Abstract
This study examines the effectiveness of content and language integrated learning (CLIL) in primary school English teaching, focusing its impact on the English learning ability and interest of lower-grade students. Two hundred and forty first-grade students were selected from three primary schools in Shenzhen (115 in the experimental group and 125 in the control group) for a one-week intervention. Results showed that students in the experimental group significantly outperformed those in the control group in terms of English learning ability, maintaining a stable advantage across three tests. Additionally, the experimental group’s learning interest increased significantly from pre-test to post-test, whereas the control group remained stable. Moderation effect analysis indicated that students with initially low interest levels in the pre-test experienced the most significant increase in learning interest after the intervention. The research findings demonstrate that CLIL can effectively enhance primary school students’ English learning ability and interest in learning English, with particularly significant transformative effects for students who initially showed low interest. This study provides preliminary empirical evidence for implementing CLIL in China’s primary education context.
I Introduction
In the context of globalization and informatization, the significance of the English language has become increasingly prominent. Mastering English is critical for individuals to participate in international communication and collaboration. It is also an important pathway for countries to cultivate internationally oriented talent (M. Li, 2025). As the primary battleground for talent cultivation, schools bear the dual mission of promoting holistic individual development and delivering high-caliber professional talents to society. In this process, English classroom serves as the primary pathway for Chinese students to acquire English knowledge and comprehensively enhance their English proficiency systematically. However, current English teaching in China predominantly adopts a teacher-centered traditional teaching method, which has dual limitations: On one hand, it simplifies language into a static knowledge system, neglecting its communicative function and cultural connotations; on the other hand, excessive reliance on standardized test evaluation has led to a widespread predicament of ‘mute English’ among students; students often achieve satisfactory exam performance but demonstrate limited proficiency in authentic communicative situations (Luo et al., 2014; Ma, 2022; Sun & Wei, 2016; L. Wang, 2023)
To tackle these challenges, China’s Ministry of Education has launched a reform in English teaching, focusing on ‘core competencies’. It includes task-based teaching and the development of students’ language ability, cultural awareness, learning strategies, critical thinking abilities, and intercultural communication skills (M. Li, 2025). The 2022 curriculum standards emphasize that English teaching should extend beyond grammatical correctness to focus more on practical use and appropriateness in real-life situations (Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China, 2022). However, the reform process faces significant challenges. The student academic evaluation system remains exam-oriented. As a result, teachers often revert to exam preparation strategies to help students pass exams (Meng et al., 2021). This leads to several issues in English classrooms: teaching methods become monotonous, and there is over-dependence on textbooks while goals become exam-oriented (Chang et al., 2021). While these practices may temporarily improve test scores, they deprive English teaching of its communicative function. They also diminish students’ interest and negatively impact teaching effectiveness (L. Wang, 2023), making it difficult to realize the requirement of developing students’ ‘core competencies’. Meanwhile, the problem of ‘mute English’ persists. Many Chinese students study English for more than ten years from primary school to university, but are still unable to use it fluently (J. Wang, 2023). The question of how to align English teaching with the ‘achievement of core competencies’ proposed by the Ministry of Education, and how to cultivate competent English learners, has become a crucial issue discussed among scholars and educators.
In this context, content and language integrated learning (CLIL) has garnered widespread attention from scholars due to its high compatibility with the requirements of the new curriculum standards (Zhou & Zhang, 2014). First, CLIL has dual pedagogical objectives, seamlessly integrating language acquisition with subject knowledge, enabling learners to effectively master curriculum content while improving their language proficiency (Coyle, 2007). Second, the CLIL pedagogical approach also helps cultivate learners’ intercultural awareness and critical thinking abilities (Harrop, 2012), which aligns with the Ministry of Education’s requirements for developing students’ ‘core competencies’.
Meanwhile, CLIL’s potential gains particular relevance in light of the growing trend of English as a Medium of Instruction (EMI) across China. In response to globalization pressures and the demand for internationally competitive graduates, many Chinese universities have increasingly adopted EMI programs, particularly in science, technology, engineering, and business disciplines (G. Hu & Lei, 2014; Jiang et al., 2019). This shift has created a pressing need for students to develop both academic English proficiency and content knowledge simultaneously from an early age.
Despite increasing demand, CLIL implementation in Chinese schools remains at an early, exploratory stage. While some experimental programs have been initiated in select schools in major cities, these efforts are limited in scope and encounter challenges such as limited professional knowledge, inadequate teacher preparation, insufficient teaching resources, and misaligned assessment practices (S. Li, 2021). The disparity between the increasing EMI requirements in higher education and the limited CLIL exposure at primary and secondary levels highlights the need for systematic research and targeted implementation strategies. Investigating the effectiveness of CLIL in Chinese primary education is essential to prepare students for academic and professional contexts where EMI is increasingly prevalent.
