The impact of additional CLIL exposure on oral english production

  1. Gallardo del Puerto, Francisco 1
  2. Gómez Lacabex, Esther 2
  1. 1 Universidad de Cantabria
    info

    Universidad de Cantabria

    Santander, España

    ROR https://ror.org/046ffzj20

  2. 2 Universidad del País Vasco/Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea
    info

    Universidad del País Vasco/Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea

    Lejona, España

    ROR https://ror.org/000xsnr85

Revista:
Journal of English Studies

ISSN: 1576-6357

Año de publicación: 2013

Número: 11

Páginas: 113-131

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.18172/JES.2620 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

Otras publicaciones en: Journal of English Studies

Objetivos de desarrollo sostenible

Resumen

This study aims at testing the effectiveness of additional CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning) exposure on the oral production of secondary school learners of English as a Foreign Language. CLIL learners, who had received a 30% increase in exposure by means of using English as a vehicular language, were compared to mainstream English students in a story-telling task. Analyses indicated that CLIL learners� productions were holistically perceived to exhibit better fluency, lexis and grammar while no differences were found as regards content and pronunciation. Besides, although Non-CLIL learners� productions were larger in quantity and longer in time, CLIL learners produced denser and more fluent narrations, as attested by their higher number of different words over total number of words, of words over turn, and of utterances over turn. Additionally, CLIL learners resorted to their first language to a lesser extent and demanded fewer vocabulary clarifications. Our findings thus go along with previous research which has revealed advantages of additional CLIL exposure on oral English production.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Ackerl, C. 2007. “Lexico-Grammar in the Essays of CLIL and non-CLIL Students: Error Analysis of Written Production”. VIEWZ Vienna English Working Papers 16 (3): 6-11.
  • Arzamendi, J. and F. Genesee 1997. “Reflections on immersion education in the Basque Country”. Immersion Education: International Perspectives. Eds. R. K. Johnson and M. Swain. Cambridge: C.U.P. 151-165.
  • Block, D. 2003. The Social Turn in Second Language Acquisition. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
  • Bürgi, H. 2007. Im Sprachbad. Besseres Englisch durch Immersion. Eine Evaluation zweisprachiger Ausbildungsgänge an drei kantonalen Gymnasien in der Schweiz. Bern: H.E.P.
  • Cenoz, J. 2003. “The influence of age on the acquisition of English: General proficiency, attitudes and code-mixing. Age and the Acquisition of English as a Foreign Language. Eds. M. P. García Mayo and M. L. García Lecumberri. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. 74-93.
  • Dalton-Puffer, C. 2008. “Outcomes and processes in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL): Current research from Europe”. Future Perspectives for English Language Teaching. Eds. W. Delanoy and L. Volkmann. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.
  • Dalton-Puffer, C. 2009 “Communicative competence and the CLIL lesson”. Content and Language Integrated Learning: Evidence from Research in Europe. Eds. Y. Ruiz de Zarobe and R. M. Jiménez Catalán. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. 197-214.
  • Dalton-Puffer, C. 2011. “Content-and-Language Integrated Learning: From Practice to Principles?” Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 31: 182-204.
  • Dalton-Puffer, C., Huettner, J., Schindelegger, V. and U. Smit. 2009. “Technology-geeks speak out: what students think about vocational CLIL”. International CLIL Research Journal 1 (2): 17-26.
  • Dalton-Puffer, C., Nikula, T. and U. Smit, eds. 2010. Language Use and Language Learning in CLIL Classrooms. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Fullana, N. 2006. “The development of English (FL) perception and production skills: Starting age and exposure effects”. Age and Rate of Foreign Language Learning. Ed. C. Muñoz. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. 41-60.
  • Gallardo del Puerto, F. 2005. La Adquisición de la Pronunciación del Inglés como Tercera Lengua. Leioa: Universidad del País Vasco.
  • Gallardo del Puerto, F. 2007. “On the Effectiveness of Early Foreign Language Instruction in School Contexts”. Fremdsprachenkompetenzen für ein Wachsendes Europa: Das Leitziel Multiliteralität. Eds. D. Elsner, L. Küster and B. Viebrock. Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang. 215-229.
