Cover not available
Article published In:
Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education
Vol. 8:1 (2020) ► pp.53–79

Effects of focus on form on primary CLIL students’ foreign language performance in task-based oral interaction

 | Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona
 | Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona
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.
Keywords: form-focused instruction, primary students, fluency, complexity
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The balance between content and language in CLIL
  • 3.CLIL teachers and the nature of the CLIL subject
  • 4.Methods
    • 4.1The study
    • 4.2Participants
    • 4.3Design of the intervention
    • 4.4Information-gap tasks
    • 4.5Procedure
    • 4.6Data analysis
  • 5.Results
  • 6.Discussion
  • 7.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 31 March 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jicb.17028.alf
References (50)
References
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. In K. McDonough & A. Mackey (Eds.), Second language interaction in diverse educational settings (pp. 25–44). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 EFL settings: A longitudinal study (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).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.Google Scholar
Cenoz, J., Genesee, F., & Gorter, D. (2014). Critical analysis of CLIL: Taking stock and looking forward. Applied Linguistics, 351, 243–262. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Coyle, D. (2008). CLIL-A pedagogical approach from the European perspective. In N. Van Deusen-Scholl & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education (pp. 97–111). Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011). Investigating student gains: Content and language integrated learning. ITALIC Research Final Report. University of Aberdeen.Google Scholar
(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 logoGoogle Scholar
Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and language integrated learning. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2008). Outcomes and processes in content and language integrated (CLIL) learning: Current research in Europe. In W. Delanoy & L. Volkmann (Eds.), Future perspectives in English language teaching (pp. 7–23). Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
(2011). Content and language integrated learning: From practice to principles? Review of Applied Linguistics, 311, 182–204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C., & Smit, U. (2007). Introduction. In C. Dalton-Puffer & U. Smit (Eds.), Empirical perspectives on CLIL classroom discourse (pp. 7–24). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (2002). The robustness of critical period effects in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22(4), 499–533. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007). Practice in a second language: Perspectives from Applied Linguistics and Cognitive Psychology. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (1998). Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R., Baturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2001). Learner uptake in communicative ESL lessons. Language Learning, 511, 281–318. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eurydice. (2012). Key data on teaching languages at school in Europe 2012. Brussels: Eurydice. <[URL]>
Foster, P., Tonkyn, A., & Wigglesworth, G. (2000). Measuring spoken language: A unit for all reasons. Applied Linguistics, 211, 354–75. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frigols, M. J. (2007). CLIL implementation in Spain: An approach to different models. <[URL]>
Gajo, L., & Serra, C. (2002). Bilingual teaching: Connecting language and concepts in mathematics. In D. So & G. Jones (Eds.), Education and society in plurilingual contexts (pp. 75–95). Brussels: VUB Brussels University Press.Google Scholar
García Mayo, M. P., & Lázaro Ibarrola, A. (2015). Oral interaction strategies among EFL and CLIL children in task-based pair work. System, 541, 40–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Genesee, F., & Lindholm-Leary, K. (2013). Two case studies of content-based language education. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Education, 11, 3–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grosjean, F. (2004). Studying bilinguals: Methodological and conceptual issues. In T. K. Bhatia & W. C. Ritchie (Eds.), The handbook of bilingualism (pp. 32–63). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Housen, A., Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2012). Complexity, accuracy and fluency: Definitions, measurement and research. In A. 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 logoGoogle Scholar
Lasagabaster, D. (2008). Foreign language competence in content and language integrated courses. The Open Applied Linguistics Journal, 11, 31–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010). English achievement and student motivation in CLIL and EFL settings. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 5(1), 3–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Llinares, A., Morton, T., & Whittaker, R. (2012). The roles of language in CLIL. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. (2004a). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 399–432.Google Scholar
(2004b). Research on form-focused instruction in immersion classrooms: Implications for theory and practice. Journal of French Language Studies, 141, 321–341. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES Project: Tools for analyzing talk. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Marsch, D., Ennser, C., & Sygmund, D. (1999). Pursuing plurilingualism. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä.Google Scholar
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
Meyer, O. (2010). Introducing the CLIL-Pyramid: Key strategies and principles for quality CLIL planning and teaching. In M. Eisenmann & T. Summer (Eds.), Basic issues in EFL-teaching and learning (pp. 295–313). Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Moore, P., & Nikula, T. (2016). Translanguaging in CLIL classrooms. In T. Nikula, E. Dafouz, P. Moore, & U. Smit (Eds.), Conceptualising integration in CLIL and multilingual education (pp. 211–234). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mora, J. C. (2006). Age effects on oral fluency development. In C. Muñoz (Ed.), Age and the rate of foreign language learning (pp. 65–88). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nikula, T., Dafouz, E., Moore, P., & Smit, U. (Eds.). (2016). Conceptualising integration in CLIL and multilingual education. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Onoda, S. (2014). An exploration of effective teaching approaches for enhancing the oral fluency of EFL students. In P. Muller, Adamson, P. Brown, & S. Herder (Eds.), Exploring EFL fluency in Asia (pp.120–142). Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
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], 11, 39–54.Google Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
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
Ruiz de Zarobe, Y., & Lasagabaster, D. (2010). CLIL in a bilingual community: The Basque Autonomous Community. In D. Lasagabaster & Y. Ruiz de Zarobe (Eds.), CLIL in Spain: Implementation, results and teacher training (pp. 12–29). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129–158. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sheen, R. (2002). Key concepts in ELT: Focus on form and focus on forms. ELT Journal, 56(3), 303–305. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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, 231, 201–217. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spada, N. (1997). Form-focused instruction and second language acquisition: A review of classroom and laboratory research. Language Teaching, 301, 73–87. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 161, 371–391. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2003). Talking it through: Two French immersion learners’ response to reformulation. International Journal of Educational Research, 37(3–4), 285–304.Google Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Sato, Takanori
2024. 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 12:2 ► pp. 221 ff. DOI logo
Chen, Mo & Wenya Li
2022. The Influence of Form-Focused Instruction on the L2 Chinese Oral Production of Korean Native Speakers. Frontiers in Psychology 13 DOI logo
Suzuki, Noriko
2022. Effects of content-based instruction (CBI) on EFL secondary school learners’ writing. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education 10:1 ► pp. 5 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 october 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.