【Research Article】

ONTOLOGICAL AND PEDAGOGICAL RE-CONSIDERATION OF
CLIL: THOUGHTS ON CONCEPT, COURSE DESIGN,AND ASSESSMENT
Jeffrey Mok
Abstract
Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) is facing some form of identity and practice crisis where teachers
may not know where to place and practice it. Just where is the “Goldilocks” of CLIL in the sea of soft and hard CLIL?
How do we teach both content and language together in the classroom? This paper presents the problematization of
CLIL, reconsiders its conceptual understanding of content and language, and proposes a cleaner conceptualization. In
addition, it illustrates what a CLIL course can look like, based on the re-consideration, in the design of the course aim
and learning outcomes, classroom pedagogy and assessment. The examples will demonstrate how content andlanguage are clearly intended and taught together, attaining a neither soft or hard CLIL to what it means to be justright.
Keywords: CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning), EFL (English as a Foreign language), theory, course
design, classroom practice, assessment

Introduction
In the field of foreign language learning, Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) has
been touted as a “well-recognized and useful construct for promoting L2/foreign language teaching”(Cenoz et al., 2013, p. 16) and an “increasingly acknowledged trend in foreign language teaching”(Pérez Cañado, 2012, p. 319). In the field of teaching content and language, CLIL is argued as “not a
new form of language education. It is not a new form of subject education. It is an innovative fusionof both” (Coyle et al., 2010, p. 1). Seen as one that “synthesizes and provides a flexible way of applying
the knowledge learnt from these various approaches” (Mehisto et al., 2008), CLIL has become abyword and much sought-after approach in English as a Foreign language (EFL) teaching.
However, there have been several issues facing CLIL. Issues such as curriculum design,classroom practice, linguistic ability of teachers, or types of materials used have led to the questioningof its conceptualization and pedagogical practice (Marsh et al., 2015). Bruton (2013) criticized its
conceptual framework to have a “convenient vagueness” (p. 588) while Cenoz, Genesee and Gorter(2013) thought it to be “internally ambiguous” (p. 244). As a result, the implementation suffers fromlack of clarity (Cenoz et al., 2013, p. 13), and there is a call to know “what it looks like in practice”(Bruton, 2012, p. 524).
Occam’s razor dictates that theories should not be multiplied unnecessarily, and that thesimplest version of the theory should be preferred over more complex ones. It is with this motivationthat this paper seeks to understand CLIL and suggests some practical considerations. Anothermotivation was borne out of my teacher training sessions with CLIL teachers. Having taught othereducational approaches such as team-based learning, active learning, problem-based learning, andlanguage teaching courses such as task-based learning, communicative language learning, my CLIL
workshops tend to garner more ontological struggles and classroom frustration. The recurrent

52

ONTOLOGICAL AND PEDAGOGICAL RE-CONSIDERATION OF CLIL: THOUGHTS ON CONCEPT, COURSE DESIGN, AND ASSESSMENT

questions pertained to what CLIL really is, with so many concepts and labels. Further, how do wepractically integrate language teaching in a CLIL class and yet incorporate the “4Cs” (Coyle et al.,2010, p. 41), “language triptych” (p. 36), basic interpersonal communicative skills (BICS), andcognitive academic language proficiency (CALP) (Cummins, 1984).

CLIL
CLIL, “a dual-focused educational approach”
CLIL emerged out of the sociocultural and cognitive perspectives of EFL with the backdrop of
the early pace setters: sheltered instruction, immersion, and bilingualism that led to content-based
instruction (CBI), then content-based language teaching (CBLT), language across the curriculum(LAC), and English Medium Instruction (EMI). CLIL, as a terminology, was coined and popularized
in the mid-1990s by the European Network of Administrators, Researchers and Practitioners(EUROCLIC) (Coyle, 2007). Clearly, CLIL seeks to differentiate itself from the several previous
iterations and labels. However, I believe that the choice of a single umbrella term (Cenoz et al., 2013;
Dalton-Puffer et al., 2014) may not be so important after all, once we understand the many different
nuanced approaches in the content and/or language driven continuum (Met, 1998). CLIL, or any
other label, after all, seeks to teach language and content.
CLIL is “a dual-focused educational approach in which an additional language is used for thelearning and teaching of both content and language. That is…there is a focus not only on content,
and not only on language. Each is interwoven.” (Coyle et al., 2010, p. 11). So, clearly both content andlanguage are emphasized. Further, CLIL is differentiated to more than just teaching content andlanguage; it has an elevated notion of “not simply education in an additional language; and it iseducation through an additional language” (p. 12). This means that the development of the mind
(cognition), self (culture), soft skills (communication), and with others (community) in theclassroom/school (context) are to be learned with the target language. This extended notion of CLIL
grew to appendage these other ‘C’ concepts. This was why Coyle et al. (2010) came up with the “4Cs”(p. 41) framework of planned integration of content, cognition, communication, and culture, with theadditional focus on cultural awareness within the context of the classroom. The Bloom Taxonomy(Krathwohl, 2002) was included to specify the cognition and the awareness of cognition in teachingcontent. The prevalent socio-cultural zeitgeist of today’s educational practice demanded theinteractional (group work) and intra-personal (reflection) elements in the form of context, culture,and later community into the conception of CLIL. But how are we to know or express these elementsin the CLIL? Language plays a key role in teaching and learning content, cognition, communication,and culture. Thus, three types of learning via language (language of learning, language for learning,
and language through learning) were added to CLIL, called the “Language Triptych” (Coyle et al.,2010, p. 36). This represented how language is learned through an interrelated perspective.
Cummins’ (1984) BICS and CALP were incorporated to help language awareness of the Language
Triptych (Coyle et al., 2010). From the early days of simply acquiring a foreign language in order tounderstand content (knowledge), learning a foreign language has now morphed into an “education
through an additional language” (Coyle et al., 2010, p. 12). A very conflated notion indeed.

53

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

CLIL, what are you?
And yet, Coyle (2010) distinguished CLIL from CBLT in that CLIL is “without an implied
preference for either” (p. 545) content or language, unlike CBLT. However, how can one begin a classor design a course with both content and language? This is perhaps the vagueness and ambiguity that
Bruton, and Cenoz et al., were talking about. This is also perhaps why the implementation oscillated
from the content-driven CBI (or soft CLIL as it has come to be known) to the language-driven
thematic language classes (or hard CLIL) (Ball et al., 2015), but rarely hitting the sweet spot. So,
where is the Goldilocks of CLIL, where it is just right? Moreover, with Coyle et al.’s (2010) descriptionof CLIL as “one size does not fit all—there is no one model for CLIL” (p. 14), the understanding andpractice of CLIL have been left wide open. While CLIL was conveniently conceptualized with its
idealized notions of its wholeness and its integrated parts (content, communication, cognition,
culture, context, and community), much was left unexplained on what and how they are to be
ontologically and pedagogically understood.
In second language acquisition (SLA), where noticing and output hypotheses (as examples) areessential components for language acquisition and, similarly, cognitive and socio-constructivism arefor knowledge construction, where does each part gets noticed and cognitively and sociallyconstructed? Or are they left to chance, incidental learning (Marsick et al., 2017), or immersion(where CLIL is seen as closely connected to immersion, see Cammarata & Tedick, 2012; Genesee &Lindholm-Leary, 2013)? Conceptually, and more so practically, where do the lines, albeit flexible, end
for each part and begin with another? The conceptualization of these CLIL components is not justtesting the understanding of CLIL but also testing the practice of CLIL. For instance, what is therelationship among cognition and culture and others? And how do the other Cs, context, andcommunity, relate to teaching and learning? These questions are often asked by practitioners whose
time, competency, and resource are often an issue. As a result, while the notion of integration has
been championed, it has struggled with different perspectives (Nikula et al., 2016). In a startlingrevelation after studying thirty European countries’ CLIL programs, Lagabaster and Sierra (2010)concluded that “different labels are used in different contexts. Thus, CLIL can mean many things andcreate much confusion in the mind of the reader” (p. 368).

CLIL’s woes
It is, then, no secret that CLIL suffers from practical issues. These include considerable numberof learners having problems understanding the English-medium lectures, which were related to themeaning of words, unfamiliar vocabulary, and note-taking (Hellekjaer, 2010). There were also
detrimental effects on content learning due to the inadequate competence of English teachers toteach content (Marsh et al., 2000). “CLIL affects the way the students learn the content because of
the added extra cognitive burden represented by the presence of the L2…” (Coonan, 2007, p. 643).
As a result, some research showed no differences in longitudinal studies (Admiraal et al., 2006;
Vollmer et al., 2006). While there were favorable reports of CLIL in learners learning the language
better than non-CLIL classes, the evidence has been a mixed bag.
The shift from “second language programs in which lessons are organized around subject
matter rather than language points” (Lightbown & Spada, 2006, p. 197) to one that is of equal footing
has posed competency challenges to the language or content teacher. It is not hard to see why thisidealized notion of CLIL is fraught with difficulties. Teachers’ competence in both content and54

ONTOLOGICAL AND PEDAGOGICAL RE-CONSIDERATION OF CLIL: THOUGHTS ON CONCEPT, COURSE DESIGN, AND ASSESSMENT

foreign language teaching is hard to find. Swain (1996) observed this about CBI: “there is a lot ofcontent teaching that occurs where little or no attention is paid to students’ target language use; andthere is a lot of language teaching that is done in the absence of context laden with meaning” (p. 530)
and this probably still holds true even for CLIL today. Hoare (2010) and Kong (2009) reported thelack of content depth, link between content and language, and clear language objective integrated
into the content. They also had an imbalance of focus, resources, and well-designed curricula (Kong& Hoare, 2011). Indeed, “teachers must know and know how to teach is comprised of both subject
matter content and language.” (Cammarata & Tedick, 2012, p. 254). My fear is that in most wellmeaning CLIL classes, they are masquerading as content-driven EMI classes or language-driven
English classes with thematic content.
Most CLIL classes today are designed from the language perspective. Known as “hard CLIL”,
these courses have thematic topics or disciplines, and the classes (and textbooks) begin with target
vocabulary, pre-reading, or listening language exercises. The classes are mostly designed withteaching the four skills and vocabulary in mind, and the content is still the means to an end(language). In addition, the content is often simplified or reduced in scope and depth compared to aregular content non-CLIL course. Cammarata and Tedick (2012) summed it well, “We have yet tounderstand, however, what balancing content and language really means for the teachers themselves.”(p. 251).

Conceptual re-consideration
Having foregrounded the problematization of CLIL’s ontological and pedagogical issues, how do
we move forward? Let us return to the original conception of CLIL where the focus is only bothcontent and language, which are “interwoven” (Coyle et al., 2010, p. 11). What CLIL was originallyconceptualized should remain as the starting point. As it is not a new approach (Navés, 2009), CLIL
should be simply re-casted as: teaching both content and language together. But what of the 4 Cs (or5?), Language Triptych, BICS and CALP and Bloom’s Taxonomy? Thought (cognition) and language(communication) are so inextricably interwoven (Vygotsky, 1986) that it may be unnecessary to label
them separately. Similarly, for content and cognition, what is content (knowledge or information) if it
is not first thought of (remember or create), constructed (understanding, apply, analyze, or create),
or interpreted (evaluate) in the mind (cognition)?

I think, therefore I speak (content).
In fact, Coyle et al. (2010) stated that content provides the means for thinking to occur andrepresented in the triadic interconnectedness of content, language, and cognition. As such, when weteach content, we teach the thinking with it. This is because the teacher is concerned with learner’s
understanding of the content and its application. And when we assess the learner on content, we
assess the remembering, understanding, application, analysis, evaluation, and creation (Bloom
taxonomy) of the disciplinary knowledge. As we can see, content cannot exist without cognition, andseparating them will decontextualize either one. Similarly, when we teach language, we are alsoteaching the thinking with it. When we teach reading skills (as an example of the four language
skills), we teach learners how to identify (analyze and evaluate) the main idea (skimming) and details(scanning) and infer (predicting) the meaning of words and ideas of the author. Skimming andscanning involve analysis and evaluation. Predicting involves analysis, evaluation, and creation.

55

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

Assessing language also means we assess the learner’s ability to remember and understand thedisciplinary vocabulary (terminology), to apply the disciplinary manner of writing and speaking, andto create the disciplinary forms of text and speech. Language, just like content and cognition, is
equally interwoven with cognition.
Therefore, when we are teaching either content or language, we do teach cognition as well. In
the educational scene, these are known as thinking skills or recognized as critical or creative thinking(others may include problem solving skills). Teaching thinking skills outside of content is akin toteaching language in a decontextualized manner. Ontologically then, cognition is inextricably
connected to both language and content. This then means that when we think of content andlanguage, we should be thinking of content with cognition and language with cognition. There is noneed to dichotomize them. This streamlining of thinking has implications to the pedagogical issues
which we will discuss later.
Having re-considered the ontological understanding of both content and language with cognition,
it is useful to re-visit the relationship between content and language. Coyle et al.’s (2010) dual focus
of content and language may be presumed due to the coming together of both disciplines andtradition, but some clarity to their relationship will aid us in our practice of CLIL. Advocates of theimmersion programs will argue that content and language are interwoven, and language is bestacquired the immersion way. After all, disciplinary knowledge (content) is understood and createdthrough language. In fact, content is represented by language, without which, it cannot be understood
nor communicated. Content needs language to be visible. Content and language then, appear to be
ontologically inseparable. And by extension, if we argue for the nonseparation of cognition with
content and language, should we not be consistent and argue for the nonseparation of content andlanguage?
Therefore, ontologically speaking, content and language are interwoven and learned together,whether in a content or language. class Here, we make a distinction between what is learned andwhat is acquired. In a content immersion (e.g., EMI) class, learners learn the disciplinary content
and acquire the target language through using the language without an explicit focus on the language
structures. In these classes, we also acquire language through listening and speaking the target
language (Krashen, 1981). In a language class, learners learn the target language through using
general knowledge and acquire content implicitly. What is learned is assessed, but what is acquired
is not assessed. However, there is linguistic content in a language class such as parts of speech or
terminologies (e.g., patterns of organization, cohesive markers, reading skills, etc.), which are taught
but not necessarily assessed as content.

Understanding CLIL in a continuum.
Despite Coyle et al.’s (2010) confidence that CLIL “is an innovative fusion of both (content andlanguage)” (p. 1), it is really not all that new. Navés’ (2009) remark, “Integrating content and language
is not new. It has been used for decades under different labels” ....not only helps to demystify theelevated notion of CLIL but also helps us see what CLIL really is. In the early days of shelteredinstruction and immersion programs and later CBI classes, the starting point was not from language
learning perspective but content. The goal was to have learners to be able to learn content throughthe target language. Language lessons ran parallel to support the content classes. The idea was thathaving reached a certain sufficient level of the language through these parallel or pre-content classes,
the learners would be able to understand the content and acquire the language in the target language-

56

ONTOLOGICAL AND PEDAGOGICAL RE-CONSIDERATION OF CLIL: THOUGHTS ON CONCEPT, COURSE DESIGN, AND ASSESSMENT

medium content classes. Language lessons sought to raise the proficiency levels of the learners withthe explicit teaching of language structures, components, and use. Understanding CLIL together
with all the other labels in a content and/or language-driven continuum (adapted from Met, 1998, p.
1) helps us appreciate the many different nuanced approaches to teaching content and language(Figure 1).
Figure 1.
Where CLIL is with other labels of teaching content and language
Soft CLIL

CLIL (just right)

EMI, CBICBLT

Hard CLIL
ESP, EAP, LAC

Content - driven
Immersion, Content course

Language - driven
Language classes
with thematic
content

Language classes withgeneral knowledge
used for practice

Dedicated language classes that familiarize learners to the target language of the content suchas English for Specific (ESP), English for Academic Purposes (EAP), and LAC are considered as
hard CLIL where language is the starting point (language driven) of the course aim. At the other endof the continuum, content classes are conducted in the target language, with content as the starting
point and language being acquired but neither explicitly taught nor assessed. In the middle where
the sweet spot of CLIL is, CBLT, which essentially shares the same ideology as CLIL (Cenoz, 2015),
perhaps offers a perspective where the starting point is content with language teaching coming
alongside.

