Exploring the Relationship between CLIL and L1 Ability in Finland : Analyzing Written and Oral Production

This is a self-archived version of an original article. This version may differ from the original in pagination and typographic details. Author(s): Title: Year: Version: Copyright: Rights: Rights url: Please cite the original version: CC BY 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Exploring the Relationship between CLIL and L1 Ability in Finland : Analyzing Written and Oral Production © 2024 the Authors Published version Launonen, Peter; Roiha, Anssi; Maijala, Minna Launonen, P., Roiha, A., & Maijala, M. (2022). Exploring the Relationship between CLIL and L1 Ability in Finland : Analyzing Written and Oral Production. Latin American Journal of Content and Language Integrated Learning, 15(2), Article e1528. https://doi.org/10.5294/laclil.2022.15.2.8 2022 1 LACLIL e-ISSN: 2322-9721 VOL. 15, No. 2, JULIO-DICIEMBRE 2022 DOI: 10.5294/laclil.2022.15.2.8 e1528 Received: 03/06/2023 Sent to peer review: 10/06/2023 Accepted by peers: 11/04/2024 Approved: 02/05/2024 DOI: 10.5294/laclil.2022.15.2.8 To reference this article (APA) / Para citar este artículo (APA) / Para citar este artigo (APA) Launonen, P., Roiha, A. & Maijala, M. (2024). Exploring the relationship between CLIL and L1 ability in Finland: Analyzing written and oral production. Latin American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning, 15(2), e1528. https://doi.org/10.5294/laclil.2022.15.2.8 Exploring the Relationship between CLIL and L1 Ability in Finland: Analyzing Written and Oral Production Exploración de la relación entre CLIL y la habilidad en L1 en Finlandia: análisis de la producción oral y escrita Peter Launonen https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7435-7163 University of Turku, Finland [email protected] Anssi Roiha https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1640-1514 University of Jyväskylä, Finland [email protected] Minna Maijala https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3532-9813 University of Turku, Finland [email protected] 2 Exploring the Relationship between CLIL and L1 Ability in Finland: Analyzing Written and Oral Production UNIVERSIDAD DE LA SABANA EDUCATION FACULTY ABSTRACT. This study explores the relationship between CLIL and L1 ability in a Finnish secondary education context. The study is based on the analysis of L1 written and oral productions of four ninth-grade students (2 CLIL and 2 non-CLIL). Written production was evaluated through a short essay task, while oral production was assessed via a verbal fluency task and a picture naming task. In the written task, students responded to a question related to a topic previously covered in their curriculum. In the verbal fluency task, participants were given 60 seconds to produce as many words as they could beginning with a given letter. In the picture naming task, participants were asked to name 12 pictures that were shown on a screen. The results were analyzed and discussed regarding not only participants’ linguistic backgrounds but also their self-assessed language abilities in English and Finnish. In two of the tasks, the CLIL students performed worse than the nonCLIL students in their L1; however, no clear pattern emerged in the third task. The study sheds light on the relationship between CLIL and L1 ability in the context of a discussion about the benefits and linguistic costs associated with bilingualism. The results highlight the importance of accounting for the impact of socioeconomic status and other L2 exposure in future studies in this area. In addition, the authors contend this is an area of research that merits additional attention given the present and future scope of bilingual education globally. Keywords: Bilingual education; written production; oral production; Finnish educational context; CLIL; content and language integrated learning; first language; linguistic assessment; verbal fluency; picture naming task; self-assessment of language abilities; socioeconomic status; L2 exposure. RESUMEN. Este estudio explora la relación entre CLIL y la habilidad de L1 en un contexto de enseñanza secundaria de Finladia. Se basa en el análisis de las producciones escritas y orales en L1 de cuatro estudiantes de grado noveno (2 en ambiente CLIL y 2 en ambiente no-CLIL). La producción escrita se evaluó mediante una tarea de redacción breve, mientras que la producción oral se evaluó mediante una fluidez verbal y otra de denominación de imágenes. En la tarea escrita, los estudiantes respondían a una pregunta relacionada con un tema tratado previamente en su plan de estudios. En la tarea de fluidez verbal, los participantes disponían de 60 segundos para producir tantas palabras como pudieran que empezaran por una letra determinada. En la tarea de nombrar imágenes, se pidió a los participantes nombrar 12 imágenes que se mostraban en una pantalla. Los resultados se analizaron y debatieron en relación no solo con los antecedentes lingüísticos de los participantes, sino con sus capacidades lingüísticas autoevaluadas en inglés y finés. En dos de las tareas, los estudiantes de CLIL obtuvieron peores resultados en su L1 que los que no lo eran; sin embargo, en la tercera tarea no se observó ningún patrón claro. El estudio arroja luz sobre la relación entre el CLIL y la capacidad en la L1 en el contexto de un debate sobre los beneficios y costos lingüísticos asociados al bilingüismo. Los resultados subrayan la importancia de tener en cuenta el impacto del estatus socioeconómico y otros tipos de exposición a la L2 en futuros estudios en este ámbito. Además, los autores sostienen que se trata de un área de investigación que merece atención adicional dado el alcance presente y futuro de la educación bilingüe a nivel mundial. Palabras clave: Educación bilingüe; producción escrita; producción oral; contexto educativo finlandés; CLIL; aprendizaje integrado de contenidos y lenguas extranjeras; lengua materna; evaluación lingüística; fluidez verbal; tarea de nombrar imágenes; autoevaluación de habilidades lingüísticas; estatus socioeconómico; exposición a L2. 3 Peter Launonen, Anssi Roiha, Minna Maijala LACLIL e-ISSN: 2322-9721 VOL. 15, No. 2, JULIO-DICIEMBRE 2022 DOI: 10.5294/laclil.2022.15.2.8 e1528 Introduction Content and language integrated learning (CLIL) is a pedagogical approach in which a foreign language is used to teach other subject matters (i.e., content), while also focusing on the development of language ability (Dalton-Puffer, 2011). Although the term CLIL emerged as a label for language and content education in Europe (Nikula & Mård-Miettinen, 2014), it has since been adopted not only in Asia and Oceania (Sylvén, 2019) but also in South America (Banegas, 2019). In particular, the approach has been utilized in the context of bilingual education systems, where its implementation is not expected to negatively impact students’ development of their first language (L1). Much emphasis in research has been placed on the results of CLIL in terms of its effectiveness as an approach for teaching an L2 (e.g., Dalton-Puffer, 2011; Pérez Cañado, 2012). However, limited research has been conducted on the possible effect this considerable emphasis on L2 could have on L1 ability. This is particularly relevant in educational contexts in which core subjects (e.g., science, geography, and history) are taught largely or entirely in the L2 because it is unknown whether students will receive the required amount of content-specific linguistic exposure to allow for the full development of their L1. So far, researchers investigating the impact of CLIL on L1 have found there to be either no significant difference (e.g., Anghel, Cabrales & Carro, 2015; Ohlsson, 2021), a stronger L1 among CLIL students (e.g., Pavón Vásquez, 2018) or a weaker L1 among CLIL students (e.g., Holmberg, 2019). There have also been studies in highly comparable contexts with contrasting results. For instance, while Lim Falk (2019) found L1 Swedish academic vocabulary of students in a strong implementation of CLIL (i.e., most of the instruction was in the L2) was less developed than that of students in both a weaker implementation (i.e., approximately 50% of instruction in the L2) and a non-CLIL group, Ohlsson (2021), in studies also conducted in Sweden, found no substantial differences between groups regardless of the type of CLIL implementation. Such variation in results is reflective of the impact of numerous different variables, including the amount of CLIL teaching, the pedagogical practices utilized, such as strategies employed by teachers 4 Exploring the Relationship between CLIL and L1 Ability in Finland: Analyzing Written and Oral Production UNIVERSIDAD DE LA SABANA EDUCATION FACULTY (Metlí & Akıs, 2022) and individual differences among students. Additionally, several studies (e.g., Cenoz et al., 2014; Pérez Cañado, 2018; San Isidro & Lasagabaster, 2019) have emphasized the clear lack of research conducted on this phenomenon. Therefore, this study aims to examine the relationship between CLIL and L1 to provide greater insight into the effects of CLIL on students’ L1 abilities. Specifically, this small-scale case study is guided by the following research questions: How do CLIL and non-CLIL students differ in terms of: a. overall L1 writing performance? b. L1 oral production? In this article, we first cover the relevant theory related to the phenomenon that is being examined in this study. Second, we describe the context and participants, the data collection process and the research methods chosen, after which the limitations are considered. Then we present and discuss the results in the context of the participants’ linguistic backgrounds and other variables, and, finally, the implications of the study are summarized. Literature Review and Theoretical Background Language Learning Approaches Related to CLIL Although CLIL has often been considered distinct from immersion (Lasagabaster & Sierra, 2010; Nikula & Mård-Miettinen, 2014), the two approaches, along with content-based instruction (CBI) and English as a medium of instruction (EMI) share many similarities (Brown & Bradford, 2017; Cenoz, 2015). For instance, they all emphasize the need for considerable input, output, and interaction for language acquisition to occur. Given their similarities and their role in the language learning process of their participants, such pedagogical approaches can all be considered implementations of bilingual (or multilingual) education (Dalton-Puffer et al., 2014). As a pedagogical approach, CLIL certainly belongs in this category and the CLIL context studied in the present paper is reflective of bilingual education specifically. When it comes to the aim of learning a language, bilingual education stands in contrast to alternative pedagogical approaches, such 5 Peter Launonen, Anssi Roiha, Minna Maijala LACLIL e-ISSN: 2322-9721 VOL. 15, No. 2, JULIO-DICIEMBRE 2022 DOI: 10.5294/laclil.2022.15.2.8 e1528 as task-based learning (TBL), grammar translation (GT), and communicative language teaching (CLT) to name a few. While CLIL may reflect some aspects of TBL and CLT (e.g., one of the 4 Cs in CLIL is communication), the aforementioned approaches are generally associated with teaching English as a foreign language (EFL), a second language (ESL) or an additional language (EAL)—that is, they are generally considered distinct from bilingual education, particularly a dual-focused approach such as CLIL where content is taught via, for example, English. In the context of this study, this is relevant as the English instruction of non-CLIL students in mainstream education is limited to their scheduled English language classes, which utilize one or several of the above-mentioned approaches, whereas CLIL students have both CLIL and English language classes in their schedules. CLIL, L1 and the Bilingual Cost First language ability can be affected by various factors at different stages of a learner’s development. Children acquire their first language from their surrounding environment, which includes the input from, for example, their parents (Ambridge & Wagner, 2021; Morgenstern, 2014). The frequency and extent of the input, among other factors, contribute to language development taking place (Morgenstern, 2014). Another variable that has been shown to correlate positively with the development of L1 is socioeconomic status (SES; Fernald et al., 2013; Huttenlocher et al., 2010). After the initial acquisition has taken place, continued learning occurs both formally (e.g., at school, university, and work) and informally (e.g., via social interactions), allowing individuals to continue to develop their linguistic knowledge and skills. The matter is somewhat more complicated in the case of multilinguals, as they receive comparatively less exposure to each language than their monolingual peers. Despite this discrepancy in input and output, being multilingual may lead to certain cognitive advantages and a different language learning experience altogether (Bialystok, 2001). However, there is a lack of research on the possible impact that participation in a bilingual education program such as CLIL could have 6 Exploring the Relationship between CLIL and L1 Ability in Finland: Analyzing Written and Oral Production UNIVERSIDAD DE LA SABANA EDUCATION FACULTY on L1 ability (Dalton-Puffer, 2011; Pérez Cañado, 2018), as the approach aims to ensure that L2 ability develops concurrently with content learning (Coyle et al., 2010), along with the implicit assumption that L1 acquisition will not be hindered. Concerns about the impact of CLIL on L1 ability are not a new phenomenon; both Airey (2004) and Garcia (2013) alluded to the potential risk of delivering national education curricula through CLIL in terms of the possible adverse effects on L1 ability. Those sentiments were echoed by Dalton-Puffer (2011), who emphasized that this topic should form part of the research agenda in CLIL. In various studies in Europe, CLIL has been found to have no negative effect on students’ L1. For instance, Seikkula-Leino (2007) found that CLIL students in Finland were not disadvantaged in terms of L1 ability (writing ability and overall performance as per grades), a finding consistent with results from studies in other contexts focusing on CLIL and L1 conducted around the same time (Admiraal et al., 2006; Merisuo-Storm, 2007; Serra, 2007), as well as with later studies (Anghel et al., 2015; Pérez Cañado, 2018). In addition, Merino and Lasagabaster (2018) found no significant difference in L1 writing between CLIL and non-CLIL students in a multilingual setting where English is incorporated in addition to Spanish and Basque. On the other hand, the effect of CLIL on students’ L1 has also been found to be either positive (Navarro-Pablo & López Gándara, 2020; San Isidro & Lasagabaster, 2019) or negative (Lim Falk, 2019; Holmberg, 2019) in contexts that differ in terms of the type of CLIL implementation and the skills or language systems being measured, as well as the inclusion of certain variables, such as setting and SES, in the data analysis. The emergence of such variation may not be surprising given that CLIL is implemented in many different contexts (e.g., English as a foreign language, English as a lingua franca, or English as a third language), for different purposes (e.g., to learn a language other than English), and to various degrees (i.e., the percentage of instruction in the L2 or as part of a multilingual program). As discussed by Pérez Cañado (2018), one of the key variables identified as affecting L1 level in CLIL students is SES. This was also alluded to by Merisuo-Storm (2007), who referred to the impact of entrance procedures and participants’ family backgrounds, as well as by Bruton (2011), who expressed concern about possible selection bias in CLIL programs. Other factors that have been evaluated in related studies 7 Peter Launonen, Anssi Roiha, Minna Maijala LACLIL e-ISSN: 2322-9721 VOL. 15, No. 2, JULIO-DICIEMBRE 2022 DOI: 10.5294/laclil.2022.15.2.8 e1528 include the amount of instruction in the L2 (Holmberg, 2019; Lim Falk, 2019; Seikkula-Leino, 2007), whether there was a rural or urban setting (Pavón Vásquez, 2018), and homogeneity in terms of variables such as verbal intelligence and motivation (e.g., Navarro-Pablo & López Gándara, 2020). Given that CLIL is a form of bilingual education in which students learn via an L2, it is worth considering research in bilingualism regarding the interaction between L1 and L2, particularly insofar as the effects on the L1 are concerned. Firstly, it is important to note that bilingualism has previously been associated with various benefits, such as cognitive and linguistic advantages (Bialystok et al., 2012), greater interference control when listening (Filippini et al., 2015) and, for instance, delaying the onset of dementia in older bilinguals (Alladi et al., 2013). Despite the clear positive benefits of bilingualism, it is also relevant to assess whether there are any adverse linguistic costs associated with participating in CLIL, as this is a phenomenon that has been found to exist in bilinguals generally. Such a bilingual cost (Faroqi-Shah et al., 2021) can materialize in various ways, such as bilinguals knowing fewer lowfrequency words and having slower access to them (Gollan et al., 2005) and, for example, L1 attrition in cases where there has been prolonged intense L2 exposure in conjunction with a diminished level of L1 use (Cook, 2018; Schmid, 2007). In addition, bilinguals have been found to have smaller vocabularies, perform worse on picture-naming activities, and have more tip-of-the-tongue phenomena than nonbilinguals (Wauters & Marquart, 2018). In the literature on bilingualism (e.g., Baus et al., 2013; Ghoreishi et al., 2014; Schmid & Köpke, 2009), two areas in particular in which the bilingual cost has been studied are lexical retrieval and access, which have commonly been assessed via a verbal fluency task (VFT) or a picture naming task (PNT). For instance, Baus et al. (2013) used a PNT together with a VFT in a second-language immersion context to investigate the bilingual cost on L1 ability. In that study, the PNT results suggested there was a decrease in the “availability of L1 lexical representation associated with L2 immersion” (Baus et al., 2013, p. 406). To sum up, CLIL is distinct from many other approaches to language teaching in that it integrates teaching other subjects with the L2 by having learning outcomes related both to the subject and the L2 8 Exploring the Relationship between CLIL and L1 Ability in Finland: Analyzing Written and Oral Production UNIVERSIDAD DE LA SABANA EDUCATION FACULTY itself. This approach is considered a form of bilingual education because it also aims to ensure students’ L1 learning is not adversely affected. While the advantages of bilingualism have already been established in the literature, it is also worth considering the disadvantages such as the possible adverse effects on L1. In CLIL research, this phenomenon has been studied to a limited extent, and no clear conclusions have yet emerged, with variation existing even in studies conducted in comparable contexts. Data and Methods Context This study is focused on a CLIL context in Finland. CLIL teaching in Finland began on a large scale in 1991 with the amendment of the Basic Education Act, when the languages of instruction in schools were no longer defined by law. The popularity of CLIL has varied somewhat over the years in Finland. In 1996, about 10% of comprehensive schools were implementing CLIL (Nikula & Marsh, 1996) whereas, in 2005, the number had dropped to around 5% (Lehti et al., 2006). In 2017, 41 municipalities were offering CLIL, which corresponds to about 13% of the municipalities in Finland (Peltoniemi et al., 2018). It can therefore be said that CLIL is well established as a form of teaching in the country. Most CLIL teaching in Finland takes place in pre-primary or primary education, is small-scale (less than 25% of all teaching) and is delivered in English (Peltoniemi et al., 2018). In contrast, CLIL teaching, and consequently the related research, in languages other than English is rather scarce in Finland (e.g., Varis & Roiha, 2023). The Finnish National Core Curriculum for Basic Education (2014) provides a good framework for CLIL teaching, although it uses the generic term bilingual education. The curriculum divides it into large-scale (i.e., at least 25% of all teaching) and small-scale (i.e., less than 25% of all teaching) bilingual education. The curriculum does not define the language objectives of CLIL but leaves them to the education provider (i.e., in most cases the municipality). Furthermore, the curriculum does not take a position on the language of CLIL teaching, which 15 Peter Launonen, Anssi Roiha, Minna Maijala LACLIL e-ISSN: 2322-9721 VOL. 15, No. 2, JULIO-DICIEMBRE 2022 DOI: 10.5294/laclil.2022.15.2.8 e1528 Figure 1. Results of the Verbal Fluency Task Regarding the VFT in English, it is unlikely that Jenni, a non-CLIL student with no previous time spent in English-speaking environments, would actually have a larger L2 vocabulary or better lexical access and retrieval than either Milja or Jari, both of whom are CLIL students and have previously spent time living in English-speaking environments. In addition, the CLIL students had higher selfevaluations of their English than the non-CLIL students. Therefore, it is possible that Jenni was, perhaps by chance, more familiar with this kind of task, given that she also excelled in the Finnish version. On the other hand, it is unsurprising that Sanna performed worse than Milja and Jari, given that she is a non-CLIL student and had less exposure to English overall. Concerning the two CLIL students, it is interesting that Jari performed worse than Milja in English despite his considerably longer time spent in English-speaking environments. In terms of the results in Finnish, it is certainly surprising that Jenni outperformed all students by such a considerable margin, even though her self-evaluation of Finnish was lower than that of the other three participants (see “I am good at Finnish” in Appendix C). As with her English result, part of this discrepancy could be attributed to her possibly having a better grasp of the requirements of the task itself, but with a discrepancy of such a magnitude, it is worth considering the possible 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Sanna (non-CLIL) Jenni (non-CLIL) Milja (CLIL) Jari (CLIL) FIN ENG 16 Exploring the Relationship between CLIL and L1 Ability in Finland: Analyzing Written and Oral Production UNIVERSIDAD DE LA SABANA EDUCATION FACULTY influence of other factors, such as CLIL participation (i.e., the focus of this study) and, for example, SES, which, as mentioned earlier, can be measured by parents’ educational attainment. Jenni’s parents were both university-educated (bachelor’s level), whereas the parents of the other non-CLIL student (Sanna) were only educated to a high school level. The parents of Jari (a CLIL student) were educated to a compulsory education and high school level, respectively, while the parents of the other CLIL student (Milja) were educated to a master’s level. The fact that differences in L1 ability would reflect differences in SES is unsurprising when considered in light of previous research (Anghel et al., 2015; Pérez Cañado, 2018). One factor that may contribute to Jari’s weaker performance in the Finnish VFT compared to Milja is the considerable differences in the educational attainment of their parents, in addition to the differences in time spent away from Finnish-speaking environments. Moreover, Jenni’s performance in the L1 VFT compared with the other non-CLIL student as well as the CLIL students is suggestive of the importance of SES in the discussion about CLIL participation and L1 ability. This variable was not considered, for example, in a related study by Navarro-Pablo and López Gándara (2020), who ultimately found CLIL students to outperform non-CLIL students in their L1. This suggests that studies concerned with the relationship between CLIL and L1 should strive to account for the impact of SES before drawing conclusions about the impact of CLIL. Picture Naming Task The total quantities of responses produced in the PNT according to the three alternatives given to participants are depicted in Table 3. Jari produced the fewest valid responses in the Finnish task, whereas Milja produced more responses than Jari but fewer than both of the non-CLIL students. In the English version, Jari’s performance was clearly the strongest. 17 Peter Launonen, Anssi Roiha, Minna Maijala LACLIL e-ISSN: 2322-9721 VOL. 15, No. 2, JULIO-DICIEMBRE 2022 DOI: 10.5294/laclil.2022.15.2.8 e1528 Table 3. PNT Response Totals Pseudonym Valid Response Did Not Know (or Invalid Response) Did Not Remember FIN ENG FIN ENG FIN ENG Jenni (non-CLIL) 9 5 3 6 0 1 Sanna (non-CLIL) 903933 Milja (CLIL) 7 4 1 1 4 7 Jari (CLIL) 3 10 4 2 5 0 In the English PNT, it is interesting that Jari had the most valid responses despite his weaker performance in the English VFT relative to Milja and Jenni. This result is consistent with Jari’s very strong selfevaluation of his English knowledge and skills. Sanna had the weakest performance in the PNT with zero valid responses. Her performance comprised three instances of not remembering and nine instances of not knowing, meaning that she did not attempt any responses in this section. Her result is consistent with her self-evaluation statements about her English, her performance in the English-language VFT, and her parents’ educational attainment combined with being a non-CLIL student. However, in the Finnish PNT, it is also noteworthy that Sanna (along with Jenni) had the highest number of valid responses despite her performance in the VFT being weaker than that of all other participants. This suggests that the VFT and the PNT may not be affected in the same way by all the same variables, such as SES, CLIL participation, and, for example, previous L2 exposure. In this task, both CLIL students performed worse than the non-CLIL students, with Milja producing seven valid responses and Jari producing three. Jari, in particular, stands out as performing worse in this task than the other participants, despite his strong self-evaluation of his Finnish knowledge and skills in most criteria, except when compared with classmates (see the last statement in Appendix C). In addition, the CLIL students were unable to remember a term in Finnish more times than the non-CLIL students, whereas one of the CLIL students (Milja) had the highest number of instances of this 18 Exploring the Relationship between CLIL and L1 Ability in Finland: Analyzing Written and Oral Production UNIVERSIDAD DE LA SABANA EDUCATION FACULTY occurring in English, as well. This is consistent with previous studies suggesting that bilinguals are prone to more tip-of-the-tongue phenomena than non-bilinguals (Gollan et al., 2005). All in all, it is clear the non-CLIL students outperformed the CLIL students in the L1 PNT, given the number of valid responses produced by participants from each group. Essay Task Participants completed the writing task to varying levels of depth, as can be observed from the word counts of participants’ texts and the time spent on each task, both of which are depicted in Table 4. The final results of the evaluations are displayed in Table 5 and Table 6. Milja, a CLIL student, had the strongest performance in English, whereas Sanna, a non-CLIL student, had the strongest performance in Finnish. Jari, a CLIL student, had the weakest performance of all participants in the Finnish version of the task, whereas Sanna had the weakest perfor mance in the English version of the task. Both non-CLIL students performed better than both CLIL students in the Finnish version of the task. Table 4. Word Count and Time Spent on Writing Task Pseudonym Word count Time spent (minutes) FIN ENG FIN ENG Jenni 211 157 20 20 Sanna 156 194 18 20 Milja 157 194 14 10 Jari 79 138 13 13 Table 5. Evaluations of Essays in English ENGLISH Sanna (non-CLIL) Jenni (non-CLIL) Milja (CLIL) Jari (CLIL) ALL Assessor 1 73 75 82 72 75.5 Assessor 2 71 70 84 72 74.25 Assessor 3 68 77 86 78 77.25 Average 70.67 74 84 74 75.67 19 Peter Launonen, Anssi Roiha, Minna Maijala LACLIL e-ISSN: 2322-9721 VOL. 15, No. 2, JULIO-DICIEMBRE 2022 DOI: 10.5294/laclil.2022.15.2.8 e1528 Table 6. Evaluations of Essays in Finnish FINNISH Sanna (non-CLIL) Jenni (non-CLIL) Milja (CLIL) Jari (CLIL) ALL Assessor 1 87 81 70 66 76 Assessor 2 80 77 72 64 73.25 Assessor 3 90 82 75 71 79.5 Average 85.67 80 72.33 67 76.25 The results of the English version of the essay task are somewhat more surprising than those of the Finnish version of the task. While it is no surprise that Milja, a CLIL student, performed well in English, it is somewhat surprising that Jari, the other CLIL student, did not outperform both non-CLIL students in English. It should be noted that Jari only spent 13 minutes completing the task; his word count was the lowest of all participants, which means he could have probably scored higher had he applied himself and used the time and word count allowances afforded. It is also interesting to note that Milja, having spent only ten minutes on the task, produced the text with the highest score and the equal highest word count together with Sanna, who spent the full twenty minutes. This may indicate the cognitive advantages related to bilingualism (Bialystok et al., 2012) alluded to earlier. In the Finnish version, the CLIL students performed worse than the non-CLIL students overall. The average score for the two CLIL students was 69.67, whereas for the non-CLIL students it was 82.83. Again, Jari spent only ten minutes on the task and produced the fewest words in total, which could indicate a lack of motivation or a sense of challenge with the task. Similarly, Milja only spent 14 minutes on the task and produced the same number of words as Sanna, who spent 18 minutes and obtained the highest score. Although it is not entirely surprising that the non-CLIL students outperformed the CLIL students in this task, it is interesting to note that in this case the highest result was obtained by the non-CLIL student whose parents were only educated to a high-school level, which casts doubt on the impact of SES on the results of this task. 20 Exploring the Relationship between CLIL and L1 Ability in Finland: Analyzing Written and Oral Production UNIVERSIDAD DE LA SABANA EDUCATION FACULTY Discussion and Conclusions The data provide insight into these participants’ abilities as well as the impact that various variables may have had on participants’ performance in the VFT, the PNT, and the short essay. Although a non-CLIL student had the strongest performance in the L1 VFT, the results for that task do not provide any clear pattern related to CLIL participation, particularly given that the weakest performance in the L1 VFT was also by a non-CLIL student. It is, however, suggestive of the role of SES in language acquisition, given that the two weakest performers are those whose parents had the lowest educational attainment. In the results of the L1 PNT and the L1 essay task, the differences between the CLIL and non-CLIL students became apparent, with both non-CLIL students outperforming the CLIL students in both tasks. Milja’s results were considerably stronger than Jari’s, despite her results still being lower than those of the non-CLIL students. This is suggestive of the possible impact that SES may have had on Jari’s results, as mentioned earlier. At this stage, it is also worth considering the impact that Jari’s 4.5 years spent living in an English-speaking environment may have had on the development of his L1 Finnish skills. In addition, the role that CLIL participation may have played cannot be ignored. Ultimately, having such extensive exposure to English, whether via CLIL or as a result of immersion in a country where English was spoken, means that the exposure to Finnish was probably limited in comparison to what other participants had, which may have affected L1 acquisition and the development of corresponding skills in the L1. Moreover, given Jari’s relatively strong self-evaluations of his L1 Finnish, it can be said that either he is unaware of the relative level of his L1 knowledge and skills or that he is not disadvantaged by any shortfall in this area, resulting in his own L1 confidence not being affected, except when self-assessing his performance in classes taught in Finnish and when comparing himself to his peers (see Appendix C). Although it is not the focus of this paper, it is worth mentioning that such multilingual students may engage in pedagogical translanguaging, particularly in the classroom, to communicate successfully by utilizing all their resources regardless of what language they 21 Peter Launonen, Anssi Roiha, Minna Maijala LACLIL e-ISSN: 2322-9721 VOL. 15, No. 2, JULIO-DICIEMBRE 2022 DOI: 10.5294/laclil.2022.15.2.8 e1528 acquired them in (García, 2009; Cenoz & Gorter, 2015). Therefore, if there is deemed to be a relative deficiency in a given language, it may not negatively affect their ability to communicate or their confidence in their ability to do so. This is a point that should be considered when discussing possible difficulties that bilingual or multilingual students appear to face. This study has aimed to shed light on the impact of CLIL participation on L1 ability in written and oral production. In two of the three tasks (one oral and one written), the CLIL students performed worse than the non-CLIL students, whereas the results from the third task (the VFT) did not produce a similar pattern. The results from this study should be considered in the context of other variables in addition to CLIL participation, such as time spent living in an English-speaking environment and SES. Indeed, SES appeared to have an impact on several results in this study, which is worth accounting for in related studies focusing on this phenomenon in the future, given that it has been shown to play a role in language acquisition. Regarding the linguistic costs associated with bilingualism, it is important to consider the impact that extramural exposure, living in a location where a given language is spoken, and participation in a program such as CLIL can have on L1 ability. Although a bilingual cost may emerge in a given dataset, the extent to which this can be attributed to CLIL and not to other sources of exposure (i.e., other causes of bilingualism) should be assessed carefully. Nevertheless, given that linguistic costs of bilingualism have been identified in numerous studies, it would seem unreasonable to rule out the potential impact of CLIL on L1 ability without considering its contribution to the bilingualism of its participants. Ultimately, this is an area of research that merits further attention, given the scope of CLIL implementations around the world. As an objective, one approach could be for researchers to seek to determine the optimal amount of CLIL (or equivalent L2 exposure) that would create the conditions for the benefiting the emergence of bilingualism without increasing the risk of any linguistic costs of bilingualism developing concurrently. Naturally, the precise amount of CLIL would vary somewhat depending on the learner, particularly in cases where there has previously been extensive L2 exposure. That said, greater 22 Exploring the Relationship between CLIL and L1 Ability in Finland: Analyzing Written and Oral Production UNIVERSIDAD DE LA SABANA EDUCATION FACULTY awareness of this phenomenon may help teachers meet learners’ needs more effectively and be able to provide more detailed information to parents where needed. References Admiraal, W., Westhoff, G., & de Bot, K. (2006). Evaluation of bilingual secondary education in the Netherlands: Students’ language proficiency in English. Educational Research and Evaluation. 12(1), 75-93. https:// doi.org/10.1080/13803610500392160 Airey, J. (2004). Can you teach it in English? Aspects of the language choice debate in Swedish higher education. In R. Wilkinson (Ed.), Integrating content and Language: Meeting the challenge of a multilingual higher education (pp. 97-109). Maastricht University Press. Alladi, S., Bak, T. H., Duggirala, V., Surampudi, B., Shailaja, M., Shukla, A. K., Chaudhuri, J. R., & Kaul, S. (2013). Bilingualism delays age at onset of dementia, independent of education and immigration status. Neurology, 81(22), 1938-1944. https://doi.org/10.1212/01. wnl.0000436620.33155.a4 Ambridge, B., & Wagner, L. (2021). Testable theories of core first language acquisition. Journal of Child Language, 48(5), 859-861. https://doi. org/10.1017/S0305000921000581 Anghel, B., Cabrales, A., & Carro, J. M. (2015). Evaluating a bilingual education program in Spain: The impact beyond foreign language learning. Economic Inquiry, 54(2), 1202-1223. https://doi.org./10.1111/ ecin.12305 Banegas, D. L. (2019). Teacher professional development in languagedriven CLIL: A case study. Latin American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning, 12(2), 242-264. https://doi.org/10.5294/laclil.2019.12.2.3 Baus, C., Costa, A., & Carreiras, M. (2013). On the effects of second language immersion on first language production. Acta Psychologica, 142(3), 402-409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2013.01.010 Bialystok, E. (2001). Bilingualism in development: Language, literacy, and cognition. Cambridge University Press. 23 Peter Launonen, Anssi Roiha, Minna Maijala LACLIL e-ISSN: 2322-9721 VOL. 15, No. 2, JULIO-DICIEMBRE 2022 DOI: 10.5294/laclil.2022.15.2.8 e1528 Bialystok, E., Craik, F. I. ., & Luk, G. (2012). Bilingualism: Consequences for mind and brain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16(4), 240-250. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2012.03.001 Brickman, A., Paul, R., Cohen, R., Williams, L., Macgregor, K., Jefferson, A., et al. (2005). Category and letter verbal fluency across the adult lifespan: Relationship to EEG theta power. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 20, 561-573. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acn.2004.12.006 Brown, H., & Bradford, A. (2017). EMI, CLIL, & CBI: Differing approaches and goals. In P. Clements, A. Krause, & H. Brown (Eds.), Transformation in language education. JALT. Bruton, A. (2011). Is CLIL so beneficial, or just selective? Re-evaluating some of the research. System, 39(4), 523-532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2011.08.002 Cenoz, J., Genesee, F., & Gorter, D. (2014) Critical analysis of CLIL: Taking stock and looking forward. Applied Linguistics, 35(3), 243-262, https:// doi.org/10.1093/applin/amt011 Cenoz, J. (2015). Content-based instruction and content and language integrated learning: The same or different? Language, Culture, and Curriculum, 28(1), 8-24. https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2014.1000922 Cenoz, J. & Gorter, D. (2020). Teaching English through pedagogical translanguaging. World Englishes, 39, 300-311. https://doi.org/10.1111/ weng.12462 Cook, V. (2018). Introduction: The changing L1 in the L2 user’s mind. In Author, Effects of the Second Language on the First (pp. 1-18). Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781853596346-003 Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge University Press. Dalton-Puffer, C. (2011). Content-and-language integrated learning: From practice to principles? Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 182-204. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190511000092 Dalton-Puffer, C., Llinares, A., Lorenzo, F., & Nikula, T. (2014). “You can stand under my umbrella”: Immersion, CLIL and bilingual education. A response to Cenoz, Genesee & Gorter (2013). Applied Linguistics, 35(2), 213-218. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amu010 Faroqi-Shah, Y., Kevas, Y., & Li, R. (2021). Lexical category differences in bilingual picture naming: Implications for models of lexical representation. Bilingualism (Cambridge, England), 24(5), 849-863. https:// doi.org/10.1017/S1366728921000213 24 Exploring the Relationship between CLIL and L1 Ability in Finland: Analyzing Written and Oral Production UNIVERSIDAD DE LA SABANA EDUCATION FACULTY Fernald, A., Marchman, V. A., & Weisleder, A. (2013). SES differences in language processing skill and vocabulary are evident at 18 months. Developmental Science, 16(2), 234-248. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12019 Filippi, R., Morris, J., Richardson, F. M., Bright, P., Thomas, M. S. C., Karmiloff-Smith, A., & Marian, V. (2015). Bilingual children show an advantage in controlling verbal interference during spoken language comprehension. Bilingualism (Cambridge, England), 18(3), 490-501. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728914000686 Finnish National Agency for Education. (2014). National core curriculum for basic education 2014. Finnish National Agency for Education. Garcia, V. C. (2013). Una propuesta para la integración curricular de las áreas de lengua Castellana e inglés en el currículo de enseñanza bilingüe para la ESO. Contextos Educativos Revista de Educación, 11, 181-223. https://doi.org/10.18172/con.602 García, O. (2009). Education, multilingualism and translanguaging in the 21st century. In T. Skutnabb-Kangas, R. Phillipson , A. K. Mohanty, & M. Panda (Eds.), Social Justice Through Multilingual Education (pp. 140-158). Multilingual Matters. https://doi. org/10.21832/9781847691910-011 Ghoreishi, Z. S., Azimian, M., Banaraki, A. K., Rafiee, S. M., Rad, J. A., Salavati, M., Tahmaseb Zade, F., Sedigh, Z., Pishevar, S., & Sabet, V. M. (2014). Lexical access in Persian normal speakers: Picture naming, verbal fluency and spontaneous speech. Iranian Rehabilitation Journal, 12(20), 16-20. https://sid.ir/paper/325329/en Gollan, T., Montoya, R. I., Fennema-Notestine, C., & Morris, S. K. (2005). Bilingualism affects picture naming but not picture classification. Memory & Cognition, 33(7), 1220-1234. https://doi.org/10.3758/ BF03193224 Holmberg, P. (2019). The development of academic vocabulary in Swedish. In L. Sylvén (Ed.), Investigating content and language integrated learning: Insights from Swedish high schools (pp. 173-186). Multilingual Matters. Huttenlocher, J., Waterfall, H., Vasilyeva, M., Vevea, J., & Hedges, L. V. (2010). Sources of variability in children’s language growth. Cogni tive Psychology, 61(4), 343-365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2010.08.002 Jacobs, H. L., S. A. Zingraf, D. R. Wormuth, V. F. Hartfiel, and J. B. Hughey. (1981). Testing ESL composition: A practical approach. Newbury House.