Complexity, accuracy and fluency (CAF) OF EFL college learners’ writing : The CLIL AND non-CLIL classes
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.30762/jeels.v11i1.1272Keywords:
CLIL, EFL writing, Complexity, Accuracy, Non-CLILAbstract
This study was designed to compare the complexity, accuracy, and fluency of EFL written text in CLIL and Non-CLIL classes. The study enrolled two groups of undergraduate students from the State University of Malang, Indonesia: an experimental CLIL class (N = 50 students; 22 males and 28 females) and a non-CLIL as control class (N = 50 students; 19 males and 31 females). Students' essays were evaluated quantitatively using some aspects of linguistic proficiency, such as complexity, accuracy, and fluency. The errors were classified as syntactic, morphological, lexical, lexicogram, spelling, and punctuation mistakes. The findings indicated that both CLIL and non-CLIL methods produced comparable complexity, accuracy, fluency, syntactic, morphological, lexicogram, and spelling scores in two groups of students. Meanwhile, for complexity and lexical values, the CLIL and Non-CLIL methods produced significantly different average scores, with the application of the non-CLIL method being higher. On the punctuation variable, the CLIL method can significantly improve the assessment. Several possible explanations for the increase in complexity, accuracy, and fluency include a preference for the English standard, the course's assessment criteria, and practice effects. The findings of this study also provide additional pedagogical implications.
References
Aguilar, M., & Muñoz, C. (2019). The effect of proficiency on CLIL benefits in Engineering students in Spain. International Journal of Applied Linguistics (United Kingdom), 24(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12006
Arnó-Macià, E., & Mancho-Barés, G. (2015). The role of content and language in content and language integrated learning (CLIL) at university: Challenges and implications for ESP. English for Specific Purposes, 37(1), 63–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2014.06.007
Bruton, A. (2011). Is CLIL so beneficial, or just selective? Re-evaluating some of the research. System, 39(4), 523–532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2011.08.002
Bruton, A. (2013). CLIL: Some of the reasons why... and why not. System, 41(3), 587–597. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.07.001
Bulté, B., & Housen, A. (2012). Defining and operationalising L2 complexity. 21–46. https://doi.org/10.1075/LLLT.32.02BUL
Bygate, M. (1999). Quality of language and purpose of task: Patterns of learners’ language on two oral communication tasks. Language Teaching Research, 3(3), 185–214. https://doi.org/10.1177/136216889900300302
Cabrera Solano, P. A., Gonzalez Torres, P. F., Ochoa Cueva, C. A., Quinonez Beltran, A. L., Castillo Cuesta, L. M., Solano Jaramillo, L. M., Espinosa Jaramillo, F. O., & Arias Cordova, M. O. (2014). Spanish interference in EFL writing skills: A case of Ecuadorian senior high schools. English Language Teaching, 7(7), 40–48. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v7n7p40
Casanave, C. P. (1994). Language development in students’ journals. Journal of Second Language Writing, 3(3), 179–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/1060-3743(94)90016-7
Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2014). Focus on multilingualism as an approach in educational contexts. In Educational Linguistics (Vol. 20, pp. 239–254). Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7856-6_13
Coyle, D. (2005). CLIL planning tools for teachers 4cs curriculum guidance 3as lesson planning tool matrix audit tool for tasks & materials.
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2008). Outcomes and processes in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL): current research from Europe. In Werner Delanoy and Laurenz Volkmann, (eds.), Future Perspectives for English Language Teaching. (Issue May, pp. 139–157). Heidelberg: Carl Winter.
Green, T. (2004). Making the grade: Score gains on the IELTS writing test. Research Notes, 16(4), 9–3.
He, D., & Zhang, Q. (2010). Native speaker norms and China English: From the perspective of learners and teachers in China. TESOL Quarterly, 44(4), 769–789. https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2010.235995
Heras, A., & Lasagabaster, D. (2015). The impact of CLIL on affective factors and vocabulary learning. Language Teaching Research, 19(1), 70–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168814541736
Hunt, K. (1964). Differences in grammatical structures written at three grade levels. In NCTE Research Report No. 3.
Jexenflicker, S., & Dalton-Puffer, C. (2010). The CLIL differential: Comparing the writing of CLIL and non-CLIL students in higher colleges of technology. Language Use and Language Learning in CLIL Classrooms., 7(2010), 169.
Kirkpatrick, A., & Zhichang, X. (2002). Chinese pragmatic norms and ‘China English.’ World Englishes, 21(2), 269–279. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-971X.00247
Kormos, J. (2012). The role of individual differences in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 390–403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.003
Krashen, S. D. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Language Education, Oxford: Pergamon. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003054368-4
Lahuerta, A. (2020). Analysis of accuracy in the writing of EFL students enrolled on CLIL and non-CLIL programmes: the impact of grade and gender. Language Learning Journal, 48(2), 121–132. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2017.1303745
Lasagabaster, D. (2008). Foreign Language Competence in Content and Language Integrated Courses. The Open Applied Linguistics Journal, 1(1), 30–41. https://doi.org/10.2174/1874913500801010030
Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. M. (2009). Immersion and CLIL in English: More differences than similarities. ELT Journal, 64(4), 367–375. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccp082
Lee, J. (2020). Assessing the effects of CLIL on Korean high school students’ writing. Linguistic Research, 37(Special Edition), 89–112. https://doi.org/10.17250/khisli.37..202009.004
Llinares, A., Morton, T., & whittaker, R. (2012). The Roles of Language in CLIL. New York: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.18823/asiatefl.2017.14.1.18.209
Llinares, Ana, & Whittaker, R. (2006). Linguistic analysis of secondary school students’ oral and written production in CLIL contexts: studying social science in English. VIEWS Vienna English Working Papers, 15(3), 33–40. https://doi.org/10.16660/j.cnki.1674-098x.2012.23.052
Llinares, Ana, & Whittaker, R. (2007). Talking and Writing in a Foreign Language in CLIL contexts: a Linguistic Analysis of secondary school learners of geography and history. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada, 1, 83–94.
Lyster, R. (2011). Content-based second language teaching. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning, Vol .2 (pp. 611–630). New York :Routledge.
Myles, J. (2002). Second language writing and research: The writing process and error analysis in student texts. TESL-EJ, 6(2).
Ortega, L. (2003). Syntactic complexity measures and their relationship to L2 proficiency a research synthesis of college level L2 writing. Applied Linguistics, 24(4), 492–518.
Pallotti, G. (2009). CAF: Defining, refining and differentiating constructs. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 590–601. https://doi.org/10.1093/APPLIN/AMP045
Pérez-Cañado, M. L. (2012). CLIL research in Europe: Past, present, and future. In International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism (Vol. 15, Issue 3, pp. 315–341). https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2011.630064
Pérez-Vidal, C, & Roquet, H. (2015). The linguistic impact of a CLIL Science programme: An analysis measuring relative gains. System, 54, 80–90.
Pérez-Vidal, Carmen, & Roquet, H. (2015). The linguistic impact of a CLIL Science programme: An analysis measuring relative gains. System, 54, 80–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.05.004
Rallo Fabra, L., & Jacob, K. (2015). Content-based Language Learning in Multilingual Educational Environments. In M. Juan-Garau & J. Salazar-Noguera (Eds.), Content-based Language Learning in Multilingual Educational Environments (Vol. 23, pp. 163–177). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11496-5
Rose, D. (2020). Literacy Education and Systemic Functional Linguistics. In The Cambridge Introduction to Applied Linguistics (pp. 115–132). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108658089.012
Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (2010). Written production and CLIL (pp. 191–210). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/aals.7.10rui
Storch, N. (2009). The impact of studying in a second language (L2) medium university on the development of L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(2), 103–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2009.02.003
Tedick, D. J. (1990). ESL writing assessment: Subject-matter knowledge and its impact on performance. English for Specific Purposes, 9(2), 123–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-4906(90)90003-U
Thewissen, J. (2013). Capturing L2 Accuracy Developmental Patterns: Insights From an Error-Tagged EFL Learner Corpus. Modern Language Journal, 97(SUPPL.1), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2012.01422.x
Verspoor, M., Schmid, M. S., & Xu, X. (2012). A dynamic usage based perspective on L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(3), 239–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.03.007
Whittaker, R., Llinares, A., & McCabe, A. (2011). Written discourse development in CLIL at secondary school. Language Teaching Research, 15(3), 343–362. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168811401154
Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, K. S., & Kim, H. . (1998). Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy, and complexity. University of Hawaii Press, 19(2), 225–257. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0142716400010055
Xudong, D., Cheng, L., Varaprasad, C., & Leng, L. (2010). Academic Writing Development of ESL/EFL Graduate Students in NUS. Nus.Sg, 9(2), 119–138
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 JEELS (Journal of English Education and Linguistics Studies)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
