Volume 7, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2212-8433
  • E-ISSN: 2212-8441
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



In Australia, content and language integrated learning (CLIL) is commonly implemented as a way to encourage innovation in language teaching. This paper explores how Japanese can also be used to innovate the teaching of content. Qualitative data are drawn from a Year 8 science Japanese CLIL classroom in a secondary school with an opt-in CLIL program. In the class, a monolingual (in English) science teacher was co-teaching with a Japanese language teacher. Findings from observations, after-class reflections, teacher and student interviews, a student survey and work samples revealed that students were highly engaged with the Japanese component of their science lessons. Kanji was further positioned as a way for students to deepen their understanding of scientific concepts. However, there also appeared to be a separation in the way both teachers and students spoke about Japanese language use and learning science. Implications of these findings are discussed in the paper.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Abe, Y.
    (2002) 漢字という障害 [An Obstacle Named Kanji]. Shakai gengogaku, 2, 37–55.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. (2015) ことばのバリアフリー: 情報保障とコミュニケーションの 障害学 [Barrier-free Language: Disability studies of information assurance and communication]. Tokyo: Seikatsu shoin.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Andō, M.
    (1942) 日本語のむづかしさ [The difficulty of Japanese language]. Nihongo, 2(3), 4–11.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Braun, V., & Clarke, V.
    (2008) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
    https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa [Google Scholar]
  5. Bravo, M. A.
    (2017) Cultivating teacher knowledge of the role of language in science: A model of elementary grade pre-service teacher preparation. InA. W. Oliveira & M. H. Weinburgh (Eds.), Science teacher preparation in content-based second language acquisition (pp.25–40). Springer: Switzerland. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑43516‑9_2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43516-9_2 [Google Scholar]
  6. Cenoz, J., Genesee, F., & Gorter, D.
    (2014) Critical analysis of CLIL: Taking stock and looking forward. Applied Linguistics, 35(3), 243–262. 10.1093/applin/amt011
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amt011 [Google Scholar]
  7. Coyle, D.
    (2007) Content and language integrated learning: Towards a connected research agenda for CLIL pedagogies. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(5), 543–562. 10.2167/beb459.0
    https://doi.org/10.2167/beb459.0 [Google Scholar]
  8. Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D.
    (2010) CLIL: Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Cross, R., & Gearon, M.
    (2013) Research and evaluation of the content and language integrated learning (CLIL) approach to teaching and learning languages in Victorian schools. Melbourne Australia: Melbourne Graduate School of Education, The University of Melbourne.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Dalton-Puffer, C.
    (2013) A construct of cognitive discourse functions for conceptualizing content and language integration in CLIL and multilingual education. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 216–253. 10.1515/eujal‑2013‑0011
    https://doi.org/10.1515/eujal-2013-0011 [Google Scholar]
  11. 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(2), 213–218. 10.1093/applin/amu010
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amu010 [Google Scholar]
  12. Dalton-Puffer, C.
    (2016) Cognitive discourse functions: Specifying an integrative interdisciplinary construct. InE. Dafouz & T. Nikula (Eds.), Conceptualising integration in CLIL and multilingual education (pp.29–54). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781783096145‑005
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783096145-005 [Google Scholar]
  13. De Jong, E.
    (2002) Effective bilingual education: From theory to academic achievement in a two-way bilingual program. Bilingual Research Journal, 26(1), 65–84. 10.1080/15235882.2002.10668699
    https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2002.10668699 [Google Scholar]
  14. De Kretser, A., & Spence-Brown, R.
    (2010) The current state of Japanese language education in Australian schools. Melbourne: Education Services Australia.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Department of Education and Training (DET)
    Department of Education and Training (DET) (2017) Languages provision in Victorian Government schools 2016 Retrieved from www.education.vic.gov.au/Documents/school/teachers/teachingresources/discipline/languages/2016_Languages_provision_report.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Eurydice
    Eurydice (2006) Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) at School in Europe. Eurydice. Retrieved fromwww.indire.it/lucabas/lkmw_file/eurydice/CLIL_EN.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Fernández-Sanjurjo, J., Fernández-Costales, A., & Arias Blanco, J. M.
    (2017) Analysing students’ content-learning in science in CLIL vs. non-CLIL programmes: Empirical evidence from Spain. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 1–14. 10.1080/13670050.2017.1294142
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2017.1294142 [Google Scholar]
  18. Fielding, R., & Harbon, L.
    (2015) Implementng a content and language integrated learning program in New South Wales primary schools: Teachers’ perceptions of the challenges and opportunities. Babel, 49(2), 16+
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Fortune, T. W., & Tedick, D. J.
    (2008) One-way, two-way and indigenous immersion: A call for cross-fertilization. InT. W. Fortune & D. J. Tedick (Eds.), Pathways to multilingualism: Evolving perspectives on immersion education (pp.3–21). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781847690371‑004
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847690371-004 [Google Scholar]
  20. Genesee, F.
    (1987) Learning through two languages: Studies of immersion and bilingual children. Cambridge, MA: Newbury House.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. (2004) Dual language development and disorders: A handbook on bilingualism and second language learning. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brooks.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Halliday, M. A. K., & Mattheissen, C.
    (2004) An introduction to functional grammar (3rd edition), London: Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Hovhannisyan, A.
    (2018) Japanese language education in the greater East Asia co-prosperity sphere and the Kokuji Mondai (National Script Problem). InK. Hashimoto (Ed.), Japanese Language and Soft Power in Asia (pp.65–81). Singapore: Palgrave MacMillan. 10.1007/978‑981‑10‑5086‑2_4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5086-2_4 [Google Scholar]
  24. 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(3), 267–284. 10.1080/13670050.2013.777385
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2013.777385 [Google Scholar]
  25. Jäppinen, A.
    (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(2), 147–168. 10.1080/09500780508668671
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09500780508668671 [Google Scholar]
  26. Lee, W., & Lee, J. S.
    (2017) Math instruction is not universal: Language specific pedagogical knowledge in Korean/English two-way immersion programs. Bilingual Research Journal. 10.1080/15235882.2017.1380729
    https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2017.1380729 [Google Scholar]
  27. Lindholm-Leary, K.
    (2001) Dual language education. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781853595332
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781853595332 [Google Scholar]
  28. Lindholm-Leary, K., & Genesee, F.
    (2010) Alternative educational programs for English language learners. InCalifornia Department of Education (Eds.), Improving education for English learners: Research-based approaches (pp.323–382). Sacramento, CA: CDE Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Lyster, R.
    (2007) Learning and teaching languages through content: A counterbalanced approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.18
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.18 [Google Scholar]
  30. Lyster, R., & Mori, H.
    (2006) Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), 321–341. 10.1017/S0272263106060128
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263106060128 [Google Scholar]
  31. Martin-Beltrán, M.
    (2010) The two-way language bridge: Co-constructing bilingual language learning opportunities. Modern Language Journal, 94(2), 254–277. 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.2010.01020.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2010.01020.x [Google Scholar]
  32. 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(1), 41–57. 10.1080/07908318.2014.1000924
    https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2014.1000924 [Google Scholar]
  33. Nikula, T.
    (2015) Hands-on tasks in CLIL science classrooms as sites for subject-specific language use and learning. System, 54, 14–27. 10.1016/j.system.2015.04.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.04.003 [Google Scholar]
  34. Nikula, T., Dalton-Puffer, C., Llinares, A., & Lorenzo, F.
    (2016) More than content and language: The complexity of integration in CLIL and bilingual education. InT. Nikula, C. Dalton-Puffer, A. Llinares, & F. Lorenzo (Eds.), Conceptualising integration in CLIL and multilingual education (pp.1–25). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781783096145‑004
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783096145-004 [Google Scholar]
  35. Oller, D. K., & Eilers, R.
    (2002) Language and literacy in bilingual children. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781853595721
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781853595721 [Google Scholar]
  36. Paran, A.
    (2013) Content and language integrated learning: Panacea or policy borrowing myth?Applied Linguistics Review, 4(2), 317–342. 10.1515/applirev‑2013‑0014
    https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2013-0014 [Google Scholar]
  37. Pérez-Cañado, M. L.
    (2012) CLIL research in Europe: Past, present, and future. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 15(3), 315–341. 10.1080/13670050.2011.630064
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2011.630064 [Google Scholar]
  38. Pérez-Vidal, C., & Roquet, H.
    (2015) The linguistic impact of a CLIL science programme: An analysis measuring relative gains. System, 54, 80–90. 10.1016/j.system.2015.05.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.05.004 [Google Scholar]
  39. Rasulo, M., de Meo, A., & de Santo, M.
    (2017) Processing science through content and language integrated learning (CLIL): A teacher’s practicum. InA. W. Oliveira & M. H. Weinburgh (Eds.), Science teacher preparation in content-based second language acquisition (pp.305–322). Springer: Switzerland. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑43516‑9_17
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43516-9_17 [Google Scholar]
  40. Oliveira, L. C.
    (2017) A language-based approach to content instruction (LACI) in science for English language learners. InA. W. Oliveira & M. H. Weinburgh (Eds.), Science teacher preparation in content-based second language acquisition (pp.41–56). Springer: Switzerland. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑43516‑9_3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43516-9_3 [Google Scholar]
  41. Silva, C., Weinburgh, M., Malloy, R., Horak Smith, K., & Nettles Marshall, J.
    (2012) Toward integration: An instructional model of science and academic language. Childhood Education, March/April, 91–95. 10.1080/00094056.2012.662119
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00094056.2012.662119 [Google Scholar]
  42. Smala, S.
    (2016) CLIL in Queensland: The evolution of ‘immersion’. Babel, 50(2–3), 20.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Swain, M.
    (1985) Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. InS. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp.235–253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. (2000) French immersion research in Canada: Recent contributions to SLA and applied linguistics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 20, 199–212. 10.1017/S0267190500200123
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190500200123 [Google Scholar]
  45. Tanaka, K.
    (2011) 漢字が日本語をほろぼす [Kanji are destroying Japanese language]. Tokyo: Kadokawa SSC Shinsho.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Tedick, D. J., & Young, A. I.
    (2014) Fifth grade two-way immersion students’ responses to form-focused instruction. Applied Linguistics, 37(6), 784–807. 10.1093/applin/amu066
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amu066 [Google Scholar]
  47. Thomas, W. P., & Collier, V. P.
    (2002) A national study of school effectiveness for language minority students’ long-term academic achievement: Final report. Santa Cruz, CA/Washington, DC: Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Turner, M.
    (2013) Content-based Japanese language teaching in Australian schools: Is CLIL a good fit?Japanese Studies, 33(3), 315–330. 10.1080/10371397.2013.846211
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10371397.2013.846211 [Google Scholar]
  49. (2015) The significance of affordances on teachers’ choices: Embedding Japanese across the curriculum in Australian secondary schools. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28(3), 276–290. 10.1080/07908318.2015.1085063
    https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2015.1085063 [Google Scholar]
  50. Ullmann, M.
    (1999) History and geography through French: CLIL in a UK secondary school. InJ. Masih (Ed.), Learning through a foreign language: Models, methods and outcomes (pp.96–105). London: Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Weinburgh, M. H., & Silva, C.
    (2010) Science content knowledge and language acquisition: Replacing, reloading, repositioning, revealing and retiring academic words. Paper presented at theannual meeting of the Association for Science Teacher Education, Sacramento, CA.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Wode, H.
    (1999) Language learning in European immersion classes. InJ. Masih (Ed.), Learning through a foreign language: Models, methods and outcomes (pp.16–25). London: Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): CLIL; Japanese; science; secondary education
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error