ArticlePDF Available

Comparing the Affective Outcomes of CLIL Modules and Streams on Secondary School Students

Authors:

Figures

Content may be subject to copyright.
Ohlberger, St., Litzke, V. & Wegner, C. (2019). Comparing
the Affective Outcomes of CLIL Modules and Streams on
Secondary School Students
RISTAL 2 / 2019
Research in Subject-matter Teaching and
Learning
Citation:
Ohlberger, St., Litzke, V. & Wegner, C. (2019). Comparing the Affective Outcomes of CLIL
Modules and Streams on Secondary School Students. RISTAL, 2, 6184.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.23770/rt1825
ISSN 2616-7697
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Li-
cense. (CC BY 4.0)
RISTAL. Research in Subject-matter Teaching and Learning 1 (2018), pp. 6184
61
DOI: https://doi.org/10.23770/rt1825
Comparing the Affective Outcomes of CLIL
Modules and Streams on Secondary School
Students
Stephanie Ohlberger, Vivienne Litzke & Claas Wegener
Abstract
Although CLIL streams have shown to have desirable learning outcomes, the less known option of imple-
menting CLIL modules is under-represented in empirical research. This is unsurprising as the guidelines
regarding this concept are vague compared to programmes that are already firmly and internationally
established making it particularly difficult to investigate. However, studying CLIL modules may offer un-
known insights into overlooked effects of bilingual teaching when the selection process of eligible stu-
dents is ignored. This is particularly true for the attitudinal and emotional level of engagement of the
students learning in such a setting. Therefore, the present study looks at affective differences caused by
a CLIL stream and module intervention, and more particularly at variations within the CLIL module. Alt-
hough there are some accounts for expected variation, we find conflicting evidence regarding the benefits
of CLIL modules.
Keywords
bilingual education, CLIL modules, CLIL streams, motivation, creaming effect
1. Introduction
Content and language integrated learning, commonly abbreviated as CLIL, stands for the
combination of subject matter and language learning. Participating students profit from
this method: Not only does it raise cultural awareness (Juan-Garau & Jacob, 2015), stu-
dents feel more competent in expressing themselves in the foreign language and expe-
rience an increase in self-efficacy and a decrease in language anxiety (Ohlberger &
Wegner, 2019). While these benefits are usually found in CLIL streams, which consist of
a profile class
1
with different subjects taught mainly in a foreign language and which
have been focused on mostly for CLIL outcome studies, CLIL modules are not as widely
implemented or simply less visible because they need less official sanctioning than CLIL
streams. Other than CLIL streams, modules are the short-term version of bilingual teach-
ing and their application in different teaching units as well as their duration are subject
to teacher engagement (Richter, 2004, p. 6; Elsner & Keßler, 2013, p. 20).
The general problem of researching CLIL comparatively lies in the fact that there are
varying types of realisation under the same label. This applies even more to CLIL mod-
ules, as they are less tightly regulated than CLIL streams, even within individual countries
1
Profile class refers to a class that can be chosen by students with different emphases, such as a foreign
language profile, an arts profile, a P.E. profile and the like.
RISTAL. Research in Subject-matter Teaching and Learning 1 (2018), pp. 6184
62
DOI: https://doi.org/10.23770/rt1825
or federal states. Thus interpreting and generalising research results becomes more dif-
ficult, but nonetheless offers some compelling insights. Previous findings show that stu-
dents in CLIL modules benefit from contextualised language learning (e.g., Costa & D’An-
gelo, 2011; Verriere, 2014; Rodenhauser & Preisfeld, 2015; Meyerhöffer & Dreesmann,
2019) irrespective of linguistic and cognitive prerequisites.
2. Conceptual background
2.1 CLIL in Germany
Bilingual education (used synonymously with CLIL) has been heavily researched (e.g.
Fehling, 2005; Abendroth-Timmer, 2007; Zydatiß, 2007; Osterhage, 2009; Dallinger,
Jonkmann, Hollm & Fiege, 2016; Piesche, Jonkmann, Fiege & Keßler, 2016; Rumlich,
2016 for the German context, e.g. Dalton-Puffer & Nikula, 2006; Seikkula-Leino, 2007;
Lasagabaster, 2008; Sylvén & Thompson, 2015; Lancaster, 2018; Madrid & Barrios, 2018
for international findings), although recent developments to optimise programmes re-
garding organisation, school types
2
and subjects are continuously being debated. In Ger-
many, CLIL originated in the post-war 1960s when a resolution was passed for France
and Germany to cooperate more closely. As a result, bilingual programmes were estab-
lished along the French-German border and German students learnt French in combina-
tion with other subjects (Ohlberger & Wegner, 2018, p. 46f.). With the founding of the
European Union in 1993, English gained evermore importance, as the White Paper
(1995) emphasised the necessity of being able to speak two foreign languages addition-
ally to one’s mother tongue (2+1 language policy, Dalton-Puffer, 2011, p. 184f.). Since
the year 2000, bilingual programmes in Germany have expanded even more with many
schools now offering CLIL programmes in different languages and formats, with 80% of
them utilising English (KMK, 2013; MSW NRW, 2011; Wolff, 2013, p. 21).
2.2 Differences between modules and streams
CLIL is commonly split into two different forms, namely streams and modules, although
the majority of school programmes in Germany are organised as streams. This format is
comparable to profile courses, where students are selected in virtue of good marks and
motivation or a special interest in languages. Moreover, as streams are commonly of-
fered at grammar schools, participants “tend to come from socio-economically strong
backgrounds” (Hüttner, Dalton-Puffer & Smit, 2013, p. 272). Apart from additional pre-
paratory language lessons before the CLIL programme starts, content subjects taught in
CLIL streams consist of a supplementary weekly lesson, at least in the German model.
The imbalance between CLIL stream students and their non-CLIL peers is further en-
larged as the CLIL students “continue to receive the same EFL”
3
teaching (Hüttner, Dal-
ton-Puffer & Smit, 2013, p. 272) as their peers on top of their CLIL lessons.
2
In Germany, students are separated after four years of primary school, choosing different kinds of
schools according to their level of ability.
3
English as a foreign language, denoting regular language classes in the school context.
RISTAL. Research in Subject-matter Teaching and Learning 1 (2018), pp. 6184
63
DOI: https://doi.org/10.23770/rt1825
CLIL teaching usually takes place in parallel in two to three subjects, and these may
change from term to term. The target language, which is often English, is used as a ve-
hicle to teach the content knowledge and skills of the regular course syllabus. Since the
focus is explicitly on content and not on language, it is acceptable to use the L1 (learners’
first language or school language). After all, bilingual education should not solely teach
the usual content in another language (Marsh, Masland & Nikula, 1999, p. 36; Ohlberger
& Wegner, 2018, p. 47-48), but foster a “double subject literacy” (German term: dop-
pelte Fachliteralität, Diehr & Frisch, 2018, p. 245).
CLIL modules, on the other hand, are flexible and temporary. They are offered for a
short-term period, which can range from just a few lessons to complete thematic/di-
dactic units over the course of several weeks. Teachers are free to pick a particular unit,
but it is important to select the topic with care. It is often thought to be advantageous if
the topic is connected directly to the target language on a cultural level (adhering to the
4Cs model by Coyle, 1999). An example in the realm of biology would be to point out
cultural differences in the necessity of vaccination programmes depending on regional
infection rates.
