Article published In:
Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education: Online-First Articles

Revising expectations

The effect of different levels of CLIL exposure on young learners’ oral performance

ORCID logo | Universidad Pública de Navarra
Research evidence predominantly based on studies with older learners suggests that Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) instruction yields significant language gains when exposure exceeds 300 hours (Muñoz, 2015). However, the impact of high-intensity CLIL on young learners’ oral proficiency remains underexplored. This study examined fluency, pronunciation, and productive vocabulary measures in young L1-Spanish learners (mean age = 10.46) across four groups: non-CLIL (n = 23), low-CLIL (n = 21), high-CLIL (n = 32), and a younger high-CLIL group (n = 32; mean age = 9.84) with 0, 707, 2473, and 2164 CLIL hours, respectively. Socioeconomic status and extramural exposure were controlled. Intraclass correlations, Kruskal-Wallis, post-hoc, and Friedman tests were conducted. Significant advantages were limited to both high-CLIL groups over the non-CLIL group at the vocabulary level, providing policymakers with empirical evidence about the markedly different outcomes of high, and low-CLIL programmes in relation to oral gains with young learners.
Keywords: CLIL, exposure, intensity, oral proficiency, young learners
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Literature review
    • 2.1CLIL time and overall language gains
    • 2.2CLIL, oral proficiency and young learners
  • 3.The study
    • 3.1Participants
    • 3.2Control of out-of-school exposure and socioeconomic status (SES)
    • 3.3Task and procedure
    • 3.4Data collection and analysis
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Fluency
    • 4.2Pronunciation
    • 4.3Productive vocabulary
    • 4.4Density and distribution
    • 4.5Intercomparison of the measures analysed
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Conclusion, limitations and future research
  • Acknowledgements
  • Disclosure statement
  • References
Published online: 17 December 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jicb.24004.azp
References (69)
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
Azpilicueta-Martínez, R. (in press). Exposure or Age? The effect of additional CLIL instruction on young learners’ grammatical complexity while performing an oral task. Language Teaching Research.
Azpilicueta-Martínez, R., & Lázaro-Ibarrola, A. (2023). Intensity of CLIL exposure and L2 motivation in primary school: Evidence from Spanish EFL learners in non-CLIL, low-CLIL and high-CLIL programmes. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, Advance online publication. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Collins, L., Halter, R. H., Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (1999). Time and the distribution of time in L2 instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 33 (4), 655–680. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coyle, D. (2006). Content and language integrated learning: Motivating learners and teachers. Scottish Languages Review, 13 (5), 1–18.Google Scholar
Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2008). Outcomes and processes in content and language integrated learning (CLIL): Current research from Europe. In W. Delanoy & L. Volkmann (Eds.), Future perspectives for English language teaching (pp. 139–157). Carl Winter.Google Scholar
(2011). Content-and-language integrated learning: From practice to principles?. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31 1, 182–204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C., Hüttner, J., Jexenflicker, S., Schindelegger, V., & Smit, U. (2008). Content and language integrated learning an Osterreichs Höheren Technischen Lehranstalten. Forschungsbericht. Vienna, Austria: Universität Wien and Bundesministerium für Unterricht, Kultur und Kunst, Abt. II/2. Google Scholar.Google Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C., Hüttner, J., Schindelegger, V., & Smit, U. (2009). Technology-geeks speak out: What students think about vocational CLIL. International CLIL Research Journal, 1 (2), 18–25.Google Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C., Nikula, T., & Smit, U. (2010). Language use and language learning in CLIL: Current findings and contentious issues. In C. Dalton-Puffer, T. Nikula, & U. Smit (Eds.), Language use and language learning in CLIL classrooms (pp. 279–291). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Smet, A., Mettewie, L., Hiligsmann, P., Galand, B., & Van Mensel, L. (2019). Does CLIL shape language attitudes and motivation? Interactions with target languages and instruction levels. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 26 (5), 534–553. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Jong, N., & Vercellotti, M. L. (2016). Similar prompts may not be similar in the performance they elicit: Examining fluency, complexity, accuracy, and lexis in narratives from five picture prompts. Language Teaching Research, 20 (3), 387–404. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Doiz, A., Costa, F., Lasagabaster, D., & Mariotti, C. (2019). Linguistic demands and language assistance in EMI courses: what is the stance of Italian and Spanish undergraduates?. Lingue e Linguaggi, 33 1, 69–85. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (2009). Task-based language teaching: Sorting out the misunderstandings. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19 (3), 221–246. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gallardo, F., García Lecumberri, M. L., & Gómez Lacabex, E. (2009). Testing the effectiveness of content and language integrated learning in foreign language contexts: Assessment of English pronunciation. In Y. Ruiz de Zarobe & R. M. Jiménez Catalán (Eds.), Content and language integrated learning: Evidence from research in Europe (pp. 63–80). Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gallardo del Puerto, F., & Gómez, E. (2017). Oral production outcomes in CLIL: Anattempt to manage amount of exposure. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5 (1), 31–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gálvez Gómez, M. M. (2021). The effects of CLIL on FL learning: A longitudinal study. In M. L. Pérez Cañado (Ed.), Content and Language Integrated Learning in monolingual settings (pp. 141–165). Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heaton, J. B. (1966). Composition through pictures. Longman Group.Google Scholar
