外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）【Research Article】

Action-Oriented Approach to Curriculum Development in CLIL
Courses: A theoretical and methodological framework
Yuka Yamamoto & Ryo Nitta
Abstract
In a contemporary society characterized by complexity, it is vital to develop students’ competences with action. Using
the action-oriented approach as the underlining basis, we designed an English Content and Language Integrated
Learning (CLIL) curriculum at Rikkyo University to develop students’ competences throughout their four-year periodof study. The paper introduces the ongoing development process of the courses in this curriculum from theoreticaland methodological perspectives using an action-oriented approach. From the theoretical perspective, students’competences and actions need to be closely connected and mediated by action-oriented tasks. From the methodologicalperspective, we adopted the backward design approach. In designing the overall curriculum, we followed the threestages proposed by Wiggins and McTighes (2005)—identifying the desired results, determining acceptable evidenceof learning, and planning learning experiences and instruction. We believe our curriculum development process will
be valuable information for language-teaching professionals aiming to adopt the backward design approach for theircurriculum development and those who wish to design their syllabuses in accordance with the Common European
Framework of Reference for Languages standards.
Keywords:Competence-based education, CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning), Action-oriented approach,
Backward design, CEFR (Common European Framework of Reference for Languages)

Introduction
This paper presents our ongoing development process of the courses in the Content andLanguage Integrated Learning (CLIL) curriculum at Rikkyo university from both theoretical—on
what theoretical grounds and concepts the curriculum is designed—and methodological—how thecurriculum has been developed within our context—perspectives. As indicated by Richards (2017),
there are two parallel sources of influence on curriculum change. The first comes from within thefield of language teaching where “Scholars, pedagogues, and applied linguists have generated a bodyof assumptions and principles that serve as one source for reviewing approaches to language
curriculum design and implementation” (p. 4). Such internal sources of influence are motivated by afocus on ‘means’, aiming to improve teaching-practice quality. The other sources of influence are
more pragmatic, reflecting the demand from governments, educational and institutional authorities,
and students. These external sources of influence are concerned with ‘ends’, seeking to achieve
better outcomes. Our challenge as language-teaching professionals is to satisfy both necessities—
making an English language curriculum informed by cutting-edge research and theory and, at thesame time, reasonably responding to the pragmatic demands from students and various stakeholders.
For this challenge, we adopt an action-oriented approach to developing our English language
curriculum. The term was first introduced in the Common European Framework of Reference for
Languages (CEFR). It views “users and learners of a language primarily as ‘social agents,’ i.e.,
members of society who have tasks (not exclusively language-related) to accomplish in a given set ofcircumstances, in a specific environment and within a particular field of action” (Council of Europe,
122

ACTION-ORIENTED APPROACH TO CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT IN CLIL COURSES: A THEORETICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK

2001, p. 9). What is indicated in adopting this approach for curriculum development is planning backfrom real-world action involving language. It is of particular significance for language educators toconsider, in the initial stage of curriculum development, what our students as social agents need todevelop through learning English. This development direction is called ‘backward design,’ startingwith a description of learning outcomes as the basis for curriculum planning; decisions on
methodology and syllabus are developed from the outcomes (Wiggins & McTighe, 2006; Richards,
2013).
The action-oriented approach also emphasizes the significance of active participation in aclassroom as a learning community, suggesting that language learning cannot be achieved only
through knowledge construction but necessarily through engaging in situated experience. In thisview to language learning, the action is always situated, taking place in a context within which
activities take place—students are not containers to be filled with particular knowledge and skills but
agents willingly participating in certain activities (Sfad, 1998).
We first look at the external sources of influence on curriculum development by reviewing broad
educational perspectives. We then consider how education’s external demands can be organicallylinked to the internally motivated curriculum focusing on participation by taking the action-oriented
approach. On the basis of the theoretical perspectives, we present methodological perspectives—
how we have developed our English language curriculum in our context and how the theoretical andpedagogical principles are applied in our CLIL courses.

Theoretical Rationale
Toward Competence-Based Education
In search of the desired learning outcomes reflecting external sources of influence, what thesociety hopes students to ultimately attain, we first looked at broad educational perspectives tounderstand objectives of English language teaching “in light of larger movements within the domainof education” (Crookes, 2016, p. 64).
According to Cummins (2004), there are three distinct pedagogical perspectives: traditional,social constructivist, and transformative. Traditional pedagogy is primarily concerned with thetransmission of knowledge and skills, and social constructivist pedagogy aims to develop higherorder thinking skills through being engaged in tasks and projects. Social constructivist pedagogy has
been extended to a transformative pedagogy involving common characteristics but with different
orientations. That is, the first two perspectives are primarily instructional-oriented, but transformative
pedagogy focuses on social and identity-investment dimensions, enabling students to analyze andunderstand the social realities of their lives and their communities through collaborative criticalinquiry (Cummins, 2004).
Transformative pedagogy has been applied in various forms worldwide, most notably “KeyCompetencies,” involving three categories of ‘using tools interactively,’ ‘interacting in heterogeneousgroups’, and ‘acting autonomously’ (OECD, 2005). What is particularly significant in this pedagogy is
its focus on developing competences as a vital capacity in today’s globalized society confronted withvolatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity. The world is entering a state of ‘super complexity’(Barnett, 2000), where various systems of the environment and our society grow increasingly
complex through continuous change. As a result, there is a move in education from a paradigm oflinearity and simplification of focus on knowledge to a paradigm of complexity focusing on123

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

competence (Piccard & North, 2019). In this reality, the critical question is no longer what skills or
knowledge should be taught but an attempt to bring about changes in students’ competences(Pikkarainen, 2014).
Developing competence is key to understanding contemporary education, but how competence
is defined is not so simple. In a general sense, competence is defined as the ability to do something
well (e.g., Cambridge Dictionary), but it has a more specific meaning from an educational objective.
As stated by OECD (2005), “A competency is more than just knowledge and skills. It involves theability to meet complex demands, by drawing on and mobilising psychosocial resources (including
skills and attitudes) in a particular context” (p. 4). In a similar vein, the CEFR defines competence as“the sum of knowledge, skills, and characteristics that allow a person to perform actions” (Council ofEurope, 2001, p. 9). Summarizing these definitions, competence is conceived as a multidimensionaland holistic concept consisting of knowledge, skills and attitudes (Piccard & North, 2019), and acapacity to apply these various resources to perform a specific action in an integrative manner.

Action-Oriented Approach
As reflected in this conceptualization, competence is inseparable from the action, being
inextricably linked to the action-oriented approach. Because competence is a wholly invisible internal
condition of the visible action (Piccard & North, 2019), the relationship between competence andaction is interdependent—actions are performed by using competences, while competences develop
as a consequence of dynamic interaction between “the object of study (language), the subject
learning it (language user), the action (language use) and the reflection (metacognitive/metalinguisticphase)” (Bourguignon, 2006, cited in Piccard & North, 2019, p. 52).
Understanding the significance of developing students’ competences through action, how canthis be achieved in the English language curriculum? Growing demand for competence-based
education makes us aware of the perspective of curriculum-as-product; “that is, the curriculum as a
document that contains a framework for teaching, materials development, and assessment and thatserves to direct and manage the enterprise of language teaching” (Richards, 2017, p. 13). The actionoriented approach encourages us to regard perspective of curriculum-as-process, reflecting theclassroom as a learning community; “Learning is not viewed as the mastery of pre-determined
content but as constructing new knowledge through participating in specific learning and social
contexts and through engaging in particular types of activities and processes” (Richards, 2017, p. 17).
Through engaging in communicative and cognitively demanding activities, they are likely to develop
their competences—a capacity to think in critical and reflective manners.
From the perspective of curriculum-as-process, the use of tasks, more specifically, actionoriented tasks, is prioritized to organize individual lessons or the syllabus of the entire curriculum. In
the CEFR, “[a] task is defined as any purposeful action considered by an individual as necessary toachieve a given result in the context of a problem to be solved, an obligation to fulfill or an objective
to be achieved” (Council of Europe, 2001, p. 10). A task offers opportunities to be engaged in“concrete experiences” (Piccard & North, 2019 p. 54) —making learners “carry out a set of
purposeful actions in a particular domain with a clearly-defined goal and a specific outcome” (Councilof Europe, 2001, p. 157).
Referring back to the definition of the action-oriented approach in the CEFR, task functions as
central and mediating roles—a competence is likely to develop by engaging in and acting on a task.
Through completing such tasks, students can develop their competences further in interactive and124

ACTION-ORIENTED APPROACH TO CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT IN CLIL COURSES: A THEORETICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK

co-adaptive manners—they use their competences to achieve a required outcome in the actionoriented task by “tak[ing] into account the cognitive, emotional and volitional resources and the fullrange of abilities specific to and applied by the individual as a social agent.” (Council of Europe, 2001,
p. 9). In other words, student engagement and collaborative participation in tasks elicit certain
actions, which then require the functioning of relevant competences. By repeatedly performing atask, students are likely to develop their competences further in tandem with their development oflanguage proficiency.

