Cover not available
Part of
Applied Linguistics Perspectives on CLIL
Edited by Ana Llinares and Tom Morton
[Language Learning & Language Teaching 47] 2017
► pp. 33–50

CLIL and SLA

Insights from an interactionist perspective

| University of the Basque Country
| University of the Basque Country
The Interaction Hypothesis is one of the explanations for second language acquisition (SLA) (Hatch 1978; Long 1983). Numerous studies have shown that interaction facilitates SLA because learners have the opportunity to negotiate language input, receive feedback and modify their output (Long 1996; Pica 2013). However, there is little experimental research on interaction from this perspective in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) settings. The main goal of this chapter is to provide an overview of the main constructs of the interactionist framework and to see how they have been researched in studies that analyze the interlanguage of CLIL learners regarding their negotiation routines, attention to form and corrective feedback episodes.
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • The Interaction Hypothesis
  • Interactionist-based research in CLIL
  • Conclusion and implications for further research
  • Acknowledgements
  • Note
  • References
Published online: 16 March 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.47.03gra
References (74)
References
Alegría de la Colina, A., & García Mayo, M.P. (2007). Attention to form across collaborative tasks by low-proficiency learners in an EFL setting. In M.P. García Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 91–116). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Allen, P., Swain, M., Harley, B., & Cummins, J. (1990). Aspects of classroom treatment: Toward a more comprehensive view of second language education. In B. Harley, P. Allen, J. Cummins, & M. Swain (Eds.), The development of second language proficiency (pp. 57–81). Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Azkarai, A., & García Mayo, M. P. (2017). Task repetition effects on L1 use in EFL child task-based interaction. Language Teaching Research. DOI logo
Azkarai, A., & Imaz Agirre, A. (2016). Negotiation of meaning strategies in child EFL mainstream and CLIL settings. TESOL Quarterly50, 844–870. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Badertscher, H., & Bieri, T. (2009). Wissenserwerb im Content and Language Integrated Learning. Bern: Haupt.Google Scholar
Basterrechea, M., & García Mayo, M. P. (2013). Language-related episodes (LREs) during collaborative tasks: A comparison of CLIL and EFL learners. In K. McDonough, & A. Mackey (Eds.), Second language interaction in diverse educational contexts (pp. 25–43). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Basterrechea, M., García Mayo, M. P., & Leeser, M. J. (2014). Pushed output and noticing in a dictogloss: Task implementation in the CLIL classroom. Porta Linguarum 22, 7–22.Google Scholar
Coyle, D. (2007). Content and language integrated learning: Towards a connected research agenda for CLIL pedagogies. The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(5), 543–562.Google Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2007). Discourse in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) classrooms. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011). Content and Language Integrated Learning: From practice to principles? Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 182–204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C., Llinares, A., Lorenzo, F., & Nikula, T. (2014). “You can stand under my umbrella”: Immersion, CLIL and bilingual education. A Response to Cenoz, Genesee, & Gorter (2013). Applied Linguistics, 35(2), 213–218. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C., & Nikula, T. (2014). Content and language integrated learning (guest editorial). The Language Learning Journal, 42(2): 117–122. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C., & Smit, U. (Eds.). (2007). Empirical perspectives on CLIL classroom discourse. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. 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
Fujii, A., Ziegler, N., & Mackey, A. (2016). Peer interaction and metacognitive instruction in the EFL. In M. Sato, & S. Ballinger (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 63–89). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
García Mayo, M. P. (2011). The relevance of attention to L2 form in communicative classroom contexts. Estudios de Lingüística Inglesa Aplicada 11, 11–45.Google Scholar
García Mayo, M. P., & Alcón Soler, E. (2013). Negotiated input and output. Interaction. In J. Herschensohn, & M. Young-Scholten (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 209–229). Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
García Mayo, M. P., & Imaz Agirre, A. (2016). Task repetition and its impact on EFL children’s negotiation of meaning strategies and pair dynamics: An exploratory study. The Language Learning Journal, 44, 451–466. DOI logo
García Mayo, M. P., & Lázaro, A. (2015). Do children negotiate for meaning in task-based interaction? Evidence from CLIL and EFL settings. System, 54, 40–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2007). Input, interaction and output in second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten, & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition. An introduction (pp. 175–199). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Gass, S. M., Behney, J., & Plonsky, L. (2013). Second language acquisition. An introductory course. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gass, S. M., & Varonis, E. (1989). Incorporated repairs in nonnative discourse. In M. Eisenstein (Ed.), The dynamic interlanguage (pp. 71–86). New York, NY: Plenum Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hatch, E. (1978). Discourse analysis and second language acquisition. In E. Hatch (Ed.), Second language acquisition: A book of readings (pp. 401–435). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Izumi, S. (2002). Output, input enhancement, and the noticing hypothesis: An experimental study on ESL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(4), 541–577. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keck, C. M., Iberri-Shea, G., Tracy-Ventura, N., & Wa-Mbaleka, S. (2006). Investigating the empirical link between task-based interaction and acquisition: A quantitative meta-analysis. In J. M. Norris, & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 91–131). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. (2010). Immersion and CLIL in English: More differences than similarities. ELT Journal, 64(4), 367–375. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lázaro, A., & García Mayo, M.P. (2012). L1 use and morphosyntactic development in the oral production of EFL learners in a CLIL context. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 50(2), 135–160.Google Scholar
Leeser, M.J. (2004). Learner proficiency and focus on form during collaborative dialogue. Language Teaching Research, 8(1), 55–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Llinares, A., Morton, T., & Whittaker, R. (2012). The roles of language in CLIL. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Lochtman, K. (2007). Die mündliche Fehlerkorrektur in CLIL und im traditionellen Fremdsprachenunterricht: Ein Vergleich. In C. Dalton-Puffer, & U. Smit (Eds.), Empirical perspectives on CLIL classroom discourse (pp. 119–138). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (1983). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 126–141. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie, & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of language acquisition: Vol. 2. Second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Long, M. H., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research and practice. In C. Doughty, & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 15–41). Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. (1998). Recasts, repetition and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20(1), 51–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R., & Mori, H. (2006). Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), 269–300. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(1), 37–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A. (2012). Input, interaction and corrective feedback in L2 learning. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., Gass, S.M., & McDonough, K. (2000). How do learners perceive interactional feedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22(4), 471–497. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A., & Goo, J. (2007). Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 407–472). Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Mariotti, C. (2006). Negotiated interactions and repair. VIEWS Vienna English Working Papers, 15, 33–41.Google Scholar
Mehisto, P., Marsh, D., & Frigols, M.J. (2008). Uncovering CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning in bilingual and multilingual education. Oxford: Macmillan Education.Google Scholar
Milla, R., & García Mayo, M. P. (2014). Corrective feedback episodes in oral interaction: A comparison of a CLIL and an EFL classroom. International Journal of English Studies, 14(1), 1–20. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Muñoz, C. (2014). Exploring young learners’ foreign language learning awareness. Language Awareness, 23(1/2), 24–40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Musumeci, D. (1996). Teacher-learner negotiation in content-based instruction: Communication at cross-purposes? Applied Linguistics, 17(3), 286–325. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nikula, T. (2005). English as an object and tool of study in classrooms: Interactional effects and pragmatic implications. Linguistics and Education, 16(1), 27–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norris, J., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50(3), 417–528. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oliver, R. (2009). How young is too young? Investigating negotiation of meaning and feedback in children aged five to seven years. In A. Mackey, & C. Polio (Eds.), Multiple perspectives on interaction (pp. 135–156). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Pérez-Cañado, M. L. (2012). CLIL research in Europe: past, present, and future. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 15(3), 315–341. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pica, T. (1987). Second-language acquisition, social interaction, and the classroom. Applied Linguistics, 8(1), 3–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1994). Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second language learning conditions, processes and outcomes? Language Learning, 44(3), 493–527. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002). Subject-matter content: How does it assign the interactional and linguistics needs of classroom language learners? The Modern Language Journal, 86(1), 1–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). From input, output and comprehension to negotiation, evidence, and attention. In M. P. García Mayo, M. J. Gutierrez Mangado, & M. Martínez Adrián (Eds.). Contemporary approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 49–69). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pica, T., Kang, H., & Sauro, S. (2006). Information gap tasks. Their multiple roles and contributions to interaction research methodology. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), 301–338. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pinter, A. (2007). Some benefits of peer-peer interaction: 10-year-old children practicing with a communication task. Language Teaching Research 11(2), 189–207. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ross-Feldman, L. (2005). Task-based interactions between second language learners. Exploring the role of gender. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Georgetown University.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in L2 learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129–158. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R., & Frota, S. (1986). Developing basic conversational ability in a second language. A case study of an adult learner of Portuguese. In R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition (pp. 237–326). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Serra, C. (2007). Assessing CLIL at primary school. A longitudinal study. The International Journal of Bilingual education and Bilingualism, 10(5), 582–602.Google Scholar
Sheen, Y. (2011). Corrective feedback, individual differences and second language learning. New York, NY: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spada, N. (2011). Beyond form-focused instructions. Reflections on past, present and future research. Language Teaching, 29(1), 73–87.Google Scholar
Spada, N., & Tomita, Y. (2010). Interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 263–308. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative Competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensive output in its development. In S. Gass, & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
(1988). Manipulating and complementing content teaching to maximize second language learning. TESL Canada Journal, 6(1), 68–83. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Gook, & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics (pp. 125–144). Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
(1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In C. Doughty, & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 64–81). Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
(2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471–483). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
(2013). A Vygotskian socio-cultural perspective on immersion education. The L1/L2 debate. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Education, 1(1), 101–129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thornbury, S. (1997). Reformulation and reconstruction: Tasks that promote “noticing”. ELT Journal, 51(4), 326–335. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van den Branden, K. (1997). Effects of negotiation of on language learners’ output. Language Learning, 47(4), 589–636. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wajnryb, R. (1990). Grammar dictation. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Yang, Y., & Lyster, R. (2010). Effects of form-focused practice and feedback on Chinese EFL learners’ acquisition of regular and irregular past-tense forms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 235–263. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (7)

