Examining the impact of amount of exposure on l2 development with CLIL and non-CLIL teenage students

  1. Saladrigues, Gemma
  2. Llanes, Àngels
Revista:
Sintagma: Revista de lingüística

ISSN: 0214-9141

Año de publicación: 2014

Volumen: 26

Páginas: 133-147

Tipo: Artículo

DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

Otras publicaciones en: Sintagma: Revista de lingüística

Resumen

Since the 1990�s there has been an increase of foreign language exposure in primary and secondary schools. One of the methodologies used is called CLIL, which has been developed since some years ago in different educational levels, with a good result in student�s second language acquisition. Many studies have been made on this field, but nearly all of them have focused on the language gains of CLIL vs. Non-CLIL students. Therefore, given the lack of studies made on the possible effects of L2 exposure, this paper aims to examine the effects of general L2 exposure vs. specific language exposure (through CLIL classes, namely technology classes in English). To do this, the study compares different groups of students with a different type and amount of language exposure measured in terms of written accuracy, lexical complexity, syntactic complexity and written fluency

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Ackerl, C. (2007).“Lexico-grammar in the essays of CLIL and non-CLIL students: error analysis of written produciton”, Views, 16, 3, 6-11.
  • Admiral, W., G. Westhoff and K. de Bot (2006). “Evaluation of bilingual secondary education in the Netherlands: student’s language proficiency in English”, Educational Research and Evaluation, 12, 1, 75-93.
  • Aguilar, M. and C. Muñoz (2014). “The effect of proficiency on CLIL benefits in Engineering students in Spain”, International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 24, 1 1-18.
  • Alonso, E., J. Grisaleña and A. Campo (2008). “Plurilingual education in secondary schools: analysis of results”, International CLIL Research Journal I, 1, 36-49.
  • Banegas, D. L. (2012). “Integrating content and language in English language teaching in secondary education: Models, benefits, and challenges”, Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 2: 1, 111-135.
  • Brecht, R., and J. Robinson. (1995). “On the value of formal instruction in study abroad: student reactions in context”. In B. Freed (ed.), Second Language Acquisition in a Study Abroad Context, 37–66. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Bret, A. (2011). Implementing CLIL in a Primary School in Spain: The Effects of CLIL on L2 English Learner’s Oral Production Skills. Unpublished MA thesis. Universitat de Barcelona.
  • Canga Alonso, A. (2013). “The receptive vocabulary of Spanish 6th-grade primaryschool students in CLIL instruction: a preliminary study”, Latin American Journal of Content and Language Integrated Learning, 6: 2, 22-41.
  • Celaya, M. L. and Y. Ruiz de Zarobe (2010). “First languages and age in CLIL and non- CLIL contexts”, International CLIL Research Journal, 1: 3, 60-66.
  • Coyle, D., P. Hood, and, D. Marsh (2010). CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Dalton-Puffer, C. and U. Smit (eds.) (2007). Empirical Perspectives in CLIL Classroom Discourse. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
  • Freed, B. (1995). “What makes us think that students who study abroad become fluent?”. In B. Freed (ed.), Second Language Acquisition in a Study Abroad Context, 123–148. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Gallardo del Puerto, F., E. Gómez Lacabex, and M. L. García Lecumberri. (2007). “The assessment of foreign accent by native and non-native judges”. In Y. Ruiz de Zarobe and R. M. Jiménez Catalán (eds.), Content and Language Integrated Learning. Evidence from Research in Europe, 63-80. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
  • Hüttner, J. and A. Rieder-Bünemann. (2007). “The effects of CLIL instruction on children’s narrative competence”, Views, 16: 3, 20-27.
  • Jiménez Catalán, R. M., Y. Ruiz de Zarobe, and J. Cenoz Iragui (2006). “Vocabulary profiles of English foreign language learners in English as a subject and as a vehicular language”, Views, 15: 3, 23-27.
  • Jiménez Catalán, R. M. and Y. Ruiz de Zarobe (2007). “Does the type of instruction have any bearing on EFL learner’s receptive vocabulary?”. Paper presented at the ELIA 10 Conference. University of Seville, Spain. Lasagabaster, D. (2011). “English achievement and student motivation in CLIL and EFL settings”, Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 5: 1, 3-18.
  • Llanes, À. (2012). “The impact of study abroad and age on L2 accuracy development”. In C. Muñoz (ed.), Intensive exposure experiences in second language learning, 193- 212. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
  • Llanes, À. and C. Muñoz (2013). “Age effects in a study abroad context: children and adults studying abroad and at home”, Language Learning, 63: 1, 63-90.
  • MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES Project: Tools for Analysing Talk, 3rd ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Mehisto, P., D. Marsh and M. J. Frigols (2008). Uncovering CLIL. Content and Language Integrated Learning in Bilingual and Multilingual Education. Oxford: Macmillan.
  • Muñoz, C. (2007). “CLIL: some thoughts on its psycholinguistic principles”, Revista española de lingüística aplicada, Número extraordinario 1, 17-26.
  • Muñoz, C. (ed.) (2012). Intensive exposure experiences in second language learning. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
  • Nation, I.S.P. (1990). Teaching and Learning vocabulary. New York: Newbury House.
  • Navés, T. and M. Victori (2010). “CLIL in Catalonia: an overview of research studies”. In D. Lasagabaster and Y. Ruiz de Zarobe. (eds.), CLIL in Spain: Implementation, results and teacher Training, 30-54. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
  • Nikula, T. (2005). “English as an object and tool of study in classrooms: interactional effects and pragmatic implications”, Language and Education, 16, 27-58.
  • Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (2008). “CLIL and foreign language learning: a longitudinal study in the Basque Country”, International CLIL Research Journal, 1: 1, 60 -93.
  • Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. and R. M. Jiménez Catalán (eds.) (2009a). Content and Language Integrated Learning. Evidence from Research in Europe. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
  • Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. and R. M. Jiménez Catalán (2009b). “The receptive vocabulary of EFL learners in two instructional contexts: CLIL versus non-CLIL instruction”. In Y. Ruiz de Zarobe and R. M. Jiménez Catalán (eds.), Content and Language Integrated Learning. Evidence form Research in Europe, 81-92. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
  • Seikkula-Leino, J. (2007). “CLIL learning: achievement levels and affective factors”, Language and Education, 21: 4, 328-341.
  • Skehan, P. (1998). A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Tavakoli, P. and P. Foster. (2011). “Task design and second language performance: the effect of narrative type on learner output”, Language Learning, 61: 1, 37-72.
  • Villarreal, I. (2011). Tense and agreement in the non-native English of Basque-Spanish bilinguals: content and language integrated learners vs. English as a school subject learners. Doctoral Dissertation. Universidad del País Vasco.
  • Villarreal, I. and M. P. García Mayo (2009). “Tense and agreement morphology in the interlanguage of Basque/Spanish bilinguals: CLIL versus non-CLIL”. In Y. Ruiz de Zarobe and R. M. Jiménez Catalán (eds.), Content and Language Integrated Learning. Evidence from research in Europe: 157-175. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
  • Wolfe-Quintero, K., S. Inagaki and H. Y. Kim (eds.) (1988). Second Language Development in Writing: Measure of Fluency, Accuracy and Complexity. Technical Report 17. Manoa, HA: University of Hawai’i Press.
  • Yip, D. Y., W. K. Tsang and S. P. Cheung (2003). “Evaluation of the effects of medium of instruction on the science learning of Hong Kong secondary students: Performance on the science achievement test”, Bilingual Research Journal, 27: 2, 295-331.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet