Advertisement

CLIL in Context: Profiling Language Abilities

  • Carmen Pérez-VidalEmail author
  • Helena Roquet
Chapter
Part of the Educational Linguistics book series (EDUL, volume 23)

Abstract

This study seeks to investigate the effects of the Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) approach on young EFL learners’ productive and receptive skills in a school located in Barcelona (Catalonia). The school had carefully designed and made provisions for a successful CLIL programme before its implementation. For the purpose of the study, two different groups (N = 50 each) of Catalan/Spanish bilingual learners aged 13–15 were analysed longitudinally over one academic year. One received formal instruction (FI) in English as a foreign language as a school subject, in addition to a Science subject taught with a CLIL approach and in which English was the medium of instruction (experimental group). The other received FI only (control group). Data were elicited both for receptive and productive skills, except speaking, and were statistically analysed quantitatively and also qualitatively using a pretest-posttest design. Results obtained confirm the effectiveness of the CLIL programme, however not in all domains and to the same degree. Concerning receptive skills, the CLIL group improved their reading competence significantly more than the control group, as was expected, but not their listening competence. As for productive skills, our findings show a significant improvement in the case of the CLIL group as the participants’ writing, and accuracy in particular, significantly progressed and so did their general lexico-grammatical abilities. This is in contrast with findings in previous studies.

Keywords

Language acquisition English as a foreign language (EFL) Classroom Content and language integrated learning (CLIL) Science Writing Reading Oral comprehension Mainstream education Ages 12–14 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research received financial support through HUM2007-66053-C02-01/02, FFI2010-21483-C02-01/02, FFI2013-48640-C2-1/2-P and ALLENCAM (SGR2005-01086/2009-140/2014-1563) from the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness and the Catalan Government respectively. Special thanks go to the school where data were collected, and to Cristina Escobar whose insights into CLIL have always been a source of inspiration.

References

  1. Ackerl, C. (2007). Lexico-grammar in the essays of CLIL and non-CLIL students: Error analysis of written production. ViewZ (Vienna English Working Papers), 16(3), 6–11.Google Scholar
  2. Admiraal, W., Westhoff, G., & de Bot, K. (2006). Evaluation of bilingual secondary education in the Netherlands: Students’ language proficiency in English. Educational Research and Evaluation, 12, 75–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alejo, R., & MacArthur, F. (2009). Linguistic, cognitive and affective outcomes of CLIL experiences: The case of bilingual education programmes in Extremadura (Spain). Paper presented at the Gurt conference 2009: Implicit and explicit conditions, processes, and knowledge in SLA & Bilingualism. Washington, DC: Georgeton University.Google Scholar
  4. Allen, P., Swain, M., Harley, B., & Cummins, J. (1990). Aspects of classroom treatment: Towards a more comprehensive view of second language education. In B. Harley, P. Allen, J. Cummins, & M. Swain (Eds.), The development of second language proficiency (pp. 57–81). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Amengual-Pizarro, M., & Prieto-Arranz, J. L. (2015). Exploring affective factors in L3 learning: CLIL vs non-CLIL. In M. Juan-Garau & J. Salazar-Noguera (Eds.), Content-based language learning in multilingual educational environments (pp. 197–220). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  6. Brinton, D. M., Snow, M. A., & Bingham Wesche, M. (1989). Content-based second language instruction. Cambridge, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
  7. Bruton, A. (2011). Is CLIL so beneficial, or just selective? Re-evaluating some of the research. System, 39, 523–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cenoz, J., & Genesee, F. (1998). Beyond bilingualism: Multilingualism and multilingual education. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  9. Cenoz, J., & Jessner, U. (2000). English in Europe: The acquisition of a third language. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  10. Collentine, J., & Freed, B. (2004). Learning context and its effects on second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(2), 153–171.Google Scholar
  11. Cummins, J. (1976). The influence of bilingualism on cognitive growth: A synthesis of research findings and explanatory hypotheses. Working Papers on Bilingualism, 9, 1–43.Google Scholar
  12. Dafouz, E., & Guerini, M. (2009). CLIL across educational levels (pp. 3–16). Madrid: Santillana Educación/Richmond publishing.Google Scholar
  13. Dalton-Puffer, C. (2007). Discourse in content and language integrated learning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dalton-Puffer, C. (2008). Outcomes and processes in content and language integrated learning (CLIL): Current research from Europe. In W. Delanoy & L. Volkmann (Eds.), Future perspectives for English language teaching (pp. 139–157). Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
  15. Dalton-Puffer, C. (2011). Content and language integrated learning: From practice to principles? Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 182–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dalton-Puffer, C., Hüttner, J., Jexenflicker, S., Schindelegger, V., & Smit, U. (2008). Content and language integrated learning an Österreichs Höheren Technischen Lehranstalten. Forchungsbericht. Vienna: Universität Wien & Bundesministerium für Unterricht, Kultur und Kunst.Google Scholar
  17. DeKeyser, R. M. (2007a). Practice in a second language. Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. DeKeyser, R. M. (2007b). Skill acquisition theory. In J. Williams & B. VanPatten (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 97–113). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  19. DeKeyser, R. M., & Sokalski, K. (1996). The differential role of comprehension and production practice. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Form-focused instruction and second language learning (pp. 81–112). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
  20. Escobar Urmeneta, C. (2004). Content and language integrated learning: Do they learn content? Do they learn language? In J. M. Oro Cabanas, J.D. Anderson, & J. Varela ZapataL (Eds.), Linguistic perspectives from the classroom: Language teaching in a multicultural Europe (pp. 27–38). Santiago de Compostela: Universidad de Santiago.Google Scholar
  21. Escobar Urmeneta, C., & Pérez-Vidal, C. (2004). Teacher education for the implementation of a content and language integrated learning approach (CLIL) in the school system. In B. Wilkinson (Ed.), Integrating content and language. Meeting the challenge of multilingual education (pp. 402–415). Maastricht: Universitaire Pers Maastricht.Google Scholar
  22. European Commission. (1995). White paper on education and learning 449. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  23. Eurydice. (2006). Content and language integrated learning (CLIL) at school in Europe. Spain national description 2004/05. Brussels: Eurydice.Google Scholar
  24. Eurydice. (2008). Key data on teaching languages at school in Europe. Special Eurobarometer 243. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  25. Friedl, G., & Auer, M. (2007). Rating scale used for assessment of the writing task. Erläuterungen zur Novellierung der Reifeprüfungsverordnung fur AHS, lebende Fremdsprachen. BIFIE. Wien – St. Pölten. (Gültig ab dem Sommertermin 2009) http://www.bifie.at/publikationen
