Teacher Development: J-CLIL



This chapter explores Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) pedagogy and teacher education (TE) in a context beyond Europe, especially focusing on the activities of the Japan CLIL Pedagogy Association (J-CLIL). It discusses CLIL pedagogy and TE first and then the issues in CLIL implementation, such as its definition, framework, teacher development, and teacher networks. J-CLIL primarily aims to support CLIL pedagogy in Japan, where primary and secondary school teachers have multiple roles at school and cannot always focus on teaching. The results of a questionnaire, which was conducted to see the current situations of CLIL pedagogy and TE, suggest that CLIL still does not have any stable status as an educational approach in the Japanese context. This chapter therefore proposes several ideas for CLIL teacher development: (1) the contextualized CLIL TE model, (2) the minimal requirements for CLIL teachers, and (3) the program design of CLIL TE in reference to task-based language teaching (TBLT). When starting CLIL TE, the role of J-CLIL will be a key platform to arrange and coordinate the programs. J-CLIL or CLIL teacher networks will play a significant role to help develop each CLIL teacher’s professional knowledge and skills for future CLIL pedagogy in the global context.


CLIL pedagogy CLIL teacher education J-CLIL CLIL teacher networks Task-based language teaching (TBLT) 


  1. Ainley, J., & Carstens, R. (2018). Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) 2018 Conceptual Framework. OECD Education Working Papers No. 187. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  2. Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and Assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  3. CLIL for Children. (2016). Guidelines on How to Develop CLIL Materials and Lesson Plans in Primary Schools. Retrieved from
  4. Council of Europe. (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Cambridge, UK: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
  5. Coyle, D. (1999). Theory and planning for effective classrooms: Supporting students in Content and Language Integrated Learning contexts. In J. Masih (Ed.), Learning through a Foreign Language. London: CILT. Key Data on Teaching Languages at Schools in Europe. (2008). Brussels: Eurydice Network.Google Scholar
  6. Coyle, D. (2006). Content and language integrated learning: Motivating learners and teachers. Scottish Languages Review, 13, 1–18.Google Scholar
  7. Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. de Graaff, R., Koopman, G. J., & Westhoff, G. (2007). Identifying effective L2 pedagogy in content and language integrated learning (CLIL). Vienna English Working Papers, 16(3), 12–19.Google Scholar
  9. Denman, C., & Al-Mahrooqi, R. (2018). Handbook of Research on Curriculum Reform Initiatives in English Education. Hershey: IGI Global.Google Scholar
  10. European Parliament & Council. (2006). Annex: Key competences for lifelong learning—A European reference framework. Official Journal of the European Union, L394, 13–18.Google Scholar
  11. Eurydice. (2006). Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) at School in Europe. Retrieved from
  12. Farell, T. S. C., & Martin, S. (2009). To teach standard English or world Englishes? A balanced approach to instruction. English Teaching Forum, 47(2), 1–5.Google Scholar
  13. Fernandez, C., & Yoshida, M. (2004). Lesson Study: A Japanese Approach to Improving Mathematics Teaching and Learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  14. García, O. (2009). Bilingual Education in the 21st Century: A Global Perspective. Malden, MA and Oxford: Blackwell and Wiley.Google Scholar
  15. Holliday, A. (2006). Native-speakerism. ELT Journal, 60(4), 385–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jackson, P. W. (1968). Life in Classrooms. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
  17. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  18. Learning & Teaching Scotland. (2005). Let’s Talk about Pedagogy: Towards a Shared Understanding for Early Years Education in Scotland. Dundee: Learning and Teaching Scotland.Google Scholar
  19. Lightbown, P. M. (2014). Focus on Content-based Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Long, M. H. (2009). Methodological principles for language teaching. In M. H. Long & C. J. Doughty (Eds.), The Handbook of Language Teaching (pp. 373–394). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lyster, R. (2007). Learning and Teaching Languages Through Content: A Counterbalanced Approach. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Marsh, D. (2002). CLIL/EMILE—The European Dimension: Actions, Trends and Foresight Potential. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä.Google Scholar
  23. McLagan, P. A. (1997). Competencies: The next generation. Training & Development, 51(5), 40–48.Google Scholar
  24. MEXT. (2008). Section 9 foreign languages in the course of study. Retrieved from
  25. MEXT. (2014a). English Education Reform Plan Corresponding to Globalization. Retrieved from
  26. MEXT. (2014b). Eigo Kyoiku noarikatanikansuru Yushikisha Kaigi. Retrieved from
  27. Nikula, T. (2016). CLIL: A European approach to bilingual education. In N. Van Deusen-Scholl & S. May (Eds.), Second and Foreign Language Education. Encyclopedia of Language and Education (3rd ed.). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  28. Sasajima, S. (2011). CLIL: Atarashii Hassoo no Jugyo (CLIL: A New Perspective on the Classroom). Tokyo: Sanshusha.Google Scholar
  29. Sasajima, S. (2012). Practical Language (English) Teacher Education Curriculum Development Based on LSP. Report of Current Research Supported by Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research in 2008–2011 (No. 20520515). Retrieved from
  30. Sasajima, S. (2013). How CLIL can impact on EFL teachers’ mindsets about teaching and learning: An exploratory study on teacher cognition. International CLIL Research Journal, 2(1), 56–66.Google Scholar
  31. Sasajima, S. (2014a). An Exploratory Study of Japanese EFL Teachers’ Kokoro—Language Teacher Cognition at Secondary School in Japan. Saarbrucken, Germany: Lambert Academic Publishing.Google Scholar
  32. Sasajima, S. (2014b). CLIL Theory and Practice [Presentation Slides]. FD Seminar at Meio University.Google Scholar
  33. Sasajima, S. (2017a). CLIL can Vary in Each Teacher and Learner [Presentation Slides]. Symposium Individual Factors in CLIL Teachers and Learners, The 18th World Congress of Applied Linguistics in Rio de Janeiro.Google Scholar
  34. Sasajima, S. (2017b). CLIL Theory and Practices [Presentation Slides]. CLIL Workshop at Tohoku University.Google Scholar
  35. Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Swain, M. (2006). Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced second language learning. In H. Byrnes (Ed.), Advanced Language Learning: The Contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky (pp. 95–108). London, UK: Continuum.Google Scholar
  37. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of International CommunicationToyo Eiwa UniversityYokohamaJapan

Personalised recommendations