CLIL instruction through L2 was significantly better than teaching through L1 in promoting L2 vocabulary development across two experiments¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2011 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Across two quasi-experiments, CLIL instruction produced significantly better L2 vocabulary development than content teaching through L1 (p = .001). → Xanthou 2011

Evidence¶

Xanthou 2011¶

Maria Xanthou. (2011). The impact of CLIL on L2 vocabulary development and content knowledge. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 10(4). http://education.waikato.ac.nz/research/files/etpc/files/2011v10n4art7.pdf

q2 · i? · causal · r2

Combined analysis of the two quasi-experiments (77 Grade 6 learners in intact classes, ANCOVA-balanced) comparing CLIL and L1-medium science teaching on a 100-item L2 vocabulary test. The article reports CLIL was "significantly better (p= .001) than teaching through L1"; no effect size is printed.

"Results showed that CLIL instruction was significantly better (p= .001) than teaching through L1, in promoting L2 vocabulary development."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Vocabulary — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

• In Experiment 2 the CLIL group significantly outperformed the L1 control group on the vocabulary post-test — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• In Experiment 1 the CLIL group gained significantly in L2 vocabulary while the L1 control group did not — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• Both CLIL and L1 groups improved significantly in science content knowledge within each experiment — related
• Observation of CLIL science lessons showed meaningful language use, teacher scaffolding, code-switching, and development of both social and academic language — related