A comparative study of CLIL implementation in upper secondary school in Sweden and students’ development of L2 English academic vocabulary

• Eva Olsson ^[1]
  1. [1] University of Gothenburg

     University of Gothenburg

     Suecia

     
• Localización: Language teaching research, ISSN 1362-1688, Vol. 29, Nº. 1, 2025, págs. 7-32
• Idioma: inglés
• Texto completo no disponible (Saber más ...)
• Resumen

  • Although research on content and language integrated learning (CLIL) has shown that CLIL instruction may enhance students’ second or foreign language learning compared to regular foreign language instruction, there are also studies that have indicated similar language development between CLIL and non-CLIL students. However, CLIL can be organized and implemented in many different ways and thus, it is necessary to identify the specific features of various CLIL contexts when comparing learning outcomes. In this study, CLIL implementation at three Swedish upper secondary schools was explored and compared. Further, students’ development of second language (L2) English productive academic vocabulary was compared over three years between CLIL groups at different schools as well as between CLIL and non-CLIL groups (n = 230), using corpus-based methods. The results revealed significant differences in the progression of L2 academic vocabulary between CLIL groups that may be attributed to substantial differences in CLIL implementation, e.g. with regard to the time allotted for CLIL, teacher availability and the balance between first language (L1) and L2. At the school where the CLIL group’s L2 productive academic vocabulary progressed more than in other groups, both Swedish and English were languages of instruction, increasing the proportion of English over the three years; in the third year, English dominated as the language of instruction. The results indicated similar development of L2 academic vocabulary between CLIL and non-CLIL groups when CLIL implementation was very limited in scale and scope. Further, the results showed that apart from vocabulary, CLIL teachers of non-language subjects generally paid very little attention to other aspects of language.