Cover not available
Article published In:
Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education
Vol. 10:1 (2022) ► pp.5–32

Effects of content-based instruction (CBI) on EFL secondary school learners’ writing

Linguistic and functional aspects

ORCID logo | National Institute of Technology, Yonago College
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.
Keywords: content-based instruction, TBLT, writing, EFL, content and language integrated learning
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Previous studies
    • 2.1Theoretical underpinnings of CBI
    • 2.2Writing assessment measures
    • 2.3CBI impact on L2 writing skills
    • 2.4Impact of content provision as a task variable on L2 writing performance
  • 3.Methods
    • 3.1Participants
    • 3.2CBI and non-CBI lessons
    • 3.3Measures and analysis
      • 3.3.1Writing data
      • 3.3.2Data analysis
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Power generation topic writing
    • 4.2General topic writing
  • 5.Discussion
    • 5.1Power generation topic writing
    • 5.2General topic writing
  • 6.Conclusions and implications
  • References
Published online: 22 February 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jicb.20006.suz
References (53)
References
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Abrams, Z. I. (2019). The effects of integrated writing on linguistic complexity in L2 writing and task-complexity. System, 811, 110–121. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bentley, K. (2010). The TKT course CLIL module. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brinton, D. M., & Snow, M. A. (2017). The evolving architecture of content-based instruction. In A. Snow & D. Brinton (Eds.), The Content-based classroom: New perspectives on integrating language and content (pp. 2–20). University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Bui, H. Y. G. (2014). Task readiness: Theoretical framework and empirical evidence from topic familiarity, strategic planning, and proficiency levels. In P. Skehan (Ed.), Processing perspectives on task performance (pp. 63–94). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bulté, B., & Housen, A. (2019). Beginning L2 complexity development in CLIL and non-CLIL secondary education. Instructed Second Language Acquisition, 3(2), 153–180. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2011). Content-and-language integrated learning: From practice to principles? Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 311, 182–204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C., & Smit, U. (2013). Content and language integrated learning: A research agenda. Language Teaching, 46(4), 545–559. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Derewianka, B. (1996). Exploring the writing of genres. United Kingdom Reading Association.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2020). In defence of a modular curriculum for tasks. ELT Journal, 74(2), 1–10. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R., Skehan, P., Li, S., Shintani, N., & Lambert, C. (2020). Task-based language teaching: Theory and practice. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R., & Shintani, N. (2014). Exploring language pedagogy through second language acquisition research. Routledge.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fitzsimmons-Doolan, S., Grabe, W., & Stoller, F. L. (2017). Research support for content-based instruction. In A. Snow & D. Brinton (Eds.), The content-based classroom: New perspectives on integrating language and content (pp. 21–35). University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Foster, P., & Wigglesworth, G. (2016). Capturing accuracy in second language performance: The case for a weighted clause ratio. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 361, 98–116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
García Mayo, M. del P. (2015). The interface between task-based language teaching and content-based instruction. System, 541, 1–3. 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. Language Learning Journal, 43(3), 286–303. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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]. In K. Murata & T. Harada (Eds.), Communication nouryoku ikusei saikou – Henry Widdowson to Nihon no ouyougengogaku gengokyouiku (pp. 151–180). Hitsujishobou.Google Scholar
Hunt, K. (1970). Syntactic maturity in schoolchildren and adults. Monographs of the Sociely for Rearch in Child Development, 35(1), 1–67. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ikeda, M. (2013). Does CLIL work for Japanese secondary school students? International CLIL Research Journal, 2(1), 31–43. [URL]
Kong, S. (2015). Designing content-language integrated learning materials for late immersion students. TESOL Journal, 6(2), 302–331. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2017). Functional adequacy in L2 writing: Towards a new rating scale. Language Testing, 34(3), 321–336. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lahuerta Martínez, A. C. (2018). Analysis of syntactic complexity in secondary education EFL writers at different proficiency levels. Assessing Writing, 351(January 2018), 1–11. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Larson-Hall, J. (2010). A guide to doing statistics in second language research using SPSS. Routledge.Google Scholar
Lasagabaster, D. (2008). Foreign language competence in content and language integrated courses. The Open Applied Linguistics Journal, 11, 30–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Llinares, A., & Dalton-Puffer, C. (2015). The role of different tasks in CLIL students’ use of evaluative language. System, 541, 69–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lu, X. (2010). Automatic analysis of syntactic complexity in second language writing. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 15(4), 474–496. DOI logoGoogle 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
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. [URL]
Mohan, B. A. (1986). Language and content. Addison Wesley Publishing Company.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ortega, L. (2015). Researching CLIL and TBLT interfaces. System, 541, 103–109. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pallotti, G. (2009). CAF: Defining, refining and differentiating constructs. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 590–601. 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
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roediger, I., & Guynn, M. (1996). Retrieval processes. In E. Bork & R. Bork (Eds.), Memory (pp. 197–236). Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle 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
Shintani, N. (2019). Potential of writing-to-learn-language activities from second language acquisition research. Journal of Second Language Writing, 461-. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Snow, M. A. (2014). Content-based and immersion models of second/foreign language teaching. In M. 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
Stoller, F. L. (2008). Content-based instruction. In N. Van Deusen-Scholl & N. H. Hornberger (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Education (2nd Ed., pp. 59–70). Springer Science + Business Media LLC. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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, 361(May), 23–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. [URL]
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar