Meta-analysis of studies on the acquisition of receptive skills and vocabulary in CLIL

Abstract

Content and language integrated learning (CLIL) is a major area of interest within the field of formal education. There are numerous studies presenting data and results of CLIL implementation. The positive impacts have been reported in building positive attitudes to language learning, to content subject learning, increasing efficacy of language learning. Questions have been raised about the factors that (may) affect research results and their interpretation. Many small studies bring statistically non-significant data as they use small convenience samples. Meta-analyses enable the researchers to synthesise data from research with the same characteristics. The present article analyses the studies that focus on CLIL implementation at primary and secondary schools with special focus on receptive skills and vocabulary gains. Out of 385 selected studies were 9 included and applying randomised-effect model evaluated. The analysis found no statistically significant differences between the CLIL and EFL groups in listening and reading performance. Concerning vocabulary the statistically significant difference in favour of CLIL (p<0,0001) with overall estimate effect 0,84 and confidence interval ranging from 0,56 to 1,11 was observed.

Factors Facilitating and Hindering Deep-Level Collaboration Between Subject and Language Teachers in the Estonian CLIL Context

“…In three tandems, the initiative came from LTs, in two tandems, from the STs, and in one tandem it was not mentioned. This distribution is aligned with the claim that CLIL is often brought to classrooms by LTs, and not STs (Cimermanová 2020). While in some tandems, the leading position of the LT (Tandem 4) or ST (Tandem 1) was maintained, in others, it changed, which is reflected in the difference between the facilitating factors of leadership and initiative and leadership in the tandem.…”

“…Recently in 2022, the transition to the Estonian language of instruction at all levels of national education is taking place (Riigi Teataja, 2022), which is challenging the whole educational system of Estonia as it requires a CLIL-oriented approach in all schools where students have other L1 than Estonian. Despite the reported efficiency of CLIL (see Cimermanová 2020), there are several reasons why teachers in Estonia are generally reluctant to use this methodology: a belief that the implementation of CLIL leads to the successful acquisition of the language, but not the subject content; a belief that learning in L2 is excessively challenging for students; teachers' admitted lack of knowledge in each other's fields; a lack of suitable educational resources; concerns related to managing time/workload; and concerns related to a lack of methodology-related competencies (Dvorjaninova, Alas 2018;Metslang et al 2013).…”