  26. Gené-Gil, M., Juan-Garau, M., & Salazar-Noguera, J. (2015). Writing development under CLIL provision. In M. Juan-Garau & J. Salazar-Noguera (Eds.), Content-based language learning in multilingual educational environments (pp. 139–161). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  27. Genesee, F. (1987). Learning through two languages: Studies of immersion and bilingual education. Cambridge: Newbury House.Google Scholar
  28. Genesee, F. (1994). Integrating language and content: Lessons from immersion. Educational practice report II. Washington, DC: Center for Research on Education Diversity and Excellence (CREDE).Google Scholar
  29. Genesee, F. (2013). Insights into bilingual education from research on immersion in Canada. In C. Abello-Comtesse, P. Chandler, M. D. López-Giménez, & R. Chacón-Beltrán (Eds.), Bilingual and multilingual education in the XXI century (pp. 24–41). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  30. Grenfell, M. (Ed.). (2002). Modern languages across the curriculum. London/New York: Routledge Falmer.Google Scholar
  31. Harley, B., Allen, P., Cummins, J., & Swain, M. (1990). The development of second language proficiency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hellekjaer, G. (2010). Language matters: Assessing lecture comprehension in Norwegian English-medium higher education. In C. Dalton-Puffer, T. Nijula, & U. Smit (Eds.), Language and use and language learning in CLIL classrooms (pp. 253–258). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  33. Jexenflicker, S., & Dalton-Puffer, C. (2010). The CLIL differential: Comparing the writing of CLIL and non-CLIL students in higher colleges of technology. In C. Dalton-Puffer, T. Nijula, & U. Smit (Eds.), Language and use and language learning in CLIL classrooms (pp. 169–189). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Johnson, K., & Swain, M. (1997). Immersion education: International perspectives. Cambridge: CUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Juan-Garau, M., & Salazar-Noguera, J. (2015). Learning English and learning through English: Insights from secondary education. In M. Juan-Garau & J. Salazar-Noguera (Eds.), Content-based language learning in multilingual educational environments (pp. 105–121). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  36. Juan-Garau, M., Prieto-Arranz, J. L., & Salazar-Noguera, J. (2015). Lexico-grammatical development in secondary education CLIL Learners. In M. Juan-Garau & J. Salazar-Noguera (Eds.), Content-based language learning in multilingual educational environments (pp. 179–195). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  37. Lasagabaster, D. (2008). Foreign language competence in content and language integrated courses. The Open Applied Linguistics Journal, 1, 31–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lasagabaster, D. (2015). Different educational approaches to bi- or multilingualism and their effects on language attitudes. In M. Juan-Garau & J. Salazar-Noguera (Eds.), Content-based language learning in multilingual educational environments (pp. 13–30). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  39. Lasagabaster, D., & Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (Eds.). (2010). CLIL in Spain: Implementation, results and teacher training. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
  40. Llinares, A., Morton, T., & Whitakker, R. (2013). The roles of language in CLIL. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Lorenzo, F., Casal, S., & Moore, P. (2010). The effects of content and language integrated learning in European education: Key findings from the Andalusian bilingual sections. Evaluation Project. Applied Linguistics, 20(11), 1–25.Google Scholar
  42. Lyster, R. (2007). Learning and teaching languages through content. A counterbalanced approach. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Menezes, E., & Juan-Garau, M. (2015). English learners’ willingness to communicate and achievement in CLIL and formal instruction contexts. In M. Juan-Garau & J. Salazar-Noguera (Eds.), Content-based language learning in multilingual educational environments (pp. 221–236). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  44. Moore, P. (2009). On the emergence of L2 oracy in bilingual education: A comparative analysis of CLIL and mainstream learner talk. Sevilla: Universidad de Sevilla. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar
  45. Muñoz, C. (2015). Time and timing in CLIL: A comparative approach to language gains. In M. Juan-Garau & J. Salazar-Noguera (Eds.), Content-based language learning in multilingual educational environments (pp. 87–102). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  46. Muñoz, C., & Navés, T. (2007). Spain. In A. Maljers, D. Marsh, & D. Wolff (Eds.), Windows on CLIL. Content and language integrated learning in the European spotlight (pp. 160–165). Graz: European Platform for Dutch Education and European Centre for Modern Languages.Google Scholar
  47. Nikula, T. (2007). Speaking English in Finnish content-based classrooms. World Englishes, 26, 206–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Pérez-Vidal, C. (2009). The integration of content and language in the classroom: A European approach to education (The second time around). In E. Dafouz & M. C. Guerrini (Eds.), CLIL across educational levels: Experiences from primary, secondary and tertiary contexts (pp. 3–16). Madrid: Santillana Educación/Richmond Publishing.Google Scholar
  49. Pérez-Vidal, C. (2013). Perspectives and lessons from the challenge of CLIL experiences. In C. Abello-Comtesse, P. Chandler, M. D. López-Giménez, & R. Chacón-Beltrán (Eds.), Bilingual and multilingual education in the XXI century (pp. 52–82). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  50. Pérez-Vidal. (2015). Languages for all in education: CLIL and ICLHE at the crossroads of multilingualism, mobility and internationalisation. In M. Juan-Garau & J. Salazar-Noguera (Eds.), Content-based language learning in multilingual educational environments (pp. 31–50). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  51. Pérez-Vidal, C., & Juan-Garau, M. (2010). To CLIL or not to CLIL? From bilingualism to multilingualism in Catalan/Spanish communities in Spain. In Y. Ruiz de Zarobe & D. Lasagabaster (Eds.), CLIL in Spain: Implementation, results and teacher training (pp. 115–138). Newcastle: CUP/Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
  52. Prieto-Arranz, J. I., Rallo Fabra, L., Calafat-Ripoll, C., & Catrain-González, M. (2015). Testing progress on receptive skills in CLIL and non-CLIL contexts. In M. Juan-Garau & J. Salazar-Noguera (Eds.), Content-based language learning in multilingual educational environments (pp. 123–137). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  53. Rallo Fabra, L., & Jacob, K. (2015). Does CLIL enhance oral skills? Fluency and pronunciation errors by Spanish-Catalan learners of English. In M. Juan-Garau & J. Salazar-Noguera (Eds.), Content-based language learning in multilingual educational environments (pp. 163–177). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  54. Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (2008). CLIL and foreign language learning: A longitudinal study in the Basque country. International CLIL Research Journal, 1(1), 60–73.Google Scholar
  55. Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (2015). The effects of implementing CLIL in education. In M. Juan-Garau & J. Salazar-Noguera (Eds.), Content-based language learning in multilingual educational environments (pp. 51–68). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  56. Swain, M. (2000). French immersion research in Canada: Recent contributions to SLA and applied linguistics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 20, 199–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sylvén, L. K. (2004). Teaching in English or English teaching? On the effects of CLIL on Swedish learners’ incidental vocabulary acquisition. PhD dissertation, Göteborg University.Google Scholar
  58. Van de Craen, P., Ceuleers, E., & Mondt, K. (2007). Cognitive development and bilingualism in primary schools: Teaching maths in a CLIL environment. In D. Marsh & D. Wolff (Eds.), Diverse contexts: Converging goals – CLIL in Europe (pp. 185–200). Frankfurt am Main: Lang.Google Scholar
  59. VanPatten, B., & Cadierno, T. (1993). Explicit instruction and input processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 225–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Villarreal Olaizola, I., & García Mayo, M. P. (2009). Tense and agreement morphology in the interlanguage of Spanish/Basque bilinguals. In Y. Ruiz de Zarobe & R. M. Jiménez Catalán (Eds.), Content and language integrated learning: Evidence from the research in Europe. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  61. Wesche, M. (2002). Early French immersion: How has the original Canadian model stood the test of time? In P. Burmeister, T. Pieske, & A. Rhode (Eds.), An integrated view of language development: Papers in honor of Henning Wode. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier.Google Scholar
  62. Whittaker, R., & Llinares, A. (2009). CLIL in social science classrooms: Analysis of spoken and written productions. In Y. RuizdeZarobe & R. M. Jiménez Catalán (Eds.), Content and language integrated learning: Evidence from the research in Europe (pp. 215–234). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  63. Wilkinson, B. (2004). Integrating content and language. Meeting the challenge of multilingual higher education. Maastricht: Maastricht University.Google Scholar
  64. Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S., & Kim, H. (1998). Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy and complexity. Hawai’i: University of Hawai’i at Manoa.Google Scholar
  65. Wolff, D. (2002). Germany. In M. Grenfell (Ed.), Modern languages across the curriculum (pp. 78–87). London/New York: Routledge Falmer.Google Scholar
  66. Zydatiss, W. (2007). Deutsch-Englische Züge in Berlin (DEZIBEL). Eine Evaluation des bilingualen Sachfachunterrichts in Gymnasien: Kontext, Kompetenzen, Konsequenzen. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  67. Zydatiss, W. (2012). Linguistic thresholds in the CLIL classroom? The threshold hypothesis revisited. International CLIL Research Journal, 1(4), 16–28.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Departament de Traducció i Ciències del LlenguatgeUniversitat Pompeu Fabra (UPF)BarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations