Prospective CLIL and non-CLIL students’ interest in English (classes): A quasi-experimental study on German sixth-graders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1 IntroductionDespite a surge in programmes and rapid growth in efforts, upon closer investigation one finds that single most widely consensual affirmation with respect to in the specialized literature is the dire need for further research (Coyle, Hood & Marsh 2010, p. 149; see also Wolff 2009, p. 565; Perez-Canado 2012, p. 316; see the latter for a comprehensive overview of CLIL in Europe). Moreover, the that has been conducted so far is mostly of a theoretical, qualitative-exploratory or case-study nature, leading to a paucity of representative and empirically valid (longitudinal) studies on the effectiveness of (Costa & D'Angelo 2011, p. 3) and thus a lack of evidence for the central and widespread assumptions about its benefits and superiority (Vollmer 2010, pp 5Of). In addition to this, unfortunate reality is that the vast majority of evaluations of bilingual programs are so methodologically flawed in their design that their results offer more noise than signal (Genesee 1998). Even though he made this claim in reference to on Canadian Immersion programmes, Bruton (2011a; 2011b) voices similarly serious concerns as Genesee about biased studies and conclusions, alluding to a honeymoon period in research: Numerous studies have shown that learners in and non-CLIL groups are substantially different when the former commence their programmes (e.g. Fehling 2008; Bredenbroker 2000; Burmeister 1994; for an overview on (mostly) Spanish results see Bruton 2011b). As crosssectional studies with only one measurement necessitate that the groups to be compared (i.e. and non-CLIL) be largely similar, this entails that, more often than not, the basic requirement for cross-sectional is not met in CLIL/non-CLIL settings, which calls for alternative study designs. This includes longitudinal with multiple measurements, which is desperately needed to complement existing studies with an estimate of the size of a priori differences and on-going changes to avoid unsubstantiated conclusions. Yet in the vast majority of studies, such aspects are not considered in the design of the study, but merely mentioned as a potential threat to the reliability of the findings in the discussion section of respective publications.To address these and other related issues in the German context, the author of this chapter conducted a longitudinal quasi-experimental study with a total number of 1,300 and non-CLIL students in 49 classes in North Rhine Westphalia. The project (Development of North RhineWestphalian Students) is meant to examine the development of students in programmes and, at the same time, provide an estimate of priorly existing differences with respect to language proficiency, affective, motivational and attitudinal learner characteristics, extramural exposure to English and other aspects that might influence students' foreign language learning. The chapter at hand reports findings from the first measurement before instruction began and after students had completed their preparatory phase with two additional lessons of English per week in years 5 and 6.After a succinct theoretical account of the construct of interest, a comprehensive overview of results and a brief description of the German educational system/research context will follow. The ensuing empirical part will provide a detailed description of the DENOCS study, a thorough analysis, interpretation and discussion of the data collected. The overall aim of this article is to shed light on the question if and nonCLIL students' subjectand language-related interest differ a priori, which would render cross-sectional comparisons between these two groups (partly) invalid and lead to inaccurate estimates of the effects of programmes.At this stage, it needs to be stressed that the referential framework of this article is the German education system. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".