CLIL-SLA Project: Antecedents.
Results on the Effects of CLIL on
EFL Learning
To the memory of Mia Victori (1966-2010)
sites.google.com/site/clilslaproject/apac-2011
Antecedents
Studies from
• UB: GRAL Project (UB) (Co-ord: Muñoz)
– Marc Miret MA thesis (Navés)
– Navés & Victori (2009) & Navés (2011)
• UAB:
– Vallbona MA thesis 2009 (Victori)
– Bret MA thesis in progress (Victori & Pladevall)
Beliefs vs. Mainstream Research
1.
The age factor: The sooner the better 
(García-Mayo & García Lecumberri, 2003; Muñoz, 2006, 2008, 2009, 2010; Navés 2006; Celaya
& Navés, 2008))
2.
Study abroad (SA). 
3.
CLIL maybe  but the evidence comes from
–
Short-term studies vs Long-term studies. Statistically significant
differences vs. Relevant educational gains. (Navés, 2010)
Quantitative vs Qualitative studies (Escobar, 2009; Wittaker, 2010)
Cross-sectional studies vs. Longitudinal studies (See SLA-CLIL
project in Pladevall et al., forthcoming)
Linguistic-oriented studies vs Content-oriented and CLIL-oriented
studies
Product-oriented vs Process Oriented studies
Comparison of existing curricula vs. finely-grained studies: The
control of the variables: amount of instruction, type of school, etc.
(García-Mayo, 2010; Muñoz and Navés, 2007; Navés & Victori, 2009)
–
–
–
–
–
(Pérez-Vidal, 2001, 2009. But  Llanes & Muñoz, 2009)
CLIL
• The subject matter or part of the subject
matter is taught via a foreign language
with a two-fold objective: the learning of
those contents and the simultaneous
learning of a foreign language (Marsh,
1999:27)
The best way to learn an L2:
Teaching subject matter in the L2
• Using the L2 to teach subject matter is
more effective than teaching the language
directly, treating the L2 itself as the subject
matter (Krashen, 1982).
• Teaching subject matter in a second
language is the best possible way to
encourage second language acquisition.
(Spada and Lightbown, 2002)
CLIL
The European Commission’s (2005)
report on foreign language teaching and
learning claims that an excellent way of
making progress in a foreign language is
“to use it for a purpose, so that the
language becomes a tool rather than an end
in itself.” (p.9)
European Council (1995):
A1-A2 - B1-B2 - C1-C2
1)Lowering the starting age
and simultaneously
2) CLIL instruction
CLAIMS: CLIL > EFL
• CLIL instruction is more successful
than traditional form-focused EFL
learning (Piske, 2008, Do Coyle,
2009).
• CLIL methodology provides plenty of
real and meaningful input to learners
and raises their overall proficiency
in the target language. (Coyle, 2002
p.258).
But…
• Not all content-based instruction
results in good language learning
(Swain, 1988)
• CLIL provides some of the necessary
conditions for good effective
language learning to take place but is
not a guarantee of success (de Graaf et
al. 2007; Muñoz, 2007; Navés in press)
Short-term statistical significant differences
versus long-term relevant education gains.
Lindholm-Leary (2007)
Empirical Research CLIL>EFL
• Writing Performance:
–
–
–
–
–
–
Ackerl (2006)
- Carrilero(2009); Miret (2009)
Huttner et al (2006)
- Lasagabaster (2008)
Loranc-Paszylk(2009)
- Navés and Victori (2010)
Navés (2010)
- Miret (2009)
Miret & Navés (in preparation)
Vallbona & Victori (in preparation)
• English Proficiency :
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Admiraal et al.(2006)
- Jiménez et al.(2006)
Kasper (1997)
- Lasagabaster (2008)
Navés and Victori (2010)
- Vallbona (2009)
Pérez-Vidal (2010)
- Lorenzo et al. (2009, 2010)
Ruiz de Zarobe & Jiménez Catalán (2009)
Villarreal Olaizola & García Mayo (2009)
García Mayo & Villarreal Olaizola (2011)
Reasons for the present studies
• An increasing number of schools in Catalonia are teaching
subjects or parts of subjects in English (CLIL) to improve
students’ language competence.
• Despite this, academic research on CLIL programs is still
embryonic in Catalonia (Navés and Victori, 2010).
• We need local studies comparing CLIL with traditional
instruction to support the presumed benefits of this approach and
to find out the weaknesses and strengths of CLIL.
• We need to evaluate language development in CLIL instruction
as well as classroom dynamics and how this affects the outcomes
of the approach.
How did we collect data? TESTS
• QUANTITATIVE INSTRUMENTS
• Language Proficiency Tests:*
–
–
–
–
Listening Comprehension Test
Dictation Test
Cloze Test
Grammar Multiple-choice
• Written Composition
• Oral Tests (Interview & Narrative)
*Developed, validated and used by the
BAF Project (Muñoz, 2006)
• QUALITATIVE
INSTRUMENTS
• Students’ Background
Questionnaire
• Interview with the CLIL
Teachers
• CLIL Class Observations
• CLIL Students’ Opinion
Questionnaire
CAF measures
COMPLEXITY
Accuracy
Fluency
Miret’s Participants
Miret’s Results
Naves & Victori (2009) & Navés (2011)
Participants
Grammar Test
Dictation
Cloze: Reading Comprehension
Writing Fluency
(Essay length)
Writing Syntactic Complexity
(clauses per sentence)
Writing Lexical Variety
(Giraud’s index)
Summary of Results
Miret (2009), Navés & Victori (2010) and Navés (2011)
• Overall 5th and 7th grade CLIL learners
better than their non-CLIL peers
from 5th and 7th and did
as well as learners two grades ahead
– in all the proficiency tests except in the
listening test
– and in all the writing domains
examined except in accuracy.
RESEARCH STUDIES
• Vallbona MA thesis 2009 (Victori)
• Victori & Vallbona (2010)
• Bret MA thesis in progress (Victori & Pladevall)
PARTICIPANTS & DATA COLLECTION
GROUPS
GRADE LEVEL
DATA
COLLECTION TIME
EXPOSURE TO
ENGLISH
5th Primary
N = 25
5th Primary
N=8
October 2006
3hr/week EFL
6th Primary
N= 27
6th Primary
N= 8
October 2006
3hr /week EFL
5th Primary
N =22
5th Primary
N=8
October 2009
6th Primary
N = 24
6th Primary
N=8
October 2009
NON-CLIL GROUPS
CLIL GROUPS
3hr/ week EFL +
1hr/week Science in
English (105 hours )
3hr/ week EFL +
1hr/week Science in
English (105 hours)
RESULTS
LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY AND WRITING TESTS
5th GRADERS
CLOZE TEST
LISTENING
DICTATION
NUMBER OF
WORDS IN
ENGLISH
ORAL TESTS: 5th GRADERS
ACCURACY
FLUENCY
Interview
LEXICAL
COMPLEXITY
ORAL TESTS: 5th GRADERS
ACCURACY
Narrative
SYNTACTIC
COMPLEXITY
LEXICAL
COMPLEXITY
LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY AND WRITING TESTS
6th GRADERS
CLOZE TEST
NUMBER OF
ERROR FREE
CLAUSES
LISTENING
DICTATION
NUMBER OF
WORDS IN
ENGLISH
NUMBER OF
CLAUSES
ORAL TESTS:
th
6
Interview
FLUENCY
GRADERS
ORAL TESTS: 6th GRADERS
ACCURACY
Narrative
FLUENCY
LEXICAL
COMPLEXITY
SYNTACTIC
COMPLEXITY
ORAL DATA: QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS
• Number of one-word utterances
• Amount of subordination
• Type of coordination
RESULTS
Proficiency & Writing Tests
- Improvement of receptive skills, such as listening, reading and dictation
(Admiral et al, 2006; Gassner & Maillat, 2006; Mewald, 2007; Lasagabaster 2008; Ruiz de Zarobe,
2008;Vallbona, 2008; Loranc-Paszylk, 2009; Miret, 2009; Naves & Victori, 2010).
