In Experiment 2 the CLIL group significantly outperformed the L1 control group on the vocabulary post-test¶
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 2 vocabulary post-test comparison revealed a significant difference (p = .002; mean difference 7.23) favouring the CLIL group over the L1 group. → 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
Post-test comparison in Experiment 2 (46 children, urban school), where the CLIL group also showed a significant paired gain (t= 5.47, p= .000; mean difference 6.24) and the control group did not (t= .748, p= .463). No effect size is printed.
"A vocabulary post-test comparison between the two groups revealed a significant difference (p= .002; mean difference, 7.23) favouring the CLIL group, indicating the beneficial effect of CLIL on L2 vocabulary development."
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
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.