In Experiment 1 the CLIL group gained significantly in L2 vocabulary while the L1 control group did not¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr1·q2
Currency · newest study 2011 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q2 i? The Experiment 1 CLIL group showed a significant pre-to-post vocabulary gain (p = .000, mean difference 9.06), whereas the L1 control group's gain was not significant (t = 1.89, p = .079). → 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 in Experiment 1 (31 children, suburban school) comparing pre/post vocabulary performance. The CLIL group's mean difference was 9.06; the control group's t= 1.89, p= .079 was non-significant. No effect size is printed.
"The CLIL group also showed a significant difference p= .000 on vocabulary knowledge indicating a positive effect of the treatment. The mean difference (9.06) indicated a positive impact of CLIL on L2 vocabulary knowledge."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- CLIL instruction through L2 was significantly better than teaching through L1 in promoting L2 vocabulary development across two experiments — a broader claim this one bears on
- Both CLIL and L1 groups improved significantly in science content knowledge within each experiment — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
status |
review |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-02 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.