Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem

dc.contributor.authorMathew Graham, Keith
dc.contributor.authorChoi, Yunkyeong
dc.contributor.authorDavoodi, Amin
dc.contributor.authorRazmeh, Shakiba
dc.contributor.authorL. Quentin, Dixon
dc.date.accessioned11/1/2018 11:45
dc.date.available11/1/2018 11:45
dc.date.issued2018
dc.identifier.citationAgustín-Llach, M. P. (2016). Age and type of instruction (CLIC vs. Traditional EFL) in lexical development. International Journal of English Studies, 16(1), 75-96.es_CO
dc.identifier.citationAgustín-Llach, M. P. (2017). The effects of the CLIL approach in young foreign language learners' lexical profiles. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 20(5), 557-573. doi:10.1080/13670050.2015.1103208es_CO
dc.identifier.citationArribas, M. (2016). Analysing a whole CLIL school: Students' attitudes, motivation, and receptive vocabulary outcomes. Latin American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning, 9(2), 267-292. doi:10.5294/ laclil.2016.9.2.2es_CO
dc.identifier.citationBasterrechea, M., & del Pilar García Mayo, M. (2014). Dictogloss and the production of the English third person "-s" by CLIL and mainstream EFL learners: A comparative study. International Journal of English Studies, 14(2), 77-98.es_CO
dc.identifier.citationBinterová, H., Petrášková, V., & Komínková, O. (2014). The CLIL method versus pupils’ results in solving mathematical word problems. The New Educational Review, 38(4), 238-249.es_CO
dc.identifier.citationBruton, A. (2011). Are the differences between CLIL and non-CLIL groups in Andalusia due to CLIL? A reply to Lorenzo, Casal and Moore (2010). Applied Linguistics, 32(2), 236-241. doi:10.1093/applin/amr007es_CO
dc.identifier.citationCanga Alonso, A. (2015a). Receptive vocabulary of CLIL and Non-CLIL primary and secondary school learners. Complutense Journal of English Studies, 23, 59-77. doi:10.5209/rev_CJES.2015.v23.51301es_CO
dc.identifier.citationCanga Alonso, A. (2015b). The receptive vocabulary size of Spanish 5th grade primary school students in CLIL and Non-CLIL instruction. ES Revista de Filología Inglesa, 36, 63-85.es_CO
dc.identifier.citationCoral, J., Lleixà, T., & Ventura, C. (2018). Foreign language competence and content and language integrated learning in multilingual schools in Catalonia: An ex post facto study analysing the results of state key competences testing. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21(2), 139-150. doi:10.1080/13670050.2016.1143445es_CO
dc.identifier.citationCummins, J. (1984). Bilingualism and special education: Issues in assessment and pedagogy. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.es_CO
dc.identifier.citationDafouz, E., Camacho, M., & Urquia, E. (2014). 'Surely they can't do as well': A comparison of business students' academic performance in English-medium and Spanish-as-first-language-medium programmes. Language and Education, 18(3), 223-236. doi:10.1080/09500782.2013.808661es_CO
dc.identifier.citationEurydice. (2006). Content and language integrated learning (CLIL) at school in Europe. Brussels: Eurydice. Retrieved from http://www.indire.it/lucabas/lkmw_file/eurydice/CLIL_EN.pdfes_CO
dc.identifier.citationFung, D., & Yip, V. (2014). The effects of the medium of instruction in certificate-level physics on achievement and motivation to learn. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(10), 1219-1245. doi:10.1002/tea.21174es_CO
dc.identifier.citationGené-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:10.1080/09571736.2015.1053278es_CO
dc.identifier.citationGeorgiou, S. I. (2012). Reviewing the puzzle of CLIL. ELT Journal, 66(4), 495-504.es_CO
dc.identifier.citationGierlinger, E., & Wagner, T. (2016). The more the merrier- Revisiting CLIL-based vocabulary growth in secondary education. Latin American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning, 9(1), 37-63. doi:10.5294/laclil.2016.9.1.3es_CO
dc.identifier.citationGoris, J., Denessen, E., & Verhoeven, L. (2013). Effects of the Content and Language Integrated Learning approach to EFL teaching: A comparative study. Written Language and Literacy, 16(2), 186-207. doi:10.1075/wll.16.2.03gores_CO
dc.identifier.citationHernandez-Nanclares, N., & Jimenez-Munoz, A. (2017). English as a medium of instruction: Evidence for language and content targets in bilingual education in economics. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 20(7), 883-896. doi:10.1080/13670050.2015.1125847es_CO
dc.identifier.citationKrashen, S.D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. New York: Longman.es_CO
dc.identifier.citationLazaro 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.es_CO
dc.identifier.citationLightbown, P. M. (2014). Focus on content-based language teaching. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford.es_CO
dc.identifier.citationLorenzo, F., Casal, S., & Moore, P. (2010). The effects of Content and Language Integrated Learning in European education: Key findings from the Andalusian Bilingual Sections Evaluation Project. Applied Linguistics, 31(3), 418-442. doi:10.1093/applin/amp041es_CO
dc.identifier.citationManzano Vázquez, B. (2014). Lexical transfer in the written production of a CLIL group and a non-CLIL group. International Journal of English Studies, 14(2), 57-76.es_CO
dc.identifier.citationMaxwell-Reid, C. (2010). Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL): The influence of studying through English on Spanish students' first-language written discourse. Text & Talk, 30(6), 679-699. doi:10.1515/TEXT.2010.033es_CO
dc.identifier.citationMesquida, F., & Juan-Garau, M. (2013). CLIL instruction and its effects on the development of negotiation strategies. Miscelánea: A Journal of English and American Studies, 47, 125-144.es_CO
dc.identifier.citationMoore, P. (2011). Collaborative interaction in turn-taking: A comparative study of European bilingual (CLIL) and mainstream (MS) foreign language learners in early secondary education. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 14(5), 531-549. doi:10.1080/13670050.2010.537741es_CO
dc.identifier.citationNeghina, C. (2017). Asia Rising. Retrieved from http://www.studyportals.com/intelligence/asia-rising/es_CO
dc.identifier.citationOuazizi, K. (2016). The effects of CLIL education on the subject matter (mathematics) and the target language (English). Latin American Journal of Content and Language Integrated Learning, 9(1), 110-137. doi:10.5294/laclil.2016.9.1.5es_CO
dc.identifier.citationPiesche, N., Jonkmann, K., Fiege, C., & Keßler, J. (2016). CLIL for all? A randomised controlled field experiment with sixth-grade students on the effects of content and language integrated science learning. Learning and Instruction, 44, 108-116. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.04.001es_CO
dc.identifier.citationRallo 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:10.2478/psicl-2011-0008es_CO
dc.identifier.citationSweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257-285. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4es_CO
dc.identifier.citationXanthou, M. (2011). The impact of CLIL on L2 vocabulary development and content knowledge. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 10(4), 116-126.es_CO
dc.identifier.citationYang, 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:10.1080/13670050.2014.904840es_CO
dc.identifier.citationZhao, J., & Dixon, L. Q. (2017). English-medium Instruction in Chinese universities: Perspectives, discourse and evaluation. New York: Routledge.es_CO
dc.identifier.issn2011-6721
dc.identifier.otherhttp://laclil.unisabana.edu.co/index.php/LACLIL/article/view/9268
dc.identifier.otherhttp://laclil.unisabana.edu.co/index.php/LACLIL/article/view/9268/pdf
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10818/34353
dc.description20 páginases_CO
dc.description.abstractAround the world, language teachers are shifting to content-based instruction (CBI) as a way to teach English, most commonly in the form of Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) or English-Medium Instruction (EMI). With the spread of CBI around the world, it is important to understand how this shift in teaching has affected student outcomes. Using a systematic literature review approach, this study examines current literature on the effect of CBI on language and content outcomes. Twenty-five articles met the inclusion criteria for this study and were examined. The results show mixed findings on the effectiveness of CBI on student outcomes, with the majority of studies showing either positive or neutral effects for CBI when compared with non-CBI classrooms. However, the study also reveals multiple methodological issues that cause difficulties for any strong conclusions about CBI to be made. In addition, while CLIL in Spain has received a lot of research attention, other countries remain understudied. Therefore, this study concludes with a call for future research of CBI outcomes that examine a variety of countries and account for the methodological flaws identified.en
dc.formatapplication/pdfes_CO
dc.language.isoenges_CO
dc.relation.ispartofseriesLACLIL > Vol 11, No 1 (2018) p. 19-37
dc.rightsAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/*
dc.sourceinstname:Universidad de La Sabanaes_CO
dc.sourcereponame:Repositorio Institucional de la Universidad de La Sabanaes_CO
dc.subject.otherContent and language integrated learningeng
dc.subject.otherEnglish-medium instructioneng
dc.subject.otherLanguage outcomeseng
dc.subject.otherContent outcomeseng
dc.subject.otherSystematic revieweng
dc.titleLanguage and Content Outcomes of CLIL and EMI: A Systematic Reviewen
dc.typejournal articlees_CO
dc.publisher.departmentDirección de Publicacioneses_CO
dc.type.hasVersionpublishedVersiones_CO
dc.rights.accessRightsopenAccess
dc.identifier.doi10.5294/laclil.2018.11.1.2
dc.identifier.eissn2322-9721


Ficheros en el ítem

Thumbnail

Este ítem aparece en la(s) siguiente(s) colección(ones)

Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem

Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 InternationalExcepto si se señala otra cosa, la licencia del ítem se describe como Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International