Cover not available

Article published In: Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education
Vol. 10:1 (2022) ► pp.5–32

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required

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

Linguistic and functional aspects

ORCiD logo with link | National Institute of Technology, Yonago College
Published online: 22 February 2021
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/jicb.20006.suz
Abstract
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.
概要
本研究では、ともに比較対照表現を扱う、意味重視型のcontent-based instruction（CBI）授業と言語重視型のnon-CBI授業のライティングへの影響を調べた。それぞれの授業を受講した日本人の高校生に2つのトピック（CBIに沿った発電のトピックと新しいトピック）について比較対照を用いる作文を書いてもらい、授業前後で比較した。作文は、複雑さ・正確さ・流暢さ（CAF）、機能的妥当性（functional adequacy）の観点から分析された。その結果、CBI群では、発電トピックの言語的側面と機能的側面の両方が改善され、新しいトピックの機能的側面も2つ改善されたことが分かった。対照的に、non-CBI群では、発電トピックでは言語的側面が2つ、新しいトピックではCAFのうち3つと機能的側面の2つが改善した。したがって、CBIは、授業で扱ったものと同じトピックのライティングにおける言語的側面と機能的側面の改善に役立つだけでなく、新しいトピックにおける機能的側面に書き手の注意を引くことができるかもしれないと示唆される。
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
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Abrams, Z. I. (2019). The effects of integrated writing on linguistic complexity in L2 writing and task-complexity. System, 811, 110–121. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bentley, K. (2010). The TKT course CLIL module. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2011). Content-and-language integrated learning: From practice to principles? Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 311, 182–204. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C., & Smit, U. (2013). Content and language integrated learning: A research agenda. Language Teaching, 46(4), 545–559. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Derewianka, B. (1996). Exploring the writing of genres. United Kingdom Reading Association.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2020). In defence of a modular curriculum for tasks. ELT Journal, 74(2), 1–10. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ellis, R., Skehan, P., Li, S., Shintani, N., & Lambert, C. (2020). Task-based language teaching: Theory and practice. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ellis, R., & Shintani, N. (2014). Exploring language pedagogy through second language acquisition research. Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
García Mayo, M. del P. (2015). The interface between task-based language teaching and content-based instruction. System, 541, 1–3. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Hunt, K. (1970). Syntactic maturity in schoolchildren and adults. Monographs of the Sociely for Rearch in Child Development, 35(1), 1–67. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2017). Functional adequacy in L2 writing: Towards a new rating scale. Language Testing, 34(3), 321–336. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Larson-Hall, J. (2010). A guide to doing statistics in second language research using SPSS. Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lasagabaster, D. (2008). Foreign language competence in content and language integrated courses. The Open Applied Linguistics Journal, 11, 30–41. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Llinares, A., & Dalton-Puffer, C. (2015). The role of different tasks in CLIL students’ use of evaluative language. System, 541, 69–79. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lu, X. (2010). Automatic analysis of syntactic complexity in second language writing. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 15(4), 474–496. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ortega, L. (2015). Researching CLIL and TBLT interfaces. System, 541, 103–109. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pallotti, G. (2009). CAF: Defining, refining and differentiating constructs. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 590–601. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pérez-Vidal, C., & Roquet, H. (2015). The linguistic impact of a CLIL science programme: An analysis measuring relative gains. System, 541, 80–90. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Roediger, I., & Guynn, M. (1996). Retrieval processes. In E. Bork & R. Bork (Eds.), Memory (pp. 197–236). Academic Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shintani, N. (2019). Potential of writing-to-learn-language activities from second language acquisition research. Journal of Second Language Writing, 461-. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue