Constructing a teaching capability maturity model for content and language integrated learning teachers in Taiwan

The study is situated in Taiwan’s evolving teacher education landscape and the government’s 2018 bilingual nation policy aiming for Mandarin Chinese–English bilingualism by 2030. To deliver CLIL, many English teachers will be expected to teach subject content through English, creating a need for feasible and sustainable CLIL teacher education and a clear capability framework. The purpose of this study is to construct a Teaching Capability Maturity Model (TCMM) for preservice CLIL teachers to guide progressive professional development. The research objectives were: (1) to screen and select benchmarks and a framework for the TCMM using the modified Delphi method (MDM), and (2) to establish the dimensions and framework and derive weights using fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP).

The study draws on Chen and Kuo’s Teaching Capability Maturity Model Integration (T-CMMI), adapted from CMMI, which defines maturity levels (MLs) and capability levels (CLs) with process areas, goals, and practices to support continuous improvement. It reviews Taiwan’s promotion of CLIL, including regional training initiatives and flexible use of Chinese/English depending on subject needs. The European framework for CLIL teacher education (Marsh et al., 2011) is summarised with three modules (Approaching, Implementing, Consolidating CLIL) and competence areas (e.g., content and language awareness, methodology/assessment, classroom and CLIL management). Prior research highlights implementation challenges (e.g., teacher workload, material scarcity, limited language/methodological competences) and training needs (language skills, bilingual methodology, CLIL knowledge). Based on T-CMMI and teacher capability studies, the authors propose a five-level TCMM for CLIL teachers: ML1 Initial; ML2 Basic course management; ML3 Advanced course management and implementation; ML4 Quantitative management; ML5 Sustainable optimisation, comprising 25 components spanning educational knowledge and attitudes, content/pedagogical knowledge and curriculum development, classroom management and collaboration, assessment/resource management, and professional responsibility and innovation.

A multistage design combined an initial literature-derived indicator framework with expert validation via a modified Delphi method (MDM) and weighting via fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP). Purposive sampling recruited 33 experts (interdisciplinary professionals from English teacher training institutions, primary school English teachers, and preservice English teachers). Two stages of questionnaires were administered with 100% valid returns in each stage (33/33). Stage 1 (MDM): A semi-structured questionnaire evaluated the appropriateness of a 5-level, 25-component framework using a 5-point Likert scale. Descriptive statistics (means, SDs) and quartile deviations assessed consensus; items with quartile deviation Q ≤ 0.6 indicated high agreement. Results confirmed the five maturity levels and 25 elements with high consistency (SDs < 1; Q < 0.6). Stage 2 (FAHP): Based on Stage 1, a pairwise comparison questionnaire rated the relative importance (1–9 scale) of levels and their components. FAHP computations formed pairwise comparison matrices using triangular fuzzy numbers, followed by consistency testing (CI, CR), defuzzification, and normalization to obtain weights and rankings for levels and components. Consistency indices for all level- and component-level matrices were acceptable (CI and CR < 0.1).

Consensus (MDM) supported a five-level, 25-component TCMM with high agreement (quartile deviations < 0.6; SDs < 1). FAHP yielded consistent matrices (e.g., overall levels CI = 0.01, CR = 0.01). Level weights (descending): ML2 Basic course management (0.28), ML3 Advanced course management and implementation (0.26), ML1 Initial (0.25), ML5 Sustainable optimisation (0.11), ML4 Quantitative management (0.11). Component weights within levels: ML1 (CI 0.05, CR 0.04): Educational contextual knowledge (0.28), Theoretical knowledge of learner development (0.24), Educational theoretical knowledge (0.21), Enjoying learning (0.16), Mutual dependency (0.11). ML2 (CI 0.02, CR 0.01): Content knowledge (0.23), Curriculum development capability (0.22), Content pedagogical knowledge (0.21), Active learning capability (0.20), Problem-solving capability (0.15). ML3 (CI 0.01, CR 0.01): Content teaching capability (0.32), Classroom management capability (0.19), Student counselling capability (0.15), Group learning social skills (0.13), Communication coordination capability (0.11), Effective learning (0.11). ML4 (CI 0.05, CR 0.05): Multiple assessment capability (0.46), Resource management capability (0.23), Curriculum and teaching evaluation capability (0.18), Group learning processes (0.13). ML5 (CI 0.00, CR 0.00): Professional responsibility (0.29), Professional development (0.27), Creative learning (0.16), Research innovation (0.16), Mutual and collaborative learning (0.12).

The findings address the goal of defining and prioritizing CLIL teacher capabilities for preservice education in Taiwan. Given the early stage of CLIL implementation, experts prioritized foundational capabilities: course/content mastery and curriculum development (ML2), practical content teaching and classroom management (ML3), and core educational context knowledge (ML1). Although ML4 and ML5 were overall lower, within them multiple assessment (ML4) and professional responsibility/development (ML5) were emphasized, underscoring the need for robust assessment literacy and professional ethos. The structure aligns with the European CLIL framework: ML1–ML3 map to Approaching/Implementing CLIL, while ML4–ML5 correspond to Consolidating CLIL. These results inform program design by highlighting where to invest in preservice training (content knowledge, curriculum development, pedagogical content knowledge, and practicum experiences teaching content through English) and by integrating modules on educational contexts and multicultural issues.

The study constructed and validated a five-level TCMM for CLIL teachers and quantified the relative importance of levels and components using FAHP, finding the highest priorities in basic and advanced course management and initial foundational knowledge. The model identifies essential capabilities and their weights for preservice CLIL teacher preparation in Taiwan and is consistent with European CLIL teacher education frameworks. Future research should extend validation with different cohorts (e.g., content subject teachers) and contexts to further refine and generalize the TCMM.

Indicators were adapted from literature and could not encompass all factors influencing CLIL teacher professional literacy. The study did not deeply analyze all potential critical factors, relying primarily on expert opinion via MDM/FAHP rather than large-scale empirical data, which may limit generalizability. The context is Taiwan-specific, so applicability to other regions may be constrained.