Keywords
How to Cite
Abstract
The Taiwan government has enforced educational policies that encourage implementation of Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) in elementary school subject courses. Given concerns about the lack of content teachers with adequate English proficiency, the fixed curricula of subject courses, and young EFL learners’ beginning English levels, a language-driven CLIL approach was implemented, in which a fifth-grade English teacher incorporated subject knowledge into English courses. This study is an investigation of the experiences of 105 fifth graders and their English teacher after two years of CLIL practice. The results show that this contextually responsive approach positively affected the students’ learning as well as their motivation, suggesting that the CLIL approach should be supported by policy makers and stakeholders in the schools. The findings provide implications for future practice, policy, and research in similar settings.
References
Agustín Llach, M. P. (2017). The effects of the CLIL approach in young foreign language learners’ lexical profiles. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 20, 557-573. doi:10.1080/13670050.2015.1103208
Arham, M. & Akrab, A. H. (2018). Delving into content lecturers’ teaching capability in content language intetrated learning (CLIL) at an Indonesian University. The Asian ESP Journal, 14 (7.2), 68-89.
Arnó-Macià, E., & Mancho-Barés, G. (2015). The role of content and language in content and language integrated learning (CLIL) at university: Challenges and implications for ESP. English for Specific Purposes, 37, 63-73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2014.06.007
Bakhurst, D. (2009). Reflections on activity theory. Educational Review, 61, 197-210.
Banegas, D. L. (2017). Teacher-developed materials for CLIL: Frameworks, sources,
and activities. The Asian EFL Journal Quarterly, 19 (3), 31-48
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1998). Qualitative research for education: An
introduction to theory and methods (3rd ed.). Allyn and Bacon.
Bruton, A. (2013). CLIL: Some of the reasons why … and why not. System, 41, 587-597. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.07.001
Cenoz, J. (2015). Content-based instruction and content and language integrated learning: The same or different? Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28, 8-24. https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2014.1000922
Chen, F., Kao, S.-M, & Tsou, W. (2020). Toward ELF-informed bilingual in Taiwan: Addressing incongruity between policy and practice. English Teaching & Learning, 44, 175-191. https://doi.org/s42321-020-00055-1
Cohen, R. J., & Swerdlik, M. E. (2005). Psychological testing and assessment: An introduction to tests and measurement. McGraw Hill.
Coyle, D. (2013). Listening to learners: An investigation into ‘successful learning’ across CLIL contexts. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16, 244-266. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2013.777384
Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge University Press.
Cummins, J. (1979). Cognitive/academic language proficiency, linguistic interdependence, the optimum age question and some other matters. Working Papers on Bilingualism, 19, 121-129.
Dallinger, S., Jonkmann, K., Hollm, J., & Fiege, C. (2016). The effect of content and language integrated learning on students' English and history competences – Killing two birds with one stone? Learning and Instruction, 41, 23-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.09.003
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
de Graaff, R., Jan Koopman, G., Anikina, Y., & Westhoff, G. (2007). An observation tool for effective L2 pedagogy in content and language integrated learning (CLIL). International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10, 603-624. https://doi.org/10.2167/beb462.0
Denman, J., Tanner, R., & de Graaff, R. (2013). CLIL in junior vocational secondary education: Challenges and opportunities for teaching and learning. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16, 285-300. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2013.777386
Doiz, A., Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. M. (2014). CLIL and motivation: The effect of individual and contextual variables. The Language Learning Journal, 42, 209-224. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2014.889508
Fernández-Sanjurjo, J., Fernández-Costales, A., & Arias Blanco, J. M. (2019). Analysing students’ content-learning in science in CLIL vs. non-CLIL programmes: Empirical evidence from Spain. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 22, 661-674. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2017.1294142
Ferrer, A., & Lin, T.-B. (2021). Official bilingualism in a multilingual nation: A study of the 2030 bilingual nation policy in Taiwan. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2021.1909054
Freeman, D., Katz, A., Garcia Gomez, P., & Burns, A. (2015). English-for-teaching: Rethinking teacher proficiency in the classroom. ELT Journal, 69, 129-139. doi:10.1093/elt/ccu074
García Mayo, M. d. P., & Lázaro Ibarrola, A. (2015). Do children negotiate for meaning in task-based interaction? Evidence from CLIL and EFL settings. System, 54, 40-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.12.001
Genesee, F. (1987). Learning through two languages. Studies of immersion and bilingual education. Newbury House.
Hartiala, A.-K. (2000). Acquisition of teachign expertise in content and language integrated language learning. Painosalama Oy.
Hu, H., & Mi, A. (2026). Localisation of content and language integrated learning in China: tensions in teacher professional development. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 47, 146–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2024.2380099
Hu, H., Zheng, L., & Hashim, H. (2025). Disciplinary boundaries and role navigation: a qualitative inquiry into team teaching in CLIL. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2025.2563101
Hüttner, J., Dalton-Puffer, C., & Smit, U. (2013). The power of beliefs: Lay theories and their influence on the implementation of CLIL programmes. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16, 267-284. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2013.777385
Jäppinen, A.-K. (2005). Thinking and content learning of mathematics and science as cognitional development in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL): Teaching through a foreign language in Finland. Language and Education, 19, 147-168. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500780508668671
Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational researcher, 33(7), 14-26.
Kassymova, G. & Çiftçi, H. (2020). The effect of CLIL training on Turkish EFL pre-service teachers’ self-efficacy: Belifs and attitudes towards CLIL. The Asian EFL Journal, 24 (6), 6-31.
Kaufman, D. (2004). Constructivist issues in language learning and teaching. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 303-319.
Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Sociocultural theory and second language learning: Introduction to the special issue. The Modern Language Journal, 78, 418-420.
Lasagabaster, D. (2011). English achievement and student motivation in CLIL and EFL settings. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 5, 3-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2010.519030
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge university press.
Lázaro-Ibarrola, A. (2025), Intensity Matters Inside and Outside Primary School: Evidence from High-CLIL, Low-CLIL, and Non-CLIL Learners. TESOL Quarterly, 59, 1564-1595. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.3369
Lázaro-Ibarrola, A., & Azpilicueta-Martínez, R. (2024). Motivation towards the foreign language (English) and regional language (Basque) in immersion schools: Does CLIL in the foreign language make a difference? Language Teaching Research, 28, 1682-1700. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/13621688211031737
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.
Lorenzo, F., Granados, A., & Rico, N. (2021). Equity in bilingual education: Socioeconomic status and content and language integrated learning in monolingual Southern Europe. Applied Linguistics, 42, 393-413. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amaa037
Luo, W. (2021). Callenges in implementing bilingual instructions in Taiwan and implications for teacher professional development. Journal of Educaion Research [教育研究月刊], 321, 78-97. https://doi.org/10.3966/168063602021010321006
Mahan, K. R. (2020). The comprehending teacher: scaffolding in content and language integrated learning (CLIL). The Language Learning Journal, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2019.1705879
Marsh, D. (2002). CLIL/EMILE-The European dimension: Actions, trends and foresight potential. University of Jyva¨skyla¨.
Marsh, D. (Ed.) (2005). Insight and innovation special educational needs in Europe. The teaching and learning of languages. European Commission.
Marsh, D., & Hartiala, A.-K. (2001). Dimensions of content and language integrated learning. In D. Marsh, A. Maljers, & A.-K. Hartiala (Eds.), Profiling European CLIL classrooms. Languages open doors (pp. 15-53). ER-Paino.
Marsh, D., & Langé, G. (2000). Using languages to learn and learning to use languages. University of Jyväskylä.
Mehisto, P., Marsh, D., & Frigols, M. J. (2008). Uncovering CLIL. Macmillan Education.
Massler, U., Stotz, D., & Queisser, C. (2014). Assessment instruments for primary CLIL: the conceptualisation and evaluation of test tasks. The Language Learning Journal, 42, 137-150. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2014.891371
Merino, J. A., & Lasagabaster, D. (2018). CLIL as a way to multilingualism. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21, 79-92. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2015.1128386
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). Multilingual Matters.
Meyer, O., Coyle, D., Halbach, A., Schuck, K., & Ting, T. (2015). A pluriliteracies approach to content and language integrated learning – mapping learner progressions in knowledge construction and meaning-making. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28, 41-57. https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2014.1000924
Morton, T. (2018). Reconceptualizing and describing teachers’ knowledge of language for content and language integrated learning (CLIL). International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21, 275-286. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2017.1383352
National Development Council & MOE. (2020). 2030 Bilingual Nation Policy by 2030: 2021-20242030 (雙語國家政策-110 至 113 年). Retrieved June 27th, 2021, from
https://www.edu.tw/News_Content4.aspx?n=D33B55D537402BAA&sms=954974C68391B710&s=FB233D7EC45FFB37
Nikolov, M. (2009). The age factor in context. In M. Nikolov (Ed.), The age factor and early language learning (pp. 1-38). Mouton de Gruyter.
Otwinowska, A., & Foryś, M. (2017). They learn the CLIL way, but do they like it? Affectivity and cognition in upper-primary CLIL classes. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 20, 457-480. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2015.1051944
Palincsar, A. S. (1998). Social constructivist perspectives on teaching and learning. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 345-375. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.345
Paran, A. (2013). Content and language integrated learning: Panacea or policy borrowing myth? Applied Linguistics Review, 4, 317-342. https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2013-0014
Pérez-Cañado, M. L. (2012). CLIL research in Europe: Past, present, and future. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 15, 315-341. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2011.630064
Pérez Cañado, M. L. (2016). Are teachers ready for CLIL? Evidence from a European study. European Journal of Teacher Education, 39, 202-221. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2016.1138104
Pérez Cañado, M. L. (2018a). The effects of CLIL on L1 and content learning: Updated empirical evidence from monolingual contexts. Learning and Instruction, 57, 18-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.12.002
Pérez Cañado, M. L. (2018b). Innovations and challenges in CLIL teacher training. Theory Into Practice, 57(3), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2018.1492238
Pladevall-Ballester, E. (2015). Exploring primary school CLIL perceptions in Catalonia: Students', teachers' and parents' opinions and expectations. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 18, 45-59. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2013.874972
Pladevall-Ballester, E. (2019). A longitudinal study of primary school EFL learning motivation in CLIL and non-CLIL settings. Language Teaching Research, 23, 765-786. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168818765877
Rohmah, I. I. T., Saleh, M., Faridi, A., & Fitriati, S. W. (2019). Language assessment pattern for primary education in the content and language integrate learning (CLIL) classroom context. The Asian EFL Journal, 21 (2.2), 101-123
San Isidro, X. (2018). Innovations and challenges in CLIL implementation in Europe. Theory Into Practice, 57, 185-195. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2018.1484038
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harward Educaitonal Review, 57, 1-23.
Surmont, J., Struys, E., Van Den Noort, M., & Van De Craen, P. (2016). The effect of CLIL on mathmatical content learning: A longitudinal study. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 6, 319-337. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2016.6.2.7
van Kampen, E., Meirink, J., Admiraal, W., & Berry, A. (2020). Do we all share the same goals for content and language integrated learning (CLIL)? Specialist and practitioner perceptions of ‘ideal’ CLIL pedagogies in the Netherlands. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 23, 855-871. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2017.1411332
van Lier, L. (2004). The ecology and semiotics of langauge learning. A sociocltural perspective. Kluwer Academic.
Virdia, S. (2020). The (heterogeneous) effect of CLIL on content-subject and cognitive acquisition in primary education: Evidence from a counterfactual analysis in Italy. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2020.1835805
Vollmer, H. J. (2008). Constructing tasks for conent and language integrated learning and assessment. In J. Eckerth & S. Siekmann (Eds.), Task-based language learning and teaching. Theoretical, methodological, and pedagogical perspectives (pp. 227-290). Peter Lang.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. MIT Press.
Yang, W. (2017). Tuning university undergraduates for high mobility and employability under the content and language integrated learning approach. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 20, 607-624. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2015.1061474
Yang, W., & Gosling, M. (2014). What makes a Taiwan CLIL programme highly recommended or not recommended? International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 17, 394-409. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2013.808168
Zheng, Y., Lu, Y., & Li, J. (2023). Motivating and demotivating factors for Chinese as a foreign language learners in a British CLIL programme. Foreign Language Annals, 56, 720–739. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12681
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2026 Yu-ju Hung (Author)