CLIL or time? Lexical profiles of CLIL and non-CLIL EFL learners

Abstract Recently, there has been considerable research concerning the effect of CLIL on English language learners’ competence. However, it remains unclear if the positive effects found are due to CLIL or to time. To clarify this issue, this paper focuses on the vocabulary output of CLIL and non-CLIL EFL learners after an equal number of hours of English exposure. The objectives were twofold: (1) to ascertain whether the CLIL group retrieves a higher number of English words than the non-CLIL group; (2) to determine whether the two groups produce the same or different words. The sample comprised 70 Spanish EFL learners in their 8th and 10th year of secondary education. The data collection instrument was a lexical availability task consisting of ten prompts. The data were edited, coded, and subjected to quantitative and qualitative analyses. The results showed that the CLIL group retrieved a higher number of words than the non-CLIL group. However, both groups exhibited similarities concerning most and least productive prompts, first word responses, word frequency, and word level. The findings suggest a need to conduct equal comparisons of CLILs and non-CLIL groups as well as to examine the task effect, and the vocabulary input received by learners.

[1]  A. Alonso,et al.  Vocabulary growth in young CLIL and traditional EFL learners: evidence from research and implications for education , 2016 .

[2]  N. Schmitt.  Researching Vocabulary: A Vocabulary Research Manual , 2010 .

[3]  Almudena Fernández-Fontecha.  Motivation and Vocabulary Breadth in CLIL and EFL Contexts. Different age, Same Time of Exposure , 2015 .

[4]  C. Muñoz.  CLIL: SOME THOUGHTS ON ITS PSYCHOLINGUISTIC PRINCIPLES , 2007 .

[5]  Kirsten Haastrup,et al.  Learner language and language learning , 1984 .

[6]  R. Waring,et al.  Incidental vocabulary acquisition from reading, reading-while-listening, and listening to stories , 2008 .

[7]  A. Ellis,et al.  Cognitive aspects of lexical availability , 2006 .

[8]  Joe Barcroft.  Distinctiveness and Bidirectional Effects in Input Enhancement for Vocabulary Learning. , 2003 .

[9]  Liss Kerstin Sylvén.  Teaching in English or English Teaching? On the effects of content and language integrated learning on Swedish learners´ incidental vocabulary acquisition , 2004 .

[10]  I.S.P. Nation,et al.  Learning Vocabulary in Another Language , 2001 .

[11]  Vyvyan Evans,et al.  A Glossary of Cognitive Linguistics , 2007 .

[12]  Paul Meara,et al.  Classrooms as lexical environments , 1997 .

[13]  Anthony Bruton.  Is CLIL so beneficial, or just selective? Re-evaluating some of the research , 2011 .

[14]  Raquel Serrano,et al.  Same hours, different time distribution: Any difference in EFL? , 2007 .

[15]  P. Nation,et al.  A vocabulary-size test of controlled productive ability , 1999 .

[16]  M. MabelA.Urrutia.  Redes semanticas en linea: Una tarea de acceso lexico a partir de un estudio experimental , 2003 .

[17]  Marta Samper Hernández.  Disponibilidad léxica en alumnos de español como lengua extranjera , 2002 .

[18]  Max Sergio Echeverría,et al.  Redes semánticas en el léxico disponible de inglés L1 e inglés LE , 2010 .

[19]  Tess Fitzpatrick,et al.  Dimensions of Vocabulary Knowledge , 2013 .

[20]  Norbert Schmitt,et al.  Incremental gains in foreign language programs: The role of reading in learning about other cultures , 2010 .

[21]  Ana Llinares García,et al.  CLIL classroom discourse: Research from Europe , 2013 .

[22]  N. Schmitt.  Review article: Instructed second language vocabulary learning , 2008 .

[23]  Elisabet Pladevall-Ballester,et al.  CLIL in minimal input contexts: A longitudinal study of primary school learners’ receptive skills , 2016 .

[24]  Päivi Pietilä,et al.  The Impact of Free-time Reading on Foreign Language Vocabulary Development , 2014 .

[25]  Tess Fitzpatrick,et al.  Lex30: An Improved Method of Assessing Productive Vocabulary in an L2. , 2000 .

[26]  Julieta Ojeda Alba,et al.  GIRLS' AND BOYS' LEXICAL AVAILABILITY IN EFL , 2009 .

[27]  Christiane Dalton-Puffer,et al.  Language use and language learning in CLIL classrooms , 2010 .

[28]  Barbara Hinger,et al.  The distribution of instructional time and its effect on group cohesion in the foreign language classroom: A comparison of intensive and standard format courses , 2006 .

[29]  Tom Cobb,et al.  Vocabulary profiles as predictors of the academic performance of Teaching English as a Second Language trainees , 2004 .

[30]  Natalia Evnitskaya,et al.  Knowledge construction, meaning-making and interaction in CLIL science classroom communities of practice , 2011 .

[31]  Ana Llinares,et al.  Written discourse development in CLIL at secondary school , 2011 .

[32]  K. Hakuta,et al.  How Long Does It Take English Learners to Attain Proficiency , 2000 .

[33]  Marta Aguilar,et al.  The Effect of proficiency on CLIL benefits in engineering students in Spain , 2014 .

[34]  Golnaz Jamalifar,et al.  Second Language Vocabulary Learning Through Visual and Textual Representation , 2015 .

[35]  Carmen Muñoz.  Time and Timing in CLIL: A Comparative Approach to Language Gains , 2015 .

[36]  N. Schmitt,et al.  Developing and exploring the behaviour of two new versions of the Vocabulary Levels Test , 2001 .

[37]  J. Alderson.  Judging the Frequency of English Words , 2007 .

[38]  M. P. A. Llach.  The Role of Spanish L1 in the Vocabulary Use of CLIL and non-CLIL EFL Learners , 2009 .

[39]  Mike Scott.  Wordsmith Tools version 3 , 1997 .

[40]  Laura Collins,et al.  An Intensive Look at Intensity and Language Learning , 2011 .

[41]  David D. Qian,et al.  From Single Words to Passages: Contextual Effects on Predictive Power of Vocabulary Measures for Assessing Reading Performance , 2008 .

[42]  The impact of CLIL on L2 vocabulary development and content knowledge , 2011 .

[43]  Marlise Horst,et al.  From Faible to Strong: How Does Their Vocabulary Grow? , 2006 .

[44]  Rosa María Jiménez Catalán,et al.  Disponibilidad léxica en inglés como lengua extranjera en dos tipos de instrucción , 2009 .

[45]  Alison Wray,et al.  Formulaic Language and the Lexicon: List of Figures and Tables , 2002 .

[46]  J. Cenoz.  Discussion: towards an educational perspective in CLIL language policy and pedagogical practice , 2013 .

[47]  Eva Maria Seregély.  A comparison of lexical learning in CLIL and traditional EFL classrooms , 2008 .

[48]  P. Nation,et al.  Vocabulary size and use: Lexical richness in L2 written production , 1995 .

[49]  Soraya Moreno Espinosa.  Young Learners' L2 Word Association Responses in Two Different Learning Contexts , 2009 .

[50]  P. Lightbown,et al.  Intensive ESL Programmes in Quebec Primary Schools , 1989 .

[51]  Anthony Bruton,et al.  CLIL: Some of the reasons why … and why not , 2013 .

[52]  Batia Laufer,et al.  The development of passive and active vocabulary in a second language : Same or different ? , 1998 .

[53]  R. J. Catalán,et al.  Frequency Profiles of EFL Learners’ Lexical Availability , 2014 .

[54]  Rosa María Jiménez Catalán,et al.  Lexical Reiteration in EFL Young Learners¿ Essays: Does it Relate to the Type of Instruction? , 2007 .

[55]  Marika Kjellén Simes.  Room for Improvement? : A comparative study of Swedish learners’ free written production in English in the foreign language classroom and in immersion education , 2008 .

[56]  John Bailey Victery.  A Study of Lexical Availability Among Monolingual-Bilingual Speakers of Spanish and English , 1971 .

[57]  Marta Samper Hernández,et al.  Researching Lexical Availability in L2: Some Methodological Issues , 2014 .