Analysis and insights into written competence of clil and non-clil programs in tertiary context

Nozimakhon Uralova

doi:10.47689/2181-1415-vol2-iss6/S-pp56-61

Uralova Nozimakhon EFL lecturer, Yeoju Technical Institute, Tashkent, Uzbekistan

DOI

https://doi.org/10.47689/2181-1415-vol2-iss6/S-pp56-61

Keywords

written competence , fluency , accuracy , lexical complexity , grammar complexity , cognitive skills

Abstract

In 2020 a new faculty was established at Yeoju Technical Institute in Tashkent. This faculty is the first in Uzbekistan that teaches learners dual-focused Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) approach.The research was conducted within one academic year (2 semesters), in experimental and control groups that include CLIL and non-CLIL language learners. The chosen module was Introduction to Academic Writing that compares the writing performance of CLIL and non-CLIL students in terms of 3 dimensions: fluency, accuracy, and complexity of academic writing. The result of the research revealed that the CLIL group showed better results compared with non-CLIL students regarding the frequent usage of academic vocabulary, complexity in structure, and content of writing, demonstrating a more critical approach to the assigned topics.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Eurydice. 2006. Content and Language Integrated Learning at School in Europe. Eurydice European Unit

Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The Psychology of Written Composition. Hillsdale, NJ Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bulté, B., &Housen, A. (2014): «Conceptualizing and measuring short-term changes in L2 writing complexity», Journal of Second Language Writing 26: 42–65.

Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Larsen-Freeman, D. (2006). The emergence of complexity, fluency, and accuracy in the oral and written production of five Chinese learners of English, Applied Linguistics 27(4): 590-619.

Lorenzo, F. (2007). An analytical framework of language integration in L2 content-based courses. Language and Education 21: 503–13.

Lorenzo, F., Casal, S. Moore, P. (2010). The effects of content and language integrated learning in European education: key findings from the Andalusian sections evaluation report. Applied Linguistics, 31, 418-442.

Navés, T., &Victori, M. (2010). CLIL in Catalonia: An Overview of Research Studies,in David Lasagabaster and Yolanda Ruiz de Zarobe (eds.), CLIL in Spain: Implementation,Results and Teacher Training. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 30-54.

Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Tomasello, M., & Herron, C. (1989). Feedback for language transfer errors: The garden path technique. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11(4), 385-395.

Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, Sh., & Kim, H. (1998): Second Language Development in Writing: Measures of Fluency, Accuracy, and Complexity. Hawai’i: University ofHawai’i at Manoa.

Downloads

188 165

Published

2021-07-15

How to Cite

Uralova, N. (2021). Analysis and insights into written competence of clil and non-clil programs in tertiary context. Society and Innovation, 2(6/S), 56–61. https://doi.org/10.47689/2181-1415-vol2-iss6/S-pp56-61