In this Action Research paper, I, the teacher-researcher, moved through iterative cycles of planning, acting, and reflecting to evaluate the extent to which my geography course could be described as a Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) course. Coyle et al.\u2019s (2010) 4 Cs framework for CLIL was harnessed to analyse the data that was gathered from three student surveys during a one-semester course. The results revealed that while students valued the content driven nature of the course, cognitive load and vocabulary acquisition remained significant barriers to a more complete content understanding. This study highlights a way in which teacher autonomy coupled with action research allows for pedagogical shifts in classroom practice and can better support learner needs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Keywords<\/em>: CLIL, action research, geography, reflective practice, teacher autonomy<\/p>\n\n\n\n In 2019, the English department within the university where this research was conducted made a substantial change to its curriculum that required all teachers to design their content courses to follow Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) teaching principles. Teachers could design their own content courses and submit them with an aim of teaching those courses. I exercised my teacher autonomy by designing a geography course as I had a degree in geography and a keen interest in the subject. Teacher autonomy is defined by Benson (2001) as the \u201ccapacity to take control over one\u2019s own teaching\u201d (p. 160). When the departmental change came into effect, it prompted me to research CLIL methodology in more depth and consider how I would create my intended geography course to pass the English department\u2019s screening process. During my research, I became aware that CLIL had been garnering more attention within the TESOL field in Japan, likely due to the success of this methodology in other parts of the world (Goris et al., 2019). My geography course was judged to sufficiently meet the criteria for a CLIL course by my institution and accepted to be taught within the English department from 2020. I later began planning a research project, with the intent to conduct CLIL-focussed action research during the 2021 academic year. My research planning was shaped and directed within an action research (AR) group I joined with other teacher-researchers at the university. AR appealed to me as a research methodology as the educator plays a practical role (Burns, 1999, 2010). The rationale for choosing AR as a methodology was that through the AR cycle, I would be afforded the opportunity to readjust the content of my course based on data from student feedback in order to better meet their needs and better align the content with CLIL. As McNiff and Whitehead (2010) assert, an action researcher must first question a situation (e.g., to what extent does my geography course fit CLIL criteria?), question what has been learnt (e.g., how can or should I make my course align with CLIL principles?) and what one might need to do to change the situation (e.g., to what extent should my course follow CLIL methodology? If it needs to be changed, how should it be changed?). If I discovered my course did not align with CLIL principles, then I intended to change it accordingly. Therefore, this paper assesses the extent to which this geography course aligned with established CLIL approaches while interpreting student perceptions of learning subject-specific content through a second language. It first reviews relevant literature on CLIL in Japanese higher education. Then, it outlines the AR methodology, detailing the intervention cycles and data collected. Lastly, the paper presents descriptive results, followed by a discussion about teacher autonomy and pedagogical translanguaging strategies and how these can enhance learner support.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Literature Review<\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n CLIL and the 4 Cs framework<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n CLIL began in Europe in 1994 (Marsh et al., 2001) and has been implemented widely in the European context (Coleman, 2006). It is a variant of a broader English medium of instruction methodology (Lo, 2017). Bruton (2013) states that CLIL has had a vagueness in definition; however, the basic premise of CLIL is that learners should acquire subject knowledge while learning a language in order to truly improve the acquisition of the target language (Ioannou-Georgiou, 2012). By doing so, learners will hopefully be motivated to understand the subject matter through understanding the additional language at the same time.Coyle et al. (2010) states that \u201cIn CLIL classrooms, more emphasis may be put on content or language at times, but teaching and learning aim to always include both content and language. It is this \u2018innovative fusion of both\u2019 that distinguishes CLIL from other approaches\u201d (p. 1). In the CLIL domain, a hard\u2013soft<\/em> (or strong\u2013weak<\/em>) spectrum is commonly used when describing CLIL environments (Ball et al., 2015). Soft CLIL<\/em> is usually within a language learning context where the language aspect is primary (Ikeda, 2013). Hard CLIL<\/em> means teaching subject matter through the target language where content is the driver and language is secondary (Ball et al., 2015).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Coyle et al. (2010) developed the 4 Cs framework<\/em> (illustrated in Figure 1) as a way to conceptualise the tenets of CLIL. The framework comprises four conceptual building blocks: \u201ccontent (subject matter), communication (language learning and using), cognition (learning and thinking processes) and culture (developing intercultural understanding and global citizenship)\u201d (Coyle et al., 2010, p. 41). The 4 Cs framework was created to make connections between content and language learning and be workable within specific contexts. CLIL demands that learners \u201ccreate new knowledge and develop new skills through reflection and engagement in higher-order as well as lower-order thinking\u201d (Coyle et al., 2010, p. 54). \u201cCommunity\u201d is used in place of \u201cculture\u201d in the Japanese version of the model (Ikeda, 2013) because the original \u201cculture\u201d element referred to the multilingual context in Europe. Ball et al. (2015) claim that teachers with CLIL methodological knowledge should, in theory, be able to assist learners bymotivating them and supporting their understanding of the subject matter. However, integrating content and language into teaching practice is not an easy task at all. Teachers face a heavy workload, as they must not only be knowledgeable about the subject matter but also create lesson plans that integrate both content and language instruction (Coyle et al.,<\/em> 2010).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Figure 1. The 4 Cs Framework of CLIL (Adapted from Coyle et al., 2010)<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the EFL context of Japan, the critical thinking and intercultural communication elements of CLIL align with the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology\u2019s educational aims (MEXT, 2018) of enhancing understanding of languages and cultures and developing the ability to proactively communicate globally. According to Yashima (2002), CLIL methodology can lead to \u201cinternational posture,\u201d meaning a worldly outlook that is non-ethnocentric and a desire to communicate interculturally. CLIL has been increasingly recognised and adopted in Japan as a teaching methodology, although it is still not fully understood or utilised (Kavanagh, 2018). Sasajima (2013) mentions that CLIL can help influence teachers\u2019 minds in relation to teaching, materials creation and fostering a student-centred classroom. In the context of Japan, increased CLIL environments could prove beneficial in creating a desire for learners to learn subject matter through English or other languages. In doing so, CLIL has the potential to improve learners\u2019 English ability in Japan in all educational contexts from primary to tertiary (Sasajima, 2019). Additionally, Brown (2015) states that in Japan, one third of all university classes could be considered CLIL. Since 2014, the number of foreign language (mainly English) instruction classes provided by Japanese universities has certainly increased due to the Top Global Universities Project (MEXT, 2018). In 2018, the Japan CLIL Pedagogy Association held its inaugural conference. Its establishment was a significant step for building a community of CLIL educators within the Japanese EFL context.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Past CLIL studies within Japan<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n CLIL implementation studies in Japan have been increasing since approximately 2010, they have shown the positive effects of CLIL for learning content (Yamano, 2019) and have been conducted at various educational levels (e.g., elementary or junior high schools). The first two university-level experimental implementations of CLIL were at Sophia University in 2008 and Saitama Medical University in 2010. These had generally positive outcomes, as maintaining student interest in the course content helped sustain their motivation (Ohmori, 2014). However, Ohmori (2014) states that instructors in Japan are primarily language teachers rather than subject experts, as is more typical in European contexts. MacGregor (2016) also argues that many teachers required to teach CLIL simply lack the adequate subject knowledge to do it. This highlights the difficulty facing instructors taking on the dual roles of language and content specialists. Lockley (2015) conducted research in a university CLIL course on Japanese international history that used the theoretical framework of willingness to communicate<\/em> with international posture<\/em> as a core construct within the framework. He found students\u2019 international posture developed, leading to them feeling more connected to the wider world. The result of increased international posture was concluded to be related to the course content being taught as a CLIL course. Along similar lines, Thomas (2023) created a CLIL class based on the topics of British culture, politics and music. Thomas delivered his course with a hard CLIL approach similar to this study. Participant feedback in Thomas\u2019s study revealed that a hard approach to CLIL was appropriate to utilise in the creation of that particular course. These positive effects gave me confidence that the design and implementation of my course could also affect learners positively.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Despite the positive effects, CLIL research conducted in Japan showed that the lack of both CLIL teacher training and a clear definition of the methodology are recurring themes (Birdsell, 2020). Materials developers have published textbooks promoting CLIL content, but the reality is that these books fail to properly represent CLIL methodology (Birdsell, 2020). Furthermore, distinguishing CLIL practice from non-CLIL practice is not always easy. Some Japanese courses may include elements that could be broadly defined as CLIL, but it is likely that teachers are unaware of CLIL as a teaching methodology (Ohmori, 2014). In tandem with this idea, Sasajima (2019) asserts that teacher training is needed for CLIL educators.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Teacher autonomy<\/em><\/strong> and action research<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Teacher autonomy is likely a capacity that many educators wish to achieve. Should a teacher be granted the freedom to make autonomous decisions about the curriculum, the methodology and the assessment creation, they would be able to fully embody autonomous teaching. Self-appraisal<\/em>, or what is better known as reflective practice, is a cyclical process in which the teacher can assess and improve their own practice (Farrell, 2012). Richards and Farrell (2011) believe critical self-appraisal can only be achieved by teachers if they have autonomy to evaluate and improve upon their practice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n AR is a participatory approach to researching a problem and effecting change within an area of practice (Burns, 2010). The aim of AR is to \u201ctake an area of teaching the teacher feels could be done better, subjecting it to questioning and then developing new ideas and alternatives\u201d (Burns, 2010, p, 2). It is a form of research that continually goes through a cycle from action to research (Burns, 1999; Kemmis & McTaggart, 1988). There is not one prescribed way to conduct AR, but generally, it follows a cyclical process of observing a situation, planning what action to take to effect change, acting out the plan, observing again to see the results of the action and finally reflecting upon the results and what they mean (see Figure 2).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Figure 2. Action Research Cycle (Adapted from Kemmis & McTaggart, 2000, p. 278)<\/p>\n\n\n\n AR has become an area of interest for language teachers in the last 20 years as it can enable teachers to become researchers (Burns et al., 2022). AR aligns with teacher autonomy and reflective practice principles (Richards & Farrell, 2011) by operationalising the concept of reflection by structuring the reflection through the cyclical stages. As Richards (2003) points out, teachers are natural researchers and constantly evaluate the effects of teaching approaches. It is my view that AR is a practical way for a teacher to understand their classroom, their students and their teaching style in order to improve their teaching context.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Research questions<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n To discover the extent to which my geography course aligned with CLIL principles, my action research was driven by the following two questions:<\/p>\n\n\n 1) To what extent does my content course fit within CLIL principles? Methodology<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n In this AR study, I, as the teacher became the researcher and sought to understand how my geography course fitted within the parameters of CLIL methodology. The reason I did this was to discover the extent to which my geography course could adequately be described as a CLIL course. Utilising AR enabled me to exercise my teacher autonomy to adjust the curriculum based on emerging student needs. Ordinarily, AR starts with identifying a problem area, but in the case of my research, there was no specific problem to address, instead more of a curiosity to understand how my course could or should better align with CLIL principles. This curiosity was born from the requirement to pass the CLIL screening test needed for my course to be taught. Through the challenge of creating my own course that fit CLIL principles, a new found fascination for CLIL grew.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Context and participants<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n This study took place at a small private university (around 4,000 students) in Japan and lasted one semester (15 weeks with two 90-minute classes per week). There were 28 participants, who were third- and fourth-year English-language department students enrolled in this elective course. There were 17 females and 11 males, all first-language Japanese speakers with varied English speaking proficiency of approximately CEFR B1 to C1 (based on my own judgement). The university\u2019s ethics committee approved the research; all the students agreed to participate, were given consent forms to sign and were informed that they were free to withdraw from the study at any time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Instrument <\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n To address the research questions, an adapted version of Dale and Tanner\u2019s (2012) 36-item \u201cHow CLIL are you?\u201d teacher survey was used to determine whether the course was perceived as \u201csoft\u201d or \u201chard\u201d CLIL (See Appendix A for the survey statements). The survey items were modified from first-person (\u201cI\u201d) to third-person (\u201cthe teacher\u201d) to apply to student respondents, while section headings remained unchanged. All items were translated into Japanese by a licensed professional translator. Responses were recorded on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = always<\/em> to 5 = never<\/em>), with an additional option for \u201cnot sure.\u201d The quantitative Likert scale data was used to find gaps related to the four Cs and to highlight what to change in relation to the action research cycles. The survey comprised six subsections designed to identify areas needing instructional adjustment across AR cycles (see Figure 3 for example survey items). Additionally, an open-ended question was included to elicit participants\u2019 views on CLIL as a learning methodology (see Figure 4 for the final open-ended question).<\/p>\n\n\n\n The qualitative data from the open-ended question was used to find themes related to the four Cs. Finally, in the second and third iteration of the survey, additional open-ended questions were added which were created in response to the previous survey\u2019s results (see Appendix A for the two additional survey questions).<\/p>\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/kuis.kandagaigo.ac.jp\/relayjournal\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/image-7.png\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/kuis.kandagaigo.ac.jp\/relayjournal\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/image-8.png\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
2) What are students’ views on understanding the content of a subject by using an L2?<\/p>\n\n\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/kuis.kandagaigo.ac.jp\/relayjournal\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/image-18.png\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\n