cohesion - European Centre for Modern Languages

Group
Experimental group
A
Experimental group
B
Progress in
Academic Reading
130
Progress in
Academic Writing
Progress in Use of
English
21% 24% 20%
20% 22% 20%
Table 3. Comparison of the experiment results achieved by two experimental groups
Conclusions
We can conclude that the results of our project suggest that incorporating systematic
writing practice into the CLIL formula may enhance the effectiveness of this
innovative approach. The students who attended CLIL classes for two semesters (60
hours in total) achieved significantly better results than the control group students who
were learning English as a foreign language. Although the content component in the
case of both experimental groups was different, it clearly had no influence on the
effectiveness of the CLIL course in terms of linguistic achievement. We may also
assume that employing the comparison/contrast rhetorical pattern contributed to the
effectiveness of this course as it entailed students performing textual transformations
and in-depth processing.
References
ADAMSON, D. (1990), “ESL students' use of academic skills in content courses”,
English for Specific purposes, 9, pp. 67-87.
CHAMOT, A.U. and O'MALLEY, J.M. (1987), “A Cognitive Academic Language
Learning Approach: A Bridge to the Mainstream”, TESOL Quarterly, 21, pp. 227-247.
CRAIG, J.C. (2001), “The missing link between school and work: Knowing the
demands of the workplace”, English Journal, 91, pp. 46-50.
CUMMINS, J. (1984), “Bilingualism and special education: Issues in assessment and
pedagogy”, Multilingual Matters, Clevedon, England.
CUMMINS, J. (1999), Immersion education for the millennium: What we have learned
from 30 years of research on second language immersion, Toronto: OISE.