See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at:

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/269289098

Vocabulary growth in young CLIL

and traditional EFL learners:
Evidence from research and
implications for education

ARTICLE in INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF APPLIED LINGUISTICS · JANUARY 2015

DOI: 10.1111/ijal.12090

READS

94

2 AUTHORS:

María Pilar Agustín Llach

Universidad de La Rioja (Spain)
32 PUBLICATIONS 39 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Andrés Canga Alonso

Universidad de La Rioja (Spain)
14 PUBLICATIONS 6 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Available from: María Pilar Agustín Llach

Retrieved on: 28 December 2015
bs_bs_banner

International Journal of Applied Linguistics ◆ Vol. •• ◆ No. •• ◆ 2014

Vocabulary growth in young CLIL and

traditional EFL learners: evidence from
research and implications for education
Maria Pilar Agustín-Llach and Andrés Canga Alonso Universidad de
La Rioja

This paper presents a three-year longitudinal study in which the receptive

vocabulary size and lexical growth of a group of CLIL learners and of
traditional EFL learners are compared. CLIL approaches are considered
especially beneficial in lexical development. We tested the receptive
vocabulary size of 58 learners in a CLIL programme and of 49 traditional EFL
learners. The 2k VLT was used. Results revealed that learners’ receptive
vocabulary sizes lie within the most frequent 1,000 words, although CLIL
learners throw significantly higher vocabulary scores in the last grades tested.
Incorporation of new words each grade remains stable for both cohorts,
although the vocabulary size of CLIL learners increases with grade. We believe
that the CLIL approach offers a benefit for vocabulary acquisition, which
grows as experience with the approach, age and proficiency augment.
Keywords: CLIL, non-CLIL, primary education, VLT, vocabulary growth

Este artículo presenta un estudio longitudinal que se desarrolla a lo largo de

tres años y que mide y compara el tamaño de vocabulario receptivo y la tasa
de crecimiento léxico de un grupo de estudiantes de AICLE y otro grupo de
estudiantes tradicionales de inglés LE. El enfoque AICLE está considerado
como especialmente beneficioso para el desarrollo léxico. Analizamos el
tamaño de vocabulario receptivo de 58 aprendices en un programa AICLE y 49
en un programa tradicional de aprendizaje de inglés LE. Usamos la banda 2k
del Vocabulary Levels Test como instrumento. Los resultados nos revelan que el
tamaño de vocabulario receptivo de los aprendices se sitúa dentro de las 1000
palabras más frecuentes del inglés, aunque los aprendices AICLE muestran
resultados significativamente superiores en los últimos años examinados. La
incorporación de nuevas palabras en cada curso permanece estable, aunque el
tamaño de vocabulario de los alumnos AICLE crece significativamente al pasar
de curso. Creemos que el enfoque AICLE ofrece beneficios para la adquisición
del vocabulario en LE, beneficios que aumentan conforme la experiencia con el
enfoque, la edad y el nivel en LE aumentan.
Palabras clave: AICLE, no-AICLE, educación primaria, VLT, aumento de
vocabulario

© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd doi: 10.1111/ijal.12090

2 ◆ Maria Pilar Agustín-Llach and Andrés Canga Alonso

Introduction

Vocabulary is a crucial aspect in second language acquisition (SLA), overall

proficiency, and general academic achievement (e.g. Daller, van Hout &
Treffers-Daller 2003; Morris and Cobb 2003). In this sense, examining learners’
word knowledge can provide with interesting and reliable insights into their
overall language knowledge. This can be a good way of exploring the effects
of CLIL instruction in the learning of English as a foreign language (EFL) by
Spanish primary school learners. The present paper has as its main purpose to
compare general receptive vocabulary size and lexical development of
traditional EFL and CLIL learners. Hence, we review the main studies dealing
with receptive vocabulary size and explore the relationship between CLIL
and the learning of FL vocabulary. A report of the study conducted with main
results found and their interpretation follows. We conclude by pointing out
some lines for further research to try to overcome the main limitations of the
present study.

Vocabulary size in SLA: estimations and growth

Vocabulary size is one of the most central dimensions in explorations of

lexical proficiency (Bulté, Housen, Pierrard and van Daele 2008). Different
studies have set to the task of finding estimations of receptive vocabulary size.
The tests designed for this purpose are generally built upon frequency lists
(e.g. Nation 1990, 2001) on the assumption that the knowledge of less frequent
words implies the knowledge of more frequent words (Schmitt 2000). The
instruments designed to test receptive vocabulary size are numerous. Some of
the most frequent tests are Yes/No tests such as the ones created by Meara
and Buxton (1987) or Meara and Jones (1990), and tests based on word
recognition or the recognition of the form/meaning link such as the
Vocabulary Levels Tests (Nation 2001). Yes/No tests present learners with a
sample of words from different frequency levels and ask them to indicate the
words they know the meaning of. For example, Meara and Buxton (1987)
designed a Yes/No test with 60 real words and 40 pseudowords. The non-
words were included to avoid overestimations due to learners ticking as
known words they actually did not know. Sometime later, Meara and Jones
(1990) developed a computer version of a Yes/No test, the Eurocentres
Vocabulary Size Test, originally designed to work as a placement tests based
on overall vocabulary size estimates. More recently, the Yes/No Vocabulary
Test format has been incorporated into the vocabulary section of the European
DIALANG project (http://www.dialang.org). In Meara’s Lognostics webpage
(http://www.lognostics.co.uk/tools/index.htm) and sharing the Yes/No test
format, we find X_Lex (Meara and Milton 2003) and Y_Lex which are tests that
assess the vocabulary size of learners at each 1k band up to 5k for the X_Lex
and from 5k to 10k for Y_Lex. These kinds of tests have also been

© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

 Vocabulary growth in young CLIL and traditional EFL learners ◆ 3

created to test vocabulary knowledge phonologically in AuralLex (Milton

2009).
Additional to the Yes/No tests and different from them, Read (1993, 1998)
designed a word association test to measure receptive vocabulary. It consisted
of items that include a target word and six or eight other words, half of which
are associated with the target word and half not. The words are associated
semantically and collocationally. Finally, the most popular of the tests of
receptive vocabulary size is the Vocabulary Levels Test, VLT for short (Nation
1990, 2001, for other versions see Schmitt, Schmitt and Clapham 2001). This
test is made up of further subtests each corresponding to one frequency level:
first thousand most frequent words (1k), second thousand most frequent (2k),
third thousand most frequent (3k), fifth thousand most frequent (5k),
Academic Word List (AWL), and tenth thousand most frequent (10k) (see
Methodology section for further details). These tests are based on word form
recognition or recognition of the form-meaning link. Differences between
these tests of receptive vocabulary size pertain mainly to their format:
electronic vs. pen and paper, or checklist vs. L1 translation, and to the
frequency level of the words tested.
Studies that measure vocabulary size have shown that it is incremental in
nature, that is, the longer the exposure to the FL, the larger the vocabulary size
(Schmitt 2000; Schmitt, Schmitt and Clapham 2001; Webb 2008; Webb and
Chang; 2012). Estimations of vocabulary size are related to amount of
exposure and hours of instruction (Nurweni and Read 1999; Horst, Cobb and
Meara 1998). However, research studies addressing the longitudinal
development of receptive vocabulary size are rare (see Takala 1984; Webb and
Chang 2012), and most studies report cross-sectional data. The present study
intends to cover this gap by conducting a longitudinal study of two EFL
learner populations.
Another area of research has covered the examination of lexical growth, or
the number of words learners incorporate to their lexicons after a specific
period of time, for example, one academic year (Milton and Meara 1995;
Milton 2008). Figures for lexical increase in a year have ranged from 200
words in a university in Hong Kong (Cobb and Horst 2000), to 330 words EFL
learners in Japan (Schmitt and Meara 1997), 700 for Greek EFL learners
(Milton 2007), to around 800 (Otzurk 2013) in intensive language study, and to
2,500 new words incorporated by learners at advanced levels of proficiency in
one year abroad (Milton and Meara 1995). Webb and Chang (2012: 118)
obtained yearly words gains that ranged from 430 to 18 depending on the
number of hours of EFL instruction students had received; and conclude that
“the amount of formal instruction was a factor in the amount of vocabulary
learning” of their subjects.
Since exposure to the FL is crucial for vocabulary growth, an instruction
approach which provides students with more hours of input of the FL, such as
CLIL does, should throw considerable beneficial effects. It is this hypothesis
that we want to test in the present research study.

© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

4 ◆ Maria Pilar Agustín-Llach and Andrés Canga Alonso

CLIL and vocabulary learning

The acronym CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning) has been
used as a generic term to describe all types of approaches in which a second
language is used to teach certain content subjects in the curriculum other than
language lessons (Ruiz de Zarobe 2011). The essence of CLIL is integration
with a dual focus: “language learning is included in content classes (e.g.
maths, history, geography [. . .], etc), and content from subjects is used in
language learning classes” (Mehisto, Marsh and Frigols 2008: 11). CLIL also
provides real and meaningful input for the learner in the form of subject
content and language for classroom management. (Muñoz 2007).
Assuming that in CLIL settings it is necessary to progress systematically in
pupils’ content and language learning and use, vocabulary knowledge is of
paramount importance in order to favour communication in the classroom.
Thus, the challenge in CLIL settings is that trainees need to engage in dialogic
interactions by using the vehicular language. As a result of this interaction,
Dalton-Puffer (2007, 2008) reports that there are some areas where clear gains
are observed in CLIL classrooms such as receptive skills, vocabulary,
morphology, and creativity. Dalton-Puffer’s claim is also related to
Cummins’s (2008) concepts of basic interpersonal communicative skills (BICs)
and cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP). ‘BICs refers to
conversational fluency in a language, while CALP refers to students’ ability to
understand and express, in both oral and written modes concepts and ideas
that are relevant to success in school’ (Cummins 2008: 108). Hence, vocabulary
knowledge is crucial in order to perform these actions in the CLIL classroom.
As will be illustrated in the procedure and data gathering section, the 2,000
frequency band of Vocabulary Levels Test (VLT) measures students’ ability to
recognise frequent words in EFL. This word recognition task relates to
Cummins’s concept of CALP, since it requires higher order thinking skills, so
that learners will be able to recognise and understand the meaning of the
terms provided and relate them to their definitions.
Vocabulary size follows a systematic order related to frequency, since at
the lowest levels of proficiency learners are familiar with the most frequent
words, but as their experience with the FL increases, less frequent words are
incorporated into the lexicon (Barrow et al. 1999; Vermeer 2001; Milton 2009).
Hence, it seems evident that a content-based approach provides more
opportunities to learn either explicitly or implicitly target vocabulary in
meaningful situations (Muñoz 2007; Pérez-Vidal 2009), since learners are
exposed to the target language for a longer period than students’ enrolled in
traditional EFL classrooms. Xanthou (2011) proved that CLIL had a positive
impact in a group of primary school children in Cyprus regarding students’
vocabulary tests results which demonstrated that by attaching words to their
surroundings, the likelihood of comprehension and retention increased.
These gains in receptive vocabulary size are in line with other research
conducted in Spain (Jiménez Catalán, Ruiz de Zarobe and Cenoz 2006;

© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

 Vocabulary growth in young CLIL and traditional EFL learners ◆ 5

Jiménez Catalán and Ruiz de Zarobe 2009), where significant results were
obtained in favour of the CLIL group in receptive vocabulary knowledge. In
a similar study, Canga Alonso (2013) found statistically significant differences
between 6th grade primary students in CLIL contexts and those enrolled in a
traditional EFL approach. However, to our knowledge, there is a lack of
longitudinal studies which compare the receptive vocabulary sizes as well as
the receptive vocabulary growth of primary school students as this study sets
out to investigate.
Specifically, in this study we want to tease out the nature of lexical growth
in CLIL and traditional learners and to compare both processes to analyse
possible CLIL advantages and to check whether this advantage changes with
grade. Hence, we set out to find answers to the following research questions:

1. What is the nature of the EFL receptive lexical growth of young CLIL
learners in the last cycle of Primary Education? And of the traditional EFL
learners during the same period?
2. Are there any differences in their receptive vocabulary sizes along the
three years tested?
3. Do young CLIL and traditional EFL learners show the same pattern of
receptive lexical growth in EFL?

Methodology

The present study has a longitudinal and cross-sectional research design. It is

cross-sectional because we compare two learner cohorts, but at the same time
it is longitudinal because we follow and compare those two learner samples
along three years. The dependent variable in the study is receptive vocabulary
knowledge and its growth over time. This variable is examined in relation to
two further factors: instructional programme (CLIL vs. traditional EFL
learners) and school grade (4th, 5th, 6th of Primary). The variable age is
controlled for.

Participants

Two student samples constitute the participants of this study. One group,
hence, the CLIL group, is made up of 58 learners, whereas the other group, the
traditional or non-CLIL group, comprises 49 learners. Both groups learn
English as a curricular subject in the same grade of primary education. They
have been learning English as a school subject since the 1st grade in three
weekly sessions of 50 to 60 minutes. Additionally, the CLIL group has been
receiving extra-exposure to English through science for an additional two
hours a week since their 1st grade. The sample is homogeneous as regards
their socio-economic and cultural background, since participants were drawn

© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

6 ◆ Maria Pilar Agustín-Llach and Andrés Canga Alonso

Table 1. Hours of exposure to English (accumulated exposure)

Hours of exposure

Grade Age CLIL Non-CLIL

4th Primary 9–10 714 419

5th Primary 10–11 839 524
6th Primary 11–12 944 629

from the same school but some years apart. Accordingly, all 4th, 5th, and 6th
graders in the school participated in the study, first when the school only had
English as a school subject, and some years later when CLIL tuition was
introduced. Students also shared Spanish as their mother tongue (L1). When
we started the study, participants were between 9–10 years old and attended
4th grade of Primary education; at the end of the study they were between 11
and 12 years old and attended 6th grade of Primary. The groups differ in the
kind of instruction they receive, i.e., CLIL vs. non-CLIL, and consequently, in
the number of hours of exposure to English. Learners in the non-CLIL group
are exposed to English through the English school subject exclusively.
However, learners in the CLIL group receive, apart from the weekly EFL
lessons, input in English in the school subject natural sciences, which is taught
through the medium of English and thus not only the amount but also the
nature of the input differs between the traditional and the CLIL group.
Thus, traditional learners have received approximately between 105–110
hours of exposure to EFL on a yearly basis since 1st grade of primary. The
CLIL group has received these 105–110 hours plus 72–74 more hours in CLIL
science, also since 1st grade of primary.
Table 1 illustrates the approximate number of hours of exposure students
have received at the three times of data collection.

Data gathering instrument

The 2,000 word frequency-band (2k) from the receptive version of the
Vocabulary Levels Test (VLT) was used to measure the receptive vocabulary
size of the participants in this study (Schmitt, Schmitt and Clapham 2001,
version 2). This test is based on the frequency lists collected by West (1953) in
the General Service List and the Thorndike and Lorge (1944) list, which were
checked against the list compiled by Kucera and Francis (1967), known as the
Brown Corpus. The difference between these lists is small. They are based on
corpora and include the most frequent words within those corpora. Thus,
only small variations are expected depending on the year of compilation.

© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

 Vocabulary growth in young CLIL and traditional EFL learners ◆ 7

In the 2k VLT (see Appendix 1), test-takers have to match a target word
with the corresponding definition. A total of 60 words are used for testing.
Ten groups of six words and three definitions make up the test. Each correct
answer, i.e. matching each target word with its definition is given one point,
so that the maximum score of the test is 30 points. The research studies that
have reported on the validity and reliability of the 2k VLT (Beglar and Hunt
1999; Read 2000), show that the test is consistent in its measurements, and also
in its constructs as it measures what it sets out to measure.

Procedures and analysis

Data was collected in one session during class time for three consecutive years
for the traditional group and then for the CLIL group. The time allotted to
complete the task was 10 minutes. At the beginning of the test, clear
instructions together with an example were given both orally and in written
form in the students’ mother tongue to clarify what they were being asked
to do.
Tests were corrected and total scores obtained. 0 was the minimum score
and 30 was the maximum. Estimations in words were also obtained. In order
to calculate students’ word estimates, Nation’s formula “Vocabulary size = N
correct answers multiplied by total N words in dictionary (the relevant word
list) divided by N items in test” (Nation 1990: 78) was applied. The data was
also analysed with SPSS 19 (IBM, Armonk, NY) to check whether there were
statistically significant differences according to type of instruction.

Results

We wanted to explore the patterns of lexical growth in CLIL and traditional

EFL learners to compare their vocabulary development across grades. Three
main objectives frame our research study. First, estimate the receptive
vocabulary size of young learners in CLIL and non-CLIL approaches; second,
check for differences in these vocabulary size estimates, and finally, third,
explore the vocabulary growth across grades for the two learner cohorts and
compare them.
Table 2 presents the mean results for the 2k VLT for both learner cohorts at
the three times of data collection and Table 3 shows the vocabulary size
estimates derived from these mean values.
As we can see in these tables, CLIL learners obtained slightly better results,
which translate in a bigger vocabulary size, i.e. they know more words.
Furthermore, we can also see that their vocabulary sizes were relatively small
with knowledge of fewer than 1,000 words within the 2,000 most frequent
words in English. In order to check whether this CLIL advantage was
significant, we performed inferential statistics. For the comparison in 4th and

© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

8 ◆ Maria Pilar Agustín-Llach and Andrés Canga Alonso

Table 2. Mean values for 2k VLT

4th Primary 5th Primary 6th Primary

Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D.

Non-CLIL 6.31 3.5 9.33 3.46 12.41 3.83

CLIL 7.14 3.7 10.62 4.02 14.12 3.88

Table 3. Vocabulary size estimates in words

4th Primary 5th Primary 6th Primary

Non-CLIL 421 622 827

CLIL 430 649 914

Table 4. Inferential statistics for CLIL and non-CLIL (4th and 5th grade)

4th grade 5th grade

Mann-Whitney U 1266.5 1081.5

Wilcoxon W 2491.5 2306.5
Z –0.971 –2.132
Sig. (two tailed) 0.332 0.033

Table 5. Inferential statistics for CLIL and non-CLIL (6th grade)

6th grade

T –2.284
Sig. 0.024

5th grade, we implemented non-parametric Mann-Whitney tests, and a t-test

was carried for the comparison for CLIL and non-CLIL learners at grade 6th,
since this data sample met the normality assumption. Tables 4 and 5 offer
these results.
From the results of the inferential statistics, we can clearly see that
differences increased with grade (and age and proficiency, which co-occur).
Thus, in the 4th grade, differences in the vocabulary size of CLIL and non-
CLIL learners were not significant; however, they became significant in the
5th and even more in the 6th grade. Significance values are not very high but
considering the relatively small size of the samples (around 50 learners each)
they are satisfactorily moderate.

© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

 Vocabulary growth in young CLIL and traditional EFL learners ◆ 9

Table 6. Score increase between grades (the number of words in brackets)

Grade 4th to 5th Grade 5th to 6th

Non-CLIL 3.02 (201) 3.08 (205)

CLIL 3.48 (219) 3.5 (265)

Table 7. Inferential statistics for vocabulary growth between CLIL and non-CLIL

4th–5th grade 5th–6th grade

Mann-Whitney U 1,309 1,372

Wilcoxon W 2,534 2,596
Z –0.703 –0.315
Sig. (two tailed) 0.482 0.753

We were also interested in examining the progression made by learners in

the two testing cohorts and in measuring the degree of the vocabulary
increase for both learner groups (see Table 6). As the figures in the following
tables indicate, CLIL learners show slightly higher growth rates than non-
CLIL learners.
Although the raw figures seem to indicate the lack of big differences
between the two learner cohorts, we still wanted to ascertain whether these
differences were significant. Thus, we conducted non-parametric tests of
means comparisons. Table 7 shows the results found.
Clearly, there are no significant differences in the number of words
incorporated to the lexicons of CLIL and non-CLIL learners. Hence, we can
safely conclude that learners in both groups have a statistically similar rate of
vocabulary growth. However, the raw figures revealed that CLIL learners
incorporate more words every year than non-CLIL learners, which is in line
with the observed tendency of a greater vocabulary size in 5th and 6th grades
for CLIL learners.
In order to get an even broader picture of lexical development for young
CLIL and traditional EFL learners, we checked for absolute vocabulary size
differences and differences in rate of lexical growth within the target groups.
Table 8 presents the results of the Wilcoxon signed rank tests for the non-CLIL
learners and Table 9 for CLIL learners.
Results clearly show that the magnitude of the increase in the
incorporation of words from one grade to the next is not significant either for
traditional or for CLIL learners. In other words, learners in both groups
acquire similar number of words in every grade from 4th to 6th. However,
this incorporation of new words every year contributes to increasing
significantly the absolute vocabulary size, or the words learners know from
year to year. Again, this holds true for members of the traditional and of

© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

10 ◆ Maria Pilar Agustín-Llach and Andrés Canga Alonso

Table 8. Inferential statistics for traditional EFL learners concerning lexical growth
and general vocabulary size

Increase K2_4/K2_5 K2_5/K2_6

4th–5th/5th–6th

Z –0.197 –4.781 –5.080

Sig. (two tailed) 0.844 0.000 0.000

Table 9. Inferential statistics for CLIL learners concerning lexical growth and general
vocabulary size

Increase K2_4/K2_5 K2_5/K2_6

4th–5th/5th–6th

Z –0.037 –4.180 –5.644

Sig. (two tailed) 0.971 0.000 0.000

the CLIL cohort. In general terms, we can observe very similar patterns of
lexical development in CLIL and traditional EFL learners with vocabulary
growing constantly and steadily from grade to grade and showing significant
differences in absolute estimations of vocabulary size. Furthermore, CLIL
learners show significantly higher figures for vocabulary sizes in the last
grades, but no significant differences in the rates of vocabulary growth
(Table 7) between CLIL and traditional learners. The magnitude of the
increases tends to be bigger in the CLIL group in absolute terms, but remains
more stable, almost the same, for the traditional learners.

Discussion

In the present research study, we were interested in accounting for young

learners’ receptive vocabulary sizes and lexical growth along three years and
in two different educational approaches.
Our analyses of the data revealed that learners’ receptive vocabulary size
is below the 1,000 words within the limits of the first 2,000 most frequent
words. This finding is not surprising, since it is in line with previous results
with young learners and a limited amount of exposure (Nurweni and Read
1999; Webb and Chang 2012). However, according to previous studies (Hirsh
and Nation 1992; Adolphs and Schmitt 2004; Nation 2006; Webb and Rogers
2009a, b), our learners would have problems in performing certain linguistic
tasks such as understanding informal spoken discourse, understanding a
written text, reading for pleasure, or watching TV programmes or movies for
which a bigger vocabulary size is needed. Accordingly, for students to be able

© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

 Vocabulary growth in young CLIL and traditional EFL learners ◆ 11

to perform these kinds of tasks successfully, researchers call for the command
of the 2,000–3,000 most frequent words as soon as possible (Nation 1993;
Nation and Waring 1997; Webb and Chang 2012). Consequently, we agree
with Schmitt (2000: 137) and Webb and Chang (2012) that such a paramount
learning task cannot be left to chance and that the most frequent words should
be taught explicitly in the EFL classroom.
Our second main aim was to compare the receptive vocabulary sizes of
learners who attend different instructional programmes. Results point to
growing differences as grade and proficiency increase going from non-
significant differences in grade 4th to moderate significant differences in
grade 6th in favour of the CLIL learners. This result is in line with previous
studies, which show that CLIL or longer FL exposure programmes foster
vocabulary acquisition, and that benefits start cropping up after some time (cf.
Celaya and Ruiz de Zarobe 2010). The longer exposure to English input CLIL
learners have received can help explain this advantage in general receptive
vocabulary size. Furthermore, the different nature of their exposure, in which
traditional EFL instruction is combined with a more meaningful and
contextualized content instruction through the L2 might also account for this
difference (Xanthou 2011). As an avenue for further research, future studies
could test learners knowledge of specific vocabulary related to certain fields
such as for instance science (the CLIL subject). We could speculate that results
would favour the CLIL group, whose vocabulary size might be bigger in this
semantic field. However, this is just mere speculation, since we have not
conducted such tests and further research, which tests words students may
have acquired in the content classes together with a comparison of the results
of non-CLIL learners’ is needed.
In short, CLIL seems to favour receptive vocabulary growth, but there
might be other factors influencing students’ receptive vocabulary acquisition,
such as for example exposure time. It is indeed extremely difficult to discern
whether the CLIL factor or the longer exposure (more instruction hours) is to
be made responsible for the CLIL advantage in our data, as these two factors
are impossible to untangle in our present data. However, previous studies
have found that increasing exposure leads to no lexical gains in young
learners but that as learners grow older they benefit more from longer
exposure time (Cummins and Swain 1986; Miralpeix 2007; Agustín-Llach and
Terrazas-Gallego 2012). Accordingly, we believe that age is a determining
factor in receptive vocabulary knowledge. Further research in this respect is
also warranted. We are also led to think that although CLIL learners do not
learn many more words than traditional EFL learners, it can be reasonable to
believe that due to the kind of exposure they have received, they might have
a greater depth of knowledge than the traditional learners. However, further
research is needed to investigate this.
Finally, we wanted to explore the rate of vocabulary growth along the last
grades of primary education and to compare the two learner cohorts with
reference to this growth rate. Curiously enough, we found no significant

© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

12 ◆ Maria Pilar Agustín-Llach and Andrés Canga Alonso

differences in the number of words incorporated to the learners’ lexicon, nor in

the growth rate of CLIL and non-CLIL learners (between groups comparison).
However, as learners age their vocabulary size increases significantly, and this
is true for both learner groups. Increasing age and developing cognitive skills
might account for this gradual significant increase in receptive vocabulary size
(within groups comparison). In this sense, we agree with Milton and Meara
(1995) that there might be an emerging advantage starting to get visible at the
last interval tested. Speculation can lead us to think that this increase will get
bigger with time and age (Milton and Meara 1995).
Our data shows a stable rate of lexical growth with very similar number of
words being learned from one year to the next, with a slightly higher, but
non-significant figure for CLIL learners, supporting previous findings from
Webb and Chang (2012), who found very similar or even lower yearly word
gains. Both studies make patent that the nature of the relationship between
age, and amount of exposure clearly needs to be further looked into.
Nonetheless, comparisons between both studies should be drawn very
carefully, since Webb and Chang’s (2012) sample is made up of older learners
with a different L1, and who had received more hours of instruction. We still
have no conclusive certainties as to how these variables interrelate.
Webb and Chang (2012) found that learners who had been exposed to
more hours of instruction in EFL were able to incorporate more words to their
lexicons every year. Lack of statistically significant differences between CLIL
and non-CLIL learners as regards the yearly vocabulary growth point in the
same direction and led us to think that amount of exposure and quality of
input might be overridden by other factors such as young age and low
proficiency of learners in this study together with their limited experience
within CLIL tuition. This is, however, mere speculation and further research
in this line is warranted to tease out the factors and variables that might be
influencing lexical development and receptive vocabulary growth and their
relative importance. If our speculation were correct, then older learners or
learners at higher proficiency levels would benefit more from prolonged,
intensive and contextualized FL exposure. It is a widely-acknowledged fact
that a higher FL proficiency contributes to a more rapid lexical learning
(Zahar, Cobb and Spada 2001), so actual vocabulary knowledge is a factor in
lexical acquisition. This interpretation is consistent with Celaya and Ruiz de
Zarobe’s (2010) observation that CLIL benefits start to show up and become
more evident as experience with the approach increases and proficiency
augments, as briefly commented above. Furthermore, in our data, we can
observe that although differences are not significant CLIL learners show
higher yearly word gains.

Conclusion

Three main findings stand out from the present longitudinal research study.
First, the receptive vocabulary size of our Spanish primary school EFL

© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

 Vocabulary growth in young CLIL and traditional EFL learners ◆ 13

learners is below 1,000 words and lies within the range of the first 2,000 most
frequent words in English, according to the results of the 2k VLT. This
receptive vocabulary size increases significantly from one academic year to
the next. This finding stands true for both learner cohorts examined, CLIL
and traditional EFL learners. However, CLIL learners show higher overall
receptive vocabulary sizes. The difference becomes increasingly significant as
learners progress to the next grade. This constitutes our second main finding.
Finally, we found a similar pattern of lexical growth with CLIL and traditional
learners incorporating statistically similar numbers of words to their receptive
lexicon every year. Absolute numbers indicate a slight advantage for CLIL
learners in the yearly increase, though.
Our results lead us to think that CLIL tuition with its contextualized and
meaningful FL teaching and use, and its higher number of FL exposure is a
beneficial approach for vocabulary acquisition. Nevertheless, data points to
benefits increasing with increasing exposure, age, proficiency and CLIL
experience, all of which co-occur in the present three-year longitudinal study.
In this sense, further studies are necessary, which explore CLIL benefits for
vocabulary acquisition for longer periods of time going into compulsory
secondary education stage. Additionally, this study has only analysed
receptive vocabulary of the most frequent words; we are inclined to believe
though, that productive vocabulary and lexical knowledge of less frequent
words, especially from the Academic Word List can also derive great benefits
from an educational approach of the content-based type. One further
limitation of the present study is the use of a single, and somewhat limited,
instrument to measure vocabulary size. Using other tests for vocabulary
knowledge, such as lexical availability tests might throw even more insightful
results and reveal more qualitative data concerning learners’ vocabulary
knowledge and lexical development, as well as finer differences between
traditional and content-based approaches. Further research is called for to
overcome these limitations.

Acknowledgements

This research has been funded by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and
Competitiveness through grant number FFI2010-19334/FILO.

References

Adolphs, S., and N. Schmitt (2004) Vocabulary coverage according to spoken discourse
context. In P. Bogaards and B. Laufer (eds.), Vocabulary in a second language.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 39–52.
Agustín-Llach, M. P., and M. Terrazas-Gallego (2012) Development and gender
differences in a second language. Estudios de Lingüística Inglesa Aplicada 12.1: 45–75.

© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

14 ◆ Maria Pilar Agustín-Llach and Andrés Canga Alonso

Barrow, J., Y. Nakanish, and H. Ishino (1999) Assessing Japanese college students’
vocabulary knowledge with a self-checking familiarity survey. System 27.2: 223–
47.
Beglar, D., and A. Hunt (1999) Revising and validating the 2000 word level and
university word level vocabulary tests. Language Testing 16.2: 131–62.
Bulté, B., A. Housen, P. Pierrard, and S. van Daele (2008) Investigating lexical
proficiency development over time – the case of Dutch-speaking learners of French
in Brussels. French Language Studies 18.3: 277–98.
Canga Alonso, A. (2013) The receptive vocabulary of Spanish 6th grade primary school
students in CLIL instruction: a preliminary study. Latin American Journal of Content
and Language Integrated Learning (LACLIL) 6.2: 22–41.
Celaya, M. L., and Y. Ruiz de Zarobe (2010) First languages and age in CLIL and
non-CLIL contexts. International CLIL Research Journal 1.3: 60–6.
Cobb, T., and M. Horst (2000) Vocabulary sizes of some City University students. City
University (HK) Journal of Language Studies 1.1: 59–68.
Cummins, J. (2008) BICS and CALP: empirical and theoretical status of the distinction.
In B. Street and N. H. Hornberger (eds.), Encyclopaedia of language and education.
2nd edn., Volume 2. New York: Springer Science. 71–83.
— and M. Swain (1986) Linguistic I: a central principle of bilingual education. In J.
Cummins and M. Swain (eds.), Bilingualism in education: aspects of theory, research
and practice. London: Longman. 80–95.
Daller, H., R. Van Hout, and J. Treffers-Daller (2003) Lexical richness in the
spontaneous speech of bilinguals. Applied Linguistics 24.2: 197–222.
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2007) Discourse in content and language integrated learning (CLIL).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
— (2008) Outcomes and processes in Content and Language Integrated Learning
(CLIL): Current research from Europe. In W. Delanoy and L. Volkmann (eds.),
Future perspectives for English language teaching. Heidelberg: Carl Winter. 139–57.
Hirsh, D., and P. Nation (1992) What vocabulary size is needed to read unsimplified
texts for pleasure? Reading in a Foreign Language 8.2: 689–96.
Horst, M., T. Cobb, and P. Meara (1998) Beyond a clockwork orange: acquiring
second language vocabulary through reading. Reading in a Foreign Language 11.2:
207–23.
Jiménez Catalán, R. M., and Y. Ruiz de Zarobe (2009) The receptive vocabulary of
EFL learners in two instructional contexts: CLIL versus non-CLIL. In R. M.
Jiménez Catalán and Y. Ruiz de Zarobe (eds.), Content and language integrated
learning. Evidence from research in Europe. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. 81–92.
— — and J. Cenoz (2006) Vocabulary profiles in English as a subject and as a vehicular
language. VIEWZ 15.3: 23–7.
Kucera, H., and W. N. Francis (1967) A computational analysis of present day American
English. Providence, RI: Brown University Press.
Meara, P., and B. Buxton (1987) An alternative to multiple choice will vocabulary
testing. Language Testing 4.2: 142–54.
— and G. Jones (1990) Eurocentres vocabulary size tests 10ka. Zurich: Eurocentres
Learning Service.
— and J. L. Milton (2003) X_Lex: the Swansea Vocabulary Levels Test. Newbury: Express
Publishing.
Mehisto, P., D. Marsh, and M. J. Frigols (2008) Uncovering CLIL: content and language
integrated learning in bilingual and multilingual contexts. Oxford: Macmillan.

© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

 Vocabulary growth in young CLIL and traditional EFL learners ◆ 15

Milton, J. (2007) Lexical profiles, learning styles and construct validity of lexical size
tests. In H. Daller, J. Milton and J. Treffers-Daller (eds.), Modelling and assessing
vocabulary knowledge, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 45–58.
— (2008) Vocabulary uptake from informal learning tasks. Language Learning Journal
36.2: 227–37.
— (2009) Measuring second language vocabulary acquisition. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
— and P. Meara (1995) How periods abroad affect vocabulary growth in a foreign
language. ITL 107–108: 17–34.
Miralpeix, I. (2007) Lexical knowledge in instructed language learning: the effects of
age and exposure. International Journal of English Studies 7.2: 61–84.
Morris, L., and T. Cobb (2003) Vocabulary profiles as predictors of the academic
performance of teaching English as a second language trainees. System 32.1: 75–
87.
Muñoz, C. (2007) CLIL. Some thoughts on its psychological principles. RESLA Models
of Practice in CLIL. Monographic Issue: 17–26.
Nation, P. (1990) Teaching and learning vocabulary. New York: Newbury.
— (1993) Measuring readiness for simplified material: a test of the first 1,000 words of
English. In M.L. Tickoo (ed) Simplification: theory and application RELC Anthology
Series 31. Singapore: SAMEO. 193–203.
— (2001) Learning vocabulary in another language. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
— (2006) How large a vocabulary is needed for reading and listening? The
Canadian Modern Language Review / La revue canadienne des langues vivantes 63.1:
59–81.
— and R. Waring (1997) Vocabulary size, text coverage and word lists. In N. Schmitt
and M. McCarthy (eds) Vocabulary. description, acquisition and pedagogy.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 6–19.
Nurweni, A., and J. Read (1999) The English vocabulary knowledge of Indonesian
university students. English for Specific Purposes 18.2: 161–75.
Otzurk, M. (2013) L2 Vocabulary growth in intensive language study: The effects of
proficiency level and word frequency. Retrieved 20 July 2013 from http://
www.academia.edu/3206504/Vocabulary_growth_in_intensive_language_study
Pérez-Vidal, C. (2009) The integration of content and language in the classroom: a
European approach to education (the second time around) In E. Dafouz and M. C.
Guerini (eds) 2009 CLIL across educational levels. Madrid: Richmond. 3–16.
Read, J. (1993) The development of a new measure of L2 vocabulary knowledge.
Language Testing 10.3: 355–71.
— (1998) Validating a test to measure depth of vocabulary knowledge. In A. Kunnan
(Ed.), Validation in language assessment. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. 41–60.
— (2000) Assessing vocabulary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (2011) Which language competencies benefit from CLIL? An insight
into applied linguistics research. In Y. Ruiz de Zarobe, J. M. Sierra, and F.
Gallardo del Puerto (eds.), Content and foreign language integrated learning. Bern:
Peter Lang. 123–53.
Schmitt, N. (2000) Vocabulary in language teaching. Cambridge University Press.
— and Meara, P. (1997) Researching vocabulary through a word knowledge
framework. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 19.1: 17–36.
— D. Schmitt and C. Clapham (2001) Developing and exploring the behaviour of two
new versions of the vocabulary level test. Language Testing 18.1: 55–88.

© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

16 ◆ Maria Pilar Agustín-Llach and Andrés Canga Alonso

Takala, S. (1984) Evaluation of students’ knowledge of English vocabulary in the

Finnish comprehensive school. Reports of the Institute of Educational Research 350.
Jyväskylä: Jyväskylä University.
Thorndike, E., and I. Lorge (1944) The teacher’s word book of 30,000 words. New York:
Columbia University.
Vermeer, A. (2001) Breadth and depth of vocabulary in relation to L1/L2 acquisition
and frequency of input. Applied Psycholinguistics 22.2: 217–34.
Xanthou, M. (2011) Current trends in L2 vocabulary learning and instruction. Is CLIL
the right approach? Advances in research on language acquisition and teaching: Selected
Papers. Retrieved 7 November 2014 from http://www.enl.auth.gr/gala/14th/
Papers/English%20papers/Xanthou.pdf.
Webb, S. (2008) Receptive and productive vocabulary sizes of L2 learners. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition 30.1: 79–95.
— and A. C.-S. Chang (2012) Second language vocabulary growth. RELC Journal 43.1:
113–26.
— and M. P. H. Rodgers (2009a) The vocabulary demands of television programs.
Language Learning 59.2: 335–66.
— and — (2009b) The lexical coverage of movies. Applied Linguistics 30.3: 407–27
West, M. (1953) A general service list of English words. London: Longman.
Zahar, R., T. Cobb, and N. Spada (2001) Acquiring vocabulary through reading: Effects
of frequency and contextual richness. The Canadian Modern Language Review 57.4:
541–72.

email: maria-del-pilar.agustin@unirioja.es [Received 25 October 2014]

andres.canga@unirioja.es

© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

 Vocabulary growth in young CLIL and traditional EFL learners ◆ 17

Appendix 1: Vocabulary Levels Test 2,000 (Schmitt et al. 2001)

2,000 WORD LEVEL TEST

CENTRO ______________________________________________________________________________________________
CURSO _________________________ GRUPO __________________________ FECHA ____________________________
APELLIDOS _____________________________________________ NOMBRE ____________________________________

Este es un test de vocabulario, En la parte izquierda te presentamos grupos de seis palabras inglesas y a su derecha,
los significados de sólo tres de ellas. Escribe junto a éstos, el número de la palabra inglesa correspondiente a dichos
significados. Observa el siguiente ejemplo:

EJEMPLO RESPUESTA CORRECTA

1 business 1 business
2 clock _____ part of a house 2 clock ___6___ part of a house
3 horse _____ animal with 4 legs  3 horse ___3___ animal with 4 legs
4 pencil _____ something used for writing 4 pendi ___4___ something used for writing
5 shoe 5 shoe
6 wall 6 wall

1 coffee 1 adopt
2 disease _____ money for work 2 climb _____ go up
3 Justice _____ a piece of clothing 3 examine _____ look at closely
4 skirt _____ using the law in the right way 4 pour _____ be on every side
5 stage 5 satisfy
6 wage 6 surround

1 choice 1 bake
2 crop _____ heat 2 connect _____ join together
3 flesh _____ meat 3 inquire _____ walk without purpose
4 salary _____ money paid regularly for doing a job 4 limit _____ keep within a certain size
5 secret 5 recognize
6 temperature 6 wander

1 cap 1 burst
2 education _____ teaching and learning 2 concern _____ break open
3 journey _____ numbers to measure with 3 deliver _____ make better
4 parent _____ going to a far place 4 fold _____ take something to someone
5 scale 5 improve
6 trick 6 urge

1 attack 1 original
2 charm _____ gold and silver 2 private _____ first
3 lack _____ pleasing quality 3 royal _____ not public
4 pen _____ not having something 4 slow _____ all added together
5 shadow 5 sorry
6 treasure 6 total

1 cream 1 ancient
2 factory _____ part of milk 2 curious _____ not easy
3 nail _____ a lot of money 3 difficult _____ very old
4 pupil _____ person who is studying 4 entire _____ related toGod
5 sacrifice 5 holy
6 wealth 6 social

© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd