Volume 8, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2212-8433
  • E-ISSN: 2212-8441
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



In content and language integrated learning (CLIL) programmes, attention to language can be easily overlooked behind the assumption that language learning will take place incidentally. This study aimed at analysing the effects of a balanced integration of content and language on fifth graders’ foreign language (FL) oral performance. Two groups of participants had been doing CLIL in the form of an Information and Communication Technology (ICT) subject as of first grade, and yet observations revealed an important lack of focus on form in these lessons. CLIL materials and lessons that provided enough attention to language were designed and implemented for three months only in one of the groups. Students were assessed on their FL fluency and complexity before and after the treatment. Results revealed higher gains in speech rate and number of minimal contributions and a significantly lower L1 reliance in the case of the treatment group.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Basterrechea Lozano, M., & García Mayo, M. P.
    (2013) Language-related episodes during collaborative tasks: A comparison of CLIL and EFL learners’ interaction in diverse educational settings. InK. McDonough & A. Mackey (Eds.), Second language interaction in diverse educational settings (pp.25–44). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/lllt.34.05ch2
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.34.05ch2 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bret, A.
    (2014) L2 English young learners’ oral production skills in CLIL and. EFL settings: A longitudinal study (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Spain.
  3. Cenoz, J., Genesee, F., & Gorter, D.
    (2014) Critical analysis of CLIL: Taking stock and looking forward. Applied Linguistics, 35, 243–262. doi:  10.1093/applin/amt011
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amt011 [Google Scholar]
  4. Costa, F., & D’Angelo, L.
    (2011) CLIL: A suit for all seasons?Latin American Journal of Content and Language Integrated Learning, 4(1), 1–13. doi:  10.5294/laclil.2011.4.1.1
    https://doi.org/10.5294/laclil.2011.4.1.1 [Google Scholar]
  5. Coyle, D.
    (2008) CLIL-A pedagogical approach from the European perspective. InN. Van Deusen-Scholl & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education (pp.97–111). Dordrecht: Springer. doi:  10.1007/978‑0‑387‑30424‑3_92
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-30424-3_92 [Google Scholar]
  6. (2011) Investigating student gains: Content and language integrated learning. ITALIC Research Final Report. University of Aberdeen.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. (2015) Strengthening integrated learning: Towards a new era for pluriliteracies and intercultural learning. Latin American Journal of Content and Language Integrated Learning, 8(2), 84–103. doi:  10.5294/laclil.2015.8.2.2
    https://doi.org/10.5294/laclil.2015.8.2.2 [Google Scholar]
  8. Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D.
    (2010) CLIL: Content and language integrated learning. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Dalton-Puffer, C.
    (2008) Outcomes and processes in content and language integrated (CLIL) learning: Current research in Europe. InW. Delanoy & L. Volkmann (Eds.), Future perspectives in English language teaching (pp.7–23). Heidelberg: Carl Winter.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. (2011) Content and language integrated learning: From practice to principles?Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 182–204. doi:  10.1017/S0267190511000092
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190511000092 [Google Scholar]
  11. Dalton-Puffer, C., & Smit, U.
    (2007) Introduction. InC. Dalton-Puffer & U. Smit (Eds.), Empirical perspectives on CLIL classroom discourse (pp.7–24). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. De Graaff, R., Koopman, G. J., Anikina, Y., & Westhoff, G.
    (2007) An observation tool for effective L2 pedagogy in content and language integrated learning (CLIL). International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(5), 603–624. doi:  10.2167/beb462.0
    https://doi.org/10.2167/beb462.0 [Google Scholar]
  13. DeKeyser, R.
    (2002) The robustness of critical period effects in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22(4), 499–533. 10.1017/S0272263100004022
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100004022 [Google Scholar]
  14. (2007) Practice in a second language: Perspectives from Applied Linguistics and Cognitive Psychology. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. doi:  10.1017/CBO9780511667275
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667275 [Google Scholar]
  15. Doughty, C., & Williams, J.
    (1998) Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Ellis, R., Baturkmen, H., & Loewen, S.
    (2001) Learner uptake in communicative ESL lessons. Language Learning, 51, 281–318. doi:  10.1111/1467‑9922.00156
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00156 [Google Scholar]
  17. Eurydice
    Eurydice (2012) Key data on teaching languages at school in Europe 2012. Brussels: Eurydice. eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/documents/key_data_series/143EN.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Foster, P., Tonkyn, A., & Wigglesworth, G.
    (2000) Measuring spoken language: A unit for all reasons. Applied Linguistics, 21, 354–75. doi:  10.1093/applin/21.3.354
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/21.3.354 [Google Scholar]
  19. Frigols, M. J.
    (2007) CLIL implementation in Spain: An approach to different models. lear.unive.it/bitstream/10278/1013/1/13Frigols.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Gajo, L., & Serra, C.
    (2002) Bilingual teaching: Connecting language and concepts in mathematics. InD. So & G. Jones (Eds.), Education and society in plurilingual contexts (pp.75–95). Brussels: VUB Brussels University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. García Mayo, M. P., & Lázaro Ibarrola, A.
    (2015) Oral interaction strategies among EFL and CLIL children in task-based pair work. System, 54, 40–54. doi:  10.1016/j.system.2014.12.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.12.001 [Google Scholar]
  22. Genesee, F., & Lindholm-Leary, K.
    (2013) Two case studies of content-based language education. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Education, 1, 3–33. doi:  10.1075/jicb.1.1.02gen
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jicb.1.1.02gen [Google Scholar]
  23. Grosjean, F.
    (2004) Studying bilinguals: Methodological and conceptual issues. InT. K. Bhatia & W. C. Ritchie (Eds.), The handbook of bilingualism (pp.32–63). Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Housen, A., Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I.
    (2012) Complexity, accuracy and fluency: Definitions, measurement and research. InA. Housen, F. Kuiken, & I. Vedder (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency. Investigating complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA (pp.1–20). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/lllt.32.01hou
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.32.01hou [Google Scholar]
  25. Lasagabaster, D.
    (2008) Foreign language competence in content and language integrated courses. The Open Applied Linguistics Journal, 1, 31–42. doi:  10.2174/1874913500801010030
    https://doi.org/10.2174/1874913500801010030 [Google Scholar]
  26. (2010) English achievement and student motivation in CLIL and EFL settings. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 5(1), 3–18. doi:  10.1080/17501229.2010.519030
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2010.519030 [Google Scholar]
  27. Llinares, A., Morton, T., & Whittaker, R.
    (2012) The roles of language in CLIL. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Lyster, R.
    (2004a) Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 399–432.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. (2004b) Research on form-focused instruction in immersion classrooms: Implications for theory and practice. Journal of French Language Studies, 14, 321–341. doi:  10.1017/S0959269504001826
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959269504001826 [Google Scholar]
  30. (2007) Learning and teaching languages through content: A counterbalanced approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/lllt.18
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.18 [Google Scholar]
  31. MacWhinney, B.
    (2000) The CHILDES Project: Tools for analyzing talk. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Marsch, D., Ennser, C., & Sygmund, D.
    (1999) Pursuing plurilingualism. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Martínez Adrián, M., & Gutiérrez-Mangado, M. J.
    (2015) L1 Use, lexical richness, accuracy and complexity in CLIL and NON-CLIL learners. Atlantis, Journal of the Spanish Association for Anglo-American Studies, 37(2), 175–200.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Meyer, O.
    (2010) Introducing the CLIL-Pyramid: Key strategies and principles for quality CLIL planning and teaching. InM. Eisenmann & T. Summer (Eds.), Basic issues in EFL-teaching and learning (pp.295–313). Heidelberg: Winter.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Moore, P., & Nikula, T.
    (2016) Translanguaging in CLIL classrooms. InT. Nikula, E. Dafouz, P. Moore, & U. Smit (Eds.), Conceptualising integration in CLIL and multilingual education (pp.211–234). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. doi:  10.21832/9781783096145‑013
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783096145-013 [Google Scholar]
  36. Mora, J. C.
    (2006) Age effects on oral fluency development. InC. Muñoz (Ed.), Age and the rate of foreign language learning (pp.65–88). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. doi:  10.21832/9781853598937‑005
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781853598937-005 [Google Scholar]
  37. Nikula, T., Dafouz, E., Moore, P., & Smit, U.
    (Eds.) (2016) Conceptualising integration in CLIL and multilingual education. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. doi:  10.21832/9781783096145
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783096145 [Google Scholar]
  38. Ó Duibhir, P., Ní Dhiorbháin, A., & Cosgrove, J.
    (2016) An inductive approach to grammar teaching in Grade 5 & 6 Irish immersion classes. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 4(1), 33–58. doi:  10.1075/jicb.4.1.02dui
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jicb.4.1.02dui [Google Scholar]
  39. Onoda, S.
    (2014) An exploration of effective teaching approaches for enhancing the oral fluency of EFL students. InP. Muller, Adamson, P. Brown, & S. Herder (Eds.), Exploring EFL fluency in Asia (pp.120–142). Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Pérez-Vidal, C.
    (2007) The need for focus on form (FoF) in content and language integrated approaches: An exploratory study. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada [Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics], 1, 39–54.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Pladevall-Ballester, E.
    (2016) CLIL subject selection and young learners’ listening and reading comprehension skills. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 26(1), 52–74. doi:  10.1111/ijal.12079
    https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12079 [Google Scholar]
  42. Ruiz de Zarobe, Y.
    (2008) CLIL and foreign language learning: A longitudinal study in the Basque Country. International CLIL Research Journal, 1(1), 60–73.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Ruiz de Zarobe, Y., & Lasagabaster, D.
    (2010) CLIL in a bilingual community: The Basque Autonomous Community. InD. Lasagabaster & Y. Ruiz de Zarobe (Eds.), CLIL in Spain: Implementation, results and teacher training (pp.12–29). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Schmidt, R.
    (1990) The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129–158. doi:  10.1093/applin/11.2.129
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/11.2.129 [Google Scholar]
  45. Sheen, R.
    (2002) Key concepts in ELT: Focus on form and focus on forms. ELT Journal, 56(3), 303–305. doi:  10.1093/elt/56.3.303
    https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/56.3.303 [Google Scholar]
  46. Snow, M. A., Met, M., & Genesee, F.
    (1989) A conceptual framework for the integration of language and content in second/foreign language instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 23, 201–217. doi:  10.2307/3587333
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3587333 [Google Scholar]
  47. Spada, N.
    (1997) Form-focused instruction and second language acquisition: A review of classroom and laboratory research. Language Teaching, 30, 73–87. doi:  10.1017/S0261444800012799
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444800012799 [Google Scholar]
  48. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S.
    (1995) Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16, 371–391. doi:  10.1093/applin/16.3.371
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/16.3.371 [Google Scholar]
  49. (2003) Talking it through: Two French immersion learners’ response to reformulation. International Journal of Educational Research, 37(3–4), 285–304.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Tedick, D. J., & Wesely, P. M.
    (2015) A review of research on content-based foreign/second language education in US K-12 contexts. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28(1), 25–40. doi:  10.1080/07908318.2014.1000923
    https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2014.1000923 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): complexity; fluency; form-focused instruction; primary students
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error