- Writing areas: fluency, accuracy, lexical complexity do not necessarily develop
simultaneously as students become better writers (Naves et al, 2003; Foster & Skeken,
1996).
Oral Tests
- CLIL learners outperformed non-CLIL learners in many of the aspects
analysed (Admiraal et al, 2006; Hüttner & Rieder-Büneman, 2007; Mewald, 2007; Jiménez et al, 2007;
Ruíz de Zarobe, 2007; Lasagabaster, 2008; Juan-Garau 2010; Várkuti, 2010).
- Improvement of fluency and syntactic complexity.
What did children think of Science?
CLIL students’ opinion questionnaire results
Overall assessment of the
CLIL experience: very
positive.
•Did you like
doing Science in
English?
YES!
5th
graders
70%
CLIL students’ opinion questionnaire results
The teacher
gave good
explanations
The
activities
were fun
WHY?
We are
interested in
English
Science is
our favourite
subject
CLIL students’ opinion
questionnaire results
YES!
5th graders
56%
Did you find Science
easy?
CLIL students’ opinion questionnaire results
Familiar
topics
The activities
were easy
easy?
We have an
ability for
languages
Science is our
favourite
subject
CLIL students’ opinion questionnaire results
Understanding
some concepts
Answering in
English
What was difficult ?
Understanding
some of the
teacher’s
explanations
Understanding
some words
Limitations
These promising results have, nevertheless, to be
analysed with caution because
 the amount of hours of instruction was not kept
constant
 of the different types of schools involved
 cross-sectional,
 product-oriented nature.
 short-term nature.
Limitations and Conclusions
• Limitations of these types of studies
(See Muñoz & Navés, 2007)
• Statistical significant differences vs.
Relevant gains from an education and
language policy perspective.
Final remarks
1) Unlike the results found when examining
(a) an early start,
(b) stay-abroad
(c) out-of-school instruction,
the preliminary results from short-term crosssectional research on CLIL instruction --in spite
of its limitations and confounds-- seem
promising.
Final remarks
2) Although the preliminary short-term of CLIL
instruction results are encouraging, we still need
to see whether
(a) carefully planned studies confirm the benefits
already found and furthermore whether
(b) in the long run CLIL instruction will not just
show a statistically significant difference but
would make it possible to drastically raise the
levels of proficiency of European learners as
called for by the Council of Europe (1995).
Further evidence is needed
1. Short-term studies vs Long-term studies. Statistically
significant differences vs. Relevant educational gains.
(Navés, 2010)
2. Quantitative vs Qualitative studies and Product vs
Process oriented studies. Mixed-methodology studies
(Escobar, 2009; Wittaker, 2010)
3. Cross-sectional studies vs. Longitudinal studies (See
SLA-CLIL project in Pladevall et al., forthcoming)
4. Linguistic-oriented studies vs Content-oriented and
CLIL-oriented studies
5. Comparison of existing curricula vs. finely-grained
studies: The control of the variables: amount of
instruction, type of school, etc. (García-Mayo, 2010;
Muñoz and Navés, 2007; Navés, 2010) (See SLA-CLIL
project in Pladevall et al., forthcoming)
Thank you very much
Moltíssimes gràcies
Muchas gracias
Eskarrik-asko
Graciñas
CLIL-SLA Project: Antecedents
Teresa Navés [email protected]
Marc Miret [email protected]
Anna Vallbona [email protected]
Anna Bret [email protected]
GRAL Project (UB) & CLIL-SLA Project (UAB)
www.ub.edu/GRAL/Naves [email protected]
CLIL-SLA Project
To the memory of Mia Victori
Anna Bret
Amanda Cooper
Carme Florit
Natalia Maldonado
Patricia Martínez
Marc Miret
Teresa Navés
Elisabet Pladevall (Co-ord)
Anna Vallbona
Alex Vraciu
Characteristics of Successful CLIL
Programmes (Navés, 2009, 2002)
(1) Respect and support for the learner’s L1
language and culture   
(2) Extremely competent bilingual teachers i.e.
teachers fully proficient in the language of
instruction and familiar with one of the
learners’ home languages 
(3) Mainstream (not pull-out) optional courses 
(4) Long-term, stable programmes   
(5) Parents’ support for the programme; 
Characteristics of Successful CLIL Programmes
(Naves, 2009, 2002)
6. Joint effort of all parties. Cooperation and
leadership of educational authorities,
administrators and teachers 
7. Dually qualified teachers (in content and
language)  
8. High expectations  and standards 
9. Availability of quality CLIL teaching
materials 
10. Properly implemented CLIL methodology 
Muchas gracias
Thank you very much
Moltíssimes gràcies
Eskarrik-asko
Graciñas
Teresa Navés
[email protected]
(GRAL project & CLIL-SLA project)
www.ub.edu/GRAL/Naves [email protected]
Need to justify CLIL?
Beliefs and prejudices
The defensive attitude that can be inferred from
researchers’ need to justify, time and time again,
the rationale and benefits of integrating language
and subject content rather than further
investigating the commonalities of efficient
CLIL programmes may have to do with pressure
from
(a) folk beliefs and prejudices against
bilingualism and multilingualism and
(b) political interests. (Navés, 2010)
CLIL
• This approach involves learning subjects such as
history, geography and others, through an additional
language.
(Marsh, 2000)
• Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) is
a general expression used to refer to any teaching of
non-language subject through the medium of a second
or foreign language (L2).
(Pavesi, 2001)
AICLE
Aprendizaje Integrado de Contenidos
Curriculares y Lenguas Extranjeras implica
estudiar asignaturas como historia o
ciencias naturales en una lengua distinta de
la propia. AICLE resulta muy beneficioso
tanto para el aprendizaje de otras lenguas
(francés, inglés, ...) como para las
asignaturas impartidas en dichas lenguas.
(Navés & Muñoz, 2000)
SLA foundations of CLIL
1. The transferabilty of skills (Cummins, 1991)
2. BISC vs CALP (Cummins, 1979, 2000;
Collier, 1987; 1989)
3. The exposure factor. To increase SL and FL
contact hours (Muñoz, 2007; Cenoz, 2003; De
Keyser, 2001)
4. The quality of the input. Meaningful learning
(Krashen, 1997)
5. Focus on Form (Long 1997; Doughty, 2001;
Ellis, 2005)
SLA foundations of CLIL
•
•
•
CLIL promotes negotiation of meaning,
through interaction (Lightbown and Spada,
1993; Long, 1983).
Comprehensible input (Krashen, 1985), is a
necessary but not a suffcient condition.
Cognitively demanding but context-embbeded
(Cummins, 1991) Learners also need an focus
on relevant and contextually appropriate
language forms to support content learning
(Lyster, 1987; Met, 1991)
SLA foundations of CLIL
1. Creates conditions for naturalistic language
learning
2. Provides a purpose for language use in the
classroom
3. Has a positive effect on language learning by putting
the emphasis on meaning rather than form and
4. Drastically increases the amount of exposure to the
target language
(Dalton-Puffer, 2007; Dalton-Puffer & Smit, 2007; De Graaf
et al. 2007; Muñoz, 2007; Muñoz & Navés, 2007; Navés and
Victori, 2010, Navés, in press).
CLIL benefits for Content
from Llinares (2009)
• Learners are more successful and more motivated than those in
traditional content subject classrooms (Wolff, 2004)
• Learners look at content from a different and broader perspective
when it is taught in another language (Multi-perspectivity)
(Wolff, 2004)
• Learners develop more accurate academic concepts when
another language is involved (Lamsfuss-Schenk, 2002)
• In CLIL content subject related intercultural learning takes
place (Christ, 2000)
Characteristics of Successful CLIL
Programmes (Navés, 2002, 2009)
(1) Respect and support for the learner’s L1
language and culture
(2) Extremely competent bilingual teachers
(3) Mainstream (not pull-out) optional
courses
(4) Long-term, stable programmes
(5) Parents’ support for the programme
Characteristics of Successful CLIL Programmes
(Naves, 2002, 2009)
6. Joint effort of all parties. Cooperation and
leadership of educational authorities,
administrators and teachers
7. Dually qualified teachers (in content and
language)
8. High expectations and standards
9. Availability of quality CLIL teaching
materials
10. Properly implemented CLIL methodology.
The most successful language learning
programmes: Canadian Immersion
Canadian Immersion Programmes are by far the
most highly acclaimed language learning
programmes.
SLA researchers, teachers and parents fully agree
that the immersion programmes in Canada
have been extremely efficient and successful.
(Swain, 2000; Swain & Lapkin, 1982).
(See Navés, 2009, 2010)
Limitations to L2 learning in immersion: more
focus on form/s needed
• However, the question of whether immersion,
especially ‘early’ immersion, is the best model for
students in all sociocultural and educational
settings has not been satisfactorily answered.
Some researchers have found that there are
limitations to L2 learning through subject
matter teaching alone and have suggested that
more direct L2 instruction needs to
complement the subject matter teaching
(Harley, 1989; Lyster, 1994; Swain, 1988).
Source: Spada and Lightbown (2002)
Limitations (2) complex subject matter
• In addition, some educators and researchers
have expressed concern about how well
students can cope with complex subject
matter taught in a language they do not yet
know well (Cummins & Swain, 1986).
Source: Spada and Lightbown (2002)
Previous Research on CLIL
& Writing
• Muñoz and Navés (2007) Overview of empirical
studies show a 2 year advantage for CLIL
learners.
• Dalton-Puffer (2007) predicted CLIL would not
have significant effects over productive skills
• Navés and Victori (2010) CLIL provided an
advantage between one and two grades in
overall proficiency and writing performance.
Jacobs et al (1981) scale
RQ1- Writing
performance
*p is significant at <.05
**p is significant at <.01
RQ 1- Overall
Proficiency
*p is significant at <.05
**p is significant at <.01
RQ2- Writing
performance
*p is significant at <.05
**p is significant at <.01
RQ2- Overall Proficiency
*p is significant at <.05
**p is significant at <.01
Interview: One-word Answers I
Percentages of the mean use of one-word answers in the interview task.
5th year students
6th year students
57,18%
37,29%
38,54%
18,87%
Non-CLIL students
CLIL students
Interview: One-words answers II
(1)
Non-CLIL
INV:
SUB:
INV:
SUB:
How old are you?
hmmp eleven.
At five what will you do?
House.
(2)
Non-CLIL
INV:
SUB:
INV:
SUB:
What do you like to do in your free time?
Football.
At half past five what will you do today?
Football.
(3)
CLIL
INV:
SUB:
INV:
SUB:
How old are you?
I’m eleven years old.
What did you do last weekend on Saturday and Sunday?
I go to the hmmp [//] I go to the Sabadell.
(4)
CLIL
INV:
SUB:
INV:
SUB:
what will you do when you finish school?
today [/] today …nothing I’m go to home.
what did you do last weekend?
hmmp I play volleyball and then I go to eat with family
Subordination
•
Instances of subordination produced by CLIL learners:
(1) There is a table [for I study].
(2) I go [to eat with my family].
(3) The children is surprise [for the dog is eat for the food in the basket].
(4) [When the children go to the country and to the mountain] see the dog.
Coordination
Non-CLIL students
(5) [Painting] and [plays the guitar].
(6) [Watching tv] [play the computers].
(7) [Play playstation], [play football], [play]
CLIL students
(8) [Played the football] and [Sunday visit my grandfathers].
(9) I [like read], [play volleyball] and [play with my dog].
(10) [Playing football in my house] and [speak with my trainer of judo].
Descargar

SVOC