The Effects of Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) Instruction on Grade 11 EFL Students’ Reading Comprehension

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-4118884/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

The Effects of Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) Instruction on Grade 11 EFL Students’ Reading Comprehension

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4118884/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

This study examined the effects of content and language-integrated learning instruction on grade 11 EFL students’ reading comprehension. This study utilized a quasi-experimental research design. To carry out this study, 37 private school EFL students participated as experimental (N = 19) and control (N = 18) groups in the academic year of 2022–2023 in both semesters. The experimental group participants were instructed through a language-driven CLIL-based reading instruction whereas the control group followed conventional reading instruction. To gather data, pretest-and posttest reading comprehension tests were applied. The quantitative data from the pretest and the posttest was analyzed using a t-test on SPSS. The results revealed that both the experimental and the control groups were found homogenous during the pre-intervention. Nevertheless, after the intervention, the results indicated that experimental group students outperformed significantly (p < .05) the control group students in reading comprehension posttests showing the supremacy of soft-CLIL over the conventional teaching reading method. Therefore, results were consistent with predictions, and the implication behind the results is that a Soft CLIL was effective in content or subject classrooms to teach English reading comprehension. The results indicated that CLIL instruction draws the attention of students. Finally, CLIL instruction could be appropriate for teaching English reading skills.

Linguistics

Comprehension

EFL

Reading

Soft-CLIL

Tests

Today, educational practitioners face challenges to respond to the needs of students to satisfy their interests. That is, there is no perfect and guaranteed instruction for teaching EFL students (Lawson, 2002). Then, teaching second language skills, particularly reading, using new instruction utilizing additional language is a global critical issue in this era. Therefore, to scaffold students’ learning, EFL teachers' mandate is identifying context and selecting appropriate approaches. This inspired stakeholders to innovate new instruction to lead the educational context processes via the mediated societies’ demands. Searching for the best way, teachers and educators continually innovate and discern methods to aid students in learning efficiently an FL reading skill.

As a result, the Acronomy CLIL (henceforth, Content and Language Integrated Learning) instruction was innovated in 1994, and commenced in 1996 by UNICOM, at the University of Jyvaskyla, Finland, and the European Commission for Dutch Education, to explain the educational approach whereby “contents are taught via a foreign language with dual-focused goals, namely the learning of the subject, and simultaneously foreign language learning” (Darn, 2006, P. 3).

The major driving forces that underpin content and language learning instruction are reactive and proactive reasons. The reactive process adopts the official language as a secondary medium of instruction level that acts as a national language recognizing and following instruction problems of curricula and methodological adjustment to respond to situations (Coyle, Hood, Marsh, 2010). In reactive reason, teaching subjects across the curriculum introduces language-supportive methodologies. On the other hand, for proactive reasons, an educational aspect adapts CLIL that identifies solutions to students’ cognitive and social drawbacks creating situations to alleviate challenges to enhance language learning in CLIL instruction to maximize and foster potential for success in reading comprehension.

Today, the global English role has made the need for more profound instruction to teach language skills in non-English speaking countries’ contexts to pursue internationalization and respond to globalization requirements, particularly in education institutions (Coleman, 2006). Nevertheless, English language teachers had serious instruction problems while teaching language skills (Marsh, Coyle, and Hood, 2002). The Sub-Saharan African developing countries’ cases are examples, like Ethiopia having a mosaic of languages amongst their populations who adopted English but there are many challenges found concerning teaching reading skills accommodating the needs of students who have low competency and fluency in the language of instruction (Coyle, 2002).

One of the reasons for failure in language teaching methods in the Ethiopian language context is that Ethiopia's traditional education had religious roles aiming at training religious people who are assigned to church liturgy for text memorization and recitations where teachers were taken as the knowledge sources (Pankrust, 1976). This education system played little role in contributing to students' needs towards reading skills which later necessitated a call for modern education instruction to enhance learning. There was a failure behind a call for new instruction by religious leaders and nobility lest it disregard indigenous knowledge, systems, and domestic culture (Pankrust, 1976).

Concerning the case of Ethiopia, due to students’ dwelling places; rural or urban, students in rural areas are less advantageous in learning language. This has resulted from a lack of instruction, low literacy levels, insufficient technologies, advanced sciences, and students’ inability to master language skills, namely reading comprehension for the past decades.

These shortcomings cause instruction proliferation of prominent characteristics of contemporary foreign language teaching. That is, the notion of instruction has a deep history in teaching as is witnessed by the fluctuation of various methods throughout recent language teaching background. Some methods like the Audio-Lingual Method (ALM), have become recent decades’ orthodox teaching approaches in parts of the world (J. Richards and W. Renandya, 2002).

To others, various method options currently available confuse rather than comfort. Some methods recommend strange and unfamiliar classroom practices; others are hard to locate, vaguely written, and difficult to understand. However, methods have to be based on language views and how language is learned. Above all, due to a lack of comprehensive instructions, practitioners are often bewildered. Thus, instruction is considered in terms of its links to linguistic, psychological, or educational traditions (J. Richards and Renandya, 2002).

Nowadays, there is a desire to improve language learning instruction for EFL students to enhance reading comprehension (Alderson, 1984). This placed new demands and interests in educational systems resulting in the need for designing teaching instruction (Genesee, & Gorter, 2014; Georgiou and Wolff, 2012). Emerging as an offshoot of language teaching, CLIL instruction aims to teach reading skills based on theoretical premises associated with language learning whereby language skills rely on cognitive development (Piaget & Riani, 1983).

Concerning the CLIL importance, scholars such as Darn (2006) and McDougald (2018) confirm that CLIL is the most promising and beneficial instruction whereby content and language are taught and learned through a dual-focused environmental context, and it assists students in acquiring both language and content competencies. Furthermore, Harrop (2012) delineates that CLIL can enhance reading comprehension, and vocabulary by providing authentic ground for language use, unlike the conventional method. Yang (2014) also states that CLIL instruction develops reading comprehension significantly. In addition, Naves (n.d.) added that CLIL instruction enhances skill-based conversation and integration between disciplines. Moreover, Naves epitomizes the use of CLIL as follows: “CLIL adjusts conditions for naturalistic language learning; gives an objective for language utility in the classroom; does have a positive effect on language learning by providing emphasis on fluency than accuracy; promotes the extent of exposure to the language of instruction.” (p.25).

Furthermore, in contexts like Ethiopia, where English is taught as a foreign language, challenges that students face when they endeavor to tackle the bolts and nuts of the language can be mitigated using CLIL instruction incorporated in the didactics (Coyle et al., 2010).

Similarly, the conventional content and language teaching way in isolation seems to be traditional. Furthermore, it sounds clear that CLIL possesses an inspiring force for both practitioners and students as it consolidates both content and language teaching-learning in a given situation simultaneously. Supporting this, certain scholars add that both content and language are integrated for dual-focused objectives and receive balanced importance in CLIL unlike in conventional instruction (Darn, 2006; Harrop, 2012).

As stated in the literature, CLIL has received popularity for its effectiveness in various parts corners of the world, starting in Europe. Marsh (2012) explained that CLIL is being efficiently applied across Europe, and it has got high chance for students to get exposure to learn a foreign language. In teaching reading, why CLIL instruction is effective is that CLIL favorably affects reading and helps improve specific language competence (Zurek, 2012). It is a communicative language teaching method that integrates content and language. In the long process of learning, students become bilingual, autonomous, and academically proficient in the language (Aldaz, 2013). This is because CLIL is a natural language learning that focuses on fluency rather than accuracy treating errors as learning. According to Lyster (2007) and Coyle (2010), CLIL allocates students with abandon and fertile ground for learning integrating language and content to achieve purposes that occur beyond separate elements. Consequently, comprehending texts in high schools directed to being able to read, and investigate in English. At this level, several activities demand reading ability like understanding instructions, concepts, examinations, and different disciplines’ textbooks.

Concerning CLIL instruction's tangible efficiency, various study results indicate that CLIL instruction can bring significant improvement. For example, CLIL alleviates motivation differences (Heras and Lasagabaster, 2015); CLIL enhances vocabulary development (Xanthou,2011); CLIL improves students’ reading comprehension and fosters motivation (Admiraal et al. 2006; Harrop,2012); CLIL has improved EFL reading and vocabulary competencies among high school students(Sanad and Ahmed, 2017); CLIL improves L2 proficiency( Benegas et al., 2020; Isidro & Lasagabaster, 2018), and so on. Hence, from the aforementioned results, one can merely conclude that CLIL sounds to have positive effects on students’ language improvements, and it can make a significant development if utilized in the educational milieu as the researchers were from different corners of the world. Besides, Coyle (2005) argues that CLIL can be implemented at all stages of educational context commencing from primary to university level.

Besides study findings on CLIL effectiveness at an international level, certain domestic studies in Ethiopian reveal that CLIL instruction has a positive effect on EFL students’ learning, particularly on reading comprehension, academic genre, and writing skills (Wubalem,2013; Yohannes,2017). On the contrary, Solomon (2018) came up with a negative finding on the effect of CLIL on affective variables; this is converse to the results explained by Harrop (2012) who forwarded the investigation that CLIL has a significant effect on attitudes and motivation. This seems to indicate that there is an inconclusive result on the effect of CLIL on students’ learning. Hence, the current study attempted to address the above-mentioned gap by examining the effect of CLIL on reading comprehension at the local level.

In today’s globalized world, a receptive skill, reading is related to once everyday tasks. Supporting this, Pearson (2015, p. 8); as cited in Kirchner and Mostert (2017) stated that “Reading is the most important to connect with worldwide people, and individuals are expected to read in their day-to-day activities by appealing to themselves with texts for information and knowledge”. This sounds to tell us that reading is a fundamental language skill whereby students in general and EFL students in particular, involve themselves to build knowledge from a written text for various aims, consisting of reading texts for individual usage and academic goals.

Similarly, reading comprehension is also linked with establishing the crux of reading texts. Supplementing this, McLaughlin (2012, p. 432); as cited in Holt (2015) explained Reading comprehension as “the meaning construction of a written or spoken communication through a reciprocal, holistic interchange of impression between the decoder and the message in a particular communicative context” (p.6). These assertions sound to inform us that reading without comprehension is not time invested but time wasted. Thus, teachers in general and EFL teachers, in particular, have a great responsibility to help learners comprehend reading texts using innovative teaching approaches, like CLIL. And, of course, some practical research works reveal that CLIL has a positive effect on reading comprehension as discussed earlier.

However, reading in a second language is the most challenging for students since they need to know a wide range of vocabulary, identify general and specific ideas, infer implicit messages, establish relationships, and follow instructions (Grabe, 2009; Strakova, 2013). In addition, soft CLIL that assists students with reading had no/little place in Ethiopia's EFL context until now.

