Empirical research on CLIL

Teresa Navés tnaves@ub.edu

BAF data Miret & Navés CLIL vs EFL

5 Prim 1er ESO 3er ESO 4rt ESO

Listening NS NS CLIL CLIL

Dictation CLIL CLIL CLIL CLIL

Cloze CLIL CLIL CLIL CLIL

Grammar CLIL CLIL CLIL CLIL

BAF data Miret & Navés

CLIL

EFL

5P CLIL

1S EFL

1S CLIL

3S EFL

1S CLIL

4S EFL

3S CLIL

4S EFL

Listening EFL NS NS CLIL

Dictation NS NS NS CLIL

Cloze EFL NS NS CLIL

Grammar EFL NS NS CLIL

Ruiz de

Zarobe (in

press)

 SECONDARY 3

 SECONDARY 4

PRE-UNIVERSITY(Baccalaureate)

 NUMBER OFSTUDENTS

 Non-CLIL: 29 CLIL 1: 24 CLIL2: 36

 Non-CLIL: 18

CLIL 1: 16CLIL2: 17

 Non-CLIL: 7

CLIL 1: XCLIL2: 14

 

AGE WHENDATA

COLLECTION

 14-15

 15-16

 17-18

  

HOURSOF

INSTRUCTION

  

Non-CLIL: 695CLIL 1: 875CLIL2: 910

  

Non-CLIL: 792 CLIL 1: 1120CLIL2: 1155

  

Non-CLIL: 990CLIL 1: XXXCLIL2: 1453

Ruiz de Zarobe (in press)Overall speech production depending on education approach

ContentFluencyGrammarVocabularyPronunciation

8,0

6,0

4,0

2,0

0,0

7,26,96,86,8

6,06,56,26,26,4

5,66,0

5,55,25,35,2

CLIL2

CLIL1

NON CLIL

Ruiz de Zarobe (in press)Speech production: Secondary 3

ContentFluencyGrammarVocabularyPronunciation

8,0

6,0

4,0

2,0

0,0

7,26,66,66,26,2

7,06,4,66,6

5,9

5,14,5

4,04,4

5,0

CLIL2

CLIL1

NON CLIL

Ruiz de Zarobe (in press)Speech production: Secondary 4

ContentFluencyGrammarVocabularyPronunciation

8,0

6,0

4,0

2,0

0,0

7,56,96,96,9

5,9 6,26,16,16,4

5,5

7,26,96,86,3

5,1

CLIL2

CLIL1

NON CLIL

Ruiz de Zarobe (in press)Speech production: Speech production:

Pre-University Level

ContentFluencyGrammarVocabularyPronunciation

8,0

6,0

4,0

2,0

0,0

7,07,37,07,4

5,96,7

6,36,16,36,3

CLIL2

NON CLIL

Villarreal Olaizola & García Mayo (in press)

Table 1: Participating schools and number of students

Group Name SchoolNumber

of Students

English hours at school

CLILExtra-English

classes

CLIL group

AR 15 1155 yes yes

AL 12 1120 yes yes

Non-CLIL group GL 29 792 no none

Villarreal Olaizola & García Mayo (in press)

Table 2: Number and percentage of omission of inflection in obligatory contexts

  CLIL GROUP NON-CLIL GROUP

MorphemesNumber of omission

Percentage of omission

Number of omission

Percentage of omission

3rd sing. –s 82/185 44,32% 161/218 73,85%

Past tense –ed 56/136 41,17% 26/41 63,41%

BE auxiliary 2/77 2,59% 3/96 3,12%

BE copula 1/145 0,68% 3/137 2,18%

All inflection 141/543 25,96% 193/492 39,22%

 

Villarreal Olaizola & García Mayo (in press)

Table 3: Number and percentage of errors of inflection in obligatory contexts

 

  CLIL GROUP NON-CLIL GROUP

MorphemesNumber of

errorsPercentage of

errorsNumber of

errorsPercentage of

errors

3rd sing. –s 2/185 1,08% 2/218 0,91%

BE auxiliary 0/77 0% 2/96 2,08%

BE copula 2/145 1,37% 6/137 4,37%

All inflection 4/407 0.98% 10/451 2,21%

 

Lasagabaster (2008)

Lasagabaster (2008)

Lasagabaster & Sierra (2008)

Lasagabaster & Sierra (2008)

Figure 1. Attitudes towards English among SE3 students.

Lasagabaster & Sierra (2008)

Lasagabaster & Sierra (2008)

Lasagabaster & Sierra (2008)

REFERENCES

• Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (in press) CLIL and Foreign Language Learning: A longitudinal study in the Basque Country. International CLIL Research Journal (eds. Dieter Wolff and David Marsh). CLIL Cascade Network.

• Tense and Agreement Morphology in the Interlanguage of Basque/Spanish Bilinguals: CLIL vs. non-CLIL by Izaskun Villarreal Olaizola & María del Pilar García Mayo

• Foreign Language Competence in Content and Language Integrated Courses by David Lasagabaster The Open Applied Linguistics Journal, 2008, 1, 31-42

• Language attitudes in CLIL and traditional EFL classes by David Lasagabaster and Juan Manuel Sierra

• Navés, T. (In press). Effective Content and Language Integrated Programmes. Content and Language Integrated Learning: Evidence from Research in Europe. Y. Ruiz de Zarobe. Clevedon, Multilingual Matters.