Cited by seven other publications

Ballinger, Susan
2021. Oral Corrective Feedback in Content-Based Contexts. In The Cambridge Handbook of Corrective Feedback in Second Language Learning and Teaching, ► pp. 539 ff. DOI logo
Martínez Agudo, Juan de Dios
2020. The impact of CLIL on English language competence in a monolingual context: a longitudinal perspective. The Language Learning Journal 48:1 ► pp. 36 ff. DOI logo
Martínez-Agudo, Juan de Dios
2019. To what extent can CLIL learners’ oral competence outcomes be explained by contextual differences? Updated empirical evidence from Spain. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 37:1 ► pp. 27 ff. DOI logo
Zourou, Katerina
2020. Language learning as the agency for a social purpose: examples from the coronavirus pandemic. Alsic :Vol. 23, n° 1 DOI logo
An, Jiangshan, Ernesto Macaro & Ann Childs
2019. Language focused episodes by monolingual teachers in English Medium Instruction science lessons. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education 7:2 ► pp. 166 ff. DOI logo
An, Jiangshan, Ernesto Macaro & Ann Childs
2021. Language focused episodes by monolingual teachers in English Medium Instruction science lessons. In Teaching, Learning and Scaffolding in CLIL Science Classrooms [Benjamins Current Topics, 115], ► pp. 17 ff. DOI logo
Basterrechea, María & Michael J. Leeser
2019. Language-related episodes and learner proficiency during collaborative dialogue in CLIL. Language Awareness 28:2 ► pp. 97 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 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.