Effects of input on L2 writing in English and Dutch

Abstract

This study aims to explore the impact of formal and informal input on learners’ variability in writing, and to compare two target-language conditions (Dutch and English) in CLIL and non-CLIL settings in French-speaking Belgium. A regression model shows that CLIL is a significant predictor of L2 outcomes for both target languages, but that the relative impact of formal and informal input differs depending on the target language. In short, the amount of formal language exposure predicts the outcomes of the written productions of the learners of English, and the frequency of informal exposure those of the learners of Dutch. We argue that this observation is likely related to the difference in status that each of these languages holds among the pupils in our sample. The findings thus highlight the importance of the L2 status in research on CLIL, since different L2s can yield different results.

Effects of EMI-CLIL on secondary-level students’ English learning: A multilevel meta-analysis

“…Studies were coded as "vocabulary" for this moderator variable if they measured participants' overall English vocabulary knowledge (e.g., Castellano-Risco et al, 2020;Gierlinger & Wagner, 2016) or specific aspects of productive vocabulary competence through speaking or writing tasks, with, e.g., lexical complexity (Lee, 2020), lexical diversity (Van Mensel et al, 2020), and lexical error ratio (Lahuerta, 2020). Studies that measured participants' knowledge about English idioms (Goris et al, 2013; were also categorized as vocabulary-related (51 of 184; 28%).…”

“…First, we could not include some potentially important moderators due to a lack of detailed descriptions in the methodology sections of the selected studies. Some of these potential moderators, the roles of which have not generally been discussed in previous studies, include (1) the quality of English input in EMI-CLIL lessons (Van Mensel et al, 2020), (2) EMI-CLIL program quality control systems (Verspoor et al, 2015), and (3) (non-)nativeness of instructors (Gallardo del Puerto & Gómez-Lacabex, 2017). Thus, future EMI-CLIL studies should provide more detailed descriptions of their EMI-CLIL contexts and directly examine the aforementioned moderator variables.…”