1887
image of Effects of input on L2 writing in English and Dutch
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This study aims to explore the impact of formal and informal input on learners’ variability in writing, and to compare two target-language conditions (Dutch and English) in CLIL and non-CLIL settings in French-speaking Belgium. A regression model shows that CLIL is a significant predictor of L2 outcomes for both target languages, but that the relative impact of formal and informal input differs depending on the target language. In short, the amount of formal language exposure predicts the outcomes of the written productions of the learners of English, and the frequency of informal exposure those of the learners of Dutch. We argue that this observation is likely related to the difference in status that each of these languages holds among the pupils in our sample. The findings thus highlight the importance of the L2 status in research on CLIL, since different L2s can yield different results.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jicb.18034.van
2020-05-01
2020-09-19
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Admiraal, W., Westhoff, G., & de Bot, K.
    (2006) Evaluation of bilingual secondary education in the Netherlands: Students’ language proficiency in English. Educational Research and Evaluation, 12(1), 75–93. doi:  10.1080/13803610500392160
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13803610500392160 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bulon, A.
    (2019) The acquisition of phraseological units by French-Speaking learners of English and Dutch in CLIL and Non-CLIL settings: Exposure effects on range and accuracy. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). UCLouvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium.
  3. Bulon, A., Hendrikx, I., Meunier, F. & Van Goethem, K.
    (2017) Using global complexity measures to assess second language proficiency: Comparing CLIL and non-CLIL learners of English and Dutch in French-speaking Belgium. Papers of the Linguistic Society of Belgium, 11(1), 1–25. https://sites.uclouvain.be/bkl-cbl/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Bulon_et_al_2017.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Burstall, C.
    (1975) Factors affecting foreign-language learning: A consideration of some relevant research findings. Language Teaching and Linguistic Abstracts, 8, 105–125. doi:  10.1017/S0261444800002585
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444800002585 [Google Scholar]
  5. Carroll, J. B.
    (1969) Psychological and educational research into second language teaching to young children. InH. H. Stern (Ed.), Languages and the young school child (pp.2–68). London: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Celaya, M. L., & Navés, T.
    (2009) Written production in English as a Foreign Language: age-related differences and associated factors. InR. Manchón (Ed.), Learning, teaching and researching writing in foreign language learning contexts (pp.130–155). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781847691859‑009
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847691859-009 [Google Scholar]
  7. Celaya, M. L., Torras, M. R., & Perez-Vidal, C.
    (2001) Short and mid-term effects of an earlier start: An analysis of EFL written production. Eurosla Yearbook, 1(1), 195–209. doi:  10.1075/eurosla.1.15cel
    https://doi.org/10.1075/eurosla.1.15cel [Google Scholar]
  8. Cenoz, J.
    (2002) Age differences in foreign language learning. ITL Review of Applied Linguistics, 135/136, 125–142. doi:  10.1075/itl.135‑136.06cen
    https://doi.org/10.1075/itl.135-136.06cen [Google Scholar]
  9. (2003) Facteurs déterminant l’acquisition d’une L3: Age, développement cognitif et milieu. Acquisition et interaction en langue étrangère, 18, 38–51. journals.openedition.org/aile/1151
    [Google Scholar]
  10. (2015) Content-based instruction and content and language integrated learning: the same or different?Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28(1), 8–24. doi:  10.1080/07908318.2014.1000922
    https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2014.1000922 [Google Scholar]
  11. Crossley, S. A., Salsbury, T., & McNamara, D. S.
    (2014) Validating lexical measures using human scores of lexical proficiency. InS. Jarvis & M. Daller (Eds.), Human ratings and automated measures (pp.47–105). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Cumming, A.
    (1994) Writing expertise and second-language proficiency. InA. Cumming (Ed.), Bilingual performance in reading and writing (pp.173–221). Ann Arbor, MI: Language Learning /John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Dalton-Puffer, C.
    (2008) Outcomes and processes in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL): current research from Europe. InW. Delanoy & V. Lauren (Eds.), Future perspectives for English language teaching (pp.139–157). Heidelberg: Carl Winter.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. (2011) Content-and-language integrated learning: From practice to principles?Annual Review of applied linguistics, 31, 182–204. doi:  10.1017/S0267190511000092
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190511000092 [Google Scholar]
  15. Dewaele, J.-M.
    (2005) Sociodemographic, psychological and politico-cultural correlates in Flemish students’ attitudes towards French and English. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 26(2), 118–137. doi:  10.1080/01434630508668400
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01434630508668400 [Google Scholar]
  16. Ellis, R., & Barkhuizen, G. P.
    (2005) Analysing learner language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. García Lecumberri, M. L., & Gallardo, M. P.
    (2003) English FL sounds in school learners of different ages. InM. P. García Mayo & M. L. Garcia Lecumberri (Eds.), Age and the acquisition of English as a foreign language (pp.115–135). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781853596407‑007
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781853596407-007 [Google Scholar]
  18. Gené-Gil, M., Juan-Garau, M., & Salazar-Noguera, J.
    (2015) Development of EFL writing over three years in secondary education: CLIL and non-CLIL settings. The Language Learning Journal, 43(3), 286–303. doi:  10.1080/09571736.2015.1053278
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2015.1053278 [Google Scholar]
  19. Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., Louwerse, M. M., & Cai, Z.
    (2004) Coh-Metrix: Analysis of text on cohesion and language. Behavior research methods, instruments & computers, 36(2), 193–202. doi:  10.3758/BF03195564
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195564 [Google Scholar]
  20. Granger, S.
    (2015) Contrastive interlanguage analysis: A reappraisal. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research, 1(1), 7–24. doi:  10.1075/ijlcr.1.1.01gra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijlcr.1.1.01gra [Google Scholar]
  21. Hendrikx, I.
    (2019) The acquisition of intensifying constructions in Dutch and English by French-speaking CLIL and non-CLIL students: Cross-linguistic influence and exposure effects. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). UCLouvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium.
  22. Hendrikx, I., Van Goethem, K., & Wulff, S.
    (2019) Intensifying constructions in French-speaking L2 learners of English and Dutch: Cross-linguistic influence and exposure effects. International journal of Learner Corpus Research, 5(1), 63–103. 10.1075/ijlcr.18002.hen
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijlcr.18002.hen [Google Scholar]
  23. Hiligsmann, Ph., Van Mensel, L., Galand, B., Mettewie, L., Meunier, F., Szmalec, A., Van Goethem, K., Bulon, A., De Smet, A., Hendrikx, I., & Simonis, M.
    (2017) Assessing Content and Language Integrated Learning in the French-speaking Community of Belgium: Linguistic, cognitive and educational perspectives. Cahiers du GIRSEF, 109, 1–24. https://cdn.uclouvain.be/groups/cms-editors-girsef/demey/Cahier_109_final.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Isidro, X. S., & Lasagabaster, D.
    (2018) The impact of CLIL on pluriliteracy development and content learning in a rural multilingual setting: A longitudinal study. Language Teaching Research, 1–19. doi:  10.1177/1362168817754103
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168817754103 [Google Scholar]
  25. Jexenflicker, S., & Dalton-Puffer, C.
    (2010) The CLIL differential: Comparing the writing of CLIL and non-CLIL students in higher colleges of technology. InC. Dalton-Puffer, T. Nikula & U. Smit (Eds.), Language use and language learning in CLIL classrooms (pp.169–190). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/aals.7.09jex
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aals.7.09jex [Google Scholar]
  26. Johnson, J. S., & Newport, E. L.
    (1989) Critical period effects in second language learning: The influence of maturational state on the acquisition of English as a second language. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 60–99. doi:  10.1016/0010‑0285(89)90003‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(89)90003-0 [Google Scholar]
  27. Johnstone, R.
    (2007) Nationally-sponsored innovations at school in Scotland: issues of evidence, generalizability and sustainability. International Journal of Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1(1), 111–128. doi:  10.2167/illt046.0
    https://doi.org/10.2167/illt046.0 [Google Scholar]
  28. Kinsella, C.
    (2009) An investigation into the proficiency of successful late learners of French. (Unpublished doctoral thesis). Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland.
  29. Klieme, E.
    (2006) Zusammenfassung zentraler Ergebnisse der DESI Studie. Deutsches Institut für Internationale Pädagogische Forschung. https://www.dipf.de/de/forschung/aktuelle-projekte/pdf/biqua/DESI_Ausgewaehlte_Ergebnisse.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Koizumi, R.
    (2012) Relationships between text length and lexical diversity measures: can we use short texts of less than 100 tokens?Vocabulary Learning and Instruction, 1(1), 60–69. doi:  10.7820/vli.v01.1.koizumi
    https://doi.org/10.7820/vli.v01.1.koizumi [Google Scholar]
  31. Lahuerta Martínez, A. C.
    (2015) Analysis of the written competence of secondary education students in bilingual and non-bilingual programmes. InConference proceedings. ICT for language learning (pp.499–503). Padova: Libreriauniversitaria.it Edizioni.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Lambelet, A., & Berthele, R.
    (2015) Age and foreign language learning in school. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan. 10.1057/9781137525901
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137525901 [Google Scholar]
  33. 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]
  34. Lasagabaster, D., & Doiz, A.
    (2003) Maturational constraints on foreign language written production. InM. P. García Mayo & M. L. Garcia Lecumberri (Eds.), Age and the acquisition of English as a foreign language (pp.136–160). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781853596407‑008
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781853596407-008 [Google Scholar]
  35. Llanes, À., & Muñoz, C.
    (2009) A short stay abroad: Does it make a difference?System, 37(3), 353–365. doi:  10.1016/j.system.2009.03.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2009.03.001 [Google Scholar]
  36. Lo, Y.-Y., & Murphy, V. A.
    (2010) Vocabulary knowledge and growth in immersion and regular language-learning programmes in Hong Kong. Language and Education, 24, 215–238. doi:  10.1080/09500780903576125
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09500780903576125 [Google Scholar]
  37. Lochtman, K., Lutjeharms, M., & Kermarrec, G.
    (2005) Langues étrangères à Bruxelles: recherche sur les attitudes d’étudiants Bruxellois des écoles d’ingénieur commercial ULB et VUB [Foreign languages in Brussels: research on the attitudes of students in Brussels]. InE. Witte, L. Van Mensel, M. Pierrard, L. Mettewie, A. Housen, & R. De Groof (Eds.), Language, attitudes and education in multilingual cities (pp.211–233). Brussels: Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie van België voor Wetenschappen en Kunst.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Long, M. H.
    (1983) Does second language instruction make a distinction? A review of research. TESOL quarterly, 17(3), 359–382. doi:  10.2307/3586253
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3586253 [Google Scholar]
  39. Lorenzo, F., Casal, S., & Moore, P.
    (2005) Orientaciones para la elaboración del currículo integrado de las lenguas en los centros bilingües. Seville: Consejería de Educación (Junta de Andalucía).
    [Google Scholar]
  40. McCarthy, P. M., & Jarvis, S.
    (2010) MTLD, vocd-D, and HD-D: A validation study of sophisticated approaches to lexical diversity assessment. Behavior Research Methods, 42(2), 381–392. doi:  10.3758/BRM.42.2.381
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.42.2.381 [Google Scholar]
  41. Mettewie, L.
    (2015) Apprendre la langue de “l’Autre” en Belgique: la dimension affective comme frein à l’apprentissage [Learning the language of the ‘Other’ in Belgium]. Le Langage et l’Homme, 1(2), 23–42.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Miralpeix, I.
    (2006) Age and vocabulary acquisition in English as a foreign language. InC. Muñoz (Ed.), Age and the rate of foreign language learning (pp.89–106). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781853598937‑006
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781853598937-006 [Google Scholar]
  43. Mitchell, R., Tracy-Ventura, N., & McManus, K.
    (2017) Identity, social relationships and language learning during residence abroad. London/New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Möller, V.
    (2017) Language acquisition in CLIL and non-CLIL settings: Learner corpus and experimental evidence on passive constructions. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.80
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.80 [Google Scholar]
  45. Moyer, A.
    (2009) Input as a critical means to an end: Quantity and quality of experience in L2 phonological attainment. InT. Piske & M. Young-Scholten (Eds.), Input matters in SLA (pp.159–174). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Muñoz, C.
    (2006) The effects of age on foreign language learning: The BAF Project. InC. Muñoz (Ed.), Age and the rate of foreign language learning (pp.1–40). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781853598937‑003
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781853598937-003 [Google Scholar]
  47. (2008) Symmetries and asymmetries of age effects in naturalistic and instructed L2 learning. Applied Linguistics, 29, 578–596. doi:  10.1093/applin/amm056
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amm056 [Google Scholar]
  48. (2011) Input and long-term effects of starting age in foreign language learning. IRAL-International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 49(2), 113–133. doi:  10.1515/iral.2011.006
    https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2011.006 [Google Scholar]
  49. (2014) Contrasting effects of starting age and input on the oral performance of foreign language learners. Applied Linguistics, 35(4), 463–482. doi:  10.1093/applin/amu024
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amu024 [Google Scholar]
  50. Myles, J.
    (2002) Second language writing and research: The writing process and error analysis in student texts. Tesl-Ej, 6(2), 1–20. www.tesl-ej.org/wordpress/issues/volume6/ej22/ej22a1/?wscr
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Pander Maat, H., Kraf, R., Dekker, N., Sloot, K. van der, Bosch, A. van den, Gompel, M. van, & Klein, S.
    (2014) T-Scan: a new tool for analyzing Dutch text. Computational Linguistics in the Netherlands Journal, 4, 53–74. https://repository.ubn.ru.nl/bitstream/handle/2066/134833/134833.pdf?sequence=1
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Patkowski, M. S.
    (1980) The sensitive period for the acquisition of syntax in a second language. Language Learning, 30, 449–468. doi:  10.1111/j.1467‑1770.1980.tb00328.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1980.tb00328.x [Google Scholar]
  53. Pérez-Vidal, C., & Juan-Garau, M.
    (2011) The effect of context and input conditions on oral and written development: A study abroad perspective. VIAL, Vigo international journal of applied linguistics, 4, 157–185. doi:  10.1515/iral.2011.008
    https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2011.008 [Google Scholar]
  54. Pérez-Vidal, C., & Roquet, H.
    (2015) The linguistic impact of a CLIL Science programme: An analysis measuring relative gains. System, 54, 80–90. doi:  10.1016/j.system.2015.05.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.05.004 [Google Scholar]
  55. Raven, J. C., Court, J. H., & Raven, J.
    (1998) Progressive coloured matrices. Oxford: Oxford Psychologists Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Roquet, H., & Pérez-Vidal, C.
    (2017) Do productive skills improve in Content and Language Integrated Learning contexts? The case of writing. Applied Linguistics, 38(4), 489–511. doi:  10.1093/applin/amv050
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amv050 [Google Scholar]
  57. 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. www.icrj.eu/11/article5.html
    [Google Scholar]
  58. (2010) Written production and CLIL: An empirical study. InC. Dalton-Puffer, T. Nikula & U. Smit (Eds.), Language use and language learning in CLIL classrooms (pp.191–212). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/aals.7.10rui
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aals.7.10rui [Google Scholar]
  59. Saladrigues, G., & Llanes, À.
    (2014) Examining the impact of amount of exposure on L2 development with CLIL and non-CLIL teenage students. Sintagma, 26, 133–147. www.raco.cat/index.php/Sintagma/article/view/293008/381457
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Simonis, M., Van der Linden, L., Galand, B., Hiligsmann, Ph., & Szmalec, A.
    (2019) Executive control performance and foreign-language proficiency associated with immersion education in French-speaking Belgium. Bilingualism: Language and cognition, 1–16. doi:  10.1017/S136672891900021X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S136672891900021X [Google Scholar]
  61. Sundqvist, P.
    (2009) Extramural English matters: Out-of-school English and its impact on Swedish ninth graders’ oral proficiency and vocabulary. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Karlstad University, Karlstad, Sweden.
  62. Sundqvist, P., & Wikström, P.
    (2015) Out-of-school digital gameplay and in-school L2 English vocabulary outcomes. System, 51, 65–76. 10.1016/j.system.2015.04.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.04.001 [Google Scholar]
  63. Torras, M. R., & Celaya, M. L.
    (2001) Age-related differences in the development of written production. An empirical study of Efl school learners. International Journal of English Studies, 1(2), 103–126. revistas.um.es/ijes/article/view/48211/46181
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Torras, M. R., Navés, T., Celaya, M. L., & Pérez-Vidal, C.
    (2006) Age and IL development in writing. InC. Muñoz (Ed.), Age and the rate of foreign language learning (pp.156–182). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781853598937‑009
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781853598937-009 [Google Scholar]
  65. Treffers-Daller, J.
    (2013) Measuring lexical diversity among L2 learners of French: an exploration of the validity of D, MTLD and HD-D as measures of language ability. InS. Jarvis & M. Daller (Eds.), Vocabulary knowledge: Human ratings and automated measures (pp.79–105). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/sibil.47.05ch3
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.47.05ch3 [Google Scholar]
  66. Van Mensel, L., Hiligsmann, Ph., Mettewie, L., & Galand, B.
    (2019) CLIL, an elitist language learning approach? A background analysis of English and Dutch CLIL pupils in French-speaking Belgium. Language, Culture, and Curriculum. doi:  10.1080/07908318.2019.1571078
    https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2019.1571078 [Google Scholar]
  67. Wesche, M. B.
    (2002) Early French immersion: How has the original Canadian model stood the test of time?InP. Thorsten, A. Rohde, H. Wode & P. Burmeister (Eds.), An integrated view of language development: Papers in honor of Henning Wode (pp.357–378). Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. White, L.
    (2003) On the nature of interlanguage representation: Universal Grammar in the second language. InC. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp.19–42). Malden: Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470756492.ch2
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756492.ch2 [Google Scholar]
  69. Whittaker, A., & Llinares, A.
    (2011) Written discourse development in CLIL at secondary school. Language Teaching Research, 15(3), 343–362. doi:  10.1177/1362168811401154
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168811401154 [Google Scholar]
  70. Wode, H.
    (1994) Bilinguale Unterrichtserprobung in Schleswig-Holstein. Band II Analytische Auswertungen. Kiel: l&f Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S., & Kim, H. Y.
    (1998) Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy, & complexity. Hawaii: University of Hawaii Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Zydatiß, W.
    (2007) Deutsch-Englische Züge in Berlin (DEZIBEL). Eine Evaluation des bilingualen Sachfachunterrichts in Gymnasien: Kontext, Kompetenzen, Konsequenzen. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/jicb.18034.van
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/jicb.18034.van
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keywords: writing; L2 English; French-speaking Belgium; non-CLIL; CLIL; L2 Dutch
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