【Research Article】

Reconceptualizing CLIL From Transformative Pedagogy
Perspective: Pilot Debate Study in English Language Curriculum
Ryo Nitta & Yuka Yamamoto
Abstract
This paper explores how Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) can be implemented in an English
language curriculum at a Japanese university by taking the perspective of transformative pedagogy. Drawing on
the 4C (Content, Communication, Cognition, and Culture) framework, we present a pilot debate class as one caseexample of a language-led course within our English language curriculum. Based on our understanding of CLIL
pedagogy and our preliminary analysis of collected data obtained from the debate class, we argue that CLIL can be
exercised in such a debate course as an integrated whole by closely interrelating the 4Cs, with Culture playing an
integrative role in the framework. In the above example, students were engaged in speaking English in appropriate
ways, thinking critically, presenting their ideas in a clear and persuasive manner, and taking the perspectives ofotherness. All these processes would contribute to transformative pedagogy through raising students’ awareness ofsocial complexities and transforming their identities.
Keywords: C
 LIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning), debate, 4Cs (Content, Communication, Cognition, andCulture), second language acquisition (SLA), transformative pedagogy

Introduction
The aim of this paper is to explore how Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL)
can be implemented in an English language curriculum at a university by taking the perspective oftransformative pedagogy. The authors of this paper spent their school years in the same period—the1980s and 90s—but in different sociocultural contexts and contrasting English learning experiences.
The first author, Ryo, went to a conventional secondary school in Japan where classes were given ina didactic manner with an emphasis on gaining a large amount of academic knowledge to prepare
for university entrance exams. In this form of traditional pedagogy, characterized by “transmissionof information and skills” (Cummins, 2004, p. 109), English teachers gave explicit instruction on
grammatical structures and reading practice “with little emphasis on internalization of meaningor active communicative/authentic use of the language” (Cummins, 2004, p. 109). The second
author, Yuka, went to an international school in Singapore where active student participation andcollaboration were emphasized. This form of instruction, called social-constructivist, primarily aims
to develop higher-order thinking skills through being engaged in projects and activities. In doingso, “[s]tudents’ prior knowledge is systematically activated, and they are encouraged to bring theirexperience or cognitive schemata to bear on solving problems” (Cummins, 2004, p. 110).
Although these two types of pedagogy are still dominant in many schools worldwide, anotherperspective, what Cummins (2004) calls transformative pedagogy, has emerged at the turn of the
21st century. This pedagogical perspective involves common characteristics of social-constructivist
instruction but with different orientations. That is, whereas the first two forms have been primarily
instructional-oriented, the focus of transformative pedagogy is on social and identity-investment
dimensions—enabling students to analyze and understand the social realities of their own lives andof their communities through collaborative critical inquiry (Cummins, 2004). Cummins (2004) argues

47

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 1 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 1）

that “[s]tudents discuss, and frequently act on, ways in which these realities might be transformed
through various forms of social action” (p. 111).
Although the importance of transformative pedagogy has been widely recognized (cf., ‘Key
Competences’ [OECD] and the ‘21st Century Skills’ [P21]), this perspective has not been fully
practiced in educational contexts. In our view, the ideals of transformative pedagogy could be more
usefully embedded in an English language curriculum by using an educational model, CLIL, inparticular exercising its 4C—Content, Communication, Cognition, and Culture—framework. In what
follows, we first define CLIL and discuss how content and language are organically integrated byusing the 4Cs. We then consider how the 4C framework can be implemented to an English language
curriculum at a university by illustrating a case example of a pilot debate class in our institution.

Theoretical BackgroundDefining CLIL
To conceptualize what is involved in CLIL pedagogy, we first consider a general widely accepted
definition by Coyle, Hood, and Marsh (2010):
Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) is a dual-focused educational approach inwhich an additional language is used for the learning and teaching of both content and language.
(p. 1)As this definition states, CLIL regards the second language (L2) as an additional language in thatfirst language (L1) acquisition is prioritized and opportunities of their L2 use is very limited beyond
the classroom context. Differing from the other content-based instructions, such as immersion andEnglish medium instruction (EMI), CLIL aims not to replace the L1 but to enlarge students’ linguistic
repertoire of bi-multilinguals (Dalton-Puffer, 2017). This perspective can be compatible with the multicompetence view (Cook & Wei, 2016) in second language acquisition (SLA), assuming that the L1
always interacts with the L2 in mind, the L1 is a basis for self-regulation and learning, and L2 learning
is “in essence a project of becoming bi/multilingual, multicompetent, and transcultural” (Ortega,
2015, p. 108).
This definition also states that CLIL gives attention both to content and language, assumingthat varied forms of instruction can be designed as a continuum from the language-led to contentled poles. What ‘content’ means in CLIL depends on the learning context, ranging from traditional
school curriculums, such as geography and biology, to project-based curriculums involving certain
topics, such as the Olympic Games and global warming (Coyle et al., 2010). The more languageled form is termed ‘soft CLIL’ to describe the broad linguistic aims, while the more content-led,referred to as ‘hard CLIL,’ includes subject-based aims and objectives (Ball, Kelly, & Clegg, 2015).
What is particularly significant in this dual-focused orientation is that both language and content are“interwoven, even if the emphasis is greater on one or the other at a given time” (Coyle et al., 2010, p.
1). The integration of content and language is further discussed later in this paper.
Other significant characteristics of CLIL, though not explicitly stated in the above definition,
are flexibility and inclusiveness, as CLIL is often referred as an umbrella term. This attitude mightcome from its European origin—a group of pioneers advocated alternative terminology to accountfor pedagogies emerging from “diverse origins and varied purposes of different bilingual programs48

RECONCEPTUALIZING CLIL FROM TRANSFORMATIVE PEDAGOGY PERSPECTIVE

throughout Europe” (Coyle, 2007, p. 545). To construct a common framework incorporating the richand diverse political and sociolinguistic settings, CLIL takes a pragmatic and realist position by adopting
a wide range of different SLA theories and language teaching methodologies, so that teachers are able
to devise the optimal method of teaching in their own local contexts. Whereas this ‘transferability’(Coyle et al., 2010) is advantageous in that CLIL can be adaptable to a wide range of classroom context,
this flexible and inclusive orientation could also be regarded as a lack of coherence in CLIL pedagogy(Coyle, 2007), that is, there is a danger to obscure how CLIL differs from non-CLIL pedagogies.

Integrating Content and Language/Communication
As mentioned thus far, the general CLIL definition states its overall characteristics andorientations but also connotes its potential weakness. That is, because of its broad scope, it isless clear in what ways CLIL is distinguishable from the other language teaching methodologies.
Towards a more principled—theoretically rigorous and practically transparent—pedagogy, Coyle etal. (2010) proposed four components—Content (subject matter), Communication (language learningand using), Cognition (learning and thinking processes), and Culture (developing intercultural
understanding and global citizenship)—to construct a curriculum as an ‘integrated whole’ by making
these four components closely interrelated.
The first two Cs, Content and Communication (or language), are “more than just a combinationof two elements: real fusion asks for an understanding of the characteristics and interplay of both,and of the potential aims, processes and outcomes of the fused context” (de Graaff, 2016, p. xiii). The
importance of integrating content (or, more generally, meaning) and language/communication canbe supported by various theories proposed and elaborated in the area of SLA. First and foremost, CLIL
is content-driven, so the linguistic needs “will be generated from the specific needs of the particularsubjects taught” (Georgiou, 2012, p. 499). This ‘meaning-then-form’ principle has been emphasized
by focus on form—“an occasional shift of attention to linguistic code features—by the teacher and/or
one or more students—triggered by perceived problems with comprehension or production” (Long& Robinson, 1998, p. 23). Second, content matter could serve as comprehensible input (Krashen, 1985)
when engineered to adjust an optimal—just beyond their current L2 competence—level to learners.
Content matter also serves as context for authentic and meaningful communication, with a view todeveloping learners’ communicative competence through negotiation of meaning (Long, 1996). This
communicative necessity makes CLIL differ from other language teaching methodologies based on
traditional pedagogy; that is, CLIL learners are encouraged to “use L2 as they learn it rather thanspending years’ rehearsing in a language class for a possible opportunity to use L2 some time in the
future” (Georgiou, 2012, p. 496). Under such communicative condition, CLIL learners are expected tostretch their L2 competence by being engaged in various output functions such as noticing linguisticfeatures and metalinguistic awareness (Swain, 1995).
Based on our understanding of Content and Communication integration in CLIL pedagogy, it isuseful to refer to the scale of language and content proposed by van Lier in which learners are able
to develop their L2 in a stepwise manner over years of study according to the progress of their L2
proficiency (Figure 1). With this scale, learners’ opportunities to receive academic content matter are“systematically ‘phased in’ over time, with the number of hours of L2 content instruction increasing
with grade level” (Brinton & Snow, 2017, p. 11). Following the steps from more language-led (Point A)
to more content-led (Point B) courses, content and language aspects are increasingly integrated as awhole within individuals.

49

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 1 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 1）

Figure 1. van Lier’s scale of language and content (reprinted from Brinton & Snow, 2017, p. 8)

Integrating Cognition in English Language Curriculum
As stated above, CLIL pedagogy shares common characteristics with other language teaching
methodologies in terms of content-language integration. What makes CLIL distinguishable fromthese SLA-driven methodologies might be its explicit focus on learners’ cognitive development, thatis closely aligned with content and language learning. To consider “how to actively involve learners
to enable them to think through and articulate their own learning” (Coyle et al., 2010, p. 29), a usefulframework is Bloom’s (1956) revised taxonomy (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). This model consistsof six cognitive and four knowledge dimensions; the linkage of thinking to knowledge construction
underlines the integration of content and cognition (Coyle et al., 2010; Figure 2). This taxonomy helps
teachers consider which cognitive processes and knowledge to focus on in their teaching.
Cognitive Dimensions