Nevertheless, existing CLIL research in China remains limited, characterized by a concentration on theoretical discussions and a lack of empirical research (Yang & He, 2019). Existing empirical research primarily focuses on higher education students. In contrast, practical research in levels such as elementary education, remains relatively limited (H. Hu et al., 2023). Furthermore, current CLIL research in China is predominantly characterized by small-scale studies, reflecting both the field’s developmental stage and various contextual constraints (Gilanyi et al., 2023). Most empirical studies rely on limited samples, typically involving one or a few classrooms with small numbers of teachers and students, whereas quantitative studies often lack depth due to the use of questionnaire-based tools (Yang & He, 2019). This pattern of data lacking depth stems from several factors: CLIL implementation has been introduced relatively late compared to its European origins and it is at an exploratory phase (Zhou & Zhang, 2014); CLIL remains scarce in Chinese educational institutions as practical constraints limit research scope (Zhao et al., 2020); and the interdisciplinary nature of CLIL adds complexity to large-scale research endeavors (Coyle et al., 2010). While small-scale CLIL studies have limitations in terms of sample size and generalizability, they possess significant advantages in theoretical exploration, practical innovation, cost control, and in-depth analysis (Dallinger et al., 2016). These studies have laid an important foundation for the development of CLIL in China, providing valuable experience and theoretical support for future large-scale implementation.
However, despite these contributions, the research gap in primary education remains particularly acute. Recent scoping reviews have revealed that this limitation is particularly pronounced in primary schools, with only five out of 61 studies in Asia focusing exclusively on primary schools (Zhu et al., 2024). This stark disparity between the theoretical foundation established by existing small-scale studies and the lack of research in primary schools underscores the pressing need for a comprehensive investigation into the effectiveness of CLIL in Chinese primary education.
CLIL offers unique advantages in primary education by creating authentic language use situations. It can enhance students’ language abilities and cultivate their learning awareness and interest at an early age, laying a foundation for advanced English learning (Dou, 2023). However, due to the lack of research on the effectiveness and application strategies of CLIL in China’s primary education, as well as limitations in academic evaluation systems and teaching resource support, teachers face numerous difficulties in real-life teaching, resulting in its limited application in English teaching at the primary education stage (B. Liu, 2003).
This study aims to provide empirical evidence to investigate the effectiveness of CLIL implementation in teaching English in Chinese primary schools using quantitative methods. The primary objective is to examine the extent to which CLIL enhances students’ learning ability and interest, as well as the mutual influence between learning ability and interest. Through this investigation, this study aims to broaden the scope of English teaching methodologies at the primary level. A CLIL teaching plan was designed and implemented for first-grade primary school students to construct a learning environment that integrates content and language. The following questions are examined:
Research question 1: How does CLIL impact lower-grade students’ English ability?
Research question 2: How does CLIL impact students’ English learning interests?
Research question 3: Does initial interest level moderate the relationship between learning ability and interest development under CLIL?
II Literature review
1 Traditional teaching methods in Chinese English education
Traditional teaching methods in China, which have evolved by incorporating grammar-translation, audio-lingual, and direct methods, have been widely adopted by English teachers and have cultivated numerous English talents (Luo et al., 2014). These long-standing teaching methods offer unique advantages, such as aligning with the academic evaluation system, requiring lower oral English proficiency from teachers, and meeting students’ exam-oriented learning needs (Su, 2019).
With societal progress and evolving demands for talents, these teaching methods have also revealed significant disadvantages. Traditional teaching methods are teacher-centered and they focus on systematic language knowledge instructions and emphasize students’ mastery of vocabulary, grammar rules, and exam techniques (Du, 2014). The primary teaching objective of such traditional methods is to help students pass examinations, with limited development of practical language application abilities, often resulting in students’ difficulty to effectively use language in real-life situations (Bai, 2014). Meanwhile, students adopt a passive role in learning, primarily acquiring English through rote repetition and recitation, which limits their critical thinking, engagement, and practical application (Yu, 2015). Students often become fatigued from processing excessive amounts of tedious material coupled with heavy academic workloads, which gradually diminishes their learning interest (Sun & Wei, 2016). Additionally, traditional teaching classrooms are textbook-centered, predominantly employing explanation, translation, recitation, and exercises as teaching methods, with standardized test scores as the sole evaluation method to measure learning ability, resulting in a narrow evaluation system (Su, 2019).
2 Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL): Theoretical framework
CLIL is the product of European educational exploration in bilingual teaching (Marsh, 2013). It aims to develop and provide non-native teaching methods that can adapt to the needs of different schools (Zhang, 2013). The core concept of CLIL is to use a foreign language as a medium to enable learners to acquire a language while exploring subject content naturally (Coyle, 2018). Unlike traditional language teaching methods, CLIL is not simply the superimposition of language and content. Instead, it constructs a ‘language-content-cognition-culture’ integrated learning framework through authentic cognitive tasks and communicative needs (Coyle, 2007). This approach challenges the ‘form-first’ paradigm in traditional language teaching (Dalton-Puffer, 2011) and provides more meaningful contextualized support for language learning through deep integration of subject knowledge (Lorenzo & Rodríguez, 2014).
Numerous European studies have shown that CLIL can effectively enhance language proficiency (such as vocabulary, grammar, and fluency) while promoting cognitive development (such as critical thinking and problem-solving abilities) and intercultural understanding (Harrop, 2012). However, the success of this model highly depends on the adaptability of the education system: under the support of European multilingual policies, CLIL has formed a relatively mature teaching system (De Zarobe & de Zarobe, 2015), whereas in Asian countries (such as Korea and Japan), its application is limited by practical factors including teacher capabilities and curriculum compatibility (Kim & Lee, 2020; Reinders et al., 2019). In China, although the theoretical value of CLIL has been recognized (B. Liu, 2003), its practice in primary education still faces significant challenges due to the lack of localized research support and the pervasive influence of traditional exam-oriented teaching culture (L. Li et al., 2020).
3 CLIL’s impact on students’ learning ability
Existing research suggests that CLIL can effectively improve students’ English achievement and proficiency, with medium to large effect sizes in enhancing language abilities (Pérez-Cañado, 2012). Multiple European studies indicate that CLIL students outperform traditional teaching environments in vocabulary mastery, grammatical accuracy, and communicative fluency (De Zarobe & Zenotz, 2015; Heine et al., 2020; Pérez-Cañado, 2012). Particularly in productive skills such as speaking and writing, CLIL students demonstrate stronger language application abilities than those taught through traditional methods (Dalton-Puffer, 2008). Coyle et al. (2010) suggest that this advantage may stem from the authentic language use contexts created by CLIL, allowing students to develop language abilities while mastering subject content naturally.
In China’s academic evaluation system, students’ learning abilities are mainly assessed through listening, reading, and writing. Huang and Wu (2022) employed a controlled experiment with undergraduate students to examine academic vocabulary and reading performance, revealing that CLIL significantly improved both academic vocabulary size and reading comprehension abilities. The result is consistent with existing research (Gu, 2017; C. Wang, 2020). These findings indicate that CLIL students outperform non-CLIL students in listening and reading tasks, likely attributable to vocabulary acquisition through authentic language use. In writing, Chen (2023) and J. Wang (2023) employed quasi-experimental research designs with junior and senior high school students to investigate the impact of CLIL on English writing abilities. Both found that CLIL helps students improve coherence, cohesion, and the use of complex sentence structures, enhancing their writing scores. These results suggest that CLIL can benefit writing abilities across multiple educational levels. Beyond these three aspects, H. Hu et al. (2022) used a quasi-experimental approach to assess undergraduate students’ language proficiency across different ability levels, finding that CLIL instruction significantly improved both English achievement and learning motivation, with particularly notable effects among lower-proficiency students. Existing research supports the effectiveness of CLIL in enhancing students’ learning ability within the Chinese context. However, these studies have predominantly focused on high school and university students. Primary school students exhibit distinct characteristics in terms of instructional content, language proficiency, and cognitive development. Consequently, current research does not provide adequate empirical evidence to determine the impact of CLIL on learning abilities among primary school students.
4 CLIL’s impact on students’ English learning interest
Learning interest is one of the key factors influencing learning ability. Research shows that learning interest, as a core dimension of intrinsic motivation, has a significant positive correlation with language learning ability (Dörnyei, 2020). As a contextualized, cognitively driven teaching method, CLIL can effectively enhance students’ learning interests (Coyle, 2007). In CLIL classrooms, language learning is situated within authentic communication environments, where teachers create real problem scenarios for students and encourage communication and interactions. On one hand, improvements in oral communication skills indirectly enhance students’ learning interests (C. Liu & Wang, 2013). On the other hand, this distinctive CLIL approach fosters initiative, interactivity, and collaborative learning (Lasagabaster & Doiz, 2017), generating specific affective factors in students, such as learning confidence and learning self-efficacy (Chen, 2023). Under the synergistic effect of these factors, students’ learning interest is effectively activated and enhanced (Doiz et al., 2014).
However, not all studies have yielded consistent results. Bruton (2011) argues that CLIL might stress lower-achieving students, potentially reducing their learning interests. Furthermore, Pladevall-Ballester’s (2019) research indicates that CLIL’s results in enhancing learning interest depend on contextual factors such as subject content, teacher preparation, and curriculum alignment. These differences emphasize the necessity of age-appropriate CLIL adaptations based on local conditions, especially in exam-oriented systems like China’s where extrinsic motivation factors predominate (L. Li et al., 2020).
5 Challenges in CLIL implementation at primary education
Despite CLIL’s theoretical advantages, its implementation in Chinese primary education faces substantial practical barriers. The absence of targeted policy support remains the principal impediment to CLIL adoption in Chinese primary schools. In contrast to the prevalent policy-driven approaches in European countries, China has not yet developed a comprehensive national strategy nor a systematic framework for CLIL implementation (C. Li, 2018). Although the revised Curriculum Standards has shifted the focus from memorizing grammar and vocabulary to using language in authentic contexts. This policy emphasizes a fundamental goal from shifting ‘learning English’ to ‘using English’ and primarily addresses language proficiency rather than the integrated development of content and language that CLIL requires (Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China, 2022). Meanwhile, current policies also lack explicit guidance on instructional methods and strategies for meeting the Curriculum Standards, as it relies on general approaches such as task-based learning, situational experiences, and cultural integration (Y. Liu, 2024). This lack of specificity leads to inconsistent CLIL practices, with schools and regions operating autonomously, which hinders the scalability and sustainable development of CLIL. Additionally, the fragmented management system also hinders effective CLIL implementation. As an interdisciplinary teaching method, CLIL requires close collaboration between English teachers and subject teachers. However, the subject-segregated management system commonly adopted in Chinese primary schools is not conducive to fostering such collaboration (Fang, 2018). Furthermore, Wolff (2007) emphasizes the importance of positioning CLIL with a clear direction within curriculum structures. In China’s exam-oriented culture, parents and students may not fully comprehend CLIL’s dual objectives, potentially creating resistance or unrealistic expectations.
Teacher capacity and students’ English proficiency present additional challenges for CLIL implementation. Mehisto (2008) describes such a phenomenon as ‘teacher disjuncture’, where language teachers may lack subject expertise and content teachers may not possess sufficient English proficiency. This issue is particularly pronounced in primary education, where teachers must integrate subject knowledge with age-appropriate pedagogy. The traditional subject-specialized training model in China has resulted in a shortage of teachers being qualified to deliver CLIL effectively (Ma, 2022). Collaboration between language and content teachers is further complicated by assessment challenges, such as determining whether to evaluate students’ language skills, content mastery, or both (Lucietto, 2008). Effective CLIL implementation requires teachers to understand its core principles and gain relevant skills through systematic training and ongoing professional development. However, opportunities for such training are currently limited for primary teachers in Asia (Tseng, 2022), which constrains CLIL adoption. Furthermore, the appropriate use of students’ first language in CLIL classrooms also remains debated, particularly on whether to maintain an English-only approach or permit strategic uses of the first language to aid comprehension. (Toth & Paulsrud, 2017). The success of CLIL depends on students’ English proficiency, and it is unclear whether Chinese primary students possess the necessary language skills to benefit from instruction conducted entirely in English (Zhang, 2013).
These implementation challenges also highlight the need for contextualized research to examine how CLIL can be effectively adapted in Chinese primary education settings while accommodating local constraints and educational culture.
6 Research gaps
Despite the growing interest in CLIL research, significant gaps remain, particularly within the Chinese educational context. H. Hu et al. (2023) systematic review reveals that CLIL research in China between 2013 and 2022 predominantly focuses on higher education, with limited studies conducted at the primary education stage. Most existing studies are theoretical, lacking rigorous experimental designs with appropriate control groups and standardized assessment instruments. Given the distinct cognitive and linguistic characteristics of primary school students, findings from higher education contexts cannot be directly generalized to elementary school settings.
Moreover, the aforementioned studies have investigated students’ learning ability and interest as two separate dimensions, neglecting the mutual influence between them. Understanding the complex relationship between learning ability and interest is crucial for optimizing CLIL implementation in primary education. Educational psychology research suggests that students’ initial learning interest levels may significantly influence how they respond to different teaching methods (Hidi & Renninger, 2006). According to Interest Development Theory, the effectiveness of teaching methods in fostering interest may vary depending on students’ baseline engagement levels (Krapp, 2002). This is particularly relevant in CLIL contexts, where the integration of content and language creates rich learning experiences that may differentially impact students with varying initial interest levels. While some students may benefit more from CLIL’s authentic language use opportunities, others who already possess high initial interest might experience different patterns of interest development. Understanding these differential effects is essential for developing targeted CLIL strategies that can effectively serve diverse learners in primary education settings.
Therefore, the present study creates and implements CLIL English classrooms for lower-grade primary school students in China, with an aim to compare the effects of CLIL and traditional teaching methods in improving students’ English learning ability and learning interest through experimental methods. The feasibility of implementing CLIL in primary school is explored with the hopes of providing more specific guidance for primary school English education practice.
III Methods
This study used a quasi-experimental design with a pre-test and post-test non-equivalent groups design to examine the impact of CLIL teaching methods on primary school students’ English learning ability and interest in a natural teaching context. Due to practical teaching management constraints, interventions were assigned based on existing class structures instead of individual randomization. However, internal validity was maintained through the following measures: a) strict matching by selecting parallel classes with similar academic levels from the same school (with homogeneity test scores showing no significant difference, p > 0.05); and b) ensuring ecological validity by maintaining the organizational form of authentic classrooms (Shadish et al., 2002, pp. 171–205). This study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of Lingnan University, and all participating teachers and students’ parents provided informed consent.
IV Participants
This study employed convenience sampling by selecting first-grade students from the primary schools where the first three co-authors work. These schools are located in different districts of Shenzhen (see Table 1). All schools uniformly use the same English textbooks designated by the Shenzhen Education and Sports Bureau and adhere strictly to the standardized curriculum standards and teaching syllabi. Over the past five years, the schools have implemented CLIL in their teaching.
Distribution of basic characteristics of participating schools.
After obtaining school approval and parental informed consent, researchers selected two first-grade classes from each primary school. These classes had comparable average performance, with an average student age of 8 years and balanced gender ratios. The experiment was conducted during the second semester. All participating students had not received systematic English education before school entry. In the first semester, their learning content primarily focused on memorizing the 26 English letters and basic English pronunciation. Students could only recognize simple words, such as ‘apple’, ‘red’, etc., and had not mastered any grammatical knowledge. Statistical analysis of the selected classes’ first-semester English final exam scores revealed no significant differences in English performance across all classes (p > 0.05, experimental group: M = 11.89, SD = 1.773; control group: M = 12.05, SD = 1.632). In each school, one class was randomly assigned to the experimental group and joined CLIL classrooms. Another class joined the control group, which followed traditional teaching methods. The experimental group comprised 115 students, while the control group had 125 students.
V Procedure
Grade 1 students in all three participating primary schools have three 40-minute English lessons per week. Each lesson is divided into three parts: a 5-minute pre-task to activate students’ attention and introduce the learning content, a 30-minute while-task to teach new knowledge, and a 5-minute post-task to summarize and consolidate the knowledge learned. The intervention consisted of three English lessons conducted over one week, with the curriculum arrangement being consistent with the existing teaching task. An in-class test was set up in the post-task for data collection. The teaching content covered the ‘Colours and shapes around us’ unit from the first-grade English textbook published by People’s Education Press (People’s Education Press, 2024), comprising three lesson periods, teaching English words, grammar, and sentence patterns related to colors and shapes. Outlined below is the teaching content for both the experimental and control groups (see Appendix A).
The CLIL classroom was designed with teaching content based on the 4C framework proposed by Coyle et al. (2010). Subject content is selected based on its suitability for first-grade cognitive characteristics, using picture books (such as ‘Colour zoo’) and songs (such as ‘Black circle, what do you see?’) as auxiliary teaching tools. Task situations were created for students through role-playing (such as imitating animal dialogues from picture books), group discussions (creating animal situational stories), and cooperative learning (designing ‘Shape zoo’ posters and introducing them in English), enabling students to learn English while completing tasks.
The traditional teaching method classroom adopted the PPP (Presentation-Practice-Production) teaching strategy, using textbooks and word cards as the primary teaching materials. Teachers conveyed knowledge through blackboard writing, repeated reading, and directive activities (such as ‘Color it brown’). Teaching activities primarily focus on teacher–student Q&A (such as the teacher asking ‘What color is it?’ and students answering ‘It is red.’).
VI Data collection
To compare the English learning ability of students in the experimental and control groups, each lesson included an in-class English ability test. In addition, students’ learning interest was assessed through pre-test and post-test questionnaire surveys, where data were collected on students’ learning interest levels before and after intervention. The entire teaching process was video-recorded to facilitate analysis of students’ classroom activities.
VII Measurement tools
1 English ability test
Students completed three in-class English ability tests in the post-task of the three lessons. The co-authors – experienced English teachers – designed these tests based on the content and format of academic ability tests for primary school students in China. The tests consisted of nine items to assess students’ memorizing, recognition , analysis and application of vocabulary and grammar related to the learning topic, with each question having only one definitive correct answer. For example, students circled the correct color or shape according to instructions, read short texts, and checked the corresponding animals based on descriptions, such as ‘an animal with a round blue face and yellow triangular ears’. In this study, the test showed good internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = 0.73).
2 Learning interest scale
This study used a 10-item academic interest scale adapted from Luo et al. (2019) to measure students’ learning interests. The modified scale includes two subscales: a) emotion (5 items; α = 0.90 for English, e.g. ‘I like the theme of this unit’; ‘I like the way the teacher conducts the class’) and b) value (5 items; α = 0.93 for English, e.g. ‘I am satisfied with the results of my studies’; ‘I think I am focused on my studies’). Students responded using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree).
3 LICC classroom observation scale
When analysing the recorded classroom videos, ‘language of interactive classroom coding’ (LICC) was used to evaluate students’ classroom performance. LICC includes four dimensions: student learning, teacher teaching, curriculum nature, and classroom culture (Cui, 2012). Since this study focuses on students’ learning performance, only the student learning and classroom culture dimensions from LICC were used for video analysis.
The student learning dimension focuses on how students effectively participate in teaching and learning activities, namely classroom interaction patterns. Teaching activities involved in the classroom include ‘teacher–student Q&A’, ‘teacher–student and student–student activities’, ‘group cooperation’, ‘collective activities’, ‘individual presentations’, and ‘student–student activities’. All teaching activities were the same for the experimental and control groups, with teachers recording student participation in activities based on the videos (see Appendix B).
The classroom culture dimension emphasizes how students interact with various types of questions. To comprehensively and systematically assess students’ cognitive development and learning processes in the classroom, teachers’ question design is divided into five types: ‘recognition’, ‘understanding’, ‘application’, ‘analysis’, and ‘synthesis’. All questions were identical between the experimental and control groups, with teachers recording statistics based on the number of times students raised their hands when the teacher asked questions (see Appendix B).
VIII Data analysis
A two-factor mixed-design analysis of variance (Mixed ANOVA) was conducted on the quantitative data from the experimental and control groups, with teaching method (CLIL vs. traditional) as the between-subjects factor and three in-class test time points as the within-subjects factor, to examine the dynamic impact of different teaching methods on students’ English learning ability. Repeated measures ANOVA was used to analyse the English learning interest data from pre- and post-tests, examining the interaction effect between teaching method (between-subjects factor) and measurement time (pre-test vs. post-test, within-subjects factor) to explore the longitudinal impact of different teaching methods on learning interest. Moderation effect analysis examined the relationship between learning interest and English outcomes. Data from the pre-test were used as initial interest scores, while data from the post-test were used as later interest scores to further investigate CLIL’s impact on learning interest and ability. All analyses underwent normality and homogeneity of variance tests, with Greenhouse–Geisser correction applied for violations of the sphericity assumption to ensure the reliability of statistical results. Descriptive statistical analysis based on the LICC scale was conducted to explore student participation in classroom teaching methods.
IX Research findings
Before conducting data analyses, normality was assessed using the Shapiro–Wilk test, which indicated normal distribution for test scores (W = 0.98, p = 0.12; interest scale: W = 0.97, p = 0.09), and Levene’s test showed homogeneity of variance between groups (learning ability: p = 0.441, learning interest: p = 0.585). Mauchly’s sphericity test was applied to repeated measures data (learning ability: χ² = 3.989, p = 0.136; learning interest: χ² = 0.000, p = 1.000), satisfying the sphericity assumption. Bonferroni correction (α = 0.0167) was applied for multiple comparisons across the three tests to control Type I error. Statistical power analysis (G*Power 3.1) indicated that the current sample size (n = 240) achieved 0.92 power with η² = 0.085 and α = 0.05.
1 English ability test
Mixed ANOVA results (Table 2) showed a significant effect of the teaching method (F(1, 238) = 22.15, p < .001, η² = 0.085, medium effect), with the experimental group’s average score across three tests (M = 9.38, SD = 0.19) significantly higher than the control group’s (M = 8.43, SD = 0.19). The main effect of time (F(2, 476) = 0.45, p = 0.638, η² = 0.002) and the interaction between teaching method and time (F(2, 476) = 0.33, p = 0.722, η² = 0.001) were not significant, indicating that CLIL had a greater advantage in improving students’ English ability compared to traditional teaching. This advantage remained stable across all three lessons, without systematic changes as teaching time progressed. Levene’s test confirmed the homogeneity of variance (p = 0.441), with data satisfying the assumptions for ANOVA. See Figures 1–3. See Table 3.
Impact of teaching methods on students’ English test scores (n = 240).
Comparison of the three test scores between experimental and control groups.
Comparison of learning interest between experimental and control groups.
English learning ability at different levels of learning interest.
Analysis of CLIL’s impact on English learning interest (n = 240).
2 English learning interest
A significant interaction between changes in learning interest and group (F(1, 238) = 6.513, p = 0.011, η² = 0.027) was reported. The experimental group’s learning interest significantly increased from the pre-test (M = 38.52) to the post-test (M = 41.49) (p < 0.001, d = 0.34), while the control group remained stable (p = 0.851). Additionally, post-test results showed that the experimental group’s interest scores were significantly higher than the control group’s (p = 0.017, d = 0.33). These results (Table 2) indicate differences in learning interest changes between groups, demonstrating that CLIL can effectively enhance students’ learning interest, and the improvement in learning interest in the experimental group is attributable to CLIL.
3 The moderating role of initial interest in the relationship between English learning ability and interest
To test whether initial interest levels affect the impact of learning ability on later interest, we used Hayes’ (2017) moderation effect model (PROCESS Model 1). The overall model was significant (F (3, 236) = 34.97, p < 0.001), explaining 30.8% of the variance in post-test interest (R² = 0.308). The interaction term between learning ability (average of three tests) and initial interest had a negative predictive effect on post-test interest (B = –0.106, SE = 0.034, p < .001), with the moderation effect being significant, indicating that initial interest level moderated the relationship between learning ability and later interest (ΔR² = 0.028, p = 0.002).
Simple slope analysis further revealed (see Tables 4 and 5), for students with lower initial interest (16th percentile, pre-test = 28.56), for every 1-point increase in learning ability, post-test interest significantly increased by 2.34 points (B = 2.345, SE = 0.469, p < 0.001, 95% CI [1.421, 3.268]); for students with moderate initial interest (50th percentile, pre-test = 40.00), the facilitating effect of learning ability was weakened but still significant (B = 1.129, SE = 0.321, p < 0.001, 95% CI [0.497, 1.760]). For students with higher initial interest (84th percentile, pre-test = 50.00), learning ability had no significant impact on interest (B = 0.065, SE = 0.503, p = 0.897, 95% CI [–0.925, 1.056]).
The moderating effect of initial learning interest level on the relationship between learning ability and later interest.
