Keywords
English medium instruction
multilevel meta-analysis
secondary level
content and language integrated learning
How to Cite
Number of views: 975
Number of downloads: 990
Abstract
This meta-analysis synthesized the effects of the English medium instruction and content and language integrated learning (EMI-CLIL) approach on secondary-level students’ English learning. The dataset included 44 samples (N = 7,434) from 38 primary studies. The results revealed EMI-CLIL’s overall effectiveness for the development of English competence compared to the mainstream condition in the short term (d = 0.73, SE = 0.06, 95% CI [0.61, 0.86]) and longer term (d = 1.01, SE = 0.06, 95% CI [0.88, 1.15]). Additionally, we found that EMI-CLIL’s overall effectiveness was influenced by several moderator variables. Its effectiveness was significantly: (1) higher for learners whose first language (L1) was linguistically related to English; (2) lower for primary studies which confirmed the homogeneity of the EMI-CLIL and comparison groups; (3) lower when studies targeted the productive (rather than receptive or overall) dimension of English learning; and (4) higher when outcome measures focused on vocabulary. Implications for pedagogy and future research are discussed.
References
An, J., Macaro, E., & Childs, A. (2019). Language focused episodes by monolingual teachers in English medium instruction science lessons. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 7(2), 166-191. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/jicb.18019.an
Assink, M., & Wibbelink, C. J. (2016). Fitting three-level meta-analytic models in R: A step-by-step tutorial. The Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 12(3), 154-174. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20982/tqmp.12.3.p154
Basterrechea, M., & García Mayo, M. del P. (2014). Dictogloss and the production of the English third person “-s” by CLIL and mainstream EFL learners: A comparative study. International Journal of English Studies, 14(2), 77-98. DOI: https://doi.org/10.6018/j.177321
Bayram, D., Öztürk, R. Ö., & Atay, D. (2019). Reading comprehension and vocabulary size of CLIL and non-CLIL students: A comparative study. Language Teaching and Educational Research, 2(2), 101-113. DOI: https://doi.org/10.35207/later.639337
Beaufils, V., & Tomin, J. (2020, October 30). Stochastic approach to worldwide language classification: The signals and the noise towards long-range exploration. SocArXiv Papers. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/5swba
Broca, Á. (2016). CLIL and non-CLIL: Differences from the outset. ELT Journal, 70(3), 320-331. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccw011
Bruton, A. (2013). CLIL: Some of the reasons why . . . and why not. System, 41(3), 587-597. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.07.001
Cambridge ESOL. (2008). Official examination papers from University of Cambridge ESOL examinations. Cambridge University Press.
Canga Alonso, A., & Arribas García, M. (2015). The benefits of CLIL instruction in Spanish students’ productive vocabulary knowledge. Encuentro, 24, 15-31. Retrieved from http://www3.uah.es/encuentrojournal/index.php/encuen-tro/issue/viewIssue/12/24
Castellano-Risco, I., Alejo-González, R., & Piquer-Píriz, A. M. (2020). The development of receptive vocabulary in CLIL vs EFL: Is the learning context the main variable? System, 91, 102263. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102263
Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009024549
Dallinger, S., Jonkmann, K., Hollm, J., & Fiege, C. (2016). The effect of content and language integrated learning on students’ English and history competences: Killing two birds with one stone? Learning and Instruction, 41, 23-31. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.09.003
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2007). Discourse in content and language integrated learning (CLIL) classrooms. John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.20
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). Carl Winter.
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2011). Content-and-language integrated learning: From practice to principles? Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 182-204. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190511000092
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2013). A construct of cognitive discourse functions for conceptualising content-language integration in CLIL and multilingual education. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 216-253. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/eujal-2013-0011
Dalton-Puffer, C., Llinares, A., Lorenzo, F., & Nikula, T. (2014). “You can stand under my umbrella”: Immersion, CLIL and bilingual education. A response to Cenoz, Genesee & Gorter (2013). Applied Linguistics, 35(2), 213-218. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amu010
Evans, S. (2017). Language policy in Hong Kong education: A historical overview. European Journal of Language Policy, 9(1), 67-84. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3828/ejlp.2017.5
Feddermann, M., Möller, J., & Baumert, J. (2021). Effects of CLIL on second language learning: Disentangling selection, preparation, and CLIL-effects. Learning and Instruction, 74, 101459. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2021.101459
Fernández-Castilla, B., Jamshidi, L., Declercq, L., Beretvas, S. N., Onghena, P., & Van den Noortgate, W. (2020). The application of meta-analytic (multi-level) models with multiple random effects: A systematic review. Behavior Research Methods, 52, 2031-2052. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-020-01373-9
Gallardo del Puerto, F., & Gómez-Lacabex, E. (2017). Oral production outcomes in CLIL: An attempt to manage amount of exposure. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5(1), 31-54. ectiveness of content and language integrated learning (CLIL) in foreign language contexts: The assessment of English pronunciation. In Y. Ruiz de Zarobe & R. M. Jiménez Catalán (Eds.), Content and language integrated learning: Evidence from research in Europe (pp. 63-80). Multilingual Matters. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847691675-007
Genesee, F., & Lindholm-Leary, K. (2013). Two case studies of content-based language education. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 1(1), 3-33. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/jicb.1.1.02gen
Gierlinger, E., & Wagner, T. (2016). The more the merrier: Revisiting CLIL-based vocabulary growth in secondary education. LACLIL, 9(1), 37-63. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5294/laclil.2016.9.1.3
Goris, J., Denessen, E., & Verhoeven, L. (2013). Effects of the content and language integrated learning approach to EFL teaching: A comparative study. Written Language & Literacy, 16(2), 186-207. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/wll.16.2.03gor
Goris, J., Denessen, E., & Verhoeven, L. (2019). Effects of content and language integrated learning in Europe: A systematic review of longitudinal experimental studies. European Educational Research Journal, 18(6), 675-698. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1474904119872426
Graham, K. M., Choi, Y., Davoodi, A., Razmeh, S., & Dixon, L. Q. (2018). Language and content outcomes of CLIL and EMI: A systematic review. LACLIL, 11(1), 19-37. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5294/laclil.2018.11.1.2
Gutiérrez-Mangado, M. J., & Martínez-Adrián, M. (2018). CLIL at the linguistic interfaces. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 6(1), 85-112. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/jicb.17002.gut
Gutiérrez Ortiz, M. (2020). Assessing the development of second language syntax in content and language integrated learning. Revista De Lenguas Para Fines Específicos, 26(2), 111-130. Retrieved from https://ojsspdc.ulpgc.es/ojs/index.php/LFE/article/view/1333 DOI: https://doi.org/10.20420/rlfe.2020.361
Hamidavi, N., Shekaramiz, M., & Gorjian, B. (2016). The effect of CLIL method on teaching reading comprehension to junior high school students. Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods, 6(9), 64-73. Retrieved from http://mjltm.org/article-1-65-en.html DOI: https://doi.org/10.25518/0037-9565.6361
Hedges, L. V. (1981). Distribution theory for Glass’s estimator of effect size and related estimators. Journal of Educational Statistics, 6(2), 107-128. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3102/10769986006002107
Hendrikx, I., & Van Goethem, K. (2020). Receptive knowledge of intensifying adjectival compounds: Belgian French-speaking CLIL and non-CLIL learners of Dutch and English. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. Advance Publication Online. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2020.1720592
Hu, J., & Gao, X. (2021). Understanding subject teachers’ language-related pedagogical practices in content and language integrated learning classrooms. Language Awareness, 30(1), 42-61. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2020.1768265
Jeon, E. H., & Yamashita, J. (2014). L2 reading comprehension and its correlates: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 64(1), 160-212. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12034
Jexenflicker, S., & Dalton-Puffer, C. (2010). The CLIL differential: Comparing the writing 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). John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/aals.7.09jex
Jiménez Catalán, R. M., & Agustín Llach, M. P. (2017). CLIL or time? Lexical profiles of CLIL and non-CLIL EFL learners. System, 66, 87-99. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.03.016
Johnson, R. K., & Swain, M. (1994). From core to content: Bridging the L2 proficiency gap in late immersion. Language and Education, 8(4), 211-229. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500789409541392
Juan-Garau, M., Prieto-Arranz, J. I., & Salazar-Noguera, J. (2015). Lexico-grammatical development in secondary education CLIL learners. In M. Juan-Garau & J. Salazar-Noguera (Eds.), Content-based language learning in multilingual educational environments (pp. 179-195). Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11496-5_11
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Prentice Hall. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-971X.1982.tb00476.x
Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics across cultures: Applied linguistics for language teachers. University of Michigan Press.
Lahuerta, A. (2017). Syntactic complexity in secondary-level English writing: Differences among writers enrolled on bilingual and non-bilingual pro-grammes. Porta Linguarum, 28, 67-80. Retrieved from https://www.ugr.es/~portalin/articulos/PLnumero28/5%20Lahuerta.pdf
Lahuerta, A. (2020). Analysis of accuracy in the writing of EFL students enrolled on CLIL and non-CLIL programmes: The impact of grade and gen-der. The Language Learning Journal, 48(2), 121-132. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2017.1303745
Lasagabaster, D. (2008). Foreign language competence in content and language integrated courses. The Open Applied Linguistics Journal, 1, 30-41. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2174/1874913500801010030
Lee, H., Warschauer, M., & Lee, J. H. (2019). The effects of corpus use on second language vocabulary learning: A multilevel meta-analysis. Applied Linguistics, 40(5), 721-753. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amy012
Lee, J. (2020). Assessing the effects of CLIL on Korean high school students’ writing. Linguistic Research, 37, 89-112.
Lee, J. H., & Lee, H. (2022). Teachers’ verbal lexical explanation for L2 vocabulary learning: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 72(2), 576-612. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12493
Lin, L. H. F., & Morrison, B. (2010). The impact of the medium of instruction in Hong Kong secondary schools on tertiary students’ vocabulary. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(4), 255-266. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2010.09.002
Lo, Y. Y., & Lo, E. S. C. (2014). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of English-medium education in Hong Kong. Review of Educational Research, 84(1), 47-73. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654313499615
Lo, Y. Y., & Macaro, E. (2012). The medium of instruction and classroom interaction: Evidence from Hong Kong secondary schools. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 15(1), 29-52. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2011.588307
Lo, Y. Y., & Murphy, V. A. (2010). Vocabulary knowledge and growth in immersion and regular language-learning programmes in Hong Kong. Language and Education, 24(3), 215-238. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500780903576125
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). Academic Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012589042-7/50015-3
Lorenzo, F., Casal, S., & Moore, P. (2010). The effects of content and language integrated learning in European education: Key findings from the Andalusian bilingual sections evaluation project. Applied Linguistics, 31(3), 418-442. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp041
Lyster, R., & Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (2018). Introduction: Instructional practices and teacher development in CLIL and immersion school settings. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21(3), 273-274. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2017.1383353
Macaro, E. (2018). English medium instruction. Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.30687/978-88-6969-227-7/001
Manzano Vázquez, B. (2014). Lexical transfer in the written production of a CLIL group and a non-CLIL group. International Journal of English Studies, 14(2), 57-76. DOI: https://doi.org/10.6018/j.166251
Marsh, D. (Ed.) (2002). CLIL/EMILE. The European dimension. Actions, trends, and foresight potential. University of Jyväskylä.
Martínez-Adrián, M., & Gutiérrez-Mangado, M. J. (2009). The acquisition of English syntax by CLIL learners in the Basque country. In Y. Ruiz de Za-robe & R. M. Jiménez Catalán (Eds.), Content and language integrated learning: Evidence from research in Europe (pp. 176-196). Multilingual Matters. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847691675-013
Martínez-Adrián, M., & Gutiérrez-Mangado, M. J. (2015). L1 use, lexical richness, accuracy and complexity in CLIL and non-CLIL learners of English. Atlantis, Journal of the Spanish Association for Anglo-American Studies, 37(2), 175-197. https://www.atlantisjournal.org/index.php/atlantis/article/view/273
Martínez Agudo, J. (2019). Which instructional programme (EFL or CLIL) results in better oral communicative competence? Updated empirical evidence from a monolingual context. Linguistics and Education, 51, 69-78. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2019.04.008
Martínez Agudo, J. (2020). The impact of CLIL on English language competence in a monolingual context: A longitudinal perspective. The Language Learning Journal, 48(1), 36-47. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2019.1610030
Merino, J. A., & Lasagabaster, D. (2018). The effect of content and language integrated learning programmes’ intensity on English proficiency: A longitudinal study. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 28(1), 18-30. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12177
Morton, T., & Llinares, A. (2017). Content and language integrated learning: Type of programme or pedagogical model? In A. Llinares & T. Morton (Eds.), Applied linguistics perspectives on CLIL (pp. 1-16). John Benja-mins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.47.01mor
Murphy, V. A., Arndt, H., Briggs J. G., Chalmers, H., Macaro, E., Rose, H., Vanderplank, R., & Woore, R. (2020). Foreign language learning and its impact on wider academic outcomes: A rapid evidence assessment. Education Endowment Foundation. https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/public/files/Publica-tions/Foreign_language_learning_and_its_impact_on_wider_academic_outcomes_-_A_rapid_evidence_assessment.pdf
Nunan, D. (2011). Teaching English to young learners. Anaheim University Press.
Olsson, E. (2015). Progress in English academic vocabulary use in writing among CLIL and non-CLIL students in Sweden. Moderna Språk, 109(2), 51-74. https://ojs.ub.gu.se/index.php/modernasprak/article/view/3261 DOI: https://doi.org/10.58221/mosp.v109i2.7927
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., . . . & Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372(71), 1-9.
Pérez-Cañado, M. L. (2012). CLIL research in Europe: Past, present, and future. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 15(3), 315-341. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2011.630064
Pérez-Cañado, M. L. (2016). From the CLIL craze to the CLIL conundrum: Addressing the current CLIL controversy. Bellaterra Journal of Teaching & Learning Language & Literature, 9(1), 9-31. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/jtl3.667
Pérez Cañado, M. L., & Lancaster, N. K. (2017). The effects of CLIL on oral comprehension and production: A longitudinal case study. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 30(3), 300-316. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2017.1338717
Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F. L. (2014). How big is “big”? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning, 64(4), 878-912. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12079
Prieto-Arranz, J. I., Rallo Fabra, L., Calafat-Ripoll, C., & Catrain-González, M. (2015). Testing progress on receptive skills in CLIL and non-CLIL contexts. In M. Juan-Garau & J. Salazar-Noguera (Eds.), Content-based language learning in multilingual educational environments (pp. 123-137). Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11496-5_8
Rallo Fabra, L., & Jacob, K. (2015). Does CLIL enhance oral skills? Fluency and pronunciation errors by Spanish-Catalan learners of English. In M. Juan-Garau & J. Salazar-Noguera (Eds.), Content-based language learning in multilingual educational environments (pp. 163-177). Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11496-5_10
Rallo Fabra, L., & Juan-Garau, M. (2011). Assessing EFL pronunciation in a semi-immersion setting: The effects of CLIL instruction on Spanish-Catalan learners perceived comprehensibility and accentedness. Poznań Studies in Contempo-rary Linguistics, 47(1), 96-108. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/psicl-2011-0008
Rose, H., Macaro, E., Sahan, K., Aizawa, I., Zhou, S., & Wei, M. (2021). Defining English medium instruction: Striving for comparative equivalence. Language Teaching. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444821000483
Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (2011). Which language competencies benefit from CLIL? An insight into applied linguistics research. 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. 129-153). Peter Lang. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-0351-0171-3
Rumlich, D. (2017). CLIL theory and empirical reality: Two sides of the same coin? Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 5(1), 110-134. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/jicb.5.1.05rum
Salili, F., & Lai, M. K. (2003). Learning and motivation of Chinese students in Hong Kong: A longitudinal study of contextual influences on students’ achievement orientation and performance. Psychology in the Schools, 40(1), 51-70. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.10069
Schmitt, N., Schmitt, D., & Clapham, C. (2001). Developing and exploring the behaviour of two new versions of the Vocabulary Levels Test. Language Testing, 18(1), 55-88. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/026553220101800103
Stockwell, R., Bowen, J., & Martin, J. (1965). The grammatical structures of English and Spanish. University of Chicago Press.
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H. G. Widdowson (pp. 125-144). Oxford University Press.
Tabachnik, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Allyn and Bacon.
Van Mensel, L., Bulon, A., Hendrikx, I., Meunier, F., & Van Goethem, K. (2020). Effects of input on L2 writing in English and Dutch: CLIL and non-CLIL learners in French-speaking Belgium. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 8(2), 173-199. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/jicb.18034.van
Verspoor, M., de Bot, K., & Xu, X. (2015). The effects of English bilingual education in the Netherlands. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 3(1), 4-27. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/jicb.3.1.01ver
Viechtbauer, W. (2010). Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. Journal of Statistical Software, 36(3), 1-48. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v036.i03
Viechtbauer, W., & Cheung, M. W. L. (2010). Outlier and influence diagnostics for meta‐analysis. Research Synthesis Methods, 1(2), 112-125. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.11
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International 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.