Target language proficiency and reported use of compensatory strategies by young CLIL learners

Abstract

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.

Gender pairings in EFL child task-based interaction

“…This decision aligns with previous research targeting young learners in which proficiency did not play a major role when comparing 5th and 6th year learners due to the small gap in terms of proficiency between the years tested (i.e. Gallardo-del-Puerto,Basterrechea, & Martínez-Adrián, 2020). If a wider gap in proficiency had been attested between grades (as suggested by these previous investigations), we would have explored and discussed the effect of different proficiency levels.…”

Alignment of code switching varies with proficiency in second language learning dialogue

“…We find that speaker imbalance also affects the learner: when the tutor dominates to too large an extent, with little contribution from the learner, this predicts a switch to L1 in the learner, with stronger effects present in more proficient learners. We think that higher proficiency learners are more likely to switch to L1 when the tutor is dominating the preceding dialogue due to the student using the L1 as a communication strategy, as is suggested by Gallardo-del Puerto et al (2020).…”

“…Code switching may also be used for clarification, or to avoid conversational gaps (Rusmawaty, 2018). The use of CS can vary across proficiency levels and can be affected by other factors, such as the influence of teaching strategy (Gallardo-del Puerto et al, 2020). Communication strategies of learner and tutor vary with context, and are affected by learner agency, the feeling of ownership and control that learners have over their own learning (Gao, 2010): tutor strategy can be influenced by adaptation to the learners' zone of proximal development (Dunn & Lantolf, 1998); and learner strategy influenced by their own proficiency (Costa et al, 2008) as well as other contextual factors such as personality and self-efficacy (Rebecca & Oxford, 2003), which influence their ability to learn.…”

Research into practice: CLIL in South America

“…As an umbrella term for different models of bilingual education (Dalton-Puffer, Llinares, Lorenzo, & Nikula, 2014), CLIL is often defined as a pedagogical approach in which 'a foreign language is used as a tool in the learning of a non-language subject in which both language and the subject have a joint role' (Marsh, 2002, p. 58). This definition may indicate that CLIL's most logical context is, for example, a Science or History classroom (e.g., Gallardo del Puerto, Basterrechea, & Martínez Adrián, 2019). Thus, CLIL focuses on content learning through an L2, which is learnt in an integrated manner.…”