The introduction of Physical Education contents through a foreign language is one of the challenges proposed by the Spanish educational system in the 21^st century. In this context, when using the Content Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) approach, students can acquire curricular contents while using an additional language (Dalton-Puffer, 2011), that many times is English. As stated in specific literature, some of the benefits of its implementation are the opportunities provided for students to use the other languages in the present rather than in their futures (Klimova, 2012). Moreover, they do not require a specific amount of time dedicated only for the language, but its acquisition is integrated at the same time as other contents. Coyle et al. (2010) consider that CLIL lessons should be based on the 4cs framework (cognition, culture, communication and contents). Also, competences such as the linguistic, the organizational, the interpersonal and collaborative, as well as the reflective and developmental through life, have been reported to be relevant when applying CLIL (Pérez-Cañado, 2018). Thanks to these features, among others, CLIL is considered an active way of creating friendly environments for learning in an active and experiential way (Lee, 2021). However, there are still doubts about its application in day-to-day practice (Bruton, 2019), even more considering CLIL teacher training (Pérez-Cañado, 2018).

Regarding active pedagogical models, one that is often applied in Physical Education is cooperative learning, which has already been hybridized with different approaches (González, et al., 2019). Casey and Goodyear (2015), highlighted the promotion of the learning acquisition of the physical, intellectual, or social relationships through this model. In the current century, cooperative learning structures are known as a means to enhance the global interdependence or the possibilities of applying democracy. Thus, cooperative learning may help to face the challenge of being creative, besides of enhancing the possibilities derived from the interpersonal relationships it generates (Johnson & Johnson, 2014).

When considering creativity as one of the emergent patters and its results from collaborating in groups (Johnson & Johnson, 2014), it is interesting bearing in mind the principles of nonlinear pedagogy (Chow et al., 2007), as well as the way the task constraints (Newell, 1986) enhance the possibilities of the students being creative and flowing (Torrents et al., 2020). As stated by Keay et al. (2019), the teacher training setting is complex and follows a non-linear progression. For this reason, they suggest the examination of the influence of the ecological approach, because it may condition the learning experiences of the teacher’s training process. In this line, authors like Petrie and McGree (2012), suggest time to be given in order to encourage the innovation or to improve the student’s learning experience.

Against this backdrop, the research that we share in this paper is specially oriented towards the analysis of the experiences of the students during their teacher training process. The analysis focuses on a Physical Education subject taught through CLIL and using a nonlinear cooperative learning approach. The information derived from this experience is especially relevant because this program receives diverse students from different European nationalities each year. This fact, apart from enriching the contents of the sessions, favours the cultural exchange based on the different educational laws and the methodologies through which students acquire and organise the sessions in their future as primary teachers. Moreover, students are encouraged and motivated to create heterogeneous groups so that they keep communicating between themselves in English, as well as creating international networks that bridge their different cultures.

This exploratory research seeks to critically investigate pre-service teachers’ perceptions regarding the CLIL approach bearing in mind their experience as CLIL students. We aimed to examine in detail the viewpoints of the participants in order to make sense of and/or interpret the phenomena (using the CLIL approach) according to the meaning that the participants attach to them (Denzin, 2017). To do so, a strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) framework was applied. Participants and settings 56 pre-service teachers participated in the study (43 females, 13 males). They were enrolled in the subject of Didactics of Physical Education in Primary Teaching, which was taught through CLIL approach. Therefore, besides of working the specific contents of this subject, special attention was paid to the use of the linguistic skills and the promotion of the particular features of this pedagogical approach. In addition, cooperative learning strategies and a non-linear approach were also relevant in the sessions. This subject belongs to the second year of the degree of Primary Teacher training and is mandatory for all students. For this reason, students might not be especially interested or motivated towards the subject. Data collection Participants answered an online questionnaire with four open-ended questions individually. Each question was focused on one of the pillars of the SWOT. Concretely, pre-service teachers had to answer: “What are, in your opinion, the main strengths/ weaknesses/opportunities/threats of the CLIL approach?” All participants answered the questionnaire on a voluntary basis, and it was not related to the mark of the subject. Data analysis The written answers were analyzed through content analysis in order to identify the most salient themes among all the answers. The SWOT framework was employed as a deductive strategy, although the process retained an inductive component as the research team was open to further interpretations. Therefore, a constant comparison method was carried out to make adjustments as needed (Patton, 2015). The first phase of analysis included open and axial coding (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). After two iterations, in the second phase, the research team developed potential themes within each of the four categories of the SWOT. Findings were cross-checked and cross-referenced within and across the data set to identify patterns of response. We employed investigator triangulation and searched for negative cases to foster trustworthiness (Denzin, 2017). In addition, all participants agreed upon the accuracy of the data collected through a member checking process.

The results from the SWOT derived from the analysis are displayed in Table 1, showing the topics arisen in each of the four categories. Table 1. SWOT themes by category Strengths Weaknesses -Language learning -Practical implementation -Cooperation -Misunderstandings due to language -Too challenging for those who do not like English Opportunities Threats -Experiencing CLIL as a teacher -Experiencing CLIL as a student -Language learning -Specific learning of PE aspects in English -CLIL may decrease participation/motivation -Language as a handicap -Less Spanish These results support previous literature on the topic acknowledging some benefits coming with CLIL such as English improvement (Mahan & Norheim, 2021) or collaboration (Pérez-Cañado, 2018). The latter may have been a consequence of using a cooperative approach (Johnson & Johnson, 2014). The opportunity of experiencing CLIL as both teachers and students was promoted tanks to applying an experiential learning approach (Lee, 2021) that, in our case, may have been enhanced even more because of the use of nonlinearity (Chow et al., 2007). Moving now to the shades of CLIL, it is said to come with a number of challenges (Pérez-Cañado, 2018). Language misunderstandings could make it a too challenging approach for students with low English levels, probably because of the cognitive difficulties it may entail (Mahan & Norheim, 2021). Moreover, participation and/or motivation could be hindered in some occasions although previous research shows different ideas (Madrid, 2021). In any case, CLIL should be inclusive and not only for those who are inherently motivated (Birdsell & Sandu, 2015). To conclude, the use of CLIL could be considered as bittersweet. Thereby, proper CLIL teacher training is needed to ensure motivation and foster proper CLIL learning among undergraduates (Pérez-Cañado, 2018). To counteract these deficiencies of CLIL, it might be combined with other pedagogical approaches besides of cooperative learning or non-linear pedagogy.

This work was carried out under the project UV-SFPIE_PID-1638998. References Birdsell, B.J., & Sandu, R. (2015). Japanese Students’ Interest in CLIL: The Role of Individual Differences. Asian EFL Journal, (87), 20-47. Bruton, A. (2019). Questions about CLIL which are unfortunately still not outdated: A reply to Pérez-Cañado. Applied Linguistics Review, 10(4), 591-602. Casey, A., & Goodyear, V.A. (2015). Can cooperative learning achieve the four learning outcomes of physical education? A review of literature. Quest, 67(1), 56-72. Chow, J.Y., Davids, K., Button, C., Shuttleworth, R., Renshaw, I., & Araújo, D. (2007). The role of nonlinear pedagogy in physical education. Review of Educational Research, 77(3), 251-278. Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL. CUP. Dalton-Puffer, C. (2011). Content-and-language integrated learning: From practice to principles?. Annual Review of applied linguistics, 31, 182-204. Denzin, N.K. (2017). The Research Act: A Theoretical Introduction to Sociological Methods. Routledge. González-Víllora, S., Evangelio, C., Sierra-Díaz, J., & Fernández-Río, J. (2019). Hybridizing pedagogical models: A systematic review. European Physical Education Review, 25(4), 1056-1074. Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. (2014). Cooperative Learning in 21st Century. Annals of Psychology, 30(3), 841-851. Keay, J.K., Carse, N., & Jess, M. (2019). Understanding teachers as complex professional learners. Professional development in education, 45(1), 125-137. Klimova, B.F. (2012). CLIL and the teaching of foreign languages. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 47, 572-576. Lee, J.Y. (2021). Becoming a Teacher of CLIL in Higher Education: A Pilot Study in Asia. Journal of Educational Practice and Research, 34(1), 91-119. Lincoln, Y.S., & E. Guba. 1985. Naturalistic Inquiry. Sage. Madrid, D. (2021). Motivational potential of bilingual and non-bilingual programmes in secondary and tertiary education. Porta Linguarum, (36), 193-212. Mahan, K.R., & Norheim, H. (2021). ‘Something new and different’: student perceptions of content and language integrated learning. ELT Journal, 75(1), 77-86. Newell, K.M. (1986). Constraints on the Development of Coordination. In M. Wade & H.T.A. Whiting (eds.), Motor Development in Children: Aspects of Coordination and Control (pp.341-360). Martinus. Patton, M.Q. (2015). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. SAGE. Pérez-Cañado, M.L. (2018). Innovations and challenges in CLIL teacher training. Theory Into Practice, 57(3), 1-10. Petrie, K.C. & McGee, C. (2012). Teacher professional development: who is the learner? Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 37(2), 59–72. Torrents, C., Balagué, N., Ric, Á., & Hristovski, R. (2020). The motor creativity paradox: Constraining to release degrees of freedom. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 15(2), 340–351.