File Download
There are no files associated with this item.
Links for fulltext
(May Require Subscription)
- Publisher Website: 10.1016/j.edurev.2025.100666
- Scopus: eid_2-s2.0-85217129844
- Find via

Supplementary
-
Citations:
- Scopus: 0
- Appears in Collections:
Article: Effects of content and language integrated learning at the primary school level: A multi-level meta-analysis
| Title | Effects of content and language integrated learning at the primary school level: A multi-level meta-analysis |
|---|---|
| Authors | |
| Keywords | Content and language integrated learning English medium instruction Meta-analysis Primary school |
| Issue Date | 1-May-2025 |
| Publisher | Elsevier |
| Citation | Educational Research Review, 2025, v. 47 How to Cite? |
| 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). |
| Persistent Identifier | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/358371 |
| ISSN | 2023 Impact Factor: 9.6 2023 SCImago Journal Rankings: 3.874 |
| DC Field | Value | Language |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.author | Lee, Jang Ho | - |
| dc.contributor.author | Lee, Hansol | - |
| dc.contributor.author | Lo, Yuen Yi | - |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2025-08-07T00:31:49Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2025-08-07T00:31:49Z | - |
| dc.date.issued | 2025-05-01 | - |
| dc.identifier.citation | Educational Research Review, 2025, v. 47 | - |
| dc.identifier.issn | 1747-938X | - |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/358371 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | <p>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).</p> | - |
| dc.language | eng | - |
| dc.publisher | Elsevier | - |
| dc.relation.ispartof | Educational Research Review | - |
| dc.subject | Content and language integrated learning | - |
| dc.subject | English medium instruction | - |
| dc.subject | Meta-analysis | - |
| dc.subject | Primary school | - |
| dc.title | Effects of content and language integrated learning at the primary school level: A multi-level meta-analysis | - |
| dc.type | Article | - |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.1016/j.edurev.2025.100666 | - |
| dc.identifier.scopus | eid_2-s2.0-85217129844 | - |
| dc.identifier.volume | 47 | - |
| dc.identifier.eissn | 1878-0385 | - |
| dc.identifier.issnl | 1747-938X | - |
