What Do We Know About Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) in Adult Basic Education for Immigrants With Limited or No Formal Schooling? Tentative Recommendations for Pedagogy and Research

Introduction

This paper aims to map both the theoretical underpinnings and practice-based research insights on Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) when applied to adult basic education for immigrants with limited or no formal schooling. The rationale for this focus lies in recent reforms in adult basic education in Norway that have placed increased emphasis on the integration of language and subject learning across curricula. In particular, the newly introduced module-based model for adult basic education (referred to by the Norwegian acronym FOV) explicitly promotes the integration of Norwegian language learning across all subjects. This policy direction positions Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) as a central pedagogical principle for adult education centres working with immigrant learners, including those with limited or no prior formal schooling.

The need for this mapping arose during the development of a research project proposal aimed at supporting teachers’ professional development (PD), in light of the requirements for implementing Norway’s new model for adult basic education. During the conceptual phase of this project, it became apparent that teachers were expected to enact CLIL-based practices in a highly complex instructional context without a sufficiently consolidated research base to guide pedagogical decisions. This prompted a systematic exploration of what is currently known about CLIL in adult basic education for immigrants with limited or no formal schooling, and whether relevant insights could be drawn from adjacent educational contexts.

An initial literature search focused on key strands of research in CLIL (e.g. Cenoz et al., 2014; Marsh, 2008; Mehisto et al., 2008), adult second language literacy (e.g. Tarone et al., 2009; Young-Scholten & Kreeft Peyton, 2020), and adult immigrant education in Nordic and European contexts (e.g. Monsen & Pájaro, 2021; Kreeft Peyton & Young-Scholten, 2020). While this body of literature offers rich theoretical and empirical insights into CLIL and adult language learning more generally, it also revealed considerable conceptual ambiguity regarding what constitutes CLIL across contexts. In addition, there is a notable lack of research on its implementation in adult basic education for learners with little or no formal schooling.

Additionally, research on the classroom implementation of CLIL in adult basic education for immigrants with little to no formal schooling appeared to be scarce both nationally and internationally. Existing Norwegian research has largely focused on newly arrived pupils in compulsory or upper secondary education, rather than adults (e.g. Kjelaas & Fagerheim, 2024). Internationally, studies on CLIL or content-based instruction with adult learners tend to involve participants with prior schooling experience, such as university students or literate adult migrants (e.g. Durgunoğlu et al., 2021; Walenta, 2018). Research explicitly addressing CLIL in basic adult education for literacy learners remains limited, despite the growing policy emphasis on integrated language and content instruction in adult education systems.

As a result, the need to engage in a more in-depth discussion of the issue, as well as explore potential ways of translating available research-based knowledge on CLIL from adjacent educational settings, became evident. The study has two main aims. Firstly, to examine how existing theoretical perspectives and classroom-based research on CLIL can inform the understanding of CLIL in adult basic education for immigrants with limited or no formal schooling. In particular, the paper asks what form of CLIL is relevant for this context, given the distinct yet heterogeneous learner profile.

The second aim is to identify key pedagogical strategies for implementing CLIL in adult basic education and to formulate tentative recommendations for pedagogy and future research. These recommendations are based on a synthesis of academic literature, national policy documents, and instructional support materials available to teachers working within Norway’s new adult education framework.

The recommendation might be highly relevant to other national context where adult basic education models emphasise the integration of language and content learning to facilitate a smoother and quicker integration of adult immigrant into the national labour markets and society at large.

Guided by these aims, the paper addresses the following research questions:

(1) What does existing theoretical and empirical research suggest about the applicability and limitations of CLIL to adult basic education for immigrants with limited or no formal schooling?

In terms of methodology, this pedagogical inquiry, based on a scoping review, draws on a qualitative paradigm to present and synthesise theoretical propositions, empirical research findings, and national policy documents related to Norway’s newly introduced model for adult basic education. This is consistent with Arksey and O'Malley’s (2005) conceptualisation of the purpose of a scoping review, namely, it tends to map key concepts, types of evidence, and research gaps within a broad field of inquiry, particularly where the body of literature is heterogeneous or fragmented. Rather than evaluating the effectiveness of specific interventions, a scoping review allows for the synthesis of theoretical literature, empirical studies, and policy documents in order to clarify conceptual boundaries and identify directions for future research. This paper does not evaluate the effectiveness of CLIL interventions. Instead, it examines how existing theory, research, and policy can be meaningfully interpreted and adapted for an underexplored educational context. For this reason, the chosen methodology is particularly appropriate.

Norway, like many other European countries, is streamlining its national policies and educational provision models in adult immigrant education in response to the pressure to create a more time-efficient, flexible, and sustainable system for integrating adult immigrants with various educational background into the labour market and society at large. Norway is an interesting case, given recent developments in national adult basic education discussed later in this paper. It provides a contextual frame for exploring authentic challenges in adult basic education for immigrants with little or no formal schooling. It also serves as a basis for investigating pedagogical approaches grounded in the real-life needs of learners and educators.

Though the paper is placed in the Norwegian context, the theme of migrant and refugee adult education in Europe is well-known with the discourse focussing on speedy and successful integration of immigrants as a crucial element in promoting social cohesion and economic growth on the continent. Language of a host country, as the main access point to education and the labour market, has naturally played a central role in the initiatives launched by the Council of Europe to facilitate language learning. For instance, project ‘Linguistic Integration of Adult Migrants’ (LIAM), in existence since 2006, aims at offering support to policy makers and practitioners to facilitate migrants’ integration in civil society. ¹

The paper is structured as follows: it begins by outlining recent developments in Norway’s educational provision model for adult immigrants. This is followed by a section on learner profile of adults with limited or no formal schooling based on international academic literature. Next, the theoretical foundations of CLIL are examined, complemented by insights from empirical research focused on the relevant educational context. Finally, a synthesis of key principles for implementing CLIL in adult basic education is presented, concluding with tentative recommendations for pedagogy and future research that offer valuable insights well beyond the Norwegian context.

On Recent Developments in Adult Basic Education in Norway

The main law that stipulates immigrants’ rights related to educational provision in Norway, The Act on Integration through Training, Education and Work (the Integration Act), states the main objective as follows:

The purpose of the Act is to ensure that immigrants are integrated into Norwegian society at an early stage and become financially independent. The Act aims to help immigrants acquire good Norwegian language skills, knowledge of Norwegian society, formal qualifications, and a lasting connection to working life. (The Integration Act, LOVDATA, 2024)

The Norwegian context presents an interesting case because of the implementation of the new Education Act on August 1, 2024, that also introduced a new model for basic education for adults, FOV in Norwegian, at a level below upper secondary education. FOV replaces primary and lower secondary education for adults and introduces new curricula. The curricula for FOV are adapted to adults’ educational needs and differ in content from those designed for younger students. FOV is module-based, intended to provide flexible, individually tailored education. It is organised into smaller units (modules) that can be combined in various ways to fit the competence level and needs of individual adult learners. Participants are assessed and placed at the appropriate level, receiving a certificate of competence for each completed module.

New curricula have been developed for each of the seven subjects: Norwegian for language minorities, Norwegian, Social Studies, Natural Sciences, Mathematics, English, and the Basic Module – basic reading and writing instruction. Each subject is divided into four modules, with level 1 being the lowest and level 4 the most advanced. Importantly, the modules are described as having ‘an adult, second language, and resource perspective’. The overarching rationale for FOV is stated as follows: ‘[…] no one should have to complete more education than necessary to achieve their desired final qualification’ (The Norwegian Directorate for Higher Education and Skills, 2025).

Adult Learners With Limited to No Formal Schooling: Learner Profile

Adult learners with limited or no formal schooling make up a population with distinct yet largely heterogeneous needs and characteristics. In this paper, I adopt Faux and Watson’s (2020) way to refer to this group of learners as literacy learners. I also adopt Faux and Watson’s (2020) instructional focus on the conceptualisation of literacy as reading and writing skills and the employment of these skills in a daily life. I fully recognise that there is a wide consensus among literacy scholars that the term (and its derivative multiliteracies) encompasses a much broader sociocultural, cognitive, and psychological dimensions rather than a set of skills (e.g. Huettig, 2015; Street, 1984).

Although, globally, adult illiteracy rates for those aged 15 and older are decreasing, illiteracy has not been eradicated, particularly in countries and regions facing socio-economic disparities and military conflicts. It is notable that male illiteracy rates are decreasing faster than female (World Bank Group, 2026), and so the gender gap persists (World Population Review. Literacy Rate by Country, 2026).

In their chapter on teaching and tutoring adult learners with limited literacy skills, Faux and Watson (2020) outline the key characteristics of being a literacy learner in an adult age that educators should consider carefully. They begin by stressing the heterogeneity of this group of learners: ‘We recognize that learners my speak several languages but not read or write in any of them, and that some may speak a language that does not have a written form’ (p. 126). What follows is a range of literacy learner categories, as outlined by Burt et al. (2008) and summarised in Faux and Watson (2020). These include, for instance, pre-literate (where L1 that has no written form), semi-literate (with limited access to literacy instruction), non-alphabet literate (where L1 uses a non-alphabetic script), and non-Roman alphabet literate (where the script is alphabetic but not Roman-based). Next, adult literacy learners often face a unique dual challenge: developing oral proficiency while simultaneously learning to read and write in a new language. This contrasts sharply with the experience of children, who typically acquire literacy in their L1 only after achieving a foundational level of oral proficiency. Another critical learner characteristic involves the wide range of motivational states and life experiences that adult learners bring into the classroom. These may include, on one side, the pressure to adapt and function in a new country, the responsibility of providing for their families, and the emotional impact of trauma related to forced migration or other personal and cultural experiences. On the other side, it is important that the outlined and very real challenges adult learners face do not lead to a one-sided, deficit-based view of their abilities and potential to achieve educational goals. This same group of learners possesses valuable life experience, competencies, and agency which, if recognised and supported, can serve as a powerful foundation for learning. Taken together, these characteristics are essential to consider in understanding what it means to be an adult literacy learner.

On a more instrumental level, research on adult learners with limited or no literacy skills reveals consistent trends in literacy development, specifically, that progress tends to be slower, including in oral language acquisition (Condelli et al., 2010; Tarone et al., 2009). Several factors contribute to this slower pace. Learners who rely solely on listening skills lack access to written input, which limits their exposure to language in its full form. Additionally, age-related cognitive changes can reduce the efficiency of processing oral input (Tarone et al., 2009). Other contributing factors include limited access to education due to family responsibilities, health issues, or broader societal challenges such as inadequate educational infrastructure in the host country (Young-Scholten & Kreeft Peyton, 2020).

Furthermore, Kurvers’ (2015) synthesis of research on emerging literacy among adult L2 learners in the Netherlands found that the metalinguistic skills of adults with no formal schooling were more similar to those of young pre-reading children than to adults with some educational background and basic literacy skills. This highlights the advantage of having even limited reading and writing abilities – whether in one’s L1 or an additional language – when learning a new language. This finding aligns with a substantial body of research on the transfer of linguistic competence across languages in multilingual individuals (e.g. Cummins, 2019). Additional findings from the study indicate that adult learners who acquire reading skills for the first time in an additional language tend to follow developmental stages similar to those of children learning to read in their L1, with the alphabetic principle playing a central role. In such cases, it is the adult learners’ general cognitive abilities that support their literacy development. However, this process is often constrained, and their literacy skills tend to remain at relatively low levels (Schellekens, 2011). Lastly, an important conclusion in Kurvers (2015) research synthesis concerns the variability in terms of successful development of literacy skills by these adult learners. The author emphasises certain learner characteristics (age, prior schooling, amount of contact with target language speakers) and instructional practices (time spent on small-group or individual work, use of multimedia and portfolio, and resource-oriented perspective on adult learners’ linguistic repertoire) as key factors facilitating the development of high levels of proficiency in a target language by the adult learners in question.

CLIL as a Concept

As noted earlier, CLIL is central to the newly introduced module-based basic education for adult immigrants in Norway, FOV. The concept of CLIL has been widely adopted in many European countries, inspired by the success of Canadian and U.S. immersion and dual-language programmes (Mehisto et al., 2008; Nikula et al., 2016). The literature on CLIL or rather manifold of the CLIL varieties is vast. As a point of departure, CLIL is generally referred to as educational practices that give explicit attention to both language and subject content (Marsh, 2008). Nowadays, CLIL serves as an umbrella term for a range of programmes and pedagogical strategies, with varying balances between language and content learning, depending on whether the goal is native-like proficiency in a target language, functional bilingualism, or a middle ground between the two (e.g. Cenoz et al., 2014). Dale and Tanner (2012) propose viewing CLIL as a continuum of bilingual education with Content-Based Language Teaching (CBLT) at one end of the continuum and immersion at the other end. Here, CBLT is a model dominated by language teachers teaching topics based on subject content to students whose L1 is not the language of instruction, while immersion presupposes subject teachers teaching content in a target language. CLIL therefore may take form of either of the ends of the continuum or any of the various forms of instruction situating between the ends, depending on the degree of emphasis on language teaching and learning versus content teaching and learning.

In the context of the new adult basic education in Norway, CLIL has apparent similarities with CBLT since the focus is on teaching and learning a new language through content instruction in that language. CBLT originated in the context of US public schools to cater for the needs of English language learners (Herrera & Murry, 2016). A well-known scholar of adult literacy development, Thomas G. Sticht (1997) stresses the difference between CBLT and ‘general literacy’ or ‘general language’ instruction. The former ‘focuses upon the substance or meaning of the content that is being taught’, while the latter merely incorporates ‘topics or subject matter simply as a vehicle for teaching reading and writing’. Thus, this approach treats language as a functional tool to achieve communicative goals beyond simply learning a new language (Gibbons, 2015). In addition, Krahnke (as referred to in Larsen-Freeman & Anderson, 2000) points out that no explicit effort is given to language teaching separately from the content as it is assumed that learners will learn language in a more natural way when it is embedded in the subject content. Language is practised in authentic contexts, which links learning to real-life goals. This is particularly relevant for adult immigrants, whose motivation to learn Norwegian is rooted in their need to build a life in a new country. CBLT form of CLIL appears to be most consistent with the intention behind the newly introduced FOV model, namely, to ensure the integrated subject content and Norwegian language training. However, in the Norwegian model, CLIL also shares similarities with immersion, as instruction is delivered by both language and subject teachers. Despite the requirement for teachers working with adult immigrants to complete 30 ECTS credits, there are important caveats. First, this requirement only applies to teachers employed after 2021. Second, it is difficult to argue that a 30 ECTS course is equivalent to a comprehensive language teacher training. Furthermore, the Basic Module in FOV, where foundational reading and writing instruction plays a more prominent role than in other modules, does not align fully with the CBLT profile.

To summarise, the theoretical foundations of CLIL reveal a lack of conceptual clarity, largely due to the wide variety of CLIL-based instructional models introduced across diverse educational contexts worldwide. As Coyle (2024) cogently states: ‘Put simply, content and language integrated models, which are built on a range of theoretical principles, each demand context-sensitive analysis, clarification and agreement of the roles that content and language play in their implementation’ (p. xix). Consequently, to understand which form of CLIL underpins the newly introduced FOV, it is essential to examine CLIL in relation to the specific context of interest. For this purpose, I find Baker and Wright’s (2021, p. 210) approach to describe a typology of instructional bilingual models to be of use. Table 1 summarises the key dimensions of FOV as I interpret them.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

FOV in Norway

Type of programme	Main learner profile	Language (s) of the classroom	Societal and educational aim	Aim in language outcome
Mainstreaming/submersion CLIL with strong CBLT leaning	Language minority, adult immigrants with limited or no formal schooling	Majority language dominance with mother tongue support and/or resource-oriented approach to language instruction (translanguaging)	Integration	Limited/functional bilingualism/multilingualism: acquire relevant skills for employment or further education as quickly as possible.

Insights From Empirical Research on CLIL

CLIL has been extensively researched since the end of the last century. According to Meyer (2011), research on CLIL has demonstrated positive effect on both language and content learning, yet the author also notes that there are unresolved issues in CLIL classroom that require further research. Similarly, Cenoz et al. (2014) point out ‘there are important empirical gaps in our understanding of its effectiveness’ (p. 265) despite a large volume of studies in the effectiveness of CLIL for language learning. Cenoz et al. explain the scarcity of more finetuned and critically framed empirical research in the field by pointing to a lack of conceptual clarity and methodological challenges. These challenges stem from the wide variety of CLIL-oriented programmes and approaches, as well as the diverse contexts and student populations in which they are implemented. The authors also advocate a more balanced approach to CLIL research. This approach extends beyond ESL/EFL contexts, places greater emphasis on content learning, and provides links to classroom practice. Importantly, it also accounts for the diversity of learners engaged in CLIL-oriented programmes.

Regarding the theme of this paper, a literature search revealed that CLIL in adult basic education is still heavily under-researched, both in Norway and internationally. In Norway, the focus has primarily been on newly arrived immigrant students in compulsory and upper secondary education (e.g. Kjelaas & Fagerheim, 2024). Some valuable research-based insights into adults’ L2 learning in basic literacy skills instruction can be found in Monsen & Pájaro’s anthology (2021). Specifically, Monsen (2021) presents an ethnographic study on basic literacy instruction, focussing on ‘Sarah’, a refugee from the Democratic Republic of the Congo who is deeply committed to learning to read and write in Norwegian. The study highlights critical issues regarding the inadequate quality of literacy education Sarah received. At the same time, it emphasises her strong determination to succeed, which, along with the conscious efforts of her teacher and a broader support system to empower her agency, positively influenced her learning journey. Another chapter from the anthology by Tkachenko (2021) addresses a highly relevant topic of work-based language learning using vocational texts, but it does not specifically focus on basic education for adult learners with limited or no formal schooling. Therefore, it is uncertain whether the didactical approaches investigated in this research can be easily transferred to the context of basic adult education.

International classroom-based research on CLIL and CBLT offers some more general insight into the affordances of CLIL-oriented approaches in adult education. For instance, Durgunoglu et al. (2021) report on a study involving 26 adult learners of English as an additional language in the US. The participants, who had formal schooling experience from their home countries, followed the programme called CILIA (Content Integrated Language Instruction for Adults) programme, designed to improve vocabulary and comprehension through integrated civics and history content. The authors report significant gains in vocabulary (intentional, incidental, and morphological) and content comprehension among adult English learners. In addition, learners responded positively to the integrated approach, appreciating the relevance and depth of learning. Importantly, the author cautions against transferring the results to contexts where adult learners lack formal schooling. Next, Walenta’s quasi-experimental study on balancing linguistic and extra-linguistic gains in CLIL (2018) showed that adult Polish university level learners of English benefited from the grammar dimension of CLIL compared to purely comprehension-based instruction.

Several studies focussing on the effectiveness of CBLT/content-based instruction for adults in higher education setting found positive results in terms of improving their English proficiency (reading, listening, writing, and speaking) compared to more traditional communicative-based method of teaching (Arulselvi, 2016; Pu & Lu, 2021; Vanichvasin, 2019).

To sum up, as with the Norway-based studies, the findings of the international research are not readily transferable to adult learners with limited or no formal schooling. It follows, then that the empirical research presented here can make only a limited contribution to the discussion on synthesising CLIL-based approach in adult basic education, as it does not fully address this context.

Key Principles and Tentative Recommendations for CLIL Pedagogy and Research in Adult Basic Education

This section aims to identify key principles for implementing the CLIL approach in adult basic education for learners with limited or no formal schooling. It also offers tentative suggestions for pedagogy and research based on the synthesis of theoretical and empirical insights presented in this paper. The section begins with overarching principles and then narrows its focus to adult literacy learners.

Conclusion

This paper contributes to international scholarship on adult basic education for immigrants with limited or no formal schooling by addressing a context that remains largely under-researched despite growing policy relevance. Framed through its three research questions, the study offers a structured and transparent examination of how CLIL can be understood, adapted, and applied in a highly complex and underexplored educational context. The scoping review approach enables a systematic mapping of theoretical perspectives, empirical evidence, pedagogical considerations, and policy-oriented knowledge. It helps clarify what existing research suggests about the applicability of CLIL to adult basic education, as well as where significant gaps remain.

Addressing the first research question, the paper demonstrates that while CLIL has a strong theoretical foundation, much of the existing empirical work does not adequately account for adult literacy learners. In response to the second research question, insights from adjacent fields – such as adult second language literacy, content-based language teaching, and multilingual pedagogies – are critically examined for their relevance and limitations. The third research question enables the paper to move beyond mapping towards synthesis, resulting in tentative yet grounded recommendations for pedagogy and future research.

Overall, the paper contributes to international scholarship by providing a research-informed, context-sensitive framework for thinking about integrated language and content instruction in adult basic education. It highlights the importance of tailoring CLIL principles to adult literacy learners and underscores the need for further empirical, cross-national research to support inclusive and effective educational provision for adult immigrants with limited or no formal schooling.