Abstract
Although research on content and language integrated learning (CLIL) has shown that CLIL instruction may enhance students’ second or foreign language learning compared to regular foreign language instruction, there are also studies that have indicated similar language development between CLIL and non-CLIL students. However, CLIL can be organized and implemented in many different ways and thus, it is necessary to identify the specific features of various CLIL contexts when comparing learning outcomes. In this study, CLIL implementation at three Swedish upper secondary schools was explored and compared. Further, students’ development of second language (L2) English productive academic vocabulary was compared over three years between CLIL groups at different schools as well as between CLIL and non-CLIL groups ( n = 230), using corpus-based methods. The results revealed significant differences in the progression of L2 academic vocabulary between CLIL groups that may be attributed to substantial differences in CLIL implementation, e.g. with regard to the time allotted for CLIL, teacher availability and the balance between first language (L1) and L2. At the school where the CLIL group’s L2 productive academic vocabulary progressed more than in other groups, both Swedish and English were languages of instruction, increasing the proportion of English over the three years; in the third year, English dominated as the language of instruction. The results indicated similar development of L2 academic vocabulary between CLIL and non-CLIL groups when CLIL implementation was very limited in scale and scope. Further, the results showed that apart from vocabulary, CLIL teachers of non-language subjects generally paid very little attention to other aspects of language.
Highlights
As the global use of English is expanding, proficiency in academic English is often a prerequisite for success in higher education and many professions, in countries where English is a native language, and elsewhere (Corson, 1997; Cummins, 2008; Doiz, Lasagabaster & Sierra, 2011; Norton, 1997; Nunan, 2003)
The analysis of the content and language integrated learning (CLIL) implementation at the three schools is presented followed by the analysis of productive academic vocabulary
The stage of the analysis explored if the increase in academic vocabulary was stronger in any of the CLIL groups than in the others, and if any of the CLIL groups progressed more than the non-CLIL group
Summary
As the global use of English is expanding, proficiency in academic English is often a prerequisite for success in higher education and many professions, in countries where English is a native language, and elsewhere (Corson, 1997; Cummins, 2008; Doiz, Lasagabaster & Sierra, 2011; Norton, 1997; Nunan, 2003). Educational initiatives for enhanced L2 learning are often called for, not least concerning academic language proficiency. One such initiative is content and language integrated learning (CLIL) where the teaching of an L2 and various school subjects is integrated (see, for example, Cenoz, Genesee & Gorter, 2014; Marsh, 2002)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