Hidalgo, M. Á., & Villarreal, I. (2024). Intensity matters in CLIL: Evidence from primary school learners’ receptive skills. System, 1251, 103402. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Housen, A. (2012). Time and amount of L2 contact inside and outside the school — Insights from the European Schools. In C. Muñoz (Ed.), Intensive exposure experiences in second language learning (pp. 111–138). Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hüttner, J., & Rieder-Bünemann, A. (2010). A cross-sectional analysis of oral narratives by children with CLIL and non-CLIL instruction. In C. Dalton-Puffer, T. Nikula, & U. Smit (Eds.), Language use and language learning in CLIL classrooms (pp. 61–80). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
ISE/IVEI (2016). MET 2011–2014. Evaluación del proceso de experimentación del marco de educación trilingüe. Informe final y conclusiones. [URL]
Iwashita, N., Brown, A., McNamara, T., & O’Hagan, S. (2008). Assessed levels of second language speaking proficiency: How distinct? Applied linguistics, 29 (1), 24–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jäkel, N. (2022). Does a positive selection bias into CLIL streams explain higher language proficiency?: The impact of cognitive abilities and SES on the selection process. In T. Piske, & A. Steinlen (Eds.), Cognition and second language acquisition: Studies on pre-school, primary school and secondary school children (pp. 275–294). Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
Jiménez Catalán, R. M., & Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (2009). The receptive vocabulary of EFL learners in two instructional contexts: CLIL versus non-CLIL instruction. In Ruiz de Zarobe, Y., & R. M. Jiménez Catalán (Eds.), Content and language integrated learning: Evidence from research in Europe (pp. 81–92). Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lancaster, N. K. (2018). Extramural exposure and language attainment: The examination of input-related variables in CLIL programmes. Porta Linguarum: Revista Internacional de Didáctica de las Lenguas Extranjeras. 291, 91–114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lasagabaster, D. (2008). Foreign language competence in content and language integrated courses. Open Applied Linguistics Journal, 1 1, 31–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lasagabaster, D., & Doiz, A. (2016). CLIL students’ perceptions of their language learning process: delving into self-perceived improvement and instructional preferences. Language Awareness, 25(1–2), 110–126. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lázaro-Ibarrola, A. (2012). Faster and further morphosyntactic development of CLIL vs. EFL Basque-Spanish bilinguals learning English in high-school. International Journal of English Studies, 12 (1), 79–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2024). What factors contribute to the proficiency of young EFL learners in primary school? Assessing the role of CLIL intensity, extramural English, non-verbal intelligence and socioeconomic status. Language Teaching Research. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lo, Y. Y. (2015). A glimpse into the effectiveness of L2-content cross-curricular collaboration in content-based instruction programs. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 18 (4), 443–462. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R., & Ballinger, S. (2011). Content-based language teaching: Convergent concerns across divergent contexts. Language Teaching Research, 15 (3), 279–288. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Madrid, D. & Barrios, E. (2018). A comparison of students’ educational achievement across programs and school types with and without CLIL Provision. Porta Linguarum, 291, 29–50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maillat, D. (2010). The pragmatics of L2 in CLIL. In C. Dalton-Puffer, T. Nikula, & U. Smit (Eds.), Language use and language learning in CLIL (pp. 39–60). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martínez Agudo, J. D. D. (2019). Which instructional program (EFL or CLIL) results in better oral communicative competence? Updated empirical evidence from a monolingual context. Linguistics and Education, 51 1, 69–78. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mearns, T. (2015). Chicken, egg or a bit of both? Motivation in bilingual education (TTO) in the Netherlands. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Aberdeen, UK; Universiteit Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Mearns, T., de Graaff, R., & Coyle, D. (2020). Motivation for or from bilingual education? A comparative study of learner views in the Netherlands. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 23 1, 724–737. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Merino, J. A., & Lasagabaster, D. (2018). The effect of content and language integrated learning programmes’ intensity on English proficiency: A longitudinal study. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 28 (1), 18–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moore, P. (2009). On the emergence of L2 oracy in bilingual education: A comparative analysis of CLIL and mainstream learner talk (Unpublished doctoral thesis). Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Sevilla, Spain.
Moreno Espinosa, S. (2009). Young learners’ L2 word association responses in two different learning contexts. In Y. Ruiz de Zarobe & R. M. Jiménez Catalán (Eds.), Content and language integrated learning: Evidence from research in Europe (pp. 93–111). Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Muñoz, C. (2002). CLIL-AICLE (Aprendizaje Integrado de Contenidos y Lengua Extranjera). Relevance and potential of CLIL. In D. Marsh (Ed.), CLIL/EMILE. The European dimension. Actions, trends and foresight potential (pp. 33–36). Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä.Google Scholar
(2007). CLIL: Some thoughts on its psycholinguistic principles. In F. Lorenzo, S. Casal, V. de Alba, and P. Moore (Eds.), Models and Practice in CLIL. Monográfico de la Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada (Resla), 20 1, 17–26.Google 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
(2015). Time and timing in CLIL: A comparative approach to language gains. In M. Juan-Garau & J. Salazar-Noguera (Eds.), Content-based language learning in multilingual educational environments, 87–102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Navés, T. (2011). How promising are the results of integrating content and language for EFL writing and overall EFL proficiency? In Y. Ruiz de Zarobe, J. M. Sierra, & F. Gallardo del Puerto (Eds.), Content and foreign language integrated learning: Contributions to multilingualism in European contexts (pp. 155–186). Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nieto, E. (2016). The impact of CLIL on the acquisition of L2 competences and skills in primary education. International Journal of English Studies, 16 (2), 81–101. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pérez Cañado, M. L. (2018). Innovations and challenges in CLIL teacher training. Theory Into Practice, 57 (3), 212–221. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pérez-Vidal, C. (2011). Language acquisition in three different contexts of learning: Formal instruction, study abroad and semi-immersion (CLIL). In Y. Ruiz de Zarobe, J. M. Sierra, & F. Gallardo del Puerto (Eds.), Content and foreign language integrated learning: Contributions to multilingualism in European contexts (pp. 25–35). Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Pérez-Vidal, C., & Roquet, H. (2015). CLIL in context: Profiling language abilities. In M. Juan-Garau & J. Salazar-Noguera (Eds.), Content-based language learning in multilingual educational environments (pp. 237–255). Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pica, T., Kanagy, R., & Falodun, J. (1993). Choosing and using communication tasks for second language research and instruction. In G. Crookes, & S. M. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and second language learning (pp. 9–34). Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prabhu, N. S. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rallo Fabra, L., & Juan-Garau, M. (2011). Assessing FL pronunciation in a semi-immersion setting: The effects of CLIL instruction on Spanish-Catalan learners’ perceived comprehensibility and accentedness. Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 47 (1), 96–108. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rallo Fabra, L., & Jacob, K. (2015). Does CLIL enhance oral skills? Fluency and pronunciation errors by Spanish-Catalan learners of English. In M. Juan-Garau and J. Salazar-Noguera (Eds.), Content-based language learning in multilingual educational environments (pp. 163–177). Springer. 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
(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. 191–209). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011). Which language competencies benefit from CLIL? An insight into applied linguistics research. In Y. Ruiz de Zarobe, J. M. Sierra, & F. Gallardo del Puerto (Eds.), Content and foreign language integrated learning: Contributions to multilingualism in European contexts (pp. 129–153). Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). The effects of implementing CLIL in education. In. In M. Juan-Garau & J. Salazar-Noguera (Eds.), Content-based language learning in multilingual educational environments (pp. 51–68). Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rumlich, D. (2013, April 5). The development of CLIL and non-CLIL students’ interests in learning English: Findings from the large-scale longitudinal study DENOCS. Paper presented at the research perspectives on CLIL: Evidence for improving educational practice. Ustrón: Poland.
Scarcella, R. C., & Higa, C. (1981). Input, negotiation, and age differences in second language acquisition. Language Learning, 31 (2), 409–434. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seregély, E. M. (2009). Comparing lexical learning in CLIL and traditional EFL classrooms. Special Issue: Bridging the Gap Between Theory and Practice in English Language Learning, 18 (3), 219–221.Google Scholar
Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86 (2), 420. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Soto-Corominas, A., Roquet, H., & Segura, M. (2024). The effects of CLIL and sources of individual differences on receptive and productive efl skills at the onset of primary school. Applied Linguistics, 45 (2), 364–382. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swain, M. (1981). Time and timing in bilingual education. Language Learning, 31 (1), 1–15. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Varchmin, B. (2010). A comparison of the effect of CLIL and mainstream instruction on German L1 speakers’ pronunciation skills. Vienna English working papers. Special Issue: current research on CLIL 3, 19 (3), 83–87.Google Scholar
Villarreal, I., & García Mayo, M. P. (2009). Tense and agreement morphology in the interlanguage of Basque/Spanish bilinguals: CLIL versus non-CLIL. In Y. Ruiz de Zarobe & R. M. Jiménez Catalán (Eds.), Content and language integrated learning: Evidence from research in Europe (pp. 157–175). Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wolff, D. (2007). CLIL: Bridging the gap between school and working life. In D. Marsh, & D. Wolff (Eds.), Diverse contexts -converging goals: CLIL in Europe (pp. 15–25). Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Xanthou, M. (2011). The impact of CLIL on L2 vocabulary development and content knowledge. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 10 (4), 116–126.Google Scholar