Cover not available

Article published In: Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education: Online-First Articles

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required

Empowering language learners

The intersection of Maker Education and CLIL

ORCiD logo with link | Kanda University of International Studies
 | Kanda University of International Studies
 | Meiji University
Published online: 29 August 2025
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/jicb.23037.leg
Abstract
Traditional language teaching has often focused on language in isolation from real-world contexts. However, recognizing the inherent link between language and content, Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) emerged some time ago as a global standard (Goris, J., Denessen, E., & Verhoeven, L. (2019). The contribution of CLIL to learners’ international orientation and EFL confidence. The Language Learning Journal, 47(2), 246–256. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar). Over time, CLIL has evolved and diversified to address new challenges. With current concerns about generative artificial intelligence (AI), global politics, and the role of education, enhancing CLIL with innovative methods that cater to local and global needs is vital. Maker Education, which combines hands-on projects with STEAM content (Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, and Mathematics), is a practical approach to merge action, knowledge, and skill development. Maker Education’s benefits in first language contexts are well-documented, but its application in language learning is still in its nascency. This paper investigates the benefits and drawbacks of integrating Maker Education into CLIL curricula. The results suggest that Maker Education provides linguistic and developmental advantages, complementing CLIL approaches.
Abstracta
La enseñanza tradicional de idiomas a menudo se ha centrado en el lenguaje aislado de los contextos del mundo real. Sin embargo, reconociendo el vínculo inherente entre la lengua y el contenido, el Aprendizaje Integrado de Contenidos y Lenguas Extranjeras (AICLE) ha surgido como un estándar mundial (Goris, J., Denessen, E., & Verhoeven, L. (2019). The contribution of CLIL to learners’ international orientation and EFL confidence. The Language Learning Journal, 47(2), 246–256. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar). Con el tiempo, AICLE ha evolucionado y se ha diversificado para abordar nuevos desafíos. Con las preocupaciones actuales sobre la IA generativa, la política global y el papel de la educación, es vital mejorar el AICLE con métodos innovadores que satisfagan las necesidades locales y globales. Maker Education, que combina proyectos prácticos con contenidos STEAM (Ciencia, Tecnología, Ingeniería, Artes y Matemáticas), es un enfoque práctico para fusionar la acción, el conocimiento y el desarrollo de habilidades. Los beneficios de Maker Education en contextos de lengua materna están bien documentados, pero su aplicación en el aprendizaje de idiomas está aún en sus comienzos. Este artículo investiga los beneficios e inconvenientes de integrar Maker Education en los currículos AICLE. Los resultados sugieren que Maker Education proporciona ventajas lingüísticas y de desarrollo, complementando los enfoques AICLE.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Literature review
    • 2.1The context: CLIL
    • 2.2Maker Education
      • Challenges of Maker Education
    • 2.3Maker Education for language learning in higher education
  • 3.Methodology
    • 3.1Recruitment and preparation
    • 3.2Participants
    • 3.3Activity implementation and data collection
    • 3.4Coding system
  • 4.Results and discussion
    • 4.1Maker Education and skill development in a CLIL higher education context
    • 4.2Maker Education: Supporting content and language learning
    • 4.3Maker Education in established CLIL curricula
    • 4.4Limitations
  • 5.Conclusion
  • References
References (57)
References
Ackermann, E. (2001). Piaget’s Constructivism, Papert’s Constructionism: What’s the difference? Constructivism: Uses and Perspectives in Education, 1–21, 85–94. [URL]
Alley, W. (2018). Making English speakers: Makerspaces as constructivist language environments. MEXTESOL Journal, 42(4), 1–8. [URL]
Anthony, L. (2022). AntWordProfiler (Version 2.0.0) [Computer Software]. Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University. Available from [URL]
Baranova, T., Kobicheva, A., Olkhovik, N., & Tokareva, E. (2020). The Design of integrated learning model for CLIL-learners. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 940(2020), 1–12. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bevan, B. (2017). The promise and the promises of Making in science education. Studies in Science Education, 53(1), 75–103. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bevan, B., Gutwill, J. P., Petrich, M., & Wilkinson, K. (2015). Learning through STEM-rich tinkering: Findings from a jointly negotiated research project taken up in practice. Science Education, 99(1), 98–120. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bevan, B., Ryoo, J. J., Vanderwerff, A., Wilkinson, K., & Petrich, M. (2018). Making deeper learners: A tinkering learning dimensions framework. Connected Science Learning, 71, 1–17. [URL].
Bevan, B., & Wilkinson, K. (2014). Tinkering is serious play. Educational Leadership, December 2014/January 2015, 28–33. [URL]
Blikstein, P. (2018). Maker movement in education: History and prospects. Handbook of technology education, 419–437. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bonner, E., Garvey, K., Miner, M., Godin, S., & Reinders, H. (2022). Measuring real-time learner engagement in the Japanese EFL classroom. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 17(2). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brown, H., & Bradford, A. (2017). EMI, CLIL, & CBI: Differing approaches and goals. Transformation in Language Education, August, 328–334. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chen, S., Zhao, J., de Ruiter, L., Zhou, J., & Huang, J. (2022). A burden or a boost: The impact of early childhood English learning experience on lower elementary English and Chinese achievement. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 25(4), 1212–1229. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chou, P. N. (2018). Skill development and knowledge acquisition cultivated by Maker Education: Evidence from Arduino-based educational robotics. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(10), 1–15. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cohen, J., Jones, W. M., Smith, S. & Calandra, B. (2017). Makification: Towards a framework for leveraging the maker movement in formal education. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 26(3), 217–229. [URL]
Coyle, D. (2007). Content and language integrated learning: Towards a connected research agenda for CLIL pedagogies. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(5), 543–562. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Crossley, S. A., Allen, L. K., Kyle, K., & McNamara, D. S. (2014). Analyzing discourse processing using a simple natural language processing tool (SiNLP). Discourse Processes, 51(5–6), 511–534, Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C., Hüttner, J., & Llinares, A. (2022). CLIL in the 21st Century: Retrospective and prospective challenges and opportunities. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 10(2), 182–206. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dang, T. N. Y., Webb, S., & Coxhead, A. (2022). Evaluating lists of high-frequency words: Teachers’ and learners’ perspectives. Language Teaching Research, 26(4), 617–641. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dewey, J. (1986). Experience and education. Educational Forum, 50(3), 242–252. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dubreil, S., & Lord, G. (2021). Make it so: Leveraging maker culture in call. CALICO Journal, 38(1), i–xii. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dunn, R., Adamson, C., & Thorpe, T. (2018). Using LEGO® Serious Play® to foster communication in intercultural English problem-solving discussions. Journal of International Studies, 42(2), 41–54. [URL]
Goris, J., Denessen, E., & Verhoeven, L. (2019). The contribution of CLIL to learners’ international orientation and EFL confidence. The Language Learning Journal, 47(2), 246–256. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Harel, I., & Papert, S. (1991). Situating Constructionism. Constructionism, 1–16. [URL]
Hidalgo, D. R., & Ortega-Sánchez, D. (2023). CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning) methodological approach in the bilingual classroom: A systematic review. International Journal of Instruction, 16(3), 915–934. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hochanadel, A., & Finamore, D. (2015). Fixed and growth mindset in education and how grit helps students persist in the face of adversity. Journal of International Education Research (JIER), 11(1), 47–50. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kim, Y. J., Murai, Y., & Chang, S. (2020). Embedded assessment tools for maker classrooms: A design-based research approach. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Conference, CSCL, 31, 1421–1428. [URL]
Köylü, Z., & Tracy-Ventura, N. (2022). Learning English in today’s global world: A comparative study of at home, anglophone, and lingua franca study abroad. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 44(5), 1330–1355. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lazarides, R., Gaspard, H., & Dicke, A. L. (2019). Dynamics of classroom motivation: Teacher enthusiasm and the development of math interest and teacher support. Learning and Instruction, 60(June 2017), 126–137. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lege, R., Frazier, E., & Bonner, E. (2024). From makerspaces to language spaces: An investigation into Maker Education in EFL. JALT CALL Proceedings 2023, 60–78. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lundberg, M., & Rasmussen, J. (2018). Foundational principles and practices to consider in assessing Maker Education. I-Manager’s Journal of Educational Technology, 14(4), 1–13. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