Designing the Overall Framework
On the basis of the internal and external sources of influence, we have developed a universitywide English curriculum at Rikkyo University, within which students in various majors (e.g.,literature, economics, law, science) are required to study. Approaches of curriculum development
can be broadly categorized as forward design (moving from content to methodology to assessment),
central design (focused on classroom processes) and backward design (starting from outcomes andworking back to content) (Richards, 2013).
As we started by considering the outcomes or competences, we adopted backward design as aframework for the entire process, implementing content and tasks derived from the expected
outcomes. In this way, we can better clarify our courses’ goals and objectives, set appropriate
assessments, and construct meaningful, coherent lessons geared toward specific outcomes. It will
also lead to better student performance as they know what the expected goals are. As Richards(2013) stated, in the backward design, “the planning process begins with a clear understanding of theends in mind” (p. 22), so each activity or task is designed to lead to the end product.
Following Wiggins and McTighe’s framework (2005), we adopted three stages in designing ourcurriculum: 1) identifying desired results (i.e., identifying the needs, formulating the goals andobjectives), 2) determining acceptable evidence of learning (i.e., determining what and how toevaluate), and 3) planning learning experiences and instruction (i.e., defining the teaching approachand organizing the lesson plan). In the following sections, we explain how we conducted our
curriculum development in accordance with these three stages.

Stage 1: Identifying Desired Results
Understanding the socio-educational context. There was a strong need for curriculum
reform both in and outside the university to actualize competence-based education in ‘our’ local
context. In 2020, English became an official subject for fifth and sixth-grade students to introduce the
new Course of Study Guidelines by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, and Technology(MEXT). Due to the changes in early education, students are likely to spend more time oncommunicative skills in classrooms, which means that cognitively demanding and communicative
tasks are required at the university level (Nitta & Yamamoto, 2020). To provide continuity with theformer English language curriculum taught in primary and secondary education, we decided tomake a drastic curriculum reform at the university.
In line with this decision, Rikkyo University was selected for government funding from the Top
Global University Project (Type B: Global Traction Type) in 2014. Part of this curriculum reform
provides students an environment to develop their global perspectives within and outside Japan via
attending short study-abroad programs and internship programs (Rikkyo, n.d.). Along with sending125

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

students overseas and accepting more international students, each department is developing orplanning to create English Mediated Instruction (EMI) courses. Because English plays a crucial rolein the entire education at Rikkyo, there is a need for the English language curriculum to be moreclosely integrated with education across the university. With this necessity, one of our pedagogicalgoals is to prepare students to take their EMI courses offered by each department.
CLIL as a Pedagogical Framework. To bridge the gap between their first-year English
mandatory courses and their EMI courses offered by each department, we decided to provide CLIL
courses for second to fourth-year students as electives within our English Language Program. Figure
1 shows the vision of the overall English framework.

1st year English mandatory courses

2nd-4thyear Elective classes

English Debate

EMI courses
Global citizens

English Placement Test(4 Skills)

English Discussion

Reading&Writing

Presentation

CLIL courses

e-learning
Figure 1. Four-year curriculum framework (Adapted from Rikkyo Website)

CLIL is adopted as a pedagogical framework for our courses because it can usefully function asa bridge from the English language courses to the EMI courses. The approach can also be linked tothe competence-based teaching framework. We discussed in detail elsewhere (Nitta & Yamamoto,2020) in what ways CLIL principles can be applied to our courses in the curriculum; thus, we only
touch upon what is particularly relevant to the present discussion in this paper.
CLIL, defined as a dual-focused educational approach for the learning and teaching of bothcontent and language, involves four components: Content (subject matter), Communication(language learning and using), Cognition (learning and thinking processes), and Culture/Community(developing intercultural understanding and global citizenship; Coyle, Hood, & Marsh, 2010). Firstand foremost, CLIL is content-driven, so the linguistic needs “will be generated from the specificneeds of the particular subjects taught” (Georgiou, 2012, p. 499).
Second, CLIL has an explicit focus on students’ cognitive development by using Bloom’s (1956)
taxonomy (revised by Anderson and Krathwohl, 2001). This model, consisting of six cognitive (i.e.,remember, understanding, apply, analyze, evaluate, and create) and four knowledge (i.e., factual,
conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive knowledge) dimensions, helps teachers consider which
cognitive processes and knowledge to focus on in their teaching.
Finally, cultural dimensions are emphasized in CLIL—not only restricted to “the four Fs” (food,fairs, folklore, and statistical facts) (Kramsch, 1991, p. 218) but also involving identity construction

126

ACTION-ORIENTED APPROACH TO CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT IN CLIL COURSES: A THEORETICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK

because “culture determines the way we interpret the world and … we use language to express thisinterpretation” (Coyle et al., 2020, p. 390). Each of the four components is closely associated withcompetence-based education, in that students are expected to develop communicative(Communication), general and metacognitive (Cognition), and intercultural (Culture) competences
through CLIL courses.
Concerning our pedagogical goal—bridging to the EMI courses, it is helpful to refer to the ‘Scaleof Language and Content’ proposed by van Lier in which learners can develop their second language
in a stepwise manner over years of university study in accordance with the progress of their English
proficiency (Figure 2). With this scale, students’ opportunities to receive academic content matterare “systematically ‘phased in’ over time, with the number of hours of L2 [second language] content
instruction increasing with grade level” (Brinton & Snow, 2017, p. 11). The CLIL courses are
positioned between the mandatory courses and EMI courses. Following the steps from morelanguage-led (Point A) to more content-led (Point B) courses, or the mandatory through CLIL to the
EMI courses, content and language aspects are increasingly integrated as a whole within individual
students.
Point A

Point BLANGUAGE

Mandatory
Courses

CONTENT

CLIL Courses

EMI Courses

Figure 2. B
 luprint of Rikkyo curriculum based on van Lier’s Scale of Language and Content(Brinton & Snow, 2017, p. 8)

Identifying Needs from Faculty. Further specifying the desired learning outcomes, orcompetences, through the English language curriculum, we conducted interviews with faculty
professors from all ten academic departments and one degree program as one of the key stakeholders.
The primary purpose was to identify what outcomes (i.e., what competences) are expected throughthe English language curriculum and explore collaboration methods. The interviews revealed a wide
range of opinions and requests from each department, but the main findings can be summarized in
the following four respects:
1) Students’ academic language proficiency needs to be enhanced for taking the EMI courses.
However, highly specialized content areas are not required; instead, more general content courses(such as Literature, Psychology, Business) are preferred;2) Students are expected not only to learn English but also to broaden their perspectives throughlearning global issues (e.g., international relations, environmental issues, Sustainable Development
Goals (SDGs)) and liberal arts content;3) There are varying levels of students’ English proficiency—not only between departments (e.g.,
English-related majors vs. other majors) but also within each department; and127

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）4) There are varying purposes of students’ learning English—such as to achieve high English
proficiency in all communication modes, focusing on developing English communication skills
and preparing for study abroad or job hunting.
The first finding confirmed the necessity to develop students’ academic language proficiency
and skills to prepare for more advanced EMI courses. For our curriculum development, however, it
was necessary to recognize to what extent content areas need to be specialized. With this respect,
there was no requirement from any departments for highly specialized CLIL courses closely linked
to their EMI programs. Instead, many interviewees suggested that courses involving less specialized
and more fundamental ideas and topics in academic fields were more beneficial, considering that the
English curriculum is open to any major.
The second finding concerns our primary aim of the interviews—identifying expectedcompetences through our curriculum. To broaden students’ perspectives, various key terms werereported in the interviews such as “diversity,” ‘tolerance to other cultures,’ ‘identity construction,’and ‘plurilungualism.’ These terms are associated with our teaching philosophy based ontransformative pedagogy, CLIL (in particular, Culture/Community of the 4Cs), and the CEFR. Thesealso seem to suggest many faculty professors regard English (or more generally foreign language)
education as opportunities to develop general and communicative competences. Also, many
interviewees emphasized the significance of developing a capacity to collaborate with others withdiverse backgrounds in various contexts. Findings 1 and 2 were used in deciding what content areas
should be covered in the CLIL courses.
Findings 3 and 4 suggest the necessity to offer courses for various types of students in terms of
their proficiency levels and interests and those preparing for EMI courses. In response to varying
students’ English proficiencies, we decided to offer ‘developmental’ CLIL courses in which students
improve their English in a stepwise manner. Regarding varying students’ purposes of learning
English, we decided to include areas of skill-focused and career-oriented courses and academic
studies.
Creating a Framework of CLIL Courses. On the basis of the interview results andcommunicating with other professors from the English Language Program, the CLIL courses werecategorized into three broad areas: Global Communication, Global Studies, and Global Career(Figure 3).
Global Communication was designed to further develop the academic language skills acquiredin their mandatory first-year courses using content areas such as ‘Advanced Presentation,’ ‘Advanced
Writing,’ and ‘Advanced Discussion and Debate.’ Other skill-based courses include ‘Self-directed andReflective Language Learning’ and ‘Multimodal Communication in English.’ We also decided to offerthe ‘Pleasure Reading’ class to further enhance their reading skills and ‘Current News throughEnglish Media’ class to make them aware of the world’s current issues. Another major decision was
to add a study abroad preparation program, including ‘Intercultural Studies.’ It also includes exampreparation courses, ‘TOEFL,’ ‘IELTS,’ and ‘Exam Speaking Preparation.’ The Global Communication
courses are regarded as a step in preparing to take more advanced courses in the following Global
Studies.
To further enhance students’ general and communicative competences, Global Studies was
designed so that there would be a gradual shift from language-driven to a more content-driven CLIL
curriculum. It is divided into two levels: ‘Introduction to Global Studies’ (i.e., soft CLIL programs)and ‘CLIL Seminars’ (i.e., hard CLIL programs). While the former outlines three broad main areasfrom Humanities, Social Science, and Natural Science, the latter focuses on a specific academic field

128

ACTION-ORIENTED APPROACH TO CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT IN CLIL COURSES: A THEORETICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK

Figure 3. Framework for elective courses

or content areas such as ‘SDGs,’ ‘Globalization and Business,’ ‘Tourism,’ ‘Japanology,’ ‘International
Relations and Politics,’ ‘Advertising and the Media,’ ‘Ecology,’ and ‘Language Learning.’ We tried tocreate a wide range of loose titles related to their learning in EMI courses in their academic
departments to make it appealing to students from all departments instead of a particular department.
Finally, Global Career was designed for students preparing for job hunting and planning to use
English in a business context. This includes ‘Business Speaking,’ ‘Business Listening and Reading,’and ‘Career Designing.’ We decided to keep the test-taking preparation programs due to students’practical needs to prepare for the Test of English for International Communication (TOEIC) in‘Business Listening and Reading.’
Figure 4 illustrates the revised blueprint of our curriculum based on the Scale of Language andContent. It involves sub-categories within the CLIL courses. Students are expected to develop their
linguistic and non-linguistic competences in stepwise manners by taking Global Communication
courses through ‘Introduction to Global Studies’ and ‘CLIL Seminars’ in Global Studies to EMI

Point A

Point BLANGUAGECONTENT

Global Studies
GlobalMandatory
Courses

Communication‘Intro to
G/SStudies’‘CLIL
Seminars’

EMI Courses

Global Career
Figure 4. R evised blueprint of Rikkyo curriculum based on van Lier’s Scale of Language
and Content (Brinton & Snow, 2017, p. 8)

129

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

courses. Along with these courses, students can take Global Career courses whenever they find it
necessary to prepare for their future job.

Stage 2: Determining Acceptable Evidence of Learning
To construct a competence-based curriculum, we adopted the updated version of CEFR (Councilof Europe, 2018). The CEFR helps students understand each course’s goals and objectives clearly sothat the “descriptions of the outcomes or targets students should be able to reach in different
domains of curriculum content, including language learning, and are generally specified in very
general terms” (Richards, 2013, p. 25). The CEFR perfectly matches our underlying belief that ourstudents are seen as social agents who can “mobilise their competences, including bothcommunicative language competences [i.e., linguistic, sociolinguistic, and pragmatic competence]and more general competences [i.e., declarative knowledge and sociocultural and interculturalcompetences; skills and know-how; existential competence, demonstrating openness; learning tolearn], and adopt strategies” (North, Angelova, Jarosz, & Rossner, 2018, p. 31).
The use of the CEFR is also beneficial for constructive alignment in which teaching methods andassessment tasks are closely aligned to the learning activities assumed in the intended outcomes. In
a constructively aligned curriculum, teachers set up a learning environment that supports theactivities appropriate to achieving the desired outcomes, which students construct meaning throughrelevant activities (Biggs, 2014). The CEFR could be usefully implemented as “a source of guidanceand benchmarks for language teaching, language learning, and language assessment” (North et al.,2018, p. 67).
To make the whole curriculum coherent and integrated, we set the target CEFR level in eachcourse. In so doing, all persons involved—students, instructors, and faculty staff—refer to commonly
defined levels of proficiency, which facilitate the transfer from one class to another (North et al.,2018, p. 6) and from CLIL courses to EMI courses in the university’s entire program. The use of the
CEFR is advantageous as a ‘common pedagogic metalanguage’ to help solve teachers’ isolation indifferent courses and different departments.
To explain how we create a constructively aligned syllabus, let us take ‘Introduction to Global
Studies A (Humanities)’ as an example. The target level of this course is geared toward CEFR lower
B2 level. This course was designed as a mediated course bridging from more language-led (i.e.,
Mandatory and Global Communication) courses to more content-led (CLIL Seminars and EMI)
courses (Figure 4).
The course aims to develop academic language proficiency through learning academic content
in English. It also aims for students to acquire essential language skills to comprehend academic
lectures. More specifically, the objectives of the course are for students to 1) understand a structured
lecture and take notes on major points; 2) understand and use most of the target specialist vocabulary
and academic vocabulary necessary to understand each lecture; 3) present their ideas, posequestions, further develop other people’s views and opinions in discussions and presentations; 4)compare and contrast various sources, classify information into different categories, and create
timelines/tables; 5) apply knowledge of the target academic field and make connections to their own
and other cultures in discussions and presentations; 6) show cooperative teamwork in discussion andpresentation.
Using the CEFR descriptors as a guide, the assessment’s shared framework, a rubric, wascreated for assessing the learners’ presentation skills (Figure 5). Rubrics are used as an assessment

130

ACTION-ORIENTED APPROACH TO CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT IN CLIL COURSES: A THEORETICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK

tool to evaluate student’s learning performance and explains whether their performance matches thedescription in the rubric. Simultaneously, the criteria indicate students’ intended learning outcomesby the end of the course. Knowing their intended outcomes make it easier for students to set clear
goals and objectives and support student self-evaluation. Graves (2008) reported that “[f]orassessment to be integrated into classroom practice, it needs to be part of the learning experience inways that enable learners to see their progress and achievement” (p. 174).
The framework of the 4Cs (Content, Communication, Cognition, and Culture/Community) isreflected within the rubric for each criterion. To assess ‘content,’ students need to show they havelearned a particular topic within the target academic field. ‘Communication’ demonstrates students’communicative competence via the means of presentation. ‘Critical thinking’ shows their higherorder critical thinking skills (i.e., general and metacognitive competence) to analyze and evaluate themain issues presented. ‘Connections’ states their intercultural competence to connect with their own
experience or situations in their home country and other countries. ‘ Teamwork’ work shows
cooperative teamwork during poster presentations.
None 0

Poor 1

Fair 2

Good 3

Superior 4

Content

Showed noShowedSomewhat
understanding of minimum
showed they
the major points understanding of have learnedin the target
the major points and understoodacademic field.
in the target
the major points
academic field.
in the target
academic field.

Mostly showed
they havelearned andunderstood the
major points inthe target
academic field.

Showed they
have learned
and understood
the major points
in the target
academic field.

Communication

No
Minimum
Somewhatdemonstration of demonstration of demonstrated
their ideas using their ideas using their ideas using
effective
effective
effective
vocabulary and vocabulary and vocabulary andpresentation
presentation
presentation
techniques.
techniques.
techniques.

Demonstrated
their ideas
clearly in mostparts using
effective
vocabulary andpresentation
techniques.

Fully
demonstrated
their ideas
clearly using
effective
vocabulary andpresentation
techniques.

Critical thinking(analyzed andevaluated the main
issues)Didn’tDemonstrated
Somewhat
Demonstrated
demonstrate any minimum critical demonstrated
critical thinking
critical thinking. thinking.
critical thinking. in most parts.

Demonstrated
outstanding
critical thinking.

Connections
Didn’tRarely(associated issues or demonstrate any demonstrated
situations inconnections.
connections.
students’ homecountry and/or
other country)

Demonstrated
someconnections.

Demonstrated
connections inmost issues.

Demonstrated
connections to
all issues.

Teamwork

Demonstrated
teamwork insome part of thepresentation.

Demonstrated
teamwork inmost part of thepresentation.

Showedcooperative
teamworkthroughout thepresentation.

Showed no
teamwork.

Showedminimum
teamwork.

Figure 5. Example of group-presentation rubric131

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

Stage 3: Planning Learning Experiences and Instruction
As presented thus far, we designed our curriculum based on the action-oriented approach todeveloping autonomous, interculturally competent agents by promoting their linguistic and cultural
diversity. In the action-oriented philosophy, “learning takes place in a context and evolves throughthe participants’ interaction and participation in that context” (Richards, 2013, p. 19). It is underlinedby the belief that learning is a non-linear process and emerges by participating in meaningfulactivities that are part of the classroom’s dynamic system (van Lier, 2007).
Each lesson was designed to accomplish tasks while learning a specific field’s content. Pair andgroup work are frequently used to negotiate and complete their tasks to develop general competences.
In action-oriented tasks, students are no longer passive recipients but actors and agents, “since theytake ownership of what needs to be done to reach the goal and what they have at their disposal tobuild on” (Piccard & North, 2019, p. 139). In the example course, students will learn the note-taking
strategies to record a lecture’s major points and use the content to engage in group discussions using
critical thinking skills to understand and analyze each lecture’s content. After each content
introduction, students will deliver presentations related to the topic covered in class.
As suggested by the course schedule (Figure 6) as well as the rubric (Figure 5), the course’ssyllabus is content-based, task-based, process-oriented, and skills-based. The syllabus is primarily
content-based because it is designed on the basis of Humanities-related content—Psychology,
Intercultural Communication, Sociology, and Linguistics. The syllabus can be regarded as task-based
because action-oriented tasks are designed in individual lessons and the entire syllabus. At the sametime, it can be regarded as process-oriented because it is based on the principle that “classroom
activities are not the means that result in the learning of language; rather, language is the means foraccomplishing classroom activities” (Graves, 2008, p. 160). In each class, students pool their language

Content

Academic skills

1

Introuduction to the course

2

Trips to become academically successful

Effective vocabulary learning strategies: Introducing
New Academic Word List

3

Psycology: The stages and symptoms of culture shock

How to take notes effectively 1: Finding major points
and outlining

4

Psychology: The secrets and becoming mentallystrongWhat is critical thinking?

5

Intercultural communication: How miscommunication
What makes a good presentation?
happens

6

1st group project7

Sociology: Why gender equality is good for everone

How to take notes effectively 2: Using symbols

8Linguistics: Do animals have language?

How to take notes effectively 3: Using abbreviations

9

Linguistics: The secrets of learning a new language

How to take notes effectively 4: Summarizing

10Linguistics:
learining

Explaining and creating visuals

Factors

affectingsecondlanguage

11 2nd group project
12 Preparing for the final project

Creating PPT slides

13 Final individual project
14

Wrap-up

Figure 6. Sample course schedule for Introduction to Global Studies A (Humanities)132

ACTION-ORIENTED APPROACH TO CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT IN CLIL COURSES: A THEORETICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK

ability to engage in meaningful interactive group tasks such as creating and presenting a poster
presentation. Finally, the syllabus involves skills-based elements because each course introduces
academic skills such as note-taking and presentation skills to deepen their understanding of classcontent. In these multiple methods, “language becomes the means not only for carrying out tasks orusing skills but for learning new content” (Graves, 2008, p. 161).