  • Gallardo del Puerto, F., Gómez Lacabex, E. and M. L. García Lecumberri. 2009. “Testing the effectiveness of content and language integrated learning in foreign language contexts: the assessment of English pronunciation”. Content and Language Integrated Learning: Evidence from Research in Europe. Eds. Y. Ruiz de Zarobe and R. M. Jiménez Catalán. 2009. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. 63-80.
  • García Lecumberri, M. L. and F. Gallardo 2003. “English FL sounds in school learners of different ages”. Age and the Acquisition of English as a foreign Language. Eds. M. P. García Mayo & M. L. García Lecumberri. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. 115-135.
  • García Mayo, M. P. and M. L. García Lecumberri, eds. 2003. Age and the Acquisition of English as a Foreign Language. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
  • Gass, S. M. and E. M Varonis. 1991. “Miscommunication in nonnative speaker discourse”. Miscommunication and Problematic Talk Eds. N. Coupland, H. Giles and J. M. Wiemann. Newbury Park: Sage Publications. 121-145.
  • Genesee, F. 1987. Learning through two Languages: Studies of Immersion and Bilingual Education. Rowley, Mass: Newbury House.
  • Hüttner, J. and A. Rieder-Bunneman. 2007. “The Effect of CLIL Instruction on Children’s Narrative Competence”. VIEWZ Vienna English Working Papers 16 (3): 20-27.
  • Jenkins, J. 2000. The Phonology of English as an Internacional Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Jimenez Catalán, R. M. and J. Ojeda. 2009. “Disponibilidad Léxica en Inglés como Lengua Extranjera en Dos Tipos de Instrucción”. Lenguaje y Textos 30: 167-178.
  • Jiménez Catalán, R. M. and Y. Ruiz de Zarobe. (2009) “The Receptive Vocabulary of EFL learners in Two Instructional Contexts: CLIL vs. Non-CLIL Instruction”. Content and Language Integrated Learning: Evidence from Research in Europe. Eds. Y. Ruiz de Zarobe and R. M. Jiménez Catalán. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. 81-92.
  • Jiménez Catalán, R. M., Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. and J. Cenoz. 2006. “Vocabulary Profiles of English Foreign Language Learners in English as a Subject and as a Vehicular Language”. VIEWS: Vienna English Working Papers (Special Issue: Current Research on CLIL 1) 15 (3): 23-27.
  • Lasagabaster, D. 2008. “Foreign language competence in content and language integrated courses”. The Open Applied Linguistics Journal 1: 31-42.
  • Lasagabaster, D. 2009 “The Implementation of CLIL and Attitudes towards Trilingualism”. ITL, International Review of Applied Linguistics 159: 23-45.
  • Lasagabaster, D. and Y. Ruiz de Zarobe. 2010. CLIL in Spain: Implementation, Results and Teacher Training. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.
  • Lasagabaster, D. and J. M. Sierra. 2009. “Language Attitudes in CLIL and Traditional EFL Classes”. International CLIL Research Journal 2: 4-17.
  • Lenneberg, E. H. 1967. Biological Foundations of Language. New York: Wiley.
  • Levis, J. M. 2005. “Changing contexts and shifting paradigms in pronunciation teaching”. TESOL Quarterly 39 (3): 369-377.
  • Long, M. H. 1990. “Maturational Constraints on Language Development”. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 12: 251-185.
  • Marsh, D. 1994. Bilingual Education and Content and Language Integrated Learning. International Association for Cross-cultural Communication, Language Teaching in the Member States of the European Union (Lingua). Paris: University of Sorbonne.
  • Marsh, D. 2009. “Foreword”. Content and Language Integrated Learning: Evidence from Research in Europe. Eds. Y. Ruiz de Zarobe and R. M. Jiménez Catalán. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
  • Marsh, D., Mehisto, P., Wolff, D., Aliaga, R., Asikainen, T., Frigols-Martin, M. J., Hughes, S. and G. Langé. 2009. CLIL Practice: Perspectives from the Field. Jyväskylä (Finland): CCN, University of Jyväskyla.
  • Martínez Adrián, M. and J. Gutierrez Mangado. 2009. “The acquisition of English syntax by CLIL learners”. Content and Language Integrated Learning: Evidence from Research in Europe. Eds. Y. Ruiz de Zarobe and R. M. Jiménez Catalán. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. 176-196.
  • Mayer, M. 1969. Frog, where are you? New York: Penguin.
  • McKee, G., Malvern, D. and B. Richards. 2000. “Measuring Vocabulary Diversity Using Dedicated Software”. Literary and Linguistic Computing 15: 323-337.
  • Met, M. 1994. “Teaching content through a second language”. Educating Second Language Children: The Whole Child, The whole Curriculum, the Whole Community. Ed. F. Genesee. Cambridge: C.U.P. 151-182.
  • Moreno Espinosa, S. 2009. “Young Learners’ L2 Word Association Responses in Two Different Learning Contexts”. Content and Language Integrated Learning: Evidence from Research in Europe. Eds. Y. Ruiz de Zarobe and R. M. Jiménez Catalán. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. 93-111.
  • Munro, M. J. 2008. “Foreign accent and speech intelligibility”. Phonology and Second Language Acquisition. Eds. J. G. Hansen Edwards and M. L. Zampini. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 193-218.
  • Muñoz, C. 2003. “Los avances canadienses en la enseñanza de segundas lenguas: Reflexiones sobre nuestra situación”. Anuari de Filología 25 (12): 1-20.
  • Muñoz, C, ed. 2006. Age and Rate of Foreign Language Learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters
  • Navés, T. 2011. “How Promising are the Results of Integrating Content and Language for EFL Writing and Overall EFL Proficiency?” Content and Foreign Language Integrated Learning: Contributions to Multilingualism from European Contexts. Eds. Y. Ruiz de Zarobe, J. M. Sierra and F. Gallardo del Puerto. Bern: Peter Lang. 155-186.
  • Quijada, J. A. (1997). “Explicit teaching of English pronunciation to Spanish school children”. New Sounds 97: Proceedings of the 1997 Amsterdam Symposium on the Acquisition of Second Language Speech. Eds. J. Leather and A. James. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam. 266-275.
  • Rallo Fabra, L. and M. Juan-Garau. 2010. “Intelligibility and foreign accentedness in a Context-and–Language–Integrated-Learning (CLIL) setting”. New Sounds 2010: Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium on the Acquisition of Second Language Speech. Poznan (Poland): Federal Adam Mickiewicz University.
  • Ruiz Zarobe, Y. 2007. “CLIL in a bilingual community: similarities and differences with the learning of English as a foreign language”. Paper presented at CLIL Symposium. Vienna. 20-22.
  • Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. 2008. “CLIL and Foreign Language Learning: A Longitudinal Study in the Basque Country”. International CLIL Research Journal 1 (1): 60-73.
  • Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. 2010. “Written Production and CLIL: An Empirical Study”. Language Use and Language Learning in CLIL Classrooms. Eds. C. Dalton-Puffer, T. Nikula and U. Smit. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 191-212.
  • Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. 2011. “Which Language Competences Benefit from CLIL? An Insight into Applied Linguistics Research”. Content and Foreign Language Integrated Learning: Contributions to Multilingualism from European Contexts. Eds. Y. Ruiz de Zarobe, J. M. Sierra and F. Gallardo del Puerto. Bern: Peter Lang. 129-153.
  • Ruiz de Zarobe Y. and R. M. Jiménez Catalán, eds. 2009. Content and Language Integrated Learning: Evidence from Research in Europe. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
  • Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. Sierra, J. M. and F. Gallardo del Puerto, eds. 2011. Content and Foreign Language Integrated Learning: Contributions to Multilingualism from European Contexts. Bern: Peter Lang.
  • Scovel, T. 1988. A Time to Speak. A Psycholinguistic Inquiry into the Critical Period for Human Speech. Cambridge, MA: Newbury House.
  • Smit, U. 2007. “Introduction”. Eds. U. Smit and C. Dalton-Puffer. Current research on CLIL 2. Special issue of VIEWS Vienna English Working Papers 16 (3): 3-5.
  • Snow, M. A. 1990. “Language immersion: An overview and comparison”. Foreign Language Education: Issues and Strategies. Eds. A. Padilla, H. H. Fairchild and C. M. Valadez. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 109-126.
  • Sylvén, L. K. 2004. Teaching in English or English teaching? On the effects of content and language integrated learning on Swedish learners' incidental vocabulary acquisition. PhD thesis. Göteborg: Göteborg University.
  • Sylvén, L. K. 2006. “How is Extramural exposure to English among Swedish School Students Used in the CLIL Classroom”. VIEWZ Vienna English Working Papers (Special Issue: Current Research on CLIL) 15 (3): 47-54.
  • Van de Craen, P., Mondt, K., Allain L. and Y. Gao. 2007. “Why and how CLIL works: An Outline for a CLIL theory”. VIEWZ Vienna English Working Papers (Special Issue: Current Research on CLIL 2) 16 (3): 70-78.
  • Villarreal I. and M. P. García Mayo. 2009. “Tense and Agreement Morphology in the Interlanguage of Basque/Spanish Bilinguals: CLIL vs. Non-CLIL”. Content and Language Integrated Learning: Evidence from Research in Europe. Eds. Y. Ruiz de Zarobe and R. M. Jiménez Catalán. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. 157-175.
  • Whittaker, R. and A. Llinares. 2009. “CLIL in Social Science Classrooms: Analysis of Spoken and Written Productions”. Content and Language Integrated Learning: Evidence from Research in Europe. Eds. Y. Ruiz de Zarobe and R. M. Jiménez Catalán. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. 215-234.
  • Xanthou, M. 2007. “Current Trends in L2 Vocabulary Learning and Instruction. Is CLIL the Right Approach?” Paper presented at the 14th International Conference of the Greek Applied Linguistics Association, 14-16 December, Thessaloniki, Greece.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet