Both CLIL and L1 groups improved significantly in science content knowledge within each experiment¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2011 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? The CLIL experimental group showed a significant pre-to-post content knowledge increase (p = .000, mean difference 36.95 in Experiment 1), and the L1-taught group also improved significantly (t = 8.72, p = .000). → 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 · r1

Paired-sample t-tests on subject-matter tests (true-false, matching, multiple-choice, completion) in Experiment 1. The L1 control group's content improvement was also significant (t= 8.72, p= .000). No effect size is printed.

"The CLIL experimental group exhibited a significant increase in content knowledge (p= .000) with a mean difference of 36.95."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• CLIL instruction through L2 was significantly better than teaching through L1 in promoting L2 vocabulary development across two experiments — related
• Both experimental and control groups improved significantly from pretest to posttest over the four-month period — related
• Both groups improved significantly on the achievement test from pre-test to post-test, with the experimental group reaching a much higher post-test mean — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
• The experimental group improved significantly from pre-test to post-test while the control group did not — reports the opposite
• In Experiment 1 the CLIL group gained significantly in L2 vocabulary while the L1 control group did not — related