The use of communication strategies (CSs) in oral and written second language (L2) production has been widely investigated (e.g. Muñoz, 2007). As for content and language integrated learning (CLIL) settings, learners seem to resort to the first language (L1) less often than in traditional foreign language instruction (e.g. Celaya & Ruiz de Zarobe, 2010). However, few studies have examined what L2 learners say about their use of CSs by means of questionnaires-e.g. Ehrman & Oxford (1990), with adult English as a foreign language (EFL) learners-and little is known about the reported use of CSs by young learners (Purdie & Oliver, 1999), and much less by young CLIL learners. This study examines learners' self-reported opinions about the use of CSs (guessing, miming, morphological creativity, dictionary, predicting, paraphrasing, borrowing, calque, foreignizing, avoidance and appeal for assistance).
This study compares focus on form in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) and mainstream English as a Foreign Language (EFL) contexts in the production of a specific morphological feature, the English 3 rd person singular present tense markers. Research conducted in CLIL contexts to date examining morphosyntactic features has yielded disparate results. Thus, little is known about how this methodology affects learners' attention to form while completing a dictogloss task (Wajnryb, 1990). In the study 116 adolescent learners (CLIL, n = 54; mainstream EFL, n= 62) in the Basque Autonomous Community completed a dictogloss collaboratively and individually. Results showed that CLIL learners noticed and produced more instances of the 3 rd person singulars than mainstream learners, but not in a significant manner, and that those working in pairs in the CLIL group obtained significantly better results.
Little is known about young CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning) learners’ attention to formal aspects of the target language when engaged in collaborative task-based interaction. Previous research on language-related episodes (LREs) with other populations indicates that certain variables (e.g. target language proficiency or pair formation method) may play a role in the production of LREs. This study investigates the amount, types and resolution of LREs produced by primary education CLIL learners in a collaborative picture-ordering + story-telling task depending on two variables – L2 English proficiency (grade 5 dyads vs. grade 6 dyads) and pairing method (proficiency-matched dyads vs. student self-selected dyads). Findings indicate that young CLIL learners’ interactive behaviour in L2 English, at least in terms of LRE production, does not differ as a consequence of target language proficiency, whereas pair formation method exerts some influence, self-selected pairs producing and resolving more meaning-based LREs. No differences were found for form-focused LREs.
Studies investigating compensatory strategies (CSs) by means of questionnaires in English‐as‐a‐Foreign‐Language (EFL) contexts with young learners are lacking, particularly in Content‐and‐Language‐Integrated‐Learning (CLIL) environments. Three different proficiency groups of young English learners in a CLIL programme were administered a survey to explore the existence of intergroup differences regarding the amount and types of CSs used. Learners exhibited a moderately high use of CSs overall, and no differences emerged regarding the total number of CSs as a function of target language (TL) proficiency. In terms of types of CSs used, they reported using some CSs (paraphrasing) which are typical of more advanced learners. However, more proficient learners were found to draw on some non L2‐based strategies (avoidance, foreignising, miming) to a lesser extent than less proficient learners.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.