【Teaching Practice Report】

Using CLIL to Design Elective University Courses
Tanya L. Erdelyi
Abstract
Content and language integrated learning (CLIL) has become increasingly popular worldwide over the last few
decades. It is generally described as teaching content in a language not native to the learners. In this paper, I
provide a report on how I used the principles of CLIL to design two university elective courses. Using contentrelated vocabulary and a combination of authentic and original materials, the courses were designed to provide
students with the opportunity to explore content while speaking, writing, reading, and listening to English. Activities
were designed to support students with low-level English proficiency commonly found in these mixed-level classes
as well as provide students of all English proficiency levels interesting and meaningful interactions with the course
theme, lesson topics, and other students. First, I briefly explain some of the CLIL-related theories on which I based
many of my course design and classroom interaction decisions. Then, I outline the syllabus and lesson plans for thetwo courses. I conclude the report with some informal classroom observations and recommendations forincorporating CLIL into university elective courses.
Keywords: Content and language integrated learning; CLIL; elective courses

Introduction
Content and language integrated learning (CLIL) is an educational approach where anon-language content course is taught in a language generally different from the learners’ first(Coyle et al., 2010; Dalton-Puffer, 2011). CLIL does not necessarily require an equal division ofsubject and language education; instead, it is an interwoven fusion between the two (Coyle et al.,2010). CLIL is generally associated with bilingual education and content-based instruction. Focus on
implementing CLIL in the classroom and subsequent studies on CLIL emerged from European
countries in the mid-1990s (Coyle et al., 2010; Nikula et al., 2016). Soon after, CLIL began spreadingworldwide (Coyle et al., 2010; Graham et al., 2018). Some common characteristics of CLIL educationin Asia, as well as other parts of the world, are that the target language is generally English, and thecontent is generally given more emphasis as the teachers tend to be non-native English speakers
teaching their subjects of expertise, with additional language lessons provided by language experts(Dalton-Puffer, 2011).
However, that does not mean that language in CLIL classrooms is completely ignored. In fact,
just as CLIL is a union between content and language education, so too is the support that CLIL
teachers provide. With regard to support in a CLIL environment, teachers utilize several strategies.
One common strategy is scaffolding, the process of experts providing novices with support toaccomplish tasks beyond their abilities (Bruner, 1976, as cited in Lyster, 2007). Mahan (2022) createda framework from some of the existing literature on CLIL for analyzing scaffolding in CLIL
classrooms. They settled on three aspects of scaffolding: prior knowledge, supporting materials, andacademic language. In their study, they found that content teachers in the natural sciences,
geography, and social sciences use a variety of scaffolding strategies such as activating students’prior knowledge, supplying supporting materials, and giving academic language prompts forunderstanding content and accomplishing tasks. In terms of strategies used for error correction,
138

USING CLIL TO DESIGN ELECTIVE UNIVERSITY COURSES

recasting is a common and often preferred practice. Recasting involves repeating a student’s
erroneous utterances using the correct grammar and vocabulary in the hopes that the student will
notice the difference (Lyster, 2007). Recasting is used to keep students on topic with minimal
interruption, allowing them to hear academically correct models that match and allow students tocheck their ideas. However, the main focus of recasting in a CLIL setting is often not on correction
but on semantic paraphrasing (Mohan & Beckett, 2001 as cited in the study by Lyster, 2007, p. 95).
Furthermore, the outcomes of CLIL are difficult to identify (Dalton-Puffer, 2011; Graham et al.,2018). Studies that focus on the outcomes of CLIL tend to focus more on language as it can moreeasily be measured quantitatively than content (Dalton-Puffer, 2011; Nikula et al., 2016). Additionally,studies that focus on language acquisition due to CLIL are often confounded by other factors such as
pre-existing language knowledge or language acquisition that might be contributed to accompanying
language courses (Dalton-Puffer, 2011). Further mixed results on language acquisition show thatmany of the studies are conducted on elective courses that tend to draw students with higher
motivation and aptitude in language learning (Bruton, 2011). However, of the 25 articles exploring
CLIL language outcomes analyzed by Graham et al. (2018), most showed that the CLIL students
performed equal to or better than non-CLIL students on tests. As for content learning, as most CLIL
classes are filled with content-rich videos and other visuals, CLIL students have an easier chance ofcomprehending the content (Graham et al., 2018).
The purpose of this paper is to report on two English elective courses I designed and taught
using the fundamentals of CLIL. I begin with an explanation of the students, courses, lessons,activities, and materials while providing justifications for many of my design choices. Next, I offersome informal observations of the CLIL classes, along with some possible recommendations for
those who wish to teach courses that are more aligned with the CLIL approach.

Course and Lesson Design
The following is a description of the students as well as the course and lesson designs. As this ismerely a report on the CLIL courses and lessons I designed and taught, the descriptions of thestudents are based on observations I made while teaching; I do not have any objective evidence about
their actual language abilities or comprehensive knowledge of each students’ department or major.

Students
The students enrolled in these elective CLIL courses were second-, third-, and fourth-year
university students from different departments studying several different majors in a private Japanese
university. Their first language was Japanese. The students also differed greatly in English language
proficiency, ranging from fairly fluent speakers of English to those who sometimes struggled to form
complete sentences depending on the complexity of the topic.

Course Design
I designed two elective courses, both taught in the same semester. The students in each course
met for 100 minutes once a week for 14 weeks. The Language and History course had 11 students,
and the Japanese Studies Through English course had 25 students. Each elective course was taught
entirely in English. I used the same general design for each course’s syllabus and the same general139

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第3巻 （ JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PR ACTICE, VOL. 3）

format for each lesson across both courses. Each lesson during weeks 1-7 and 9-13 focused on adifferent topic related to the theme of the course. Each course also had a midterm and final
presentation assignment in weeks 8 and 14, respectively. On the same day as the midterm and final
presentations, the students submitted a one-page single-spaced reaction paper that included a
one-paragraph summary of the lectures and homework readings for each lesson leading up to theassignment (weeks 1-7 for the midterm and weeks 9-13 for the final), along with an opinion paragraphreacting to some of the topics they had studied throughout the course. Table 1 contains the syllabus
for the Japanese Studies Through English course. Table 2 shows the Language and History syllabus.
Table 1
Syllabus for a Japanese Studies Through English Elective Course
Week

Topic

Homework Due

1

Course Introduction; What is Cool Japan and Soft Power?
Reading Skills; Writing summaries

2

Japanese Traditional Culture and Past Influences; Lecture; Discussion; Note
Reading & Summary
Taking Skills

3

Japanese Films; Lecture; Discussion

Reading & Summary

4Japanese Martial Arts; Lecture; Discussion

Reading & Summary

5Japanese Food; Lecture; Discussion; Presentation Skills

Reading & Summary

6Japanese Music; Lecture; Discussion

Reading & Summary

7Japanese Fashion; Lecture; Discussion

Prepare for Assignment 1

8Assignment 1 – Presentation 1 (small groups)

Presentation 1/Reaction 1

9Japanese Subcultures; Lecture; Discussion

Reading & Summary

10Japanese Manga; Lecture; Discussion

Reading & Summary

11Japanese Anime; Lecture; Discussion

Reading & Summary

12Japanese Cosplay; Lecture; Discussion

Reading & Summary

13

Japanese Video Games; Lecture; Discussion

Prepare for Assignment 2

14

Assignment 2 – Final Presentation (small groups)

Presentation 2/Reaction 2

Table 2
Syllabus for the Language and History Course
Week

Topic

1

Course Introduction; Origins of Language; Reading Skills review; Writingsummaries review

Homework Due

2Origins of Speech and Writing; Lecture; Discussion; Note Taking Skills review Reading & Summary3

Languages of the World; Lecture; Discussion

Reading & Summary

4

Language Diversity; Lecture; Discussion

Reading & Summary

5

History of English; Lecture; Discussion; Presentation Skills

Reading & Summary

6

Etymology (word origins); Lecture; Discussion

Reading & Summary

7

Place and People Names; Lecture; Discussion

Prepare for Assignment 1

8Assignment 1 – Mini-Presentation (small groups)

Presentation 1/Reaction 1

9Language Change; Lecture; Discussion

Reading & Summary

10

The Electronic Revolution; Lecture; Discussion

Reading & Summary

11

Political Correctness; Lecture; Discussion

Reading & Summary

12

Dying Languages; Lecture; Discussion

Reading & Summary

13

Modern Languages; Lecture; Discussion

Prepare for Assignment 2

14

Assignment 2 – Final Presentation (small groups)

Presentation 2/Reaction 2

140

USING CLIL TO DESIGN ELECTIVE UNIVERSITY COURSES

Lesson Design
Each lesson followed the same general format containing four to five tasks or discussions. I
chose this uniformity because I find that when working with mixed-level classes, routines foster
confidence in students with low-level proficiency in the target language as they know what is
expected of them in each lesson. Activities for the lessons were chosen to maximize the students’
exposure to the content as well as all four language skills (i.e., speaking, listening, reading, andwriting).
For each lesson, the students sat in the same group of three to four learners for the duration of
the lesson, with new group configurations at the beginning of each lesson. The lessons began with areview of the previous lesson’s topic. The discussion was facilitated by questions that focused onreviewing the main messages and supporting ideas of the previous lesson’s content. Next, thestudents engaged in a warm-up discussion or activity to activate the pre-existing vocabulary andknowledge the students have on the topic, a form of scaffolding as mentioned in the study by Mahan(2022). Following the warm-up discussion, I gave a mini-lecture on the weekly topic. As they listened
to the lecture with accompanying visuals on slides, the students took notes using the note-taking
skills taught during lesson two. Each lecture contained a video on the lesson’s topic to give thestudents an opportunity to practice listening to natural expressions and speaking speeds in authentic
materials; this choice was made to help students gain a richer understanding of the content (Graham
et al., 2018). Closed captioning subtitles were turned on to help students with low-level proficiency inEnglish process the information. After the lecture, the students compared their notes to fill in gaps inthe information they might have missed, along with identifying the main messages and supporting
ideas about the topic. I encouraged the students to include these main messages and ideas in theirsummary writing homework, a weekly assignment the students completed in order to help write
their mid-term and final reaction papers. The note-taking discussion also helped students with
low-level proficiency in English notice any missed key points, confirm what they had heard, anddiscuss what they had just learned. The final discussion for each lesson focused on that week’s topic,
including questions about their opinions as well as questions that allowed the students to discuss the
topic critically as recommended by Dalton-Puffer (2006 as cited in the study by Lyster, 2007, p. 92)
as comprehension questions tend to limit student responses. Many of the lessons also ended with ashort instructive activity on a skill that might be needed for a future activity or assignment (e.g., notetaking, summary writing, paragraph writing, presentation script writing, slide design, etc.). Finally,
students were given an authentic text on the following week’s topic to read and summarize in writingfor homework. Figure 1 shows a sample lesson plan from the Japanese Studies Through English
course. The structure of the lesson in this plan closely aligns with most of the lessons taught during
these two courses. The main difference between each lesson, besides the topic, included variationsin the types of tasks completed during the warm-up phase and the special skill often taught at the endof the lesson. These lesson plans were also distributed to the students weekly as worksheets andoften included visual images related to the topic of discussion for that week that the students would
critically analyze and discuss.
At the end of each discussion activity (tasks 1–4 on the lesson plan), the students sharedinteresting information, ideas, and opinions from their group’s discussion with the rest of the class.
To avoid a lack of volunteers as well as give each learner the opportunity to report back to the class,the students played rock paper scissors after each discussion to decide who would share. The student
who lost the game had to report to the class. To prevent nervous students from not knowing what to141

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第3巻 （ JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PR ACTICE, VOL. 3）

Figure 1
Figure 1
Sample Lesson Plan from the Japanese Studies Through English Course.

Sample Lesson Plan from the Japanese Studies Through English Course.

Lesson 10 - JSTE 6/17 (F)_____________________________________________________________________
1. Review Discussion from Last Lecture
1. How has Japan influenced other countries with Japanese subcultures?
2. What ideas and values from Japanese subcultures do you think would be a good message
for people overseas to help them understand how Japanese people think?
3. What are the main messages/ideas from last week’s lesson?
2. Warm-up Discussion about Japanese Mangaa. Look at the manga and comics on the table at the front of the room. Make notes. Then,discuss the following with your partners: What are the similarities and differences you cansee between the Japanese manga and English comics? What are the similarities anddifferences you can see between the Japanese manga and English translations of manga?
Japanese Manga

English Manga Translations

English Comics

3. The Influence of Japanese Manga Lecturea. Please listen to the mini-lecture.
b. Take notes and write down questions you have.
c. Compare your notes with those of your partners. Write info you might have missed.
d. What ideas from today’s lecture would you include in a 1-2 sentence summary?
4. Weekly Topic Discussion - In small groups, answer the following questions:a. What were the most interesting things you learned from today’s reading & lecture?
b. Do you read Japanese manga? Why or why not? If yes, what manga do you read?
c. What Japanese manga do you think are popular in Japan? Why?
d. What Japanese manga do you think are popular overseas? Why?
e. What can people overseas learn about Japan from manga?
5. Paragraph Writing - Structure and Topic Sentencesa. Let’s look at the “Paragraph Writing” worksheets.
6. Any questions?

Homework

Read the Homework Reading and write a short summary for Fri., June 24 (13:25). Write thesummary on the Summary Doc that you linked to the Gateway Document.

Note: Students received a copy of the lesson plan for each lesson.

Note: Students received a copy of the lesson plan for each lesson.

At the end of each discussion activity (tasks 1–4 on the lesson plan), the students sharedinteresting information, ideas, and opinions from their group’s discussion with the rest of theshare,class.
I gave30-second
to confer
partners
about what
they should
Toaavoida lackpreparationof volunteerstime
as wellas givewith
eachtheirlearnerthe opportunity
to report
back say.
to theclass,
the students
playeda rock
paper scissors
after each discussion
to from
decidethe
whowouldStudents
who
reportedback after
discussion
were subsequently
exemptednext
few rockshare.
The
student
who
lost
the
game
had
to
reporttotheclass.
To
prevent
nervousstudents
paper scissors rounds. Thus, most students only had to speak to the entire class once per lesson,from not knowing what to share, I gave a 30-second preparation time to confer with theirunlesspartners
they raised
volunteer
information
ran outbackof groupwho
had not
abouttheirwhathandthey toshouldsay. Students
whoorreported
after amembers
discussion
weresharedyet as we exempted
completedeach
or papertask. scissors
These group
allowedstudents
subsequently
fromthediscussion
next few rockrounds.reports
Thus, most
students
only the
had
to
speak
to
the
entire
class
once
per
lesson,unlesstheyraised
their
hand
to
volunteerchance to speak English and to hear what other groups in the class were talking about. The reports
information
ran outof responses
group members
hadgrammar
not shared
we completedvocabularyeachalso allowed
me toorrecast
theirusing who
properandyettheascontent-related
discussion or task. These group reports allowed students the chance to speak English and to(Lyster, 2007) that was often mentioned during the lecture.

Obser vations and Recommendations
The following observations and recommendations are based on casual observations I madewhile teaching the two CLIL elective courses.
142

USING CLIL TO DESIGN ELECTIVE UNIVERSITY COURSES

Obser vations
One of the most impressive observations I made during these two CLIL elective courses was theabsence of spoken Japanese. Students with varying English language proficiency levels in bothcourses spoke only English for the full 100-minute lessons across all 14 weeks during group work,
discussions, presentations, and when addressing the entire class. Surprisingly, the students chose to
speak only English on their own volition as I had never explicitly instructed them to do so. Perhaps,
the nature of the course compelled them to communicate only in English. It could also be due to thehigher motivation and language learning aptitude of students drawn to English electives as mentioned
by Bruton (2011). Another observation was the frequent assistance the students with high-level
English proficiency provided those with lower proficiency in English. This action was facilitated andperhaps encouraged by the consistent confirmation checks I had built into each lesson. Lastly, it
should be noted that the students consistently provided insightful observations and critiques on theweekly topics rather than a mere regurgitation of the facts they had learned.

Recommendations
Based on my observations while teaching these two CLIL courses, I would like to make a few
recommendations. To begin with, CLIL lessons have the possibility of providing a much-needed relief
from rigid English lessons that focus mainly on grammar, translation, test strategies, and single
language skill building (e.g., listening courses). Additionally, elective English classes based on anunderlying core content (e.g., Japanese Studies Through English, Language and History, World
Heritage Sites) provide an excellent foundation for applying CLIL practices. Finding a way toimplement some core CLIL practices into the aforementioned rigid English lessons might be a
productive next step. Should a teacher decide to design and implement a CLIL course or lesson,proper scaffolding should be provided for the mixed level of English proficiency these classes often
have. Lesson activities should be designed to allow students a chance to critically analyze andcomment on the content in order to get a deeper understanding of the topics of discussion (DaltonPuffer, 2006 as cited in Lyster, 2007, p. 92). Finally, it might be possible for both content and language
teachers to be encouraged to use their expertise to teach CLIL elective courses at the university
level.

143

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第3巻 （ JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PR ACTICE, VOL. 3）

References
Bruton, A. (2011). Are the differences between CLIL and non-CLIL groups in Andalusia due to CLIL?
A reply to Lorenzo, Casal and Moore (2010), Applied Linguistics, 32(2), pp. 236-241. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amr007
Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge
University Press.
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2011). Content-and-language integrated learning: From practice to principles?.
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 182-204. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190511000092
Graham, K. M., Choi, Y., Davoodi, A., Razmeh, S., & Dixon, L. Q. (2018). Language and content
outcomes of CLIL and EMI: A systematic review. Latin American Journal of Content andLanguage Integrated Learning, 11(1), 19-37. https://doi.org/10.5294/laclil.2018.11.1.2
Lyster, R. (2007). Learning and teaching languages through content: A counterbalanced approach. John
Benjamins Publishing Company.
Mahan, K. R. (2022). The comprehending teacher: Scaffolding in content and language integrated
learning (CLIL). The Language Learning Journal, 50(1), 74-88. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571
736.2019.1705879
Nikula, T., Dalton-Puffer, C., Llinares, A., & Lorenzo, F. (2016). More than content and language: The
complexity of integration in CLIL and bilingual education. Conceptualising Integration in CLIL
and Multilingual Education, 101(1), 1-25. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783096145-004

144