Analysis of the moderating effect of initial learning interest level on the relationship between learning ability and later interest (simple slope tests).
Note. Simple slope analysis based on Hayes’ (2022) PROCESS Model 1, with low/medium/high-interest levels corresponding to the 16th, 50th, and 84th percentiles.
4 Students classroom performance
This research utilized the LICC classroom observation framework to systematically analyse the interaction patterns and cognitive task engagement levels between the experimental and control groups.
CLIL students demonstrated higher classroom participation than those in classrooms that used traditional teaching methods across most observation points, as shown in Figures 4 and 5.
Comparison of student participation in classroom activities (CLIL vs. Traditional).
Comparison of student responses to different types of cognitive questions (CLIL vs. Traditional).
5 Students learning dimensions
As shown in Figure 4, except for the teacher–student Q&A, all other five classroom activities showed that the experimental group had a surplus of participants over the control group. Analysis using an independent samples t-test revealed that the most substantial difference was observed in individual presentations (t(238) = 33.52, p < 0.001, d = 4.33). The experimental group demonstrated markedly higher participation in individual presentations (M = 1.613). A significant increase was found in teacher–student and student–student activities (t(238) = 5.46, p < 0.001, d = 0.71). Meanwhile, student–student questions significantly increased in the experimental group (t(238) = 2.99, p = 0.003, d = 0.39). Interestingly, traditional teacher–student Q&A decreased in the experimental group (t(238) = –3.75, p < 0.001, d = –0.48). This negative difference (M = –0.157) suggested a shift from teacher-directed questioning to other forms of interaction. Lastly, a marginally significant increase was observed in collective activities (t(238) = 1.95, p = 0.053, d = 0.25), and no significant difference was found for group work participation (t(238) = 0.45, p = 0.654).
6 Classroom culture dimensions
Although the experimental group consistently showed higher participation numbers than the control group regarding cognitive question engagement, notable differences exist across different observation points. Specifically, a significant difference was found between groups in Analysis questions (t(238) = 10.71, p < 0.001, d = 1.38). The experimental group demonstrated significantly higher participation (M = 0.497) than the control group. Similarly, the experimental group showed significantly higher participation in synthesis questions than the control group (t(238) = 3.71, p < 0.001, d = 0.48). This suggested that CLIL has a significant effect on positively affect classroom culture, particularly in analysis and integrated learning.
X Discussion
This research used a quasi-experimental design to explore the effectiveness of CLIL in primary school English teaching, focusing on its impact on students’ English learning ability and interest. The findings indicate that CLIL can significantly enhance students’ English learning ability and interest and help to provide empirical support for CLIL as an effective teaching method to be applied in primary school English teaching reform.
In response to research question 1, CLIL significantly outperformed traditional teaching methods in enhancing students’ English ability. This result aligns with existing research (Chen, 2023; Dzulkurnain et al., 2024; Lasagabaster & Doiz, 2017). Compared with traditional teaching methods, CLIL combines language and content to help develop language competence naturally through authentic language usage contexts while students master subject content (Coyle et al., 2010; De Zarobe & Zenotz, 2015). Meanwhile, the rich task design and interactive activities in CLIL classrooms, such as role-playing, group discussions, and cooperative learning, provided more language output opportunities and helped students enhance their language fluency and accuracy (Lorenzo et al., 2011). Students’ English learning ability significantly improves as they integrate the learning process with meaningful content that promotes a deeper understanding of the language and retention of knowledge (Dzulkurnain et al., 2024). In China, the emphasis on students’ English learning ability has often been narrowly focused on passing standardized tests at the expense of developing speaking skills and practical application abilities (Meng et al., 2021). Nevertheless, the English learning ability tests of this study were designed based on standardized academic ability tests for primary school students. Thus, the study result suggests that CLIL can also play a positive role in helping students enhance their ability to pass standardized tests (C. Liu & Wang, 2013). Although students’ language output skills were not directly tested in the present study, the analysis of classroom participation shows that students in CLIL classrooms are more inclined to engage in expressive activities. The experimental group had significantly higher participation in teacher–student and student–student activities, individual presentations, and student-to-student questions than the control group. This indicates that CLIL classrooms offer more opportunities for interaction and communication, allowing students to exercise their oral expression abilities and fostering active, student-centered learning environments. Furthermore, experimental group students demonstrated substantially higher engagement in higher-order cognitive questions involving analysis and synthesis, suggesting that CLIL creates supports for students that are consistent with their cognitive development phase. This results in effective promotion of students’ cognitive development and critical thinking abilities (Coyle et al., 2010).
In response to research question 2, CLIL also demonstrated significant advantages for students’ English learning interests. The diverse teaching activities and collaborative learning models in CLIL classrooms stand in stark contrast to the monotonous learning methods of traditional teaching, thereby stimulating students’ sense of participation and interest in learning (J. Wang, 2023). Moreover, as students engage in tasks, they experience the practical application of language. Through practice, their learning confidence and sense of self-efficacy are effectively enhanced, which in turn further promotes the improvement of their learning interest (Coyle, 2007). However, some research has suggested that CLIL may create greater pressure on lower-performing students, potentially negatively affecting their learning interests (Bruton, 2011). This may be attributed to the fact that for lower-performing students, CLIL makes their exposure to environments beyond their cognitive capacity and results in cognitive overload, subsequently generating negative attitudes toward CLIL (Otwinowska & Foryś, 2017). However, the current study did not find such effects. This may be attributed to the fact that the students who participated in the study were in the early stages of English learning, with relatively simple existing knowledge systems and limited learning experience. Additionally, English was not a core subject yet, so it may not exert much pressure on students’ learning. Meanwhile, the instructional content and methods were designed to match the participants’ cognitive developmental stage. Teachers provided sufficient support in class and used a variety of activities to scaffold students’ cognitive development, creating a relaxed and enjoyable classroom atmosphere for the students.
In response to research question 3, this study confirms that students’ initial English learning interest level significantly moderated the relationship between English learning ability and their subsequent interest levels. For students with initially lower interest, improvements in learning ability had the most significant positive effect on their subsequent interest. For students with higher interest, the impact of learning ability on their interest was insignificant. For students with initially lower learning interest, whose limited engagement may stem from dissatisfaction with conventional teaching methods or difficulties in content comprehension, CLIL can enhance learning interest by providing enriched learning contexts, interactive opportunities (Doiz et al., 2014), and immediate visible learning outcomes. Conversely, for students with higher initial learning interest, sustained engagement appears to be driven more by intrinsic motivation and self-efficacy beliefs rather than solely by improved learning outcomes. Research suggests that intrinsic motivation and self-efficacy are interconnected factors that significantly influence language learning engagement (J. Li et al., 2024), with self-efficacy serving as a strong predictor of performance across various language skills and tasks (Siddiqui et al., 2020).
1 Limitations
This study has several limitations that warrant careful consideration. First, the research sample was limited to three primary schools in Shenzhen, which may not adequately represent student populations in other regions or diverse educational contexts across China. This geographical constraint potentially limits the generalizability of our findings to broader educational settings. Second, the intervention period was only limited to one week, as language learning is inherently a gradual and cumulative process, meaningful changes in learning ability and interest typically require more sustained exposure periods to manifest fully. Given these constraints, this study should be perceived as an intrinsic case study (Stake, 1995) which invites other researchers to investigate their own particular contexts using the same methods and then to compare findings. Lastly, the authors found that the concept of ‘learning ability’ seems to be somewhat detached from communicative competence and the communicative value of interaction. This might be an area for further theoretical exploration in future studies.
2 Implications
This study demonstrates the effectiveness of CLIL in Chinese primary school English teaching. It provides empirical support for CLIL implementation at China’s primary education stage, enriches research on CLIL at the primary education stage and provides more nuanced insights into how CLIL affects different learners. From a practical perspective, the authentic language environment and interactive teaching activities created by CLIL improve students’ learning ability and interests and cultivate higher-order cognitive skills (analysis and synthesis), aligning closely with the core competency development goals emphasized in China’s new curriculum standards. Particularly, CLIL’s positive impact on students with initially lower interest provides teachers with an effective strategy for addressing motivational issues in the classroom. This helps to narrow achievement and participation gaps among students. These findings support CLIL as an effective alternative to traditional teaching methods, providing a reference for reforming English teaching in Chinese primary schools and laying a foundation for more in-depth and comprehensive research. From a methodological perspective, this study illustrates the feasibility for future studies to employ this same methodological approach concerning English learning interest and ability with CLIL. It also offers implications for future research directions, such as expanding the sample to include a larger group of primary school students from across China, beyond just Shenzhen. Additionally, it suggests designing and implementing longitudinal intervention studies to assess the effects of CLIL and the sustainability of its impact.
XI Conclusions
This research employed a quasi-experimental design to systematically investigate the effectiveness of CLIL in primary school English teaching. Findings indicate that CLIL significantly enhances students’ English learning ability and interests. By creating authentic learning contexts and rich interactive activities, CLIL enables students to develop language abilities naturally while mastering subject content, resulting in significant improvement in their English ability. Additionally, CLIL’s contextualized and interactive characteristics effectively stimulate students’ learning interest, particularly benefiting those with initially lower interest levels. For these students, improved learning ability significantly enhanced subsequent interest in learning English. CLIL, as an innovative teaching method that combines language and subject learning, can effectively improve students’ English learning ability and interest, offering fresh perspectives for reforming primary school English education. Future research should investigate the applications of CLIL across various educational levels and subjects to provide more comprehensive theoretical and practical support for English teaching reform in China.
Footnotes
Appendix A
Teaching design of primary school English course under the concept of content and language integrated learning (CLIL): Grade 1, Unit 2, Teaching plan of ‘Colours and shapes around us’
Appendix B
Acknowledgements
We sincerely thank the editor and reviewers for taking the time to review our manuscript for and providing constructive feedback to improve our manuscript.
Data availability
The datasets generated and analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