From the previous research findings, one can deduce that CLIL is a recent phenomenon that emerged in the post-method era; for the sake of binary methodological objective whereby EFL is intermingled with subjects from contents areas; hence, additional researches sound to be run to support the current findings at both domestic and international level.

As aforementioned earlier, CLIL has been utilized in Europe, Asia, and other parts of the world since it was innovated in the 1990s. However, according to Darn (2006), CLIL has been disseminated to certain parts of African countries, including Ethiopia since 2004 for the sake of alleviating challenges in societies. This implied that CLIL is not a new approach at the local level though it is not officially declared as an instructional method to teach EFL in the Ethiopian context as far as the knowledge of the current researcher is concerned.

Furthermore, although there is a preponderance of research findings on the CLIL effect at the international level, there is scanty research concerning the implementation of the instruction in Ethiopian social contexts. Some of the studies conducted on the CLIL approach at the local level focused on upper primary schools (Yohannes, 2017); higher institutions (Wubalem, 2013), and Poly Technique Colleges (Solomon, 2018). Although some scholars ( e.g. see Moghadam & Fatemipour, 2014; Mourssi & Alkharosi, 2014) add that CLIL can be used in all grade levels and at all stages of education embarking on from primary to tertiary level, none of the local researchers conducted their research focusing on high school EFL students.

Having this in mind, this study aimed to examine the effects of Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) instruction on eleventh-grade EFL students’ reading comprehension and it endeavors to fill national research gaps in these instructional implementation areas. Given the design of the study, this study applied a quasi-experimental quantitative research design. This type of research design describes causal relationships how an independent variable influences the dependent ones and the relationships among them (Creswell, 2018). Finally, this study tests the following research hypothesis:

H₁

There is a statistically significant difference between the experimental group and the control group students in reading comprehension as a result of content and language-integrated instruction.

H₀

There is no statistically significant difference between the experimental group and the control group students in reading comprehension as a result of CLIL instruction.

Research Design

Research design is the structure and research blueprint. To answer the research hypothesis, this study utilized a quasi-experimental pre-and post-test quantitative research design applying a post-positivist paradigm to examine causal relationships or cause and effect. Since it is impractical to form artificial groups in quasi-experiments where the assignments are not random, the researcher used the available intact groups. In this study, the researcher used the lottery method sampling technique to assign participants to two identified intact groups; experimental and control.

Materials for Lessons

The lessons to teach the content using additional language consisted of reading comprehension texts adapted from “Grade 11 Biology Students’ Text Book-2023-web” (MOE, 2023) was utilized only for the experimental group based on the students' competence level.

Participants

The study participants consisted of 37 grade 11 students from one private school in the natural science stream where students are taking English Language and Biology Courses. The participants of this study were divided into two groups, namely the experimental group (N = 19) and the control group (N = 18).

Instruments of Data Collection

Pre-and Post-Reading Comprehension Tests (RCT)

To gather data, the researcher developed a kind of test (called try out biology achievement tests: pre-and post-test) in collaboration with the biology teacher in line with standardized test preparation context that was given to the students based on the curriculum and semester lesson plans (SLP) in English language related with a reading comprehension format to examine students’ different language knowledge areas in the science of biology. These areas are the introduction to properties of science, methods of science, and various experiments to investigate a particular observation to solve problems. These tests consisted of a total of 30 questions that had three parts with 20 multiple-choice, five vocabulary, and five matching items with four alternatives for each item. The pretest and posttest question items applied to both groups were the same with certain item modifications. Results were declared to have met reliability criteria using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient.

Validity

To check the validity, the test was given to a group of experienced biology department teachers. Then, they assured it.

Reliability

Before being used, the reliability of the test was measured and analyzed using SPSS software. The instruments were tested for reliability with a result of correlation coefficient of .899 which means the test has high reliability. In addition, reliability was checked using test-retest reliability.

Procedures

To conduct the study and examine the effects of CLIL instruction, two intact groups consisting of 19 experimental group students and 18 control group students were chosen. A try-out biology achievement test: pre- and post-test was developed. The experimental group received biology reading intervention through content and language-integrated learning (CLIL) instruction after the pretest whereas the control group followed the conventional learning instruction. A reading comprehension test was administered to both participants to examine the effectiveness of the implemented instruction on EFL students’ reading comprehension skills. The pretest aimed to obtain initial data about students’ learning background and outcomes while the posttest is a test given at the end of learning after the intervention. The prior knowledge and reading competencies were tested in a pretest, and the increase in knowledge and changes in competencies were queried in a posttest soon after the intervention and a posttest after about 12 sessions. This helps to compare students who participate in CLIL instructions to students who are not involved.

After the intervention, during the topic presentation including cultural attributes in the processes to address more attractive lessons, and adding exercises into the contents while conducting CLIL intervention certain revisions such as fostering the communications in English exercises, new activities were added. Furthermore, some modifications such as increasing the interaction between students and teachers, allowing Biology and English teachers to interject when needed, having students make presentations, and including figures in the lesson were made to the study structure.

Method of Data Analysis

The data emanated from pre-and post-CLIL intervention tests were analyzed statistically to measure the effectiveness of the CLIL instruction using SPSS version 24. The data analysis techniques employed were t-tests (an independent sample t-test and a paired sample t-test).

Between Groups Analysis of Data from Pre-Reading Comprehension Test

Looking at the content and language-integrated learning (CLIL) instruction effect on the students’ reading comprehension competencies, the statistical analysis and findings are presented and then the alternative hypothesis outcomes analysis is explained. On the initial of the study, experimental and control groups were taken a pre-reading comprehension test. The pretest was conducted to locate the mean score differences or homogeneity of students in both experimental and control groups in terms of reading comprehension. Next to the pretest, every group was identified as a high and low achiever. Next, for twelve periods, the experimental group was provided intervention through CLIL reading instruction. To examine the significant difference between the groups, posttest reading comprehension was given and results on the variables were computed and compared through a t-test on SPSS. As a result, the findings to accept or reject the research hypotheses from descriptive statistics are presented as follows in Table 1a. Finally, differences between and within the groups are discussed in the consecutive tables.

The research hypothesis was, “There is a statistically significant difference between the mean scores of students in the experimental group and the students in the control group in reading comprehension test as a result of content and language-integrated learning instruction.”

Table 1

a: Descriptive Statistics (Pre-intervention Test)
Test	Groups	N	Mean	SD	Std. Error Mean
Pretest	Experimental	19	20.68	1.157	.265 .530
Pretest	Control	18	23.00	2.249	.265 .530

Table 1

b: Independent Samples T-Test Results
Levene's Test for Equality of Variances				T-test for Equality of Means
		F	Sig.	T	df	Sig. (2-tailed)	Mean Difference	Std. Error Difference	95% Confidence Interval Difference
		F	Sig.	T	df	Sig. (2-tailed)	Mean Difference	Std. Error Difference	Lower	Upper
Pretest	Equal variances assumed	6.663	.064	-3.970	35	.326	-2.316	.583	-3.500	4.131
Pretest	Equal variances not assumed			-3.906	25.105	.326	-2.316	.593	-3.537	5.095

According to the Tables above (1a &1b), both groups were compared together on a reading comprehension passage test adapted from a grade 11 Biology Students Textbook, Unit 1: ‘The Science of Biology.’ As one can see, the mean scores of students were found homogeneous. Thus, an independent sample t-test was conducted to compare the mean values for experimental and control groups. There were no significant differences t(35)= -3.970, p = .326 in scores for experimental (M = 20.68, SD = 1.157 and control M = 23, SD = 2.249. The magnitude of the differences in the means (Means Differences= -2.316, 95% CI= -3.500 to 4.131 was very small. Furthermore, the p-value of Levene’s Test for Equality of Variance is F (1, 35) = 6.663 p = .064 which is \(>\).05, then, there is a homogeneity of variances (i.e., equal variances assumed). Finally, Table 1b indicates that the observed t (-3.970) is less than the critical t (1.690) with df = 35. Thus, the difference between the groups is not significant in the pre-test (p > 0.05). Hence H₁ was not supported.

Post-Test Data Analysis

Table 2

a: Descriptive Statistics (Post-intervention test)
Test Groups		N	Mean	SD	Std. Error Mean
Posttest	Experimental	19	27.74	0.991	.227 .548
	Control	18	23.33	2.326	.227 .548

Table 2

b: Independent Samples T-Test Results (Posttest)
Levene's Test for Equality of Variances				T-test for Equality of Means
		F	Sig.	T	df	Sig. (2-tailed)	Mean Difference	Std. Error Difference	95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
		F	Sig.	T	df	Sig. (2-tailed)	Mean Difference	Std. Error Difference	Lower	Upper
Posttest	Equal variances assumed	10.501	.003	7.563	35	.000	4.404	.582	-3.221	2.586
Posttest	Equal variances not assumed			7.418	22.716	.000	4.404	.594	-3.175	-2.632

As can be seen from Table 2b, an independent sample t-test was conducted to compare the mean value for experimental and control groups. There were significant differences t(35 = 7.563, p = .001 in scores with the mean scores for experimental (M = 27.74, SD = 0.991 was higher than control M = 23.33, SD = 2.326. The magnitude of the differences in the means (Means Differences = 4.404, 95% CI = 3.221 to 5.586 was statistically significant for the lower and upper values are positive and do not cross zero. In addition, Table 2b indicates that the observed t (7.563) is greater than the critical t (1.690) with df = 35, the difference between the groups is significant in the post-test. Finally, as in Table 2b shows that the p-value of Levene’s Test for Equality of Variance is F (35) = 10.501, P = .003\(<\).05, then, there is no homogeneity of variances (i.e., equal variances not assumed). Hence, the alternative hypothesis (H₁) is accepted.

Within-Group Differences

Experimental Group Pretest and Posttest

In addition to the analysis using an independent sample t-test of differences between groups, the researcher also made within-group comparisons to find out if individual groups improved in comprehension over 12-week periods of treatment. The table below gives descriptive statistics for groups showing differences between pretest and posttest.

Table 3

Analysis of Paired Samples Test (Intra-group)(N = 19)
Group	RCT	Paired Differences					t	df	Sig. (2-tailed)
		Mean Difference	Std. Deviation	SD Error M	95% Confidence Inter. Difference
					Lower	Upper
Experimental	Pre-posttest	-20.32	1.872	.308	-20.95	-19.700	-66.05	36	.001

As can be seen from Table 3, from the result we can conclude that the intervention significantly changed the reading comprehension of experimental group students. However, the results do not provide information about the magnitude of the intervention effects. One way to do this is to calculate an effect size statistic. The procedure for calculating and interpreting eta squared (one of the most commonly used effect size statistics) is described here:

Eta squared= \(\frac{{t}^{2}}{{t}^{2}+(N-1)}\)

The experimental group of students who received treatment with content and language-integrated learning (CLIL) instruction outperformed their control counterparts as (M = 20.324, SD = 1.872), t(36) = 66.05,p = .001, p\(<\).05(Table 3) above. This implies that the result in this group was significant in terms of reading competence after intervention for the eta squared value of .99 indicates a large effect size. Interestingly, the results seem to suggest that both the experimental and control had no close support of CLIL instruction when they had to implement CLIL in isolation in the classroom rather than doing it on their own. Thus, it can be concluded that CLIL had a positive effect on reading comprehension.