MakerEd. (2015). Makerspace playbook: Youth edition. 1–75. [URL]
Maker Education Initiative. (2019). Beyond rubrics. [URL]
Maltese, A. V., Simpson, A., & Anderson, A. (2018). Failing to learn: The impact of failures during making activities. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 30(January), 116–124. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Martin, L. (2015). The promise of the maker movement for education. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 5(1), 30–39. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Martinez, S. L., & Stager, G. (2019). Invent to Learn. Constructing Modern Knowledge Press. [URL]
Mestre-Segarra, M. Á., & Ruiz-Garrido, M. F. (2022). Examining students’ reflections on a collaborative online international learning project in an ICLHE context. System, 1051, 1–15. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mikhak, B., Lyon, C., Gorton, T., Gershenfeld, N., McEnnis, C., & Taylor, J. (2002). Fab Lab: An alternate model of ICT for development. [URL]
Murai, Y., Kim, Y. J., Martin, E., Kirschmann, P., Rosenheck, L., & Reich, J. (2019). Embedding assessment in school-based making. ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, 180–183. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Murphy, P. H. (2018). School libraries addressing the needs of ELL students. Knowledge Quest, 46(4), 60–65. [URL]
Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. International Universities Press, Inc. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pilana, D. (2019). Creativity in modern education. World Journal of Education, 9(2), 136. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Provenzo, E. F. (2009). Friedrich Froebel’s gifts: Connecting the spiritual and aesthetic to the real world of play and learning. American Journal of Play, 2(1), 85–99. [URL]
Quintana-Ordorika, A., Garay-Ruiz, U., & Portillo-Berasaluce, J. (2024). A Systematic Review of the Literature on Maker Education and Teacher Training. Education Sciences, 14(12), 1310–1310. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Resnick, M., & Rosenbaum, E. (2013). Designing for tinkerability. In M. Honey and D. E. Kanter (Eds.) Design, make, play: Growing the next generation of science innovators (pp. 163–181). Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Roos, J., & Victor, B. (2018). How it all began: The origins of LEGO® Serious Play®. International Journal of Management and Applied Research, 326–343. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rosenheck, L., Lin, G. C., Nigam, R., Nori, P., & Kim, Y. J. (2021). Not all evidence is created equal: Assessment artifacts in maker education. Information and Learning Science, 12(3–4), 171–198. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sánchez-García, R., & Pavón-Vázquez, V. (2021). Students’ perceptions on the use of project-based learning in CLIL: Learning outputs and psycho-affective considerations. Latin American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning, 14(1), 69–98. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schulz, B. (2008). The importance of soft skills: Education beyond academic knowledge. Journal of Language and Communication, June, 146–154. [URL]
Seymour, G. (2018). The inclusive makerspace: Working with English language learners and special education students. In School Library Makerspaces in Action (pp. 77–86). Libraries Unlimited. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shin, M. H. (2021). Development of English teaching model applying artificial intelligence through Maker Education. Journal of the Korea Convergence Society, 12(3), 61–67. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Steidtmann, L., Kleickmann, T., & Steffensky, M. (2023). Declining interest in science in lower secondary school classes: Quasi-experimental and longitudinal evidence on the role of teaching and teaching quality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 60(1), 164–195. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Strauss, V. (2019, December 3). How PISA created an illusion of education quality and marketed it to the world. The Washington Post. [URL]
Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and Instruction, 4(4), 295–312. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Valente, J. A., & Blikstein, P. (2019). Maker education: Where is the knowledge construction? Constructivist Foundations, 14(3), 252–262. [URL]
VERBI Software. (2021). MAXQDA 2022 [computer software]. Berlin, Germany: VERBI Software. Available from [URL]
Weng, X., Chiu, T. K. F., & Tsang, C. C. (2022). Promoting student creativity and entrepreneurship through real-world problem-based Maker Education. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 45(January), 101046. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yufrizal, H. (2021). The impact of project based-CLIL on students’ English proficiency. Journal of Education and Learning (EduLearn), 15(1), 11–18. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue