International CLIL Research Journal, Vol 1 (3) 2010

Linguistic Benefits of the CLIL Approach:

Measuring Linguistic Competences
Anna Várkuti, University of Pannonia, Veszprém (Hungary)
PhD School of Linguistics

Abstract
This empirical study compares two forms of language learning in Hungary by exploring English
language achievement of CLIL secondary school students and those of non-CLIL intensive
foreign language learners acting as a control group. The students took the same tests designed
to measure conversational and academic language use (BICS and CALP). Data analyses prove
that the social and academic language competence of the CLIL students is of a higher level
than that of the control group. The CLIL students have significantly better skills in applying their
broader lexical knowledge in various context-embedded conversational situations, as well as in
taking into account grammar rules, text coherence and sociolinguistic context. In the case of
cognitively more demanding academic language proficiency, the CLIL students do significantly
better than the control group students with context deprived test problems which demand more
subtle meanings, more sophisticated grammar and higher meta-linguistic awareness. The
conclusion is that using English as a medium for learning various subjects is a more efficient
route in providing functional language proficiency than traditional foreign language learning.

Keywords: communicative language competence, academic language competence, English

learning, CLIL, bilingual education

Introduction
Mastering foreign languages, both in communicative and cognitive functions, has become a
highly esteemed key competence in an integrated Europe. To provide better opportunities for
learning languages, many countries, including Hungary, have established bilingual schools
where some curricular subjects are taught through the medium of a foreign language (Eurydice,
2006). These schools use the CLIL approach. In CLIL, students learn language through the
learning of content.

At the same time, to improve the quality of foreign language teaching / learning in traditional
schools in Hungary, a large array of different language teaching programmes (e.g., intensive
language preparatory year, intensive language classes, a favouring of communicative language
teaching methods) have been introduced (Ministry of Education, 2003). It is expected that CLIL
will create a linguistically more challenging environment resulting in improved language
learning. However, there is little direct evidence in Hungary to support this hypothesis, hence
the need for this study.

The article presents partial results of a larger scale empirical study on the level of the foreign
language competence of students in Hungarian-English CLIL programmes (in Hungary referred
to as bilingual schools) in comparison to that of students in mainstream enriched non-CLIL
second language programmes (referred to in Hungary as intensive foreign language teaching).
First the relevant factors of the bilingual schooling system are presented.

http://www.icrj.eu/13/article7.html 67
International CLIL Research Journal, Vol 1 (3) 2010

The characteristics of the educational, linguistic and operational context

of CLIL within the Hungarian bilingual educational model
When the first Hungarian-foreign dual language schools were established in the 1980s, the goal
of bilingual education was very cautiously defined by law (Act No. I of 1985 on education). It
aimed only to improve the foreign language knowledge of the students so that students in CLIL
programmes achieved at least on par with students studying through their L1. However, today
the expectations are much higher. Defined by the complex educational goals of the law of
education (MKM Decree No. 26/1997. VII. 10.), bilingual schools are expected to produce ideal
balanced bilinguals.

According to a widely accepted typology of bilingual educational models (Skutnabb-Kangas,

1984: 127), the Hungarian system, which at its introduction was called the "Hungarian
experiment", is considered to be an adapted version of a kind of partial immersion programme
(Duff, 1991; Skutnabb-Kangas, 1998). In the Hungarian interpretation, as Vámos (1993: 7)
proposed, "education is bilingual if a student within it - either in a continually ascending system
or examined at certain points of its studies - learns simultaneously in two languages.
Accordingly, a school that provides such an education is called a bilingual or a dual language
school". A similar meaning is accepted for bilingual education in Germany. Niemeier (1999: 166)
states that "in sociolinguistic context, this term is certainly a misnomer because it refers to
school subjects, like history, …being taught in English. There the language is no longer the
subject matter, but serves as a medium of instruction. Hence, there is no real bilingualism
involved, given the fact that the classes are mostly held in one language only", which can be the
mother tongue or the foreign language. In Hungary the term bilingual education refers to a
similar form of provision where certain subject are taught through one language and others
through another. From this point of view, when studying school subjects in a foreign language,
the focus is on content, and the acquisition of the language is one of its positive outcomes
(Niemeier 1999; Vámos, 2008). However, in an integrative approach, learning subject content
through the medium of a foreign language (Bognár, 1999; Bognár, 2000; Genesee, 2001;
Stoller, 2002) allows for language learning in an authentic and holistic way. Accordingly, “for a
CLIL classroom, the assessment should concern both the content and the language”
(Hofmannová at al., 2008: 24).