Post hoc comparisons, Tukey’s Honest Significant Difference (HSD), to evaluate pairwise differences among group means were conducted. Tests revealed significant pairwise differences on both dependent variables between the groups: CLIL instruction and traditional (p. = 001, p < .05). Upon observation of the mean scores, students participating in CLIL instruction class had significantly higher competence in reading than those participating in a conventional class. Accordingly, reading activities bring benefits to the learner "in both content and language learning processes" (Loranc-Paszylk, 2009, p. 47). As for language gains, processing information helps students develop overall target language reading competencies.

Control Group Pretest and Posttest

A paired sample t-test revealed a significant difference in reading comprehension scores between the pre-test and post-test for the control group. Given that there was no significant difference between the pre-and post-test. The score specifics are as follows:

Table 4

Analysis of Paired Samples Test (Intra-group) (N = 18)
Group		Paired Differences					t	df	Sig. (2-tailed)
		Mean	SD diff.	Std. Error Mean	95% Confidence Interval difference
					Lower	Upper
Control	Pre-posttest	-3.784	3.622	.595	-4.991	-2.576	-6.355	36	.065

According to Table 4, we can conclude that conventional teaching instruction did not significantly change the reading comprehension of the control group students. That is, the results do not provide information about the magnitude of the intervention effects. According to the results of Table 4, a paired sample t-test revealed that control group students scored more on their pretest(M= -3.784, SD = 3.622), t(36)=-6.355,p = .065. p > 05. Given the eta squared value of 0.528, we can conclude that there is a moderate effect with a substantial difference in the test scores obtained before and after intervention for the control group. Students who participated in traditional classes with reading did not significantly differ on their tests compared to students participating in CLIL classes.

Table 5

Tests of Normality for pretest and posttest
Tests	Kolmogorov-Smirnov			Shapiro-Wilk
Tests	Statistic	Df	Sig.	Statistic	df	Sig.
Pretest	.217	37	.000	.916	37	.064
Posttest	.231	37	.000	.899	37	.003

Table 5 indicates that a t-test preliminary assumption testing was conducted. There were no univariate outliers as assessed by examination of the boxplot. Then, Shapiro Wilks for both levels of the independent variables for both dependent variables indicated that the assumption of normality is not violated (p = .003), (p\(<\)05). However, the t-test is reasonably robust to modest violation of normality when the sample size is at least 30(i.e.,\(<\) 50) in each group (Tabacknick & Fidell, 2007, p.251). The exception to this is when outliers affect normality. Thus, there is no major concern. Mahalanobis distance was used to assess multivariate outliers; the critical value of .163 was not exceeded (maxi. Value = 6.472). Then, this assumption is tenable. The assumption of linearity is satisfactory per inspection of scatterplots. The association between the dependent variable is significant, r (6) = − .055, p\(<\) 01. The correlation coefficient was less than 9; thus, multicollinearity is not supported (Tabacknick & Fidell, 2007). Singularity is not a concern. The assumption of the homogeneity of variance-covariance is justified or maintained based on the results of Box’s test M and the result of Levene’s test of equality of error provides evidence that the assumption of homogeneity of variance across groups is also tenable for experimental group and control group.

The current study examined the effect of content and language-integrated learning (CLIL) instruction on EFL students’ reading comprehension skills. The researchers prepared a CLIL intervention module and administered it to the experimental group. Data was gathered using a pre-post reading comprehension test. The data verified the hypotheses and provided support for the effectiveness of CLIL instruction on students’ reading comprehension. However, results indicated that before the intervention, there was no significant difference between the mean scores of the experimental group and the control group in their pretest mean scores. A t-test was run to examine the effects of CLIL on the reading comprehension test before intervention (Table 1b). The result of the experimental and control group shows that there were no significant differences. On the pre-reading comprehension test, it was evident that the experimental group showed the lowest mean score (Mean = 20.68, SD = 1.157) (Table 1a), while the control group was doing well on the test (Mean = 23.00, SD = 2.249), and working with the test and that they felt they had done their best on the test. In addition, the t-value of the experimental group is less than that of the control group, t (35) =-3.97, p = .064, p\(>\).05 (M = 20.68\(<\)23.00) (Table 1b). This means that students could not comprehend merely due to a lack of content and language integration learning instruction.

On the other hand, there were statistically significant differences between the pre-posttests in reading comprehension skills in favor of the posttests. The findings indicated that the experimental group outperformed the control group in terms of both reading skills and content as suggested by their mean scores on the test. The post-test result of the experimental and control group shows that there were significant differences. The experimental group's mean score was 27.74 and SD .991, while that of the control group was 23.33, and the standard deviation was 2.326, F (1, 35) = 10.501, p = .003. The reason is that the p-value is less than 0.05 (i.e., .003). In addition, the p-value has a bigger value and the confidence value does not cross zero (mean difference 4.404, 95% confidence interval from 3.221 to 5.586) (Table 2b).