CreateEvaluate
Analyze
Apply
Understanding
RememberKnowledge Dimensions
Factual knowledge
Conceptual knowledge
Procedural knowledge
Metacognitive knowledge

50

Higher-Order
Thinking Skills (HOTS)

Lower-Order
Thinking Skills (LOTS)

RECONCEPTUALIZING CLIL FROM TRANSFORMATIVE PEDAGOGY PERSPECTIVE

Cognitive Dimensions
1. Remember

Recognizing, recalling

2. Understanding

Interpreting, exemplifying, classifying, summarizing, inferring, comparing,
explaining

3. Apply

Executing, implementing

4. Analyze

Differentiating, organizing, attributing

5. Evaluate

Checking, critiquing

6. Create

Generating, planning, producing

Knowledge Dimensions
A. Factual knowledge

Knowledge of terminology, knowledge of specific details and elements

B. Conceptual knowledge

Knowledge of classifications and categories, knowledge of principles andgeneralizations, knowledge of theories, models, and structures

C. Procedural knowledge

Knowledge of subject-specific skills and algorithms, knowledge of subject-specifictechniques and methods, knowledge of criteria for determining when to use
appropriate procedures

D. Metacognitive knowledge Strategic knowledge, knowledge about cognitive tasks, including appropriate
contextual and conditional knowledge, self-knowledge
Figure 2. Bloom’s revised taxonomy (based on Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001, pp. 29–31)

The integration of Content and Cognition is also inseparable from dimensions of language
or Communication. Conceptually and cognitively demanding content is likely to require complex
and advanced use of language, so it would be necessary to provide a “cognitively challenged yet
linguistically supported” (Coyle et al., 2010, p. 43) condition in the CLIL classroom. To clarify thelink between language and Cognition, it is useful to note the distinction between academic language
proficiency and conversational fluency (Cummins & Man, 2007); the former concerns “the ability
to interpret and produce increasingly complex written and oral language” (p. 801), and the latter
concerns “the ability to carry on a conversation in familiar face-to-face situations” (p. 799). Because“each dimension of proficiency follows different developmental paths among both first and second
language students” (Cummins & Man, 2007, p. 799), teachers and curriculum designers have toconsider how the dimensions of language proficiency (i.e., either academic, conversational, or both)are closely linked to lesson content. In courses on developing academic language proficiency, forexample, learners are required to understand linguistically and conceptually demanding texts anduse low-frequency academic vocabulary and complex structures, which are hardly used in everyday
conversation (Cummins & Man, 2007).
Although development of academic language proficiency is one significant objective in CLIL
pedagogy (Dalton-Puffer, 2007), it would also be necessary to offer opportunities to develop
conversational fluency because, in courses teaching academic subject matter (i.e., hard CLIL),
learners have very limited opportunities to practice communicating their ideas about what they arelearning. If the curriculum predominantly is academic oriented and “limits the opportunities forlearners to talk more informally, it risks reducing their opportunities for language practice” (Ball et al.,2015, p. 100). The necessity of conversational fluency could be acknowledged by social-constructivist
pedagogy, in which learners are likely to develop cognitive skills through active participation in theirown learning experiences and close collaboration with experts and peers (cf., Vygotsky’s concept ofzone of proximal development). In a language learning context, Watanabe and Swain (2007) reported
the benefit of collaborative work for L2 learning among different levels of proficiency based on theirobservation that social mediation comes not only from an expert but also from less proficient peers.

51

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 1 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 1）

From the social-constructivist perspective, teachers have to offer scaffolding to maintain an optimal“balance between cognitive challenge for learners and appropriate and decreasing support as learners
progress” (Coyle et al., 2010, p. 29).
To construct a balanced curriculum to develop both academic language proficiency andconversational fluency, it is useful to refer back to van Lier’s scale of language and content (Figure 1).
Learners are able to start from more language-led courses, in which practicing conversational fluency
is also emphasized, to more content-led courses to develop academic language proficiency as they
progress within the curriculum.

Integrating Culture in English Language Curriculum: Toward Transformative Pedagogy
Finally, we turn to the fourth ‘C’—how culture can be included or integrated into the English
curriculum. As a necessary step to cultural integration, we consider what is meant by culture in the
CLIL pedagogy. A narrower definition of culture is often taught in language classrooms as “the fourFs”—“food, fairs, folklore, and statistical facts” (Kramsch, 1991, p. 218). However, culture can be
more broadly regarded as “far more than a mere catalogue of rituals and beliefs” (Rosaldo, 1984,
cited in Hinkel, 1999, p. 1) but rather as “a thread which weaves its way throughout any topic ortheme” (Coyle et al., 2010, p. 54). In the CLIL context, understanding others and experiencing otherculture are an important part of self- or identity-construction because “culture determines the way weinterpret the world and … we use language to express this interpretation” (Coyle et al., 2010, p. 390).
By taking the perspective of otherness, “learners can have experiences which they could not have
had in a monolingual setting … [and] which are fundamental to a deeper understanding of global
citizenship” (Coyle et al., 2010, p. 390).
In relation to self-constructive roles of culture, it would be meaningful to refer to interculturalcompetence that combines “language skills with knowledge, skills and attitudes that help learners
become ‘intercultural citizens’” (Byram & Wagner, 2017, p. 141). Byram and Wagner (2017) further
argue that “intercultural competence makes learners able to engage in intercultural communication
to think and act critically and to negotiate the complexities of today’s world” (p. 141). This
conceptualization of intercultural competence implies the close connections between Content,Communication, and Cognition through Culture—learners will develop intercultural competencein the language classroom through understating other cultures (Content), communicating withothers (Communication), and learning critical thinking skills (Cognition), all of which contribute todeveloping competency to negotiate and solve complex social problems (Culture).
Focusing on intercultural competence in language classrooms can be associated with theobjective of transformative pedagogy, in which learners are encouraged to analyze and understandthe social realities of their own lives and of their communities through collaborative critical inquiry(Cummins, 2004). Cummins (2004) also argues that if the content of teaching is sufficiently
interesting and relevant to learners, then they are likely to invest their identity. This process ofidentity investment is indispensable for maintenance of cognitive and academic engagement andserves as an opportunity to make learners transform themselves and equip them with the ability tounderstand the social realities in critical manners.
As discussed thus far, and taking the perspective of transformative pedagogy, the concept ofintercultural competence involves the integrative roles of Culture within the 4C framework. As
illustrated in Figure 3, we reconceptualize the 4C framework; each C is not positioned side-byside, but Culture is given a superordinate role of integrating the other Cs. In other words, Content,

52

RECONCEPTUALIZING CLIL FROM TRANSFORMATIVE PEDAGOGY PERSPECTIVE

CultureContent

Communication

Cognition

Figure 3. Reconceptualizing 4C framework

Communication, and Cognition are closely interrelated, being synthesized as an integrated whole by
Culture.

Implementing 4C-Based English Language Curriculum:
Case of Debate Course
Based on our understanding of CLIL pedagogy and reconceptualization of the 4C framework, we
designed and implemented a pilot English debate curriculum. In the following sections, we describe
the background of our CLIL curriculum then explain how the debate course is conceptualized andpracticed within this curriculum by referring to some of our data collected from participating students
and the instructor.

Background
Before explaining the debate course in some detail, we give the background about designing
the new English language program including the debate course because there was a strong need ofcurriculum reform that came both from in and outside the university at an institutional level.

Needs From Outside University
With the introduction of the new Course of Study Guidelines by the Ministry of Education,
Culture, Sports and Technology (MEXT), from 2020, English will be shifting from a ‘foreign language
activity’ (gaikokugo katsudou) to an official subject for fifth and sixth grade students. They will bereceiving a total of 70 class hours per year (about two classes per week) as a subject and 35 hours(about once a week) as a ‘foreign language activity’ for third and fourth grades. In total, students will
be receiving 210 class hours during their elementary school years. Previously, students had received
English instructions for only a total of 70 hours during their ‘foreign language activity,’ which meansthat the number of English hours that students are exposed to has nearly tripled.
Due to the drastic changes in early education, there was a strong need of curriculum reform tomeet our prospective students’ needs in higher education. Students will likely be more exposed tocommunicative (productive) skills from early education, requiring cognitively more demanding tasks
at university level. To meet these demands, we decided to reform the first year mandatory English
curriculum by implementing a debate course and reducing the discussion class from two to one

53

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 1 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 1）

semester. The aims with this course are to understand the nature and structures of debate in English,
develop critical thinking skills by analyzing and formulating arguments on issues from multiple
perspectives, and learn how to respond to questions through the development of research skills.

Needs From Inside University
In addition to and along with the change in early education, there has been an increasing demand
to change the quality of English language teaching—for what content and how English should betaught—at higher education. In 2014, Rikkyo University was selected for government funding fromthe Top Global University Project (Type B: Global Traction Type). The fund was meant to financially
support universities to play a leading role in facilitating the global competitiveness of higher educationin Japan. The university was selected for its concept under the title “global liberal arts educationx leadership education x self-transformation.” This involves (a) curriculum reform, (b) student
consciousness reform, and (c) governance reform (Rikkyo, n.d.).
Part of this curriculum reform is to provide students an environment to develop their global
perspectives within and outside Japan. Students are given opportunities to go overseas such as via
summer programs and internship programs, and by 2024, the university expects 100% of students tohave overseas experience (Rikkyo, n.d.). While encouraging students to go overseas, the university
is also promoting internationalization on campuses and has set the goal to increase the number ofinternational students to 2,000 by 2024 (Rikkyo, n.d.).
To better prepare students to be sent overseas and accept more international students on
campus, there is an increasing number of courses offered in English by introducing more EMI
courses. To make the transition smoother from the English language program to their EMI courses
offered by each department, we decided to offer a CLIL program involving mandatory courses forfirst year and elective classes for second to fourth year students. The overall framework of English
curriculum reform largely follows van Lier’s scale of language and content (see Figure 1). The
English curriculum gradually shifts from language-led, general academic skills (i.e., discussion,presentation, reading, and writing skills) to content-led courses as their L2 proficiency progresses(i.e., CLIL courses). In the mandatory courses, English discussion is aimed at developing students’2nd–4th year
Elective courses

English Discussion
English Debate

EMI courses

Reading & Writing

CLIL courses
Humanities

Presentation

Social Science
Natural Sciencee-learning

Soft CLIL

Hard CLIL

Figure 4. Four-year curriculum framework (adapted from Rikkyo HP)

54

Global Citizens

English Placement Test (4 Skills)

1st year
Mandatory courses

RECONCEPTUALIZING CLIL FROM TRANSFORMATIVE PEDAGOGY PERSPECTIVE

conversational fluency as well as academic language proficiency. The CLIL courses for second andthird year students are categorized into mainly three fields: humanities, social science, and naturalscience. Figure 4 shows the vision of students learning during the four years of their degree program.

Theorizing Debate Course From 4C Framework
Although the first-year courses focus more on the language dimension, content is interwoven
within the entire curriculum. Thus, the underlining principle of CLIL pedagogy is also embedded indesigning the pilot debate course. This section explains how the four core Cs (Coyle, 2007; Coyle etal., 2010) are designed and organically integrated into the curriculum. As presented below, the 4Cs
are not mutually exclusive but closely interrelated and complement each other.

Content (Subject Matter)
Regarding content or subject matter in this debate course, a new theme was introduced to theclass every other week. This included academic themes such as education, environment, business,
technology, and gender (Figure 5). These were popular and relevant for university students
worldwide, which we believed would likely to promote debatable issues.
Content

Debate & Discussion Skills

1

Introduction to the course

Review discussion skills

2

Education 1

Introduction of debate skills
Stating propositions 1; Constructing arguments 1

3

Education 2

Refuting and rebutting 1

4

Environment 1

Taking notes while listening 1; Evaluating a debate 1

5

Environment 2
Debate 1

Review

6

Business 1

Stating propositions 2

7

Business 2

Constructing arguments 2

8Technology 1

Refuting and rebutting 2

9Technology 2
Debate 2

Review

10 Gender 1

Evaluating a debate 2

11 Gender 2
Preparing for the final debate

Review

12 Final Debate 1
13 Final Debate 2
14 Wrap up; Reflection
Figure 5. Pilot debate course syllabus

To help build their background knowledge of the theme, every week students were assigned
reading texts for homework. Figure 6 gives an example of reading texts about technology for
Weeks 8–9. The text included statistical data, facts, and examples related to the theme. Based on
the information, students were also assigned to come up with a list of possible propositions to be
used during the debate to be conducted the following week. By allowing students to generate thepropositions on their own, this ensured their involvement by working on the topic that they areinterested in pursuing in more depth.

55

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 1 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 1）

Data•	In 2018, 15% of enterprises used artificial intelligence (AI) and by 2019 it was expected to be 31% ofenterprises.
•	South Korea’s automotive industry has 2,435 industrial robots for every 10,000 employees.
•	By 2021, the AI healthcare market is projected to be at $6.6 billion. For the US healthcare economy, AI
could create $150 billion in annual savings by 2026.
•	3D printing is a technology that was created in 1984 but it has recently become more popular in healthcare.
In 2017, the healthcare 3D printing marketing was $578 million, and it is expected to increase.
• 	In 2018, the National Police Agency reported the number of accidents causing death by elderly drivers inJapan rose to 460 or was up 10% from 2017. The cause of 136 of the accidents was not using the brakeor steering wheel properly.
Facts / Examples•	AI technology is reducing the amount of time for administrative tasks in education, streamlining work inhealthcare and cutting overhead costs in manufacturing.
•	Convenience stores, such as 7-Eleven, are using self-checkout registers to deal with the shortage ofworkers. These registers can check the prices of the goods even without taking them out of the basket.
There are even some chains that are thinking about being completely automated with no human workers.
•	Japan, China, America, South Korea, and Germany are the world leaders in the industrial robot market.
•	3D printing could be used as an alternative for human transplants such as organs and personalized
prosthetics or limbs.
Figure 6. Example of debate reading assignment: Technology (Yamamoto, Arthurson, Beck, Fearn-Wannan,
Garside, Kita, Sturges, & Vaughan, 2020, p. 67)

The instructor’s role was to mainly guide the students through the research phase such as
facilitating them to discover elements of an issue that needed further attention. At each stage ofpreparation, the instructor tried to make students be the decision makers and made them share theirideas with the class to create new understanding of the content.
At the end of each official debate session, students reflected on their own performance by fillingout an online questionnaire in English. None of the responses were modified and adapted. The resultsof the student questionnaire revealed that students not only raised their linguistic competence andconfidence but also their awareness of the theme. One student reported that “the themes generated
my awareness of the current social issues” (Excerpt 1). Another student reported that “the debate
made me think about the topic deeply” (Excerpt 2).

Communication (Language Learning and Using)
Debate was used as a pedagogical tool for “learning to use language and using language to learn”(Coyle et al., 2010, p. 54). English was used to introduce the content of the themes as well as fostering
their communication, research, and critical thinking skills. During the first few weeks of class, theteacher introduced the following points:• The purpose of conducting a debate•	Technical terms (e.g., proposition, affirmative and negative teams, and rebuttal) related todebate• How to generate propositions•	How to give support for reasons using four types of evidence: example, common sense, expert
opinions, and statistics (Lubetsky, LeBeau, & Harrington, 2000)• Steps in formulating rebuttals• Outline on the structure and timeline for each debate (Figure 7)

56

RECONCEPTUALIZING CLIL FROM TRANSFORMATIVE PEDAGOGY PERSPECTIVE

Affirmative Team (AT)

Negative Team (NT)Affirmative Speech (3 min)(Construct your arguments)
Cross Examination (2 min)(Ask questions for understanding)
Negative Speech (3 min)(Construct your arguments)
Cross Examination (2 min)(Ask questions for understanding)Preparation Time for Rebuttal
Negative Rebuttal (2 min)(Point out weaknesses)
Affirmative Rebuttal (2 min)(Point out weaknesses)
Negative Summary (2 min)(Summarize all of the arguments)
Affirmative Summary (2 min)(Summarize all of the arguments)
Figure 7. Sample debate structure

While preparing for the debate, students worked in groups or teams of two, and the teammembers were shuffled each week. This created a comfortable class atmosphere, and a cooperative
working relationship was built between partners. This collaborative learning environment enabled
the students to develop higher-level thinking, oral communication, and increase their understandingof diverse perspectives. This was also shown from the follow-up interview conducted at the end of thesemester (see Excerpts 3, 4, and 5).
Excerpt 3
Other students can support me and give new and effective ideas. My teammates tend to come up
with better rebuttal. That’s very helpful for me.
Excerpt 4
I could share the task and conduct the research more deeply.
Excerpt 5
Team is better we can hear about other people opinions and find out about other perspectives.
Then, I can make a more logical argument.
In terms of improving their communicative performance, after each official debate, selfassessment and peer-assessment for team members were incorporated to evaluate their own and theother team’s performance via participating in group discussion and writing reaction papers.

Cognition (Learning and Thinking Processes)
During the process of preparing and conducting the debate, students developed both higherorder as well as lower-order thinking skills originally categorized by Bloom (1956; Figure 2). The

57

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 1 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 1）

results of the student questionnaire conducted in the pilot debate classes also revealed that whilestudents prepared for the debate, students particularly fostered their higher-order thinking skills(HOTS): analyzing, evaluating, and creating (see Excerpts 6 and 7). For instance, when they searched
for sources to support their arguments, they analyzed and made critical judgements on whether
the sources were appropriate. They analyzed the articles and reviewed them to create their own
arguments and rebuttal. While preparing for a rebuttal, they had to make informed guesses on theiropponents’ arguments.
Excerpt 6
I first made an argument and then I researched for the evidence that supports them. After that,
I predicted what the opponent will say about my arguments at rebuttal. Then, I guessed theopponent’s argument and made a rebuttal about it.
Excerpt 7
1. Firstly, I searched for other people’s opinions on the Internet to come up with possible
arguments.
2. F rom the opinions that I gathered from the Internet, I tried to predict the oppositionarguments and from there, I made my own arguments.
3. After deciding my arguments, I looked for evidence that supported my thesis.
4. Lastly, I connected all the arguments and made sure it flows smoothly.
These findings are in line with other CLIL studies (e.g., Ball et al., 2015; Smith & Paterson, 1998). For
instance, in CLIL courses, students tend to cognitively make more effort as they become more awareof the gap between their cognitive levels and current linguistic levels (Ball et al., 2015). In turn, getting
involved into more cognitively challenging task leads to better language learning (Smith & Paterson,1998).

Culture (Developing Intercultural Understanding and Global Citizenship)Students were encouraged to search for information from within and outside Japan to state
their arguments and rebut their opponent team during the debate. By introducing a wider culturalcontext, the aim was to promote cultural awareness and broaden their perspectives. They had to
critically analyze within a wider global community. This gave them a chance “to become open-minded
and critical by reflecting on their ‘natural’ way of looking at others’ cultures and perhaps their own”
(Byram & Feng, 2004, p. 161).
In the class, students became particularly aware of the cultural differences and similarities ofother Asian countries (i.e., Singapore and China) through interaction with international students inclass. This led to in-depth understanding of cultural difference as well as themselves. The culturalelements that featured and helped students self-identify came mainly from ethnicity, gender, andsocio-economic status. This apparently became obvious, especially in gender-related themes (seeExcerpt 8 from instructor’s teaching diary). They recognized how certain issues are perceived
similarly and/or differently in other cultures.
Excerpt 8
One Japanese female student had a strong opinion against having male workers take childcare
leave. She believes they are not suitable for child raising biologically and expressed how her

58

RECONCEPTUALIZING CLIL FROM TRANSFORMATIVE PEDAGOGY PERSPECTIVE

father never did housework with frustration. Her teammate, a Singaporean of Chinese origin
male student, tried to convince her that it is natural for fathers to carry out housework as well as
child raising in his country. He even suggested by having fathers take the childcare, it reduces
the stress of mothers.
Through examining and sharing the significance of culture, how cultural identities can impact
and shape individual identities was addressed. This also showed that language and culture are
inseparable in the learning process. As stated by Byram and Wagner (2017), students came “to value
language education as an education for developing their identity rather than as the learning of a codethat can only be used in some restricted environments” (p. 147). In other words, through learning
the target language, students are also acquiring the essential knowledge about the world at the sametime.

Discussion
Built on what we found in designing, conducting, and observing the debate class with ourpreliminary analysis of collected data, we now discuss how this debate course within the CLIL
framework can be understood from the perspective of transformative pedagogy. For this aim, it
would be beneficial to use Bernstein’s (1975) framework of visible (explicit) and invisible (implicit)
pedagogy. More specifically, Content and Communication are categorized into visible pedagogy
whereas, Cognition and Culture can be defined as invisible pedagogy. Our argument is that the pilot
debate class was balanced between these two distinctive forms. The differences between visible andinvisible pedagogies lie in how much there is teacher control in a classroom. In visible pedagogies, theteacher mostly controls and manages the structure of the lesson, and the information is transmitted
directly to the students. In the debate course, the course themes were provided by the teacher and therules for conducting the debate were explicitly taught by her. Students received continuous feedback
from their teacher on their performance based on the set rubric so that they would become aware ofwhat was missing to meet the criteria.
On the other hand, invisible pedagogies involve less overt instruction and students takeresponsibility in their own learning; as a result, learning takes place implicitly. In the debate course,
invisible pedagogy was emphasized and for the majority of the classroom time, students worked inpairs, groups, and teams in a collaborative learning environment. The teacher served as a facilitator inclass, arranging the team members, giving suggestions, and facilitating their discussion. As a team,they searched for information, organized their arguments, and prepared for the rebuttal. Throughpreparing for the debate, students were able to develop their critical thinking skills.
The aspects of invisible pedagogy were not clearly stated in the syllabus and course schedule(Figure 5) but played a significant part in students’ learning. The process of conducting a debate
also clearly involves transformative pedagogy (Cummins, 2004) in which students become awareof the social and political realities of their communities and engage in discussion on “how it may betransformed through various forms of social action” (Cummins, 2004, p. 111). In the debate course,
students generated the propositions within the framework of class-related theme. In a policy debate
proposition, debate was framed in a way to encourage affirmative advocacy of a significant change/transformation in a government policy. Students outlined the current issues, indicated the specificadvocacy and explained the reasons for adapting it. An example is a debate on the proposition, “Allmen should take paternity leave.” The affirmative side argued that even though the majority of59

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 1 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 1）

companies have childcare leave systems, in reality, only a small percentage of male workers actually
use the system. They then proposed that the government provide funding for male workers to takeleave. This in return, may increase the number of working mothers and have more fathers being
involved in child raising. Through such a debate process, students were engaged in reflecting on
their ideas, realizing another perspective, and negotiating the complexity of the issue. All theseprocesses—critical, sufficiently interesting, and relevant to students—would contribute to elaborating
their identities.

Conclusion
This paper was aimed at exploring the values and benefits of implementing CLIL in the English
language curriculum at a university from the perspective of transformative pedagogy. We explained
how the CLIL principles, especially the 4C framework, could be exercised in a university program
where students are expected to develop their L2 proficiency by taking more language-led toward more
content-led courses over the four-year period of study. We also presented our pilot debate course as
one case example of a language-led course where students were engaged in learning the underlying
4Cs through a series of debate processes.
As stated in the dual-focused characteristic of its definition, one key to exercising CLIL is theintegration of language and content, and this integration could be effectively achieved at curriculum
level by adopting van Lier’s scale of language and content. Even within language-led courses (i.e.,
mandatory courses for first year students in our curriculum) including debate, the content side needs
to be closely interwoven with language use. Another key to exercising CLIL is to construct individual
courses and the entire curriculum as an integrated whole by having the 4Cs be closely interrelated.
As presented in our debate course, all the 4Cs are closely interrelated and complement eachother. Academic language proficiency, for example, involves both Cognition and Communication
components. As shown in Excerpt 8, elaborating content matter (e.g., paternity leave) requires acertain degree of identity investment and transformation.
From the perspective of transformative pedagogy, it should be emphasized that the componentof Culture is given a prominent status—playing an integrative role of the 4C framework. That is,
students might come to a language learning classroom with the aim of simply gaining practicallanguage skills; however, in our curriculum they are engaged in performing English in appropriate
ways, thinking critically, presenting their ideas in clear and a persuasive manner, and taking theperspectives of otherness. All these processes would contribute to becoming more aware of social
complexities and transforming their identities. As rightly pointed out by Byram and Wagner (2017),
through CLIL, students are likely “to value language education as an education for developing theiridentity rather than as the learning of a code that can only be used in some restricted environments”(p. 147). Implementing CLIL is challenging but rewarding and transformative for both students
and teachers. This attempt provides an opportunity to consider how English language teaching canbe offered effectively—students not only advance in their language skills but also transform theiridentities and develop their multicultural competency needed in this rapidly changing society.

References
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A Taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A
revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. NY: Longman.

60

RECONCEPTUALIZING CLIL FROM TRANSFORMATIVE PEDAGOGY PERSPECTIVE

Ball, P., Kelly, K., & Clegg, J. (2015). Putting CLIL into practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bernstein, B. (1975). Class and pedagogies: Visible and invisible. Educational Studies, 1(1), 23–41.
doi:10.1080/0305569750010105
Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: Handbook 1. Cognitive domain. New
York: Longman.
Brinton, D. M., & Snow, M. A. (2017). The evolving architecture of content-based instruction. In D.
M. Brinton & M. A. Snow (Eds.), The Content-based classroom: New perspectives on integrating
language and content (pp. 2–20). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Byram, M., & Feng, A. (2004). Culture and language learning: Teaching, research and scholarship.
Language Teaching, 37, 149–168. doi:10.1017/S0261444804002289
Byram, M., & Wagner, M. (2017). Making a difference: Language teaching for intercultural andinternational dialogue. Foreign Language Annals, 51, 140–151. doi:10.1111/flan.12319
Cook, V., & Wei, L. (Eds.). (2016). The Cambridge handbook of linguistics multi-competence.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Coyle, D. (2007). Content and Language Integrated Learning: Towards a connected research agenda
for CLIL pedagogies. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(5),543–562. doi:10.2167/beb459.0
Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Cummins, J. (2004). Using information technology to create a zone of proximal development for
academic language learning: A critical perspective on trends and possibilities. In C. Davidson(Ed.), Information technology and innovation in language education (pp. 105–126). Hong Kong:
Hong Kong University Press.
Cummins, J., & Man, E. Y.-F. (2007). Academic language: What is it and how do we acquire it? In J.
Cummins & C. Davidson (Eds.), International handbook of English language teaching (Vol. 2, pp.
797–810). New York: Springer.
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2007). Academic language functions in a CLIL environment. In D. Marsh & D. Wolff(Eds.), Diverse contexts: Converging goals (pp. 201–210). Frankfurt, Germany: Peter Lang.
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2017). Same but different: Content and Language Integrated Learning and ContentBased Instruction. In D. M. Brinton & M. A. Snow (Eds.), The Content-based classroom: Newperspectives on integrating language and content (pp. 151–164). Ann Arbor: University ofMichigan Press.
de Graaff, R. (2016). Forward: Integrating content and language in education: Best of both worlds?
In T. Nikula, E. Dafouz, P. Moore, & U. Smit (Eds.), Conceptualising integration in CLIL andmultilingual education (pp. xiii–xvi). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Georgiou, S. I. (2012). Reviewing the puzzle of CLIL. ELT Journal, 66(4), 495–504. doi:10.1093/elt/
ccs047
Hinkel, E. (1999). Introduction: Culture in research and second language pedagogy. In E. Hinkel(Ed.), Culture in second language teaching and learning (pp. 1–8). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Kramsch, C. (1991). Content and culture in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis. London: Longman.
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W.
Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). San Diego:
Academic Press.

61

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 1 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 1）

Long, M. H., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research, and practice. In C. Doughty & J.
Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 15–41). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Lubetsky, M., LeBeau, C., & Harrington, D. (2000). Discover debate: Basic skills for supporting andrefuting opinions. Oregon: Language Solutions.
Ortega, L. (2015). Researching CLIL and TBLT interfaces. System, 54, 103–109. doi:10.1016/j.system.
2015.09.002
Rikkyo University. (n.d.). Official website. Retrieved February 3, 2020, from https://english.rikkyo.
ac.jp/global24/program/
Rosaldo, M. (1984). Toward an anthropology if self and feeling. In R. Shweder & R. LeVine (Eds.),
Culture theory (pp. 137–157). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Smith, J., & Paterson, F. (1998). Positively bilingual: Classroom strategies to promote the achievement ofbilingual learners. Nottingham: Nottingham Education Authority.
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer(Eds.), Principles and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H. G. Widdowson (pp.
125–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Watanabe, Y., & Swain, M. (2007). Effects of proficiency differences and patterns of pair interaction
on second language learning: collaborative dialogue between adult ESL learners. Language
Teaching Research, 11(2), 121–142. doi:10.1177/136216880607074599
Yamamoto, Y., Arthurson, D., Beck, D., Fearn-Wannan, J., Garside, P., Kita, S., Sturges, J. G., &Vaughan, R. (2020). Up for debate. Tokyo: DTP Publishing.

62