CLIL in Comparison with PPP: A Revolution in ELT by Competency-Based Language Education

  • Makoto IkedaEmail author
Part of the New Language Learning and Teaching Environments book series (NLLTE)


This chapter deals with CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning) in Japan, focusing on maths CLIL at a primary school. It begins with the theoretical discussion on CLIL and the overview of its implementation in Japan. The chapter then describes the innovative maths CLIL programme at an independent primary school and analyzes an actual CLIL lesson in comparison with a PPP (Presentation–Practice–Production) class conducted by the same teacher. Based on lesson observations and teacher interviews, the chapter argues that CLIL does not only offer an enriched language learning environment, but broadens the scope of language education by engaging students in content-rich and cognitively demanding tasks, which helps learners develop their general purpose competences.


CLIL (Content and language integrated Learning) Competency-based education PPP (Presentation Practice Production) 


  1. Ball, P. (2009). Does CLIL work? In D. Hill & A. Pulverness (Eds.), The best of both worlds?: International perspectives on CLIL (pp. 32–43). Norwich: Norwich Institute for Language Education.Google Scholar
  2. Ball, P., Kelly, K., & Clegg, J. (2015). Putting CLIL into practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Barwell, R. (2016). A Bakhtinian perspective on language and content integration: Encountering the alien world in second language mathematics classrooms. In T. Nikula, E. Dafouz, P. Moore, & U. Smit (Eds.), Conceptualising integration in CLIL and multilingual education (pp. 101–122). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bernstein, B. (1999). Vertical and horizontal discourse: An essay. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 20(2), 157–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Byrne, D. (1986). Teaching oral English. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
  6. Cammarata, L., & Tedick, D. (2012). Balancing content and language in instruction: The experience of immersion teachers. The Modern Language Journal, 96, 251–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clark, J. (1987). Curriculum renewal in school foreign language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Cook, G. (1989). Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Cook, G. (2010). Translation in language teaching: An argument for reassessment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Coyle, D. (2007). Content and language integrated learning: Towards a connected research agenda for CLIL pedagogies. The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(5), 543–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Cummins, J. (1979). Cognitive/academic language proficiency, linguistic interdependence, the optimum age and some other matters. Working Papers on Bilingualism, 19, 121–129.Google Scholar
  13. European Communities. (2007). Key competences for lifelong learning: European reference framework. Retrieved from
  14. Gibbons, P. (2015). Scaffolding language scaffolding learning: Teaching English language learners in the mainstream classroom (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  15. Hedge, T. (2000). Teaching and learning in the language classroom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Henrichsen, L. (1989). Diffusion of innovations in English language teaching: The ELEC effort in Japan, 1956–1968. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
  17. Hitotsumatsu, S., & Okada, Y. (Eds.). (2015). Study with your friends: Mathematics for elementary school 1st grade. Tokyo: Gakko Tosho.Google Scholar
  18. Ikeda, M. (2012). CLILの原理と指導法 [CLIL principles and pedagogy]. In S. Izumi, M. Ikeda & Y. Watanabe (Eds.), CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning): New challenges in foreign language education at Sophia University, Vol. 2. Practices and applications (pp. 1–15). Tokyo: Sophia University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Ikeda, M. (2013). Does CLIL work for Japanese secondary school students?: Potential for the weak version of CLIL. The International CLIL Journal, 1(5), 31–43.Google Scholar
  20. Ikeda, M. (2016). CLIL活用のための新コンセプトと新ツール [New concepts and new tools to activate CLIL]. In M. Ikeda, Y. Watanabe, & S. Izumi (Eds.), CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning): New challenges in foreign language education at Sophia University, Vol. 3. Materials and lessons (pp. 1–29). Tokyo: Sophia University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Kennedy, C. (1988). Evaluation of the management of change in ELT projects. Applied Linguistics, 9(4), 329–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lewin, K. (1951). Problems of research in social psychology. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Field theory in social sciences: Selected theoretical papers by Kurt Lewin (pp. 155–169). New York, NY: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  23. Lewis, G., Jones, B., & Baker, C. (2012). Translanguaging: Origins and development from school to street and beyond. Educational Research and Evaluation, 18(7), 641–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lightbown, P. (2014). Focus on content-based language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Linares, A., Morton, T., & Whittaker, R. (2012). The roles of language in CLIL. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Lyster, R. (2007). Learning and teaching languages through content: A counterbalanced approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lyster, R. (2018). Content-based language teaching. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. Morton, T. (2013). Critically evaluating materials for CLIL: Practioners’ practices and perspectives. In J. Gray (Ed.), Critical perspectives on language teaching materials (pp. 111–136). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. National Institute for Educational Policy Research. (2015). Summary of report 1: Study on the curriculum to develop competencies—Nurturing competencies for the 21st century. Retrieved from
  30. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2005). The definition and selection of key competences: Executive summaries. Retrieved from
  31. Partnership for 21st Century Learning. (2015). P21 Framework definitions. Retrieved from
  32. Pérez-Cañado, M. (2012). CLIL research in Europe: Past, present, and future. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 15(3), 315–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rogers, E., & Shoemaker, F. (1971). Communication of innovations: A cross-cultural approach (2nd ed.). New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  34. Silesi, S., & Jackson, P. (2011). Everybody up 1: Student book with CD. Tokyo: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Walsh, S. (2011). Exploring classroom discourse: Language in action. Oxford: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Waters, A. (2009). Managing innovation in English language education. Language Teaching, 42(4), 421–458.Google Scholar
  37. White, R. (1988). The ELT curriculum: Design, innovation and management. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sophia UniversityTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations