Statistically significant linguistic gains after one year of EMI were detected in the semi-immersion group only, despite the immersion group's larger mean gains¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2015 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Across groups, significant gains appeared only in the semi-immersion group, although the immersion group's mean improvements were larger on several tasks. → Ament 2015

Evidence¶

Ament 2015¶

Ament, J. R., & Pérez Vidal, C. (2015). Linguistic outcomes of English medium instruction programmes in higher education: A study on economics undergraduates at a Catalan university. Higher Learning Research Communications, 5(1), 47-68. http://dx.doi.org/10.18870/hlrc.v5i1.239

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Discussion-section contrast of the two groups' T1-to-T2 results: "statistically significant gains were detected in the SIM group only," while IM means were higher; the comparison rests on small samples (N=7 and N=9) analysed with non-parametric tests.

"The mean values reflect more average improvements in the IM group but when tested statistically significant gains were detected in the SIM group only."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Semi-immersion EMI students show a statistically significant gain in grammar over one academic year, while their cloze and listening gains are not significant — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• Full-immersion EMI students show no statistically significant gains in any measured language domain over one year, despite descriptive improvement trends — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• Listening comprehension does not improve after one year of EMI in either group, with slightly lower scores at post-test — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• The authors interpret that adult linguistic gains through EMI require some focus on form and language guidance, making ICLHE more effective than content-only EMI — related