empirical research on clil teresa navés [email protected]@ub.edu
TRANSCRIPT
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%
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.