課程與教學季刊 2023, 26(1),頁 01～26

DOI:10.6384/CIQ.202301_26(1).0001

CLIL Development in Bilingual Education

in Taiwan: Past, Present, and Future

Yi-Ping Huang* Wen-Li Tsou**

In recent years, Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) has gathered
momentum in Taiwan due to attempts by the local and central governments to
“bilingualize” education with English as the medium of instruction in non-language
courses. In response to this expansion of “bilingualization” in primary, secondary, and
higher education, this paper presents the development of CLIL, promoted by scholars
in Taiwan who have been assisting in-service teachers to “go bilingual” in compulsory
education since 2018, covering: (a) borrowing Coyle et al.’s (2010) 4Cs framework,
(b) glocalizing the 4Cs as the ELF-informed 4C 2++ framework, and (c)
internationalizing the ELF-informed 4C 2++ framework. The “why” and “what” of
each stage of this bilingualization process are hence further described. Achieving a
better understanding to the evolution of CLIL in Taiwan might benefit teachers and
researchers greatly if they consider applying CLIL for their future bilingual education.

Keywords: content and language integrated learning (CLIL), bilingual

education/teaching, English as a lingua franca (ELF), glocalization,
internationalization

* Yi-Ping Huang, Associate Professor, Department of English, National Chengchi

University

** Wenli Tsou, Professor, Department of Foreign Languages and Literature, National

Cheng Kung University

Corresponding Author: Wen-Li Tsou, e-mail: [email protected]

1
主題文章

Introduction
As multilingualism and plurilingualism have become part of the raison d'êtreand
for the European Union, Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) has
emerged. This approach to language education involves “a dual-focused educational
approach in which an additional language is used for the learning and teaching of both
content and language” (Coyle et al., 2010, p.1). As part of bilingual education, CLIL
aims to enable and empower “global and responsible citizens as they learn to function
across cultures and worlds, that is beyond the cultural borders in which traditional
schooling often operates” (Garcia, 2009, p. 6). In the same vein, Coyle and Meyer
(2021) refocus scholars’ efforts on the understanding of CLIL as a way to increase
disciplinary literacies and to enable students to become literate across the disciplines.
Thus, CLIL has evolved from concentrating on the CL (content learning) and the LL
(language learning) to the I (integration). Indeed, CLIL is not static but “dynamic in
terms of its potential for building an expansive yet rigorous theoretical basis” (p. 4).
It is noted that although the “additional language” can be any language, English still
occupies most attention in CLIL research and practice due to its prevalence as a lingua
franca. As such, it will be the focus of this paper.

Among the diverse pedagogical approaches in CLIL, Coyle et al.’s (2010) 4Cs
framework (Content, Cognition, Communication, and Culture) has been developed by
scholars in Taiwan in response to the pressing needs of in-service teachers who teach
non-language courses in English. Since 2017, local and national governments in
Taiwan have attempted to “bilingualize” primary and secondary education (Chen et
al., 2020; Tsou & Kao, 2018). The use of the 4Cs has evolved into the 4C 2++ (Tsou
& Huang, 2022), which is still being revised in recognition of a lack of vertical
coherence in the bilingualization of secondary and tertiary education. Despite the
importance and development of this instructional policy, these conceptual changes
have not been comprehensively documented. Without adequate explanation of the 4Cs,
it is likely that the term will become a commonly misused buzzword in education.

This paper aims to explain the three stages of CLIL development in primary and
secondary education in Taiwan by: (a) borrowing Coyle et al.’s (2010) 4Cs framework,
(b) glocalizing the 4Cs as the ELF-informed 4C 2++ framework, and (c)
internationalizing the ELF-informed 4C 2++ framework. The “why” and the “what”
of each stage are described. Below a brief history of English Language Teaching (ELT)
in Taiwan will be explained to contextualize CLIL development. This information

2
 CLIL Development in Bilingual Education in Taiwan: Past, Present, and Future

will be followed by the presentation of Coyle et al.’s 4Cs framework. Then, CLIL
development in bilingual education in Taiwan will be explained. This paper concludes
with directions for future research on CLIL in bilingual education in Taiwan.

Significant Changes in ELT in Taiwan

The history of ELT in Taiwan suggests three major reforms with the movement
toward decentralization (the distribution of planning and decision-making away from
a central authority) and internationalization (the incorporation of intercultural
dimensions into education to increase student and teacher mobility). These themes
will be described in each ELT reform, followed by a discussion of problematizing the
ideology of ELT.

Three Major Reforms

The first related educational change includes the enactment of the Nine-year
Compulsory Education policy in the 1990s. At this time, a call was made for the
deregulation and liberation of education against the socio-political background of
lifting martial law in Taiwan (Chou & Chin, 2012). Before this reform, curriculum
“standards” were established by the Ministry of Education (MOE), with the
implementation of the same textbooks and entrance examinations mandated by the
MOE. In ELT, grammar, reading, and writing were emphasized with a culture of
teaching focused on passing university entrance exams. After the reform, curriculum
“standards” were replaced by curriculum “guidelines,” textbooks were developed by
private publishers and selected by schools’ curriculum committees, and more
opportunities for study were provided with increased admissions. The most apparent
change in ELT was the adoption of Communicative Language Teaching with an
emphasis on speaking to replace grammar-oriented instruction (Yeh & Chern, 2020).

The second educational change involves the Twelve-year Basic Education

Reform that extended compulsory education from nine to twelve years, effective 2019.
This reform highlights the primacy of competency-based education (素養導向教
學)—the cultivation of students’ knowledge, skills, and attitudes to use English in real
life (Yeh & Chern, 2020). This trend is in line with the orientation of Organization for
Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2018) to “the concept of
competency” which “implies more than just the acquisition of knowledge and skills.
Instead, the mobilisation of knowledge, skills, attitudes and values to meet complex
3
主題文章

demands” (p. 5) are emphasized. Additionally, transdisciplinary teaching and cross-

curricular teacher collaboration are highly encouraged, given that “future-ready
students will need both broad and specialised knowledge” (OECD, 2018, p. 5).
Students will also need to be capable of applying knowledge and skills to unknown
situations.

