Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
INTENSITY VERSUS QUANTITY OF INSTRUCTION - Coggle Diagram
INTENSITY VERSUS QUANTITY OF INSTRUCTION
intensive language programs
content and language integrated learning (CLIL)
"for the learning and teaching of both content and language
some of the current issues regarding CLIL
because of the diversity of CLIL programs, there is a lack of conceptual clarity
two factors: L2 motivation and aptitude
other imput measures, for example number of curricular and extracurrilar lessons, time spent in a naturalistic immersion situation
previous research focusing on the benefits of immersive programs
study of intensive vs.non-intensive L2 French programs in Quebec
traditional language programs with limited hours of interaction is less effective
study of L1 Spanish students' achievement
intensive groups make more progress
consensus:
students in concentrated programs acquire higher levels of proficiency in the L2
study of Hinger (2006) : intensive groups have more group cohesion and more motivated students
investigation by MacFarlane et al (2004) and Peters (2000)
intensive groups display more confidence and positive attitudes towards L2 learning
benefits
more opportunities for engaging in authentic and meaningful interaction in real-life contexts
better verbal and non-verbal communication skills, cognitive skills, divergent thinking
concentrated exposure
foster implicit learning
previous research focusing on the drawbacks of school language learning
few hours a week of exposure to a new language does not allow students to attain very high levels of proficiency
students may have difficulty seeing any progress over time which can lead to frsutration
Collins and White (2011) - analysis of oral and written production and of aural and written compherension of 230 sixth grade students
one group: 400 hours of instruction, full days of English every day for five months
other group: 400 hours instruction, ten-month academic year
progress over time for both groups, but significant differences in favor of the concentrated group
ELIAS project
monitor of children's progress in L2 acquisition
increased L2 contact duration and L2 input intensity positively affected receptive grammar and receptive vocabulary knowledge
CLIL at different age
same proficiency levels of learners
CLIL learners need to be up to two years younger than their formal instruction counterparts to outperform them with the same amount of instruction
late starters can catch up with early starters