This cross-sectional study aimed to explore the nature and the patterns of lexical growth in content and language integrated learning (CLIL) and non-CLIL learners across three successive academic years. To pursue the purpose of the study a total of 110 female students of six classes in 3rd, 4th, and 5th grades in both bilingual and monolingual schools in Tehran, Iran, were selected. The experimental group included 50 students, while the control group included 60 students. Receptive and productive vocabulary sizes of three grades from both environments were compared using the Vocabulary Levels Test (VLT) and the Productive Vocabulary Levels Test (PVLT). The results indicated that learners’ receptive and productive vocabulary sizes in both CLIL and non-CLIL groups are below 1,000 words, according to the results of the 2k VLT and 2k PVLT tests. In addition, both CLIL and non-CLIL groups showed a gradual increase in their receptive and productive vocabulary growth from third grade to fourth and fifth grades. Finally, across all three grades, the CLIL group showed a higher increase in their receptive and productive vocabulary growth than the non-CLIL group. The results of the study have implications for bilingual schools, language institutes, and language teachers and learners.
AdmiraalW.WesthoffG.de BotK. (2006). Evaluation of bilingual secondary education in The Netherlands: Students’ language proficiency. English Educational Research and Evaluation, 12, 75–93.
2.
AgustínM.P.Canga AlonsoA. (2015). Vocabulary growth in young CLIL and traditional EFL learners: Evidence from research and implications for education. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 26, 211–227.
3.
Agustín-LlachM.P.Terrazas-GallegoM. (2012). Development and gender differences in a second language. Estudios de Lingüística Inglesa Aplicada, 12, 45–75.
4.
AielloJ.Di MartinoE.Di SabatoB. (2015). Preparing teachers in Italy for CLIL: reflections on assessment, language proficiency and willingness to communicate. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 20, 69–83.
5.
BrutonA. (2011). Is CLIL so beneficial, or just selective? Re-evaluating some of the research. System, 39, 523–532.
6.
BultéB.HousenA.PierrardP.DaeleS. (2008). Investigating lexical proficiency development over time: The case of Dutch-speaking learners of French in Brussels. French Language Studies, 18, 277–298.
7.
Canga AlonsoA. (2013). The receptive vocabulary of Spanish 6th grade primary school students in CLIL instruction: A preliminary study. Latin American Journal of Content and Language Integrated Learning (LACLIL), 6, 22–41.
8.
Canga AlonsoA. (2015). Receptive vocabulary of CLIL and non-CLIL primary and secondary school learners. Complutense Journal of English Studies, 23, 59–77.
9.
CelayaM.L.Ruiz de ZarobeY. (2010). First languages and age in CLIL and non-CLIL contexts. International CLIL Research Journal, 1, 60–66. Available at: http://www.icrj.eu/13/article6.html (accessed February 2022).
10.
CelayaM.L.TorrasM.R. (2001). L1 influence and EFL vocabulary: Do children rely more on L1 than adult learners?Proceedings of the XXV AEDEAN Conference. Granada: Universidad de Granada. CD format.
11.
CenozJ.GeneseeF.GorterD. (2014). Critical analysis of CLIL: Taking stock and looking forward. Applied Linguistics, 35, 243–262.
12.
CoyleD.HoodP.MarshD. (2010). CLIL: Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
13.
CumminsJ. (2008). BICS and CALP: Empirical and theoretical status of the distinction. In StreetB.HornbergerN.H. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education (pp. 71–83). Springer Science.
14.
CumminsJ.SwainM. (1986). Linguistic I: a central principle of bilingual education. In CumminsJ.SwainM. (Eds.), Bilingualism in education: aspects of theory, research and practice (pp. 80–95). Longman.
15.
Dalton-PufferC. (2007). Discourse in content and language integrated learning (CLIL). John Benjamins.
16.
Dalton-PufferC. (2008). Outcomes and processes in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL): Current research from Europe. In DelanoyW.VolkmannL. (Eds.), Future perspectives for English language teaching (pp. 139–157). Carl Winter.
17.
Dalton-PufferC. (2011). Content-and-language integrated learning: From practice to principles?Annual Review of applied Linguistics, 31, 182–204.
18.
ElgortI.NationP. (2010). Vocabulary learning in a second language: Familiar answers to new questions. In SeedhouseP.WalshS.JenksC. (Eds.), Conceptualising ‘learning’ in applied linguistics (pp. 89–104). Palgrave Macmillan.
19.
EllisR. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford University Press.
20.
Fernández-FontechaA.Canga AlonsoA. (2014). A preliminary study on motivation and gender in CLIL and non-CLIL types of instruction. International Journal of English Studies, 14, 21–36.
21.
FieldA. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. Sage.
22.
GarcíaO.WeiL. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism and education. Palgrave Macmillan.
23.
GassS. (2013). Second language acquisition: An introductory course. Routledge.
24.
GranenaG.LongM.H. (2012). Age of onset, length of residence, language aptitude, and ultimate L2 attainment in three linguistic domains. Second Language Research, 29, 311–343.
25.
HerasA.LasagabasterD. (2015). The impact of CLIL on affective factors and vocabulary learning. Language Teaching Research, 19, 70–88.
26.
HorstM.CobbT.MearaP. (1998) Beyond a clockwork orange: acquiring second language vocabulary through reading. Reading in a Foreign Language, 11, 207–223.
27.
JexenflickerS.Dalton-PufferC. (2010). The CLIL differential: Comparing the writing of CLIL and non-CLIL students in higher colleges of technology. In Dalton-PufferC.NikulaT.SmitU. (Eds.), Language use and language learning in CLIL classrooms (pp. 169–189). John Benjamins.
28.
Jiménez CatalánR.M., (Ed.). (2010). Gender perspectives on vocabulary in foreign and second language. Palgrave MacMillan.
29.
Jiménez CatalánR.M.CenozJ. (2006). Vocabulary profiles in English as a subject and as a vehicular language. VIEWZ, 15, 23–7.
30.
Jiménez CatalánR.M.Ruiz de ZarobeY. (2009). The receptive vocabulary of EFL learners in two instructional contexts: CLIL versus non-CLIL. In Jiménez CatalánR.M.Ruiz de ZarobeY. (Eds.), Content and language integrated learning. Evidence from research in Europe (pp. 81–92). Multilingual Matters.
31.
Jiménez CatalánR.M.Terrazas GallegoM. (2008). The receptive vocabulary of English foreign language young learners. Journal of English Studies, 5, 173–191.
32.
Juan-GarauM.Salazar-NogueraJ. (2015). Content-based language learning in multilingual educational environments. Springer International Publishing.
LauferB. (1998). The development of passive and active vocabulary in a second language: Same or different?Applied Linguistics, 19, 255–271.
35.
LauferB.NationP. (1999). A vocabulary-size test of controlled productive ability. Language Testing, 16, 33–51.
36.
LichtmanK. (2016). Age and learning environment: Are children implicit second language learners?Journal of Child Language, 43, 707–730.
37.
LinA.M. (2016). Language across the curriculum and CLIL in English as an additional language (EAL) contexts: Theory and practice. Springer.
38.
LoY.MurphyV.A. (2010). Vocabulary knowledge and growth in immersion and regular language-learning programmes in Hong Kong. Language and Education, 24, 215–238.
39.
LorenzoF.CasalS.MooreP. (2010). The effects of content and language integrated learning in European education: Key findings from the Andalusian bilingual sections evaluation project. Applied Linguistics, 31, 418–442.
40.
MearaP.BuxtonB. (1987). An alternative to multiple choice will vocabulary testing. Language Testing, 4, 142–154.
MiralpeixI. (2007). Lexical knowledge in instructed language learning: The effects of age and exposure. International Journal of English Studies, 7, 61–84.
43.
MochizukiM. (2012). Four empirical vocabulary test studies in the three dimensional framework. Vocabulary Learning and Instruction, 1, 44–52.
44.
MoghadamN.Z.FatemipourH. (2014). The effect of CLIL on vocabulary development by Iranian secondary school EFL learners. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 2004–2009.
45.
Moreno EspinosaS. (2010). Evaluación del vocabulario en redacciones escritas por aprendices de inglés como L2 a través de la tecnología [Vocabulary assessment in essays written by English learners of L2 through technology]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of La Rioja, La Rioja, Spain.
46.
NationP. (1990). Teaching and learning vocabulary. Heinle and Heinle.
47.
NationP. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge University Press.
48.
NurweniA.ReadJ. (1999). The English vocabulary knowledge of Indonesian university students. English for Specific Purposes, 18, 161–175.
49.
OlssonE. (2015). Progress in English academic vocabulary use in writing among CLIL and non-CLIL students in Sweden. Moderna Sprak, 109, 51–74.
50.
OuaziziKH. (2016). The effects of CLIL education on the subject matter (mathematics) and the target language (English). Latin American Journal of Content and Language Integrated Learning, 9, 110–137.
PietiläP.MerikiviR. (2014). The impact of free-time reading on foreign language vocabulary development. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 5, 28–36.
53.
ReadJ. (1998). Validating a test to measure depth of vocabulary knowledge. In KunnanA. (Ed.), Validation in language assessment (pp. 41–60). Erlbaum.
54.
RoquetH.LlopisJ.Pérez VidalC. (2016). Does gender have an impact on the potential benefits learners may achieve in two contexts compared: formal instruction and formal instruction + content and language integrated learning?International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 19, 370–386.
55.
RuizdeZarobeY. (2008). CLIL and foreign language learning: A longitudinal study in the Basque country. International CLIL Research Journal, 1, 60–73.
56.
RumlichD. (2013). Students’ general English proficiency prior to CLIL. In BreidbachS.ViebrockB. (Eds.), Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) in Europe: Research perspectives on policy and practice (pp. 181–202). Peter Lang.
57.
SchmittN. (2000). Vocabulary in language teaching. Cambridge University Press.
58.
SchmittN.MearaP. (1997). Researching vocabulary through a word knowledge framework: Word associations and verbal suffixes. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 17–35.
59.
SchmittN.NationP.KremmelB. (2019). Moving the field of vocabulary assessment forward: The need for more rigorous test development and validation. Language Teaching, 53, 109–120.
60.
SchmittN.SchmittD.ClaphamC. (2001). Developing and exploring the behavior of two new versions of the vocabulary levels test. Language Testing, 18, 55–88.
61.
StoekelT.McLeanS.NationP. (2020). Limitations of size and levels tests of written receptive vocabulary knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 43, 181–203.
62.
SylvénL.K. (2004). Teaching in English or English teaching? On the effects of content and language integrated learning on Swedish learners’ incidental vocabulary acquisition. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
63.
SylvénL.K. (2013). CLIL in Sweden: why does it not work? A metaperspective on CLIL across contexts in Europe. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16, 301–320.
64.
SylvénL.K.OhlanderS. (2014). The CLISS project: Receptive vocabulary in CLIL versus non-CLIL groups. Moderna Sprak, 108, 80–114.
65.
WebbS. (2008). Receptive and productive vocabulary sizes of L2 learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30, 79–95.
66.
WebbS.ChangA.C.-S. (2012). Second language vocabulary growth. RELC Journal, 43, 113–126.
67.
WolffD. (2005). Approaching CLIL. In Marsh, D. (coordinator), The CLIL quality matrix: Central workshop report (pp. 10–25). European Centre for Modern Languages. Available at: http://www.ecml.at/mtp2/CLILmatrix/pdf/wsrepD3E2005_6.pdf (accessed February 2022).
68.
XanthouM. (2011). Current trends in L2 vocabulary learning and instruction. Is CLIL the right approach?Proceedings of the 14th International Conference of Applied Linguistics: Advances in research on language acquisition and teaching (pp. 459–471). Selected Papers. Available at: http://www.enl.auth.gr/gala/14th/Papers/English%20papers/Xanthou.pdf (accessed February 2022).
69.
YamadaJ.ShigenobuT.NobukoK.JunkoK. (1980). On the optimum age for teaching foreign vocabulary to children. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 18, 245–247.
