[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-426954-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":81,"doc-detail-426954-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":74,"head_meta":76,"extra_data":78,"updated_unix":80},105,"en","vocabulary-in-clil-and-in-mainstream-education-vocabulary-size-study-of-sixth-and-ninth-graders","Vocabulary in CLIL and in Mainstream Education - Vocabulary size study of sixth- and ninth-graders","","Vocabulary size development is examined across two English learning environments: regular mainstream instruction and CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning). Sixth-graders and ninth-graders from Finland were compared using receptive and productive vocabulary size measures via the Vocabulary Levels Test (VLT) and the Productive Vocabulary Levels Test (PVLT). Results indicate CLIL yields larger receptive and productive vocabularies, and receptive knowledge exceeds productive knowledge, while the productive–receptive ratio varies by lexical frequency band.",{"@graph":14,"@context":73},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/","Research & Report",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/vocabulary-in-clil-and-in-mainstream-education-vocabulary-size-study-of-sixth-and-ninth-graders/426954/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/vocabulary-in-clil-and-in-mainstream-education-vocabulary-size-study-of-sixth-and-ninth-graders/426954.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Mia  ","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-21","2026-09-29",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",9,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"What two learning environments does the study compare?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"The study compares regular mainstream instruction with CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning).","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"How are receptive and productive vocabulary sizes measured?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"Receptive vocabulary size is measured with the Vocabulary Levels Test (VLT), and productive vocabulary size is measured with the Productive Vocabulary Levels Test (PVLT).",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"What main finding is reported about CLIL and vocabulary size?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"CLIL classrooms produce larger receptive and productive vocabularies, and receptive vocabularies are larger than productive vocabularies.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":75,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":77,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":79,"site_id":7},426954,1790650825,{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":83},"success",[84,88,92,96,101,106,111,115,119,122,126],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":85,"show_sort_weight":86,"slug":87},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":89,"show_sort_weight":90,"slug":91},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":93,"show_sort_weight":94,"slug":95},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":97,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":98,"show_sort_weight":99,"slug":100},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":102,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":103,"show_sort_weight":104,"slug":105},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":107,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":108,"show_sort_weight":109,"slug":110},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":112,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":113,"slug":114},8,30,"research-report",{"id":55,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":116,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":118},"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":117,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":120,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":121},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":123,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":124,"show_sort_weight":123,"slug":125},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":127,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":128,"show_sort_weight":97,"slug":129},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":131},{"doc_id":79,"user_id":132,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":112,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":139,"language":140,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":144,"read_time":145},687207024478,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_a8503ba1806abce46bf441b54a3ca4cd","ISSN 1798-4769  \nJournal of Language Teaching and Research, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 487-497, May 2014 © 2014 ACADEMY PUBLISHER Manufactured in Finland.  \ndoi:10.4304/jltr.5.3.487-497  \nVocabulary in CLIL and in Mainstream  \nEducation  \nRiika Merikivi  \nDepartment of English, University of Turku, Turku, Finland  \nPäivi Pietilä  \nDepartment of English, University of Turku, Turku, Finland  \nAbstract—The focus of the study reported in this article was vocabulary size attained in two learning environments, i.e. in regular mainstream instruction and in CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning). Receptive and productive vocabulary sizes of sixth-graders from both environments were compared with the respective vocabulary sizes of corresponding ninth-graders using the Vocabulary Levels Test and the Productive Vocabulary Levels Test. It was hypothesized that CLIL would produce larger vocabularies, as it offers learners more extensive and versatile exposure to the target language. This turned out to be the case, as did the previously attested phenomenon that receptive vocabularies are larger than productive vocabularies. However, the development of the productive-receptive ratio was not uniform across the frequency levels, even though it was at its highest at the third frequency band (3000 most common English words).  \nIndex Terms—CLIL, L2 vocabulary, vocabulary size, lexical frequency levels, language learning  \nI. INTRODUCTION  \nThe main objective of the study reported in this article was to compare vocabulary acquisition in two different learning environments, i.e. in regular mainstream classes and in CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning) instruction. The study investigated the development of English vocabulary of pupils in the sixth and ninth grades of the Finnish comprehensive school, using both receptive (the Vocabulary Levels Test (VLT); Nation, 1983, 1990) and productive (the Productive Vocabulary Levels Test (PVLT); Laufer & Nation, 1999) tests to measure the size of the learners’vocabularies. The study was, thus, concerned with the breadth of the learners’ vocabulary knowledge and not the depth of it, as the tests that were used only addressed the form-meaning connections of words. We hypothesized that students in CLIL classrooms would have bigger receptive and productive vocabularies than those in mainstream education because of the larger amount of foreign language input that is available in CLIL. The benefits of CLIL education have been documented in previous studies (e.g. Dalton-Puffer, Nikula & Smit, 2010), although a recent review by Sylvén (2013) demonstrates that CLIL does not always lead to better learning results compared with traditional foreign language learning methods. It is important to take into consideration a number of nation-specific contextual factors which influence learning in different countries. According to Sylvén, the not so encouraging results of CLIL in Sweden can at least partly be attributed to the fact that CLIL is not recognized in the national curriculum and, therefore, also the amount of research into CLIL is relatively scarce in Sweden. On the other hand, the generally high level of English proficiency of young people in Sweden seems to be largely due to the abundance of English in Swedish society today. In her 2004 study on vocabulary development of Swedish learners of English, Sylvén had already concluded that the importance of exposure to English outside school was greater than that ofCLIL (Sylvén, 2004).  \nThe present article focuses on the situation in Finland, which in some ways is different compared with Sweden. First of all, immersion and CLIL programmes are recognized and encouraged in the national curriculum, which gives schools a great deal of freedom to plan their teaching. This is probably one reason why there has been a considerable amount of research interest in the functioning and learning results of CLIL (e.g. Järvinen, 1999, 2005; Nikula, 2005) . Secondly, Finland ","cbCaimx6gH5szrs8","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaimx6gH5szrs8","pdf",598106,11,"English","# Introduction\n## Vocabulary size comparison across learning environments\n# Vocabulary size\n## Prior estimates and previous research on L2 vocabulary","[{\"question\":\"What two learning environments does the study compare?\",\"answer\":\"The study compares regular mainstream instruction with CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning).\"},{\"question\":\"How are receptive and productive vocabulary sizes measured?\",\"answer\":\"Receptive vocabulary size is measured with the Vocabulary Levels Test (VLT), and productive vocabulary size is measured with the Productive Vocabulary Levels Test (PVLT).\"},{\"question\":\"What main finding is reported about CLIL and vocabulary size?\",\"answer\":\"CLIL classrooms produce larger receptive and productive vocabularies, and receptive vocabularies are larger than productive vocabularies.\"}]","Vocabulary in CLIL and in Mainstream Education - Vocabulary size study of sixth- and ninth-graders | PDF",1790642312,28]