A DRAFT

ENHANCING STUDENTS’S SKILL IN TRANSLATION THROUGH AUDIOVISUAL

SUBTITLING OF CLIC

A. BACKGROUND (500 Kata)

Translation learning requires complex language skills. Factor grammatical

comprehension and the ability to choose the right vocabulary will be decisive success in
translation learning, therefore (Azizinezhad & Hashemi, 2011). Translation learning is usually
given to advanced language learners. In the other words, it is usually carried out at the tertiary
level (Elmgrab, 2013) because it is necessary good language competence in order to be able to
translate a text well (Kuşçu & nlü, 2015). Improving translation skills is ultimately a chore
complicated (Zainudin & Awal, 2012) especially if it is implemented in the learning process.

Newmark (1988) defines translation as rendering the meaning of a text into another
language in the way that the author intended the text. According to the text, it can analyze that
there was a special thing in translating on decoding the meaning of the first language then
decoding meaning in the second language by seeing the author’s intention. Learning translation
in a class by using technology in this case is audiovisual subtitling of CLIC, the lecture suggests
using audiovisual then students try to understand the content of the video after that they going to
translate the subtitle in the video with some steps until the final, they did not use subtitle but they
interpret the result of translation in front of the teacher.

Basically, the term CLIL was used in the context of European countries to refer to the
success of learning efforts through the uses of additional languages in various types of education
places there. The use of an additional language which is the national language of neighboring
countries and the majority regional language in the country itself. Another trend seen in CLIL-
based teaching is the increasing number of CLIL programs applied to social subjects. In a study
on the written and oral production of students in CLIL classes on social classes, Whittaker and
Llinares (2006) put forward the fact that although the CLIL program is more synonymous with
classes such as mathematics and science, currently the application of CLIL in social studies
classes is also growing. This shows that the application of CLIL has been growing across
subjects. in this case, we focus on translation language learning.

The advantages of CLIL have been thoroughly examined in relation to language

attainment, language transfer, and other language-related issues (Casal & Moore, 2009).
Paradoxically, it can be argued that the use of code-switching still deserves academic attention,
since the use of both languages in the classroom is critical to favour the development of language
awareness and metalinguistic skills of students in bilingual provisions; however, studies
investigating bilingual methodological strategies in Indonesia are scant, and further investigation
is required on how to integrate both languages in the classroom. In this framework, virtually no
research has been published on the use of translation in bilingual provisions.
The benefits of subtitling as a didactic tool have already been approached in language teaching,
and the main findings report that vocabulary recall, motivation, and receptive skills are clearly
boosted (Díaz-Cintas, 1997)

B. RESEARCH QUESTION (25 kata)

Based of the background, the researchers fokus on the question: How do the students perceive
the use of audiovisual Subtitling of CLIC in translation Class?

C. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY (50 KATA)

The purpose of the study is to describe and analyze students’ perceptions of the use of
audiovisual subtitling by the concept of Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL).
Thus, they know how to increase their translations skill by using audiovisual subtitling then
translate the conversation in the video textually and contextually.

D. PREVIEWS STUDIES (1000 KATA)

Some previous studies have been found in Dalton-Puffer (2011) and Lasagabaster (2008)
summarized some CLIL characteristics that exemplify what tends to be typical of CLIL
programs in Europe and many parts of Asia as follows: First, CLIL refers to the use of a foreign
language or lingua franca rather than a second language (L2). The language of instruction is one
that students will primarily use only in the classroom because it is not commonly used in the
broader society in which students live. Second, the most common CLIL language is English,
which reflects that recognizing English as an additional language is increasingly valued as a
critical literacy feature worldwide. Third, CLIL also implies that teachers will be non-native
speakers of the target language in most CLIL programs. Most of the time, they are content
experts rather than foreign language experts. Typically, less than half of the curriculum in CLIL
programs is taught in the target language.

Although CLIL approach is categorized as relatively new (Kao, 2020), CLIL can be a potential
for English language teaching approach in Asia regions including Indonesia due to the promotion
of English as an ‘additional language’ (Kirkpatrick, 2012). Take an example; CLIL education
has been reported successful in Hongkong. In this country, English has commonly used in
content classes at all educational levels (Cenoz, 2015). In the same vein, the adaptation of CLIL
approach is due to the political concerns to promote the native languages such as in Philippines
and Malaysia (Yang, 2016). English is still considered as a privileged in their educational
system. Tainan, one of the regions in Taiwan, initiated a pilot project in 2017 that used CLIL
approach as its theoretical basis for bilingual education (Chen et al., 2020). Meanwhile, in
Indonesia, CLIL has been adopted as the grassroots’ initiatives (Khoiriyah, 2018; Pipit, 2018;
Setyaningrum & Purwati, 2020). It means that teachers or educators implement this approach as
their initiative and attempt to boost the teaching and learning process for their day-to-day
teaching practice. Little attention at the regional or national level regulates the implementation of
this approach.

The majority of literature review studies were concerned in the European context. Porcedda and
González-Martínez (2020) reported a systematic literature review that aims to identify the gaps
in CLIL teacher training and make recommendations and/or best practices. Meanwhile, Goris et
al., (2019) selected several longitudinal studies regarding the effects of CLIL in order to respond
to the issue of whether CLIL is justified in attributing improved L2 performance in European
countries. Another review of the literature also looked into the growing trend of using English as
a medium of instruction in CLIL (Rhodes, 2018). This study conducted in the European and
Swedish context to overview how CLIL affects English and mother tongue proficiency according
to second language motivational and egalitarian perspective.

CLIL is a dual-focused educational approach in which an additional language is used for the
learning and teaching of both content and language (p. 11). The CLIL strategy, above all,
involves using a language that is not a student’s native language as a medium of instruction and
learning … Language teachers in CLIL programmers play a unique role. In addition to teaching
the standard curriculum, they work to support content teachers by helping students to gain the
language needed to manipulate content from other subjects (Mehisto, Marsh & Frigols, 2008, p.
9)

CLIL has the potential of fostering language varieties. This is a useful technique that can
influence language learning positively. CLIL may also be identified as a cutting-edge method to
learning that is both dynamic and motivating, it has many unique characteristics. There has
continually been an attempt to go beyond the limitations of traditional school curricula. This
attempt represents a shift away from teaching individual subjects and towards curricular
integration.

In addition to the possible language gains, the use of subtitles in language teaching may also
contribute to language awareness and noticing (Cook, 2007 in Lertola, 2012), and the reduction
of stress in students’ learning process, as subtitles can create a friendly and engaging
environment in the classroom, lowering Krashen’s (1982) affective filter (see Caimi, 2006 in
Talaván, 2013). In the same vein, pedagogical approaches to subtitling in foreign language
teaching (Lertola, 2012; Talaván, 2010) are also concomitant with Krashen’s input hypothesis,
which underlined that Second Language Acquisition occurs when students obtain
comprehensible input (Krashen, 1985).
More recently, Talaván (2013) provided a pedagogical model to integrate subtitling in language
teaching: this proposal advocates the functional learning of the foreign language using authentic
materials and real language. Talaván’s framework places subtitling within Task-Based Learning
(Nunan, 1999) and considers that the introduction of audiovisual translation is compatible with
communicative approaches to language teaching (Talaván, 2013).
The application of audiovisual translation – including dubbing, subtitling, and related areas, such
as respeaking or audiodescription for the deaf and hard of hearing (Orero, 2004) – in foreign
language teaching still deserves scholarly attention, as many gaps can be identified. One of them
relates to the use of subtitles to encourage language awareness and integrated plurilingual
approaches to language teaching (and learning). A second gap relates to the use of subtitles in
bilingual education to support students with special needs and facilitate their inclusion in
bilingual provisions; in Europe, the first studies on the suitability of using subtitling with
hearing-impaired children started in the 1980s but, so far, the application in bilingual education
remains unexplored.
Translation is understood and presented here as a resource to be considered in language teaching,
not as a goal by itself; as it happens with technology, translation may be beneficial or detrimental
in language teaching depending on the methodological approaches and strategies employed by
the teachers; in this sense, the main hypothesis here is that the use of subtitling in CLIL may
encourage students’ language awareness and metalinguistic skills, and avoid language
separation.
E. LITERATURE REVIEW

1. Subtitling and Content and Languages Integrated Learning (CLIL)

The application of audiovisual translation as a teaching resource in the field of bilingual
education remains unmapped. However, the characteristics of CLIL suggest that using subtitles
in the classroom may be suitable with certain fundamental aspects when teaching content
through an additional language.

a.The 4C’s

Specific contents from non-language subjects can be addressed by the teachers: for instance, any
video about movie or talk show. The introduction of concepts from content-subjects by means of
videos can be a good pedagogical strategy, since knowledge is better constructed when
connected with prior knowledge; hence, videos can be a good example of scaffolding to support
students’ independent learning.
Secondly, cognition may be favoured, as several types of activities can be planned: students can
hypothesise or predict what will happen in the video (as the teacher can stop the clip at any
moment), summarize the plot, or comment on specific elements being portrayed. As previously
mentioned, research reports that intralingual subtitling contributes to a better comprehension
when learning a foreign language, as the combination of the written form and the phonological
expression promotes the retention of vocabulary (memory enhancement) and the recognition of
individual words (Bird & Williams, 2002). By reading the written text on the screen, students
have less difficulties when understanding the oral message in the L2 (Caimi, 2006). Furthermore,
it could be argued that by reducing the difficulty associated to the listening comprehension,
students can focus on the contents being taught in the L2. In other words, by using subtitles
lower- and higher-order thinking skills can be approached.
Third, culture is implicit in audio-visual products, as any video integrates intercultural elements
which can be worked in the classroom from elementary to secondary and even tertiary education.
Moreover, the impact of the visual channel is clearly beneficial when working with intercultural
and social matters in the classroom.

b.The dual-focus

CLIL is a “dual-focused educational approach in which an additional language is used for the
learning and teaching of both content and language” (Coyle, Hood, & Marsh, 2010, p. 1). This
dual focus can be heightened by audiovisual support, as videos stimulate students’ memory and
promote vocabulary acquisition (Caimi, 2006) at the same time that non-linguistic contents are
introduced. The visual sustenance contributes to the acquisition of lexicon in the L2 when
students watch images of the concepts being explained. When subtitles are displayed, the
semiotic channels (audio and video) are complemented by a third reinforcement, the written text
on the screen, which facilitates the phonological association.
Criticism have been made on the purported distracting nature of subtitles; however, studies have
concurred that “far from being a distraction and a source of laziness, subtitles might have a
potential value in helping the learning acquisition process by providing learners with the key to
massive quantities of authentic and comprehensible language input’ (Vanderplank, 1988, p. 272).

c. Code-switching

Code-switching is fundamental in CLIL, since it might contribute to students being unable to

