The term Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) was originally coined in 1994, and launched in 1996 by UNICOM, University of Jyväskylä and the European Platform for Dutch Education, to describe educational methods where “subjects are taught through a foreign language with dual-focused aims, namely the learning of content, and the simultaneous learning of a foreign language” (Darn, 2006, P. 3).
By and large, different scholars delineate CLIL in an analogous style with the above mentioned description of CLIL. For instance, Dalton- Puffer (2007) described CLIL as educational scenery where a language other than students’ mother tongue is used to teach non- language content for dual purposes. Although she asserts that any second or foreign language can be used, she underscores that English is the dominant foreign language in CLIL approach in many parts of Europe, Asia and Africa. Similarly, Marsh (2012) defines it as a generic umbrella term and dual focused educational approach that accommodates both language and subject specific contents, in which both language and the subject have a joint curricular role (P. 168). In his description, he underscores that CLIL renders natural context for language development and facilitates the process of language in context where meaning is emphasized. Again, other scholars defined CLIL as a foreign language enrichment measure packaged in to content teaching (see Dalton- Puffer and Smit, 2013; as cited in Pecorari, n.d.).
Besides, for Benegas et al. (2020) CLIL is delineated as a language teaching approach which emphasizes on the teaching of curricular content and L2 in an integrated model. According to Cenoz( 2013) as cited by Benegas and others, CLIL can be conceptualized as content- driven CLIL model( i.e., teaching content subject through the medium of an L2) and language- driven CLIL models( i.e., teaching English as an additional language through topics derived from the curriculum.
Moreover, as noted by some scholars, CLIL is also a flexible approach, and integrates content and language in a continuum, without implying predilection for one or the other; and in a flexible and vibrant way (Marsh,2012; Perez-Canado, 2012, P.318; as cited in Gabillon, 2020).
In addition to the above descriptions of CLIL, the definition of CLIL given here under by Coyle et al. (2010, P. 1) seems the most comprehensive delineation:
Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) is a dual focused educational approach in which additional language is used for the learning and teaching of both content and language. That is in the teaching and learning process, there is a focus not only on content, and not only on language. Each is interwoven, even if the emphasis is greater on one than the other at a given time.
Thus, CLIL has been an evolving pedagogical approach to teach EFL since 1990s (Coyle, 2013). Its inception was in 1994, which exactly coincides with the time of the emergence of post –method era. Thus, by being ignited by ineffectiveness of the previous methods of teaching English as foreign language; and by bringing together all the features of existing approaches like immersion, Content- Based Instruction and Bilingual Education ,which were being used prior to inception of CLIL, the acronym CLIL was coined for Content and Language Integrated Learning . Conversely, as noted by some scholars, the essence of integrating content and language is not new as it was being utilized in immersion program in Canada, and Bilingual Education in USA. All the aforementioned terms were replaced by CLIL; and two years later, it was launched as a new teaching approach across Europe (Darn, 2006; Marsh, 2012; Naves, n.d.).
As depicted in different literature, CLIL has been implemented in various European contexts since 1996 and it was launched as a mainstream form of education at all stages of education due to issues of internationalization, work force mobility, employability and maintenance of social cohesion among European citizens(Benegas et al., 2020; Coyle, 2013; Czura & Papaja , 2013; Dack et al. 2020; Marsh, 2012).
Regarding the importance of CLIL, Darn (2006) and Mcdougald (2018) affirm that CLIL is the most promising and beneficial approach in which content and language are taught and learnt together in dual focused classroom context, and it helps learners to master both language and content knowledge. Again, Harrop (2012) affirms that CLIL can boost reading comprehension, range of vocabulary and motivation by providing authentic context for language use unlike any conventional classroom. Yang (2014) also depicts that CLIL approach improves reading skills significantly. Again, Naves (n.d.) assert that CLIL approach promotes professional dialogue and cooperation between departments. Furthermore, Naves encapsulates the importance of CLIL in the following way: “CLIL creates conditions for naturalistic language learning; provides a purpose for language use in the classroom; does have a positive effect on language learning by putting emphasis on meaning; increases the amount of exposure to the target language’’( p.25).
Furthermore, in countries like Ethiopia, where English is used as a foreign language, problems that students encounter when they tackle the nuts and bolts of the language can be alleviated if CLIL is incorporated in the didactics (Coyle et al., 2010).
In this way, the conventional way of teaching content and language in isolation seems to be traditional. Moreover, it seems clear that CLIL can have a motivating power for both teachers and students as it accommodates the teaching and learning of both content and language in a given context at the same time. Supporting this, some scholars assert that both content and language are intermingled for dual focused aims and receive equal significance in CLIL unlike in the conventional approaches (Darn, 2006; Harrop, 2012).
As depicted in literature, CLIL has got popularity for its effectiveness in different parts of the world, beginning from Europe. According Marsh (2012), CLIL is being effectively used across Europe, and it has rendered greater opportunity for learners to be exposed to foreign language learning.
Regarding the practical effectiveness of CLIL approach, different research works reveal that CLIL approach can bring significant change. For instance, CLIL mitigates gender differences in motivation (Heras and Lasagabaster, 2015); CLIL improves vocabulary development( Huang, 2020; Moghadam & Fatemipour, 2014; Xanthou,2011); CLIL improves students’ reading comprehension and boosts motivation(Admiraal et al. 2006; Guntur et al., 2021; Hamidavi, et al.,2016; Harrop ,2012; Ravi, 2016) ; CLIL has developed EFL reading and vocabulary skills among college students(Sanad and Ahmed, 2017); CLIL improves L2 proficiency( Benegas et al., 2020; Isidro & Lasagabaster, 2018), and many more. Hence, from the aforementioned findings, one can easily observe that CLIL seems to have positive outcomes on learners’ language development, and it can bring a significant change if applied in any educational milieu as the researchers were from different corners of the globe. Besides, Moghadam and Fatemipour (2014) also argue that CLIL can be implemented at all stages of educational context commencing from primary to university level.
In addition to research works on the effectiveness of CLIL at international level, some local research works in Ethiopian context also reveal that CLIL pedagogical approach has positive effect on EFL students’ learning, particularly on reading comprehension, academic genre, and writing skills (Wubalem,2013; Yohannes,2017). Conversely, Solomon (2018) had come up with negative finding on the effect of CLIL on affective variables; and this in contrary with the finding displayed by Harrop (2012) who has come up with the finding that CLIL has significant positive effect on attitudes and motivation. This seems to indicate that there is inconclusive result on the effect of CLIL on students’ learning. Hence, the current study attempted to address the above-mentioned gap by examining the effect of CLIL on reading motivation and reading comprehension at local level.
To commence with reading motivation, which is one of the current study’s variable, language skills in general and reading skills in particular, requires the learners to have interest in reading. Hence, reading motivation is a significant aspect in reading instruction because some scholars argue that there is a positive relationship between reading achievement and reading motivation (see Kirchner & Mostert, 2017). Thus, it seems worth mentioning to investigate the effect of CLIL on this variable at local level.
Furthermore, motivation is a vital issue in teaching and learning EFL. According to Tohidi and Jabbari (2012), motivation is defined as “powering people to achieve high levels of performance and overcoming barriers in order to change” p (1). They also affirm that motivation leads and controls human behavior. Other scholars also affirm that motivation is the most influential component in teaching and learning as little can be learnt without motivation (Doiz et al. 2014).
There are of course two types of motivation (intrinsic and extrinsic) that are vital in promoting the teaching and learning of EFL. Intrinsic motivation is ignited by individuals’ internal motives to learn where as extrinsic motivation is driven by external phenomenon like reward, money and grades. Moreover, since motivation in education in general and in language learning in particular, can have several effects on learning, students need situated motivation which is found in environmental condition that teachers create to supplement the learners’ intrinsic motivation (Tohidi, 2011; as cited in Tohidi and Jabbari, 2012). Thus, CLIL, which is a novel pedagogical approach, is believed to enhance students’ motivation as it is recommended by different scholars.
Furthermore, reading skill, which is a receptive skill, is related to our daily activities in today’s globalized world. Supplementing this, Pearson (2015, p. 8); as cited in Kirchner and Mostert (2017) assert that “Reading is the most important to connect with people worldwide, and individuals are expected to read in their day to day activities by appealing themselves with texts for information and knowledge”. This seems to inform us that reading is a vital language skill in which learners in general and EFL students in particular, engage themselves to construct information from a written text for different purposes, including reading texts for personal consumption and for academic purposes.
Similarly, reading comprehension is also associated with constructing the central idea of reading texts. Supporting this, McLaughlin (2012, p. 432); as cited in Holt (2015) defines Reading comprehension as “the construction of meaning of a written or spoken communication through a reciprocal, holistic interchange of ideas between the interpreter and the message in a particular communicative context” p.6. Moreover, Mickee (2012) and Kirby (n.d.) also delineate that it is both understanding a written text and making interpretations from the writer’s perspectives. Again, for Naeemeh &Behzad (2015), it is one of the vital skills in fostering language proficiency. These delineations seem to tell us that reading without comprehension is not time invested but time wasted. Thus, teachers in general and EFL teachers in particular have a great responsibility in helping learners comprehend reading texts using innovative teaching approaches, like CLIL. And, of course, some practical research works reveals that CLIL has positive effect on reading comprehension as discussed earlier.
From the aforementioned research works, it may be possible to deduce that CLIL is a recent phenomenon emerged in the post- method era; for the essence of dual pedagogical purpose in which EFL is integrated with contents from subject areas; thus, more studies seem to be conducted to supplement the existing studies at both local and international level. As discussed earlier, CLIL has been used in Europe, Asia and other parts of the world since its coinage in 1990s.
However, according to Darn (2006), CLIL has also been extended to some African countries, including Ethiopia in 2004 for the essence of mitigating disparity in societies. This might imply that CLIL is not a new phenomenon at local level although it is not officially declared as a pedagogical approach to teach EFL in Ethiopian context as far as the knowledge of the current researcher is concerned.
Moreover, there is preponderance of research works on effectiveness of CLIL at international level; there is a dearth of research works regarding the practicality of the approach in Ethiopian milieu. The few studies conducted on CLIL approach at local level focused on upper primary school (Yohannes, 2017); higher institution (Wubalem, 2013) and poly technique colleges (Solomon, 2018). Although some scholars ( e.g. see Moghadam & Fatemipour, 2014; Mourssi & Alkharosi, 2014) assert that CLIL can be utilized in all grade levels and at all stages of education beginning from primary to tertiary level, none of the local researchers conducted their research focusing on high school EFL learners.
Having this in mind, this study aimed to test effects of Content and Language Integrated Learning/ CLIL/ on grade nine EFL students’ reading motivation and reading comprehension. Given the nature of the study, this study utilized quantitative research approach. This type of research approach explains how an independent variable affects the dependent ones and the relationships among them (Creswell, 2012). To this end, this study aimed to answer two research questions:
i) What is the effect of CLIL on EFL students’ reading motivation?
ii) Does CLIL enhance EFL students’ reading comprehension?