1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education
  4. Volume 10, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 10, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2212-8433
  • E-ISSN: 2212-8441
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

To investigate the impact of meaning-focused content-based instruction (CBI) and language-focused non-CBI, both dealing with compare/contrast language, this study compared Japanese secondary school students’ compare/contrast writing on two topics (i.e., a power generation topic aligned to the CBI and a new topic) in pre-and post-tests. Their writing was analyzed in terms of complexity, accuracy, fluency, and functional adequacy. The results show that the CBI group improved both linguistic and functional aspects of the power generation topic, as well as two functional aspects of the new topic. In contrast, the non-CBI group showed two linguistic changes in the power generation topic, and three linguistic and two functional changes in the general topic writing. Therefore, CBI may not only serve to improve linguistic and functional aspects on the same topic writing but also might draw writers’ attention to functional aspects in a new topic.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jicb.20006.suz
2021-02-22
2024-12-05

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/jicb.20006.suz
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Abrams, Z., & Byrd, D. R.
    (2017) The effects of meaning-focused pre-tasks on beginning-level L2 writing in German: An exploratory study. Language Teaching Research, 21(4), 434–453.   10.1177/1362168815627383
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168815627383 [Google Scholar]
  2. Abrams, Z. I.
    (2019) The effects of integrated writing on linguistic complexity in L2 writing and task-complexity. System, 81, 110–121.   10.1016/j.system.2019.01.009
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.01.009 [Google Scholar]
  3. Alfonso Pena, C., & Pladevall-Ballester, E.
    (2020) Effects of focus on form on primary CLIL students’ foreign language performance in task-based oral interaction. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 8(1), 53–79.   10.1075/jicb.17028.alf
     https://doi.org/10.1075/jicb.17028.alf [Google Scholar]
  4. Amiryousefi, M.
    (2016) The differential effects of two types of task repetition on complexity, accuracy, and fluency in computer-mediated L2 written production: A focus on computer anxiety. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(5), 1052–1068.   10.1080/09588221.2016.1170040
     https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2016.1170040 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bentley, K.
    (2010) The TKT course CLIL module. Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Brinton, D. M., & Snow, M. A.
    (2017) The evolving architecture of content-based instruction. InA. Snow & D. Brinton (Eds.), The Content-based classroom: New perspectives on integrating language and content (pp.2–20). University of Michigan Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Bui, H. Y. G.
    (2014) Task readiness: Theoretical framework and empirical evidence from topic familiarity, strategic planning, and proficiency levels. InP. Skehan (Ed.), Processing perspectives on task performance (pp.63–94). John Benjamins. 10.1075/tblt.5.03gav
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.5.03gav [Google Scholar]
  8. Bulté, B., & Housen, A.
    (2019) Beginning L2 complexity development in CLIL and non-CLIL secondary education. Instructed Second Language Acquisition, 3(2), 153–180.   10.1558/isla.38247
     https://doi.org/10.1558/isla.38247 [Google Scholar]
  9. Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D.
    (2010) Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781009024549
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009024549 [Google Scholar]
  10. Dalton-Puffer, C.
    (2011) Content-and-language integrated learning: From practice to principles?Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 182–204.   10.1017/S0267190511000092
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190511000092 [Google Scholar]
  11. Dalton-Puffer, C., & Smit, U.
    (2013) Content and language integrated learning: A research agenda. Language Teaching, 46(4), 545–559.   10.1017/S0261444813000256
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444813000256 [Google Scholar]
  12. Derewianka, B.
    (1996) Exploring the writing of genres. United Kingdom Reading Association.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Ellis, R.
    (2020) In defence of a modular curriculum for tasks. ELT Journal, 74(2), 1–10.   10.1093/elt/ccaa015
     https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccaa015 [Google Scholar]
  14. Ellis, R., Skehan, P., Li, S., Shintani, N., & Lambert, C.
    (2020) Task-based language teaching: Theory and practice. Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Ellis, R., & Shintani, N.
    (2014) Exploring language pedagogy through second language acquisition research. Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Ellis, R., & Yuan, F.
