The Receptive Vocabulary

of EFL Learners in Two

Instructional Contexts
CLIL vs Non-CLIL
Instruction

Juan David Valencia

Eduard Aliod
English as a foreign language
Universitat Rovira I Virgili
English Studies
 Introduction
o Receptive Vocabulary vs Productive Vocabulary

o Natural Contexts vs Classroom Contexts

o CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning) vs

NON- CLIL Instruction
 Effectiveness of CLIL

• Greater motivation towards the language

• Decrease of learner´s anxiety

• Integration of language skills

• Use of the target language to learn different subjects

different from the language itself
 Effectiveness of CLIL (II)

• Focus on meaning

• Fostering of learning and communicative strategies

o “The benefits of CLIL seem to be more evident in

comprehension abilities than in production abilities”
(Bialystok, 2005)
 Types of studies
o Observational studies
Dalton-Puffer, Nikula (2006), Creese (2005)

o Contrasting studies
Hernández (2005), Villarreal, García Mayo

 Overall, supremacy of CLIL over non-CLIL students

 Vocabulary knowledge
Learners with large vocabularies tend to perform better
in the target language than learners with low
vocabularies (Laufer, 1998; Meara, 1996)

Incidental word learning (Horst, 1998)

Very similar outcomes in studies with learners from

different school contexts (Jiménez Catalan and
Terrazas)
 Study
o Focus

① Investigating the relation of the type of language

instruction on the receptive vocabulary in EFL
② Comparing English receptive vocabulary in two
communities with similar sociolinguistic characteristics
but different language combinations
 Study (II)
o Research questions

① Will sixth primary school (11-12 year old) EFL learners

in CLIL instructional context outperform EFL learners
in ES instructional context?
② What will be the estimate of receptive vocabulary size of
non-CLIL learners in CLIL and ES?
 Study (III)
o Method
o Sample: 130 female members non-CLIL students
o 65 enrolled in a CLIL context (Basque country)
o 65 enrolled in an ES context (La Rioja)

o Tests
o 1000-word receptive test (Nation, 1993)
o 2000-frequency band of the receptive version of the
Vocabulary Levels Test (Schmitt, 2001)
o Cloze test
 Study (IV)

Cloze 1000-WT 2000-VLT

max = 8 max = 30 max = 30
CLIL (n=65)
6.09 22.43 12.03
(Basque Country)
Non-CLIL (n=65)
3.76 21.00 9.02
(La Rioja)

Jimenez Catalán and Ruiz de Zarobe (2009)

 Discussion
Significantly better performance on the cloze and
receptive tests of CLIL students over non-CLIL
students.

CLIL instruction usually comes hand in hand with

more hours of instruction

Greater exposure to English language outside school

trough television, reading and Internet (Sylvén, 2004)
 Discussion (II)
Discrete decontextualized receptive vocabulary tests
rather than integrative vocabulary knowledge

It would be convenient to conduct research with larger

samples of students in which mixed groups were
included (males and females).

Also, the CLIL students were already bilingual and it

has been proven that bilingualism increases
metalinguistic awareness.