Cover not available
Article published In:
Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education
Vol. 8:2 (2020) ► pp.173–199

Effects of input on L2 writing in English and Dutch

CLIL and non-CLIL learners in French-speaking Belgium

ORCID logo | NaLTT, Université de Namur
| ILC, UCLouvain
| ILC, UCLouvain
| ILC, UCLouvain
| ILC, UCLouvain
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.
Keywords: L2 English, L2 Dutch, CLIL, non-CLIL, writing, French-speaking Belgium
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The influence of (different types of) TL input on TL proficiency
    • 2.1Duration of TL learning
    • 2.2Formal vs informal TL exposure
    • 2.3CLIL input
  • 3.Research questions, participants and data collection
    • 3.1Research questions
    • 3.2Participants
    • 3.3Data collection procedure and instruments
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Descriptive statistics
    • 4.2Correlations
    • 4.3Regressions
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 1 May 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jicb.18034.van
References (72)
References
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 logoGoogle Scholar
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 (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).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.Google Scholar
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. <[URL]>
Burstall, C. (1975). Factors affecting foreign-language learning: A consideration of some relevant research findings. Language Teaching and Linguistic Abstracts, 81, 105–125. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carroll, J. B. (1969). Psychological and educational research into second language teaching to young children. In H. H. Stern (Ed.), Languages and the young school child (pp. 2–68). London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Celaya, M. L., & Navés, T. (2009). Written production in English as a Foreign Language: age-related differences and associated factors. In R. Manchón (Ed.), Learning, teaching and researching writing in foreign language learning contexts (pp. 130–155). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Cenoz, J. (2002). Age differences in foreign language learning. ITL Review of Applied Linguistics, 135/1361, 125–142. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2003). Facteurs déterminant l’acquisition d’une L3: Age, développement cognitif et milieu. Acquisition et interaction en langue étrangère, 181, 38–51. <[URL]>
(2015). Content-based instruction and content and language integrated learning: the same or different? Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28(1), 8–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crossley, S. A., Salsbury, T., & McNamara, D. S. (2014). Validating lexical measures using human scores of lexical proficiency. In S. Jarvis & M. Daller (Eds.), Human ratings and automated measures (pp. 47–105). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Cumming, A. (1994). Writing expertise and second-language proficiency. In A. Cumming (Ed.), Bilingual performance in reading and writing (pp. 173–221). Ann Arbor, MI: Language Learning /John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2008). Outcomes and processes in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL): current research from Europe. In W. Delanoy & V. Lauren (Eds.), Future perspectives for English language teaching (pp. 139–157). Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
(2011). Content-and-language integrated learning: From practice to principles? Annual Review of applied linguistics, 311, 182–204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R., & Barkhuizen, G. P. (2005). Analysing learner language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
García Lecumberri, M. L., & Gallardo, M. P. (2003). English FL sounds in school learners of different ages. In M. P. García Mayo & M. L. Garcia Lecumberri (Eds.), Age and the acquisition of English as a foreign language (pp. 115–135). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Granger, S. (2015). Contrastive interlanguage analysis: A reappraisal. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research, 1(1), 7–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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, 1091, 1–24. <[URL]>
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, 11–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jexenflicker, S., & Dalton-Puffer, C. (2010). The CLIL differential: Comparing the writing of CLIL and non-CLIL students in higher colleges of technology. In C. Dalton-Puffer, T. Nikula & U. Smit (Eds.), Language use and language learning in CLIL classrooms (pp. 169–190). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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, 211, 60–99. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Kinsella, C. (2009). An investigation into the proficiency of successful late learners of French. (Unpublished doctoral thesis). Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland.Google Scholar
Klieme, E. (2006). Zusammenfassung zentraler Ergebnisse der DESI Studie. Deutsches Institut für Internationale Pädagogische Forschung. <[URL]>
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Lahuerta Martínez, A. C. (2015). Analysis of the written competence of secondary education students in bilingual and non-bilingual programmes. In Conference proceedings. ICT for language learning (pp. 499–503). Padova: Libreriauniversitaria.it Edizioni.Google Scholar
Lambelet, A., & Berthele, R. (2015). Age and foreign language learning in school. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan. 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
Lasagabaster, D., & Doiz, A. (2003). Maturational constraints on foreign language written production. In M. P. García Mayo & M. L. Garcia Lecumberri (Eds.), Age and the acquisition of English as a foreign language (pp. 136–160). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Llanes, À., & Muñoz, C. (2009). A short stay abroad: Does it make a difference? System, 37(3), 353–365. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lo, Y.-Y., & Murphy, V. A. (2010). Vocabulary knowledge and growth in immersion and regular language-learning programmes in Hong Kong. Language and Education, 241, 215–238. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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]. In E. 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
Long, M. H. (1983). Does second language instruction make a distinction? A review of research. TESOL quarterly, 17(3), 359–382. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
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 logoGoogle Scholar
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
Miralpeix, I. (2006). Age and vocabulary acquisition in English as a foreign language. In C. Muñoz (Ed.), Age and the rate of foreign language learning (pp. 89–106). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, R., Tracy-Ventura, N., & McManus, K. (2017). Identity, social relationships and language learning during residence abroad. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Moyer, A. (2009). Input as a critical means to an end: Quantity and quality of experience in L2 phonological attainment. In T. Piske & M. Young-Scholten (Eds.), Input matters in SLA (pp. 159–174). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Muñoz, C. (2006). The effects of age on foreign language learning: The BAF Project. In C. Muñoz (Ed.), Age and the rate of foreign language learning (pp. 1–40). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008). Symmetries and asymmetries of age effects in naturalistic and instructed L2 learning. Applied Linguistics, 291, 578–596. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(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 logoGoogle Scholar
(2014). Contrasting effects of starting age and input on the oral performance of foreign language learners. Applied Linguistics, 35(4), 463–482. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Myles, J. (2002). Second language writing and research: The writing process and error analysis in student texts. Tesl-Ej, 6(2), 1–20. <[URL]>
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, 41, 53–74. <[URL]>
Patkowski, M. S. (1980). The sensitive period for the acquisition of syntax in a second language. Language Learning, 301, 449–468. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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, 41, 157–185. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pérez-Vidal, C., & Roquet, H. (2015). The linguistic impact of a CLIL Science programme: An analysis measuring relative gains. System, 541, 80–90. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Raven, J. C., Court, J. H., & Raven, J. (1998). Progressive coloured matrices. Oxford: Oxford Psychologists Press.Google Scholar
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 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. <[URL]>
(2010). Written production and CLIL: An empirical study. In C. Dalton-Puffer, T. Nikula, & U. Smit (Eds.), Language use and language learning in CLIL classrooms (pp. 191–212). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Saladrigues, G., & Llanes, À. (2014). Examining the impact of amount of exposure on L2 development with CLIL and non-CLIL teenage students. Sintagma, 261, 133–147. <[URL]>
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 logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Sundqvist, P., & Wikström, P. (2015). Out-of-school digital gameplay and in-school L2 English vocabulary outcomes. System, 511, 65–76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. <[URL]>
Torras, M. R., Navés, T., Celaya, M. L., & Pérez-Vidal, C. (2006). Age and IL development in writing. In C. Muñoz (Ed.), Age and the rate of foreign language learning (pp. 156–182). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. In S. Jarvis & M. Daller (Eds.), Vocabulary knowledge: Human ratings and automated measures (pp. 79–105). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Wesche, M. B. (2002). Early French immersion: How has the original Canadian model stood the test of time? In P. 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
White, L. (2003). On the nature of interlanguage representation: Universal Grammar in the second language. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 19–42). Malden: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Whittaker, A., & Llinares, A. (2011). Written discourse development in CLIL at secondary school. Language Teaching Research, 15(3), 343–362. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wode, H. (1994). Bilinguale Unterrichtserprobung in Schleswig-Holstein. Band II Analytische Auswertungen. Kiel: l&f Verlag.Google Scholar
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
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
Cited by (6)

