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¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r1 · q1
Currency · newest study 2015 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q1 i? The authors argue that for linguistic gains to appear in adults, some focus on form and language guidance is needed, so an ICLHE approach would be more effective than content-only EMI when linguistic gains are desired. → 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

q1 · i? · associational · r1

Authors' interpretation offered in the abstract and discussion, not a tested comparison: the study did not manipulate focus on form, and the article states this reading "might be interpreted" from the pattern of gains, citing SLA work on intensive exposure.

"It might be interpreted that in order for linguistic gains to be seen in adults there needs to be some focus on form and language guidance"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Successes of form-focused manipulation of input in adult L2 are illusory with respect to linguistic competence, affecting only performance — reports the opposite
• A 1982 bilingual-education teacher-training packet asserts, citing Krashen, that repetitive drill and grammar-focused instruction are ineffective for second language acquisition — reports the opposite
• 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 — related
• Comprehensible input alone is insufficient for acquisition of high levels of grammatical proficiency — a broader claim this one bears on