In addition, the mean scores between the experimental (27.74) and the control groups (23.33) were found to have a great difference. This implies that there is a great difference between groups in terms of their reading comprehension test after intervention (effect size (Cohen’s d = 1.37977). This finding claims that Lasagabaster and Sierra’s (2009) idea was based on Marsh’s (2010) belief that any form of CLIL is useful, and he strongly agrees that CLIL plays a role in second language (L2) reading. His claim was accepted by a great many CLIL researchers. For example, Sierra (2011) said that providing CLIL instruction may enable students to develop their reading comprehension. In addition, Lorenzo, and Casal Moor (2010) believe that the implementation of CLIL is crucial and of great significance for the improvement of students' reading skills. Furthermore, to assess multivariate outliers, the Mahalanobis distance was used and the critical value of .163 was not exceeded (maxi. Value = 6.472). Then, this assumption is tenable.

Researchers have identified great changes in students' reading comprehension competence during the intervention. Nevertheless, students faced certain challenges in transferring and forming meanings related to subject matters at the commencement of instruction. Students have also exhibited certain difficulties in comprehending, identifying, and conceptualizing unfamiliar words, specifically biological, scientific, research, and modern technology terminologies. However, at the end of the intervention, students developed self-esteem and became autonomous in acquiring the language of instruction promptly. The subject matter of the instruction drew their interest. Students enjoyed the subject matter of biology and other sciences. Furthermore, they stated different issues/ topics and were interested in having the knowledge of particular meanings in English, specifically topics about methods of science experiment, scientific apparatus, food production, health and disease, conservation, microbiologists, Paleo-biology and experimental science, and applied science as they are natural stream students. In addition, they are inspired and participate in utilizing the target language to learn the subject matter and use it as a means of interaction. The researcher has seen remarkable attitudes and motivation of students to exercise some terms and unfamiliar words outside the confined classroom. That is, they developed the confidence to get exposure to using the language, English. They (students) commenced to apply the language’s terminology in their everyday conversation, letters, and main impression.

Having compared students' scores on the pre-and post-reading comprehension test, the experimental group showed higher improvement in their reading comprehension skills in the posttest than in their pretest because of the efficiency of the implemented instruction in improving EFL reading comprehension competence. Whereas students' marks in the control group did not vary in the post-reading comprehension skills test. This indicated that students still know and can gain reading learned in CLIL, which in turn demonstrated the efficacy of the applied instruction in developing EFL students’ reading comprehension skills.

Changing students' reading comprehension competence is not only due to the integration of content and language but also because of the careful choices of content that are relevant to students’ interests, attitudes, and motivation. The researchers have seen that certain topics draw students' interest greater than others. Their eagerness and interest to study enhance while they read and learn some subject matters, like topics about science and methods, organisms, the science of biology, cells (e.g. bacteria, unicellular algae) or many cells (e.g., animals, plants, and fungi) and so on. As a result, instruction developers need to choose content with great care taking into account the students' cognition, age, sex, culture, society, interests, and language. Therefore, the posttest mean scores outperformed the pretest scores in terms of reading skills. Integrating both content to language assisted students gain language knowledge and at the same time perceiving the use of language retained in different learning environment contexts. This was vivid when implemented and enhanced by students’ attitudes, motivation, interest, and involvement.

According to scholars (Chostelidoua and Grivab, 2014), CLIL utilization gets the attention of the students' different learning strategies and competence levels that encourage various teaching and learning methods. Syntactic, semantic level, and content complexity were known to enhance students' dependent learning and autonomy in an active learning context (Wolff, 2003). That is, the teacher's role in coping with CLIL should improve from a knowledge base to a follow-up and knowledge facilitator. Investigating language via content aided greatly in involving students in learning the content and acquiring linguistic skills, especially comprehension.

Based on the integration of content, language, communication, and cultural awareness, CLIL proved to be one of the current learning approaches that have much impact on changing both language and content among students (Marsh, 2009; Pengnate, 2013). Besides, when additional input, i.e. the content is linked to students' attitudes, and motivation and satisfies their wants, it draws students’ interest and enhances their need to study. Consequently, learning the language became comprehensible and interesting as so.

The teachers have a lion's share of examining their students’ shortcomings and challenges to search for solutions for these to satisfy their needs and interests. Even though the curriculum does not fit their students' needs. They can foster students’ cognition and ability with contents that match students’ needs, interests, and academic levels. Teachers can explain various contents and cruxes, such as the contemporary situations surrounding students, the context circumstance that might happen in their area, discovery, study, research, or other contents that match students’ needs. Instructing and involving students in such contents which draw students’ attitudes and feelings develop language proficiency and increase utilizing and understanding EFL terminologies. In addition, this provides students motivation and the interest to gain, due to students understanding the text written in English.

Results of the present study were consistent with previous studies that supported the implementation of CLIL in increasing language competencies such as Chostelidoua and Grivab (2014); Pengnate (2013); Jenpattarakul (2012); Papaja, (2012); Jawhar (2012); Xanthou (2011).

Generally, findings support the great effect of utilizing CLIL on changing reading comprehension skills among high school students. Such intensive use of additional language as instruction can be regarded as effective for the development of students' reading skills, vocabulary, and terminology which is in line with McDonald’s (1997) research findings.

Several researchers have also carried out similar studies related to using the CLIL method for second language learning (L2). According to Vazquez and Ordonez (2018), CLIL in SL learning (L2) encourages and motivates students to participate in class. The CLIL method also developed L2 competence for secondary school students in Oromia using a reading comprehension test. Reading comprehension skills were assessed using a standard multiple-choice tryout test (reading text followed by comprehension questions).

The role of the CLIL method in language learning, especially in the aspect of reading comprehension, really supports the achievement of student learning outcomes. As mentioned in the literature review section, the CLIL method has two parts of emphasis, namely content and language aspects. Brown and Bradford (2017) asserted that content and language aspects have the same position and portion. That is, students are required to understand the content, and at the same time, they also need to improve their language skills.

Based on the findings of the current study, the use of CLIL instruction enhances the content, communication, culture, cognition, and reading comprehension of EFL students' competence. The various instructions implementation fits various learning strategies, abilities, and individual differences and generates effective results when students engage in a variety of instructions made and the practitioners (teachers) play their lion roles to facilitate learning. Then, practitioners should possess the initiative and content knowledge. They should also be equipped well knowledge and qualified in instructing the content delivered to students. It was also agreed by scholars who stated that the CLIL method was designed to learn by doing and was flexible enough to be used in the context of diverse student backgrounds focusing on fluency rather than accuracy and treating the error as a natural phenomenon (Hellekjær, 1996).

Based on the findings of this study and the conclusions drawn, the researcher forwarded the following recommendations:

For teaching and learning a foreign language, it is necessary to adopt CLIL.
To integrate language and content, CLIL balances the approach.
CLIL should be a cross-curricular approach part to learning and aims to enable learners to use their critical thinking to integrate, use, and transfer newly acquired knowledge
The integration of content and language with cognition and culture must be at the core of CLIL pedagogy to combine content and communication.
High school EFL teachers should reconsider their instruction of teaching reading by pointing out the method of providing CLIL instruction for the students to attain the requirements of improved proficiency in reading.
Students should be given clear and meaningful information regarding the location of the literacy, sufficient practice in their texts, and how to comprehend them.

Human Ethics and Consent for Participation:

Ethical issues have been approved at the College of Social Sciences and Humanities (at Jimma University) level by the due Review Board during the approval of the dissertation proposal. Furthermore, the study was conducted according to Jimma University’s Doctoral Guidelines. Still further, before data collection, the participants of the study were explicitly informed about their consent to participate in the study if they were willing and/or not to participate if they were not willing.

