data was highlighted and put into themes to ascertain any pattern.
Perspectives given in earlier questionnaires were contrasted with to in later ones to see ifchanges in opinions were present.
Pre-Course Questionnaire. Student 4 did not submit the questionnaire. All respondents
indicated their main reason for joining the course was content. For example, Student 1 said,“I love UK rock,” whereas Student 3 indicated an interest in British bands. Three students
indicated an interest in the social background of music. Student 7 said one reason to selectthe course was as the lecturer was British, they would meet someone who had experienced
content first-hand. The desired class time breakdown between focus on content and language
support differed with Student 3 desiring 100% content as “I will learn English by myself”
to Student 2 wanting a 50/50 split. Although the balance varied, all students, except Student
2, thought balance should weigh toward content with remaining student percentages varying
from 60% to 80%. Six students said they should receive help when needed, whereas Student
2 said key vocabulary should be presented pre-task. Student 7 said the teacher should “helpin terms of terminology but don’t interrupt, it could be discouraging.”
Mid-Course Questionnaire. Student 6 did not complete the questionnaire. All
respondents said they were enjoying the class and ascribed this to content. For example,
Student 1 said they were “deepening their knowledge of music,” and Student 5 said they
enjoyed the playlist and “made new discoveries every week.” Student 3 said part of theirenjoyment was due to being able to speak without being criticized. Student 1 said others
seemed to have difficulties, and Student 3 said the content could be challenging, all indicating
the area of difficulty as social context. However, they all said they were receiving enoughhelp; Student 7 said, “slang was explained.” This time all students said class time should beweighted toward content with percentages ranging from 60% to 100%.
39

外国語教育研究ジャーナル

第4巻 （ JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 4）

Post-Course Questionnaire. Student 7 did not respond. All respondents said they
enjoyed the course very much, three going as far as to say it was the best course they hadtaken at the university. All indicated content knowledge as key to enjoyment. Two students
said their increased knowledge of context helped them understand songs better. Student 2
said conversations were also key to enjoyment, whereas four students said the atmosphereof the class was enjoyable with Student 4 stating “everyone was involved and enjoyed.” Four
students indicated that the content was difficult at times but all felt they received enoughhelp. Student 2 said “the teacher helped by joining discussions.” Student 4 indicated that“cooperation with other students” helped them cope with difficulties. All students said if thecourse was repeated, class time should incline toward content with percentages ranging from
60% to 100%.
Discussion
All students indicated their primary reason for joining the course was content related,and content was stated to be key to enjoyment throughout the course. When starting thecourse, all but one student thought that content should have more weightage of the class time.
The one student who desired an equal breakdown changed their weightage toward content
later in the course.
Figure 2
Study 2 Students’ Desired Class Time Focus

All students felt they were given enough help, even though language was not taught
explicitly. In fact, the flexible approach was noted and supported by four respondents. The
content was felt to be challenging at times according to three respondents but it did not
impede enjoyment. Satisfaction with the course was high and unanimous.
The results indicate the students felt positive concerning a harder approach to CLIL, andthe course design met their learning goals and was enjoyable. There was also no indicationthat it was difficult for students to concentrate in lectures. However, this lack of indication
40

Content, Language, and Rock n’ Roll: Finding the Harmony Between Content and Language in a CLIL Course

highlights a limitation of this study. The lack of clarity could be due to the decision to use
a questionnaire. Dornyei and Taguchi (2010) argue that respondents often only superficiallyinteract with questionnaires giving brief and surface level answers. If something is not asked
directly, respondents are unlikely to address it. Future studies on CLIL classes can use
interviews, which may be more effective in exploring student attitudes and experiences.
The question asking students to break down desired class time balance between language
support and content seems flawed. Students are not teachers and may be unable to judge
what is content and language support. Language support was embedded in slides presented
before focusing on authentic material. However, students could understandably see the slides
as pure content. If students are unable to understand how language content can be presented,
it seems a desired breakdown would be superficial. An interview could further explore thedividing of class time between content and language.
Four respondents said some notions presented were difficult to understand but this did
not impede enjoyment. However, it is unclear whether the lack of understanding impede
comprehension of authentic materials. It seems a more exploratory research tool may berequired to uncover more information.