express complex ideas or command specific terminology in the L1 and the L2 (Coyle, Hood, &
Marsh 2010, p. 16). It should be noted that we refer to code-switching – or translanguaging, as
originally proposed by Cen Williams (1994) in Wales – as the “purposeful pedagogical
alternation of languages in spoken and written, receptive and productive modes” (Hornberger &
Link, 2012, p. 262). In other words, code-switching is a conscious pedagogical strategy used in
2. CLIL to enhance students’ motivation of translation skill
Arguably, the use of both languages in the classroom is a key determiner to separate CLIL from
“traditional foreign language lessons” where, often, the dogma “100% in the L2” has prevented
teachers from using the L1 whatever the purpose (e.g. repeating, rephrasing, clarifying ideas,
checking understanding, recasting, and so on). However, language separation might not be an
effective strategy, as advocated by Widdowson (2003, p. 150), who stated that “while in the
classroom the teachers try to keep the two languages separate, the learners in their own minds
keep the two in contact”.
Code-switching should not be exclusively associated with CLIL, as it has already been examined
in bilingual education (Baker, 2001) and in foreign language teaching (Macaro, 2001). All in all,
the benefits of using both languages in the classroom have been scrutinized in CLIL contexts,
and studies suggest that using the L1 may raise students’ language gains in the L2 and provide a
better comprehension of non-language concepts (de Graaff, Koopman, Anikina, & Westhoff,
2007; Escobar, 2009). These findings concur with previous research anticipating that a bilingual
is not the sum of two monolinguals (Grosjean, 1985), and bilingualism is not “monolingualism
times two” (García, 2009).
In this framework, Cummins’ (1979) ground-breaking separation between Basic Interpersonal
Communication Skills (BICS) and Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP) has to be
cited, as bilingual education should lead to the acquisition of the social and the academic
dimensions of language. Aiming to improve outcomes in CLIL programmes, Cummins recently
suggested that teaching for the transfer between the L1 and the L2 of students should be
promoted by means of bilingual instructional strategies (Cummins, 2017). Translation and code-
switching should be encouraged in CLIL provisions to stimulate language transfer, language
awareness, and metalinguistic skills: language separation is not in line with the objective of
raising plurilingual citizens, and the “two solitudes approach” to bilingual education has to be
challenged. In this sense, this chapter argues that CLIL should refer to content and languages
integrated learning, where real bilingual settings and situations are presented to the students.
When it comes to the use of subtitles in the classroom, the possibilities offered by this teaching
resource can clearly encourage the use of the L1 and the L2, and trigger cross-linguistic transfer
when subtitles are read (or created by the students) in the L1 and the video is played in the L2 (or
vice versa). In fact, research has reported that subtitling improves the linguistic balance in non-
equivalent bilinguals (De Bot, Jagt, Janssen, Kessels, & Schils, 1986). The use of subtitling in
CLIL can incite language transfer and interdependence between languages as well as the
promotion of bilingual literacy; also, by using videos and subtitling in the classroom, students
can recognise the differences between everyday conversational English and more academic
language.

F. METHOD (500)

Some general guidelines on the application of subtitling in CLIL are presented; rather than
unfolding a didactic proposal, this section is intended to outline some wide-ranging strategies on
the implementation of subtitling in CLIL.
1. The context

CLIL has been implemented in all educational stages, from Elementary to Higher education. The
most suitable stages to introduce subtitling in CLIL are the last cycle of Primary Education (5 th
and 6th grades) and in any cycle of Secondary Education. In these two stages, all the potential of
subtitling and audio-visual translation (i.e. watching subtitled videos and producing subtitles) can
be implemented. Prior to the last cycle of Primary Education, students might find more
difficulties when dealing with subtitles and it is preferred that they have already been enrolled in
a CLIL provision for some years (where teachers should promote the use of code-switching); as
for university students, although they are cognitively prepared for these kinds of activities, the
type of bilingual education implemented in Spanish institutions of higher education is closer to
English Medium Instruction (EMI) than to CLIL, and the focus is solely on contents rather than
on the integration of language and contents.

2. The actors: teachers and students

Teachers working in CLIL are usually well-versed in the use of ICTs in the classroom, as
technologies are today a central component in the curriculum of Primary and Secondary
Education. Nevertheless, teachers should learn the basics of subtitling before working with the
students: for instance, subtitles should not exceed two lines of text, they need to be displayed
between 1 and 6 seconds on the screen (depending on the length of the subtitle, and considering
that students’s reading speed is between 120 and 140 words per minute), they should occupy a
certain space on the screen, and line breaks have to be carefully planned to facilitate the reading
of the subtitles (see Díaz-Cintas & Remael, 2007). Although no teaching materials have been
published so far, teachers can check websites and online resources explaining the basics of
subtitling; Before implementing any activity, teachers should also brief their students on some
basic rules of subtitling and the use of the tools. The object of the study itself is Fifth semester of
English Literature students batch 2020. The class be 35 students and all of the will become the
sample of the research.

3. Resources and materials

Nowadays, subtitles can be displayed in DVDs, video on demand services (e.g. HBO and
Netflix), and even regular TV and online contents: YouTube’s closed-captioning tool displays
machine translation subtitles, and many online videos have been subtitled by the authors. As for
the production of subtitles, again, many websites offer online tools that can be used in the
classroom. However, the use of stand-alone software may be more interesting, as it provides
additional functionality. Subtitle Workshop, for instance, is a well-known tool due to its
simplicity and functionality: it allows one to subtitle any video in a straightforward way and is
easy to use by teachers and students.
G. RENCANA PEMBAHASAN (500)
1. Types of activities
An introductory session is recommended to present the activities, activate students’ prior
knowledge, discuss their use of subtitles, show the software, and so on. It is advisable for
students to work with subtitles on their own: pair work and (small) group work is preferred to
promote communication among students and to avoid individual usage of technology in the
classroom. Students may be asked to use the L2 or the L1 while working with the video: as
already explained in this chapter, the use of code-switching should be promoted.

2. Watching subtitles

The standard activity is watching videos in the foreign language with subtitles in the L2
(intralingual subtitles) or in students’ L1 (interlingual subtitles). Ideally, pre-viewing activities
should be planned to activate students’ previous knowledge: brainstorming, guessing activities,
or any warm-up is suitable before watching the video. Working with lower- and higher-order
skills is critical in CLIL: therefore, encouraging students to predict and hypothesize is good
practice. Videos can be stopped and students may guess what will happen at the end, how the
plot will unfold, etc. Post-viewing activities may include content tests, vocabulary quizzes,
summarizing, and so on. This is a classical pattern for working with videos, which can be
enhanced by exploiting the use of the two languages in the classroom: for instance, the display of
subtitles in Spanish to watch a video about the water cycle in English will promote students
acquisition of vocabulary in the L1 and the L2.

3. Producing subtitles

For the production of subtitles, short videos between 30 seconds and 3 minutes are ideal.
Students can transcript the subtitles on a paper and introduce them in the software later on (or
work directly with computers if this is an option in the school).

Intralingual subtitling: the standard activity is to create English subtitles for a video watched in
the L2. Besides transcribing / translating the oral channel into a written code, students have to
synchronise the text with the actual utterances of the video, increasing their awareness on
phonological and prosodic elements.

Interlingual subtitling: in this case, students can work with direct or reverse translation. In the
former, students will create Spanish subtitles for the English audio; in the latter, students will
produce subtitles in English for a video which is played in Spanish.

Creative writing (mash-ups): although this activity was not planned in the project, we soon
discovered its potential and effectiveness to promote students’ language awareness. Students can
create subtitles which are not a transcription / translation of the audio of the clip: they can
produce mash ups (similar to the famous parodies of Bruno Ganz’s Hitler in Downfall), as long
as they are synchronized with the video (lip-sync) and they make sense. Although this proposal
was initially dismissed, we discovered that it boosts students’ motivation, communication within
the group, and the use of the two languages while producing the subtitles.

I. DAFTAR PUSTAKA (1000)

References:

Davis, Randall (2006). Utopia or Chaos? The Impact of Technology on Language Teaching. The
Internet TESL Journal, 12 (11).

Gambier, Yves (2007). Sous-titrage et apprentisage des langues. Lingustica Anteverpiensia,

Göpferich, Susanne, Alves, Fabio and Mees, M. Inger (Eds.) (2010). New Approaches in
Translation Process Research.

Frederiksberg: Samfundslitteratur. Göpferich, Susanne, Lykke Jakobsen, Arnt and Mees, M.

Inger (Eds.) (2009). Behind the Mind. Methods, models and results in translation process
research.

Frederiksberg: Samfundslitteratur. Hale, Sandra, Campbell, Stuart (2002). The Interaction

Between Text Difficulty and Translation Accuracy in Babel 48(1),
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Incalcaterra McLoughlin, Laura (2009). Subtitles in Translators' Training: A Model of Analysis.

Romance Studies, 27(3), pp.174-185. Mees, M. Inger, Alves, Fabio and Göpferich,
Susanne (Eds.) (2010). Methodology, Technology and Innovation in Translation Process
Research.

A Tribute to Arnt Lykke Jakobsen. Frederiksberg: Samfundslitteratur.

Nord, Cristiane (1988). Textanalysis in Translation, Amsterdam: Rodopi.

Talavan, Noa (2006). Using Subtitles to Enhance Foreign Language Learning. Porta Linguarum,

Talavan, Noa (2010). Audiovisual Translation and Foreign Language Learning: The Case of
Subtitling.

Arham, M., & Akrab, A. H. (2018). Delving into content lecturers’ teaching capability in
Content Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) at an Indonesian university. The Asian ESP
Journal, 14(7.2).
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in Psychology. Qualitative Research in
Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 1 9 1 / 1478088706qp063oa

Cenoz, J. (2015). Content-based instruction and content and language integrated learning: the
same or different? Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28(1), 8–24. https://
doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-40737-5_5

Chang, B. (2011). The roles of English language educatrion in Asian Context. Pan-Pacific
Association of Applied Linguistics, 15(1), 191–206. Chen, F., Kao, S. M., & Tsou, W.
(2020). Toward ELF-Informed Bilingual Education in Taiwan: Addressing Incongruity
Between Policy and Practice. English Teaching and Learning, 44(2), 175–191. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s42321-020-00055-1

Coyle, D. (2015). Strengthening Integrated learning: Towards a new era for pluriliteracies and
intercultural learning. Latin American Journal of Content and Language Integrated
Learning, 8(2), 84–103. https://doi.org/10.5294/ laclil.2015.8.2.2

Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). Content and language integrated learning. Cambrigde.

Cronin, P., Ryan, F., & Coughlan, M. (2008). Undertaking a literature review/ : A stepby-step
approach. British Journal of Nursing, 17(1), 38–43. https://doi.org/
10.12968/bjon.2008.17.1.28059

Dalton-Puffer, C. (2011). Content-and-language integrated learning: From practice to principles?

In Annual Review of Applied Linguistics (Vol. 31, pp. 182–204). https:/
/doi.org/10.1017/S0267190511000092

Deswila, N., Kustati, M., Besral, B., & Sukandi, S. S. (2020). Content and Language Integrated
Learning (CLIL) approach across curriculum in Science classrooms: Are the English
language use and learning reveal? Journal of Innovation in Educational and Cultural
Research, 1(1), 15–21. https://doi.org/10.46843/ jiecr.v1i1.4

Ellis, R. (2013). Task-based language teaching: Responding to the critics. University of Sydney
Papers in TESOL, 8, 1–27.

Fazzi, F., & Lasagabaster, D. (2020). Learning beyond the classroom: students’ attitudes towards
the integration of CLIL and museum-based pedagogies. Innovation in Language Learning
and Teaching, 1– 13. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 17501229.2020.1714630

Fitriani, I. (2016). Grass roots’ voices on the CLIL implementation in tertiary education.
Dinamika Ilmu, 16(2), 211–220. https:// doi.org/10.21093/di.v16i2.320

Fitriati, S. W. (2016). Safetalk practices in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL)
classes. Language Circle: Journal of Language and Literature, 11(1), 47–58. https://doi.org/
10.15294/lc.v11i1.7848
Gaudel, D. R. (2010). Content and Language Integrated Learning. Journal of NELTA, 11(1).
https://doi.org/10.3126/ nelta.v11i1.3153

Goris, J. A., Denessen, E. J. P. G., & Verhoeven, L. T. W. (2019). Effects of content and
language integrated learning in Europe: A systematic review of longitudinal experimental
studies. European Educational Research Journal, 18(6), 675–698. https://
doi.org/10.1177/1474904119872426

Huzairin, H., Sudirman, S., & Hasan, B. (2018). Developing English learning model project
based content And language integrated learning (CLIL) for English at university level in
Indonesia. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 5(11), 371–384. https://
doi.org/10.14738/assrj.511.5525

Kao, Y. T. (2020). Understanding and addressing the challenges of teaching an online CLIL
course: a teacher education study. International Journal of Bilingual Education and
Bilingualism, 0(0), 1–20. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 8 0 / 13670050.2020.1713723

Khairurrozikin, M., Sukartinigsih, W., & Subrata, H. (2020). The influence of genre pedagogical
and content and language integrated learning on elementary students’ writing skills.
Seloka: Jurnal Pendidikan Bahasa Dan Sastra Indonesia, 9(2), 168–175.
https://doi.org/10.15294/ seloka.v9i2.40099

Khoiriyah. (2018). CLIL in Indonesia: The 4C’s Framework of Adopted CLIL Approach in
Elementary School

Khoiriyah. Proceedings Quality Improvement Innovation in ELT (COETIN), 1, 154– 160.

Kirkpatrick, A. (2012). English in ASEAN: Implications for regional multilingualism. Journal of

Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 33(4), 331–344.

Kusmayadi, Y., & Suryana, Y. (2017). Improving students’ factual report writing skill by using
Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) method. Indonesian EFL Journal, 3(1),
21–30.

Lasagabaster, D. (2008). Foreign language competence in content and langauge integrated

courses. The Online Applied Linguistics Journal, 1, 30–41.

Lopriore, L. (2018, June 1). Reframing teaching knowledge in Content and Language Integrated
Learning (CLIL): A European perspective. Language Teaching Research.

Maguire, M., & Delahunt, B. (2017). Doing a thematic analysis: A practical, step-by-step guide
for learning and teaching Scholars. ALL Ireland Journal of Teaching and Learning in
Higher Education (AISHEJ), 8(3), 3351–3365.
Mahmud, Y. (2020). Conceptualizing bilingual education programs through CLIL and genre-
based approach: An Indonesian context. VELES Voices of English Language Education
Society, 4(1), 62– 74.

Mariño, C. M. (2014). Towards implementing CLIL (Content and Language Integrated

Learning) at CBS (Tunja, Colombia). Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal, 16(2), 151.

Marsh, D. (2012). Content and language integrated learning ( CLIL ). A development trajectory

Mehisto, P. (2012). Criteria for producing CLI learning material. Encuentro, 21, 15–33.

Mehisto, P., Marsh, D., & Frigols, M. J. (2008). Uncovering CLIL.pdf.

Nugroho, A. (2020). Content and Language Integrated Learning practice in English for
Accounting course. IJET (Indonesian Journal of English Teaching), 9(2), 172–181.

Nurrachmad, L. (2019). CLIL as a method in teaching sport college students through bilingual
class program. Prominent Journal, 2(1), 101–116.

Okoli, C., & Schabram, K. (2010). A guide to conducting a systematic literature review of
information systems research. Working Papers on Information Systems, 10(26), 1–39.

Peel, K. L. (2020). A beginner’s guide to applied educational research using thematic analysis.
Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 25(1), 1–16.

Pipit, M. (2018). CLIL as an alternative approach for designing English course syllabus in
Indonesia. Asian EFL Journal, 20(7), 10–16.

Porcedda, M. E., & González-Martínez, J. (2020). CLIL teacher training: lacks and suggestions
from a systematic literature review. Enseñanza & Teaching: Revista Interuniversitaria de
Didáctica, 38(1), 49–68.

Puspitasari, E. (2016). Classroom activities in content and language integrated learning. Journal
of Foreign Languange Teaching and Learning, 1(2), 1–13.

Rachmajanti, S., & Anugerahwati, M. (2019). Predictors of the students’ english achievement at
lower secondary school: Clil context. Teflin Journal, 30(1), 72– 87.

Rhodes, S. (2018). The global trend towards English-Medium Instruction: A literature review on
EMI/CLIL in a Swedish and European perspective. Dalarna University.

Rohmah, I. I. T. (2019). The feasibility and effectiveness of integrating content knowledge and
English competences for assessing English proficiency in CLIL. ETERNAL (English
Teaching Journal), 10(1), 65–73.
Sarip, M. (2019). Improving Arabic speaking learning through content and language integrated
learning approach in PSPBA FBS UNJ. Jurnal International Seminar on Languages,
Literature, Arts and Education (ISLLAE), 1(1), 131–137.

Setyaningrum, R. W., & Purwati, O. (2020). Projecting the implementation feasibility of CLIL
approach for TEYL at primary schools in Indonesia. JEES (Journal of English Educators
Society), 5(1), 23– 30.

Setyaningrum, R. W., Setiawan, S., Anam, S., & Retnaningdyah, P. (2020). Content and
Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) in Science class during covid-19 outbreak: A
narrative inquiry. ENGLISH REVIEW: Journal of English Education Volume, 9(1), 35–
46.

Setyomurdian, A. N., & Subyanto, S. (2018). The development of learning material of reading
complex prosedure text with CLIL approach for vocational high school students. Seloka:
Jurnal Pendidikan Bahasa Dan Sastra Indonesia, 7(2), 185–190.

Simbolon, N. E. (2020). CLIL practice in a maritime English course: EFL students’ perception.
EduLite: Journal of English Education, Literature and Culture, 5(2), 263–276.

Suhandoko, S. (2019). CLIL-oriented and task based EFL materials development. ELT
Worldwide, 6(2), 144–162.

Surdyanto, A., & Kurniawan, W. (2020). Developing critical reading module using integrated
learning content and language approach. Studies in English Language and Education, 7(1),
154–169.

Vaismoradi, M., Turunen, H., & Bondas, T. (2013). Content analysis and thematic analysis:
Implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study. Nursing and Health Sciences,
15(3), 398–405.

van Kampen, E., Admiraal, W., & Berry, A. (2018). Content and language integrated learning in
the Netherlands: teachers’ selfreported pedagogical practices. International Journal of
Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21(2), 222–236.

van Kampen, E., Meirink, J., Admiraal, W., & Berry, A. (2017). Do we all share the same goals
for content and language integrated learning (CLIL)? Specialist and practitioner
perceptions of ‘ideal’ CLIL pedagogies in the Netherlands. International Journal of
Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 1–17.

van Wesel, F., Boeije, H. R., & Alisic, E. (2015). Towards a method for synthesizing diverse
evidence using hypotheses as common language. Quality and Quantity, 49(6), 2237–2249.

Xanthou, M. (2011). The impact of CLIL on L2 vocabulary development and content

knowledge. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 10(4), 116–126.
Yang, W. (2016). ESP vs CLIL: A coin of two sides or a continuum of two extremes? ESP
Today-Journal of English for Specific Purposes at Tertiary Level, 4(1), 43–68.

Zhetpisbayeva, B. A., Kitibayeva, A. K., Kazimova, D. A., Akbayeva, G. N., & Zatyneiko, M.
A. (2018). Assessment issues in content and language integrated learning (CLIL). Journal
of Advanced Pharmacy Education and Research, 8(4), 32–38.