The third reform concerns both local and national efforts to “bilingualize”
educational systems, meaning that different portions of non-language courses are
encouraged to be taught in English. This reform dates back to 2017 when the local
governments (i.e., Taipei City, New Taipei City, Tainan City, and Taoyuan City)
initiated “experimental bilingual curriculum projects” in public elementary schools in
the name of “integrating English into learning areas,” “experimental
curriculum/schools,” and/or “immersion education.” These projects require in-service
teachers to teach non-language courses in English yet do not provide clear directions
in regards to the “who,” “what,” and “how” to do so.

At the national level, 2018 marked the beginning of the change in bilingual
education when Executive Yuan announced the Blueprint to Develop Taiwan into a
Bilingual Nation by 2030—to make English the second official language and a
language that the general public could use in daily life. With great criticism about the
rationale for a bilingual nation, the “2030 Bilingual National Policy” was renamed the
“Bilingual 2030 Policy” to refocus educational values on cultivating future talent with
global competence thereby increasing Taiwan’s citizens’ competitiveness in global
value chains (National Development Council [NDC], 2021). To achieve the above aim,
the Taiwanese MOE announced its bilingual education policy, stating that Taiwan will
“implement in full scale bilingualization of Taiwan’s education system” and “cultivate
bilingual talents to bring Taiwan to the world” (MOE, 2018). Regarding the Grade 1-
12 compulsory education, the policy stipulates that English teaching should be done
entirely in English and, more importantly, that English should become the medium of
instruction in disciplinary and transdisciplinary courses. The latter is viewed as
bilingual teaching or education.

The above bilingual teaching, however, was not taken into consideration when
the Twelve-Year Basic Education Curriculum Guidelines were developed. What is
also overlooked is the training of certified instructors, raising questions about the
effectiveness of bilingual teaching. As such, two significant mechanisms have been
developed to train qualified bilingual teachers, including the pre-service teacher

4
 CLIL Development in Bilingual Education in Taiwan: Past, Present, and Future

education programs established in 2019 (Bilingual Teaching and Research Centers for
Teacher Education Institutes1) and bilingual in-service teacher accreditation programs
established in 2020. In particular, the language proficiency requirement (i.e., CEFR
B2) has been used for bilingual teacher recruitment, preparation, and development.
Although the top-down policy appears to be what Tsui (2020) calls “co-ercive
reprofessionalization,” it still leaves ample room for establishing school-based
curriculum symbolic of decentralization.

This bilingualization of education also extends to tertiary education. According

to "The Program on Bilingual Education for Students in College" (MOE, 2021), which
was specifically stated by the government, the benchmarks for offering only English-
medium instruction (EMI) courses mandate that subject professors conduct content
courses only in English. In this paper, bilingual education or teaching refers to the
teaching of (trans)disciplinary courses in English in compulsory education, while
CLIL is one of the approaches to bilingual education. However, EMI refers to the
delivery of discipline courses by subject-matter experts in English as the medium of
instruction with a clear emphasis on topic learning and, ideally, incidental English
improvement, in higher education.

Problematizing the ELT

Although there has been a shift toward decentralization, extending the amount
of time students spend learning English and adopting novel pedagogies, concerns
about students' future national, and individual competitiveness are still very much
alive and well in Taiwan (Ke, 2022). Like other East Asian countries, the failure of
ELT is often attributed to the Confucian culture of transmissive teaching (Tsui, 2020)
and a teaching-for-test culture, which places a strong emphasis on exams and
credentials.

Now the question is whose English counts as standard. Given the close
relationship to the U.S., Taiwan adopted the American educational system early on
(Chou & Chin, 2012). Thus, it is not surprising that a native-speaker model from the
inner circle (e.g., U.S. and U.K.) ends up being popular in academic debate as well as

1
The programs were previously named “English-only” Teaching and Research
Centers for Teacher Education Institutes.

5
主題文章

in the general public discourse, albeit in declining form. In public domains, the
number of cram schools (補習班) where English is taught by native speakers is
increasing (Ke, 2022). Cram schools appeal to parents by using immersion (沉浸式)
as an approach to enable children to sound like a native speaker—an indicator of a
higher level of English proficiency—suggesting “winning from the starting point.”

The above discussion reflects the preference, if not hegemony, of native-

speakerism that treats varieties of English from the inner circle as legitimate norms
and any deviation from them as inaccurate and deficient. As a result, we Taiwanese
must strive to resemble native English speakers, especially instructors who serve as
role models. Thus, unlike other nations in the expanding rings, Taiwanese teachers
never own English (Kirkpatrick & Lixun, 2020; Tsui, 2020).

In light of this background, bilingual teaching in Taiwan complements, but it

does not replace, ELT. This is because bilingual teaching challenges the requirement
for "standards." Bilingual teaching emphasizes the importance of preparing students
for the challenges of the digital age through the acquisition and application of
disciplinary knowledge. This can be done by recognizing the value of English as a
Lingua Franca (ELF) (intelligibility and comprehensibility of English) rather than
Standard English from the inner circle countries. The development of CLIL in Taiwan
is made possible by the aforementioned pedagogical ideas, which will be discussed
after a description of the 4Cs framework.

The 4Cs in CLIL Development

CLIL is influenced by the postmodernist perspective that emphasizes the
complexity of language, learning, and teaching and so a post-method condition (core
teaching principles) rather than a single ideal method is advocated in this teaching
approach (Gabillon, 2020). It is thus not surprising that a wide range of CLIL research
traditions and practices have been generated. Among them, Coyle (2008) proposed
the 4Cs approach to better prepare students for the knowledge age. This approach
compels individuals to use what they know rather than learn it before using it (see also
Coyle et al., 2010). It is a framework for lesson or course planning that was jointly
created by researchers and instructors. It has been widely embraced and modified over
the world (e.g. Ikeda et al., 2022).

6
 CLIL Development in Bilingual Education in Taiwan: Past, Present, and Future

The 4Cs approach refers to the “symbiosis” of the four “contextualized”

components (Coyle et al., 2010, p. 41) (see Figure 1). In Coyle’s seminal work, the
keyword is “synergies,” implying that the whole is larger than the sum of each part (p.
28). Each component is briefly defined below.

Content refers to the academic knowledge and skills to be taught, ranging from
topical issues and themes to trans-disciplinary and national curriculum.

1 Cognition refers to the arrangement of content based on Bloom’s taxonomy

(Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001), with a focus on increasing students’ higher
order thinking abilities.

2 Communication includes three types of language:

2.1 Language of learning “is an analysis of language needed for learners to

access basic concepts and skills relating to the subject theme or topic”
(Coyle et al., 2010, p. 37).

2.2 Language for learning “focuses on the kind of language needed to operate
in a foreign language environment” (Coyle et al., 2010, p. 37), such as
small talk, group discussions, and presentations.

2.3 Language through learning refers to any kind of new language that is
considered pedagogically significant and emerges from the teaching and
learning process.

3 Culture does not simply refer to cultural awareness that focuses on “knowledge”
about culture but more about “intercultural understanding [that] involves
different experiences” (p. 39).

7
主題文章

Figure 1
The 4Cs Framework

Note. From Coyle, D., & Meyer, O. (2021). Beyond CLIL: Pluriliteracies Teaching
for Deeper Learning (p. 19). Cambridge University Press.

As Morton (2018) highlights, “A recent trend in CLIL pedagogy has been to add
a focus on subject-literacy to that on content and language” (p. 57). Coyle and Meyer
(2021) argue that “subject literacies are much more than a ‘focus’ but are fundamental
to the evolution of CLIL in our plurilingual, pluricultural classrooms” (p. 15). Subject
or disciplinary literacies are understood as the ability to use knowledge, skills, and
dispositions to communicate well and actively participate in society. This notion
underlines the importance of the “I-integration” and helps revisit the 4Cs:

C-Cultures particularly focuses on “the nature and acquisition of knowledge” and

C-Content mediates discipline- or thematic-related learning and engagement, then
questions about developing language as an integral part of those disciplines
emerge: Learners need to have the linguistic means to define, classify, report,
evaluate, etc. in their L2…. Knowledge building and understanding, therefore,
involves not only integrating cognitive processes (C-Cognition) with C-Content
(knowledge), but also the discourses needed and used to express meaning (C-
Communication and C-Cultures). (Coyle & Meyer, 2021, p. 24)

8
 CLIL Development in Bilingual Education in Taiwan: Past, Present, and Future

The 4Cs in CLIL Development in Taiwan

This section explains the development of CLIL in compulsory bilingual
education in Taiwan by: (a) borrowing Coyle et al.’s (2010) 4Cs framework, (b)
glocalizing the 4Cs as the ELF-informed 4C 2++ framework, and (c)
internationalizing the ELF-informed 4C 2++ framework. Table 1 summarizes
significant themes across the stages.
Table 1
Important Themes of the 4Cs in CLIL Development in Taiwan
Past Present Future
Time 2017-2020 2020-2022 2022~
Chen et al.
Tsou & Kao (2020)
Related
(2018) Lu et al. (2021) Tsou et al. (2022)
publications
Tsou & Huang
(2022)
Approach globalized glocalized internationalized
Framework 4Cs 4C 2++ refined 4C 2++
public primary
public primary primary and
Target students and secondary
schools secondary education
education
bilingual 108 Curriculum The Program on
education Reform Bilingual Education
Driving force projects initiated Bilingual 2030 for Students in
by some local Policy (NDC, College (MOE,
governments 2021) 2021)
aligning with
borrowing 4Cs to bridging the gap
the 108
Focus provide a across educational
Curriculum
guideline systems
Guideline

The Past: Borrowing the 4Cs Framework

The first stage concerns the initial application of Coyle et al.’s (2010) 4Cs
framework adopted by local teachers and scholars as a tool for lesson and course
planning mostly in public primary schools from 2017 to 2020. The description of the
“why” and the “what” is primarily based on the first CLIL resource book (Tsou &
Kao, 2018).

9
主題文章

The “Why”: Teachers’ Uncertainty and Policy Initiatives

The ambiguity of this bilingual education policy and the uncertainty of in-service
teachers gave rise to the usage of 4Cs in CLIL in Taiwan, where internationalization
is a driving force in the bilingualization of a city and municipal education. Bilingual
education was first promoted by the Tainan City and Taipei City governments. Former
Mayor William Lai aimed to bilingualize Tainan City by promoting English as the
second official language to bring the world to Tainan and vice versa. Similarly,
following the 2016 visit to Singapore, Taipei's mayor W. C. Ke decided to support
bilingual education after realizing that it is essential for a city to become global.
Because of the heavy emphasis on English education and the coexistence of
"bilingual," "English-only instruction," "immersion in real contexts," and "English
abilities" in policy announcements, internationalizing a city and education has become
synonymous with Englishization.

Additionally, this stage was full of vagueness. For example, the qualifications for
a “bilingual teacher” depended on the willingness of local teachers and the recruitment
of certificated NESTs. Non-major subjects such as physical education (PE), Integrated
Activities, and Science were implicitly prioritized for fear of parents’ doubts about the
effectiveness of bilingual teaching. The proportion of English use was the main
concern for teachers in pedagogy. Although in-service teachers were faced with the
uncertainty of bilingual teaching due to the absence of prior training or teaching
experiences, the ambiguity of the bilingual education policy offered considerable
room for creativity on the part of each school and teacher.

In light of this background, the 4Cs framework was adopted as a theoretical lens
to support bilingual teaching by a team of scholars at National Cheng Kung University
in Tainan, and the concept soon spread to other cities. It was proposed because Taiwan
and the EU, where it originated, are EFL settings where teachers are frequently
nonnative English speakers (NNESTs) rather than native English speakers (NESTs)
and the supplementary language is a foreign rather than a second language. English is
valued as a tool for communication rather than just a subject acquired for gaining good
test grades.

The “What”: 4Cs Framework in CLIL in Taiwan

The first CLIL resource book (Tsou & Kao, 2018) appears to borrow the 4Cs
framework with an implicit attempt to recontextualize it in Taiwan, particularly for

10
 CLIL Development in Bilingual Education in Taiwan: Past, Present, and Future

public primary school teachers without prior bilingual training or experiences. The
arguments for using CLIL and 4Cs are implied in the resource book, given that only
the origin, definition, and spirit of CLIL were articulated with an illustration of CLIL
in Spain (Tsou et al., 2018). Situated in ELT, CLIL was explained by how it may differ
from other teaching approaches by using a continuum with the content-driven and
language-driven being situated at opposite ends. Soft CLIL (language-driven teaching)
and/or hard CLIL (content-driven teaching) can be adapted for usage in schools to
"improve students' global competency" (Tsou, 2018; Tsou et al., 2018, p. 14). The
above statements implicitly underline the primacy of ELF to increase individual
competitiveness, suggesting a paradigm shift in ELT under the influence of
neoliberalism and internationalization (Chang, 2022).

Coyle et al.’s (2010) 4Cs approach was borrowed as a tool for bilingual lesson
planning and curriculum design in public primary schools (See Appendix A). In Tsou
(2018), the original definition of the 4Cs is not provided. Instead, how each
component can be used in the Taiwanese context is briefly explained and illustrated
in the resource book, corresponding to Coyle and Meyer’s (2021) emphasis on the
importance of contextualization. For example, Tsou et al. (2018) encourage teachers
to ensure that a CLIL lesson plan correspond to the 108 Curriculum Guidelines which
highlight the primacy of competency-based instruction, and hence, core competency,
performance tasks, and contexts should be considered.

The Present: Glocalizing the 4Cs as the 4C 2++ Framework

The second stage pertains to the glocalization of the 4Cs framework as the 4Cs
2++ framework was proposed to advocate a paradigm shift in ELF from 2020 to 2022.
According to Lu et al. (2021), as local teachers designed CLIL lessons, they gradually
came to understand the similarities between the 4Cs and the pedagogical principles of
the 108 Curriculum Guidelines. In particular, the 4Cs framework has been glocalized
as 4C 2++. This framework was used to guide the first bilingual in-service teacher
accreditation program developed by a team of local scholars, organized by National
Cheng Kung University, and supported by the Ministry of Education (see Tsou &
Huang, 2022). The following is mainly based on Chen et al.’s (2020) paper and the
second CLIL resource book published by Tsou and Huang (2022).

The “Why”: Arguing for a Paradigm Shift

In order to understand the reasons underpinning the glocalization of the 4Cs

11
主題文章

framework, the circumstances of Taiwan’s English education are analyzed, followed

by a brief discussion of glocalization theory.

When the Local Meets the Global in Taiwan

To address local needs, Hutchinsond and Waters’s (1987) framework of needs

analysis was adopted. This framework emphasizes lacks (what the learners need),
wants (what the learners hope to know), and necessity (what the learners must know
to function well in the world). In terms of necessity, Taiwan has enacted the 12-Year
Basic Education Curriculum Guideline and hence the bilingual education curriculum
should also fit into the overall guideline; that is, bilingual education should also
emphasize the cultivation of competencies rather than knowledge acquisition. The
emergence of 12-Year Basic Education indicates the nation’s need for preparing
globally competent students in response to the declining birth rate, aging population,
and fast-changing job types, information, and technology. Global competence
generally includes one’s professional and communicative abilities. As such, bilingual
education needs to cultivate not simply English abilities but more importantly one’s
global competence via English. In this sense, bilingual education in Taiwan cannot be
equivalent to traditional English education that underscores the teaching and
application of linguistic knowledge.

In terms of lacks, the fear of using English as a result of lack of fluency, loss of
face, and peer pressure in the Chinese culture is not new news. These same fears can
be found in Taiwanese teachers required to teach in English. Moreover, foreign
language teachers, especially NESTs, can more easily get teaching jobs simply
because of their nativeness rather than because of any certifications or teaching
qualifications they may have (e.g., Chen et al., 2020). All of these imply a deep-seated
belief in English learning—that is, performance is measured by conforming to the
native speakers’ norm. Regarding wants, test-oriented and textbook-based English
learning tend to demotivate students. The local educational culture suggests that
improving English cannot be accomplished using a conventional educational
approach that emphasizes testing, language acquisition, language usage, or
conventions of native speakers. Thus, a novel approach to bilingual education emerges
as a ray of hope.

A New Approach to Bilingual Education: Glocalization

Xiong and Feng (2020) caution that the use of the term “bilingual education”

12
 CLIL Development in Bilingual Education in Taiwan: Past, Present, and Future

may imply the result of globalization that homogenizes, often if not always
westernizes, curricula, policies, and pedagogies, while re-configuration of the global
simultaneously exists. Robertson (1994, 1995) proposes the notion of “glocalization”
as he criticizes a globalization that homogenizes cultures and its response to recognize
local cultures as localization. He argues that “globalization” and “localization” are too
contradictory to ignore “the simultaneity and the interpenetration” of global and local
forces (Robertson, 1995, p. 30). Glocalization represents the integration of
homogenization and heterogenization, as well as universalization and
particularization. In other words, the local conditions need to be understood in relation
to global forces and vice versa. The global and local should be interpreted dialectically
(Tolgfor & Barker, 2021).

Glocalization has gained popularity in ELT, but not necessarily in bilingual

education. In ELT, scholars have deconstructed standard English and the NES norms
to permit local and cultural variations (Lu et al., 2017; Rhedding-Jones, 2002). It is,
however, not until recently that the term EIL (English as an International Language)
(Xu, 2018) has been debated as a glocalization notion or phenomenon, since the
“global” forms of English have diverse variations in response to local and
international communities. As such, pedagogies in recognition of local variations (e.g.,
translingual practice, ELF- and EIL-awareness pedagogy) have been proposed. In
bilingual education, Xiong and Feng (2020) argue for the localization or
recontextualization of what Swain and Johnson (1997) define as immersion programs
as they find new features in immersion programs in China. These new features include
the language-driven focus of immersion, the collaboration between local teachers and
native English-speaking teachers, and a mixture of long-term and short-term
immersion in China and abroad.

Given that seemingly global curriculum policies presume change in response to

local traditions and cultures, there is a need to address such dynamics at the
intersection between the global and the local. Tsou and Huang (2022) thus propose a
glocalization approach to bilingual education in Taiwan, with an attempt to argue for
a paradigm shift not merely from ESL/EFL to ELF/EIL, but more fundamentally from
a binary contrast of globalization and localization to a dynamic concept of
glocalization.

The “What”: The ELF-informed 4C 2++ Framework

In line with Chen et al.’s (2020) proposal for ELF-informed bilingual education,

13
主題文章

Tsou and Huang (2022) explicate the reasons that make ELF useful in the Taiwanese
context. An emphasis on standard English, the NES norm, or nativeness in the inner
circle may be suggested by the above-mentioned fear of using English and test-
oriented learning in Chinese culture. As non-native English speakers interact more
frequently and ELF gains instructional significance, the understanding of good
English learners needs to change. Under this circumstance, good English learners are
reconceptualized as those who are able to fluently communicate with others. This
notion highlights the primacy of intelligibly and effective communication rather than
having “perfect” or native-like English. It also implies a pedagogical change, since
the original focus on linguistic competence, English learners, accuracy, exams, and
English as a subject have been changed into communicative competence, English
users, fluency, performance assessment, and English as a tool.

In addition, the definition of CLIL at the first stage is slightly changed to

emphasize the importance of its dual focuses without differentiating between soft and
hard CLIL. CLIL is situated in a continuum of the language-driven end (ESP, English
for Specific Purposes) and content-driven end (EMI). This conceptualization is in line
with the criticism about the skewed focus on hierarchy of language and content
learning (Coyle & Meyer, 2021) (see Figure 2). It may also implicitly highlight the
primacy of disciplinary literacy, which will be fully explained in the next stage.
Figure 2
Continuum of Bilingual Education

14
 CLIL Development in Bilingual Education in Taiwan: Past, Present, and Future

More specifically, Coyle et al.’s (2010) 4Cs approach was adapted because it
matches the spirit of Taiwan’s new curriculum guidelines. Tsou and Huang (2022)
explain that a glocalization approach of 4C 2++ represents Content, Communication,
Cognition, Culture/community/citizen, +translanguaging, and +scaffolding. Figure 3
illustrates how these concepts collaborate with the four pedagogical principles of the
new curriculum guidelines in Taiwan: “integration of knowledge, skills, and attitudes,”
“an emphasis on context in learning,” “an emphasis on learning processes, methods,
and strategies,” and “an emphasis on action and performance” (National Institute of
Education, 2017, pp. 7-8). The components of the glocalized 4C2++ framework are
explained below (see Tsou & Huang, 2022, pp. 39-42).

1. Content: This notion includes subject matter, themes, or issues. It is

proposed to consider the first pedagogical principle of “integration of
knowledge, skills, and attitudes” when teachers design a CLIL lesson, unit,
or course. Related to this principle are (a) the emphasis that teachers should
consider not only knowledge or skill acquisition but also moral and
affective development and (b) the argument that performance assessment
should replace paper-and-pencil tests in CLIL teaching.

2. Cognition: As cognition is also related to content, cognition likewise

concerns the integration of knowledge, skills, and attitudes with a focus on
H.O.T. (higher level of thinking) rather than L.O.T. (lower level of thinking)
(Coyle et al., 2010). H.O.T. includes creating, evaluating, and analyzing,
while L.O.T. refers to remembering, understanding, and applying. In other
words, in CLIL, teachers should aim for H.O.T. and consider cognitive
loads and sequencing in CLIL design.

3. Culture/community/citizen: Culture refers to cross-cultural

understanding; community means a connection between curriculum and
real-life situations or local communities; and citizen indicates the
cultivation of global citizenship. All of these notions collaborate with the
second pedagogical principle of the new curriculum guidelines, that is,
“contextualization” or “an emphasis on contexts in learning.” In other
words, CLIL teachers in Taiwan should lead students to observe, analyze,
and evaluate phenomena in real contexts, allow students to think from
multiple perspectives, and guide students to transform knowledge into
action.

15
主題文章

4. Communication: CLIL teaching emphasizes that English is a tool for

learning rather than a subject; the key in CLIL is the word “integration.” It
is through English that subject matter or knowledge can be conveyed or
communicated. This notion includes Coyle et al.’s (2010) three dimensions:
Language of learning (target words, phrases, sentences, and discourses in
academic subjects), language for learning (useful expressions for task
fulfillment), language through learning (new English expressions resulting
from student-teacher or student-student interaction).

5. +translanguaging: Translanguaging refers to the intentional and selective

use of different languages, modes and semiotic resources in teaching. It can
be understood as “multiple discursive practices in which bilinguals engage
in order to make sense of their bilingual worlds” (García, 2009, p. 45,
original emphasis). Translanguaing is thus not a direct translation nor is it
a form of code-switching between Mandarin Chinese and English. The use
of translanguaging for both teachers and students can empower them to
realize and demonstrate the reality in which they are ELF users and
emphasis should be placed on effective communication rather than native-
like accuracy and fluency.

6. +task/scaffolding: As indicated in Content, “integration of knowledge,

skills, and attitudes” can only be shown through performance or tasks.
Therefore, CLIL favors task-based teaching with a focus on text and task
authenticity, as well as learner interests and action. Students are thus
learning by doing and experimenting, which is what the last principle called
“an emphasis on action.” During the learning process, teachers need to
provide “scaffolding” in comprehension and fulfilling tasks (Mahan, 2020).
All the translanguaging, multimodality, or semiotic resources can be
scaffolding, which help students take ownership of their learning. This
approach fits well with the third principle of the new curriculum in
Taiwan— “an emphasis on learning process, methods, and strategies”; that
is, learning is a process of self-reflection and self-improvement rather than
passive reception or knowledge transmission.

Additionally, it is stated that "+task/scaffolding" emphasizes the importance of

performance evaluation so that students can show what they have learned through
activities rather than tests and teachers can give feedback to support learning

16
 CLIL Development in Bilingual Education in Taiwan: Past, Present, and Future

(assessment for learning). This method promotes learning transfer while increasing
learners' internalization, and it is referred to as “an emphasis on action and
performance” in the new curriculum in Taiwan.

Figure 3
The Connection between Four Teaching Principles in the 12-Year Basic Education
and 4C 2++

Note. Adapted from Tsou, W. L., & Huang, Y. P. (2022). A resource book for
bilingual education in Taiwan: A glocalized design and practice (p. 42). Bookman.

The Future: Internationalizing the ELF-informed 4C 2++

Framework
Vertical consistency in curriculum across educational levels becomes
pedagogically crucial given the urgent requirement to bilingualize elementary,
secondary, and higher education for the nation's future talent. The third stage
illustrates the future of the 4C 2++ in CLIL, namely, to internationalize the ELF-
informed 4C 2++ framework in bilingual education in Taiwan. It follows that literacy
development and Internationalization of Education at Home (IoH) should be
considered. The information below is based on an EMI reference book (Tsou et al.,
2022) and the implementation of a professional development program for bilingual
instructors in senior high schools supported by Taiwan's MOE.

The “Why”: Internationalization of the 4C 2++ in CLIL

The aforementioned discussion of the 4C 2++ in CLIL has not taken into
consideration Internationalization of Education at Home (IoH) (e.g., Beelen & Jones,
2015) nor literacy development across educational levels.

17
主題文章

Doing Glocal for Becoming Mobile.

As was mentioned in the preceding section, there is general agreement that global
mobility is necessary in education. The question then becomes, “Where does the 4Cs
lead students?” The focus now switches from glocalization to IoH because IoH is seen
as a way to help "professionals who possess a wide variety of experience and abilities,
including English proficiency and international mobility" (National Development
Council, 2022).

According to Beelen and Jones (2015), IoH refers to “the purposeful integration
of international and intercultural dimensions into the formal and informal curriculum
for all students within domestic learning environments” (p. 76). “For all members of
the academic community,” it “has become more urgent than ever” (De Wit & Altbach,
2021, p. 44). IoH can be understood as the careful design of real-world international
experiences at schools for all students. If this argument is accepted, two significant
points are worth noting: First, mobility through increasing global competence should
no longer be an elite form of education; instead, it should be accessible to every
student. The first point attaches much importance to the second argument that English
as lingua franca can become a common asset or window, as it is envisioned as “social
semiotic”— “a tool that enables conceptual development” (Coffin & Donohue, 2014,
p. 23). It has to be stressed that English as a medium of instruction does not assume
“English-only” nor does it assume a sink-or-swim situation in bilingual learning. EMI
in bilingual teaching refers to use of ELF as a means of instruction, highlighting the
importance of valuing any semiotic resources (e.g., linguistic and non-linguistic
resources) teachers and learners bring to classrooms.

From General, to Academic, and Eventually to Disciplinary Literacies

In the seminal work “Beyond CLIL,” Coyle and Meyer (2021) argue for a focus
on the acquisition of disciplinary literacies. As they explained:

We conceptualise academic language or language of schooling as consisting of

both subject-specific and generic language elements. Academic language offers
learners ways to abstract complex ideas, whereas the use of colloquial language
is ideal for expressing content and negotiating meaning in highly accessible and
more concrete ways. Progression includes growing command of subject-specific
modes (charts, maps, tables, formulas, drawings, etc.) in both analogue and digital
as well as hybrid or plurimodal forms. Pluriliteracies progression involves a

18
 CLIL Development in Bilingual Education in Taiwan: Past, Present, and Future

growing awareness of disciplinary cultures that are a prerequisite to successfully

communicating knowledge across subjects, cultures and languages. (pp. 77-78)

Concurring with the above argument, Dr. Tsou proposes a continuum of two ends
of bilingual education in primary schools and English-medium instruction (EMI) in
higher education in Taiwan, with bilingual EMI education in senior high schools in
between (Tsou & Huang, 2022; Tsou et al., 2022). Specialists offer EMI courses
without focusing on language acquisition, whereas bilingual EMI is meant to cover
both language acquisition and content. In order to make room for EMI in higher
education, the language of content in bilingual EMI education in secondary schools
should start to emphasize the importance of disciplinary literacies. Figure 4 illustrates
such literacy development to bridge “curriculum disconnects” across educational
levels.
Figure 4
The Continuum of Literacy Development
general literacies disciplinary
general literacies disciplinary literacies literacies
academic literacies
Bilingual Bilingual EMI EMI

senior high schools

universities (Ss with
primary education junior high higher education
lower English
proficiency)

The “What”: The Refined 4C 2++ Framework

This section intends to describe what is refined and to clarify misunderstandings
surrounding the 4C 2++ framework. Figure 5 shows the latest 4C 2++ framework.
Three changes have been made: First, the original teaching strategy called
“+scaffolding/tasks” is broken into two notions: “multimodal scaffold” is a teaching
strategy that designs quality teaching considering youth’s multiple intelligences in the
information age. The other notion, “task,” is conceptualized as an outcome in the
backward design that teachers should contemplate at the initial stages of planning.
Second, as depicted in the prior section, the C in Communication (language of content)
includes both general and disciplinary literacies depending on the educational and
English proficiency levels of students.

19
主題文章

Third and most important of all, it is argued that the 4C 2++ is not a label or
slogan that “molds” bilingual teaching into one specific form of teaching nor is it
synonymous with bilingual education. Rather, “CLIL is best seen as a way of bringing
together a range of pedagogical or methodological principles and perspectives for the
integration of content and language” (Morton & Llinares, 2017, p. 1). Of key
importance of the 4C 2++ is the heuristic of all sets of beliefs and rules, functioning
like a “recipe” not a “bible,” for designing quality bilingual teaching. The “integration”
or “fusion” of content and language learning for nurturing local talent with global
competence is also crucial.

Figure 5
Refined 4C 2++

In conclusion, the thread of the 4C 2++ development is evolution through

exploration and reflection. As Coyle and Meyer (2021) put it, “Engaging in critical
re-visioning supports teachers, motivates change and disrupts ‘this is what we do’ to
promote ‘this is what we are exploring together’” (p. 29). As such, the importance of
investigating, and even problematizing, the 4C 2++ cannot be overemphasized.

Conclusion
This paper represents the most complete discussion to date of the 4Cs in CLIL
development in Taiwan. It would seem that empirical evidence is required to
substantiate and/or modify the proposed framework and teaching strategies. More

20
 CLIL Development in Bilingual Education in Taiwan: Past, Present, and Future

research is needed on the effects and effectiveness of the 4Cs 2++ in the elementary
and secondary educational contexts. Although the (refined) 4C 2++ frameworks all
assume the usefulness of ELF and translanguaging, the potential of their use in the
classroom clearly needs further exploration. Also, as Coyle and Meyer (2021) urge,
deep learning should be of primary concern and therefore investigation of learning
processes and products must be conducted. Given the significant role of context in
CLIL, bilingual schools’ policies must be examined because this dimension receives
less description. As global competence is defined by the national government, the
correlation between global competence, (disciplinary) literacies, and the 4Cs 2++ will
be the next step to make the CLIL development more fruitful. The above-mentioned
documentation, analysis, and directions, we believe, will benefit glocalization of CLIL
research and practice around the globe.

References
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning,
teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational
objectives. Longman.

Baker, W., & Tsou, W. (2021). EMI and translanguaging in Asia through the ROAD-
MAPPING lens. In W. Tsou & W. Baker (Eds.), English-medium instruction
translanguaging practices in Asia: Theories, frameworks and implementation in
higher education (pp. 183-195). Springer.

Beelen, J., & Jones. E. (2015). Redefining internationalization at home. In A. Curai,

L. Matei, R. Pricopie, J. Salmi, & P. Scott (Eds.), The European higher education
area: Between critical reflections and future policies (pp. 67-80). Springer.

Chang, Y. J. (2022). Re (Imagining) Taiwan Through “2030 Bilingual Nation”:

Languages, identities, and ideologies. Taiwan Journal of TESOL, 19(1), 121-146.
http://doi.org/10.30397/TJTESOL.202204_19(1).0005

Chen, F., Kao, S. M., & W. Tsou. (2020). Toward ELF-informed bilingual education
policies: Addressing incongruity between policy statement and practice in
Taiwan. English Teaching & Learning, 44, 175-191.

Chou, C., & Ching, G. (2012). Taiwan education at the crossroad: When

21
主題文章

globalization meets localization. Palgrave Macmillan.

Coffin, C., & Donohue, J. (2014). A language as social semiotic-based approach to

teaching and learning in higher education. John Wiley & Sons.

Coyle, D. (2008). CLIL—a pedagogical approach from the European perspective. In

N. H. Hornberger (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Education (pp. 1200-
1214). Springer.

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

Coyle, D., & Meyer, O. (2021). Beyond CLIL: Pluriliteracies teaching for deeper
learning. Cambridge University Press.

De Wit, H., & Altbach, P. G. (2021). Internationalization in higher education: Global

trends and recommendations for its future. Policy Reviews in Higher Education,
5(1), 28-46.

Gabillon, Z. (2020). Revisiting CLIL: Background, pedagogy, and theoretical

underpinnings. Contextes et didactiques. Revue semestrielle en sciences de
l’éducation, 15. http://doi.org/10.4000/ced.1836

García, O. (2009). Bilingual education in the 21st century. Wiley-Blackwell.

Hutchinson, T., & Waters, A. (1987). English for specific purposes. Cambridge
University Press.

Ikeda, M., Shinichi I., Yoshinori, W., Richard, P., & Matthew, D. (2022). Soft CLIL
and English language teaching: Understanding Japanese policy, practice, and
implications. Taylor and Francis.

Ke, I.-C. (2022). Globalization and English education in Taiwan: Curriculum,

perceptions, and pedagogies. Routledge.

Kirkpatrick, A., & Lixun, W. (2020). Is English an Asian language? Cambridge

University Press.

Lu, S. L., Chen, F., & Tsou, W. L. (2021). CLIL disciplinary subject learning.
Bookman.

22
 CLIL Development in Bilingual Education in Taiwan: Past, Present, and Future

Mahan, K. R. (2020). The comprehending teacher: Scaffolding in content and

language integrated learning (CLIL). The Language Learning Journal, 1-15.

Ministry of Education. (2018). Blueprint for developing Taiwan into a bilingual

nation by 2030.
https://bilingual.ndc.gov.tw/sites/bl4/files/news_event_docs/blueprint_for_deve
loping_taiwan_into_a_bilingual_nation_by_2030.pdf.

Ministry of Education. (2021). The program on bilingual education for students in

college. https://ws.moe.edu.tw/

Morton, T., & Llinares, A. (2017). Content and language integrated learning (CLIL):
type of programme or pedagogical model? In A. Llinares & T. Morton (Eds.),
Language Learning & Language Teaching (pp. 1-16). John Benjamins

Morton, T. (2018). What does research on content and language integrated learning
(CLIL) tell us about EAL? EAL Journal, 6, 56-62.

National Development Council. (2021). Bilingual 2030.

https://www.ndc.gov.tw/en/Content_List.aspx?n=BF21AB4041BB5255

National Institute of Education (2017). Competency-based instruction and evaluation:

Definition, transformation, and practice. MOE.
https://ws.moe.edu.tw/001/Upload/23/relfile/8059/56214/bb0fc79d-a7c7-4d7e-
b03a-9d14bdb59011.pdf

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2018). The future of

education and skills. Educations 2030.
https://www.oecd.org/education/2030/E2030%20Position%20Paper%20(05.04.
2018).pdf

Rhedding-Jones, J. (2002). English elsewhere: Glocalization, assessment and ethics.

Journal of Curriculum Studies, 34(4), 383-404.

Robertson, R. (1994). Globalisation or glocalisation? Journal of International

Communication, 1(1), 33-52.

Robertson, R. (1995). Glocalization: Time-space and homogeneity-heterogeneity. In

M. Featherstone, S. Lash, & R. Robertson (Eds.), Global Modernities (pp. 25-
44). SAGE.

23
主題文章

Swain, M., & R. Johnson. (1997). Immersion education: A category within bilingual
education. In R. Johnson, & M. Swain (Eds.), Immersion education:
International perspectives (pp. 1-16). Cambridge University Press.

Tsou, W. (2018). CLIL lesson planning and cross-curricular teacher collaboration. In

W. L. Tsou & S. M. Kao (Eds.), Exploring CLIL: A resource book (pp. 21-38).
Bookman.

Tsou, W. L., & Kao, S. M. (2018). Exploring CLIL: A resource book. Bookman.

Tsou, W. L., Kao, S. M., & Chen, F. (2018). The spirit of CLIL. In W. L. Tsou & S.
M. Kao (Eds.), Exploring CLIL: A resource book (pp. 9-20). Bookman.

Tsou, W. L., & Huang, Y. P. (2022). A resource book for bilingual education in
Taiwan: A glocalized design and practice. Bookman.

Tsou, W. L., Kao, Y. T., & Lin, L. C. (2022). A resource book for university EMI in
Taiwan: A glocalized design and practice. Bookman.

Tsui, A. B. M. (2020). Glocalization and globalization: Critical Issues in English

language teaching and teacher education in East Asia. In A. B. M. Tsui (Ed.),
English language teaching and teacher education in East Asia: Global
challenges and local responses (pp. 1-36). Cambridge University Press.

Xiong, T., & A. Feng. (2020). Localizing immersion education: A case study of an
international bilingual education program in South China. International Journal
of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 23(9), 1125-1138.

Xu, Z. (2018). Exploring English as an international language: Curriculum, materials

and pedagogical strategies. RELC Journal, 49(1), 102-118.

Yeh, H.-N., & Chern, C.-L. (2020). Preparing English teachers in the twenty-first
century: The case of Taiwan. In A. B. M. Tsui (Ed.), English language teaching
and teacher education in East Asia: Global challenges and local responses (pp.
175-194). Cambridge University Press.

24
CLIL Development in Bilingual Education in Taiwan: Past, Present, and Future

Appendix A
A CLIL Lesson Plan
(Tsou, 2018, p. 37)

25
主題文章

CLIL 在臺灣雙語教育的發展：過去、
現在、與未來

黃怡萍* 鄒文莉**
近年來，由於政府推動教育「雙語化」--在非語言課程中使用英語作為教學
語言--使得「學科內容與語言整合」教學（CLIL）在臺灣掀起一股風潮。因應
政府雙語教育政策從小學延伸至中學乃至高等教育，本文介紹臺灣在地學者協
助在職教師發展雙語教學的歷程，包括：第一階段，學者將 Coyle 等人的 (2010)
4Cs 教學框架用於臺灣雙語教學；第二階段，學者將「全球在地化」概念融入
4Cs，成為「ELF-informed 4C 2++」的框架；第三階段，學者將「ELF-informed
4C 2++」的框架國際化。以上三階段發展之原因與內容將在文內分別闡述。暸
解臺灣 CLIL 的演變有利於教師與研究人員考慮雙語教育的未來發展。

關鍵詞：學科內容與語言整合、雙語教育/教學、英語作為通用語、全球在地化、
國際化

* 作者現職：國立政治大學英國語文學系副教授

** 作者現職：國立成功大學外國語文學系教授

通訊作者：鄒文莉，e-mail: [email protected]

26