On Complexity in Bilingual Research: The Causes, Effects, and Breadth of Content and Language Integrated Learning--a Reply to Bruton (2011)

Lorenzo, Francisco; Moore, Pat; Casal, Sonia María Santoveña

doi:10.1093/applin/amr025

Cited by 25 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…By so doing, we managed to have two groups of learners whose performance in the domains examined did not differ statistically at T1. In sum, our research aimed at ecological validity by attempting to reflect accurately the complexity of the data and learning contexts analysed (see Lorenzo, Moore and Casal 2011).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development of EFL writing over three years in secondary education: CLIL and non-CLIL settings

Gené-Gil

Juan-Garau

Salazar-Noguera

2015

The Language Learning Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research on writing development in content and language integrated learning (CLIL) settings is still inconclusive. This study intends to make a contribution in this respect by presenting longitudinal findings on the development of written complexity, accuracy and fluency (CAF) in secondary education CLIL and non-CLIL learners. Participants in the study (N = 50) are a group of CLIL students (N = 30) learning science or social science through the medium of English and a group of comparable non-CLIL learners (N = 20) of English. Analytical CAF measures are used to investigate their performance in a written composition at four data collection times over three years. Within-group results show significant differences in the scores obtained in most of the CAF measures for CLIL learners at the different data collection times, compared to significant differences only in lexical complexity and accuracy for non-CLIL participants. Results of between-group comparisons controlling the hours of exposure are mixed: non-CLIL students progress significantly more in lexical complexity than their CLIL peers, although the latter tend to obtain higher scores overall. In sum, evidence suggesting the greater effectiveness of the CLIL approach is found. IntroductionLanguage is one of the five dimensions of the content and language integrated learning (CLIL) approach -along with culture, environment, content and learning (Marsh, Maljers and Hartiala 2001) -and the one that has attracted most research interest in CLIL literature. This is probably due to the fact that the most common reason to introduce CLIL is to improve overall foreign language competence (Ruiz de Zarobe 2010), without having to devote extra time to the teaching of the target language.Research in CLIL has gathered force over the last decade and many studies regarding the impact of CLIL on language development have shown positive findings, despite a few critical voices (e.g. Bruton 2013). However, some areas of language competence have received more attention than others. In particular, the role of writing in CLIL contexts has been largely unrecognised (Llinares, Morton and Whittaker 2012). In fact, an overview study on CLIL learning outcomes conducted by Dalton-Puffer (2008) classified writing as one of the areas of linguistic competence likely to remain unaffected by CLIL instruction.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development of EFL writing over three years in secondary education: CLIL and non-CLIL settings

Gené-Gil

Juan-Garau

Salazar-Noguera

2015

The Language Learning Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, our contemporary understanding of SLA views it as a complex, dynamic, ecologically situated, multivariate phenomenon – hence the impact of theories like chaos/complexity theory (Larsen-Freeman & Cameron, 2008) and dynamic systems theory (de Bot, Lowie, & Verspoor, 2007; Lowie, 2017). These characteristics of language development can make it extremely difficult to adopt traditionally formulated, linearly framed research methods (Lorenzo, Moore, & Casal, 2011). This makes the non-reductionist, ecological, systems view afforded by dynamics and complexity theories – henceforth referred to as Complex Dynamic System Theory (CDST) (Larsen-Freeman, 2017; Pfenninger & Neuser, under review).…”

Section: How Older Adults May Benefit From L2 Learningmentioning

confidence: 99%

A critical review of research relating to the learning, use and effects of additional and multiple languages in later life

Pfenninger

Singleton

2019

Lang. Teach.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While there is a growing body of research on second language acquisition (SLA) in children, adolescents, young and more mature adults, much remains to be explored about how adults in later life learn a new language and how good additional language learning is for THEM. Our goal in this article is to survey and evaluate what is known about the linguistic, socio-affective, neurobiological and cognitive underpinnings of the second language (L2) learning process in older individuals, the extent to which L2 acquisition may be seen as contributing to healthy and active ageing, and how these phenomena are to be approached scientifically, methodologically and pedagogically. Our view is that a developmental enterprise as complex as L2 learning in senior adulthood and its effects in later life cannot be explained by a single theory or set of principles. Furthermore, we take it that L2 acquisition in the third age needs to be regarded not just as a goal in itself but as a means of promoting social interaction and integration, and that it is partly through the stimulation of social well-being that its cognitive effects may potentially be observed.

show abstract

“…One was the lower anxiety level claimed by CLIL students when having to speak English in class. This is probably due to the fact that CLIL students have been more amply exposed to, and encouraged to speak in English in class and, therefore, have greater confi dence in their oral foreign language skills (see Lorenzo et al 2011 ).…”

Section: Learning Context (Clil/non-clil) and The Development Of Affementioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring Affective Factors in L3 Learning: CLIL vs. Non-CLIL

Amengual-Pizarro

Arranz

2014

Content-Based Language Learning in Multilingual Educational Environments

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

On Complexity in Bilingual Research: The Causes, Effects, and Breadth of Content and Language Integrated Learning--a Reply to Bruton (2011)

Cited by 25 publications

References 4 publications

Development of EFL writing over three years in secondary education: CLIL and non-CLIL settings

Development of EFL writing over three years in secondary education: CLIL and non-CLIL settings

A critical review of research relating to the learning, use and effects of additional and multiple languages in later life

Exploring Affective Factors in L3 Learning: CLIL vs. Non-CLIL

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About