The most striking difference is that modules are offered to the whole class without leav-
ing individual students the choice to drop the module, while CLIL stream students delib-
erately choose the CLIL programme. CLIL module groups thus comprise of a heteroge-
neous group of students with unique preconditions, and it is therefore advisable to dis-
cuss the introduction of such modules with participating students beforehand. Apart
from the congruent willingness for such an intervention, it is recommended that both
the students and the teacher have a good command of the language, particularly since
the additional language lessons for CLIL streams do not apply to the module format.
When compared to CLIL streams, the foreign language level in CLIL modules might be
slightly lower, but can nonetheless be supplemented with appropriate material (scaf-
folding), whereas linguistic demands in CLIL streams can be higher as students are ac-
customed to using the foreign language in contexts (see Tab. 1 for a comparison of bi-
lingual streams and modules).
Table 1. Comparison of bilingual streams and modules (Krechel, 2003, p. 194f.).
Streams
Extent
Spans several school years, usu-
ally starting in year 7
Access & Par-
ticipation
(Usually) students apply with
good marks and high levels of
motivation mode of selec-
tion, profile class
Preparation
Two additional foreign language
lessons in years 5/6; often
schools with a language profile
RISTAL. Research in Subject-matter Teaching and Learning 1 (2018), pp. 6184
64
DOI: https://doi.org/10.23770/rt1825
School type
Predominantly grammar school
(Gymnasium)
Subjects
Traditionally social studies, his-
tory and geography, although
more courses are being offered
CLIL streams are criticised as elitist because students are preselected (van Mensel, Hiligs-
mann, Mettewie & Galand, 2019; Bruton, 2011, 2015; Rumlich, 2016). In one study, it
was shown that CLIL stream students in Belgium tend to come from families with a
higher SES
4
and are raised in two-parent households, with only 8% of these students
repeating at least one school year (as opposed to 25% in the non-CLIL group). They also
display slightly higher non-verbal intelligence scores (van Mensel et al., 2019, p. 7/10).
CLIL modules present a far more “inclusive, unifying and democratic instrument” (Costa
& D’Angelo, 2011, p. 10). It has been suggested that CLIL should be expanded to include
all students and should not promote inequality (van Mensel et al., 2019, p. 11; Wattiez
2006, as cited in van Mensel et al., 2019, p. 3). Using the CLIL module approach circum-
vents this so-called creaming effect, meaning that only top students have access to reg-
ular CLIL programmes and it is thus not surprising that learning outcomes and motiva-
tional and attitudinal values in CLIL streams often differ significantly from groups con-
sisting of non-CLIL students at the same school (Küppers & Trautmann, 2013, p. 291;
Rumlich, 2016, p. 89).
2.3 Main characteristics of students in different CLIL formats
Depending on the CLIL format that is offered at different schools, participating students
usually differ in terms of their motivational levels, their perceived self-efficacy and lan-
guage anxiety. Just as in any comparative school-based study, student characteristics
vary in a number of other domains as well, which, however, are not the focus of this
article.
2.3.1 Motivation
Learning behaviour is often associated with motivation, which is linked to interest in
different school subjects. While many subjects suffer from a general decline in interest
throughout students’ school career, this is not the case to the same extent in Germany
in the subject English (e.g. Krapp, 1998; Löwe, 1987; Daniels, 2008) The inclusion of Eng-
lish into regular subjects may, therefore, be one possible way to circumvent the general
trend in subject interest decline (Rumlich, 2014, p. 90).
Besides commonly postulated language benefits that include enhanced vocabulary
knowledge (e.g. Admiraal et al., 2006), increased reading and listening competencies as
well as a heightened language awareness (e.g. Lasagabaster, 2008; Nold et al., 2008;
4
Socio Economic Status
RISTAL. Research in Subject-matter Teaching and Learning 1 (2018), pp. 6184
65
DOI: https://doi.org/10.23770/rt1825
Zarobe, 2008), various studies have found instances of CLIL positively impacting student
motivation (e.g. Seikkula-Leino, 2007; Doiz et al., 2014; Lasagabaster & Lopez Beloqui,
2015; Sylvén & Thompson, 2015; Madrid & Barrios, 2018).
CLIL programmes are often chosen out of extrinsic motives such as the necessity of lan-
guage competence for students’ future careers and the ability to adjust to challenging
situations in a globalised world. Doiz, Lasagabaster and Sierra (2014) found that extrinsic
motives had a strong impact on students’ learning behaviour (p. 210), while Fernández
Fontecha and Canga Alonso confirmed that extrinsic language motivation was higher
than intrinsic language motivation in both CLIL and non-CLIL students (p. 25).
Another reason for the motivational effects of CLIL is that language acquisition is con-
textualised and linguistic correction is kept to a minimum, since subject content is in-
tended to dominate the CLIL lessons. However, such positive results should be inter-
preted with caution as they may not be caused by the concept of teaching content
through and with a foreign language, but instead the change in teaching methods that
occurs with it (Rumlich, 2014, p. 80). It should be noted that most research in Germany
is done on CLIL streams, which consist of a highly select group of motivated and top-
performing students (creaming effect, Bruton, 2013, p. 594; Küppers & Trautmann,
2013, p. 291; Rumlich, 2016, p. 89).
2.3.2 Self-efficacy
Self-efficacy describes someone’s belief that they will achieve a goal based on their own
capability, which can influence feelings, thoughts, motivation and behaviour (Bandura,
1994, p. 71). In school, this construct investigates how certain students feel about their
ability to complete challenging tasks (Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 2002, p. 35; Jerusalem,
2016, p. 169). Self-efficacy is not the same thing as self-concept, which decreases over
time as students compare themselves to others. Self-efficacy, on the other hand, does
not change as a function of social comparisons; it increases over a student’s school ca-
reer and is rather flexible (Donat, Radant & Dalbert, 2008, p. 181f.; Jansen, Scherer &
Schroeders, 2015, p. 14).
While academic success positively influences one’s perceived self-efficacy, negative
emotions such as stress, anxiety and fatigue have detrimental effects (Pietsch, Walker &
Chapman, 2003, p. 590; Donat, Radant & Dalbert, 2008, p. 182). Students with high lev-
els of self-efficacy actively participate in lessons and exhibit a better overall performance
when compared to students with lower perceived self-efficacy (Donat, Radant & Dal-
bert, 2008, p. 183). Bandura (1993) and other researchers (e.g. Jaekel, 2018, p. 7; Jansen,
Scherer & Schroeders, 2015, p. 13) suggest that self-efficacy is one of the most crucial
psychological constructs when predicting students’ success. The “interaction between
self-efficacy and achievement was significant” and reported to be the highest for foreign
language courses (Çikrıkci, 2017, p. 105). This was also shown in Jaekel’s study, as he
found that self-efficacy had a large positive effect on linguistic performance, which is
critical as CLIL stream students tend to have higher levels of self-efficacy than their non-
CLIL peers (Jaekel, 2018, p. 16f.). Even though one cannot say that self-efficacy beliefs
override actual ability, these beliefs “help determine what people will do with the
knowledge and skills they possess” (Pajares, 2005, p. 342).
RISTAL. Research in Subject-matter Teaching and Learning 1 (2018), pp. 6184
66
DOI: https://doi.org/10.23770/rt1825
2.3.3 Language anxiety
Anxiety is commonly classified into state and trait anxiety, with the former kind being a
momentarily perceived emotion and the latter type being of a more constant character-
istic (MacIntyre, 1999, p. 28; Tóth, 2010, p. 6). Foreign language anxiety is further cate-
gorised as situation-specific anxiety (Huang, 2012, p. 2), as students sometimes feel un-
comfortable in different situations of the language acquisition process (e.g. speaking and
listening), resulting in insecurity and frustration (Dewaele, 2007, p. 392). Reasons for
language anxiety can be oral and written exams, peer evaluations or teaching methods,
which can lead to a weak school performance and a negative perception of one’s own
language competencies (MacIntyre, 2017, p. 17).
In CLIL language acquisition occurs in a more casual atmosphere when compared to tra-
ditional language lessons. Overall, Pihko (2007) found that there are a large number of
students that feel highly anxious, especially in oral communication (34% in EFL and 30%
in CLIL contexts). On one hand, the study reported that CLIL students experience less
anxiety than students in a regular EFL class, both in terms of general foreign language
anxiety and speaking foreign language anxiety. On the other hand, CLIL students re-
ported more anxiety and stress in their CLIL lessons than their English lessons, which
could be a result of the linguistic and lexical demands in a wide variety of topics. Alt-
hough using a foreign language seems to take a lot of effort, the CLIL students are gen-
erally more willing to communicate publicly in the foreign language, even during their
teenage years when linguistic confidence is low. (Pihko, 2007, p. 134-138)
Besides the common conception of CLIL students being less anxious, some studies report
mixed results. One study found that CLIL students did not even have to be in the CLIL
stream for a very long time in order to experience less anxiety (Thompson & Sylvén,
2015, p. 14). However, another study did not find significant differences regarding anxi-
ety in CLIL and non-CLIL students (Doiz, Lasagabaster & Sierra, 2014, p. 216). One can
therefore assume that anxiety is context-based and differs according to the student
group analysed.
3. Study
3.1 Sample
After the elimination of incomplete data sets, there were a total of 266 students attend-
ing 10th grade grammar schools in Bielefeld (NRW, Germany). The CLIL module group
consisted of 183 students from 12 classes in two different but close-by schools in the
city of Bielefeld, and the stream group consisted of 83 students from four courses in
another two schools in adjacent cities. Student socio-economic background was compa-
rable irrespective of group affiliation. Student age ranged from 14 to 17 years (mean =
15.71 years), with more girls in CLIL streams (56.6% female, 43.4% male), but an almost
even distribution in the module group (51.1% female, 48.9% male).
RISTAL. Research in Subject-matter Teaching and Learning 1 (2018), pp. 6184
67
DOI: https://doi.org/10.23770/rt1825
3.2 Intervention
Both groups participated in the same two bilingual units in biology, discussing enzymes
(What is the function of enzymes? Where do we find enzymes? Which influence do pH,
temperature and substrate concentration have on enzyme activity? How can enzyme ac-
tivity be regulated?) and energy metabolism within the context of physical activity (How
is the body supplied with energy? How do muscles work? How can we enhance our per-
formance?). The module group had never encountered CLIL teaching, while the stream
students had previous CLIL classes, dismissing the novelty effect. After roughly 10-12
lessons (spanning about 4-5 weeks) in the first CLIL unit, the module group continued
their regular biology lessons in German and then took part in a second CLIL unit of
roughly the same extent. The stream group took part in both units but continued their
bilingual biology classes between them (see Fig. 1).
Figure 1. Study design indicating points in time when the questionnaire was employed.
The CLIL module group was taught by student teachers who had studied the subjects
English and biology
5
, as the students’ regular teachers did not feel capable enough to
teach subject matter in a foreign language. Obviously, this change of teacher has to be
considered in the further analysis.
As the module group students had not been exposed to CLIL modules before, they were
granted additional scaffolding material and offered all materials in German and English
to support learning of complex subject-specific terminology (MSW NRW, 2011; Preisfeld,
5
In Germany, teachers are required to study and teach two subjects, and for CLIL teachers, one of the
subjects should ideally be the foreign language. Note: this is not the case for the majority of the other
European countries, accounting for yet another difficulty of CLIL implementation (see Bruton, 2013, p.
594).
RISTAL. Research in Subject-matter Teaching and Learning 1 (2018), pp. 6184
68
DOI: https://doi.org/10.23770/rt1825
2016, p. 103). More specifically, consolidation phases at the end of a lesson were con-
ducted in both the L1 and L2 to prevent misunderstandings caused by using the foreign
language (MSW NRW, 2014; KMK, 2013). They were also provided with an additional
document in English, which contained useful phrases for describing diagrams and terms
to use in discussions and presentations. Dictionaries could be used at any time. Even
though the new teaching situation seemed difficult for the first few lessons, the German
material was rarely used. When designing a poster on Orlistat, a diet pill exemplifying
enzymatic inhibition, 90% of the posters were created and presented in English with only
a few that needed assistance from the teacher or classmates.
3.3 Test instrument
A quantitative questionnaire was used to survey student opinions about their biology
and English lessons on an affective level and was given before and after each module
(see Fig. 1). Module group students were longitudinally analysed (lasting approximately
4-6 months) and those who participated in both modules were given a total of four ques-
tionnaires (t0 t3). Stream group students only completed two questionnaires, since the
results showed very little variance in their scores and the study administrators did not
want to distract the students from their lessons more than necessary.
The questionnaire comprised mostly of closed questions and answers were indicated on
a six-point Likert-type rating scale (1 = strongly disagree to 6 = strongly agree). Questions
were provided on interest, intrinsic and extrinsic motivation for both biology and English
in school, with an expanded section on English disinterest and language anxiety (see Tab.
2). Scholastic self-efficacy questions combined both subjects by including an assessment
of the increased challenge that CLIL poses. Further, students were asked to give their
English and biology marks and to state which of the subjects English and biology they
liked better or whether they liked both equally strong or not at all. Due to the theoretical
proximity of interest and intrinsic motivation, the index variable affinity was calculated
based on the mean values of the two constructs. Additionally, sociodemographic data
was surveyed.
Table 2. Overview of constructs with sample items (in parts translated from German) surveyed in the
questionnaire, also indicating the items’ sources as well as the Cronbach’s α values.
Construct and sample item
Source
Cronbach’s α
Interest Biology
I find biology exciting.
Wegner, 2009
.866
(n = 304)
Intrinsic Motivation Biology
I study biology because I find the content very
important.
Wegner, 2009
.848
(n = 313)
Extrinsic Motivation Biology
Wegner, 2009
.689
(n = 311)
RISTAL. Research in Subject-matter Teaching and Learning 1 (2018), pp. 6184
69
DOI: https://doi.org/10.23770/rt1825
I study for biology because I want to succeed
in class.
EFL Interest*
I am almost always looking forward to English.
Rumlich, 2016
.888
(n = 311)
Intrinsic Motivation English
I like learning English because I enjoy learning
new things.
Noels et al., 2000
.877
(n = 304)
Extrinsic Motivation English
Learning English is important for me, because
it will help me find a job in the future.
Doiz et al., 2014
.705
(n = 302)
Anxiety English
I am more anxious and nervous in English than
my other classes.
Doiz et al., 2014
.852
(n = 319)
Amotivation** English
I don’t understand why I have to learn English
because I do not care about the language.
Noels et al., 2000
.833
(n = 315)
Scholastic self-efficacy
If I am determined, I can solve even the most
difficult tasks in class.
Jerusalem & Satow,
1999
.824
(n = 283)
* Interest in English as a foreign language
** Due to the theoretical closeness, amotivation is presented as disinterest in this article; also see
Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2009, p. 298.
4. Hypotheses
Taking into account student differences in CLIL streams and modules, this study aims to
explore the possibility that experiencing two bilingual modules could have the same pos-
itive effects on learns that are usually attributed to being in a CLIL stream. Although
group differences are of interest, changes within the module group are also worth not-
ing. Groups are compared before module intervention (t0) and after the completion of
two CLIL modules (t3, see Fig. 1).
I. Motivation/interest
In order to estimate positive attitudes towards the intervention, the scores of intrinsic
motivation and interest were calculated as an index variable called ‘affinity’ (for more
detail, see chapter 3.3). This was done for both English as the foreign language and biol-
RISTAL. Research in Subject-matter Teaching and Learning 1 (2018), pp. 6184
70
DOI: https://doi.org/10.23770/rt1825
ogy as the subject that was taught in a CLIL setting. As the module students did not will-
ingly choose CLIL, motivational scores for English are presumably lower when compared
to the stream students, but not necessarily for biology.
I.a) CLIL module students show significantly lower levels of English affinity when com-
pared to CLIL stream students at t0.
I.b) There are no significant differences in biology affinity between CLIL module and CLIL
stream students at t0.
I.c) CLIL module students show significantly higher levels of disinterest in English when
compared to CLIL stream students at t0.
I.d) CLIL module students show significantly lower levels of extrinsic motivation for Eng-
lish when compared to CLIL stream students at t0.
I.e) There are no significant differences in English affinity between CLIL module and CLIL
stream students at t3.
I.f) There are no significant differences in biology affinity between CLIL module and CLIL
stream students at t3.
I.g) There are no significant differences in disinterest for English between CLIL module
and CLIL stream students at t3.
II. Anxiety
As the CLIL modules will use other kinds of foreign language than regular foreign lan-
guage classes, students are presumably more anxious before the intervention starts.
However, due to becoming familiar with this type of lesson and making use of the scaf-
folding material, there will be no significant differences between module and stream
students regarding anxiety in the follow-up investigation.
II.a) CLIL module students show significantly higher levels of English anxiety when com-
pared to CLIL stream students at t0.
II.b) There are no significant differences in English anxiety between CLIL module and CLIL
stream students at t3.
III. Self-efficacy CLIL
With the CLIL module being a completely new experience in the students’ subject matter
classes, their self-efficacy beliefs about this challenge are presumably lower before they
tested the concept for a few lessons. Due to supportive and scaffolding means, it can be
expected that the students’ will cope well with the CLIL modules, which is why the hy-
pothesis for the follow-up investigation does no longer assume a difference between
the module and stream students.
RISTAL. Research in Subject-matter Teaching and Learning 1 (2018), pp. 6184
71
DOI: https://doi.org/10.23770/rt1825
III.a) CLIL module students show significantly lower levels of self-efficacy when com-
pared to CLIL stream students at t0.
III.b) There are no significant differences in self-efficacy between CLIL module and CLIL
stream students at t3.
5. Results and discussion
Based on students’ school marks, the stream group performed significantly better in
English (t(198.875) = 7.150, p 0.001, d = 0.95) and biology (t(173.811) = 3.502, p =
0.001, d = 0.46) than their peers in the module group (see Tab. 2). Better English grades
may be explained by the strict selection process, but also that these students had addi-
tional preparatory lessons in year 5 and 6 and that their regular CLIL lessons are pre-
dominantly held in English. Additionally, they are used to the CLIL teaching style in vari-
ous subjects for the past three years. However, all students have taken regular English
as a foreign language classes for at least five consecutive years, suggesting a level of B1
in the European framework of reference for languages (MSW NRW, 2014, p. 12).
Table 3. Scholastic performance differences in module and stream group students.
Group
N
Mean
SD
T
df
Sig.
(2-tailed)
Cohen’s d
English
mark
Modules
183
2.75
0.878
7.150
198.875
0.000
0.946
Streams
83
2.04
0.689
Biology
mark
Modules
183
2.52
0.919
3.502
173.811
0.001
0.463
Streams
83
2.12
0.832
Please note: German grading system: from 1 = very good; to 6 = fail
Students in both groups differed in subject preference (see Fig. 2), with the majority of
students in the stream group preferred English (55%), whereas those participating in
modules preferred biology (42.9%). Subject preference was significantly positively cor-
related with affinity, making this variable a valid means of analysis (Ohlberger & Wegner,
2017, p.159).
RISTAL. Research in Subject-matter Teaching and Learning 1 (2018), pp. 6184
72
DOI: https://doi.org/10.23770/rt1825
Figure 2. Subject preferences of students in the stream and module groups.
Compared to students in CLIL streams, module students showed significantly lower lev-
els of the construct English affinity before the modules started (t(203.392) = 7.03, p
0.001, d = 0.95; see Fig. 3 and Tab. 4, accepts hypothesis I.a). This may also be explained
by the selection process as stream students were aware of the CLIL programme require-
ments beforehand and had the choice to take part in the programme. Furthermore, this
coincides with the result that the stream students performed significantly better in Eng-
lish, leading us to confirm that motivation and performance heavily influence each other
(Schiefele, 2009, p. 164f.).
As self-efficacy greatly impacts learning and performance behaviour (Feng, Wang &
Rost, 2018, p.24; Donat, Radant & Dalbert, 2008, p. 182), we also observed that the
stream group had significantly higher self-efficacy levels (t(247) = 3.05, p 0.001, d=
0.50; see Fig. 3 and Tab. 4, accepts hypothesis III.a), once again validating the effects of
the selection process (Küppers & Trautmann, 2013; Rumlich, 2016; Möller, Hohenstein,
Fleckenstein & Baumert, 2017).
CLIL module students show significantly less extrinsic motivation for the English lan-
guage before and after the intervention (t(212.537) = 6.67, p 0.001, d = 0.90 at t0;
t(216.51) = 5.12, p 0.001, d = 0.70 at t3, respectively, see Fig. 3 and Tab. 4, accepts
hypothesis I.d). This is unfortunate as it may imply that the use of the modules did not
encourage module students to see the importance of using English in their everyday
lives. This is in contrast to students in the stream group, where extrinsic motives are
common, either because they chose this programme or realised the importance after
being in the programme.
After the intervention, stream students still exhibit higher values in English affinity when
compared to module students (t(232) = 7.96, p ≤ 0.001, d = 1.09, see Fig. 3 and Tab. 4),
which also links with the levels of disinterest in English at t0, which as expected are
significantly higher in CLIL module students (t(241.914) = 2.79, p = 0.006, d = 0.38, ac-
cepts hypothesis I.c, rejects hypothesis I.e). Even after participating in two CLIL modules,
there is still an increase in disinterest in English for module students (t(8223.748) = 6.86,
p ≤ 0.001, d = 0.94, rejects hypothesis I.g), suggesting that teaching subject-specific mat-
ter in a foreign language did not lead to a positive attitude towards English, as various
other studies propose (e.g. Darn, 2006).
RISTAL. Research in Subject-matter Teaching and Learning 1 (2018), pp. 6184
73
DOI: https://doi.org/10.23770/rt1825
No significant differences were observed in biology affinity between groups (see Tab. 4,
accepts hypotheses I.b and I.f). However, CLIL module students have a higher affinity in
comparison to stream students before the intervention, but this trend swaps after the
intervention. This could be explained by the circumstance that students apply for CLIL
streams based on the language but not the subject content. While CLIL stream students
clearly prefer the language based on their comparatively high affinity scores, this could
not be proven for the CLIL module students; after having taken part in two modules, the
affinity for English as a subject even decreased, thus this kind of intervention did not
seem to help raise their attitude towards the foreign language. This may also be partly
due to a disinterest in the topic or that they did not handle the change of teacher well.
CLIL module students exhibit significantly higher levels of language anxiety before the
modules when compared to students who willingly chose CLIL streams (t(232.986) =
8.00, p ≤ 0.001, d = 1.08; Pihko, 2007, p. 134; Thompson & Sylvén, 2015, p. 14, accepts
hypothesis II.a). Module students experienced a decrease in anxiety levels, which is still
significantly higher compared to CLIL stream students (t(228.045) = 6.75 , p ≤ 0.001, d =
0.92, rejects hypothesis II.b). These findings correspond to our results on lower motiva-
tion for English and results from other studies (Alrabai, 2015). Although anxiety levels in
the CLIL stream group are relatively low, it is still widely accepted that anxiety is also a
problem for successful language students (Pihko, 2007, p. 139).
Students from CLIL streams have significantly higher levels of self-efficacy than those
participating in CLIL modules (t(247) = 3.05, p ≤ 0.001, d = 0.50 at t0; t(196.814) = 2.72,
p = 0.007, d = 0.37 at t3, accepts hypothesis III.a, rejects hypothesis III.b), agreeing with
a previous study (Jaekel, 2018, p. 16f.). A central finding of this study is that CLIL module
students experienced slightly increased self-efficacy (see Tab. 4).
Figure 3. Comparison of all construct means between CLIL stream and module students. As a compara-
ble value of CLIL stream students, t0 is taken into account. Note: significant results are only indicated
for group differences.
* ≤ 0.050, ** ≤ 0.010, *** ≤ 0.001
RISTAL. Research in Subject-matter Teaching and Learning 1 (2018), pp. 6184
74
DOI: https://doi.org/10.23770/rt1825
Table 4. Construct means for the CLIL stream group at t0 and the CLIL module group at both t0 and t3. If
group comparison results are significantly different, this is indicated by supplying p and Cohen’s d.
Construct
Stream
group t0
Module
group
t0
Module
group
t3
Group differ-
ence t0
p, Cohen’s d
Group differ-
ence t3
p, Cohen’s d
Biology
Extrinsic
Motivation
4.32
4.26
4.16
-
-
Affinity
3.72
3.94
3.58
-
-
English
Extrinsic
Motivation
4.92
4.05
4.22
*** (0.000)
d = 0.90
*** (0.000)
d = 0.70
Affinity
4.60
3.75
3.64
*** (0.000)
d = 0.95
*** (0.000)
d = 1.09
Disinterest
1.22
1.43
1.85
** (0.006)
d = 0.38
*** (0.000)
d = 0.94
Anxiety
1.96
3.01
2.88
*** (0.000)
d = 1.08
*** (0.000)
d = 0.92
CLIL
Self-effi-
cacy
4.53
4.13
4.22
*** (0.000)
d = 0.50
** (0.007)
d = 0.37
* ≤ 0.050, ** ≤ 0.010, *** ≤ 0.001
Taking the aspects of self-efficacy, academic performance, motivation and anxiety into
consideration, a distinct picture emerges: Students in CLIL streams with roughly three
years of experience in CLIL lessons are high-achievers in both English and biology, show
high motivational levels for English with good marks, are highly self-efficacious and, by
implication, less anxious when compared to non-CLIL peers. The module group has
poorer marks in English and biology, shows less motivation for English but is slightly
more motivated for biology in contrast to the CLIL group. Also, the CLIL module students
are less self-efficacious and more anxious. To address students’ (language) uncertain-
ties, CLIL teachers require proper linguistic and pedagogical abilities to offer support
(Pihko, 2007, p. 139).
RISTAL. Research in Subject-matter Teaching and Learning 1 (2018), pp. 6184
75
DOI: https://doi.org/10.23770/rt1825
Since CLIL stream group students are high-performers because of the selection process,
it could be possible to mitigate the creaming effect by taking a subgroup with similar
characteristics from the group of regular students. This was examined by categorising
students from the module group into further subgroups comparable to the selection
process such as students that (1) perform well in English (2) have a self-assessed prefer-
ence for English and (3) have a self-assessed preference for English and biology.
When comparing subgroup (1) (n = 11) with the CLIL stream group, there are significant
differences in extrinsic English motivation at t0 (p = 0.015, d = 0.52, see Fig. 4) and English
affinity at t3 (p = 0.047, d = 0.42; see Fig. 4). Presumably due to the higher amount of
exposure to the foreign language, the stream students’ English affinity has risen
throughout partaking in the CLIL programme over the years, while the module group
could not yet profit from that circumstance. They might need more time to get used to
the new teaching concept and develop a positive attitude. However, negative develop-
ments on parts of the module group from t0 to t3 contradict this assumption; the affinity
for biology (p = 0.008, d = 2.71) and for English are affected and it can only be speculated
that more routine and thus more CLIL modules would eventually revert the trend. The
same applies to the growing disinterest for English and language anxiety. However,
there is an increase in extrinsic English motivation after the intervention.
Figure 4. Comparison of all construct means between CLIL stream students and CLIL module students
who are high-performers in English. As a comparable value of CLIL stream students, only t0 is taken into
account. Note: significant results are only indicated for group differences. * ≤ 0.050, ** ≤ 0.010, ***
0.001
Students who have a preference for English (subgroup (2), n = 38) are likely to participate
in regular CLIL programmes. In comparison to the stream group, significant differences
arise in biology and English affinity at t3 (p = 0.032, d = 0.40, p = 0.005, d = 0.52 respec-
tively) and extrinsic English motivation at t0 (p = 0.009, d = 0.49, see Fig. 5). Further,
students differ significantly in perceived self-efficacy at both points in time (p = 0.020, d
= 0.43 for t0 and p = 0.007, d = 0.51 for t3). In subgroup (2), disinterest for English is lower
RISTAL. Research in Subject-matter Teaching and Learning 1 (2018), pp. 6184
76
DOI: https://doi.org/10.23770/rt1825
when contrasted with stream students, however, this increases throughout the inter-
vention, accounting for a significant difference between t0 and t3 (p = 0.002, d = 1.18).
It has been argued that using a foreign language to teach another subject could have
compensation effects to encourage students to appreciate another subject (Bonnet,
2012, p. 208). This does not seem to hold true for subgroup (2). Instead of compensating
for the other subject, students might rather have felt that there was not enough focus
on the language and that they did not progress as fast as expected. Additionally, their
self-efficacy could have decreased once they realised that the language was possibly
more complicated in a scientific context.
Figure 5. Comparison of all construct means between CLIL stream students and CLIL module students
who are rather English-prone. As a comparable value of CLIL stream students, solely t0 is taken into
account. Note: significant results are only indicated for group differences. * ≤ 0.050, ** ≤ 0.010, ***
0.001
Ideally students interested in CLIL programmes have an affinity both to the language and
to the CLIL subject, which led us to take a deeper look at students with a preference for
English and biology (subgroup (3), n = 28, see Fig. 6). Both the regular CLIL stream stu-
dents as well as the module students with an English and biology subject preference
show considerable differences in extrinsic English motivation (p = 0.001, d = 0.63 at t0),
English affinity (p = 0.005, d = 0.56 at t0 and p ≤ 0.001, d = 0.83 at t3), English disinterest
at t3 (p ≤ 0.001, d = 0.73) and anxiety (p ≤ 0.001, d = 0.73 at t0 and p = 0.00, d = 0.54 at
t3). The subgroup of module students with an English and biology subject preference
experienced similar changes from t0 to t3 as witnessed in the other subgroups (high-
performers in English; English subject preference); affinities for both subjects decrease
(significantly in biology: p = 0.012, d = 1.08) and disinterest for English significantly in-
creases (p = 0.001, d = 1.59). On the other hand, English anxiety is significantly lowered
through the intervention (p = 0.045, d = 0.82), which is considered a small success as
there is also a slight increase in extrinsic English motivation.
RISTAL. Research in Subject-matter Teaching and Learning 1 (2018), pp. 6184
77
DOI: https://doi.org/10.23770/rt1825
Figure 6. Comparison of all construct means between CLIL stream students and CLIL module students
who favour English and biology equally. As a comparable value of CLIL stream students, only t0 is taken
into account. Note: significant results are only indicated for group differences. * ≤ 0.050, ** ≤ 0.010, ***
≤ 0.001
For a concluding overview of the hypotheses discussed, table 5 provides information on
the results.
Table 5. Overview of hypotheses and their evaluation as indicated by proven () or rejected ().
I. Motivation/interest
evalua-
tion
I.a
CLIL module students show significantly lower levels of English affin-
ity (mean of intrinsic motivation and interest) when compared to
CLIL stream students at t0.
I.b
There is no significant difference in Biology affinity (mean of intrinsic
motivation and interest) between CLIL module and CLIL stream stu-
dents at t0.
I.c
CLIL module students show significantly higher levels of disinterest
for English when compared to CLIL stream students at t0.
I.d
CLIL module students show significantly lower levels of extrinsic mo-
tivation for English when compared to CLIL stream students at t0.
I.e
There is no significant difference in English affinity (mean of intrinsic
motivation and interest) between CLIL module and CLIL stream stu-
dents at t3.
RISTAL. Research in Subject-matter Teaching and Learning 1 (2018), pp. 6184
78
DOI: https://doi.org/10.23770/rt1825
I.f
There is no significant difference in Biology affinity (mean of intrinsic
motivation and interest) between CLIL module and CLIL stream stu-
dents at t3.
I.g
There is no significant difference in disinterest for English between
CLIL module and CLIL stream students at t3.
II. Anxiety
II.a
CLIL module students show significantly higher levels of English anx-
iety when compared to CLIL stream students at t0.
II.b
There is no significant difference in English anxiety between CLIL
module and CLIL stream students at t3.
III. Self-efficacy CLIL
III.a
CLIL module students show significantly lower levels of self-efficacy
when compared to CLIL stream students at t0.
III.b
There is no significant difference in self-efficacy between CLIL mod-
ule and CLIL stream students at t3.
6. Conclusion and outlook
Our results suggest that all values for English constructs were higher in the CLIL stream
group, indicating a positive orientation for students in properly established CLIL pro-
grammes (Pihko, 2007, p. 138). The creaming effect can further be seen by looking at
perceived self-efficacy scores and school marks. Although some CLIL module subgroups
resemble the CLIL stream group, the generalisation that the three-year CLIL stream
group will have different attitudes towards English still holds. This study has, therefore,
not provided full-scale support for the assumption that CLIL modules might provide an
effective and more inclusive alternative to CLIL streams, confirming Mehisto’s statement
that “CLIL is so complex a task that it can malfunction” (2008, p. 108).
It has to be kept in mind that CLIL modules are highly dependent on the practical reali-
sation which varies according to the teacher’s expertise and the emphasis he or she
wants to set, even more so than in CLIL streams as guidelines for modules barely exist.
As this study only focused on 10th grade students, future studies should examine stu-
dents from another age group, or use modules with different topics or a different subject
entirely. The only robust evidence could be supplied by longitudinal studies contrasting
CLIL stream students with CLIL module students who experience the modules repeatedly
over the same period of time, while a serious limitation of the present study is its focus
on only two modules within six months. As this intervention could not be expected to
RISTAL. Research in Subject-matter Teaching and Learning 1 (2018), pp. 6184
79
DOI: https://doi.org/10.23770/rt1825
yield measurable changes, continuous effort has to be made to investigate correlations
between CLIL types and motivational factors further.
Acknowledgement
This project is part of the "Qualitätsoffensive Lehrerbildung", a joint initiative of the Fed-
eral Government and the Länder which aims to improve the quality of teacher training.
The programme is funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research. The au-
thors are responsible for the content of this publication.
References
Abendroth-Timmer, D. (2007). Akzeptanz und Motivation: Empirische Ansätze zur Erforschung des unter-
richtlichen Einsatzes von bilingualen und mehrsprachigen Modulen. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Admiraal, W., Westhoff, G. & de Bot, K. (2006). Evaluation of bilingual secondary education in the Nether-
lands: Students’ language proficiency in English. Educational Research and Evaluation, 12(1), 7593.
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psy-
chologist, 28, 117-148.
Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behavior, Vol. 4 (pp.
71-81). New York: Academic Press.
Bonnet, A. (2012). CLIL im Fach Chemie Wachsende Orchidee und Motor der Integration. In B. Diehr, &
L. Schmelter (Ed.), Bilingualen Unterricht weiterdenken. Programme, Positionen, Perspektiven (pp. 201-
215). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Bruton, A. (2011). Is CLIL so beneficial, or just selective? Re-evaluating some of the research. System, 39,
523-532.
Bruton, A. (2013). CLIL: Some of the reasons why and why not. System, 41(3), 587-597.
Bruton, A. (2015). CLIL: Detail matters in the whole picture. More than a reply to J. Hüttner and U. Smit
(2014). System, 53, 119-128.
Çikrıkci, Ö. (2017). The Effect of Self-efficacy on Student Achievement. In Karadağ, E. (Ed.), The Factors
Effecting Student Achievement. Meta-Analysis of Empirical Studies (pp. 95-116). Springer e-book.
Costa, F., & D'Angelo, L. (2011). CLIL: A Suit for All Seasons. Latin American Journal of Content & Language
Integrated Learning, 4(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.5294/laclil.2011.4.1.1
Coyle, D. (1999). Supporting students in content and language integrated contexts: planning for effective
classrooms. In J. Masih (Ed.), Learning through a foreign language. Models, methods and outcomes
(pp. 46-62). London: Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research.
Dallinger, S., Jonkmann, K., Hollm, J., & Fiege, C. (2016). The Effect of Content and Language Integrated
Learning on Students' English and History Competences Killing Two Birds with One Stone? Learning
and Instruction, 41, S. 23-31.
Dalton-Puffer, C., & Nikula, T. (2006). Pragmatics of content-based instruction: Teacher and student direc-
tives in Finnish and Austrian classrooms. Applied Linguistics, 27(2), 241-267. doi:10.1093/app-
lin/aml007
Daniels, Z. (2008). Entwicklung schulischer Interessen im Jugendalter. Münster: Waxmann.
Darn, S. 2006. CLIL: a European overview. INGED News Online Issue 2. http://www.stevedarn.com/?Writ-
ings::CLIL%3A_A_European_Overview
RISTAL. Research in Subject-matter Teaching and Learning 1 (2018), pp. 6184
80
DOI: https://doi.org/10.23770/rt1825
Dewaele, J.-M. (2007). The effect of multilingualism, sociobiographical, and situational factors on commu-
nicative anxiety and foreign language anxiety of mature language learners. International Journal of
Bilingualism, 11(4), 391-409.
Diehr, B. & Frisch, S. (2018). Das Zusammenspiel von zwei Sprachen im bilingualen Unterricht. Theoretische
Überlegungen, empirische Erkenntnisse und praktische Implikationen. In C. Caruso, J. Hofmann, A.
Rohde & K. Schick (Ed.), Sprache im Unterricht. Ansätze, Konzepte, Methoden (pp. 245-259). Trier: WVT.
Doiz, A., Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. M. (2014). CLIL and motivation: the effect of individual and contex-
tual variables. The Language Learning Journal, 42(2), 209-224.
Donat, M., Radant, M., & Dalbert, C. (2008). Psychologie der Schülerpersönlichkeit. In M. K. W. Schweer
(Ed.), Lehrer-Schüler-Interaktion (pp. 127-154). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Dörnyei, Z., & Ushioda, E. (2009). Motivation, Language Identity and the L2 Self. Bristol: Multilingual Mat-
ters.
Elsner, D., & Keßler, J.-U. (2013). Bilingual Education in Primary School Aspects of Immersion, CLIL and
Bilingual Modules. Tübingen: Narr.
Fehling, S. (2005). Language Awareness und bilingualer Unterricht. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Feng, X., Wang, J.-L., & Rost, D. H. (2018). Akademische Selbstkonzepte und akademische Selbstwirksam-
keiten: Interdependenzen und Beziehungen zu schulischen Leistungen. Zeitschrift für pädagogische Psy-
chologie, 32(1-2), 23-38. https://doi.org/10.1024/1010-0652/a000218
Fernández Fontecha, A., & Canga Alonso, A. (2014). A preliminary study on motivation and gender in CLIL
and non-CLIL types of instruction. International Journal of English Studies, 14(1), 21-36.
Huang, J. (2012). Overcoming foreign language classroom anxiety. New York, NY: Nova Science Publ.
Hüttner, J., Dalton-Puffer, C., & Smit, U. (2013). The power of beliefs: lay theories and their influence on
the implementation of CLIL programmes. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism,
16(3), 267-284. DOI: 10.1080/13670050.2013.777385
Jaekel, N. (2018). Language learning strategy use in context: the effects of self-efficacy and CLIL on lan-
guage proficiency. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching. Advance online
publication, available at https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2016-0102
Jansen, M., Scherer, R., & Schroeders, U. (2015). Students‘ self-concept and self-efficacy in the sciences:
Differential relations to antecedents and educational outcomes. Contemporary Educational Psycho-
logy, 41, 13-24.
Jerusalem, M., & Satow, L. (1999). Schulbezogene Selbstwirksamkeitserwartung. In R. Schwarzer, & M.
Jerusalem (Ed.), Skalen zur Erfassung von Lehrer- und Schülermerkmalen. Berlin.
Juan-Garau, M., & Jacob, K. (2015). Developing English learners’ transcultural skills through content- and
task-based lessons. System, 54(SI), 55-68. doi:10.1016/j.system.2015.04.017
KMK (2013). Bericht „Konzepte für den bilingualen Unterricht – Erfahrungsbericht und Vorschläge zur Wei-
terentwicklung“. http://www.kmk.org/fileadmin/Dateien/ veroeffentlichungen_beschlu-
esse/2006/2006_04_10-Konzepte-bilingualer-Unterricht.pdf
Krapp, A. (1998). Entwicklung und Förderung von Interessen im Unterricht. Psychologie, Erziehung, Unter-
richt, 44, 185-201.
Krechel, H.-L. (2003). Bilingual Modules: Flexible Formen bilingualen Lehrens und Lernens. In M. Wildhage
(Ed.), Praxis des bilingualen Unterrichts (pp. 194-216). Berlin: Cornelsen Scriptor.
Küppers, A., & Trautmann, M. (2013). It’s not CLIL that is a success – CLIL students are! Some critical re-
marks on the current CLIL boom. In S. Breidbach & B. Viebrock (Ed.), Content and Language Integrated
Learning (CLIL) in Europe. Research perspectives on policy and practice (pp. 285-296). Frankfurt am
Main: Peter Lang.
Lancaster, N. K. (2018). Extramural Exposure and Language Attainment: The Examination of Input-Related
Variables in CLIL Programmes. Porta Linguarum, 29, 91-114.
RISTAL. Research in Subject-matter Teaching and Learning 1 (2018), pp. 6184
81
DOI: https://doi.org/10.23770/rt1825
Lasagabaster, D. (2008). Foreign language competence in content and language integrated courses. The
Open Applied Linguistics Journal, 1(1), 31-42. doi: 10.2174/1874913500801010030
Lasagabaster, D. & Lopez Beloqui, R. (2015). The Impact of Type of Approach (CLIL Versus EFL) and Meth-
odology (Book-Based Versus Project Work) on Motivation. Porta Linguarum, 23, 4157.
Löwe, B. (1992). Biologieunterricht und Schülerinteresse an Biologie. In Schriftenreihe der Pädagogischen
Hochschule Heidelberg, Band 9.
MacIntyre, P. D. (2017). An Overview of Language Anxiety Research and Trends in its Development. In C.
Gkonou, M. Daubney, & J.-M. Dewaele (Ed.), New Insights into Language Anxiety. Theory, Research
and Educational Implications (pp. 11-30). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Madrid, D., & Barrios, E. (2018). A Comparison of Students’ Educational Achievement across Programmes
and School Types with and without CLIL Provision. Porta Linguarum, 29, 29-50.
Marsh, D., Marsland, B., & Nikula, T. (1999). CLIL: a review of current thinking. In D. Marsh & B. Marsland
(Ed.), CLIL initiatives for the millenium (pp. 34-45). Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä Continuing Educa-
tion Centre.
Mehisto, P. (2008). CLIL counterweights: Recognising and decreasing disjuncture in CLIL. International CLIL
Research Journal, 1(1), 93-119.
Meyerhöffer, N. & Dreesmann, D. C. (2019). English-bilingual biology for standard classes development,
implementation and evaluation of an English-bilingual teaching unit in standard German high school
classes. International Journal of Science Education, 41(10), 1366-1386. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09500693.2019.1607620
Möller, J., Hohenstein, F., Fleckenstein, J., & Baumert, J. (2017). Formen und Effekte des Fremdsprachen-
erwerbs und der bilingualen Beschulung. In J. Möller, F. Hohenstein, J. Fleckenstein, O. Köller, & J. Bau-
mert (Ed.), Erfolgreich integrieren - die Staatliche Europa-Schule Berlin (pp. 25-48). Münster:
Waxmann.
MSW NRW (2011). Bilingualer Unterricht in Nordrhein-Westfalen. https://www.schulministe-
rium.nrw.de/docs/Schulsystem/Unterricht/Lernbereiche-und-Faecher/Fremdsprachen/Bilingualer-
Unterricht/Kontext/Broschuere_Bilinguale-Unterricht-in-NRW.pdf
MSW NRW (2014). Kernlehrplan für die Sekundarstufe II Gymnasium/Gesamtschule in Nordrhein-Westfa-
len: Englisch. Retrieved from http://www.schulentwicklung.nrw.de/lehrplaene/up-
load/klp_SII/e/KLP_GOSt_Englisch.pdf
Noels, K. A., Pelletier, L. G., Clément, R., & Vallerand, R. J. (2000). Why Are You Learning a Second Lan-
guage? Motivational Orientations and Self-Determination Theory. Language Learning, 50, 57-85. doi:
10.1111/0023-8333.00111
Nold, G., Hartig, J., Hinz, S. & Rossa, H. (2008). Klassen mit bilingualem Sachfachunterricht: Englisch als
Arbeitssprache. In DESI-Konsortium (Ed.), Unterricht und Kompetenzerwerb in Deutsch und Englisch
(pp. 451457). Weinheim: Beltz.
