15
International CLIL Research Journal, Vol 2 (1) 2013 http://www.icrj.eu/21/article1.html 4 Profiling Lexical Features of T eacher T alk in CLIL Courses: The Case of a Higher Education EAP Programme in Japan Yoshinori Watanabe Sophia University Abstract The present article reports on research conducted to identify the lexical features of English for Academic Purposes (EAP) courses offered at the university level in Japan. Two of the courses, both of which were developed on the principles of CLIL yet with different orientations, were observed and analysed with respect to the words teachers were using during diverse forms of instruction. Indepth analyses of a total of three 90minute lessons indicate that the type and frequency of vocabulary items were different between courses, and that significant differences were also present across teaching styles, resulting in idiosyncrasy in the use of vocabulary items. Based on these results, several suggestions are made on the creation of lexical sets serving as a common basic glossary for CLIL courses. Key words: English for Academic Purposes (EAP), subjectspecific lexicon, subject literacy, classroom data, CLIL 1. Introduction In any form of programme developed and administered on the principles of CLIL, the combination of content and language undoubtedly comprises its core. The importance of language has always been one of the focal points in CLIL programming (Dale and Tanner, 2012; Harmer, 2012), but in emphasising the importance of integrating content and language, it seems to be common that content receives greater emphasis than language. Thus, the importance of teaching language may be overshadowed by a greater focus on the teaching and learning of subject matter. Observations have been reported of cases where CLIL curricula are centred on the subject matter rather than language, perhaps ‘with the tacit assumption that there will be incidental language gains’ (DaltonPuffer, 2007: 295). Given that CLIL is ultimately intended to help students improve their knowledge and skills in the target language, due attention needs to be paid to language as well as content. I fully concur with the view that ‘we should not isolate contentbased knowledge and skills from the linguistic competences needed for learning’ (Llinares et al., 2012: 14). It is crucial to weigh the relative importance of content and language so they may be suitably aligned with the expected programme learning outcomes and strike a balance between these elements to meet the needs and the demands of various levels of the learners. By doing so, it becomes possible to help students develop subject literacy, which refers to ‘the spoken and written language forms and texts through which content knowledge is accessed by CLIL learners’ (Llinares et al., 2012: 14). Amongst many linguistic features to be covered in CLIL courses, perhaps the most important is vocabulary (Alba, 2009). Thus there is a need to identify ‘content obligatory’ terms, which include ‘technical vocabulary and other domainspecific expressions’ (Lyster, 2007: 28). This article focuses on the lexical features of CLIL as part of a higher education EAP course in Japan. The course is implemented for students who have not yet developed appropriate proficiency in English enabling them to undertake academic studies in specific academic fields. Several evaluation and descriptive studies of CLIL programming in Japanese higher education have been reported elsewhere (e.g. Watanabe et al., 2011; Izumi et al., 2012). These studies were

International CLIL Research Journal, Vol 2 (1) 2013 ... · semester starts on the first of October and continues to the end of January the following year. Each semester consists of

  • Upload
    others

  • View
    0

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: International CLIL Research Journal, Vol 2 (1) 2013 ... · semester starts on the first of October and continues to the end of January the following year. Each semester consists of

International  CLIL  Research  Journal,  Vol  2  (1)  2013  

http://www.icrj.eu/21/article1.html   4

Profiling  Lexical  Features  of  Teacher  Talk  in  CLIL  Courses:    The  Case  of  a  Higher  Education  EAP  Programme  in  Japan  

Yoshinori  Watanabe  Sophia  University        Abstract    The  present  article  reports  on  research  conducted  to  identify  the  lexical  features  of  English  for  Academic  Purposes   (EAP)  courses  offered  at   the  university   level   in   Japan.  Two  of   the  courses,  both   of  which  were   developed   on   the   principles   of   CLIL   yet  with   different   orientations,  were  observed  and  analysed  with  respect  to  the  words  teachers  were  using  during  diverse   forms  of  instruction.   In-­‐depth   analyses   of   a   total   of   three   90-­‐minute   lessons   indicate   that   the   type   and  frequency  of  vocabulary   items  were  different  between  courses,  and  that  significant  differences  were  also  present  across  teaching  styles,  resulting  in  idiosyncrasy  in  the  use  of  vocabulary  items.  Based  on  these  results,  several  suggestions  are  made  on  the  creation  of  lexical  sets  serving  as  a  common  basic  glossary  for  CLIL  courses.      Key   words:   English   for   Academic   Purposes   (EAP),   subject-­‐specific   lexicon,   subject   literacy,  classroom  data,  CLIL    

1.  Introduction    In   any   form   of   programme   developed   and   administered   on   the   principles   of   CLIL,   the  combination   of   content   and   language   undoubtedly   comprises   its   core.   The   importance   of  language  has  always  been  one  of  the  focal  points  in  CLIL  programming  (Dale  and  Tanner,  2012;  Harmer,  2012),  but  in  emphasising  the  importance  of  integrating  content  and  language,  it  seems  to  be   common   that   content   receives   greater   emphasis   than   language.  Thus,   the   importance  of  teaching   language   may   be   overshadowed   by   a   greater   focus   on   the   teaching   and   learning   of  subject  matter.  Observations  have  been  reported  of  cases  where  CLIL  curricula  are  centred  on  the   subject  matter   rather   than   language,  perhaps   ‘with   the   tacit   assumption   that   there  will  be  incidental   language  gains’  (Dalton-­‐Puffer,  2007:  295).  Given  that  CLIL  is  ultimately  intended  to  help  students  improve  their  knowledge  and  skills  in  the  target  language,  due  attention  needs  to  be  paid  to   language  as  well  as  content.   I   fully  concur  with  the  view  that   ‘we  should  not   isolate  content-­‐based   knowledge   and   skills   from   the   linguistic   competences   needed   for   learning’  (Llinares  et  al.,  2012:  14).      It   is   crucial   to  weigh   the   relative   importance  of   content  and   language   so   they  may  be   suitably  aligned  with   the   expected   programme   learning   outcomes   and   strike   a   balance   between   these  elements   to  meet   the  needs  and   the  demands  of   various   levels  of   the   learners.  By  doing   so,   it  becomes   possible   to   help   students   develop   subject   literacy,   which   refers   to   ‘the   spoken   and  written  language  forms  and  texts  through  which  content  knowledge  is  accessed  by  CLIL  learners’  (Llinares   et   al.,   2012:   14).   Amongst   many   linguistic   features   to   be   covered   in   CLIL   courses,  perhaps  the  most  important  is  vocabulary  (Alba,  2009).  Thus  there  is  a  need  to  identify  ‘content-­‐obligatory’   terms,   which   include   ‘technical   vocabulary   and   other   domain-­‐specific   expressions’  (Lyster,  2007:  28).      This  article   focuses  on   the   lexical   features  of  CLIL  as  part  of  a  higher  education  EAP  course   in  Japan.   The   course   is   implemented   for   students   who   have   not   yet   developed   appropriate  proficiency  in  English  enabling  them  to  undertake  academic  studies  in  specific  academic  fields.  Several   evaluation   and  descriptive   studies   of   CLIL  programming   in   Japanese  higher   education  have  been  reported  elsewhere  (e.g.  Watanabe  et  al.,  2011;  Izumi  et  al.,  2012).  These  studies  were  

Page 2: International CLIL Research Journal, Vol 2 (1) 2013 ... · semester starts on the first of October and continues to the end of January the following year. Each semester consists of

International  CLIL  Research  Journal,  Vol  2  (1)  2013  

http://www.icrj.eu/21/article1.html   5

made  on  the  basis  of  interviews,  questionnaire  responses,  narrative  descriptions  of  the  teachers  in   charge   and   test   scores.   To   complement   these   it   was   apparent   that   deeper-­‐level   systematic  observation  studies  should  be  conducted   to   reveal   if   and  how  a  CLIL  programme  does   lead   to  added  value  if  compared  to  regular  mainstream  courses.  As  one  attempt  to  that  end,  this  article  reports  on  a  study  focusing  on  the  lexical  features  of  teacher  discourse  in  two  courses.      The  purpose  of  the  present  article  is  then  two-­‐fold.  First,  it  is  intended  to  compare  and  contrast  two   courses   to   examine   whether   the   differences   in   purpose   are   reflected   in   actual   teaching  practices.   The   second   purpose   is   to   identify   and   collect   vocabulary   used   in   the   course,  particularly  that  of  academic  discourse  with  a  view  to  contributing  to  future  course  design.      

2.  Literature  review    A   growing   number   of   empirical   studies   have   been   conducted   to   examine   the   effectiveness   of  CLIL   courses,   though   the   results   are   often   not   comparable   due   to   differences   of   context   and  methodology   (Përez-­‐Canado,   2012).   Some   studies   report   that   CLIL   courses   are   successful   in  enhancing   students’   knowledge   and   skills   of   overall   language   competence   (Zydatiß,   2007;  Väzques,  2007)  as  well  as  subject  area  knowledge  (Sylvën,  2004).  Another  set  of  studies,  which  examined   the   linguistic   aspects   of   CLIL   courses,   involves   observational   study   exploring   the  language   used   by   teachers   and   students   in   CILL   classrooms.   These   studies   examine   discourse  patterns  of   teacher-­‐student   interaction   in  CLIL  and  non-­‐CLIL   courses   (Dalton-­‐Puffer  and  Smit,  2007).  One  of  these  is  the  Initiation-­‐Response-­‐Feedback  (IRF)  pattern,  which  is  often  criticised  as  characterising  a  transmission  model  of  a  teacher-­‐centred  class  as  it  can  engage  ‘students  only  minimally’   and   can   maintain   ‘unequal   power   relationships   between   teachers   and   students’  (Lyster,   2007:   89).   However,   other   discourse   patterns   are   reported   which   are   particularly  interesting   with   respect   to   greater   understanding   of   the   types   of   talk   taking   place   in   CLIL  classrooms   (Lochtman,   2007;   Nikula,   2007).   There   are   also   a   number   of   research   studies  reporting  on  the  learning  and  teaching  of  vocabulary.  Given  that  CLIL  emphasises  the  learning  of  content  knowledge,  an  increase  in  vocabulary  knowledge  may  not  be  surprising  (Sylvën,  2004;  Wode,  1999;  Jexenflicker  and  Dalton-­‐Puffer,  2010).      There  are  also  non-­‐evaluative  descriptive  studies  looking  at  lexical  aspects  of  CLIL  courses.  For  example,   Espinosa   (2009)   produces   a   productive   lexical   profile   by   examining   130   Spanish  learners   of   English   as   a   foreign   language   at   the   end   of   primary   education   in   two   different  learning   contexts,   CLIL   with   the   dual-­‐focused   aims   of   the   learning   of   content   and   the  simultaneous  learning  of  a  foreign  language  versus  non-­‐CLIL  regular  mainstream  courses  where  students  learn  English  as  a  subject  in  the  Spanish  primary  curriculum  (Espinosa,  2009).  A  recent  substantial  contribution   to  understanding   this   field   is  by  Llinares  et  al.   (2012),  which   includes  in-­‐depth  analyses  of  the  language  of  teacher  talk,  as  well  as  that  of  students  through  a  systemic  functional  grammar  framework.      Contributions   from   fields  other   than  CLIL  yet   relevant   include  Horst   (2010)  and  Tang   (2011).  Horst   (2010)   analysed   a   121,000-­‐word   corpus   of   native   English   teacher’s   speech   recorded   in  Canada   to   examine   whether   teacher   talk   in   the   classroom   served   as   an   opportunity   for   the  learner  to  acquire  vocabulary.  The  result  indicates  that  the  overwhelming  proportion  of  teacher  talk  consisted  of  very  basic  words,  and  that  the  teacher’s  speech  contained  many  words  which  were  unfamiliar  to  the  learners;  far  fewer  being  recycled  than  what  research  shows  are  needed  for   lasting  retention.  Tang  (2011)  analysed  a   total  of   six  200-­‐minute   lessons  of   teacher   talk  of  non-­‐native  speakers  of  English  in  China.  The  findings  indicated  that  teacher  talk  did  not  provide  students   with   a   lexically   rich   environment,   nor   did   the   teachers   use   the   basic   words   as  frequently  as  had  been  expected.      Interestingly,   although  carried  out   in  different   contexts,   these   two  studies   concur   that   teacher  talk   may   be   inadequate   as   a   source   of   input   to   the   learners.   Indeed,   the   effectiveness   of  incidental  acquisition  of  vocabulary  just  by  listening  to  teacher  talk  is  called  into  question  based  

Page 3: International CLIL Research Journal, Vol 2 (1) 2013 ... · semester starts on the first of October and continues to the end of January the following year. Each semester consists of

International  CLIL  Research  Journal,  Vol  2  (1)  2013  

http://www.icrj.eu/21/article1.html   6

on  the  empirical  research.  Thus,  conscious  attention  needs  to  be  paid  to  a  specific  word  that  the  learner  has   to   learn.  The  research  studies  conducted   in   the   field  of  CLIL  have  also  shown  that  incidental   learning  of  vocabulary  does  not  work  well  enough   to  enhance  students’  acquisition.  Admiraal  et  al.  (2006)  report  that  there  was  no  statistical  difference  between  CLIL  and  non-­‐CLIL  course  students  in  terms  of  receptive  vocabulary  knowledge.  It  is  also  reported  that  the  type  of  benefit   that   appears   to   be   gained   by   CLIL   courses   may   have   actually   been   brought   about   by  some  other  factors  such  as  extracurricular  reading  (Ackerl,  2007).  There  is  also  an  observation  that  calls   into  question  the  type  as  well  as  quantity  of  vocabulary  that  may  not  be  appropriate  for  students  (e.g.  Alba,  2009).  Research  also  indicates  that  it  is  not  the  quantity  but  the  quality  of  teacher  talk  that  is  important  in  bringing  about  effective  language  learning  in  CLIL  programmes  (Dalton-­‐Puffer,  2007).      In   conclusion,   it   is   argued   that   a   subject-­‐specific   glossary   could   be   a   useful   tool   in   enabling  teachers  to  enrich  their  use  of  talk  in  the  classroom.  This  article  examines  if  there  is  a  substantial  difference   in   vocabulary   that   teachers   use   in   two   different   types   of   CLIL   courses   at   Sophia  University,  Tokyo.  The  major  purpose  of  the  study  leading  to  this  article  was  to  gather  data  so  as  to   create   genre-­‐based   glossaries.   In   order   to   create   a   set   of   lexical   items   useful   for   CLIL   it   is  helpful   to   examine   authentic   classroom   discourse   and   identify   words   found   in   CLIL   courses  which  are  significantly  different  in  use  to  those  found  in  EAP  contexts.      

3.  Background    The   Academic   English   Programme   at   Sophia   University   is   a   course   which   was   initially  implemented   experimentally,   and   as   of   2009   as   a   fully-­‐fledged   university-­‐wide   programme.  Academic   English   1   (hereafter,   AE1)   and   Academic   English   2   (hereafter,   AE2)   are   the   two  courses   that   comprise   the   programme.   These   courses   have   been   developed   based   on   the  principles   of   CLIL,   and   aim   to   integrate   language,   content,   and   academic   skills.   In   Japan   the  academic  year  begins  on  the  first  of  April  and  ends  on  the  last  day  of  March  the  following  year.  At  Sophia  University,  the  spring  semester  starts  in  the  middle  of  April  and  continues  to  the  end  of   July,  while   the   autumn   semester   starts   on   the   first   of   October   and   continues   to   the   end   of  January   the   following  year.  Each  semester   consists  of  15-­‐week  sessions  each  consisting  of  90-­‐minute  units.      AE1   is   offered   during   the   spring   semester   and   is   intended   to   prepare   students   for   academic  studies  in  English  by  teaching  them  some  basic  skills  necessary  to  take  AE2.  The  course  aims  to  help  students  develop  a  range  of  study  skills,  including  note-­‐taking,  critical  thinking  and  reading  of   academic   articles.   Students   are   also   provided   opportunities   to   learn   from   various  participatory   classroom   activities   such   as   pair   work,   group   work,   group   projects   as   well   as  individual  tasks.  Thereby,  it  was  expected  that  students  would  learn  to  take  on  various  roles  in  group  work,  learning  effectively  through  pair  work  by  interacting  with  the  teacher  and  peers  in  the  classroom.  In  addition,  there  were  many  opportunities  to  practice  and  develop  the  language  and  skills  for  communicating  meaningfully  in  discussions,  and  producing  written  work.      AE2  is  geared  towards  the  content  component  of  the  principle  of  CLIL.  The  course  is  offered  in  the  autumn  semester  to  help  students  develop  their  English  skills  further  and  acquire  language  through  a  specific  subject  by  using  the  skills  that  they  have  developed  in  AE1.  In  teaching  AE2,  the  instructors  are  expected  to  encourage  students  to  apply  the  academic  skills  covered  in  AE1  in   the   context   of   learning   the   academic   content.   In   addition,   practice   and   development   of   the  necessary  language  and  skills  for  communicating  meaningfully  in  discussions  takes  place  in  the  classroom  and  through  written  work.  The  AE1  and  AE2  target  students  are  those  whose  major  is  not  English,   including   those  majoring   in  a   foreign   language  other   than  English,   social  sciences,  natural   sciences,   and   so   forth.   These   students   are   confident   in   vocabulary   and   reading,  which  enables   them   to   read   a   relatively   long   text   written   with   complex   sentence   structures  occasionally  using  a  dictionary,  but  not  yet  proficient  enough  to  communicate  in  English  fluently  for  academic  purposes.    

Page 4: International CLIL Research Journal, Vol 2 (1) 2013 ... · semester starts on the first of October and continues to the end of January the following year. Each semester consists of

International  CLIL  Research  Journal,  Vol  2  (1)  2013  

http://www.icrj.eu/21/article1.html   7

4.  Method    Observation  schedule,  background  and  participants    In   order   to   achieve   the   goal   of   the   present   research,   observations   were   conducted   on   three  lessons,  which  were  taught  by  two  different  teachers  as  shown  in  Table  1.  Teacher  A  in  his  30s  had  been  teaching  EFL  in  Japan  for  two  years  at  the  time  of  the  classroom  observation.  Teacher  B  is  in  his  50s  and  had  been  teaching  EFL  at  university  in  Japan  for  more  than  ten  years.  Both  are  native  speakers  of  British  English.  Teacher  A  was  observed  for  his  AE1  on  23  June  and  AE2  (i.e.  content-­‐oriented   course)   on   November   10,   2011.   Teacher   B   was   observed   for   his   AE1   (i.e.  language/study-­‐skills  oriented  course)  on  22  June,  2012.  There  were  approximately  20  students  in   each   class.  Native   speakers  of  English  having   the  potential   to  use   a  wide   range  of   language  were  ideal  for  the  present  purpose  of  gathering  data  for  creating  a  subject-­‐specific  lexicon.    Table  1.  Diagrammatic  representation  of  the  three  classes  observed       AE1  (Language/study  skill)   AE2  (Content-­‐Oriented)  Teacher  A   90  minutes;  June  23,  2012   90  minutes;  November  10,  2011  Teacher  B   90  minutes;  June  22,  2012      During  the  observations,  I  was  seated  at  the  back  of  the  classroom,  taking  field-­‐notes  on  teacher  talk,   teacher’s   instructional   management,   what   he   wrote   on   the   chalkboard,   students’  behaviours,  and  any  other  events   that  caught  my  attention  as   long  as   they  were  deemed  to  be  related  to  the  issue  of   language  use  in  the  course.  Meanwhile,  I  used  a  DVD  camera  focused  on  the   teacher   to   record   the   lesson.  The   recording  was   subsequently   transcribed  word   for  word,  though  the  sound  aspects  of  language  use  such  as  intonation  patterns,  word  stress  and  the  speed  of  delivery  were  not  written  up.      Note   that  AE1   is  conducted  according   to   the  same  syllabus  by  both   teachers,  with   the   topic  of  ‘understanding  the  importance  of  peer  review  to  become  a  cooperative  and  independent  learner’  on  the  day  of  observations.  On  the  other  hand,  AE2  allows  instructors  to  have  greater  freedom  to  teach  according   to   their  own   initiative,  but  according   to  a  set  of   requirements  as  noted  above.  The  purpose  of  Teacher  A’s  AE2  course  was  to  give  students  the  opportunity  to  read,  learn  about  and  discuss  literature  written  in  English.  Students  were  required  to  submit  a  written  assignment  of  a  thousand  words,  analysing  a  piece  of  literature  or  outlining  a  literary  figure.  There  was  also  a  written  examination  conducted  in  class,  and  two  mini-­‐presentations  as  well  as  participation  in  class  discussions.  The  course  also  aimed  to  build  on  the  students’  critical  thinking  skills  and  use  a  combination  of  these  to  understand  the  works  being  read.      

5.  Results  and  discussion    Narrative  descriptions  of  the  observed  lessons  Before  presenting  and  discussing  the  results  of  the  analysis,  those  parts  of  the  field-­‐notes  which  are  useful  in  characterising  each  lesson  are  summarised  below,  so  the  reader  may  have  a  general  sense   of   what   the   lesson   looked   like.   First,   Teacher   A   seemed   to   be   using   different   types   of  metalanguage  in  AE1  (i.e.  language-­‐/study-­‐skills  course)  and  AE2  (i.e.  content-­‐oriented  course).  He  used  words  which  are  related  to  language  and  study  skills  such  as  ‘essay,’  ‘paragraph’  etc.  in  AE1  whereas  he  used  literature-­‐related  words  such  as  ‘metaphor,’  ‘literature’  etc.  in  AE2.  During  the  observation  of  the  AE2  course,  I  noted  that  the  teacher  rarely  corrected  student  errors,  nor  did  he   explain   the   structure  of   language  explicitly.   It   seems   too  obvious   that   the   teacher  used  metalanguage  more  frequently  in  the  language-­‐oriented  course.  But  what  makes  it  substantive  is  the  fact  that  the  degree  of  frequency  seemed  to  be  far  greater  in  language-­‐oriented  course  than  in  content  oriented-­‐course.  Reference  to  content  is  surprisingly  infrequent.      Second,  there  seemed  to  be  differences  in  the  way  classrooms  were  managed.  In  AE1,  Teachers  A  and  B  both  appeared  to  be  trying  to  raise  students’  awareness  of   the   importance  of  classroom  management  more  frequently   in  AE1  than  in  AE2.  This   is  surely  understandable   in   light  of   the  

Page 5: International CLIL Research Journal, Vol 2 (1) 2013 ... · semester starts on the first of October and continues to the end of January the following year. Each semester consists of

International  CLIL  Research  Journal,  Vol  2  (1)  2013  

http://www.icrj.eu/21/article1.html   8

fact  that  the  AE1  courses  were  offered  during  the  spring  term,  which  would  necessitate  teachers  reminding   students   of   the   teaching   procedures   and   requirements   specific   to   the   course.  Accordingly,   the   words   that   the   teachers   used   frequently   appeared   to   include   such   words   as  ‘homework,’  ‘score,’  ‘grade,’  and  so  forth.    Third,  there  is  a  difference  in  the  type  of  words  that  were  used  in  AE1  by  Teachers  A  and  B  on  the   one   hand,   and   in   AE2   by   Teacher   A.   In   the   former   classes,   a   number   of   words   of  encouragement   were   used   more   frequently   than   in   the   latter.   Likewise,   concerns   for   the  affective   state   of   students   characterises   AE1,   which   was   typically   expressed   in   the   words:  ‘pointing   out   partner’s   mistake   may   embarrass   him,’   and   other   adjectives   such   as   ‘bored,’  ‘confident,’   and   ‘shy,’   though   the   frequency   is   not   so   large   as   to  make   a   substantial   difference  between  the  two  courses.      There  were  many  other  observations  which  would  merit  further  in-­‐depth  analyses,  such  as  the  type  of  questions  teachers  asked,  the  instructions  the  teachers  gave  to  the  students,  the  relative  frequency  of   turn-­‐taking  and   the   teaching   strategies   (e.g.  Teacher  B   repeated   the   same  notion  many  times,  perhaps  because  by  doing  so  he  was  trying  to  help  students  better  understand  the  notion.   When   explaining   the   word   ‘posthumous’,   Teacher   A   put   it   into   context,   and   asked  students  to  guess  its  meaning.  Likewise,  he  spent  time  explaining  the  word  ‘controversial.’)    Profiling  vocabulary  of  CLIL  courses    The  texts  consisting  of  three  sets  of  transcriptions  were  analysed  by  using  AntConc,  a  freeware  tool   for  carrying  out  corpus  linguistics  research  (Anthony,  2011).   In  the  first  stage  of  analyses,  the  list  of  vocabulary  items  was  produced  for  each  of  the  three  courses.  The  frequency  profile  of  the  entire  transcript  in  terms  of  vocabulary  items  is  shown  in  Table  2.      Table  2.  Type  and  token  of  teacher  talk       Token   Type   Type-­‐

token  Lexical  density  

AE1  by  Teacher  A   5,212   689   0.13   0.46  AE1  by  Teacher  B   3,871   550   0.14   0.51  AE2  by  Teacher  A   4,650   694   0.15   0.46  

 This   table  shows  that   the  difference  between  teachers  were  noticeable   in   terms  of   type,   token  and  lexical  density1.  The  results  could  be  interpreted  to  indicate  that  Teacher  A  used  a  greater  variety  of  words  (689  types   in  AE1  and  694  types   in  AE2)  than  Teacher  B  (550  types   in  AE1).  Teacher  A  also  used  a  greater  number  of  words   (5,212   tokens   in  AE1  and  4,650   in  AE2)   than  Teacher  B   (3,871   in  AE1),   though   there  was   little   difference   in   type-­‐token   ratio.   The   value   in  lexical   density  was   slightly   smaller   for   Teacher   A’s   classes   (0.46   for   both   AE1   and   AE2)   than  Teacher  B’s  class  (0.51  for  AE1),  which  implies  that  the  students  might  have  found  it  harder  to  follow  Teacher  B  than  Teacher  A  only  in  so  far  as  the  vocabulary  feature  indicates.      Further  analyses  were  carried  out  to  examine  the  results  in  greater  detail  by  using  VocabProfile  (http://www.lextutor.ca/vp/eng/)  (see  Laufer  and  Nation,  1995).  The  results  in  Table  3  reveal  yet   another   tendency   in   the   use   of   vocabulary   by   the   two   teachers.   That   is,   even   Teacher   A  differed  in  terms  of  vocabulary  use  between  two  of  his  courses:  AE1  (language-­‐  and  study-­‐skills-­‐oriented)  and  AE2  (content-­‐oriented).  For  example,  there  was  very  little  difference  in  the  use  of  K1  level  words  (1-­‐1000)  between  the  two  courses  (84.90  for  AE1  and  84.65  for  AE2),  whereas  there   were   substantial   differences   in   K2   (1000-­‐2000)   level   (4.13   for   AE1   and   5.06   for   AE2).  There  was  also  a  difference  in  the  use  of  off-­‐list  words  from  AWL  (Coxhead,  2000)2:  i.e.  6.44  in  AE1  and  7.90   in  AE2  with  K1  and  K2   levels   in   total.  As  we  will   see   later   in   greater  detail,   the  result   indicates   that   in  Teacher  A’s  AE2   course,   he   tended   to   use   a   greater   number   of   proper  nouns,  which  are  not  listed  in  AWL.      

Page 6: International CLIL Research Journal, Vol 2 (1) 2013 ... · semester starts on the first of October and continues to the end of January the following year. Each semester consists of

International  CLIL  Research  Journal,  Vol  2  (1)  2013  

http://www.icrj.eu/21/article1.html   9

Table  3.  Type  and  tokens  of  AE1  (Teacher  A), AE1  (Teacher  B)  and  AE2  (Teacher  A)  analysed  by  VocabProfile  

  Teacher  B  AE1     Teacher  A  AE1     Teacher  A  AE2     Famili

es  Types  

Tokens  

Percent  

  Families  

Types  

Tokens  

Percent  

  Families  

Types  

Tokens  

Percent  

K1  Words  (1-­‐1000):  

280   381   3020   78.24    

318   441   4404   84.90    

312   456   3931   84.65  

K2  Words  (1001-­‐2000):  

43   50   187   4.84  

 

78   91   214   4.13  

 

62   75   235   5.06  

1k+2k   …   …   …   83.00    

…   …   …   89.03    

…   …   …   89.71  

AWL  Words  (academic):  

40   54   377   9.77  

 

52   63   235   4.53  

 

36   47   111   2.39  

Off-­‐List  Words:   …   57   276   7.15     …   84   334   6.44     …   106   367   7.90  

  363   542   3860   100     448   679   5187   100     410   684   4644   100    The  vocabulary  lists  were  further  analysed  to  identify  the  characteristics  of  each  course  and  to  examine  which  words  are  unusually   frequent  or   infrequent   in   the   text   in  comparison  with  the  words   in  a  reference  text.  Because   it  did  not  make  much  sense  to  compare  the  function  words  (i.e.   prepositions,   conjunctions,   articles)   for   the   present   purpose,   only   content   words   were  chosen   for   comparison.   Table   4   lists   the  most   frequently   used   30  words   that   Teacher   A   used  uniquely   in   his   AE2   course   in   comparison   with   his   AE1   course.   Table   5   shows   the   list   of   30  words   the   same   teacher   most   frequently   used   in   his   AE1   course   in   comparison   with   his   AE2  course.          

