Written production and CLIL

Zarobe, Yolanda Ruiz de

doi:10.1075/aals.7.10rui

Cited by 43 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…He found significant outperformance in favour of CLIL students in overall written production and in most of the measures analysed. His findings were partially in line with those of Ruiz de Zarobe (2010), who focused only on written skills using the same holistic methodology but a different design, which included controlling exposure to the target language. Her findings showed that 15 to 16-year-old secondary CLIL learners scored significantly higher than their non-CLIL counterparts in vocabulary, language use and mechanics.…”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 78%

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: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 78%

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

“…Swain noted that immersion students progressed in content knowledge and in interpretive skills more than in expressive (oral and written) skills and hypothesized that the reason for this discrepancy was that students processed input semantically (rather than syntactically), which implied that the key was making learners modify their output (Swain ; Swain and Lapkin ). However, later research points to secondary CLIL students outperforming Non‐CLIL students in written production as well (Jexenflicker and Dalton‐Puffer ; Ruiz de Zarobe ). Ruiz de Zarobe () for example found out in a longitudinal evaluation that CLIL students outperformed their counterparts in the written competence despite differences in hours of exposure (80 hours in a 3‐year span) and age differences (CLIL students were 3 years younger), and that the written outcomes of younger learners in CLIL were higher than those of older Non‐CLIL learners, hinting at the conclusion that under CLIL the rate of acquisition is faster.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, later research points to secondary CLIL students outperforming Non‐CLIL students in written production as well (Jexenflicker and Dalton‐Puffer ; Ruiz de Zarobe ). Ruiz de Zarobe () for example found out in a longitudinal evaluation that CLIL students outperformed their counterparts in the written competence despite differences in hours of exposure (80 hours in a 3‐year span) and age differences (CLIL students were 3 years younger), and that the written outcomes of younger learners in CLIL were higher than those of older Non‐CLIL learners, hinting at the conclusion that under CLIL the rate of acquisition is faster. Hence grade, linguistic outcomes and educational programmes seem to be positively related even though the longitudinal sample in the study was small and results have to be taken with caution.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Since the non‐CLIL students were 3 years older (17–18 vs. 14–15), Villarreal suggests this result may be attributed to their superior cognitive maturity (see Muñoz ). This contrasts with the findings in Ruiz de Zarobe's study () mentioned above and at the same time partly confirms the areas where CLIL has no or little effect, as an important finding of this study is that CLIL effects seem weaker than age effects, at least as far as verbal morphology is concerned. Another approach to the time issue is to consider how much extra exposure needs to be provided by CLIL courses, since it might be argued that slight differences in the number of hours (in both CLIL and non‐CLIL courses) might be insufficient for CLIL benefits to clearly emerge among university students.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Another approach to the time issue is to consider how much extra exposure needs to be provided by CLIL courses, since it might be argued that slight differences in the number of hours (in both CLIL and non‐CLIL courses) might be insufficient for CLIL benefits to clearly emerge among university students. In secondary education, it has been demonstrated that types of instruction with more exposure to English achieve higher levels of proficiency than instruction with less exposure, provided students receive sufficient exposure to the target language (Ruiz de Zarobe ), yet research on what type of instruction is most beneficial and how intense exposure at tertiary level should be is to our knowledge still limited. Studies point out that stay abroad allows for greater benefits than CLIL and that CLIL yields better results than formal instruction among children and teenagers (Pérez‐Vidal ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The effect of proficiency on CLIL benefits in Engineering students in Spain

Aguilar

Muñoz

2013

Int J App Linguistics

104

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper reports on a follow‐up study of a Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) pilot experience with bilingual postgraduate engineering students at a Spanish university. It aimed at examining learners' gains in listening and grammar skills after a CLIL course in English for a semester, in particular whether students' listening and grammar skills were affected similarly and whether participants' proficiency level played a role. Paired‐sampled t‐tests showed the difference between the mean scores in the pre‐and post‐listening test was significant but it was not for the pre‐and post grammar tests. When students were distributed into three groups on the basis of their pre‐test scores, a repeated measures ANOVA showed that less proficient students obtained higher gains in listening and grammar skills than more proficient students.

show abstract

Negotiation of Meaning Strategies in Child EFL Mainstream and CLIL Settings

Azkarai

Agirre

2015

TESOL Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research on child English as a second language (ESL) learners has shown the benefits of task-based interaction for the use of different negotiation of meaning (NoM) strategies, which have been claimed to lead to second language learning. However, research on child interaction in foreign language settings is scarce, specifically research on a new prevalent methodology in Europe, content and language integrated learning (CLIL). The present study focuses on mainstream and CLIL English as a foreign language (EFL) learners' oral interaction while they completed a guessing game and a picture placement task. The researchers analysed the oral production of seventy-two 9to 12-year-old children (in age-and proficiency-matched dyads) to examine the conversational strategies that were employed in both tasks. Findings indicated that younger learners negotiated for meaning more, and mainstream learners resorted to more conversational strategies than CLIL learners. Furthermore, task-based differences in the NoM strategies seemed to depend on age and instructional setting. The results seem to indicate that age, instructional setting, and the tasks in which these EFL learners were engaged had an impact on the NoM strategies they employed in task-based interaction.

show abstract

Written production and CLIL

Cited by 43 publications

References 0 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

The effect of proficiency on CLIL benefits in Engineering students in Spain

Negotiation of Meaning Strategies in Child EFL Mainstream and CLIL Settings

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About