Using two languages in the teaching-learning process presupposes that students will eventually
be capable of using both languages for communicating effectively in context reduced and
cognitively demanding contexts (Cummins 2000: 68). Obviously, in a monolingual context,
learning one’s mother tongue to a high degree of proficiency presents no greater difficulties in
Hungary than in other primarily monolingual countries. In all schools (including the bilingual
ones) Hungarian language and literature are major school subjects and in monolingual schools
all the other subjects are taught via the mother tongue. In contrast, students face many
additional challenges when a foreign language becomes the medium of instruction, mainly
because the classroom is the primary target language domain. Code-mixing and code-switching
are common. Here code-mixing has the meaning of ‘borrowing’ described by Grosjean (1982),
the replacement of an expression by one from the better mastered language due to
incompetence (Hofmann, 1991). Whereas, code-switching, consists of “changes over phrases
or sentences” and this seems “to be a more complex linguistic phenomenon also motivated by
emotional, sociolinguistic and functional factors” (Navracsics, 2004: 140).

Experts on bilingual education have revealed strong relationship between the first and the
second languages. The Developmental Interdependence hypothesis (Skutnabb-Kangas, 1984;
Baker, 2002; Cummins, 2004) suggests that becoming functionally bilingual is influenced by the
level of competency in the first language. Accordingly, when a first language has developed
sufficiently to cope with decontextualized classroom learning, it enhances cognitive
development, and also better supports second language learning. Regarding the relationship
between the levels of the two languages, an important linguistic characteristic of Hungarian
bilingual education is that students have already acquired their mother tongue at the expected
age-appropriate (14-15 year old) level when they begin to use the second language as a
medium of instruction. This provides “an additive situation: a second language is added at no
cost to the first language” (Baker, 2002: 111), so in societal and individual contexts the reason
for learning the second language is based on a desire to acquire additional second language

http://www.icrj.eu/13/article7.html 68
International CLIL Research Journal, Vol 1 (3) 2010

skills. The second language is used for cognitively more demanding content learning only when
students have reached an intermediate level (this is the medium level of the Hungarian State
Certificate Exam, the requirements of which share elements in common with levels B1 and B2
of the CEFR). Students have studied the foreign language as a subject either in primary school
for 4-6 years (3-5 classes a week) or in an intensive language preparatory year at the beginning
of secondary school (16-18 language classes a week).

Regarding linguistic prestige, the second language, especially English 'spoken worldwide', is
also highly esteemed (Dörnyei, Csizér and Németh, 2006), so students have a positive attitude
vis-à-vis both the first and the second languages. This contributes to the development of
additive bilingualism (Cummins, 2000; Baker, 2002; Göncz, 2005) where foreign language
knowledge combines with knowledge of the L1, having a positive impact on the further
acquisition of both languages. Although most studies on the linguistic and cognitive effects of
bilingual education were performed abroad (Falsgraf, 1998; Greene, 1998; Niemeier, 1999;
Göncz, 2004; Keshavarz and Astaneh, 2004; Tinajero, 2005), a recent study on Hungarian
bilingual education (Várkuti, 2009) has signalled the positive cognitive impact on the analogous
thinking of students, and the positive linguistic outcomes of additive school bilingualism.

The Hungarian bilingual education programme rarely includes the entire student population of a
school. It consists mainly of classes or groups within monolingual schools, in which at least
three school subjects are taught in the target language. Each school has its own ‘pedagogical
programme’ (this is the name of the main document based on which each school functions)
and, thus, there is considerable diversity in the way the programme is implemented locally. For
example, in the academic year 2006-07, in the last three years of bilingual secondary schools
33 subjects were taught in six target languages (Vámos, 2008). Although it is popular, bilingual
education, as Figure 1 demonstrates, involves only about 9% of general and 7% of vocational
secondary schools. Unfortunately, the bilingual education system shows some deficiencies,
which include the lack of appropriate textbooks and teaching materials (supplementary books,
maps, posters, video films, etc.), the lack of teachers who are fully qualified in both the content
subjects and the target language, school management problems, etc. (Federmayer, 2002;
Federmayer, 2005). Despite the difficulties, student achievement results are excellent as
evidenced by school leaving exams (Vámos, 2007), state language exams, and national
competitions in different school subjects (Neuwirth, 2003; Neuwirth and Horn, 2007).

Figure 1: Bilingual secondary schools in Hungary in 2006-07

http://www.icrj.eu/13/article7.html 69
International CLIL Research Journal, Vol 1 (3) 2010

The aim of the study, hypotheses

Many questions can be asked about learning in Hungarian bilingual education. Do students
have the required target language competence for working and communicating successfully in
the academically demanding classroom environment? Does the foreign language competence
of CLIL students improve more than that of the non-CLIL mainstream intensive language
learners? If this is the case, which areas of language use benefit the most? Generally, which of
the two foreign language learning models is more efficient in accomplishing the desired
linguistic goals (defined by the law of education)?

By measuring the foreign language competence of students with regard to their conversational
and academic language use, the above questions can be answered which, in fact, is the aim of
this research.

Based on previous knowledge, the following hypotheses were proposed:

- The English linguistic competence – both the communicative and the academic language
use – of Hungarian-English CLIL secondary school students would be better than that of
mainstream school students who study English within special intensive foreign language
programmes.
- The English language competence of the CLIL high school students would be at a high
enough level to allow English to be used as a medium of instruction.
- Taking into account that the learning of colloquial language is less demanding than the
learning of academic language, the communicative competence in a cognitively less
demanding conversational context would be on a higher level for both groups than would
be the case in more cognitively demanding contexts.

The method and the population studied

The study is based on the data collected between December 2006 and March 2007 in a two-
part English language competence test and a student questionnaire. The written test and the
questionnaire were completed by the students in a 45 minute teaching class period. The
evaluation of test achievement is based on the statistical analysis of the data (SPSS 13.0).

The theoretical framework of the language competence test was partly provided by foreign
studies (Cummins, 1978; Skutnabb-Kangas, 1984; Cummins, 2003) on school bilingualism of
immigrants and minorities which proposed that if a language other than the mother tongue is
used in the process of teaching, the communicative language fluency Basic Interpersonal
Communication Skills (BICS) and Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP) should be
differentiated. According to this distinction, the everyday, context-based conversational
language, is acquired more quickly, however, this form of language is inadequate for meeting
the cognitive and academic demands of the classroom. To be successful in the context-
reduced, cognitively-demanding environment of the school, a higher level language competence
is necessary. Academic language competence improves in accordance with the mental
development of the individual (Göncz and Kodžopeljić 1991; Cummins, 2000; Göncz, 2006),
and this form of language needs years to fully develop (Singleton, 1989; Hakuta et al., 2000;
Baker, 2002; Göncz, 2004). Although it strongly simplifies reality and has many limitations
(Baker, 2002), this hypothetical distinction between social and academic language may be
valuable in practice when linguistic competence is studied and measured, because specific
language skills can be associated with both of these types of language. Context-based
conversational proficiency is mainly based on pronunciation, vocabulary, and basic grammar,
while academic language proficiency needs a more subtle comprehension of meanings and
more sophisticated grammar connected to higher order cognitive processes, such as analysis,
synthesis and evaluation (Skutnabb-Kangas, 1984; Baker, 2002; Baker, 2006). In CLIL, the use
of a language other than the mother tongue in classroom instruction also involves BICS and
CALP: a social language acquired more easily and quickly, and an academic language, which
includes the expression of abstractions, and which takes more time and systematic effort to
acquire. Success in Hungarian bilingual schools also depends on whether or not students
sufficiently master the language in which they are studying. This similarity suggested the
functional approach of this study in measuring conversational and academic language use.

http://www.icrj.eu/13/article7.html 70
International CLIL Research Journal, Vol 1 (3) 2010

The two-part English language competence test created for this study was specifically designed
in its first part to measure some of the communicative language skills, and in its second part
some of the academic language skills. The test has been adapted to the linguistic requirements
of the national curriculum of English language teaching (OM Decree No. 40/2002. V.24), and
has been adjusted after pre-testing. The first part of the worksheet, the communicative test or
Test I, includes five exercises of 44 items in all, which cover several different domains of
conversational language use, and measure basic vocabulary and simple grammar needed in
colloquial language use. General and integrated knowledge at a lower everyday level is
required for solving these problems. Both language perception and production are measured by
the exercises, and also some sociolinguistic competence. Considering the testing techniques,
some context is provided partly by illustrations, partly by written text. The second part of the
worksheet called Test II, which also consists of 44 items, includes seven cognitively more
demanding exercises. These measure a more sophisticated vocabulary in more or less context
deprived situations (synonyms, antonyms, abstract nouns, less common expressions specific to
English only and others) and complex grammar (e.g. the use of several tenses). The correct
answers would require higher level lexical, semantic and syntactic knowledge and also some
meta-linguistic awareness.

The CLIL high school students being tested are referred to as the experimental group. This
group consists of 816 students from eight different Hungarian-English secondary school
bilingual teaching units (schools, classes or groups) chosen randomly.

The major criterion in setting up the control group was to find students who are expected to
meet the same high standards as the CLIL students. Therefore, the control group consists of
631 students from nine randomly chosen mainstream monolingual secondary schools that
participate in various intensive English language programmes.

Both the CLIL and non-CLIL schools involved in the study follow the same central guidelines
defined by the national curriculum (OM Decree No. 40/2002. V.24 on detailed requirements of
high school graduation exam), but due to the different local pedagogical programmes (which
precisely define the number of language classes per year, or which subjects should be taught in
the foreign language and when etc.), they are not uniform.
1
In the experimental/CLIL group, the average number of teaching periods for English as a
foreign language (English as a subject) is 5.15 per week. In addition, this group receives at least
2
three subjects in English.

The control/non-CLIL group has on average 5.30 periods a week of English as a foreign
language.

Before entering the high schools’ CLIL or non-CLIL intensive foreign language programmes,
students are selected based on an entrance examination. It is expected that they achieve at a
level demonstrating at least basic English language knowledge (comparable to level A2 of the
CEFR). Unfortunately this selection is not centralized, so there might be some differences
between the standards of the different schools (regardless of the programme being applied to).

Both the CLIL and the non-CLIL programmes seek to prepare students to achieve a C1 level
(CEFR) on school leaving examinations. However, they follow different approaches, thanks to
which students of the experimental group have a richer exposure to language.

1
1 period is 45 minutes, generally called a class.
2
In schools of the experimental group six subjects (Mathematics, History, Geography, Physics,
Biology, Computer Science) are taught in English, 3-4 in each school, in 2-4 periods a week, in
different years, for a variable length (1-6 semesters).

http://www.icrj.eu/13/article7.html 71
International CLIL Research Journal, Vol 1 (3) 2010

Despite the diversity of schools, by comparing the results of the students of the two samples,
the study can test the hypotheses and can show a numeric difference in the efficiency of the two
models – CLIL and non-CLIL – in reaching the desired linguistic goals. For methodological
reasons, the two samples were balanced according to those influential factors (other than
school type) that were considered to be relevant in having an impact on target language
learning, such as:
- age, the measure of which was the school year (all students were in grades 9-12, and the
ratios of the different school years were equal in the experimental and the control groups)
- the socio-economic background of the students measured by the schooling of the parents
(on a 5-point scale)
- the students' attitude toward learning (based on two factors: how satisfied the students are
with their own school progress in all subjects, and what is the highest level of education the
students plan to attain)
- the students' general academic achievement (measured by the students' average grades
calculated from all the subject grades of the previous school term
- the students’ achievement in their English language classes (measured by their grades)
- the students' attitudes toward the English language as measured by how much the student
prefers the language (indicated by the student on a 5-point scale).

The data necessary for equalizing the two groups were collected in the student questionnaire.
Since the two populations compared do not show statistically significant differences in the
above variables, any difference in the language competences can likely be attributed to the fact
3
that they are exposed to different language teaching/learning strategies (CLIL and non-CLIL) .

Results, analyses and discussions

1. Communicative linguistic competence

The mean of the test results for the CLIL experimental group was 32.15 points, and 21.67 points
for the non-CLIL control group. Statistical analysis of the difference indicates that the
4
communicative linguistic competence of the CLIL students is significantly better than that of the
non-CLI students. The graphic representation of the distribution of the points achieved (Figure
2) also demonstrates that the experimental group is less heterogeneous, and fewer numbers of
low achievers appear among them. In the control group 22 points were achieved the most
frequently, and only about 40% of the students obtained more points than that, while in the
experimental group the mode was 37 points, and more than 88 % of the students obtained
above 22 points.

Figure 2: The relative distribution of the points obtained on Test I

3
Although the CLIL students have greater in-school exposure to English, it is noteworthy that it
would not be possible, due to other curriculum demands, for the non-CLIL students to undertake
additional hours of English as a second language classes.
4
According to the Independent Samples T test, equal variances are not assumed (in the
Levene's test the value of F=73.09, its significance p=0.000), and the difference between the
test results of the two samples is highly significant (df=1134.506, t=24.545, p=0.000), which
indicates that the better result of the experimental group is not due to the chance effect, but due
to their better knowledge at a level of confidence higher than 95%.

http://www.icrj.eu/13/article7.html 72
International CLIL Research Journal, Vol 1 (3) 2010

In order to explore in which areas of second language use the students were more successful,
the results of the five problems were analysed comparatively (Figure 3). The analysis reveals
that the last exercise (I/ex5), in which the students had to complete an everyday conversation at
the greengrocer's, was the easiest for both groups, and the most difficult was I/ex3, in which the
meanings of some relatively frequently used English expressions had to be explained.
Arranging the exercises into an order of increasing difficulty, we find the same order in both
samples (ex5, ex2, ex4, ex1, and ex3), but the experimental group is significantly more
5
successful in solving them by a mean of 24%.

Figure 3: The relative results on the exercises of the communicative test (Test I)

Detailed analyses proved that CLIL students master English in all the measured conversational
areas at a higher level than the control students. Exercises I/ex1 (in which a letter had to be
completed), I/ex2 (in which a ten-sentence story had to be written based on pictures) and I/ex3
(in which a semantic explanation of some expressions had to be given in English) have proved
that students possess a larger social language vocabulary, more often correctly use basic
grammar rules, and have the required skills to apply them more efficiently in producing correct
sentences. A better recognition of text coherence helped students from the experimental group
to be more successful in exercises I/ex4 and also in I/ex5. The students showed not only a
better understanding and higher proficiency in producing conversational English, but also a
higher degree of sociolinguistic awareness in using the language, especially in exercise I/ex5
when in responding to the sentences of the conversational partner.

2. Academic linguistic competence

According to the comparative analysis of the cognitively more demanding academic language
test results (the experimental group had 24.08 points, the control group 13.93 points), CLIL
6
students performed significantly better. The distribution of the points earned (Figure 4) also
demonstrates that the control group is more homogeneous in the academic linguistic
achievement but at a much lower level (the mode is only 10 points). However, the experimental
CLIL group showed greater heterogeneity in using English in the cognitive context determined
by the test: it achieved better results. More than half (52%) of the CLIL students obtained 25
points or above, while in the control group only about 6.4%, and hardly anybody (except for two
students with 43 points) achieved above 33 points.

5
The Independent Samples T test indicates significant difference between the results of the two
samples, since in all the five exercises p=0.000. In exercise I/ex1 df=1294.2, t=20.837; in I/ex2
df=1314.357, t=13642; in I/ex3 df=1429.08, t=24.916; in I/ex4 df=1445, t=17.489, and in I/ex5
df=1033.613, t=16.006.
6
The Independent Samples T test indicates that the difference between the test results of the
two groups is significant (t=22.524, df=1444.899 and p=0.000).

http://www.icrj.eu/13/article7.html 73
International CLIL Research Journal, Vol 1 (3) 2010

Figure 4: The relative distribution of the points obtained on Test II

When examining the relative results in the seven different exercises, it was found that in all the
measures, the experimental group was consequently more efficient than the control group by
7
21%-30% (on average by 23%), and the differences are statistically very significant. Since the
exercises offered different areas of academic language use and measured language proficiency
by various testing techniques, the results achieved on them (Figure 5) showed great differences
within both samples, but the difficulties presented by the exercises follow a similar order,
underlining that generally all students face similar difficulties when learning a foreign language,
and this does not depend on either of the two approaches used in this study.

Figure 5: The relative results on the exercises of the cognitive language test (Test II)

Both groups were the most successful in II/ex1, which is based on the correct usage of some
verbs (win, gain, earn, do), suggesting that these are frequently applied and drilled during the
English classes in both school types. The most difficult task for both groups was II/ex4, in which
abstract nouns had to be created from the given words. This is probably because for most of the
students the concept of an abstract noun was unfamiliar. Here knowledge about the language,
meta-linguistic preparedness was helpful, similarly to II/ex2 (where synonyms had to be
recognized), or II/ex3 (where opposites of the given expressions had to be recalled from the
mental lexicon).

7
According to the Independent Samples T test of the results of the two groups, the differences
are significant in all the exercises with p=0.000. In II/ex1 t=18.31, df=1445; in II/ex2 t=13.23,
df=1445; in II/ex3 t=20.415, df=1445; in II/ex4 t=13.985, df=1439.9; in II/ex5 t=17.04, df=1441.4;
in II/ex6 t=12.84, df=1443.06 and in II/ex7 t=14.28, df=1443.75.

http://www.icrj.eu/13/article7.html 74
International CLIL Research Journal, Vol 1 (3) 2010

The test results proved that students who use English for learning subjects possess a larger
active and passive lexicon that includes less common words too, abstract concepts connected
to language, and phrases and expressions specific to English only. They are also more
successful in mobilizing these linguistic elements in the more or less decontextualized and
abstract linguistic environment of the exercises, which require conscious thinking about the
language rules applied. Results indicate that CLIL students were more effective at applying their
English skills (including meta-linguistic awareness) in exercises requiring higher order,
cognitively more demanding functions.

3. Comparing the two levels of the second language competence

The English competence (social and academic) of the CLIL group is altogether higher by 24%
on average than that of the non-CLIL group. The histograms (Figure 6), which consider the
major statistical measures, demonstrate that the performance of the experimental group is
shifted toward the higher, while that of the control group toward the lower levels of linguistic
competence. The comparative study of the two levels of English use indicates that the
conversational proficiency in both groups reached higher levels than was the case for
cognitively more demanding language (Figure 7).

Figure 6: The histograms of the joint results on the two linguistic competence tests
(Test I and II)

Figure 7: The relative means on the two tests and in the summary

http://www.icrj.eu/13/article7.html 75
International CLIL Research Journal, Vol 1 (3) 2010

Conclusions

1. The evaluation of the results of social and academic language tests revealed significantly
great differences (24% on average) between the linguistic competences of bilingual school
students, who are enrolled in the CLIL programme and those taking part in traditional
intensive foreign language learning (non-CLIL) programmes. The hypotheses that CLIL
students have a higher level of foreign language competence - both for social and for more
cognitively demanding academic communication - were supported by the data. Although
this result was expected due to the CLIL student’s richer exposure to English, the study
demonstrates a distinct numerical advantage for CLIL.

2. The result that the social language competence for both samples reached higher levels
than was the case for academic language confirms other researchers’ (Singleton, 1989;
Hakuta et al., 2000; Göncz, 2004) findings that it is easier to acquire social or
conversational language than cognitively more demanding academic language. It also
proves that both Hungary’s CLIL and non-CLIL intensive language programmes are
suitable for learning the language required for social communication.

3. After controlling for several factors such as previous achievement and socio-economic
status both the CLIL and non-CLIL groups were considered comparable, and based on
testing data, it can be concluded that the CLIL students who studied some of their non-
linguistic content subjects through English performed better on cognitively demanding
linguistic tests than non-CLIL students enrolled in an intensive foreign language class. CLIL
students had a larger and more sophisticated vocabulary, better skills in applying grammar
rules, as well as a greater confidence in and awareness of language use. Altogether they
better mastered the foreign language and can be considered more functionally proficient in
the language than non-CLIL students who study English intensively.

Considering that the aim of education is to provide functional foreign language knowledge, the
findings of this research suggest that in largely monolingual societies the CLIL approach is a
more effective means of language learning than intensive language programmes. By having
CLIL students use the language in the cognitively highly demanding environment of subject
classes they learn more language due to the meaningful nature of the communication than is
the case in more traditional intensive foreign language teaching. Education policy needs to
reflect this reality as it seeks to support new generations of learners in achieving high levels of
competence in foreign languages, particularly in a European context where language
knowledge is becoming a precondition for broad-based professional success.

http://www.icrj.eu/13/article7.html 76
International CLIL Research Journal, Vol 1 (3) 2010

References
Az 1985. évi I. törvény az oktatásról [Act No. I of 1985 on education].

A 26/1997. (VII. 10.) MKM rendelet a két tanítási nyelvű iskolai oktatás irányelvének kiadásáról
[MKM Decree No. 26/1997. (VII. 10.) on the publication of the principle of dual language school
education].

A 40/2002. (V. 24.) OM rendelet az érettségi vizsga részletes követelményeiről [OM Decree No.
40/2002. (V.24) on detailed requirements of high school graduation exam].

Baker, C.: 2002, Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. Multilingual Matters,
Clevedon.

Baker, C.: 2006, Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. 4th Revised ed.
Multilingual Matters, Ontario.

Bognár, A.: 1999, Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) Initiatives for the
Millennium from Hungary, Report on the CEILINK Think-Tank, Univ. of Jyvaskyla, Finland.

Bognár, A.: 2000, Learning Through a Foreign Language, School Subjects in a Foreign
Language: A Decade of success in Hungary, CILT, St. Martin’s College, Lancester.

Cummins, J.: 1978, Bilingualism and the development of metalinguistic awareness, Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology 9,131-149.

Cummins, J.: 2000, Language, power, and pedagogy. Bilingual children in the crossfire.
Multilingual Matters, Clevedon.

Cummins, J.: 2004, Bilingual children’s mother tongue: why is it important for education? Jim
Cummins Bilingual Education Web. http://www.iteachilearn.com/cummins/mother.htm
(accessed January 15, 2009)

Cummins, J.: 2003, BICS and CALP. Clarifying the distinction. Jim Cummins Bilingual
Education Web, http://www.iteachilearn.com/cummins/bicscalp.html
(accessed January 15, 2009).

Common European Framework of Reference for Languages,

http://www.goethe.de/ins/us/lp/prj/ger/cfl/enindex.htm (accessed August, 2009)

Dörnyei, Z., Csizér, K. and Németh, N.: 2006, Motivation, Language Attitudes and Globalisation.
A Hungarian perspective. Multilingual Matters, Clevedon.

Duff, P. A.:1991, Innovations in Foreign Language Education: an Evaluation of Three

Hungarian-English Dual-Language Schools, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural
Development 12, 459-476.

Eurydice, CLIL,:2006, Content and Language Integrated Learning at School in Europe,

Eurydice, http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/ressources/eurydice/pdf/0_integral/071EN.pdf
(accessed in February 20, 2010)

Falsgraf, C.:1998, The Social & Cognitive Challenges of Middle School Japanese Immersion.
The ACIE Newsletter, February 1998, Vol. 1, No. 2.
http://www.carla.umn.edu/immersion/acie/vol1/Feb1998_Challenges.html
(accessed February 28, 2010)

Federmayer, K.: 2002, Múlt a jövőben? Tanári töprengés a két tannyelvű oktatás problémáiról,
Köznevelés 58, 26 -9.

http://www.icrj.eu/13/article7.html 77
International CLIL Research Journal, Vol 1 (3) 2010

Federmayer, K.: 2005, Hogyan lesz az elsőből utolsó? – Működési anomáliák a két tanítási
nyelvű oktatásban, Új Pedagógiai Szemle 5, 24–29.

Genesee, F.: 2001, Brain Research: Implications for Second Language Learning. The ACIE
Newsletter, November 2001, Vol. 5, No. 1
http://www.carla.umn.edu/immersion/acie/vol5/Nov2001_BrainResearch.html
(accessed February 28, 2010)

Göncz, L.: 2004, A vajdasági magyarság kétnyelvűsége: nyelvpszichológiai vonatkozások. [The

bilingualism of Hungarians in Vojvodina: aspects of the psychology of language]. MTT Könyvtár,
Szabadka.

Göncz, L.: 2005, A kétnyelvűség pszichológiája. [The psychology of bilingualism], in Lanstyák, I.

és Vančoné Kremmer, I. (eds.), Nyelvészetről – Változatosan. Segédkönyv egyetemisták és
nyelvészet iránt érdeklődők számára, (32-76). Gramma Nyelvi Iroda, Dunaszerdahely.

Göncz, L.: 2006, Iskolaválasztás a Vajdaságban. [Choosing the school in Vojvodina], in

Gábrityné Molnár and Zs. Mirnics (eds.), Oktatási oknyomozó. Vajdasági kutatások,
tanulmányok, [Educational pragmatic. Investigations and studies in Vojvodina], (125–140). MTT
Könyvtár 12, Szabadka.

Göncz, L., and Kodžopeljić, J.: 1991, Exposure to two languages in the preschool period,
metalingvistic development and the acquisition of reading, Journal of Multilingual and
Multicultural Development 12, 65–81.

Greene, J. P.: 1998, A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of bilingual education Claremont, CA,
Tomas Rivera Policy Institute. http://www.ourworld.compuserve.com/
homepages/JWCRAWFORD/greene.htm (accessed July 25, 2008)

Grosjean, F.:1982, Life with two languages. An introduction to bilingualism. Hardward University
Press, Cambridge, Mass.

Hakuta, K. and Butler, Y.G. and Witt, D.: 2001, How Long does it take English learners to Attain
Proficiency? University of California Linguistic Minority Research Institute Policy Report 2000-1.
http://Imrinet.ucsb.edu/resdissem.html

Hoffmann, C.:1991, An Introduction to Bilingualism. Longman, London.

Hofmannová, M. and Novotná, J. and Pípalová, R.: 2008, Assessment Approaches to Teaching
Mathematics in English as a Foreign Language (Czech Experience), International CLIL Resarch
Journal, Vol. 1. (1). http://www.icrj.eu/index.php?vol=11&page=741 (accessed February 28,
2010)

Keshavarz, M. H. and Astaneh, H.: 2004, The Impact of Bilinguality on the Learning of English
Vocabulary as a Foreign Language (L3) International Journal of Bilingual Education and
Bilingualism, vol. 7, No. 4, 295–302.

Ministry of Education: 2003, Világ Nyelv Program [World-Language Programme].

http://www.okm.gov.hu/main.php?folderID=412&articleID=228375&ctag=articlelist&iid=1
(accessed January 15, 2009).

Navracsics, J.: 2004, A kétnyelvű gyermek. [The bilingual child]. Veszprémi Egyetemi Kiadó,
Veszprém.

Neuwirth, G.: 2003, Középiskolai eredménymutatók. [Measures of high school efficiency],

Iskolakultúra 1, 51-54.

Neuwirth, G. and Horn, D.: 2007, A középiskolai munka néhány mutatója 2006. [Some
measures of the efficiency of High schools 2006]. Oktatáskutató és Fejlesztő Intézet [Hungarian
Institute for Educational Research and Development]. Budapest.

http://www.icrj.eu/13/article7.html 78
International CLIL Research Journal, Vol 1 (3) 2010

Niemeier, S. :1999, A cognitive view on bilingualism and "bilingual" teaching and learning,
Journal of English Studies 1, 165-185.

Singleton, D.:1989, Language Acquisition: The Age Factor. Multilingual Matters, Clevedon.

Skutnabb-Kangas, T.: 1984, Bilingualism or not: the education of minorities. [transl. and rev. ed.
of 1981. Tvåspråkighet. Lund: Liber Läromedel]. Multilingual Matters, Clevedon.

Skutnabb-Kangas, T.: 1998, Oktatásügy és nyelv: Többnyelvű sokféleség vagy egynyelvű

redukcionizmus, Regio 9, 3–35. [Trans. of 'Educational language choice – multilingual diversity
or monolingual reductionism?' in M. Hellinger and U. Ammon (eds.) Contrastive Sociolinguistics,
(175-204), Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.]

Stoller, F.: 2002, Content-Based Instruction: A Shell for Language Teaching or a Framework for
Strategic Language and Content Learning? Keynote presented at the annual meeting of
Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Salt Lake City.
http://www.carla.umn.edu/cobaltt/modules/strategies/Stoller2002/READING1/stoller2002.htm
(accessed February 28, 2010)

Tinajero, J. :2005, Bilingual Education in Texas: Lighting the Path, Leading the Way, Language
Learner, 2005/Nov.-Dec. 17-20. http://users.rcn.com/crawj/langpol/Tinajero.pdf (accessed
February 28, 2010)

Vámos, Á.: 1993, Amikor a tanítás két nyelven folyik, [When teaching is in two languages], Új
Pedagógiai Szemle 11, 11-18.

Vámos, Á.: 2007, Kétszintű érettségi vizsga a két tanítási nyelvű középiskolákban. [Two level
baccalaureate in dual language high schools], Új Pedagógiai Szemle 3-4, 104–113.

Vámos, Á.: 2008, A kétnyelvű oktatás tannyelvpolitikai problématörténete és jelenkora. [The

presence and the history of language use in bilingual education]. Nemzeti Tankönyvkiadó,
Budapest.

Várkuti, A.: 2009, Biológia területspecifikus analógiás gondolkodás célnyelven a magyar-angol

tannyelvű gimnáziumokban, [Biology-based analogous reasoning in the target language in
Hungarian-English high schools], A biológia tanítása XVIII/ 4, 3-14.

http://www.icrj.eu/13/article7.html 79