    (2004) The effects of planning on fluency, complexity, and accuracy in second language narrative writing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(1), 59–84.   10.1017/S0272263104261034
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263104261034 [Google Scholar]
  17. Evans, N. W., Hartshorn, K. J., Cox, T. L., & Martin de Jel, T.
    (2014) Measuring written linguistic accuracy with weighted clause ratios: A question of validity. Journal of Second Language Writing, 24(1), 33–50.   10.1016/j.jslw.2014.02.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2014.02.005 [Google Scholar]
  18. Fitzsimmons-Doolan, S., Grabe, W., & Stoller, F. L.
    (2017) Research support for content-based instruction. InA. Snow & D. Brinton (Eds.), The content-based classroom: New perspectives on integrating language and content (pp.21–35). University of Michigan Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Foster, P., & Wigglesworth, G.
    (2016) Capturing accuracy in second language performance: The case for a weighted clause ratio. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 98–116.   10.1017/S0267190515000082
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190515000082 [Google Scholar]
  20. García Mayo, M. del P.
    (2015) The interface between task-based language teaching and content-based instruction. System, 54, 1–3.   10.1016/j.system.2015.09.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.09.003 [Google Scholar]
  21. 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. Language Learning Journal, 43(3), 286–303.   10.1080/09571736.2015.1053278
     https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2015.1053278 [Google Scholar]
  22. Harada, T.
    (2008) Content-based instruction (CBI) no riron to jissen – nihon no daigaku ni okeru eigo risuningu sidou wo chushin ni- [Theory and practice of content-based instruction (CBI) – Listening instruction in a Japanese university class]. InK. Murata & T. Harada (Eds.), Communication nouryoku ikusei saikou – Henry Widdowson to Nihon no ouyougengogaku gengokyouiku (pp.151–180). Hitsujishobou.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Hunt, K.
    (1970) Syntactic maturity in schoolchildren and adults. Monographs of the Sociely for Rearch in Child Development, 35(1), 1–67. 10.2307/1165818
     https://doi.org/10.2307/1165818 [Google Scholar]
  24. Ikeda, M.
    (2013) Does CLIL work for Japanese secondary school students?International CLIL Research Journal, 2(1), 31–43. www.icrj.eu/21/article3.html
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Kong, S.
    (2015) Designing content-language integrated learning materials for late immersion students. TESOL Journal, 6(2), 302–331.   10.1002/tesj.151
     https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.151 [Google Scholar]
  26. Koo, T. K., & Li, M. Y.
    (2016) A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine, 15(2), 155–163.   10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012 [Google Scholar]
  27. Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I.
    (2017) Functional adequacy in L2 writing: Towards a new rating scale. Language Testing, 34(3), 321–336.   10.1177/0265532216663991
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532216663991 [Google Scholar]
  28. Lahuerta, A.
    (2020) Analysis of accuracy in the writing of EFL students enrolled in CLIL and non-CLIL programmes: The impact of grade and gender. Language Learning Journal, 48(2), 121–132.   10.1080/09571736.2017.1303745
     https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2017.1303745 [Google Scholar]
  29. Lahuerta Martínez, A. C.
    (2018) Analysis of syntactic complexity in secondary education EFL writers at different proficiency levels. Assessing Writing, 35(January 2018), 1–11.   10.1016/j.asw.2017.11.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2017.11.002 [Google Scholar]
  30. Larson-Hall, J.
    (2010) A guide to doing statistics in second language research using SPSS. Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Lasagabaster, D.
    (2008) Foreign language competence in content and language integrated courses. The Open Applied Linguistics Journal, 1, 30–41.   10.2174/1874913500801010030
     https://doi.org/10.2174/1874913500801010030 [Google Scholar]
  32. Lialikhova, D.
    (2018) The impact of a short-term CLIL intervention project on Norwegian different ability ninth graders’ oral development. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 1–22.   10.1080/13670050.2018.1509055
     https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2018.1509055 [Google Scholar]
  33. Llinares, A., & Dalton-Puffer, C.
    (2015) The role of different tasks in CLIL students’ use of evaluative language. System, 54, 69–79.   10.1016/j.system.2015.05.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.05.001 [Google Scholar]
  34. Lu, X.
    (2010) Automatic analysis of syntactic complexity in second language writing. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 15(4), 474–496.   10.1075/ijcl.15.4.02lu
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.15.4.02lu [Google Scholar]
  35. Lyster, R.
    (2007) Learning and teaching languages through content: A counterbalanced approach. John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.18
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.18 [Google Scholar]
  36. 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.   10.3758/BRM.42.2.381
     https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.42.2.381 [Google Scholar]
  37. McNamara, D. S., Louwerse, M. M., McCarthy, P. M., & Graesser, A. C.
    (2010) Coh-Metrix: Capturing Linguistic Features of Cohesion. Discourse Processes, 47(4), 292–330.   10.1080/01638530902959943
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01638530902959943 [Google Scholar]
  38. Mizumoto, A., & Takeuchi, O.
    (2010) Koukaryou to kentei-ryoku bunseki nyuumon: Toukei-teki kentei wo tadashiku tsukau tameni (Introduction to effect size and power analysis: To use statistical tests appropriately). Bulletin of Methodology SIG, Kansai Chapter of LET, 47–73. www.mizumot.com/method/mizumoto-takeuchi.pdf
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Mohan, B. A.
    (1986) Language and content. Addison Wesley Publishing Company.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L.
    (2009) Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 555–578.   10.1093/applin/amp044
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp044 [Google Scholar]
  41. Ong, J., & Zhang, L. J.
    (2010) Effects of task complexity on the fluency and lexical complexity in EFL students’ argumentative writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19(4), 218–233.   10.1016/j.jslw.2010.10.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2010.10.003 [Google Scholar]
  42. Ortega, L.
    (2015) Researching CLIL and TBLT interfaces. System, 54, 103–109.   10.1016/j.system.2015.09.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.09.002 [Google Scholar]
  43. Pallotti, G.
    (2009) CAF: Defining, refining and differentiating constructs. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 590–601.   10.1093/applin/amp045
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp045 [Google Scholar]
  44. Pérez-Vidal, C., & Roquet, H.
    (2015) The linguistic impact of a CLIL science programme: An analysis measuring relative gains. System, 54, 80–90.   10.1016/j.system.2015.05.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.05.004 [Google Scholar]
  45. Révész, A., Kourtali, N. E., & Mazgutova, D.
    (2017) Effects of task complexity on L2 writing behaviors and linguistic complexity. Language Learning, 67(1). 208–241.   10.1111/lang.12205
     https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12205 [Google Scholar]
  46. Roediger, I., & Guynn, M.
    (1996) Retrieval processes. InE. Bork & R. Bork (Eds.), Memory (pp.197–236). Academic Press. 10.1016/B978‑012102570‑0/50009‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012102570-0/50009-4 [Google Scholar]
  47. 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.   10.1093/applin/amv050
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amv050 [Google Scholar]
  48. Shintani, N.
    (2019) Potential of writing-to-learn-language activities from second language acquisition research. Journal of Second Language Writing, 46-.   10.1016/j.jslw.2019.100676
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2019.100676 [Google Scholar]
  49. Snow, M. A.
    (2014) Content-based and immersion models of second/foreign language teaching. InM. Celce-Murcia, D. M. Brinton, & M. A. Snow (Eds.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (4th ed., pp.438–454). National Geographic Learning / Heinle Cengage Learning.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Stoller, F. L.
    (2008) Content-based instruction. InN. Van Deusen-Scholl & N. H. Hornberger (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Education (2nd Ed., pp.59–70). Springer Science + Business Media LLC. 10.1007/978‑0‑387‑30424‑3_89
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-30424-3_89 [Google Scholar]
  51. Vandommele, G., Van den Branden, K., Van Gorp, K., & De Maeyer, S.
    (2017) In-school and out-of-school multimodal writing as an L2 writing resource for beginner learners of Dutch. Journal of Second Language Writing, 36(May), 23–36.   10.1016/j.jslw.2017.05.010
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2017.05.010 [Google Scholar]
  52. Yamano, Y.
    (2013) Utilizing the CLIL approach in a Japanese primary school: A comparative study of CLIL and EFL lessons. The Asian EFL Journal. 15(4). 160–183. www.asian-efl-journal.com/
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Yang, W.
    (2015) Content and language integrated learning next in Asia: Evidence of learners’ achievement in CLIL education from a Taiwan tertiary degree programme. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 18(4), 361–382.   10.1080/13670050.2014.904840
     https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2014.904840 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/jicb.20006.suz
Loading
Effects of content-based instruction (CBI) on EFL secondary school learners’ writing
Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education 10, 5 (2022); https://doi.org/10.1075/jicb.20006.suz
/content/journals/10.1075/jicb.20006.suz
/content/journals/10.1075/jicb.20006.suz
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): content and language integrated learning; content-based instruction; EFL; TBLT; writing

Most Cited

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