Conclusion
This paper has detailed the journey from being presented by Rikkyo University with acourse to teach, choosing an approach to teaching, designing curriculum to gauging students’attitudes to decisions taken on course design. CLIL was chosen as a teaching method as
although students were proficient, they would need language support to better comprehendauthentic materials. A harder approach to CLIL was taken as it was assumed students would
have chosen this elective class due to the content. They also would have already taken andhave the opportunity to take more classes related to language learning.
Two courses were studied over two subsequent years. Results from both groups suggest
the choice to choose harder CLIL was justified. Student goals were content based, and thecontent was the basis of their enjoyment and perceived success of the class. Students
overwhelmingly believed class time should be weighted toward content focus over language
support. Those who felt a more equal division would be preferable and explicit language
support should be given moved toward a more content-focused balance and less teacher
intervention over the course.
An intervention was made in the second study to address student claims that maintaining
concentration in lectures was difficult. This assertion was not made by the second group.
Rather than indicating positive evidence that the problem had been rectified, the study
pointed to a flaw in the research design. It seems reasonable to suggest the more exploratory
research method of interviews be used in any further research.
Although the course design decisions suited the groups in question, as a student
indicated, such a flexible approach would not be effective with larger groups and certainly
not groups with a lower level of English proficiency. This could be an area for further study,
along with assessment design and the relation between language scaffolding in teacher
presentation and comprehension of authentic materials.
41

外国語教育研究ジャーナル

第4巻 （ JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 4）

Overall, I feel the investigation described has been a success both in terms of myunderstanding of CLIL course design and its suitability for the study groups. For university
educators in Japan, CLIL is now an inescapable fact of life. An understanding of theLanguage Triptych, the 4Cs, and different approaches to CLIL will allow language educators
to better present the content they want to highlight. Moreover, by using these tools, teachers
can better satisfy students’ language needs and learning goals, while providing enjoyable andinformative classes.

References
Bradford, A. (2018). Undergraduate English-medium instruction in Japan: Policy andimplementation. Humanities and Social Sciences Bulletin Meiji University, 64, 65–76.
Brown, H. (2015). Factors influencing the choice of CLIL classes at university in Japan. ELTWorld Online, 1–22.
Brown, H., & Bradford, A. (2017). EMI, CLIL, & CBI: Differing approaches and goals. In
P. Clements, A. Krause, & H. Brown (Eds.), Transformation in language education (pp.
328–334). JALT.
Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and language integrated learning.
Cambridge University Press.
Dornyei, Z., & Taguchi, T. (2010). Questionnaires in second language research: Construction,
administration, and processing (2nd ed.). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203864739
González González, G. M. E., Diaz Robayo, D. R., & Leon Mora, E. C. (2022). A CLIL
curriculum design for future professionals of hospitality and tourism management. Latin
American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning, 15(1), e1513.
https://doi.org/10.5294/laclil.2022.15.1.3
Iyobe, B., & Li, J. (2013). CLIL to what degree: A trial in English medium education at aJapanese university – Is it CLIL or not? In P. Robertson, & J. Adamson (Eds.), The
Asian EFL Journal Special Edition CLIL in Asian Contexts: Emerging Trends, 15(4),(pp. 372–381).
Korosidou, E., & Griva, E. (2014). CLIL approach in primary education: Learning about
Byzantine art and culture through a foreign language. Study in English Language
Teaching, 2(2), 240–257. https://doi.org/10.22158/selt.v2n2p240
Leontjev, D., & deBoer, M. A. (2022). Multimodal mediational means in assessment ofprocesses: An argument for a hard-CLIL approach. International Journal of Bilingual
Education and Bilingualism, 25(4), 1275–1291.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2020.1754329
Lockley, T. (2015). Promoting international posture through history as content and language
integrated learning (CLIL) in the Japanese context. Studies in Second Language
Learning and Teaching, 5(1), 87–108. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2015.5.1.5
MacGregor, L. (2016). CLIL focus: An interview with Professor Makoto Ikeda. The Language
Teacher, 40(1), 18–21. https://doi.org/10.37546/JALTTLT40.1-4
Margana, M., & Widyantoro, A. (2017). Developing English textbooks oriented to higher
42

Content, Language, and Rock n’ Roll: Finding the Harmony Between Content and Language in a CLIL Course

order thinking skills for students of vocational high schools in Yogyakarta. Journal of
Language Teaching and Research, 8(1), 26–38. https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.0801.04
Martin del Pozo, M. A. (2016). An approach to CLIL teacher language awareness using theLanguage Triptychh. Pulso. Revista De Educación, 39, 141–157.
https://doi.org/10.58265/pulso.5082
Meyer, O. (2010). Towards quality CLIL: Successful planning and teaching strategies. Pulso.
Revista De Educación, 33, 11–29. https://doi.org/10.58265/pulso.5002
Mok, J. (2021). Ontological and pedagogical reconsideration of CLIL: Thoughts on concept,
course design, and assessment. Journal of Foreign Language Education and Research,
2, 52–67.
Morizumi, F. (2015). EMI in Japan: Current status and its implications. Educational Studies,International Christian University, 57, 119–128. http://doi.org/10.34577/00003421
Nitta, R., & Yamamoto, Y. (2020). Reconceptualizing CLIL from transformative pedagogy
perspective: Pilot debate study in English language curriculum. Journal of Foreign
Language Education and Research, 1, 47–62.
Ohmori, A. (2014). Exploring the potential of CLIL in English language teaching in Japanese
universities: An innovation for the development of effective teaching and global
awareness. The Journal of Rikkyo University Language Center, 32, 39–51.
Otto, A., & Estrada, J. L. (2019). Towards an understanding of CLIL assessment practices ina European context: Main assessment tools and the role of language in content subjects.
CLIL Journal of Innovation and Research in Plurilingual and Pluricultural Education,
2(1), 31–42. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/clil.11
Pinner, R. (2013). Authenticity of purpose: CLIL as a way to bring meaning and motivation
into EFL contexts. Asian EFL Journal, 15(4), 49–69.
Puspitasari, E. (2016). Classroom activities in content and language integrated learning.
Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Learning, 1(2), 1–13.
https://doi.org/10.18196/ftl.129
Rikkyo University. (2021). Lecture and Discussion H. https://sy.rikkyo.ac.jp/web/preview.
php?nendo=2021&t_mode=sp&template=t1&no_id=2106748&gakubu_id=14
Smith, C., & Ssali, V. (2019). From Foundation course to text book: Introducing CLIL in a
Japanese university. The Journal of the Japan CLIL Pedagogy Association (J-CLIL), 1,
85–99.
Tanaka, K. (2019). Content and language integrated learning (CLIL): Compatibility of aEuropean model of education to Japanese higher education. Meiji Gakuin Review.
International & Regional Studies, 54, 61–81.
Teresa Ting, Y. L. (2011). CLIL... not only not immersion but also more than the sum of its
parts. ELT Journal, 65(3), 314–317. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccr026
Thomas, K. (2021). Review of the book CLIL: Content and language integrated learning by
D. Coyle., P. Hood., & D. Marsh. Journal of Foreign Language Education and Research,
2, 195–196.
Tsuchiya, K., & Pérez Murillo, M. D. (2015). Comparing the language policies and thestudents’ perceptions of CLIL in tertiary education in Spain and Japan. Latin American
Journal of Content and Language Integrated Learning, 8(1), 25–35.
43

外国語教育研究ジャーナル

第4巻 （ JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 4）

https://doi.org/10.5294/laclil.2015.8.1.3
Valiukiene, R. (2017). How complex is CLIL vocabulary in the eyes of a subject teacher?
Knowledge – International Journal, 19(3), 1021–1027.
Yamamoto, Y., & Nitta, R. (2021). Action-orientated approach to curriculum development in
CLIL courses: A theoretical and methodological framework. Journal of Foreign
Language Education and Research, 2, 122–135.
Yashima, T. (2002). Willingness to communicate in a second language: The Japanese EFL
context. The Modern Language Journal, 86(1), 54–66.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-4781.00136

44

Content, Language, and Rock n’ Roll: Finding the Harmony Between Content and Language in a CLIL Course

Appendices
Appendix A: Pre-Course Survey

1. Why did you choose to study this course?

2.	What do you hope to gain from the course? What language skills (if any)? Whatcontent knowledge (if any)?
3.	The materials in the class are authentic (meant for people with English as a first
language). Do you think students should be given help by the teacher in class to
prepare for understanding and participating in listening, reading and discussion
activities.
		If so, what help should be given? E.g., key vocab given pre-task, focus on listening
skills4.	
In class time, what breakdown do you think there should be between focus on
language (for comprehension and participation) and content (the subject being
studied)? E.g., 40%
		 language, 60% content.
5.	Do you think students should be assessed on their language ability, content knowledge
learned or a mix of the two? If a mix of the two, what do you this the breakdown
should be?
6.	
How do you think the course will complement your other studies at Rikkyo
University?
7. Any other comments?

Appendix B: Mid-Course Survey

1. Are you enjoying the course so far? Why? Why not?
2. How would you assess the difficulty of the course? Why? Please explain.
3.	Do you think you are being given enough help to comprehend listening and readingtasks and participate in discussions? If not, what kind of help would you like?
4.	
Would you like the teacher to concentrate more on language or content? What
breakdown do you think there should be? E.g., 40% language, 60% content?
5. Do you think you are being prepared for the assessment? Please explain.
6. How do you think the course complements your other studies at Rikkyo University?
7. Any other comments?

45

外国語教育研究ジャーナル

第4巻 （ JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 4）

Appendix C: Post-Course Survey

1. Did you enjoy the course? How difficult was it? Please explain.
2. Did you feel the course was meaningful? What did you gain from it?
3.	Do you think you are were given enough help to comprehend listening and readingtasks and participate in discussions? If not, what kind should have been given?
4.	If the course was run again, do you think the teacher should concentrate more on
language or content? What breakdown do you think there should be? E.g., 40%
language, 60% content?
5.	Did you think the assessment reflected the use of class time? Were you preparedenough? Please explain?
6. Do you think the course complemented your other studies at Rikkyo University?
7. Any other comments?

46