Conclusion
We presented the ongoing development process of our CLIL curriculum at Rikkyo University
from theoretical and methodological perspectives. In a contemporary society characterized bycomplexity, it is vital to develop students’ competences with action. By taking the action-oriented
approach, we designed the new English curriculum at the university where students in various
majors develop their competences throughout their study period; students are viewed as social
agents, and situated actions are prioritized in a classroom. From the methodological perspective, we
adopted the backward design approach—starting with a description of learning outcomes, followed
by decisions on methodology and syllabus development.
In designing the overall curriculum, we followed the three stages proposed by Wiggins and
McTighes (2005)—identifying the desired results, determining acceptable evidence of learning, andplanning learning experiences and instruction. On the basis of the results obtained from interviews
with faculty professors, we constructed the CLIL framework that includes Global Communication,
Global Studies, and Global Career.
To set each course’s goals and objectives and make teaching and assessment constructivelyaligned, we adopted the updated version of CEFR (Council of Europe, 2018). Using the CEFR
descriptors as a guide, the rubric was created for assessing students’ activities in the example course.
Each lesson was designed to accomplish tasks while learning a specific field’s content to engage
students in language-using experiences as social agents. Pair and group work are used to negotiate
and complete their tasks.
Throughout this paper, we described our curriculum development process in depth, which, we
believe, will be valuable information for language-teaching professionals aiming to adopt the
backward design approach for their curriculum development and also those who wish to design theirsyllabuses by using the CEFR standards. It should be emphasized, however, that we are still halfway
through the entire curriculum development process; pilot courses, including ‘Introduction to Global
Studies,’ will soon be conducted as a significant step for starting the proposed new curriculum.
We will revise the curriculum by using feedback obtained from the pilot teaching. As succinctly
argued by North et al. (2018), “a curriculum or syllabuses, as a document, does not have a life of its
own. Unless and until it is enacted in teaching and learning experiences, there is no curriculum” (p.
8).” Therefore, the curriculum will be shaped and developed through the co-adaptive and evolving
relationship between the instructor, learners, and subject matter (Graves, 2008). In other words,
designing, planning, enacting, and evaluating should all interact and contribute to curriculum
development.

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

133

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

Barnett, R. (2000). Supercomplexity and the curriculum. Studies in Higher Education, 25: pp. 255-265.
Biggs, J. (2014). Constructive alignment in university teaching. HERDSA Review of Higher Education,
1: 5-22.
Bloom, B. S. (ed). (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, Handbook 1: Cognitive domain. New
York: Longman.
Bourguignon, C. (2006). De l’approche communicative a l’ << approche communicationnelle >>: une
rupture epistemologique en didactique des langues-cultures [From the communicative
approach to the “communicational approach”: an epistemological break in the teaching of
languages and cultures]. Synergies Europe 1, 58-73.
Breen, M. P., & Candlin, C. N. (2001). The essentials of a communicative curriculum in language
teaching. In Hall, D. R., & Hewings, A. (eds). Innovation in English language teaching: A
reading. London: Routledge.
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.
Brown, J.D. (2011). Foreign and second language needs analysis. In Long, M. H. & Doughty, C. J.
(eds.), (pp. 269-293). The Handbook of Language Teaching. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.
Council of Europe (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learningteaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Council of Europe (2018). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learningteaching, assessment. Companion volume with New Descriptors. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Crookes, G. (2016). Educational perspectives on ELT: Society and the individual; traditional,
progressive and transformative. In G. Hall (ed.), The Routledge Handbook of English Language
Teaching (pp. 64-76). London: Routledge.
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.
Georgiou, S. I. (2012). Reviewing the puzzle of CLIL. ELT Journal, 66/4, 495-504.
Graves, K. (2008). The language curriculum: A social contextual perspective. Language Teaching, 41(2): 147-181.
Hutchinson, T., & Waters, A. (1986). English for specific purposes: A learning-centered approach.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kramsch, C. (1991). Content and culture in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nitta, R, & Yamamoto, Y. (2020). Reconceptualizing CLIL from transformative pedagogy perspective:
Pilot debate study in English language curriculum. Journal of Foreign Language Education &Research, 1: 47-62.
North, B., Angelova, M., Jarosz, E., & Rossner, R. (2018). Language course planning. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
OECD (2015). The definition and selection of key competences: Executive summary. Retrieved
March 2021 from https://www.oecd.org/pisa/35070367.pdf
Piccard, E. & North, B. (2019). The action-oriented approach: A dynamic vision of language education.
Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

134

ACTION-ORIENTED APPROACH TO CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT IN CLIL COURSES: A THEORETICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK

Pikkarainen, E. (2014). Competence as a key concept of educational theory: A semiotic point of view.
Journal of Philosophy of Education, 48 (4): 621-636.
Richards, J.C. (2013). Curriculum approaches in language teaching: Forward, central, and backward
design. RELC Journal, 44 (1): 5-33.
Richards, J.C. (2017). Curriculum development in language teaching (2nd edition). Cambridge;
Cambridge University Press.
Rikkyo University. (n.d.). Official website. Retrieved on February 3, 2020, from https://english.
rikkyo.ac.jp/global24/program/Sfad, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational
Researcher, 27(2), 4-13.
van Lier, L. (2007). Action-based teaching, autonomy and identity. Innovation in Language Learning
and Teaching, 1 (1): 46-65.
Wiggins, G., & Tighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association forsupervision and curriculum development ASCD.

135