CLIL instruction significantly improved aviation English posttest performance compared to traditional instruction¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q3 · i3 large
Currency · newest study 2019 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i3 The CLIL group (M = 94.00, SD = 3.974) significantly outperformed the non-CLIL group (M = 80.35, SD = 7.372) on the aviation English posttest (t(29) = 7.28, p = .000, r = .804). → Karimi 2019

Evidence¶

Karimi 2019¶

Karimi, P., Lotfi, A. R., & Biria, R. (2019). Enhancing Pilot’s Aviation English Learning, Attitude and Motivation through the Application of Content and Language Integrated Learning. International Journal of Instruction, 12(1), 751-766. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1201326

q3 · i3 · causal · r1

Independent-samples t-test comparing posttest means of CLIL (M = 94.00, SD = 3.974) and non-CLIL (M = 80.35, SD = 7.372) groups of Iranian pilots (n = 40). The article reports "r = .804 representing a large effect size".

"The results of the independent t -test (t (29) = 7.28, 95 % CI [9.82, 17.47], p = .000, r = .804 representing a large effect size) (Table 7) indicated that the CLIL significantly outperformed the non -CLIL group on the posttest."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• CLIL and non-CLIL groups were homogeneous in language and content knowledge at pretest — related
• CLIL instruction produced significantly higher motivation to learn English than traditional instruction — related
• CLIL instruction produced significantly more positive attitudes toward language learning than traditional instruction — related
• Explicit contextualization instruction improves procedural aspects of historical writing without improving contextualization scores themselves — related