1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education
  4. Volume 12, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 12, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2212-8433
  • E-ISSN: 2212-8441
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This study investigated the relationship between foreign language (FL) oral proficiency development and teachers’ pedagogical practices in content and language integrated learning (CLIL). A one-group pretest-posttest design was employed to analyze changes in Japanese university students’ FL proficiency over time, alongside classroom observations and interviews that captured their teachers’ classroom pedagogies in CLIL courses. The results generally indicated that students improved their capacity to achieve communicative goals but failed to exhibit progress in oral linguistic competence. The former outcome was attributed to predominantly meaning-focused instruction, the use of dialogic pedagogy, and ample opportunities to practice FL speaking. In contrast, the absence of explicit language instruction and limited practice of fluency development tasks was perceived to lead to the latter outcome. These findings not only contribute to understanding the effects of CLIL on FL learning, but also shed light on the specific pedagogy-related factors that contribute to FL proficiency development.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jicb.23016.sat
2024-06-17
2025-04-22

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/jicb.23016.sat
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. 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]
  2. Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S.
    (2010) Language assessment in practice. Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Banegas, D. L.
    (2022) Research into practice: CLIL in South America. Language Teaching, 55(3), 379–391. 10.1017/S0261444820000622
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444820000622 [Google Scholar]
  4. British Council
    British Council. (n.d.-a). IELTS task 2 writing band descriptors (public version). https://takeielts.britishcouncil.org/sites/default/files/ielts_task_2_writing_band_descriptors.pdf#search=%27IELTS+TASK+2+Writing+band+descriptors+%28public+version%29%27
     [Google Scholar]
  5. British Council
    British Council (n.d.-b). IELTS Speaking band descriptors. https://takeielts.britishcouncil.org/sites/default/files/ielts_speaking_band_descriptors.pdf
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Bruton, A.
    (2011) Are the differences between CLIL and non-CLIL groups in Andalusia due to CLIL? A reply to Lorenzo, Casal and Moore (2010). Applied Linguistics, 32(2), 236–241. 10.1093/applin/amr007
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amr007 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bulté, B., Surmont, J., & Martens, L.
    (2022) The impact of CLIL on the L2 French and L1 Dutch proficiency of Flemish secondary school pupils. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 25(9), 3151–3170. 10.1080/13670050.2021.2018400
     https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2021.2018400 [Google Scholar]
  8. Codó, E.
    (2022) The dilemmas of experimental CLIL in Catalonia. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 43(4), 341–357. 10.1080/01434632.2020.1725525
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2020.1725525 [Google Scholar]
  9. Council of Europe
    Council of Europe (2001) Common European Framework of Reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D.
    (2010) CLIL: Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781009024549
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009024549 [Google Scholar]
  11. Dalton-Puffer, C.
    (2008) Outcomes and processes in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL): Current research from Europe. InW. Delanoy & L. Volkmann (Eds.), Future Perspectives for English Language Teaching (pp.139–157). Winter.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. (2013) A construct of cognitive discourse functions for conceptualising content-language integration in CLIL and multilingual education. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 216–253. 10.1515/eujal‑2013‑0011
     https://doi.org/10.1515/eujal-2013-0011 [Google Scholar]
  13. (2016) Cognitive discourse functions specifying an integrative interdisciplinary construct. InT. Nikula, E. Dafouz, P. Moore, & U. Smit (Eds.), Conceptualising integration in CLIL and multilingual education (pp.29–54). Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781783096145‑005
     https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783096145-005 [Google Scholar]
  14. Dalton-Puffer, C., & Bauer-Marschallinger, S.
    (2024) L2 proficiency and development in CLIL. InD. L. Banegas & S. Zappa-Hollman (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of Content and Language Integrated Learning. (pp.112–126). Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Dalton-Puffer, C., Bauer-Marschallinger, S., Brückl-Mackey, K., Hofmann, V., Hopf, J., Kröss, L., & Lechner, L.
    (2018) Cognitive discourse functions in Austrian CLIL lessons: Towards an empirical validation of the CDF construct. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6(1), 5–29. 10.1515/eujal‑2017‑0028
     https://doi.org/10.1515/eujal-2017-0028 [Google Scholar]
  16. Dalton-Puffer, C., Hüttner, J., & Llinares, A.
    (2022) CLIL in the 21st Century: Retrospective and prospective challenges and opportunities. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 10(2), 182–206. 10.1075/jicb.21021.dal
     https://doi.org/10.1075/jicb.21021.dal [Google Scholar]
  17. De Graaff, R., Jan Koopman, G., 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. 10.2167/beb462.0
     https://doi.org/10.2167/beb462.0 [Google Scholar]
  18. Hemmi, C.
    (2024) CLIL in Japan. InD. L. Banegas & S. Zappa-Hollman (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of Content and Language Integrated Learning (pp.475–488). Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Hu, J., & Gao, X.
    (2021) Understanding subject teachers’ language-related pedagogical practices in content and language integrated learning classrooms. Language Awareness, 30(1), 42–61. 10.1080/09658416.2020.1768265
     https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2020.1768265 [Google Scholar]
  20. Ikeda, M., Izumi, S., Watanabe, Y., Pinner, R., & Davis, M.
    (2022) Soft CLIL and English language teaching: Understanding Japanese policy, practice, and implications. Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Leung, C., & Morton, T.
    (2016) Conclusion: Language competence, learning and pedagogy in CLIL – Deepening and broadening integration. InT. Nikula, E. Dafouz, P. Moore, & U. Smit (Eds.), Conceptualising integration in CLIL and multilingual education (pp.235–248). Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781783096145‑014
     https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783096145-014 [Google Scholar]
  22. Llinares, A., & Lyster, R.
    (2014) The influence of context on patterns of corrective feedback and learner uptake: A comparison of CLIL and immersion classrooms. The Language Learning Journal, 42(2), 181–194. 10.1080/09571736.2014.889509
     https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2014.889509 [Google Scholar]
  23. Llinares, A., Morton, T., & Whittaker, R.
    (2012) The roles of language in CLIL. Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Lyster, R.
    (2017) Introduction to part I: SLA perspectives on learning and teaching language through content. InA. Llinares & T. Morton (Eds.), Applied linguistics perspectives on CLIL (pp.19–31). John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.47.02lys
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.47.02lys [Google Scholar]
  25. Mahan, K. R., Brevik, L. M., & Ødegaard, M.
    (2021) Characterizing CLIL teaching: New insights from a lower secondary classroom. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 24(3), 401–418. 10.1080/13670050.2018.1472206
     https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2018.1472206 [Google Scholar]
  26. Merino, J. A., & Lasagabaster, D.
    (2018) CLIL as a way to multilingualism. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21(1), 79–92. 10.1080/13670050.2015.1128386
     https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2015.1128386 [Google Scholar]
  27. Newton, J. M., & Nation, I. S. P.
    (2021) Teaching ESL/EFL listening and speaking (2nd ed.). Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Pérez Cañado, M. L., & Lancaster, N. K.
    (2017) The effects of CLIL on oral comprehension and production: A longitudinal case study. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 30(3), 300–316. 10.1080/07908318.2017.1338717
     https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2017.1338717 [Google Scholar]
  29. Phakiti, A.
    (2014) Experimental research methods in language learning. Bloomsbury.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Pitts, L.
    (2016) 1,000 conversation questions: Designed for use in the ESL or EFL classrooms. ECQ Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F. L.
    (2014) How big is “big”? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning, 64(4). 878–912. 10.1111/lang.12079
     https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12079 [Google Scholar]
  32. Rallo Fabra, L., & Jacob, K.
    (2015) Does CLIL enhance oral skills? Fluency and pronunciation errors by Spanish-Catalan learners of English. InM. Juan-Garau & J. Salazar Noguera (Eds.), Content-based language learning in multilingual educational environments (pp.163–177). Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑11496‑5_10
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11496-5_10 [Google Scholar]
  33. Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S.
    (2014) Approaches and methods in language teaching (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781009024532
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009024532 [Google Scholar]
  34. 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]
  35. San Isidro, X., & Lasagabaster, D.
    (2019) The impact of CLIL on pluriliteracy development and content learning in a rural multilingual setting: A longitudinal study. Language Teaching Research, 23(5), 584–602. 10.1177/1362168817754103
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168817754103 [Google Scholar]
  36. Sato, T.
    (2024) Assessment in CLIL. InD. L. Banegas & S. Zappa-Hollman (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of Content and Language Integrated Learning (pp.355–370). Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Sato, T., & Hemmi, C.
    (2022) Development of second language productive skills through CLIL in a Japanese university: A pre-experimental longitudinal study. Language Learning in Higher Education, 12(1), 309–326. 10.1515/cercles‑2022‑2040
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cercles-2022-2040 [Google Scholar]
  38. Sato, T., & McNamara, T.
    (2019) What counts in second language oral communication ability? The perspective of linguistic laypersons. Applied Linguistics, 40(6), 894–916. 10.1093/applin/amy032
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amy032 [Google Scholar]
  39. Spada, N., & Fröhlich, M.
    (1995) COLT Communicative Orientation of Language Teaching Observation Scheme: Coding conventions and applications. National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research Macquarie University.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Tsuchiya, K.
    (2019) CLIL and language education in Japan. InK. Tsuchiya & M. D. Pérez Murillo (Eds.), Content and language integrated learning in Spanish and Japanese contexts: Policy, practice and pedagogy (pp.37–56). Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1007/978‑3‑030‑27443‑6_3
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-27443-6_3 [Google Scholar]
  41. Tsuchiya, K., & Pérez Murillo, M. D.
    (2015) Comparing the language policies and the students’ perceptions of CLIL in tertiary education in Spain and Japan. Latin American Journal of Content and Language Integrated Learning, 8(1), 25–35. 10.5294/laclil.2015.8.1.3
     https://doi.org/10.5294/laclil.2015.8.1.3 [Google Scholar]
  42. van Kampen, E., Admiraal, W., & Berry, A.
    (2018) Content and language integrated learning in the Netherlands: Teachers’ self-reported pedagogical practices. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21(2), 222–236. 10.1080/13670050.2016.1154004
     https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2016.1154004 [Google Scholar]
  43. Wells, G.
    (1999) Dialogic inquiry: Towards a sociocultural practice and theory of education. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511605895
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511605895 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/jicb.23016.sat
Loading
The relationship between teachers’ pedagogical practices in CLIL and the development of students’ foreign language oral proficiency
Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education 12, 221 (2024); https://doi.org/10.1075/jicb.23016.sat
/content/journals/10.1075/jicb.23016.sat
/content/journals/10.1075/jicb.23016.sat
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): class observation; CLIL; higher education; Japan; longitudinal study; oral proficiency

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