Keywords
vocabulary
L2 English
L2 French
productive and receptive levels tests
How to Cite
Number of views: 1138
Number of downloads: 949
Abstract
Content and language integrated learning (CLIL) has expanded in Europe, favored by the large body of research, often showing positive effects of CLIL on L2 development. However, critical voices have recently questioned whether these positive findings apply to any language, given that most research focuses on English. Taking into account this concern, the present study investigated the (productive and receptive) vocabulary development in L2 English and L2 French of the same group of learners within a CLIL context. The aim was not to evaluate the benefits of CLIL over non-CLIL, but, instead, to examine whether vocabulary gains in CLIL learning are language-dependent. More specifically, this study included 75 Flemish eight-grade pupils who had CLIL lessons in both English and French. The results show that although the pupils have a larger English vocabulary, the level of improvement (from pretest to posttest) is not different across the languages. The findings indicate that within CLIL vocabulary knowledge also develops in languages other than English.
References
Ackerl, C. (2007). Lexico-grammar in the essays of CLIL and non-CLIL students: Error analysis of written production. Vienna English Working Papers, 16, 6-11.
Admiraal, W., Westhoff, G., & de Bot, K. (2006). Evaluation of bilingual secondary education in the Netherlands: Students’ language proficiency in English. Educational Research and Evaluation, 12, 75-93.
Adolphs, S., & Schmitt, N. (2003). Lexical coverage of spoken discourse. Applied Linguistics, 24, 425-438.
Aguilar, M., & Muñoz, C. (2014). The effect of proficiency on CLIL benefits in Engineering Students in Spain. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 24, 1-18.
Alonso, E., Grisaleña, J., & Campo, A. (2008). Plurilingual education in secondary schools: Analysis of results. International CLIL Journal, 1, 36-49.
Banegas, D. L. (2011). Content and language integrated learning in Argentina 2008 - 2011. Latin American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning, 4, 33-50.
Batista, R. (2014). A Receptive Vocabulary Knowledge Test for French Learners with Academic Reading Goals. Montreal, Quebec: Concordia University.
Berthele, R., & Vanhove, J. (2020). What would disprove interdependence? Lessons learned from a study on biliteracy in Portuguese heritage language speakers in Switzerland. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 23, 550-566
Bollen, K., & Baten, K. (2010). Bilingual education in Flanders: Policy and press debate (1999-2006). Modern Language Journal, 94, 412-433.
Breidbach, S., & Viebrock, B. (2012). CLIL in Germany: Results from recent research in a contested field of education. International CLIL Research Journal, 1(4). http://www.icrj.eu/14/article1.html
Bruton, A. (2011). Are the differences between CLIL and non-CLIL groups in Andalusia due to CLIL? A reply to Lorenzo, Casal and Moore (2010). International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 32, 236-241.
Brysbaert, M., Stevens, M., Mandera, P., & Keuleers, E. (2016). How many words do we know? Practical estimates of vocabulary size dependent on word definition, the degree of language input and the participant’s age. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1116.
Bulon, A., Hendrikx, I., Meunier, F., & Van Goethem, K. (2017). Using global complexity measures to assess second language proficiency: Comparing CLIL and non-CLIL learners of English and Dutch in French-speaking Belgium. Papers of the Linguistic Society of Belgium, 11, 1-25.
Buyl, A., & Housen, A. (2014). Factors, processes and outcomes of early immersion education in the Francophone community in Belgium. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 17, 178-196.
Cenoz, J., Genesee, F., & Gorter, D. (2014). Critical analysis of CLIL: Taking stock and looking forward. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 35, 243-262.
Chopey-Paquet, M. (2007). CLIL in Belgium (French-Speaking). In A. Maljers, D. Marsh, & D. Wolff (Eds), Windows on CLIL. Content and Language Integrated Learning in the European spotlight (pp. 25-32). Den Haag: European Platform for Dutch Education.
Coyle, D. (2007). Content and language integrated learning: Towards a connected research agenda for CLIL pedagogies. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10, 543-562.
Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge University Press.
Coyle, D., Van Dusen-Scholl, N., & Hornberger, N. (2008). CLIL: A pedagogical approach from the European perspective. Encyclopedia of language and education (pp. 97-111). New York: Springer.
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2008). Outcomes and processes in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL): Current research from Europe. In W. Delanoy & L. Volkmann (Eds.), Future perspectives for English language teaching (pp. 139-157). Heidelberg: Carl Winter.
Dalton-Puffer, C., Nikula, T. & Smit, U. (2010). Language use and language learning in CLIL Classrooms. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
de Graaff, R., Koopman, G. J., Anikina, J., & Westhoff, G. (2007). An observation tool for effective L2 pedagogy in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL). International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10, 603-624.
