Investigating the Application of Communicative Language Teaching Principles in Primary-Education: A Comparison of CLIL and FL Classrooms
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is widely accepted that the learning of a new language, among other advantages, promotes respect and interest of the students towards other cultures and languages. The question is how learning languages can be promoted in educational settings. The aim of the present study is to explore the principles of communicative language teaching in primary-education CLIL and FL classrooms. More specifically, in this paper we address to what extent collaborative work, attention to language and content and corrective feedback are observed during teacher-student and peer interaction in these educational settings. Following an action research approach, ten Spanish and ten Maths sessions were observed and recorded. Furthermore, whole group interaction and peer interaction were analysed in relation to the participants’ attention to language and content. Results from the study show that communicative language teaching is the approach followed in CLIL and FL sessions, tasks being the organizing units. However, differences are observed in relation to attention to language and use of correction strategies. Our findings suggest the need to use strategies to draw attention to language and content in CLIL settings, and the importance of using a more even range of correction strategies both in CLIL and FL classrooms.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it