Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Meta-analysis of studies on the acquisition of receptive skills and vocabulary in CLIL Cover

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

Open Access
|Nov 2020

References

  1. Agudo, J. D. (2019). Which instructional programme (EFL or CLIL) results in better oral communicative competence? Updated empirical evidence from a monolingual context. Linguistics and Education, 51, 69-78. doi:10.1016/j.linged.2019.04.00810.1016/j.linged.2019.04.008
  2. Agustín-Llach, M. P., & Canga Alonso, A. (2014). Vocabulary growth in young CLIL and traditional EFL learners: Evidence from research and implications for education. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 26(2), 211-227. doi:10.1111/ijal.1209010.1111/ijal.12090
  3. Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009). Introduction meta-analysis. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.10.1002/9780470743386
  4. Bruton, A. (2011). Is CLIL so beneficial, or just selective? Re-evaluating some of the research. System, 39(4), 523-532. doi:10.1016/j.system.2011.08.00210.1016/j.system.2011.08.002
  5. Canga Alonso, A. (2013). The receptive vocabulary of Spanish 6th-grade primary-school students in CLIL instruction: A preliminary study. Latin American Journal of Content and Language Integrated Learning, 6(2), 22-41. doi:10.5294/laclil.2013.6.2.210.5294/laclil.2013.6.2.2
  6. Castellano-Risco, I., Alejo-González, R., & Piquer-Píriz, A. M. (2020). The development of receptive vocabulary in CLIL vs EFL: Is the learning context the main variable? System, 91, 102263. doi:10.1016/j.system.2020.10226310.1016/j.system.2020.102263
  7. Castro-García, D. (2017). Receptive vocabulary measures for EFL Costa Rican high school students. International Journal of English Studies, 17(2), 81-99. doi:10.6018/ijes/2017/2/26568110.6018/ijes/2017/2/265681
  8. Cenoz, J. (2015). Content-based instruction and content and language integrated learning: The same or different? Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28(1), 8-24. doi:10.1080/07908318.2014.100092210.1080/07908318.2014.1000922
  9. Chostelidou, D., & Griva, E. (2014). Measuring the Effect of Implementing CLIL in Higher Education: An Experimental Research Project. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 2169-2174. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.53810.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.538
  10. Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781009024549
  11. Dallinger, S., Jonkmann, K., Hollm, J., & Fiege, C. (2016). The effect of content and language integrated learning on students’ English and history competences – Killing two birds with one stone? Learning and Instruction, 41, 23-31. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.09.00310.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.09.003
  12. European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice. (2017). Key Data on Teaching Languages at School in Europe – 2017 Edition. Eurydice Report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. doi:10.2797/839825
  13. Fontecha, A. F., & Canga Alonso, A. (2014). A preliminary study on motivation and gender in CLIC and non-CLIL types of instruction. International Journal of English Studies, 14(1), 21-36. doi:10.6018/ijes/14/1/15668110.6018/ijes/14/1/156681
  14. Gené-Gil, M., Juan-Garau, M., & Salazar-Noguera, J. (2015). Development of EFL writing over three years in secondary education: CLIL and non-CLIL settings. The Language Learning Journal, 43(3), 286-303. doi:10.1080/09571736.2015.105327810.1080/09571736.2015.1053278
  15. Glen, S. (2016). Hedges’ g: Definition, Formula. From StatisticsHowTo.com: Elementary Statistics for the rest of us! Retrieved August 08, 2020, from https://www.statisticshowto.com/hedges-g/
  16. Goris, J., Denessen, E., & Verhoeven, L. (2019). Effects of content and language integrated learning in Europe A systematic review of longitudinal experimental studies. European Educational Research Journal, 18(6), 675-698. doi:10.1177/147490411987242610.1177/1474904119872426
  17. Gorjian, B., & Hamidavi, N. (2017). Using Clil Method in Teaching Vocabulary to Intermediate Efl Learners. Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods, 7(3), 13-23.
  18. Hak, T., Rhee, H. V., & Suurmond, R. (2016, updated 2018). How to Interpret Results of Meta-Analysis. SSRN Electronic Journal. doi:10.2139/ssrn.3241367, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=324136710.2139/ssrn.3241367
  19. Hamidavi, N., Amiz, M., & Gorjian, B. (2016). The Effect of CLIL Method on Teaching Reading Comprehension to Junior High School Students. Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods, 6(9), 64-73. doi:10.26655/mjltm.2016.12.110.26655/mjltm.2016.12.1
  20. Hamidavi, N., Amiz, M., & Gorjian, B. (2016). The Effect of Clil Method on Teaching Reading Comprehension to Junior High School Students. Bulletin De La Société Royale Des Sciences De Liège, 85, 1642-165.10.25518/0037-9565.6361
  21. Harrer, M., Cuijpers, P., Furukawa, T., & Ebert, D. (2019). Doing Meta-Analysis in R: A Hands-on Guide. Retrieved August 08, 2020, from https://bookdown.org/MathiasHarrer/Doing_Meta_Analysis_in_R/, doi:10.5281/zenodo.255180310.1201/9781003107347
  22. Isidro, X. S., & Lasagabaster, D. (2018a). Code-switching in a CLIL multilingual setting: A longitudinal qualitative study. International Journal of Multilingualism, 16(3), 336-356. doi:10.1080/14790718.2018.147778110.1080/14790718.2018.1477781
  23. Isidro, X. S., & Lasagabaster, D. (2018b). The impact of CLIL on pluriliteracy development and content learning in a rural multilingual setting: A longitudinal study. Language Teaching Research, 23(5), 584-602. doi:10.1177/136216881775410310.1177/1362168817754103
  24. Kovalik, S., & Olsen, K. (1993). ITI: The model: Integrated thematic instruction. United States: S. Kovalik & Associates.
  25. Lasagabaster, D., & Doiz, A. (2015). A Longitudinal Study on the Impact of CLIL on Affective Factors. Applied Linguistics. doi:10.1093/applin/amv05910.1093/applin/amv059
  26. Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. M. (2009). Immersion and CLIL in English: More differences than similarities. ELT Journal, 64(4), 367-375. doi:10.1093/elt/ccp08210.1093/elt/ccp082
  27. Lo, Y. Y., & Jeong, H. (2018). Impact of genre-based pedagogy on students’ academic literacy development in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL). Linguistics and Education, 47, 36-46. doi:10.1016/j.linged.2018.08.00110.1016/j.linged.2018.08.001
  28. Madrid, D., & Barrios, E. (2018). A Comparison of Students’ Educational Achievement across Programmes and School Types with and without CLIL Provision. Porta Linguarum: Revista Internacional De Didáctica De Las Lenguas Extranjeras, (29), 29-50.10.30827/Digibug.54021
  29. Mattheoudakis, M., Alexiou, T., & Laskaridou, C. (2014). To CLIL or Not to CLIL? The Case of the 3rd Experimental Primary School in Evosmos. Major Trends in Theoretical and Applied Linguistics Volume 3. doi:10.2478/9788376560915.p1310.2478/9788376560915.p13
  30. Mensel, L. V., Hiligsmann, P., Mettewie, L., & Galand, B. (2020). CLIL, an elitist language learning approach? A background analysis of English and Dutch CLIL pupils in French-speaking Belgium. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 33(1), 1-14. doi:10.1080/07908318.2019.157107810.1080/07908318.2019.1571078
  31. Merino, J. A., & Lasagabaster, D. (2017). The effect of content and language integrated learning programmes’ intensity on English proficiency: A longitudinal study. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 28(1), 18-30. doi:10.1111/ijal.1217710.1111/ijal.12177
  32. Moghadam, N. Z., & Fatemipour, H. (2014). The Effect of CLIL on Vocabulary Development by Iranian Secondary School EFL Learners. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 2004-2009. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.63510.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.635
  33. Morton, T., & Llinares, A. (2016). Students’ use of evaluative language in L2 English to talk and write about history in a bilingual education programme. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21(4), 496-508. doi:10.1080/13670050.2016.119210110.1080/13670050.2016.1192101
  34. Myskow, G., & Ono, M. (2018). A matter of facts: L2 writers’ use of evidence and evaluation in biographical essays. Journal of Second Language Writing, 41, 55-70. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2018.08.00210.1016/j.jslw.2018.08.002
  35. Nieto Moreno de Diezmas, E. (2016). The impact of CLIL on the acquisition of L2 competences and skills in primary education. International Journal of English Studies, 16(2), 81-101. https://doi.org/10.6018/ijes/2016/2/23961110.6018/ijes/2016/2/239611
  36. Nieto-Moreno de Diezmas, E. (2018a). The Acquisition of L2 Listening Comprehension Skills In Primary And Secondary Education Settings: A Comparison Between Clil And Non-Clil Student Performance. RLA. Revista De Lingüística Teórica Y Aplicada, 56(2), 13-34. doi:10.4067/s0718-4883201800020001310.4067/S0718-48832018000200013
  37. Nieto-Moreno-de-Diezmas, E. (2018). Acquisition of reading comprehension in L1 in bilingual programmes of Primary Education. A comparative study. Ocnos, 17 (1), 43-54. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.18239/ocnos_2018.17.1.147110.18239/ocnos_2018.17.1.1471
  38. Nikula, T. (2016). CLIL: A European Approach to Bilingual Education. Second and Foreign Language Education, 1-14. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-02323-6_10-110.1007/978-3-319-02323-6_10-1
  39. Ortega, L. (2015). Researching CLIL and TBLT interfaces. System, 54, 103-109. doi:10.1016/j.system.2015.09.00210.1016/j.system.2015.09.002
  40. Otwinowska, A., & Foryś, M. (2015). They learn the CLIL way, but do they like it? Affectivity and cognition in upper-primary CLIL classes. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 20(5), 457-480. doi:10.1080/13670050.2015.105194410.1080/13670050.2015.1051944
  41. Pastrana, A., Llinares, A., & Pascual, I. (2017). Students’ language use for co-construction of knowledge in CLIL group-work activities: A comparison with L1 settings. Zeitschrift Für Erziehungswissenschaft, 21(1), 49-70. doi:10.1007/s11618-017-0802-y10.1007/s11618-017-0802-y
  42. Pérez-Cañado, M. & Basse, R. (2015). Analysing Errors of CLIL and non-CLIL Primary School Students in their Written and Oral Productions: A Comparative Study. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 173, 11-17. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.02.02310.1016/j.sbspro.2015.02.023
  43. Pérez-Cañado, M. L. (2017). The effects of CLIL on L1 and content learning: Updated empirical evidence from monolingual contexts. Learning and Instruction, 57, 18-33. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.12.00210.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.12.002
  44. Pérez-Cañado, M. L. (2018). CLIL and Educational Level: A Longitudinal Study on the Impact of CLIL on Language Outcomes. Porta Linguarum, 29(January), 51–70.10.30827/Digibug.54022
  45. Pérez-Cañado, M. L. (2018a). CLIL and pedagogical innovation: Fact or fiction? International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 28(3), 369-390. doi:10.1111/ijal.1220810.1111/ijal.12208
  46. Pérez-Vidal, C., & Roquet, H. (2015). The linguistic impact of a CLIL Science programme: An analysis measuring relative gains. System, 54, 80-90. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2015.05.00410.1016/j.system.2015.05.004
  47. Pladevall-Ballester, E., & Vallbona, A. (2016). CLIL in minimal input contexts: A longitudinal study of primary school learners’ receptive skills. System, 58, 37-48. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2016.02.00910.1016/j.system.2016.02.009
  48. Pokrivčáková, S. (2015). CLIL in Slovakia: Projects, research, and teacher training (2005-2015). CLIL in Foreign Language Education: E-textbook for Foreign Language Teachers, 17-29. doi:10.17846/clil.2015.17-2910.17846/CLIL.2015.17-29
  49. Prieto-Arranz J.I., Rallo Fabra L., Calafat-Ripoll C., Catrain-González M. (2015) Testing Progress on Receptive Skills in CLIL and Non-CLIL Contexts. In: Juan-Garau M., Salazar-Noguera J. (eds) Content-based Language Learning in Multilingual Educational Environments. Educational Linguistics, vol 23. 123-137, doi:10.1007/978-3-319-11496-5_810.1007/978-3-319-11496-5_8
  50. Roquet, H., Llopis, J., & Pérez-Vidal, C. (2015). Does gender have an impact on the potential benefits learners may achieve in two contexts compared: Formal instruction and formal instruction + content and language integrated learning? International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 19(4), 370-386. doi:10.1080/13670050.2014.99238910.1080/13670050.2014.992389
  51. Salamanca, C., & Montoya, S. I. (2018). Using CLIL Approach to Improve English Language in a Colombian Higher Educational Institution. English Language Teaching, 11(11), 19. doi:10.5539/elt.v11n11p1910.5539/elt.v11n11p19
  52. Schmitt, N., Schmitt, D. & Clapham, C. (2001). Developing and exploring the behavior of two new versions of the Vocabulary Level Test. Language Testing, 18(1), 55–88.10.1177/026553220101800103
  53. Schroll, J. B., Moustgaard, R., & Gøtzsche, P. C. (2011). Dealing with substantial heterogeneity in Cochrane reviews. Cross-sectional study. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 11(1), 22. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-11-2210.1186/1471-2288-11-22
  54. Sepešiová, M. (2019). New Perspectives in Pre-Service Teacher Training in CLIL via VLE. In C. Can, P. Patsala, & Z. Tatsioka (Eds.), Contemporary Means and Methods in ELT and Applied Lingustics (pp. 515-533). Tallin, Estonia: LIF - Language in Focus.
  55. Straková, Z. (2020). CLIL and Global Education: A Meaningful Match. SOCIETY. INTEGRATION. EDUCATION. Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference, 5, 546-557. doi:10.17770/sie2020vol5.481910.17770/sie2020vol5.4819
  56. Surmont, J., Struys, E., Noort, M. V., & Craen, P. V. (2016). The effects of CLIL on mathematical content learning: A longitudinal study. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 6(2), 319-337. doi:10.14746/ssllt.2016.6.2.710.14746/ssllt.2016.6.2.7
  57. Sylvén, L. K. (2013). CLIL in Sweden – why does it not work? A metaperspective on CLIL across contexts in Europe. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16(3), 301-320. doi:10.1080/13670050.2013.77738710.1080/13670050.2013.777387
  58. Taillefer, G. (2013). CLIL in higher education: The (perfect?) crossroads of ESP and didactic reflection. ASp, (63), 31-53. doi:10.4000/asp.329010.4000/asp.3290
  59. Terrazas Gallego, M. & Agustín Llach, M. P. (2009). Exploring the increase of receptive vocabulary knowledge in the foreign language: A longitudinal study. International Journal of English Studies, 9(1), 113–133, Available at https://revistas.um.es/ijes/article/view/90681/87481
  60. Tzoannopoulou, M. (2015). Rethinking ESP: Integrating Content and Language in the University Classroom. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 173, 149-153. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.02.04510.1016/j.sbspro.2015.02.045
  61. Yang, Wen-hsien. (2016). ESP vs. CLIL: A coin of two sides or a continuum of two extremes?. ESP Today. 4(1). 43-68.
  62. Zarobe, Y. R. (2008). CLIL and Foreign Language Learning: A Longitudinal Study in the Basque Country. International CLIL Research Journal, 1(1), 60-73.
  63. Zarobe, Y. R. (2017). Improving reading strategy knowledge in young children: What self-report questionnaires can reveal. Elia, (17), 15-45. doi:10.12795/elia.2017.i17.0210.12795/elia.2017.i17.02
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/jolace-2020-0003 | Journal eISSN: 1339-4584 | Journal ISSN: 1339-4045
Language: English
Page range: 30 - 52
Published on: Nov 11, 2020
Published by: SlovakEdu, o.z.
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 3 issues per year

© 2020 Ivana Cimermanová, published by SlovakEdu, o.z.
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.