Content and language can sometimes be separated.
As argued earlier that content and language are interwoven, should content and language belabelled separately, apart from historical and disciplinary reasons? This is where the pedagogicalturn argues for them to be seen differently from the learning perspective. Disciplinary knowledge (interms of vocabulary or terminology) has different representations in different languages. As such,learning content in a target language will be new to the learner even though the very same knowledge(in L1) has already been understood. In this respect, the content clothed in target language is and canbe considered different content. As a result, cognitively, the mind recognizes the L2 representation as
different from the L1 representation and, therefore, is seen separate. There are then two different‘content’ as it were. This phenomenon happened in multilinguistic settings where a common L1 is notafforded in a classroom as is the case and nature of CLIL classes. Second, when language is taught,
it is learned from a form-focused perspective. Form-focused learning demands attention to structuresand components peculiar to language. For example, grammar rules, genre moves, speech acts,
etymology, idiomatical expressions are some examples of these linguistic structures that are clearly
different from the target content taught in a CLIL class. Also, these linguistic structures belong a
different content domain of the field of linguistics. As such, language can be seen as a different‘content’, both representationally in a multilinguistic setting and structurally in knowledge
construction. And thus, language can be conceptualized differently from content. Therefore,57

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

ontologically, while there are clearly no hard lines drawn between these three: content, language, andcognition in a common (L1) language, content and language do have pedagogical distinctiveness due
to foreign language acquisition and multilinguistic settings. Seeing content and language pedagogicallydifferent while recognizing them as ontologically interwoven helps in our practice of CLIL.
How do we weave in other Cs, culture, context, and community? When content, language andcognition are taught, as in any learning situation, they are situated in the culture of the content, thelanguage it is expressed in and the cognition that is demanded of it. When a Chinese teaches Physics
in China, the teacher uses Chinese to explain the concepts using the Chinese textbook and Chinese
expressions and examples. This teaching context would be very much different from anothercontext, say in India, or anywhere else in the world. The context can be different also if the Chinese
Physics class is taught in Beijing or Hong Kong. And the community of learners and teachers thatlearn from each other will also be very different from place to place. While I have illustrated thedifferent cultures, contexts and communities that are embedded in different learning environments,
there are also disciplinary content cultures that different disciplines conduct themselves. The waythat humanities create, construct, and share its knowledge is different from the way the sciences do.
These cultural conventions and expressions are different and are communicated and thought out inthe classrooms driven by the content. In order words, the content, language, and cognition that are
taught are contextualized and encultured in the disciplinary culture, local context, and learning
community of the learner. Of course, each of these notions, culture, context, and community are
fluid, with each overlapping and including one another that it can be difficult to draw hard lines
between them. These are useful concepts to be acknowledged in any learning environment, but weshall not seek to include them in the pedagogical considerations as they are inherently embedded in
the learning environment.

Practical considerations
Having re-considered how content, language, and cognition can be understood in context andculture, we now turn to pedagogical considerations of this understanding in the CLIL classroom. As
intimated earlier to the Occam’s Razor’s principle, keeping the CLIL conceptual framework simple
will better serve practitioners to faithfully apply CLIL as well reaping the benefits that CLIL offers. As
mentioned earlier, when we teach and assess content and language, we also teach the cognition
behind them and assess them embedded in disciplinary culture, context, and community. This section
will now illustrate pedagogical implications of this re-considered conceptual framework.

Writing CLIL Aims and Learning OutcomesLet me use a soon-to-be-adopted CLIL course at Rikkyo University to illustrate why and how
content and language can be taught and assessed. I will also explain the differences between a CLIL
and a non-CLIL course in the aims and learning outcomes (LOs). This course, CLIL Ecology, is to betaken by students at the CEFR B2 level with the intent to reach C1 level. The course aims and LOs
are listed below:
This course aims to create an awareness of and concern about the ecology and its associatedproblems, with the goal for students to discuss these issues and present possible solutions in English.
Students will learn the extent of these current global ecological challenges, their impact on ecology
and human life, and their personal responsibility through collaborative learning and problem solving.

58

ONTOLOGICAL AND PEDAGOGICAL RE-CONSIDERATION OF CLIL: THOUGHTS ON CONCEPT, COURSE DESIGN, AND ASSESSMENT

Students will also acquire critical thinking skills and appropriate English expressions to effectively
communicate these ecological issues through discussion and presentations.
At the end of the course, students will be able to (LO1-3):
1. Identify and explain the concerns about the extent of the current ecological challenges, theirimpact to ecology and human life including personal responsibility.
2. Evaluate and propose solutions to current ecological problems through collaboration.
3. Identify arguments, nuances and implied meaning of texts and digital media on current
ecological issues.
As we can see, the course is very much described like a content course with some differences. The
inclusion of the words, “in English” and “appropriate English expressions” (see above), specify toreaders that English is the communication mode of this course and in particular, the receptive skillsof the target language. The productive language skills of “to discuss these issues and present” and“to effectively communicate” indicate the language abilities to be performed in this course. These
inclusions are significant to CLIL especially when it is conducted in a non-English speaking
environment. If it is conducted in an English-speaking environment, these words would have been
unnecessary. Explicitly stated words such as these are helpful in conveying the target language, andacquisition and production are part of the aim of the course. These words are also meaningful
without having to include technical jargon such as ‘CLIL’ and yet stay true to the emphasis on bothcontent and language.
Attention can be drawn to a specific set of cognition, though not necessary, in the stipulated
words of ‘acquire critical thinking skills’ and ‘problem solving’. But these inclusions are notnecessarily ‘CLILish’ but are also found in non-CLIL content descriptions of the aims. Likewise,
words, ‘through collaborative learning and problem solving’ and ‘through discussion and presentations’stipulate the learning process context and learning community, which can also be found in non-CLIL
courses.
A point to note is these ‘through’ language productive output, ‘discuss…and present…’ and‘through discussion and presentations’. Although they may also be found in carefully written
non-CLIL courses’ aims, the implicity of the language focus is made explicit with the words, “inEnglish” and “appropriate English expressions”. Thus, stating the latter in the description issignificant, drawing the reader’s attention to these communicative modes of learning, including
assessment. But here in the aim, we can already see how interwoven the language (‘discuss theseissues’ and ‘present solutions’), the content (‘discuss these issues’ on ‘awareness of and concern about
the ecology’) and cognition (‘discuss these issues and present possible solutions’) are.
Having declared what entails in the course aims, how do we tell what exactly is to be taught andassessed? The course cannot possibly teach all that has been mentioned and assess them. LOs are
not only where these can be clearly observed and measured but also where CLIL elements are madeexplicit. This is where the students are expected to demonstrate their learned competencies by theend of the course. All the LO’s have observable verbs, ‘identify’, ‘explain’, ‘evaluate’ and ‘propose’.
What teachers can observe are not just the content (‘extent of’, ‘impact to’, ‘personal responsibility’and ‘current…problems’) but the language (‘explain’ and ‘propose’) which includes cognition(‘identify’, ‘explain’, ‘evaluate’ and ‘propose’). Again, we can see how the content, language andcognition are seen as together, not separated.
While LO1 and LO2 (Figure) may appear to be atypical of a content non-CLIL course, it is theinclusion of LO3 that reveals the language components that are expected to be learned and therefore
taught. In identifying “arguments, nuances and implied meaning of texts and digital media”, this59

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

competency clearly involves both listening and reading (or viewing) skills (which incidentally is a
CEFR descriptor (number 85) for a communicative receptive skill). Some non-CLIL courses may
have this type of outcomes but having this here clearly heighten the language focus.
But what of ‘discuss’ and ‘present’? And ‘collaborative learning’, ‘problem solving’ and ‘criticalthinking’? Since ‘discuss’ is not found in the LOs, it is expected to be taught nor assessed, and‘present’ can be counted under ‘explain’ and ‘propose’ if that is the design of the course. Both ‘explain’and ‘propose’ can be observed either as an oral presentation or written report. ‘Collaborative learning’and ‘problem solving’ are seen as the means rather than an end to be assessed in LO2. And ‘criticalthinking’ is the larger category of ‘identify’, ‘explain’, ‘evaluate’ and ‘propose’.
The materials and teaching plans for language structures are now then designed from thecontent. This suggests that the relevant language structures in the content, which otherwise would
not have been taught in a regular content class, are now equally intended as LOs for the learners. For
example, in social science disciplines such as sociology, economics, geography, or history, thediscussion or report writing style are included as a LO in the course. Or in the hard sciences, suchas biochemistry, medicine or physics, science communication presentation or scientific hedging are
to be taught. This also suggests that regular academic content is used as text or material for learningof the language. In the more language driven CLIL, the thematic content, or general knowledge
approach should be replaced by academic and disciplinary knowledge that are taught in regular
content classes. So, in terms of what is taught, a CLIL course uses non-CLIL content and havelanguage learning outcomes in its teaching.

“What it looks like in practice”- driver and co-driver.
Skehan’s (1998) flexible wielding of the focus on fluency and form in language learning areuseful for our consideration here. Form focused is to pedagogically draw “attention to the forms andstructures of the language within the context of communicative interaction… by giving metalinguistic
information, simply highlighting the form in question, or by providing corrective feedback”(Lightbown & Spada, 2006, p. 199). While Skehan was balancing the teaching of fluency with form,
Lyster’s counterbalanced instruction (Lyster & Mori, 2006) sought to provide a useful direction of“systematically integrating content-based and form-focused instructional options” (pp. 3-4). Thiscounterbalanced approach helps us to see how language can be taught within a content class.
So then, we can illustrate this counterbalanced approach with content as the driver and languageas the co-driver. This is a pedagogical distinction in order for both content and language to be taught
together in the classroom. The driver takes a certain direction, and the co-driver comes in as andwhen there is a need to advise or point out certain things that the driver may have missed. In
addition, sometimes during the journey, the co-driver may take over the driving for a while for thedriver to take a rest. This section will now suggest three ways on how and when language is ‘driven’
alongside content.
a. Language is taught episodically as an intervention.
Gibbons’ (2015, p. 227) hourglass analogy on how teachers can focus on language as a study and
Lyster’s (2018, p. 99) instructional sequence for CBLT offer us an approach when to teach language
and when content takes precedence. As the analogy suggests, a CLIL class can begin with the content
teaching but is “narrowed” at some points to teach the language at the appropriate time. These are
the times when the teaching of the content necessitates an etymological understanding or a

60

ONTOLOGICAL AND PEDAGOGICAL RE-CONSIDERATION OF CLIL: THOUGHTS ON CONCEPT, COURSE DESIGN, AND ASSESSMENT

subsequent communicative act. It begins with the whole (content class) and moves to the parts(language episodes). Comparisons can be drawn from Long’s (1991) “focus on form” (p. 46) during
the focus on meaning in a communicative learning activity. In a similar fashion, a time out can becalled on the content teaching, to detour to a language structure teaching and subsequently return tothe content teaching. This can mean a language activity or mini lecture to “notice” (Schmidt, 1990)
and explicate the language structure. The language activity may include enhanced input, noticing
and awareness tasks, production practices, and negotiation for feedback (Lyster, 2007). Here, Lyster(2007) mentioned the use of prompts and recasts. These can both emerge incidentally or pre-planned
as a language outcome in the class.
These focus on form moments are by no means ad hoc or incidental but are pre-planned at theclassroom level and at the course design level, and as indicated by the language LOs. These
interventions may last for a few minutes to draw learners’ attention to the form, or a 15-minuteepisode of language learning activity to an entire lesson. While planned by the instructor, language
learning may also be requested by learners during the teaching of content, a dedicated time todeliberate and focus on the linguistic form. Thus, language teaching becomes episodic and serves asinterventions to the linguistic needs of the content and learners’ feedback.
b. Language episodic teaching is engendered by the context of the content teaching.
The content taught serves as the context for the language teaching in the classroom. Because
the teaching of language is not incidental but purposeful, the episodic language lessons are plannedinterventions driven by the contextual needs of the content. For example, at the course design level,in preparation for writing a scientific report or presentation in a week’s time, the teaching of thewriting or oral presentation takes place during the previous weeks. Or at the classroom level, where
the problem solution pattern of organization or collocations of technical vocabulary is needed to be
explicated to deepen the understanding of the content, they are taught episodically at that point. The
context of the content teaching can come from the design of the content before class, learners’
feedback, and instructor’s observations during class.
The context of the content teaching (the linguistic form and meaning, conventions and currency,
academic and professional practice, etc.,) engenders the design (both before and during thesemester) of these episodic language teaching in the class and course. Socio-culturally, the learners
in the classroom, the instructor responsible for that class, and the affordances in the classroom are
the cultural elements that shape the context as well. Thus, a CLIL course uses the content context todesign the language learning activities, and the context also affords the emergence of these episodic
language teaching that is specific to the class. The context engenders the language teaching.
c. Language is taught inductively.
In language-driven CLIL classes (or regular language classes), language structures are taught as
principles or forms at the beginning followed by examples and explanations. Take the grammar formor vocabulary as examples, the grammar is introduced first as a rule at the sentence level or a
pre-reading word list is first given. These language structures are then explained and practiced until
they are understood, before they are seen in the larger context, a reading text or chapter. However,in a dual-focused CLIL class where the content is first introduced, the language structures are
induced, or they emerged from the context of the content. Learners encounter the grammar structure
or vocabulary in the content first before these language structures are made aware of and focused onas an episodic study. Language learning is induced from the content and not de-contextually taught.

61

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

In CLIL, learners see the whole (language and content) before they see the parts (language incontent). Learners do not learn the parts first before seeing how they fit the whole.
Learning language in this manner has several advantages. First, language is learned in acontextualized manner which prolongs memory, provides relevance, and engages interest. Second,learners see the direct connection and the ‘interwovenness’ between language and content. Third,
language is learned in a ‘naturalistic’ setting where learners encounter the ‘reality’ of language use in
an authentic situation of an academic or real-world text, face a cognitive conflict of unresolved
understanding of text, and receive help to understand and learn the knowledge (and language) of the
text. This process of learning fits well in the sociocultural constructivist and interactionist theories oflearning (Vygotsky’s (1986) Zone of proximal development, mediation, scaffolding, and activity).

CLIL lesson plan
Table 1 shows an illustration on how and where the input and output of content and language arefacilitated. The lesson begins with the input (1) of a content text where learners seek to understandthe content in the target language. Besides grappling with the new disciplinary content, the learneris also facing the vocabulary and idiomatic expressions of the discipline. Once the learners havefinished reading the text, they are quizzed (2) on their understanding of the content and language
components inherent in the text. Here, the instructor must be selective and design the language goalof this class into the quiz questions. The quiz consists of equal, if not similar, number of questions oncontent and language. This is where the language focus begins at the output level. Learners are cued
to notice the language components when answering these language questions. This is CLIL at work.
Table 1
Example of a CLIL Lesson Plan
Learner activity

Where content and language are taught

1 Read text

Content text in target language

2 Quiz on text

Equal number of quiz questions on content and language

3 Discuss answers with instructor Equal amount of time spent on discussing content and language questions.
45

Listen to mini lectures

6 Review lesson

Instructor explains content (from text) to fill the knowledge gaps.
Instructor explains language structures derived from text.
Instructor reviews both content and language

The discussion of the answers (3) next allows learners to surface their knowledge gaps of not justcontent but also language. This is followed by mini lectures from the instructor to explain further theconcepts if necessary. This is also where the language components are introduced (5) and focused
where they may not be apparent especially when the general attention has been on the content. It is
important to note that the introduction of the language component is not teaching a new andunrelated language structure. The language structure emerges from the text that was read. For
example, in teaching patterns of organization, the pattern that the content text uses will be discussed
and not from another text. This way, learners can see how interwoven content and language are andtheir relevance to each other. As evidenced in this lesson plan (Table 1), language is taught alongsidecontent in an episodic manner derived from content.

62

ONTOLOGICAL AND PEDAGOGICAL RE-CONSIDERATION OF CLIL: THOUGHTS ON CONCEPT, COURSE DESIGN, AND ASSESSMENT

Assessment drives learning and therefore teaching.
No discussion on the practice of teaching approach is complete without having some thoughts
on assessment. The assessment is arguably the reason for task performance and learning whether
we see it as an end (of learning) or as the way to learn (for learning) (Black, & Wiliam, 1998). Whenthe teacher ignores either the content or language (and cognition for that matter) in the assessmentof an assignment, the learner will take the cue from assessment. As a result, whether in a CLIL or
non-CLIL class, the assessment must remain true and assess the intent and outcomes of the course.
As such, for a CLIL course to be true to its intent, both content and language must be assessed, andequally.
In the assessment of a CLIL course, equal if not similar weighting of grades should be accorded
to content and language. And this is often not stipulated in the description of assessments orassignments. By extending to both equally, this stipulation will not only ensure the assessors’
attention to both without neglect one over the other, but also draws learners’ attention that language
is equally important. This stipulation can be best expressed in the marking rubric where they aretaken as the reference point for assessing learners’ output. Taking the rubric example (Table 2) of apresentation assignment in the proposed Ecology CLIL course, we can see the clear inclusion of thecategory of language and that it is equally valued in terms of the allocation of criteria. This may alsotranslate into similar or equal weighting for each criteria of the final grade for a learner presentation.
The inclusion of marking criteria for language is often missing in non-CLIL courses.
It is noteworthy to point out that what is assessed is the content and language learned and notwhat is acquired. When learners work in groups (community), they acquire collaborative orcooperative skills, but these skills are not assessed as they were not explicitly taught, unlike content
and language. What has not been explicitly stated in the aim, learning outcomes, and assessment
criteria should not be assessed so as to be true to what is intended and negotiated with the learner.
This is also known as constructive alignment (Biggs & Tang, 2011) in course design where the aim,
learning outcomes, teaching, learning activities, and assessment are aligned.
Table 2
Example of Marking rubric of a CLIL Environmental course

Assessment rubric for Presentation

Content

Knowledge of deforestation,
biodiversity loss, waste
disposal, climate change,pollution, etc.

Assessment criteria
Identifies appropriate concerns about the actual
extent of a current environment challenge, its
impact to both environment and human life.
e.g., identifies key issues, evidence, and reality of theecological problem.
Evaluates appropriately and sufficiently a current
environmental problem.
e.g., identify and analyze the struggles, controversies,
opportunities, and criteria to assess the situation to
redress the ecological problem.

63

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

Content
Communication/ Language

Knowledge of deforestation,
biodiversity loss, waste
disposal, climate change,pollution, etc.

Produces appropriate and logical ideas or
solutions to a current environment problem.
e.g., Generates practical answers and ways to reduce,
stop, prevent, or reimagine the management of theecological problem.

Procedural knowledge on
global and personal response

Identifies an appropriate and logical personal
responsibility to a current environment challenge.
e.g., Presents a practical and personal plan in responseto an ecological problem.

Coherence and organization

Expresses coherently and cohesively the concernsof, and solutions to a current environment
challenge.
e.g., Produces clear, smoothly flowing, well-structured
language, showing controlled use of organizational
patterns, connectors, and cohesive devices. (CEFR1297)*

Clarity and multimodal media

Produces clear and well-structured texts andvisuals of a current environment challenge.
e.g., Shows organized, relevant, intelligible, andsignificant information with relevant examples in
multimodal media. (CEFR 317)*

Confidence and gestures

Appears calm, relaxed, and does not need to think
about content when signing.
e.g., Demonstrates confidence in public speaking with
relevant gestures and presence. (CEFR 1761 and 1762)*

Vocabular y and idiomatic
expressions

Uses appropriately the range of technicalvocabular y and idiomatic expressions common to
the field of environment.
e.g., Presents words and phrases that are specific to theacademic language and professional practice ofenvironmentalists. (CEFR 1156)** The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) (Council of Europe, 2018)

As we can see, in the assessment, when we judge a learner’s content, we are judging how the learner‘identifies’, ‘evaluates’, and ‘produces’ knowledge that is appropriate, real, logical, and sufficient to bedeemed satisfactory. The appropriacy, logic, reality, and adequacy of knowledge presented is qualityof the cognition of identifying, evaluating and production. Likewise, for language, how the learner‘expresses’, ‘produces’, ‘appears’, and ‘uses’ the language and language related devices also
demonstrate the quality of the cognition of application. Each of the language criteria is taken from andreferenced to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages Descriptor Scheme(Council of Europe, 2018) with the corresponding number code and level.

64

ONTOLOGICAL AND PEDAGOGICAL RE-CONSIDERATION OF CLIL: THOUGHTS ON CONCEPT, COURSE DESIGN, AND ASSESSMENT

Conclusion
In our re-consideration of the current understanding of CLIL, we have pared CLIL to essentiallythe teaching and learning of the two, content and language. We have shown how inseparable andinterwoven content, language, and cognition are. The other concepts of culture, context, andcommunity are situated and interwoven in the teaching of content, language, and cognition. They are
all essentially relational and contextualized and contingent on the content taught and language use.
Pedagogically, we have illustrated how content and language can be taught together with theillustration of content as the driver and language as the co-driver. CLIL teachers need to concern
themselves with designing a content class with a language focus at appropriate and critical junctures,teaching language episodically and inductively for learners to learn the content through and with thelanguage. This begins with the design of the course aims and learning outcomes with explicit
mention of the target language. The teaching is also designed with content (the whole) as thestarting point, interspersed with focus on form (language use), but engendered from content. The
assessment is also designed with explicit measurement of language components that are equallyweighted on content and language. This not only distinguishes itself from non-CLIL classes but also
ensures learners’ attention as to what is valued in a CLIL class. We believe that this is what CLIL
ought to look like in practice.
There is, of course, more to be discussed regarding the ontological relationship of the other Cs
that this paper did not have the space to do so adequately. There is also more to be detailed in theclassroom practice at the pedagogy level. CLIL is an approach with much of the pedagogy of learning
left to the interpretation of practitioners. It is with hope that this paper has contributed in some ways
to streamline the clarity of what CLIL is and how it can be demonstrated in the classroom.

Reference
Admiraal, W., Westhoff, G., & de Bot, K. (2006). Evaluation of bilingual secondary education in the
Netherlands: Students’ language proficiency in English. Educational Research and Evaluation,
12, 75–93.
Ball, P., Kelly, K., & Clegg, J. (2015). Putting CLIL into practice. Oxford University Press.
Biggs, J. B., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for Quality Learning at University. (4th Ed.). McGraw Hill
Education & Open University Press.
Black, P. J., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5(1),
7–74.
Bruton, A. (2012). Is CLIL so Beneficial, or Just Selective? Re-evaluating Some of the Research.
System, 39, 523-532.
Bruton, A. (2013). CLIL: Some of the Reasons Why ... And Why Not. System, 41, 587-597.
Cammarata, L., & Tedick, D. (2012). Balancing Content and Language in Instruction: The Experienceof Immersion Teachers. The Modern Language Journal, 96. 153-289.
Cenoz J. (2015). Content-based instruction and content and language integrated learning: the sameor different? Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28(1), 8-24.
Cenoz, J., Genesee, F. & Gorter, D. (2013). Critical Analysis of CLIL: Taking Stock and Looking
Forward, Applied Linguistics, 35(3), 243–262.
Coonan, C. M. (2007). Insider views of the CLIL class through teacher self-observation-introspection.
The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10, 625-646.

65

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

Coyle, D. (2007). Content and Language Integrated Learning: Towards a connected research agenda
for CLIL pedagogies. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10,543-562.
Coyle, D., Hood, P., Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge
University Press.
Cummins, J. (1984). Bilingualism and special education: Issues in assessment and pedagogy. England:
Multilingual Matters.
Dalton-Puffer, C., Llinares, A., Lorenzo, F., & Nikula, T. (2014). “You Can Stand Under My Umbrella”:
Immersion, CLIL and Bilingual Education. A Response to Cenoz, Genesee & Gorter (2013).
Applied Linguistics, 35. 213-218.
Genesee, F., & Lindholm-Leary, K. (2013). Two case studies of content-based language education.
Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 1.
Gibbons, P. (2015). Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning: Teaching second language learners in
the mainstream classroom (2nd ed.). Heinemann.
Hellekjaer, G. O. (2010). Language Matters: Assessing lecture comprehension in Norwegian Englishmedium higher education. In C. D. Puffer, T. Nikula & U. Smit, Language use and language
learning in CLIL classrooms (pp. 233-258). John Benjamins.
Hoare, P. (2010). Content-based language teaching in China: Contextual influences on implementation.
Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 31(1), 69–86.
Kong, S. (2009). Content-based instruction: What can we learn from content trained teachers’ andlanguage-trained teachers’ pedagogies? The Canadian Modern Language Review, 66(2),229–263.
Kong, S., & Hoare, P. (2011). Cognitive content engagement in content-based language teaching.
Language Teaching Research, 15 (3), 307-324.
Krashen, S. (1981). Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Pergamon Press.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(4),212-218.
Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, M. (2010). Immersion and CLIL in English: More differences thansimilarities. ELT Journal, 64(4), 367–375.
Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (2006). How languages are learned (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Long, M. H. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. de Bot,
R. Ginsberg, & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective (pp.
39-52). John Benjamins.
Lyster, R. (2007). Learning and teaching languages through content: A counterbalanced approach. John
Benjamins.
Lyster, R. (2018). Content-based language teaching. Routledge.
Lyster, R., & Ballinger, S. (2011). Content-based language teaching: Convergent concerns acrossdivergent contexts. Language Teaching Research, 15(3), 279-288.
Lyster, R., & Mori, H. (2006). Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance. Studies inSecond Language Acquisition, 28, 269-300.
Marsh, H. W., Hau, K. T., & Kong, C. K. (2000). Late immersion and language of instruction in Hong
Kong high schools: Achievement growth in language and non-language subjects. Harvard
Educational Review, 70, 302-346.
Marsh, D., Perez Canado, M. L., & Padilla, J. R. (2015). CLIL in Action: Voices from the Classroom.
Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

66

ONTOLOGICAL AND PEDAGOGICAL RE-CONSIDERATION OF CLIL: THOUGHTS ON CONCEPT, COURSE DESIGN, AND ASSESSMENT

Marsick, V. J. & Watkins, K. (1990). Informal and Incidental Learning in the Workplace. Routledge.
Marsick, V., Watkins, K., Scully-Russ, E., & Nicolaides, A. (2017). Rethinking informal and incidental
learning in terms of complexity and the social context. Journal of Adult Learning, Knowledge
and Innovation, 1.
Mehisto, P., Marsh, D., & Frigols, M. J. (2008). Uncovering CLIL: Content and language integrated
learning in bilingual and multilingual education. MacMillan.
Met, M. (1998). Curriculum decision-making in content-based language teaching. In J. Cenoz & F.
Genesee (Eds.), Beyond bilingualism: Multilingualism and multilingual education (pp. 35-63).
Clevedon. Multilingual Matters.
Nikula, T., Dalton-Puffer, C., Llinares, A., & Lorenzo, F. (2016). More than Content and Language:
The Complexity of Integration in CLIL and Bilingual Education. In T. Nikula, E. Dafouz, P.
Moore, & U. Smit (Eds.), Conceptualising Integration in CLIL and Multilingual Education (pp.
1–25). Multilingual Matters.
Nikula, T., & Mård-Miettinen, K. (2014). Language learning in immersion and CLIL classrooms. In J.
Östman & J. Verschueren, Handbook of Pragmatics, John Benjamins.
Pérez-Cañado, M. L. (2012). CLIL research in Europe: past, present, and future. International Journalof Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 15(3), 315-341.
Pérez Cañado, M. L., & Padilla, J.R. (2015). Introduction and Overview. In D. Marsh, M. L. Pérez
Cañado & J. R. Padilla (Eds.), CLIL in Action: Voices from the classroom (pp. 1-9). Cambridge
Scholars Publishing.
Schmidt, R. (1990). The Role of Consciousness in Second Language Learning. Applied Linguistics, 11,
129-158.
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford University Press.
Swain, M. (1996). Integrating language and content in immersion classrooms: Research perspectives.
The Canadian Modern Language Review, 52, 529-548.
Vollmer, H. J., Heine, L., Troschke, R., Coetzee, D., & Kuttel, V. (2006). Subject specific competence
and language use of CLIL learners: The case of geography in grade 10 of secondary schools inGermany. ESSE8 Conference, London, UK.
Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language. MIT Press.

67