Cited by six other publications

Caira, Thomas, Jill Surmont & Esli Struys
2024. Which pupils have access to CLIL? Investigating the schools’ choice for English-based CLIL programmes in Belgium. Language and Education 38:1 ► pp. 65 ff. DOI logo
Bulon, Amélie & Fanny Meunier
2023. Comparing CLIL and non-CLIL learners’ phrasicon in L2 Dutch: the (expected) winner does not take it all. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 26:5 ► pp. 590 ff. DOI logo
Lee , Jang Ho, Hansol Lee & Yuen Yi Lo
2023. Effects of EMI-CLIL on secondary-level students’ English learning: A multilevel meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching 13:2 ► pp. 317 ff. DOI logo
Meunier, Fanny, Isa Hendrikx, Amélie Bulon, Kristel Van Goethem & Hubert Naets
2023. MulTINCo: multilingual traditional immersion and native corpus. Better-documented multiliteracy practices for more refined SLA studies. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 26:5 ► pp. 572 ff. DOI logo
Van Mensel, Luk & Philippe Hiligsmann
2023. Assessing CLIL: a multidisciplinary approach. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 26:5 ► pp. 529 ff. DOI logo
Bulon, Amélie
2020. Comparing the ‘phrasicon’ of teenagers in immersive and non-immersive settings. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education 8:1 ► pp. 107 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 14 september 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.