In: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
Published online: 16 March 2017
https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.47.03gra
https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.47.03gra
Abstract
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
References (74)
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.
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.
Azkarai, A., & García Mayo, M. P. (2017). Task repetition effects on L1 use in EFL child task-based interaction. Language Teaching Research.
Azkarai, A., & Imaz Agirre, A. (2016). Negotiation of meaning strategies in child EFL mainstream and CLIL settings. TESOL Quarterly50, 844–870.
Badertscher, H., & Bieri, T. (2009). Wissenserwerb im Content and Language Integrated Learning. Bern: Haupt.
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.
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.
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.
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2007). Discourse in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) classrooms. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
(2011). Content and Language Integrated Learning: From practice to principles? Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 182–204.
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.
Dalton-Puffer, C., & Nikula, T. (2014). Content and language integrated learning (guest editorial). The Language Learning Journal, 42(2): 117–122.
Dalton-Puffer, C., & Smit, U. (Eds.). (2007). Empirical perspectives on CLIL classroom discourse. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Dalton-Puffer, C., & Smit, U (2013). Content and Language Integrated Learning: A research agenda. Language Teaching, 46(4), 545–559.
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.
García Mayo, M. P. (2011). The relevance of attention to L2 form in communicative classroom contexts. Estudios de Lingüística Inglesa Aplicada 11, 11–45.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Gass, S. M., Behney, J., & Plonsky, L. (2013). Second language acquisition. An introductory course. New York, NY: Routledge.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. (2010). Immersion and CLIL in English: More differences than similarities. ELT Journal, 64(4), 367–375.
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.
Leeser, M.J. (2004). Learner proficiency and focus on form during collaborative dialogue. Language Teaching Research, 8(1), 55–81.
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.
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.
Long, M. H. (1983). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 126–141.
(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.
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.
Lyster, R. (1998). Recasts, repetition and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20(1), 51–80.
(2007). Learning and teaching languages through content: A counterbalanced approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Lyster, R., & Mori, H. (2006). Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), 269–300.
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.
Mackey, A., Gass, S.M., & McDonough, K. (2000). How do learners perceive interactional feedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22(4), 471–497.
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.
Mariotti, C. (2006). Negotiated interactions and repair. VIEWS Vienna English Working Papers, 15, 33–41.
Mehisto, P., Marsh, D., & Frigols, M.J. (2008). Uncovering CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning in bilingual and multilingual education. Oxford: Macmillan Education.
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.
Muñoz, C. (2014). Exploring young learners’ foreign language learning awareness. Language Awareness, 23(1/2), 24–40.
Musumeci, D. (1996). Teacher-learner negotiation in content-based instruction: Communication at cross-purposes? Applied Linguistics, 17(3), 286–325.
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.
Norris, J., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50(3), 417–528.
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.
Pérez-Cañado, M. L. (2012). CLIL research in Europe: past, present, and future. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 15(3), 315–341.
Pica, T. (1987). Second-language acquisition, social interaction, and the classroom. Applied Linguistics, 8(1), 3–21.
(1994). Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second language learning conditions, processes and outcomes? Language Learning, 44(3), 493–527.
(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.
(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.
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.
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.
Ross-Feldman, L. (2005). Task-based interactions between second language learners. Exploring the role of gender. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Georgetown University.
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.
Serra, C. (2007). Assessing CLIL at primary school. A longitudinal study. The International Journal of Bilingual education and Bilingualism, 10(5), 582–602.
Sheen, Y. (2011). Corrective feedback, individual differences and second language learning. New York, NY: Springer.
Spada, N. (2011). Beyond form-focused instructions. Reflections on past, present and future research. Language Teaching, 29(1), 73–87.
Spada, N., & Tomita, Y. (2010). Interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 263–308.
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.
(1988). Manipulating and complementing content teaching to maximize second language learning. TESL Canada Journal, 6(1), 68–83.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(2013). A Vygotskian socio-cultural perspective on immersion education. The L1/L2 debate. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Education, 1(1), 101–129.
Thornbury, S. (1997). Reformulation and reconstruction: Tasks that promote “noticing”. ELT Journal, 51(4), 326–335.
Cited by (9)
Cited by nine other publications
García-del-Real, Isabel, Maite López-Flamarique, Mónica Aznárez-Mauleón & Izaskun Villarreal
Pimentel-Velázquez, Cynthia
Ballinger, Susan
Martínez Agudo, Juan de Dios
Martínez-Agudo, Juan de Dios
Zourou, Katerina
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.
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.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 26 november 2025. 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.