Page 7: International CLIL Research Journal, Vol 2 (1) 2013 ... · semester starts on the first of October and continues to the end of January the following year. Each semester consists of

International  CLIL  Research  Journal,  Vol  2  (1)  2013  

http://www.icrj.eu/21/article1.html   10

Table   4.   The   most   frequently   used   words   in   Teacher   A’s   content-­‐oriented   course   (AE2)   in  comparison  with  his  language/study  skill-­‐oriented  course  (AE1)    

  Rank   Frequency   Keyness     Target  words    1   6   75   21.006     Poem  2   20   32   8.963     Sylvia  Plath  3   26   37   5.185     Know  4   27   17   4.761     Background  5   30   32   4.070     Think  6   31   14   3.921     Cultural  7   32   14   3.921     Move  8   33   13   3.641     Life  9   35   12   3.361     Group  10   36   12   3.361     Poetry  11   38   11   3.081     Holocaust  12   39   11   3.081     Metaphors  13   40   27   3.004     Read  14   41   25   2.595     Right  15   42   9   2.521     Analysis  16   43   9   2.521     Father  17   44   9   2.521     Information  18   45   9   2.521     Shoe  19   48   8   2.241     Enjoy  20   49   8   2.241     Vampires  21   52   22   2.005     Good  22   55   7   1.961     Confusing  23   57   7   1.961     German  24   58   7   1.961     Historical  25   59   7   1.961     Literature  26   60   7   1.961     Metaphor  27   62   6   1.681     Criticism  28   63   6   1.681     Died  29   64   6   1.681     Reference  30   65   6   1.681     Rhythm  

Note:  The  words  are  arranged  in  the  order  of  keyness.          

Page 8: International CLIL Research Journal, Vol 2 (1) 2013 ... · semester starts on the first of October and continues to the end of January the following year. Each semester consists of

International  CLIL  Research  Journal,  Vol  2  (1)  2013  

http://www.icrj.eu/21/article1.html   11

Table   5.   The  most   frequently   used  words   in  Teacher  A’s   language/study   skill-­‐oriented   course  (AE1)  in  comparison  with  his  content-­‐oriented  course  (AE2)    

  Rank   Frequency   Keyness     Target  words    1   14   48   12.163     Draft  2   17   47   11.910     Essay  3   18   41   10.389     Presentation  4   20   59   9.036     Good  5   23   50   7.083     Think  6   25   44   5.816     Important  7   27   41   5.195     First  8   30   16   4.054     Presentations  9   31   34   3.791     Give  10   34   32   3.403     partner  11   35   13   3.294     peer  12   42   10   2.534     review  13   44   9   2.281     research  14   45   9   2.281     same  15   46   9   2.281     workshop  16   48   8   2.027     easy  17   49   8   2.027     mistakes  18   50   8   2.027     paragraph  19   51   8   2.027     pictures  20   55   7   1.774     email  21   56   7   1.774     fine  22   57   7   1.774     list  23   58   7   1.774     number  24   59   7   1.774     statement  25   60   7   1.774     thesis  26   61   7   1.774     visual  27   68   6   1.52     circle  28   69   6   1.52     confident  29   71   6   1.52     score  30   72   6   1.52     style  

Note.  The  words  are  arranged  in  the  order  of  keyness.      The  differences  between  the  words  that  Teacher  A  used  in  two  different  courses  are  obvious.  In  AE2,  which  focused  on  the  teaching  of  literature  as  content,  the  teacher  was  teaching  the  reading  of  a  poem  by  Sylvia  Plath.  Not  surprisingly  the  most  frequently  used  content  word  was  ‘poem.’  The   word   was   used   75   times   during   the   90-­‐minute   session   with   the   keyness   indicated   by   a  loglikelihood   ratio3  of   21.006.   The   second   most   frequently   used   word   was   ‘Sylvia   Plath’,   the  author  of  the  target  poem  of  the  lesson.  The  other  words  which  are  unique  in  comparison  with  the   teacher   talk   of   the   lesson   which   was   used   as   a   comparison   source   includes   ‘background,’  ‘cultural,’   ‘life,’  and  so  forth.   ‘Poetry,’  the  word  related  to  poem,  was  also  used  frequently  (36th  among  the  total  number  of  words  used  in  the  lesson).  It  should  also  be  noted  that  Teacher  A  was  frequently  using  metalanguage,  such  as  ‘metaphors,’  ‘literature,’  ‘rhythm’  and  other  words  which  are  all  related  to  poetry  rather  than  language  studies.  The  other  set  of  words,  which  should  be  noted   in   passing   but   still   important   in   relation   to   CLIL   courses,   included   words   related   to  cognitive  skills,  such  as  ‘know,’  ‘think,’  ‘read,’  ‘analysis,’  and  so  forth.          

Page 9: International CLIL Research Journal, Vol 2 (1) 2013 ... · semester starts on the first of October and continues to the end of January the following year. Each semester consists of

International  CLIL  Research  Journal,  Vol  2  (1)  2013  

http://www.icrj.eu/21/article1.html   12

The  words   that  were   commonly   used   in   both   Teacher   A’s   and   Teacher   B’s   AE1   (i.e.   language  skill-­‐based  course)  are  listed  in  Tables  5  and  6.  It  is  clear  that  there  are  a  substantial  number  of  words  that  are  related  to  the  purpose  of  the  particular  courses:  e.g.  ‘draft,’  ‘presentation,’  ‘essay’  in  the  case  of  Teacher  A’s  lesson,  and  ‘topic,’  ‘paragraph,’  ‘sentence,’  ‘transitional’  in  Teacher  B’s  lesson.   In   contrast   to   these   general   academic   terms,   the  words  which  are   related   to   a   specific  topic   are   not   found   with   only   one   exception   in   each   of   the   teacher’s   lessons   (i.e.   ‘Thomas  Jefferson’).   One   other   type   of  word   that   seems   to   be   unique   to   the   discourse   of   AE1   includes  those  words  which  have  bearing  to  socio-­‐affective  factors,  particularly  in  Teacher  A’s  discourse,  there  were  such  words  as  ‘good,’  ‘important,’  ‘feel,’  ‘interesting,’  and  so  forth.      Table   6.   The  most   frequently   used  words   in  Teacher  A’s   language/study   skill-­‐oriented   course  (AE1)  in  comparison  with  Teacher  B’s  language/study  skill-­‐oriented  course  (AE1)    

  Rank   Frequency   Keyness     Target  words    1   14   48   9.797     draft  2   17   41   8.369     presentation  3   19   59   6.536     good  4   22   50   5.027     think  5   24   47   4.537     essay  6   25   44   4.056     important  7   27   41   3.583     first  8   30   13   2.653     peer  9   32   34   2.524     give  10   33   12   2.449     feel  11   39   32   2.235     partner  12   40   10   2.041     interesting  13   41   10   2.041     review  14   43   9   1.837     guys  15   44   9   1.837     workshop  16   49   8   1.633     mistakes  17   50   8   1.633     pictures  18   51   8   1.633     things  19   53   7   1.429     fine  20   54   7   1.429     hand  21   55   7   1.429     visual  22   57   7   1.429     way  23   59   6   1.225     book  24   60   6   1.225     circle  25   61   6   1.225     confident  26   62   6   1.225     kind  27   63   6   1.225     language  28   65   6   1.225     score  29   66   6   1.225     style  30   69   24   1.167     people  

Note:  The  words  are  arranged  in  the  order  of  keyness.      

Page 10: International CLIL Research Journal, Vol 2 (1) 2013 ... · semester starts on the first of October and continues to the end of January the following year. Each semester consists of

International  CLIL  Research  Journal,  Vol  2  (1)  2013  

http://www.icrj.eu/21/article1.html   13

Table   7.   The  most   frequently   used  words   in   Teacher  B’s   language/study   skill-­‐oriented   course  (AE1)  in  comparison  with  Teacher  A’s  language/study  skill-­‐oriented  course  (AE1)    

  Rank   Frequency   Keyness     Target  words    1   7   75   18.007     topic  2   9   67   15.575     paragraph  3   12   56   12.279     sentence  4   22   22   7.304     transitional  5   24   36   6.513     essay  6   26   15   4.98     aspect  7   27   15   4.98     phrases  8   28   27   4.091     structure  9   29   12   3.984     signals  10   30   26   3.833     body  11   31   26   3.833     one  12   32   26   3.833     read  13   33   25   3.578     statement  14   36   24   3.326     thesis  15   38   9   2.988     introductory  16   40   22   2.832     look  17   42   8   2.656     information  18   45   20   2.355     main  19   46   20   2.355     sentences  20   47   7   2.324     best  21   48   7   2.324     building  22   49   7   2.324     second  23   50   19   2.123     ideas  24   52   6   1.992     indicate  25   53   6   1.992     Thomas  Jefferson  26   54   6   1.992     material  27   55   1   1.315     academic    28   56   1   1.315     agree  29   57   1   1.315     answer  30   58   1   1.315     ask  

Note:  The  words  are  arranged  in  the  order  of  keyness.        In  order  to  further  examine  the  vocabulary  items  listed  in  the  AWL,  VocabProfile  was  run  again  on  the  same  set  of  corpus  data.  The  output  yielded  the  list  of  words  as  shown  in  Table  8.  These  words   could   usefully   be   added   to   the   list   of   basic   vocabulary   not   only   for   this   particular  programme,   but   also   for   the   programme   that   is   implemented   for   a   similar   level   of   students  elsewhere.  What  is  well  worth  noting  is  that  there  are  quite  a  few  proper  nouns  in  the  list  of  AE2.  This  is  particularly  the  case  because  the  course  was  on  literature.  But  given  that  generally  a  list  of  vocabulary  of  this  sort  tended  not  to  include  proper  nouns,  it  could  be  said  that  these  types  of  words  need  to  be  characteristically  included  in  a  CLIL  glossary.          

Page 11: International CLIL Research Journal, Vol 2 (1) 2013 ... · semester starts on the first of October and continues to the end of January the following year. Each semester consists of

International  CLIL  Research  Journal,  Vol  2  (1)  2013  

http://www.icrj.eu/21/article1.html   14

Table  8.  The  words  that  are  not  listed  in  AWL  but  were  used  in  the  observed  lessons    Teacher  B  AE1  African_[1]   ambassador_[2]   America/n_[2]   atomic_[1]   banned_[2]   Hillary   Clinton_[1]  colon_[5]   desserts_[1]   diagrams_[1]   divorce_[3]   efficiently_[4]   email_[6]   emotions_[1]  essay_[36]   European_[1]   feedback_[1]   France_[2]   Germany_[1]   handout_[3]   hint_[1]  homework_[6]   importing_[1]   Japan_[1]   Japanese_[1]  Thomas   Jefferson_[6]   laundry_[1]  number_[1]   paraphrase_[1]   phrase/s_[20]   practiced_[1]   punctuation_[1]   restate_[1]  restatement_[1]  shy_[1]  standup_[1]  television_[3]  video_[1]  Virginia_[1]  vocabulary_[2]      Teacher  B  AE2  beach_[1]   bibliography_[1]   bored/boring_[3]   classroom_[1]   crazy_[1]   damn_[1]  deadlines_[1]   email_[7]   embarrassing_[3]   England_[1]   essay/s_[50]   facebook_[1]  feedback_[4]  guys_[9]  handouts_[2]  handsome_[1]  homework_[2]  hopefully_[1]  Japan_[1]  Japanese_[4]   Jurassic_[2]   karaoke_[1]  microphone_[4]  mirror_[1]  moodle_[1]  movie_[1]  nervous_[1]   peer/s_[14]   portfolio_[1]   presentations_[16]   presenter_[2]   professors_[1]  rebuild_[1]   references_[5]   rehearse_[1]   sandals_[1]   scared_[1]   score_[6]   shy_[5]   sigh_[1]  silly_[1]   spider/s_[6]   Steve_[5]   tick_[2]   underline_[5]   update_[1]   usage_[1]   video_[1]  visuals_[2]  vocabulary_[3]  walrus_[7]  workshop_[9]      Teacher  A  AE2  adjective_[2]   American/s_[4]   Ariel_[2]   auto-­‐_[1]   autobio_[1]   autobiographical_[3]   bio-­‐_[1]  Boston_[1]  boyfriend_[1]  British_[1]  brutal/ly_[6]  bull_[1]  career_[1]  considerate_[1]  controverse_[1]   criticisms_[7]   daddy_[7]   divorce_[2]   electronic_[1]   England_[2]  feminism/ist_[5]   Sigmund   Freud_[5]   genres_[2]   German_[7]   girlfriend_[1]   googled_[2]  graph_[1]  handsome_[1]  holocaust_[11]  homework_[1]  horrible_[2]  Hughes_[5]   -­‐ical_[1]  impressions_[1]   innocence_[2]   James_[1]   jar_[2]   Jew_[1]   Jewish_[4]   linguistics_[1]  metaphor/s_[18]   movies_[1]   nationality_[1]   novel_[2]   Oedipus_[1]   Paltrow_[1]   Sylvia  Plath_[32]  posthumous/ly_[6]  professor_[2]  psychoanalysis_[2]  quiz_[1]  reference/s_[10]  rhyme/s_[5]   rhythm_[6]  Russian_[1]   skip_[1]   stake_[1]   stance_[3]   stanza_[3]   suicide_[3]  summarizer_[1]   tragic_[2]   trailer_[1]   twilight_[2]   underline_[2]   unpacked_[2]  vampire/s_[13]  video_[4]  vocabulary_[3]  Wikipedia_[1]    Note:  Proper  nouns  are  in  bold  type.      Lastly,   a   sample   list   of   basic   vocabulary   items   for   the  CLIL   courses   is   summarised   in  Table   9.  This  is  still  a  very  small  tentative  list  consisting  of  the  words  that  were  identified  in  the  present  research.  This   is  a   type  of   lexicon  that  could  be  used  for  CLIL  programmes   in  different  subject  areas.          

Page 12: International CLIL Research Journal, Vol 2 (1) 2013 ... · semester starts on the first of October and continues to the end of January the following year. Each semester consists of

International  CLIL  Research  Journal,  Vol  2  (1)  2013  

http://www.icrj.eu/21/article1.html   15

Table  9.  The  vocabulary  items  typifying  the  four  components  of  CLIL  (selected  examples)    Sub-­‐goals  of  CLIL  course     Examples  of  words  to  be  listed    Subject  specific  (literature)     background,   historical,   holocaust,   life,   literature,  

metaphor(s),  poem,  poetry,  rhythm  

Language  skills     body,   building,   draft,   essay,   first,   second,   third,   [i.e.  enumerators]   ,   introductory,   main   ideas,   paragraph,  phrases,   sentence,   statement,   structure,   style,   thesis,  transitional  

Study  skills     analysis,   aspect,   confusing,   criticism,   information,  indicate,   know,   list,   peer,   presentation,   read,   reference,  research,  review,  same,  signals,  topic,  visual,  workshop  

Course  management     confident,  hand  in,  material,  score,  study  

Socio-­‐affective   aspects   of  language  learning  

  confident,  feel,  fine,  interesting,  kind  

 

6.  Conclusion    This  article  reports  on  the  outcomes  of  a  study  investigating  lexical  features  of  CLIL  courses  that  are  implemented  at  tertiary  level  education  in  Japan.  The  results  show  that  there  are  differences  in  words  used  in  different  CLIL  courses.  In  the  course  where  the  greater  emphasis  is  placed  on  language  and  study  skills,  a  range  of  academic  words  were  used.  On  the  other  hand,  in  the  course  which   was   geared   towards   the   content   element   of   CLIL,   literature   in   this   case,   a   number   of  words  that  are  related  to  literary  studies  are  reported.      It   is  also  common   to  view   the   language  classroom  as   the  environment   for   learning  a   language  with  the  expectation  of  providing  students  with  the  opportunities  of  being  exposed  to  the  target  language  (e.g.  Ellis,  2005;  vanPatten,  2003).  In  this  sense,  CLIL  supports  the  attainement  of  such  a  goal,  because  in  order  for  the  students  to   learn  vocabulary,   they  need  to  be   interested  in  the  content   of   the   text   and   activated   in   guessing   the   meaning   of   unfamiliar   words   from   context  (Nation,  2001).  As  previous  studies  show,  however,  simply  exposing  students  to  an  environment  where  the  target  vocabulary  is  used  is  not  sufficient  for  the  students  to  acquire  words,  but  rather  deliberate  strategies  have  to  be  employed  to  facilitate  learning  (e.g.  Yamamoto,  2012).  In  order  to   create   such   a   circumstance   in   the   language-­‐rich   classroom,  we  need   to   identify   the   type   of  words  that  are  unique  to  a  course  and  systematically  employ  them  in  CLIL  classrooms  (Dalton-­‐Puffer,  2007).      Indeed,  in  the  classroom  that  I  observed  in  this  study  the  teachers  were  using  various  strategies  for   teaching  vocabulary,   such  as  word  analysis,   guessing   from  context,   and  so   forth.  As  Laufer  and   Hulstijn’s   involvement   load   hypothesis   (2001)   suggests,   vocabulary   learning   could  presumably   be   enhanced   to   the   extent   to   which   students   are   engaged   in   effortful   cognitive  processing.   Nation   (2001)   asserts   that   intentional   and   incidental   learning   are   complementary  activities,  recommending  that  ‘a  well-­‐designed  language  learning  programme  has  an  appropriate  balance   of   opportunities   to   learn   from   message-­‐focused   activities   and   from   direct   study   of  language   items,  with  direct   study  of   language   items  occupying  no  more   than  25%  of   the   total  learning   programme’   (Nation,   2001:   232).   It   may   be   important   to   take   a   counterbalanced  approach   to   learning   a   language   in   content   instruction   (Lyster,   2007),   ‘a   form   of   instruction  which   pushes   their   attention   towards   features   of   the   target   language   that   they   may   not  otherwise  notice’  (Llinares,  et  al.,  2012:  12).          

Page 13: International CLIL Research Journal, Vol 2 (1) 2013 ... · semester starts on the first of October and continues to the end of January the following year. Each semester consists of

International  CLIL  Research  Journal,  Vol  2  (1)  2013  

http://www.icrj.eu/21/article1.html   16

This  article  suggests  that  the  construction  of  a  glossary  for  specific  genre  or  specific  areas  would  be   useful   in   supporting   both   students   and   teachers   engaged   with   CLIL.   However,   it   is   also  indicated   that   the  provision  of   a   range   of   useful   linguistically-­‐enhanced   teaching   and   learning  strategies  is  needed.  There  are  a  number  of  good  resource  books  and  materials  to  that  end  (e.g.  Nation,   2001),   but   the   usefulness   of   deliberate   teaching   using   the   lexicon  has   to   be   examined  empirically   as   an   important   part   of   evaluation.   The   task   is   beyond   the   scope   of   the   present  research,  but  has  to  be  undertaken  as  a  routine  component  of  any  CLIL  programme.      

Acknowledgements    My   thanks   are   due   to   Mr.   Gilder   Devila,   who   transcribed   the   recordings,   and   two   teachers,  referred  to  as  Teacher  A  and  Teacher  B  in  this  paper,  who  allowed  me  to  observe  their  lessons,  without  whom  the  present  study  could  not  have  even  been  initiated.      

References    Ackerl,  C.:  2007,  Lexico-­‐grammar  in  the  essays  of  CLIL  and  non-­‐CLIL  students:  error  analysis  of  written  production,  Vienna  English  Working  Papers  16/3,  6-­‐11.      Admiraal,  W.  G.,  Westhoff,  and  de  Bot,  K.:  2006,  Evaluation  of  bilingual  secondary  education   in  The  Netherlands:   Students’   language  proficiency,  English  Educational  Research  and  Evaluation,  12/2,  75-­‐  93.      Alba,   J.  O.:  2009,  Themes  and  vocabulary   in  CLIL  and  non-­‐CLIL   instruction,   in  de  Zorobe,  Y.  R.  and  Catalan,  R.  M.  J.  (eds.),  Content  and  Language  Integrated  Learning:  Evidence  from  Research  in  Europe,  (130-­‐156).  Multilingual  Matters,  Bristol.    Anthony,  L.:  2011,  AntConc  (Windows,  MacintoshOS  X,  and  Linux)  Build  3.2.4.  1.  (Retrieved  10  November  2011  from  the  Internet:  Lawrence  Antony’s  homepage:  Software,  AnatConc  –  A  freeway  concordance  program  for  Windows,  Macintosh  OXX,  and  Linux.  http://www.antlab.sci.waseda.ac.jp/software.html.)      Coxhead,  A.:  2000,  A  New  Academic  Word  List,  TESOL  Quarterly,  34/2,  213-­‐238.  (Retrieved  31  March  2013  from  the  Internet:  http://edc448uri.wikispaces.com/file/view/Coxhead%202000%20Acad%20Word%20List.pdf)    Dale,   L.   and   Tanner,   R.:   2012,   CLIL   Activities:   A   Resource   for   Subject   and   Language   Teachers.  Cambridge  University  Press,  Cambridge.    Dalton-­‐Puffer,   C.:   2007,   Discourse   in   Content   and   Language   Integrated   Learning   (CLIL)  Classrooms.  John  Benjamins,  Amsterdam.      Dalton-­‐Puffer,   C.   and   Smit,   U.   (eds.):   2007,  Empirical  perspectives  on  CLIL  Classroom  Discourse.  Peter  Lang,  Frankfurt  am  Main.      Ellis,  R.:  2005,  Principles  of  instructed  language  learning,  System,  33/2,  209-­‐  224.      Espinosa,  S.  M.:  2009,  Young   learners’  L2  word  association  responses   in  two  different   learning  contexts,   in   de   Zarobe,   Y.   R.   and   Catalan,   R.   M.   J.   (eds.),   Content   and   Language   Integrated  Learning:  Evidence  from  Research  in  Europe,  (93-­‐111).  Multilingual  Matters,  Bristol.    Field,  A.:  2009,  Discovering  Statistics  with  SPSS  (3rd  ed).  Sage,  London.      

Page 14: International CLIL Research Journal, Vol 2 (1) 2013 ... · semester starts on the first of October and continues to the end of January the following year. Each semester consists of

International  CLIL  Research  Journal,  Vol  2  (1)  2013  

http://www.icrj.eu/21/article1.html   17

Harmer,   J.:   2012,   Essential   Teacher   Knowledge:   Core   Concepts   in   English   Language   Teaching.  Pearson,  Harlow.      Horst,  M.:  2010,  How  well  does  teacher  talk  support  incidental  vocabulary  acquisition?,  Reading  in  a  Foreign  Language,  22/1,  161-­‐180.      Izumi,   S.,   Ikeda,   M.   and   Watanabe,   Y.   (eds.):   2012,   CLIL:   Content   and   Language   Integrated  Learning:   New   Challenges   in   Foreign   Language   Education   at   Sophia   University,   Volume   2:  Practices  and  Applications,  Sophia  University  Press,  Tokyo.    Jexenflicker,  S.,  and  Dalton-­‐Puffer,  C.:  2010,  The  CLIL  differential:  Comparing  the  writing  of  CLIL  and  non-­‐CLIL  students  in  higher  colleges  of  technology,  in  Dalton-­‐Puffer,  C.,  Nikula,  T.,  and  Smit,  U.   (eds),  Language  Use  and  Language  Learning   in  CLIL  Classrooms,   (169-­‐189).   John  Benjamins,  Amsterdam.    Laufer,   B.,   and   Nation,   P.:   1995,   Vocabulary   size   and   use:   Lexical   richness   in   L2   written  production,  Applied  Linguistics,  16,  307-­‐322.      Laufer,   B.,   and   Hulstijn,   J.:   2001,   Incidental   vocabulary   acquisition   in   a   second   language:   The  construct  of  task-­‐induced  involvement,  Applied  Linguistics,  22/1,  1-­‐26.      Lochtman,   K.:   2007,   Die   mündliche   Fehlerkorrektur   in   CLIL   und   im   traditionellen  Fremdsprachenunterricht:   en   Vergleich,   in   Dalton-­‐Puffer,   C.   and   Smit,   U.   (eds.),   Empirical  Perspectives  on  CLIL  Classroom  Discourse,  (119  –  138).  Peter  Lang,  Frankfurt  am  Main.      Llinares,   A.,   Morton,   T.,   and   Whittaker,   R.:   2012,   The   Roles   of   Language   in   CLIL.   Cambridge  University  Press,  Cambridge.    Lyster,   R.:   2007,   Learning   and   Teaching   Languages   through   Content:   A   Counterbalanced  Approach.  John  Benjamins,  Amsterdam.      Nation,   P.:   2001,   Learning   Vocabulary   in   Another   Language.   Cambridge   University   Press,  Cambridge.    Nikula,   T.   .:   2007,   The   IRF   pattern   and   space   for   interaction:   Comparing   CLIL   and   EFL  classrooms,   in   Dalton-­‐Puffer,   C.,   and   Smit,   U.   (eds.),   Empirical   Perspectives   on   CLIL   Classroom  Discourse,  (170-­‐204).  Peter  Lang,  Frankfurt  am  Main.      Përez-­‐Canado,   M,   L.:   2012,   CLIL   research   in   Europe:   past,   present,   and   future,   International  Journal  of  Bilingual  Education  and  Bilingualism,  15/3,  315-­‐341.      Sylvén,   L.   K.:2004,   Teaching   in   English   or   English   Teaching?:   On   the   Effects   of   Content   and  Language   Integrated   Learning   on   Swedish   Learners’   Incidental   Vocabulary   Acquisition.  Unpublished  doctoral  dissertation,  University  of  Gothenburg,  Gothenburg.    Tang,  E.:  2011,  Non-­‐native  teacher  talk  as  lexical  input  in  the  foreign  language  classroom,  Journal  of  Language  Teaching  and  Research,  2/1,  45-­‐54.      vanPatten,   B.:   2003,   From   Input   to   Output:   A   Teacher’s   Guide   to   Second   Language   Acquisition.  McGraw-­‐Hill,  New  York.      Watanabe,   Y.,   Ikeda,   M.   and   Izumi,   S.:   2011,   CLIL:   Content   and   Language   Integrated   Learning:  New   Challenges   in   Foreign   Language   Education   at   Sophia   University,   Volume   1:   Principles   and  Methodologies.  Sophia  University  Press,  Tokyo.    

Page 15: International CLIL Research Journal, Vol 2 (1) 2013 ... · semester starts on the first of October and continues to the end of January the following year. Each semester consists of

International  CLIL  Research  Journal,  Vol  2  (1)  2013  

http://www.icrj.eu/21/article1.html   18

Wode,  H.:   1999,   Language   learning   in   European   immersion   classes,   in   J.  Masih   (ed.),  Learning  through  a  Foreign  Language:  Models,  Methods  and  Outcomes,  (16-­‐25).  Centre  for  Information  on  Language  Teaching  and  Research,  London.      Yamamoto,  Y.:  2012,  Multidimensional  Vocabulary  Acquisition  through  Deliberate  Vocabulary  List  Learning.  Unpublished  doctoral  dissertation.  Sophia  University,  Tokyo.      Zydatiß,   W.:   2007,   Deutsch-­‐Englische   Züge   in   Berlin:   Eine   evaluation   des   bilingualen  sachfachunterrichts   an   gymnasien.   Kontext,   kompetenzen,   konsequezen.   Peter   Lang,   Frankfurt-­‐am-­‐Main.                                                                                                                                  1 ‘Type’ is a class of a word unit, whereas ‘token’ is the instance of a type. For example, in the sentence ‘CLIL teachers can be subject teachers or language teachers’, there are nine tokens but seven types. Lexical density or often referred to as type-token ratio is a measure of the ratio of different words (type) to the total number of words (token) in a given text. It is interpreted to indicate the difficulty of a text. 2 ‘The Academic Word List (AWL) was developed by Averil Coxhead as her MA thesis at the School of Linguistics and Applied Language Studies at Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. The list contains 570 word families which were selected according to principles. The list does not include words that are in the most frequent 2000 words of English. The AWL was primarily made so that it could be used by teachers as part of a programme preparing learners for tertiary level study or used by students working alone to learn the words most needed to study at tertiary institutions.’ (http://www.victoria.ac.nz/lals/resources/academicwordlist/information). 3 The keyness indicates the degree of uniqueness of the given text in comparison with another text (i.e. reference text). The loglikelihood ratio is the measure that is used to assess the fit of the model to the data, represented as the following formula: [ ln + ln  (1 − )] (Field, 2009: 267). The larger figure indicates the degree of uniqueness of the word in the text in comparison with the list produced by the comparison text.