Foreign Language Competence in Content and Language Integrated Courses

By D. Lasagabaster. 2008

306 citations recorded by the source corpus.

European educational systems are making great efforts to improve students’ command of foreign languages, as there are many students who leave compulsory education with only the most limited ability to communicate in a foreign language. In this context the implementation of CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning) courses is becoming commonplace throughout Europe, because this approach is believed to significantly improve overall language competence in the target language. This paper examines the implementation of CLIL in the Basque Country (Spain), a bilingual community in which both Basque and Spanish are official languages and where English represents the third language included in the curriculum. The results show that the CLIL approach is successful and helps to improve students’ foreign language competence even in bilingual contexts where English has little social presence.

Subfields: Language and Linguistics, Literature and Literary Theory

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/b07c94bdf2a927a42a1af41090c5d4994418f99c

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Language and Linguistics

1. Do Coyle
2. A. Doiz
3. D. Lasagabaster
4. A. Heras
5. Marta Aguilar
6. J. Sierra
7. Guangwei Hu
8. Izaskun Villarreal

In Literature and Literary Theory

1. D. Lasagabaster
2. Do Coyle
3. A. Doiz
4. Marta Aguilar
5. A. Heras
6. J. Sierra
7. Guangwei Hu
8. Jun Lei

Citations in the corpus

• CLIL students' perceptions of their language learning process: delving into self-perceived improvement and instructional preferences (2016, background): “…language learning process: improvement The investigations conducted in the European context have revealed that CLIL offers very good results in terms of foreign language improvement (Dalton-Puffer, 2011; de Graaff, Koopman, Anikina, & Westhoff, 2007; Lasagabaster, 2008, 2011; Lorenzo et al., 2010).”
• Language Attitudes in CLIL and Traditional EFL Classes (2009, background): “Lasagabaster (2008) also observed that female students outstripped their male counterparts in English competence.”
• The impact of CLIL on affective factors and vocabulary learning (2015, background): “As Lasagabaster (2008) points out, in CLIL settings gender differences seem to blur because male students might feel more motivated to learn both the language and the subject matter.”
• Analysing students’ content-learning in science in CLIL vs. non-CLIL programmes: empirical evidence from Spain (2019, background): “…bilingual regions where CLIL approaches may be particularly suitable for the promotion of trilingualism (e.g. the Basque Country – see Cenoz 2009; Lasagabaster 2008 – and Catalonia – see Navés and Victori 2010; Pérez-Vidal and Juan-Garau 2010); secondly, there is a social need to improve…”
• Lecturer and student perceptions on CLIL at a Spanish university (2012, background): “…rather than exposure alone, that benefits most learners given that better results are obtained when there are more hours of instruction in relatively short periods of time than with fewer hours of formal instruction over longer periods (Dalton-Puffer 2007; Lasagabaster 2008; Pérez-Vidal 2011).”
• Written discourse development in CLIL at secondary school (2011, background): “What we do know is that CLIL students, when writing in English on a general topic, out-perform older pupils who have only followed EFL classes (Lasagabaster, 2008; Ruiz de Zarobe, 2010) on many of the measures found indicative of writing quality by Wolfe-Quintero et al. (1998).”
• Is English-medium instruction effective in improving Chinese undergraduate students' English competence? (2014, background): “In regard to this, some researchers (e.g., Dalton-Puffer, Nikula, & Smit 2010; Dupuy 2000; Lasagabaster 2008) have cautioned against extrapolating findings from one context to another, because the effectiveness of integrating foreign language learning with content learning largely hinges on…”
• The effect of collaborative writing in an EFL secondary setting (2019, background): “…in terms of both the quantity and the quality of input (García Mayo & García Lecumberri, 2003; Muñoz, 2006), as well as in the opportunities to engage with the FL in and outside the school context, because contact with the FL is mostly confined to the actual language class (Lasagabaster, 2008).”
• EXAMINING TEACHER ROLES AND COMPETENCES IN CONTENT AND LANGUAGE INTEGRATED LEARNING (CLIL) (2013, background): “…be an effective way to increase the linguistic level of students participating in these kinds of programmes (Admiraal, Westhoff & de Bot, 2006; Merisuo-Storm, 2007; Dalton-Puffer, 2007b; Marsh, 2007; Lasagabaster, 2008; Lorenzo, Casal and Moore, 2009; Dobson, Pérez & Johnstone, 2010; Navés, 2011).”
• A pluriliteracies approach to content and language integrated learning – mapping learner progressions in knowledge construction and meaning-making (2015, background): “Many countries have reported learner gains, including increased motivation and advancing language competence, placing them ahead of their non-CLIL counterparts (DESI-Konsortium, 2008; Lasagabaster, 2008; Zydatiß, 2007).”
• English achievement and student motivation in CLIL and EFL settings (2011, background): “Lasagabaster (2008), in a study also conducted in the Basque Country, observed that students enrolled in CLIL programmes performed better in language proficiency tests than their EFL counterparts (similar results have also been obtained in Catalonia; see Navés and Victori 2010).”