De Smet, A., Mettewie, L., Galand, B., Hiligsmann, P., & Van Mensel, L. (2018). Classroom anxiety and enjoyment in CLIL and non-CLIL: Does the target language matter? Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 8, 47-72
De Vlaamse Regering. (2014). Besluit van de Vlaamse regering tot bepaling van de kwaliteitsstandaard voor Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) in het gewoon secundair onderwijs en de leertijd en aanwijzingen van de bevoegde dienst voor de goedkeuring van de CLIL-plannen. http://data-onderwijs.vlaanderen.be/edulex/document.aspx?docid=14721
Dewaele, J.-M. (2005). Sociodemographic, psychological and politicocultural correlates in Flemish students’ attitudes towards French and English. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 26(2), 118-137.
De Wilde, V., Brysbaert, M., & Eyckmans, J. (2019). Learning English through out-of-school exposure. Which levels of language proficiency are attained and which types of input are important? Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 23(1), 171-185.
EACEA. (2012). Key data on teaching languages at school in Europe. http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/documents/key_data_series/143en.pdf
Elgort, I., Brysbaert, M., Stevens, M., & Van Assche, E. (2018). Contextual word learning during reading in a second language: An eye-movement study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40, 341-366.
Ellis, N. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing: A review with Implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 143-188.
Fitzmaurice, G. M., Laird, N. M., & Ware, J. H. (2004). Applied longitudinal analysis. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Gassner, D., & Maillat, D. (2006). Spoken competence in CLIL: A pragmatic take on recent Swiss data. Vienna English Working Papers, 15, 15-22.
Gierlinger, E. M. (2017). Teaching CLIL? Yes, but with a pinch of SALT. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 5, 187-213.
Goethals, M. (1997). English in Flanders (Belgium). World Englishes, 16, 105-114.
Housen, A., Janssens, S., & Pierrars, M. (2001). Frans en Engels als vreemde talen in Vlaamse scholen. Brussel: VUBPRESS.
Hulstijn, J. H. (2003). Incidental and intentional learning. In C. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 349-381). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Hulstijn, J. H. (2010). Measuring second language proficiency. In E. Blom & S. Unsworth (Eds.), Experimental methods in language acquisition research (pp. 185-200). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Jexenflicker, S., & Dalton-Puffer, C. (2010). Comparing the writings of CLIL and non-CLIL students in higher colleges of technology. In C. Dalton-Puffer, T. Nikula, & U. Smit (Eds), Language use and language learning in CLIL classrooms (pp. 169-189). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Jiménez Catalàn, R. M., Ruiz de Zarobe, Y., & Cenoz, J. (2006). Vocabulary profiles of English foreign language learners in English as a subject and as a vehicular language. Vienna English Working Papers (VIEWS), 15, 23-27.
Kremmel, B., & Schmitt, N. (2018). Vocabulary levels test. In J. I. Liontas, M. DelliCarpini, & J. C. Riopel (Eds.), The TESOL Encyclopedia of English language teaching (pp. 1-7). New York: Wiley-Blackwell.
Laufer, B., & Nation, P. (1999), A vocabulary size test of controlled productive ability. Language Testing, 16, 33-51.
Laufer, B., & Hulstijn, J. H. (2001). Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second language: The construct of task-induced involvement. Applied Linguistics, 22, 1-26.
Lasagabaster, D. (2008). Foreign language competence in Content and Language Integrated Courses. The Open Applied Linguistics Journal, 1, 31-42.
Lin, Angel, M. Y. (2016). Language across the curriculum: CLIL in English as an additional language (EAL) contexts. Theory and practice. Singapore: Springer.
Lo, Y., & Macaro, E. (2015). Getting used to content and language integrated learning: What can classroom interaction reveal? The Language Learning Journal, 43, 1-17. http://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2015.1053281
Lochtman, K., Lutjeharms, M., & Kermarrec, G. (2005). Langues étrangères à Bruxelles: Recherche sur les attitudes d’étudiants Bruxellois des écoles d’ingénieur commercial ULB et VUB. In E. Witte, L. Van Mensel, M. Pierrard, L. Mettewie, A. Housen, & R. De Groof (Eds.), Language, attitudes and education in multilingual cities (pp. 211-233). Brussels: Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie van België voor Wetenschappen en Kunst.
Lorenzo, F., Casal S., & Moore, P. (2010). The effects of content and language integrated learning in European education: key findings from the Andalusian sections evaluation project. Applied Linguistics, 31, 418-442.
MacIntyre, P., & Gregersen, T. (2012). Emotions that facilitate language learning: The positive-broadening power of the imagination. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 2, 193-213.
Masrai, A., & Milton, J. (2018). Measuring the contribution of academic and general vocabulary knowledge to learners’ academic achievement. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 31, 44-57.
Merikivi, R., & Pietilä, P. (2014). Vocabulary in CLIL and in mainstream education. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 5, 487-497.
Mettewie, L. (2015). Apprendre la langue de “l’Autre” en Belgique: La dimension affective comme frein à l’apprentissage. Le Langage et l’Homme, 1, 23-42.
Mewald, C. (2007). A comparison of oral foreign language performance of learners in CLIL and mainstream classes at lower secondary level in Lower Austria. In C. Dalton-Puffer & U. Smit (Eds.), Empirical perspectives on CLIL classroom discourse (pp. 139-177). Frankfurt: Lang.
Nation, I. S. P. (2006). How large a vocabulary is needed for reading and listening? The Canadian Modern Language Review, 63, 59-82.
Navés, T. (2011). How promising are the results of integrating content and language for EFL writing and overall EFL proficiency? In Y. Ruiz de Zarobe, J. M. Sierra, & F. Gallardo del Puerto (Eds.), Content and foreign language integrated learning. Contributions to multilingualism in European contexts (pp. 155-186). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Nikula, T. (2010). Effects of CLIL on a teacher’s classroom language use. In C. Dalton-Puffer, T. Nikula, & U. Smit (Eds.), Language use and language learning in CLIL classrooms (pp. 105-124). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Pérez, A., Lorenzo, F., & Pavón, V. (2016). European bilingual models beyond lingua franca: Key findings from CLIL French programs. Language Policy, 15, 485-504.
Pérez-Cañado M. L. (2012). CLIL research in Europe: Past, present, and future. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 15, 315-341.
Peters, E., Velghe, T., Van Rompaey, T. (2015, July). A post-entry English and French vocabulary size for Flemish learners. Paper presented at EALTA. Copenhagen, Denmark.
Piesche, N., Jonkmann, K., Fiege, Ch., & J.-U. Keßler (2016). CLIL for all? A randomized controlled field experiment with sixth-grade students on the effects of content and language integrated science learning. Learning and Instruction, 44, 108-116.
Rosnow, R., & Rosenthal, R. (2005). Beginning behavioral research: A conceptual primer. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.
Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (2010). Written production and CLIL. An empirical study. In C. Dalton-Puffer, T. Nikula, & U. Smit (Eds), Language use and language learning in CLIL classrooms (pp. 191-209). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (2011). Which language competencies benefit from CLIL. In Y. Ruiz de Zarobe, J. Sierra, & F. Gallardo del Puerto (Eds), Content and foreign language integrated learning. Contributions (pp. 129-153). Bern: Peter Lang.
Schmitt, N., Schmitt, D., & Clapham, C. (2001). Developing and exploring the behaviour of two new versions of the Vocabulary Levels Test. Language Testing, 18, 55-88.
Schmitt, N., & Schmitt, D. (2014). A reassessment of frequency and vocabulary size in L2 vocabulary teaching. Language Teaching, 47, 484-503
Serra, C. (2007). Assessing CLIL at primary school: A longitudinal study. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10, 582-602.
Simon, E., Lima Jr, R., & De Cuypere, L. (2016). Acquiring non-native speech through early media exposure: Belgian children’s productions of English vowels. Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 52, 719-743.
Strobbe, L., Sercu, L., Strobbe, J., & Welcomme, A. (2013). Je vak in een vreemde taal? Wegwijzers voor de CLIL-onderwijspraktijk. Leuven: Acco.
Sundqvist, P., & Sylvén, L. K. (2016). Extramural English in teaching and learning. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Surmont, J., Struys, E., Van Den Noort, M., & Van de Craen, P. (2016). The effects of CLIL on mathematical content learning: A longitudinal study. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 6, 319-337.
Sylvén, L. (2004). Teaching in English or English teaching? On the effects of Content and Language Integrated Learning on Swedish learners’ incidental vocabulary acquisition (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Göteborg University, Sweden.
Van de Craen, P., Ceuleers, E., Lochtman, K., Allain, L., & Mondt, K. (2006). An interdisciplinary research approach to CLIL learning in primary schools in Brussels. In C. Dalton-Puffer & U. Smit (Eds.), Empirical perspectives on CLIL classroom discourse – CLIL: Empirische Untersuchungen zum Unterrichtsdiskurs (pp. 253-274) Frankfurt: Lang.
Van de Craen, P., Surmont, J., Mondt, K., & Ceuleers, E. (2011). Twelve years of CLIL practice in multilingual Belgium. In G. Egger & C. Lechner (Eds.), Primary CLIL around Europe: Learning in two languages in primary education (pp. 81-97). Marburg: Tectum Verlag.
Webb, S., & Rodgers, M. P. H. (2009). The lexical coverage of movies. Applied Linguistics, 30, 407-442.
Wiesemes, R. (2009). Developing theories of practices in CLIL: CLIL as post-method pedagogies? In Y. Ruiz de Zarobe & R. M. Jiménez Catalán (Eds.), Content and language integrated learning. Evidence from research in Europe (pp. 41-59). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Willemyns, R. (2002). The Dutch-French language border in Belgium. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 23, 36-49.
Wolff, D. (2002). On the importance of CLIL in the context of the debate on plurilingual education in the European Union. In D. Marsh (Ed.), CLIL/EMILE. The European dimension. Actions, trends, and foresight potential (pp. 47-48). Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä.
Zydatiß, W. (2007). Bilingualer Fachunterricht in Deutschland: eine Bilanz. Fremdsprachen Lehren und Lernen, 36, 8-25.
License
1.1 The Author hereby warrants that he/she is the owner of all the copyright and other intellectual property rights in the Work and that, within the scope of the present Agreement, the paper does not infringe the legal rights of another person. The owner of the copyright work also warrants that he/she is the sole and original creator thereof and that is not bound by any legal constraints in regard to the use or sale of the work.
1.2. The Publisher warrants that is the owner of the PRESSto platform for open access journals, hereinafter referred to as the PRESSto Platform.
2. The Author grants the Publisher non-exclusive and free of charge license to unlimited use worldwide over an unspecified period of time in the following areas of exploitation:
2.1. production of multiple copies of the Work produced according to the specific application of a given technology, including printing, reproduction of graphics through mechanical or electrical means (reprography) and digital technology;
2.2. marketing authorisation, loan or lease of the original or copies thereof;
2.3. public performance, public performance in the broadcast, video screening, media enhancements as well as broadcasting and rebroadcasting, made available to the public in such a way that members of the public may access the Work from a place and at a time individually chosen by them;
2.4. inclusion of the Work into a collective work (i.e. with a number of contributions);
2.5. inclusion of the Work in the electronic version to be offered on an electronic platform, or any other conceivable introduction of the Work in its electronic version to the Internet;
2.6. dissemination of electronic versions of the Work in its electronic version online, in a collective work or independently;
2.7. making the Work in the electronic version available to the public in such a way that members of the public may access the Work from a place and at a time individually chosen by them, in particular by making it accessible via the Internet, Intranet, Extranet;
2.8. making the Work available according to appropriate license pattern Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) as well as another language version of this license or any later version published by Creative Commons.
3. The Author grants the Publisher permission to reproduce a single copy (print or download) and royalty-free use and disposal of rights to compilations of the Work and these compilations.
4. The Author grants the Publisher permission to send metadata files related to the Work, including to commercial and non-commercial journal-indexing databases.
5. The Author represents that, on the basis of the license granted in the present Agreement, the Publisher is entitled and obliged to:
5.1. allow third parties to obtain further licenses (sublicenses) to the Work and to other materials, including derivatives thereof or compilations made, based on or including the Work, whereas the provisions of such sub-licenses will be the same as with the Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) Creative Commons sub-license or another language version of this license, or any later version of this license published by Creative Commons;
5.2. make the Work available to the public in such a way that members of the public may access the Work from a place and at a time individually chosen by them, without any technological constraints;
5.3. appropriately inform members of the public to whom the Work is to be made available about sublicenses in such a way as to ensure that all parties are properly informed (appropriate informing messages).
6. Because of the royalty-free provision of services of the Author (resulting from the scope of obligations stipulated in the present Agreement), the Author shall not be entitled to any author’s fee due and payable on the part of the Publisher (no fee or royalty is payable by the Publisher to the Author).
7.1. In the case of third party claims or actions for indemnity against the Publisher owing to any infractions related to any form of infringement of intellectual property rights protection, including copyright infringements, the Author is obliged to take all possible measures necessary to protect against these claims and, when as a result of legal action, the Publisher, or any third party licensed by the Publisher to use the Work, will have to abandon using the Work in its entirety or in part or, following a court ruling in a legal challenge, to pay damages to a third party, whatever the legal basis
7.2. The Author will immediately inform the Publisher about any damage claims related to intellectual property infringements, including the author’s proprietary rights pertaining to a copyrighted work, filed against the Author. of liability, the Author is obliged to redress the damage resulting from claims made by third party, including costs and expenditures incurred in the process.
7.3. To all matters not settled herein provisions of the Polish Civil Code and the Polish Copyright and Related Rights Act shall apply.