CLIL teachers' views on cognitive development in primary education

The study examines how CLIL, which integrates content learning with an additional language, supports cognitive development in primary science and social science in Spain’s Region of Murcia. Grounded in Coyle’s 4Cs framework (content, communication, cognition, culture) and Anderson and Krathwohl’s revised Bloom’s taxonomy, the work focuses on the extent to which teachers foster lower- and higher-order thinking skills (LOTS vs. HOTS). While CLIL has expanded in Spain and Europe and is associated with increased participation and language/cognitive gains, prior studies in Murcia suggest classroom practice often emphasizes understanding and controlled activities, with many questions targeting recall rather than higher-order reasoning. This study addresses that gap by exploring teachers’ beliefs and reported practices for promoting the six cognitive categories and specific HOTS processes, the resources used, and the role of L1, aiming to inform improvements in CLIL lesson planning and professional development.

Prior research indicates CLIL teachers in Europe/Spain have shifted practices to enhance participation and language/cognitive skills, yet planning frequently centers on checking understanding rather than developing reasoning (Lorenzo et al., 2011). In Murcia, teachers report satisfaction with CLIL, emphasizing observation/experimentation over complex processing (Lova et al., 2013), and more frequent use of controlled tasks (Alcaraz-Mármol, 2018). Classroom questioning often targets recall of conceptual knowledge (Valverde Caravaca, 2019). Theoretical work positions cognition as integral to CLIL (Coyle, 2007; Coyle et al., 2010), advocating use of revised Bloom’s taxonomy for scaffolding cognitive processes and linking content and language goals (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). Calls also exist to employ cognitive discourse functions to operationalize thinking skills in CLIL (Dalton-Puffer, 2013; Morton, 2020). These strands highlight the need to examine HOTS promotion and professional/contextual factors that shape practice.

Design: Mixed-methods study combining a semi-structured questionnaire (quantitative) and a discussion forum (qualitative). Sample: 129 primary teachers (science and social science) from the Region of Murcia completed the questionnaire; 12 participated in discussion forums. Typical respondent: state school science teacher with B2 English, ~10 years overall teaching experience and ~3 years in CLIL. Of the 129, 99 worked in state schools and 30 in private; 20 held a university degree in bilingual education. For the 12 forum participants: 5 state and 7 private teachers; 7–20 years teaching experience; 2–5 years CLIL experience; L2 proficiency: eight B2, three C1, one C2; none held a bilingual primary education degree. Instruments: (1) Semi-structured questionnaire developed ad hoc and validated by university experts and CLIL teachers. It captured demographics and CLIL implementation plus frequency of promoting the six cognitive categories (remembering, understanding, applying, analysing, evaluating, creating), frequency of specific HOTS processes (deconstructing, differentiating, checking, critiquing, generating, planning, producing), frequency of L1 use for each cognitive category, and frequency of resource use (smartboard, slide decks, flashcards, digital textbook, websites, print textbook, software). Responses used Likert-type scales. Reliability: Cronbach’s alpha = 0.94. (2) Discussion forum with six guiding questions about cognitive outcomes, needed training, exchange of best practices, coordination, common cognitive activities and assessment tools, and improvements required. Three private meetings (~45 minutes each) were recorded, transcribed, and coded. Procedures and analysis: Questionnaires were administered online after informed consent and instructions. Responses were grouped by variables (gender, L2 proficiency, bilingual degree, years of experience, school type, CLIL programme experience, CLIL training hours). Frequencies and percentages were computed; non-parametric tests were used due to non-normality: Mann–Whitney U for two-group comparisons and Kruskal–Wallis H for comparisons across more groups. SPSS v23 was used. Forum data were summarized via cross-reference tables and indicator aggregation.

• Overall frequency of cognitive categories: Teachers most frequently reported activities for understanding (93% very often). Creation tasks were least frequent; about one-third said they were seldom used. Mean (SD) frequencies: remembering 4.18 (0.90), understanding 4.44 (0.68), applying 4.27 (0.72), analysing 3.97 (0.79), evaluating 4.20 (0.76), creating 3.75 (1.04).
• Factors associated with cognitive categories: No significant differences by gender, experience in bilingual programmes, English level, possession of a bilingual degree, or school type. Significant differences appeared for CLIL training hours (H=11.60, p<0.05): better-trained teachers more often planned activation activities; and by professional profile for creation (H=8.10, p<0.05): permanent teachers (state and private) carried out creation activities more often than temporary teachers.
• HOTS frequency (means): deconstructing 3.93 (1.05), differentiating 3.61 (1.01), checking 4.06 (1.08), critiquing 3.75 (1.03), generating 3.86 (0.94), planning 3.57 (0.98), producing 3.91 (0.99).
• HOTS group differences: State vs. private schools showed higher frequency among state school teachers for deconstructing (U=1043, p<0.009), differentiating (U=1067, p<0.011), checking (U=1128, p<0.034), and planning (U=1102, p<0.026). Producing differed by teaching position (H=9.74, p<0.021) and school type (U=960, p<0.002), with permanent state school teachers encouraging producing more frequently. Critiquing differed by CLIL experience (H=14.03, p<0.006) and school type (U=918, p<0.000), with state school and more-experienced teachers fostering peer critique more often.
• Use of L1: Teachers reported occasional L1 use to promote cognitive categories (means ~2.19–2.53 for LOTS; ~2.29–2.50 for HOTS-related categories). Significant differences: private school teachers used L1 more than state school teachers to support analysing, evaluating, and creating (U=918, p<0.05). Teachers with a bilingual education degree used L1 more than those without (H=7.12, p<0.05). Less CLIL training was associated with more frequent L1 use.
• Resources: High reported use of smartboards (mean 4.55), slide decks (4.17), flashcards (4.09), digital textbooks (4.04), websites (3.97), print textbooks (3.82), and science software (3.42). Teachers with a bilingual education degree used slide decks and software more often (U=803, p<0.05). More experienced CLIL teachers used printed and digital textbooks more frequently than less-experienced teachers (H=15.17, p<0.019).
• Qualitative insights: Teachers perceive solid development of LOTS (especially understanding) but identify challenges in fostering expression and HOTS. L1 is used strategically to clarify complex tasks and projects. Teachers emphasized heavy time investment to source and curate resources and requested more training and coordination to integrate HOTS effectively.

The findings indicate that in primary CLIL science and social science, teachers strongly emphasize lower-order processes, particularly understanding, while higher-order processes (creating, complex analysis, critique, production) are less frequent. This pattern suggests that although CLIL aims to integrate cognition and language, classroom practice may prioritize content comprehension and vocabulary recall over problem solving and creative application. Group differences show that structural and professional factors matter: permanent status and greater CLIL experience correlate with more frequent implementation of HOTS-related processes (producing, critiquing), and state school teachers more often report deconstructing, differentiating, checking, and planning. These associations imply that stability and accumulated expertise enable more demanding task design, feedback, and production-oriented activities. L1 is used as a scaffold, particularly for complex tasks requiring HOTS, with higher reliance in private schools, among teachers with bilingual degrees, and among those with less CLIL training. Resource use is widespread, but adoption patterns differ by training and experience, pointing to capacity and support needs. Overall, to align practice with CLIL’s cognitive aims, teachers require targeted professional development, collaborative structures, and resource support to design and implement tasks that systematically cultivate HOTS.

This study contributes evidence from Murcia’s primary CLIL context showing frequent promotion of LOTS and comparatively lower emphasis on HOTS in science and social science lessons. It identifies professional status (permanent vs. temporary), experience in CLIL, and training as influential factors for implementing higher-order processes and for patterns of L1 and resource use. The authors recommend investing in sustained, targeted teacher training (including cognitive discourse functions and task design for HOTS), improving working conditions and stability, and fostering coordinated collaboration among teachers, administrators, and support staff. Future research should include long-term follow-up and employ more advanced statistical analyses to deepen causal understanding, and investigate effective integration of resources and L1 scaffolding strategies to maximize cognitive gains across diverse CLIL contexts.

The study is based on teacher self-reports and discussion forums within a single regional context (Region of Murcia), which may limit generalizability. The authors note that findings should be complemented by further research with long-term follow-up and advanced statistical analysis. Dataset sharing is restricted due to participant identifiability, limiting external reanalysis.