İçerik ve Dil Entegreli Öğrenme Metodunun Uygulandığı ve Uygulanmadığı Ortamlardaki Öğrencilerin Okuma Becerileri ve Kelime Dağarcıkları: Bir Karşılaştırma Çalışması

Yıl 2019, Cilt: 2 Sayı: 2, 101 - 113, 23.12.2019

Dilan Bayram Rukiye Özlem Öztürk Derin Atay

https://doi.org/10.35207/later.639337

Cited By: 2

Öz

İçerik ve Dil Entegreli
Öğrenme metodu, dilin ve içeriğin dil aracılığıyla öğrenildiği, öğrencilere
kendi bağlamında anlamlı öğrenme deneyimi sunarak çift odaklı bir dil ve içerik
öğrenimi sağlar. Yapılan çalışmalar her ne kadar İçerik ve Dil Entegreli
Öğrenme metodunun öğrencilerin kelime bilgisi ve okuma becerileri üzerinde olumlu
etkileri olduğunu gösterse de, Türkiye bağlamında bu alandaki çalışmalar
yetersizdir. Bu nedenle, bu çalışma İçerik ve Dil Entegreli Öğrenme metodunun
uygulandığı ortamlarda eğitim alan öğrencilerin okuma becerileri ve kelime bilgilerinin
bu ortamda eğitim almayan öğrencilerden ne kadar farklılık gösterdiğini
araştırmayı amaçlamaktadır. Veriler 124 tane beşinci sınıf öğrencisinden
İngilizce testi (Cambridge KET), 2.000 kelime sıklık bandındaki Kelime Seviye
Testi (Schmitt, Schmitt, & Clapham, 2001), ve Kelime Bilgisi Ölçeği’nin
(Paribakht & Wesche, 1997) uyarlanmış versiyonu ile toplanmıştır. Sonuçlar,
İçerik ve Dil Entegreli Öğrenme metodunun uygulandığı ortamlarda eğitim alan
öğrencilerin bu ortamda eğitim almayan akranlarından okuma becerisi, algısal ve
üretimsel kelime bilgisi açısından anlamlı bir şekilde daha iyi olduklarını
göstermiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

içerik ve dil entegreli öğrenme, okuma becerisi, kelime dağarcığı, karşılaştırma çalışması

Reading Comprehension and Vocabulary Size of CLIL and Non-CLIL Students: A Comparative Study

Öz

Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) has a dual focus both on content and language teaching in which students learn through and about language and provides contextualized and meaningful situations. Although studies on the impact of CLIL on learners’ vocabulary knowledge and reading comprehension have mostly positive results, related research is highly limited in Turkish context. Thus, this study aims to examine to what extent CLIL students differ from non-CLIL students in terms of their reading comprehension and vocabulary size (i.e. receptive and productive). Data were collected from 124 fifth-grade students by means of the reading parts of the Cambridge Key English Test, the 2,000-word frequency-band of the Vocabulary Levels Test (Schmitt, Schmitt, & Clapham, 2001), and the adapted version of the Vocabulary Knowledge Scale (Paribakht & Wesche, 1997). Results of the study showed that the CLIL students significantly outperformed their non-CLIL counterparts in reading comprehension, receptive and productive vocabulary knowledge.

Anahtar Kelimeler

CLIL, reading comprehension, vocabulary size, comparative study

Kaynakça

• Admiraal, W., Westhoff, G., & de Bot, K. (2006). Evaluation of bilingual secondary education in the Netherlands: Students' language proficiency in English. Educational Research and Evaluation, 12(1), 75-93.
• Adolphs, S. & Schmitt, N. (2004). Vocabulary coverage according to spoken discourse context. In P. Bogaards & B. Laufer (Eds.), Vocabulary in a Second Language (pp. 39-52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Altınkamış, T. (2009). A case study on the relation between content and language integrated learning (CLIL) and motivation in language learning (Unpublished master’s thesis). Çukurova University, Turkey.
• Arribas, M. (2016). Analysing a Whole CLIL School: Students' Attitudes, Motivation, and Receptive Vocabulary Outcomes. Latin American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning, 9(2), 267-292.
• Belenkova, N. (2014). CLIL Approach in Foreign Language Speaking Skills Development. In Pixel (ed.) Proceedings of ICT for Language Learning (pp.26-29).
• Bozdoğan, D., & Karlıdağ, B. (2013). A case of CLIL practice in the Turkish context: Lending an ear to students. Asian EFL Journal, 15(4), 89-110.
• Broomhead, L.V. (2017). Change. Mentora Publishing.
• Brown, P. S. (2013). Teaching a medical English CLIL course with vocabulary learning strategies instruction in Japan. Asian EFL Journal, 15(4), 275-304.
• Canga-Alonso, A. (2015a). Receptive vocabulary of CLIL and Non-CLIL primary and secondary school learners. Complutense Journal of English Studies, 23, 59-77.
• Canga-Alonso, A. (2015b). The receptive vocabulary size of Spanish 5th grade primary school students in CLIL and Non-CLIL instruction. ES Review. Spanish Journal of English Studies, 36, 63-86.
• Canga-Alonso, A., & Arribas, M. (2015). The benefits of CLIL instruction in Spanish students’ productive vocabulary knowledge. Encuentro, 24, 15-31.
• Castellano-Risco, I. O. (2015). How a CLIL approach may affect the size of receptive vocabulary and the use of vocabulary learning strategies: An empirical study focused on Extremaduran secondary learners (Unpublished master’s thesis). Universidad de Extremadura, Spain.
• Carloni, G. (2012). Online CLIL Scaffolding at University Level: Building Vocabulary Across Disciplines Through Online Learning. In CALL: Using, Learning, Knowing. Proceedings of the EUROCALL 2012 Conference. Gothenburg, Sweden (pp. 37-42).
• Catalán, R. M. J., & De Zarobe, Y. R. (2009). The receptive vocabulary of EFL learners in two instructional contexts: CLIL versus non-CLIL instruction. Content and language integrated learning: Evidence from research in Europe, 81-92.
• Cenoz, J., Genesee, F., & Gorter, D. (2014). Critical analysis of CLIL: Taking stock and looking forward. Applied Linguistics, 35(3), 243-262.
• Coyle D, Hood P, & Marsh D. (2010). Content and Language Integrated Learning, Cambridge University Press.
• Delliou, A., & Zafiri, M. (2016) Developing the speaking skills of students through CLIL. Paper presented at The 5th Electronic International Interdisciplinary Conference. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Makrina_Zafiri/publication/308194120_Developi ng_the_speaking_skills_of_students_through_CLIL/links/5800a88c08ae181e57828cb 6.pdf
• Fernández-Fontecha, A. (2014). Receptive vocabulary knowledge and motivation in CLIL and EFL. Revista De Lingüística y Lenguas Aplicadas, 9(1), 23-32.
• Gómez Patino, J. C. (2017). Developing reading comprehension through graphic organizers in CLIL (Unpublished master’s thesis). Universidad de La Sabana, Colombia.
• Hamidavi, N., Shekaramiz, M., & Gorjian, B. (2016). The effect of CLIL method on teaching reading comprehension to junior high school students. Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods, 6(9), 60.
• Hutchinson, T. (2017). Project 2: Student’s Book. Oxford University Press.
• Ioannou Georgiou, S. (2012). Reviewing the puzzle of CLIL. ELT Journal, 66(4), 495-504.
• Jihad, A. (2017). The teaching of writing using content and language integrated learning. Jurnal Ilmiah Pena: Sains dan Ilmu Pendidikan, 10(1), 150-156.
• Liubinienė, V. (2009). Developing listening skills in CLIL. Studies about Language, 15, 89-93.
• Marsh, D. (2002). CLIL/EMILE the European Dimension: Actions, Trends, and Foresight Potential. UniCOM, Continuing Education Centre.
• Moate, J. (2010). The integrated nature of CLIL: A sociocultural perspective. International CLIL Research Journal, 1(3), 38-45.
• Muñoz, C. (2007). CLIL: Some thoughts on its psycholinguistic principles. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada, Extra (1), 17-26.
• Nation, P. (1990). Teaching and Learning Vocabulary. New York: Newbury.
• Nebioğlugil, M. (2015). A case study on the implementation of content and language integrated learning in teaching vocabulary to young learners (Unpublished master’s thesis). Çağ University, Turkey.
• Olsson, E. (2016). On the impact of extramural English and CLIL on productive vocabulary (Doctoral dissertation). Gothenburg Studies in Educational Sciences (ISBN 978-91-7346-866-4).
• Papaja, K. (2014). The development of speaking and listenıng skills in content and language integrated learning (CLIL). In H. Chodkiewicz, & M. Trepczynska (Eds.) Language skills: Traditions, transitions and ways forward (pp.81-94). Cambridge Scholar Publishing, Newcastle,England.
• Paribakht, T.S., & Wesche, M. (1997). Vocabulary enhancement activities and reading for meaning in second language vocabulary acquisition. In J. Coady & T. Huckin (Eds.), Second language vocabulary acquisition: A rationale for pedagogy (pp. 174–200). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Roquet, H., & Pérez-Vidal, C. (2015). Do productive skills improve in content and language integrated learning contexts? The case of writing. Applied Linguistics, 1-24.
• Sanad, H. A., & Ahmed, M. G. (2017). Using content and language integrated learning (CLIL) to develop EFL reading comprehension skills, vocabulary skills and retention among college students. Journal of Research in Curriculum, Instruction, and Educational Technology, 3(4), 101-134.
• Schmitt, N., Schmitt, D., & Clapham, C. (2001). Developing and exploring the behaviour of two new versions of the Vocabulary Levels Test. Language Testing, 18(1), 55-88.
• Skogen, M. (2013). Reading in CLIL and in regular EFL classes: to what extent do they differ in reading proficiency and strategy use? (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Oslo, Norway.
• Sylvén, L. K., & Ohlander, S. (2015). The CLISS project: Receptive vocabulary in CLIL versus non-CLIL groups. Moderna Språk, 108(2), 80-114.
• Pérez-Vidal, C. (2009). The integration of content and language in the classroom: A European approach to education (the second time around). In E. Dafouz & M. C. Guerini (Eds), CLIL Across Educational Levels (pp. 3-16). Richmond Publishing, Madrid.
• Rumlich, D. (2013). Students' General English Proficiency Prior to CLIL: Empirical Evidence for Substantial Differences between Prospective CLIL and Non-CLIL Students in Germany. In S. Breidbach & B. Viebrock (Eds.), Mehrsprachigkeit in Schule und Unterricht: Bd. 14. Content and language integrated learning (CLIL) in Europe. Research perspectives on policy and practice (pp. 181–201). Frankfurt, M.: Lang-Ed.
• Tragant, E., Marsol, A., Serrano, R., & Llanes, À. (2016). Vocabulary learning at primary school: A comparison of EFL and CLIL. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 19(5), 579-591.
• Ting Y L T. (2010). CLIL appeals to how the brain likes its information: Examples from CLIL-(neuro) science, International CLIL Research Journal 1, 1-18.
• Wolff, D. (2012). The European framework for CLIL teacher education. Synergies Italie, 8, 105-116.
• Xanthou, M. (2010). Current trends in L2 vocabulary learning and instruction: Is CLIL the right approach. Advances in Research on Language Acquisition and Teaching: Selected Papers, Thessaloniki, Greece: Greek Applied Linguistics Association (GALA), 459-471.
• Yang, W. (2015). Content and language integrated learning next in Asia: Evidence of learners’ achievement in CLIL education from a Taiwan tertiary degree programme. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 18(4), 361-382.
• Yılmaz, F., & Şeker, M. (2013). Young learners’ perceptions on learning languages through CLIL and ICT. Academica Science Journal, Psychologica Series, 1(2), 42-47.