Effects of content and language integrated learning at the primary school level: A multi-level meta-analysis

IF 9.6 1区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Jang Ho Lee , Hansol Lee , Yuen Yi Lo
{"title":"Effects of content and language integrated learning at the primary school level: A multi-level meta-analysis","authors":"Jang Ho Lee ,&nbsp;Hansol Lee ,&nbsp;Yuen Yi Lo","doi":"10.1016/j.edurev.2025.100666","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>This meta-analysis synthesized the effects of content and language integrated learning (CLIL)—an approach in which non-language subjects are taught in a foreign language—on primary school students. The dataset comprised 28 samples (N = 214,103) drawn from 21 (quasi-)experimental studies that evaluated either foreign language (FL) or academic content learning. A multi-level meta-analysis revealed that CLIL was significantly more effective than non-CLIL for FL learning (<em>d</em> = 0.63, SE = 0.21, <em>p</em> = .003), with particularly strong effects observed concerning improving speaking skills (<em>d</em> = 1.24, SE = 0.24, <em>p</em> &lt; .001) and smaller effects for improving other language domains (<em>d</em> = 0.48, SE = 0.18, <em>p</em> = .009). Additionally, publication year was significantly associated with the impact of CLIL on FL learning, with earlier studies reporting slightly stronger effect sizes than later ones, which demonstrated marginally weaker effects (β = −0.07, SE = 0.03, <em>p</em> = .04). In contrast, CLIL and non-CLIL approaches were comparable in terms of aiding academic content learning (<em>d</em> = −0.06, SE = 0.16, <em>p</em> = .72). Moderator analyses suggested that the observed effects of CLIL on content learning might be influenced by pre-existing differences between groups; studies with confirmed group homogeneity indicated a negative effect of CLIL on content learning (<em>d</em> = −0.22, SE = 0.13, <em>p</em> = .09), whereas studies without confirmation of group equivalence showed a positive effect (<em>d</em> = 0.31, SE = 0.22, <em>p</em> = .17).</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48125,"journal":{"name":"Educational Research Review","volume":"47 ","pages":"Article 100666"},"PeriodicalIF":9.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Educational Research Review","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1747938X2500003X","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This meta-analysis synthesized the effects of content and language integrated learning (CLIL)—an approach in which non-language subjects are taught in a foreign language—on primary school students. The dataset comprised 28 samples (N = 214,103) drawn from 21 (quasi-)experimental studies that evaluated either foreign language (FL) or academic content learning. A multi-level meta-analysis revealed that CLIL was significantly more effective than non-CLIL for FL learning (d = 0.63, SE = 0.21, p = .003), with particularly strong effects observed concerning improving speaking skills (d = 1.24, SE = 0.24, p < .001) and smaller effects for improving other language domains (d = 0.48, SE = 0.18, p = .009). Additionally, publication year was significantly associated with the impact of CLIL on FL learning, with earlier studies reporting slightly stronger effect sizes than later ones, which demonstrated marginally weaker effects (β = −0.07, SE = 0.03, p = .04). In contrast, CLIL and non-CLIL approaches were comparable in terms of aiding academic content learning (d = −0.06, SE = 0.16, p = .72). Moderator analyses suggested that the observed effects of CLIL on content learning might be influenced by pre-existing differences between groups; studies with confirmed group homogeneity indicated a negative effect of CLIL on content learning (d = −0.22, SE = 0.13, p = .09), whereas studies without confirmation of group equivalence showed a positive effect (d = 0.31, SE = 0.22, p = .17).
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Educational Research Review
Educational Research Review EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
19.40
自引率
0.90%
发文量
53
审稿时长
57 days
期刊介绍: Educational Research Review is an international journal catering to researchers and diverse agencies keen on reviewing studies and theoretical papers in education at any level. The journal welcomes high-quality articles that address educational research problems through a review approach, encompassing thematic or methodological reviews and meta-analyses. With an inclusive scope, the journal does not limit itself to any specific age range and invites articles across various settings where learning and education take place, such as schools, corporate training, and both formal and informal educational environments.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信