Aldaz, I. F. (2013). The use of stories reading in CLIL. Nafarroako Universitate Publikoa. Universidad Publica de Navarra.
Alderson, J. C. (1984). 'Reading in a foreign language: a reading problem or a language problem? 'In J.C. Alderson & A.H.Urq'(eds.), Reading in an FL. London: Longman
Brown, H., & Bradford, A. (2017). EMI, CLIL, & CBI: Differing approaches and goals. In P. Clements, Krause, & Brown (Eds.), Transformation in language education. JALT.
Chostelidoua, D., & Grivab, E. (2014). Measuring the effect of implementing CLIL in higher education: An experimental research project. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 2169–2174.
Cohen J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. New York, NY: Routledge Academic.
Coleman, James A. (2006). English-medium teaching in European Higher Education. Language Teaching, 39(1) pp. 1–14
Coyle et. al, (2010), CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Coyle, D. (2002). Relevance of CLIL to the European Commission’s Language Learning Objectives. In D. Marsh (Ed.), CLIL/EMILE- The European Dimension (pp.27–29). Jyvaskyla: University of Jyvaskyla.
Coyle, D.( 2005). CLIL planning tools for teachers. University of Nottingham
Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Creswell, J.W. (2009, 2018 (8^th Ed.). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. (3^rd Ed.). London: Sage Publications, Inc.
Coyle, Do. (2010). Foreword. In D. Lasagabaster, & Y. Ruiz de Zarobe (Eds.), CLIL in Spain: Implementation, results and teacher training (pp. vii-viii). Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Creswell, J.W. (2018 (8^th Ed.). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. (3^rd Ed.). London: Sage Publications, Inc.
Darn, S. (2006). Content and language integrated learning (CLIL): A European overview. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234652746
Georgiou, Sophie Ioannou & Wolff, (2012). Reviewing the puzzle of CLIL [Special issue, October]. ELT Journal, 66 (4), 495‒504.
Grabe, W. (2009). Reading in a second language. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Grabe and Stroller. (2013). Teaching and researching reading. New York, NY: Routledge.
Gustav Aren (1999), Envoys of the Gospel in Ethiopian; In the steps of The Evangelical Pioneers, EECMY, Verbum publication, p.59-65,
Hellekjær, G. O. (1996). A Case for Improved Reading Instruction for Academic English Reading Proficiency.
Harrop, E. (2012). Content and language integrated learning (CLIL): Limitations and possibilities. Journal of Encuentro, 21, 57- 70.
Holt, K.R. (2015). Connection of reading motivation and comprehension: Elementary school teachers’ beliefs and perceptions(Unpublished MA Thesis). University of Wisconsin. https://minds.wisconsin.edu/handle/1793/73623
Jack C. Richards and Rodger, (1999).Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching.
Jawhar, S. (2012). Conceptualizing CLIL in a Saudi context: A corpus linguistic and conversation analytic perspective. Thesis (PhD). Newcastle University: Tyne and Wear, UK.
Jenpattarakul, W. (2012). The impact of keyword technique on the student's vocabulary retention ability in an EFL class. Mediterranean Social Sciences Journal,3(3), p..565-573
Kirchner, E., & Mostert, M.L. (2017). Aspects of Reading Motivation and reading activity of Namibian primary school readers. Cogent Education, 4(1), 1-21.
Lawson, L. (2002). Scaffolding as a teaching strategy. Unpublished manuscript.
L. Cohen, L. Manion, and K. Morrison (2018).Research Methods in Education, 8^th Ed., London, and New York Routledge.
Lyster, R. (2007) Learning and Teaching Languages Through Content: A counterbalanced approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Loranc-Paszylk, B. (2009). Integrating reading and writing into the context of CLIL classroom:Some practical solutions. International CLIL Research Journal,1,47-53.
McDougald, J.S. (2018). CLIL across the curriculum: Benefits that go beyond the classroom. Latin American Journal of Content and Language Integrated Learning, 11(1), 9-18. http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2558-5178.
Marsh, D. (2012). Content and language integrated learning / CLIL/: A development trajectory. ‘Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Córdoba. Campus de Rabanales’.
Marsh, D. (2002). Content and Language Integrated Learning: The European Dimension-Actions, Trends and Foresight Potential. Retrieved from:
Moghandam, N.Z., & Fatemipour, H. (2014). The effect of CLIL on vocabulary development by Iranian secondary school EFL learners. Journal of Social and Behavioral Science 98, 2004- 2009. https:// www .sciencedirect.com
Mourssi, A., &Alkharosi, M. (2014). The benefits and challenges of implementing content and language integrated learning (CLIL) at the Higher College of technology- Sultanate of Oman. International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World, 7(4), 272-283.
McDonald, R. (1997). Normal-ogive multidimensional model. In W. J. van der Linden and R. K. Hambleton (Eds.), Handbook of modern item response theory (pp.258–269). New York: Springer.
MOE (2023) the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Ministry of Education. First Published August (2023)
Naves, T. ( n.d.). Effective content and language integrated learning (CLIL) program. In Y.R. de Zarobe &, R.M. Jimenez Catalan (Eds.), content and language integrated learning: Evidence from research in Europe (pp. 22-40). Short Run Press Ltd.
Naves, T. (2009). Effective content and language-integrated learning (CLIL) programs. Content and language integrated learning: Evidence from research in Europe, 22-40.
Pankhurst, R.J.(1976). Mikael Aragawi: Ethiopia’s first Protestant missionary. AAU press.
Papaja, Katarzyna. (2012). The impact of students’ attitude on CLIL: A study conducted in higher education.Latin American Journal of Content and Language Integrated Learning, 5(2), 28-56. doi: 10.5294/laclil.2012.5.2.10. ISSN 2011-6721.
Pengnate, W. (2013). Ways to Develop English Proficiency of Business Students: Implementation of Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) Approach.International Journal of Education and Research Vol. 1 No. 8 August 2013
Piaget, J. & Riani, (1983). Piaget's theory. P. Mussen (e.d). Handbook of Child Psychology 4th edition. Vol. 1. New York: Wiley.
Richard and Renandya, (2002). Methodology in Language Teaching, an Anthology of Current practice, Cambridge University Press, New York, Melbourne,.
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.
Sierra,(2011). Good practice and future actions on CLIL: Learning and Pedagogy, in Y. Ruiz de Zarobe, J. Sierra & F. Gallardo del Puerto (Eds.), Content and Foreign Language Integrated Learning: Contributions to Multilingualism in European Contexts (pp. 317-338). Bern: Peter Lang
Solomon Kidane. (2018). Teachers’ and students’ self-efficacy belief and attitude towards hard-CLIL in Ethiopian vocational polytechnic colleges. English Language, Literature & Culture, 3(3), 37-41.
Stroller. (2013). Teaching and researching reading. New York, NY: Routledge. University Olomouc. Faculty of Education. Department of English.
Tabachnick, B. G., and Fidell, L. S. (2007). Experimental Design Using ANOVA, Belmont, CA: Duxbury
Vázquez, V. P., & Ordonez (2018). Describing the use of the L1 in CLIL: An analysis of L1 communication strategies in classroom interaction. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 22(1), 35–48.
Wolff, D. (2003). Content and language integration learning: A framework for the development of learner autonomy. In D. Little, J. Ridley, and E. Ushioda (Eds.).
Wubalem Yitbarek. (2013). Fostering academic genre knowledge of EFL learners through content and language-integrated learning (CLIL). International Journal of Society Culture &Language,1(2), 133-144. pdf http://education.waikato.ac.nz/research/files/etpc/files/2011v10n4art7.pdf
Xanthou, M. (2011). The impact of CLIL on L2 vocabulary development and content Knowledge. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 10(4): 116-126.
Yang, W. (2014). Content and Language Integrated Learning Next in Asia: evidence of learners’ achievement in CLIL education from a Taiwan tertiary degree program. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 18(4), 3-24.
Yohannes Sisay. (2017). Effect of language-driven CLIL on upper primary school students’ critical thinking proficiency and reading comprehension achievement, in Ethiopia. The Internet Journal Language, Culture and Society. URL: http://aaref.com.au/en/publications/journal/
Zurek, O. (2012). Teaching mathematics through English Mathematics as a CLIL subject. Palacky

The authors declare no competing interests.

Download PDF

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

The Effects of Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) Instruction on Grade 11 EFL Students’ Reading Comprehension

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Introduction

Method

Research Design

Materials for Lessons

Participants

Instruments of Data Collection

Pre-and Post-Reading Comprehension Tests (RCT)

Validity

Reliability

Procedures

Method of Data Analysis

Results

Between Groups Analysis of Data from Pre-Reading Comprehension Test

Post-Test Data Analysis

Within-Group Differences

Experimental Group Pretest and Posttest

Control Group Pretest and Posttest

Discussion

Conclusions

Recommendation

Declarations

References

Additional Declarations

Status:

Version 1