Volume 9, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2212-8433
  • E-ISSN: 2212-8441
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



This article presents a comparative study of the linguistic characteristics of some materials used to teach English as a foreign language, and Geography and History through English in a Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) experience in the Basque Country with students aged 11–13. This paper analyzes and compares the contents of current textbooks using Coh-Metrix and AzterTest, which calculate stylistic and linguistic metrics regarding lexical and grammatical complexity, readability and coherence. Finally, the study suggests that there are significant differences mainly in vocabulary level, narrativity and cohesion, it identifies the potential difficulties of CLIL texts and offers advice on how to overcome them. Raising awareness of the complexity of some texts used in CLIL can provide a starting point for pedagogical adaptations and contribute to optimizing learning.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Anderson, A., Garrod, S. C., & Sanford, A. J.
    (1983) The accessibility of pronominal antecedents as a function of episode shifts in narrative text. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 35A, 427–440. doi:  10.1080/14640748308402480
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14640748308402480 [Google Scholar]
  2. Alva-Manchego, F., Scarton, C., & Specia, L.
    (2020) Data-driven sentence simplification: Survey and benchmark. Computational Linguistics, 1–87. doi:  10.1162/coli_a_00370
    https://doi.org/10.1162/coli_a_00370 [Google Scholar]
  3. Beacco, J. C. & Byram, M.
    (2007) From linguistic diversity to plurilingual education: Guide for the development of language education policies in Europe. Council of Europe.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bengoetxea, K., Gonzalez-Dios, I., & Aguirregoitia, A.
    (2020) AzterTest: Open source linguistic and stylistic analysis tool. Procesamiento del Lenguaje Natural, 64, 1–8. doi: 10.26342/2020‑64‑7
    https://doi.org/10.26342/2020-64-7 [Google Scholar]
  5. Biber, D., Gray, B., & Poonpon, K.
    (2011) Should we use characteristics of conversation to measure grammatical complexity in L2 writing development?Tesol Quarterly, 45(1), 5–35. doi:  10.5054/tq.2011.244483
    https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2011.244483 [Google Scholar]
  6. Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E.
    (1999) Longman grammar spoken and written English. Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Boroş, T., Dumitrescu, S. D., & Burtica, R.
    (2018) NLP-Cube: End-to-end raw text processing with neural networks. InProceedings of the CoNLL 2018 Shared Task: Multilingual Parsing from Raw Text to Universal Dependencies (pp.171–179). Association for Computational Linguistics. doi:  10.18653/v1/K18‑2017
    https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/K18-2017 [Google Scholar]
  8. Cenoz, J.
    (2009) Towards multilingual education: Basque educational research from an international perspective. Multilingual Matters. doi:  10.21832/9781847691941
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847691941 [Google Scholar]
  9. (2019) Translanguaging pedagogies and English as a lingua franca. Language Teaching, 52(1), 71–85. doi:  10.1017/S0261444817000246
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444817000246 [Google Scholar]
  10. Coyle, D.
    (2010) Foreword. InD. Lasagabaster & Y. Ruiz de Zarobe (Eds.) CLIL in Spain: Implementation, results and teacher training, pp.vii–viii. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. doi:  10.14797/mdcj‑6‑3‑1
    https://doi.org/10.14797/mdcj-6-3-1 [Google Scholar]
  11. Crossley, S. A., Allen, D. B., & McNamara, D. S.
    (2011) Text readability and intuitive simplification: A comparison of readability formulas. Reading in a foreign language, 23(1), 84–101. doi:https://doi.org/10125/66657
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Crossley, S. A., Greenfield, J., & McNamara, D. S.
    (2008) Assessing text readability using cognitively based indices. Tesol Quarterly, 42(3), 475–493. doi:  10.1002/j.1545‑7249.2008.tb00142.x
    https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2008.tb00142.x [Google Scholar]
  13. Crossley, S. A., Louwerse, M. M., McCarthy, P. M., & McNamara, D. S.
    (2007) A linguistic analysis of simplified and authentic texts. The Modern Language Journal, 91(1), 15–30. doi:  10.1111/j.1540‑4781.2007.00507.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00507.x [Google Scholar]
  14. Cummins, J.
    (2008) Teaching for transfer: Challenging the two solitudes assumption in bilingual education. Encyclopedia of language and education, 5, 65–75. doi:  10.1007/978‑0‑387‑30424‑3_116
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-30424-3_116 [Google Scholar]
  15. (2009) Multilingualism in the English-language classroom: Pedagogical considerations. TESOL quarterly, 43(2), 317–321. doi:  10.1002/j.1545‑7249.2009.tb00171.x
    https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2009.tb00171.x [Google Scholar]
  16. Der, G., & Everitt, B. S.
    (2008) A handbook of statistical analyses using SAS. Chapman and Hall CRC.. 10.1201/9781584887850
    https://doi.org/10.1201/9781584887850 [Google Scholar]
  17. Eusko Jaurlaritza
    Eusko Jaurlaritza (2010) Proceso de experimentación del marco de educación trilingüe. Documento marco, 2010–2011. Departamento de educación. www.hezkuntza.ejgv.euskadi.eus/r43-2459/es/contenidos/informacion/dig_publicaciones_innovacion/es_dig_publ/adjuntos/19_hizkuntzak_500/500013c_Pub_EJ_experimentacion_MET_c.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Eusko Jaurlaritza
  19. Franceschini, R.
    (2013) “History of multilingualism.” Inthe Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, edited byC. A. Chapelle. 1–9. Blackwell Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Gierlinger, E. M.
    (2017) Teaching CLIL?Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 5(2), 187–213. doi:  10.1075/jicb.5.2.02gie
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jicb.5.2.02gie [Google Scholar]
  21. Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., & Kulikowich, J. M.
    (2011) Coh-Metrix: Providing multilevel analyses of text characteristics. Educational researcher, 40(5), 223–234. doi:  10.3102/0013189X11413260
    https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X11413260 [Google Scholar]
  22. Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., Cai, Z., Conley, M., Li, H., & Pennebaker, J.
    (2014) Coh-Metrix measures text characteristics at multiple levels of language and discourse. The Elementary School Journal, 115(2), 210–229. doi:  10.1086/678293
    https://doi.org/10.1086/678293 [Google Scholar]
  23. Gonzalez-Dios, I., Bengoetxea, K., & Aguirregoitia, A.
    (2020) LagunTest: A NLP based application to enhance reading comprehension. InProceedings of the 1st Workshop on Tools and Resources to Empower People with REAding Difficulties (READI), pp.63–69. European Language Resources Association.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Heras, A., & Lasagabaster, D.
    (2015) The impact of CLIL on affective factors and vocabulary learning. Language Teaching Research, 19(1), 70–88. doi:  10.1177/1362168814541736
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168814541736 [Google Scholar]
  25. Huguet, À., Lasagabaster, D., & Vila, I.
    (2008) Bilingual education in Spain: Present realities and future challenges. Encyclopedia of language and education, 1672–1682. doi:  10.1007/978‑0‑387‑30424‑3_127
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-30424-3_127 [Google Scholar]
  26. Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A.
    (1987) The psychology of reading and language comprehension. Allyn & Bacon, Inc.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Kintsch, W.
    (1998) Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Kintsch, W., & Van Dijk, T. A.
    (1978) Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological review, 85(5), 363–394. doi:  10.1037/0033‑295X.85.5.363
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.85.5.363 [Google Scholar]
  29. Llinares, A., & Morton, T.
    (Eds.) (2017) Applied linguistics perspectives on CLIL. John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/lllt.47
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.47 [Google Scholar]
  30. Llinares, A., Morton, T., & Whittaker, R.
    (2012) The roles of language in CLIL. Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Llinares, A. & Whittaker, R.
    (2010) Writing and speaking in the history class. InC. Dalton-Puffer & T. Nikula (Eds.) Language use and language learning in CLIL classrooms, (pp.125–124). John Benjamin Publishing. 10.1075/aals.7.14dal
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aals.7.14dal [Google Scholar]
  32. Lorenzo, F.
    (2008) Instructional discourse in bilingual settings. An empirical study of linguistic adjustments in content and language integrated learning. Language Learning Journal, 36(1), 21–33. doi:  10.1080/09571730801988470
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09571730801988470 [Google Scholar]
  33. (2013) Genre-based curricula: multilingual academic literacy in content and language integrated learning. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16(3), 375–388. doi:  10.1080/13670050.2013.777391
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2013.777391 [Google Scholar]
  34. Lorenzo, F., Granados, A. & Ávila, I.
    (2019) The development of cognitive academic language proficiency in multilingual education: Evidence of a longitudinal study on the language of history. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 41, 100767. doi:  10.1016/j.jeap.2019.06.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2019.06.010 [Google Scholar]
  35. López, L. E., Sichra, I.
    (2008) Intercultural Bilingual Education Among Indigenous Peoples in Latin America. InHornberger, N. H. (eds). Encyclopedia of Language and Education. Springer. 10.1007/978‑0‑387‑30424‑3_132
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-30424-3_132 [Google Scholar]
  36. Lyster, R., Ruiz de Zarobe, Y.
    (2018) Introduction: instructional practices and teacher development in CLIL and immersion school settings. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21(3), 273–274. doi:  10.1080/13670050.2017.1383353
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2017.1383353 [Google Scholar]
  37. McCarthy, P. M., & Jarvis, S.
    (2007) vocd: A theoretical and empirical evaluation. Language Testing, 24(4), 459–488. doi:  10.1177/0265532207080767
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532207080767 [Google Scholar]
  38. McCarthy, P. M.
    (2005) An assessment of the range and usefulness of lexical diversity measures and the potential of the measure of textual, lexical diversity(MTLD) [Doctoral dissertation]. The University of Memphis.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. McNamara, D. S., Graesser, A. C., McCarthy, P. M., & Cai, Z.
    (2014) Automated evaluation of text and discourse with Coh-Metrix. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511894664
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511894664 [Google Scholar]
  40. Mercer, N., Wegerif, R., & Major, L.
    (2019) The Routledge international handbook of research on dialogic education. Routledge. 10.4324/9780429441677
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429441677 [Google Scholar]
  41. Meyer, O.
    (2010) Towards quality CLIL: Successful planning and teaching strategies. PULSO. Revista de Educación, 33, 11–29.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Mikolov, T., Grave, É., Bojanowski, P., Puhrsch, C., & Joulin, A.
    (2018) Advances in pre-training distributed word representations. InProceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2018), pp52–55. European Language Resources Association.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Nikula, T., & Moore, P.
    (2019) Exploring translanguaging in CLIL. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 22(2), 237–249. doi:  10.1080/13670050.2016.1254151
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2016.1254151 [Google Scholar]
  44. O’Reilly, T., & McNamara, D. S.
    (2007) The impact of science knowledge, reading skill, and reading strategy knowledge on more traditional “high-stakes” measures of high school students’ science achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 44(1), 161–196. doi:  10.3102/0002831206298171
    https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831206298171 [Google Scholar]
  45. Otwinowska, A., & Foryś, M.
    (2017) They learn the CLIL way, but do they like it? Affectivity and cognition in upper-primary CLIL classes. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 20(5), 457–480. doi:  10.1080/13670050.2015.1051944
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2015.1051944 [Google Scholar]
  46. Qi, P., Dozat, T., Zhang, Y., & Manning, C.
    2018 Universal Dependency Parsing from Scratch. InProceedings of the CoNLL 2018 Shared Task: Multilingual Parsing from Raw Text to Universal Dependencies, pp.160–170. doi:  10.18653/v1/K18‑2016
    https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/K18-2016 [Google Scholar]
  47. Ruiz de Zarobe, Y.
    (2013) CLIL implementation: From policy-makers to individual initiatives. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16, 231–243. doi:  10.1080/13670050.2013.777383
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2013.777383 [Google Scholar]
  48. Saggion, H.
    (2017) Automatic text simplification. Synthesis Lectures on Human Language Technologies, 10(1), 1–137. doi:  10.2200/S00700ED1V01Y201602HLT032
    https://doi.org/10.2200/S00700ED1V01Y201602HLT032 [Google Scholar]
  49. Schleppegrell, M. J.
    (2004) The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 10.4324/9781410610317
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410610317 [Google Scholar]
  50. Snow, C.
    (2002) Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension. Rand.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Speer, R., J. Chin, A. Lin, S. Jewett, & Nathan, L.
    (2018) Luminosoinsight/wordfreq:v2.2. 10.5281/zenodo.1443582
    https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1443582 [Google Scholar]
  52. Whittaker, R., Llinares, A., & McCabe, 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]
  53. Zeno, S., Ivens, S. H., Millard, R. T., & Duvvuri, R.
    (1995) The educator’s word frequency guide. Touchstone Applied Science Associates.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

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