Ohlberger, S., & Wegner, C. (2017). Motivational Changes due to the Implementation of a Bilingual Module
in Biology. Journal of Innovation in Psychology, Education and Didactics, 21(2), 149-176.
Ohlberger, S., & Wegner, C. (2018). Bilingualer Sachfachunterricht in Deutschland und Europa Darstel-
lung des Forschungsstands. HLZ Herausforderung Lehrer_innenbildung, 1(1), 45-89.
Ohlberger, S., & Wegner, C. (2019). CLIL modules and their affective impact on students with high English
anxiety and low self-efficacy. Apples: Applied Language Studies, 13(3), 1-15.
Osterhage, S. (2009). Sachfachkönnen (scientific literacy) bilingual und monolingual unterrichteter Biolo-
gieschüler: ein Kompetenzvergleich. In D. Caspari, W. Hallet, A. Wegner, & W. Zydatiß (Hg), Bilingualer
Unterricht macht Schule: Beiträge aus der Praxisforschung (pp. 41-50). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Pajares, F. (2005). Self-Efficacy during Childhood and Adolescence Implications for Teachers and Parents.
In F. Pajares & T. Urdan, Self-Efficacy Beliefs of Adolescents (pp. 339-367). Information Age Publishing.
RISTAL. Research in Subject-matter Teaching and Learning 1 (2018), pp. 6184
82
DOI: https://doi.org/10.23770/rt1825
Piesche, N., Jonkmann, K., Fiege, C., & Keßler, J.-U. (2016). CLIL for all? A randomised controlled field ex-
periment with sixth-grade students on the effects of content and language integrated science learning.
Learning and Instruction, 44, S. 108116. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.04.001.
Pietsch, J., Walker, R., & Chapman, E. (2003). The relationship among self-concept, self-efficacy, and per-
formance in mathematics during secondary school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(3), 589603.
Pihko, M. K. (2007). Foreign language anxiety in content and language integrated learning (CLIL) and in
traditional foreign language classes. In S. Tella (Ed.), From brawn to brain: Strong signals in foreign
language education (pp. 129142). Helsinki: University of Helsinki.
Preisfeld, A. (2016). Die Bedeutung bilingualen Experimentalunterrichts in Biologie für die fachliche und
sprachliche Kompetenz. In B. Diehr, A. Preisfeld, & L. Schmelter (Ed.), Bilingualen Unterricht weiterent-
wickeln und erforschen (pp. 103-123). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Richter, R. (2004). And now in English, please. Unterricht Biologie, 297/298, 4-12.
Rodenhauser, A., & Preisfeld, A. (2015). Bilingual (German-English) Molecular Biology Courses in an Out-
of-School Lab on a University Campus: Cognitive and Affective Evaluation. International Journal of En-
vironmental & Science Education, 10(1), 99-110.
Rumlich, D. (2014). Prospective CLIL and non-CLIL students’ interest in English (classes): A quasi-experi-
mental study on German sixth-graders. In R. Breeze, C. Llamas Saiz, & C. Martinez Pasamar (Ed.),
Utrecht Studies in Language and Communication. Integration of theory and practice in CLIL (pp. 75-
95). Rodopi.
Rumlich, D. (2015). Zur affektiv-motivationalen Entwicklung von Lernenden im CLIL Unterricht. In B.
Rüschoff, J. Sudhoff, & D. Wolff (Ed.), CLIL Revisited: Eine kritische Analyse des gegenwärtigen Standes
des bilingualen Sachfachunterrichts (pp. 309-330). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Rumlich, D. (2016). Evaluating bilingual education in Germany: Peter Lang.
Schiefele, U. (2009). Motivation. In E. Wild & J. Möller (Ed.), Pädagogische Psychologie (pp.151-177). Hei-
delberg: Springer Medizin Verlag. DOI 10.1007/978-3-540-88573-3_7
Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (2002). Das Konzept der Selbstwirksamkeit. In M. Jerusalem & D. Hopf (Ed.),
Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, Beiheft: Vol. 44. Selbstwirksamkeit und Motivationsprozesse in Bildungsinsti-
tutionen (pp. 28-53). Weinheim: Beltz.
Seikkula-Leino, J. (2007). CLIL Learning. Achievement Levels and Affective Factors. Language and Educa-
tion, 21(4), S. 328341. doi: 10.2167/le635.0.
Sylven, L. K., & Thompson, A. S. (2015). Language learning motivation and CLIL Is there a connection?
Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 3(1), S. 2850. doi:
10.1075/jicb.3.1.02syl
Thompson, A. S., & Sylvén, L. K. (2015). “Does English make you nervous?” Anxiety profiles of CLIL and non-
CLIL students in Sweden. Apples Journal of Applied Language Studies, 9(2), 123.
Tóth, Z. (2010). Foreign Language Anxiety and the Advanced Language Learner: A Study of Hungarian
Students of English as a Foreign Language. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
van Mensel, L., Hiligsmann, P., Mettewie, L., & Galand, B. (2019). CLIL, an elitist language learning ap-
proach? A background analysis of English and Dutch CLIL pupils in French-speaking Belgium. LANGU-
AGE CULTURE AND CURRICULUM, 1(4), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2019.1571078
Verriere, K. (2014). Bilinguale Module im Mathematikunterricht und ihr Einfluss auf die Lernbereitschaft
der Schüler/innen für das Sachfach. Trier: WVT Wiss. Verl.
Wegner, C. (2009). Entwicklung und Evaluation des Projektes "Kolumbus-Kids" zur Förderung begabter
SchülerInnen in den Naturwissenschaften (Dissertation). Bielefeld University, Bielefeld.
Wolff, D. (2013). CLIL als europäisches Konzept. In W. Hallet & F. G. Königs (Ed.), Handbuch Bilingualer
Unterricht Content and Language Integrated Learning (pp. 18-25). Seelze: Friedrich Verlag.
RISTAL. Research in Subject-matter Teaching and Learning 1 (2018), pp. 6184
83
DOI: https://doi.org/10.23770/rt1825
Zarobe, Y. R. (2008). CLIL and foreign language learning: A longitudinal study in the Basque Country. Inter-
national CLIL Research Journal, 1 (1), 60-73.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1995). Self-efficacy and educational development. In A. Bandura (Ed.), Self-efficacy in
changing societies (pp. 202231). New York, NY, US: Cambridge University Press.
Zydatiß, W. (2007). Deutsch-Englische Züge in Berlin (DEZIBEL). Eine Evaluation des bilingualen Sachfach-
unterrichts an Gymnasien. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Dr. Stephanie Ohlberger, research assistant in the context of the project “bi(o)lingual”,
M. Ed. in English and Biology, currently trainee teacher at a local secondary school
Vivienne Litzke, M. Sc. in Biology at Bielefeld University; B. A. & Sc. in Cognitive Science
at McGill University.
Prof. Dr. Claas Wegner, Professor for Biology Didactics, Head of the OZHB (centre for
researching and promoting gifted students, http://www.ozhb.de), secondary school
teacher (Biology, Pedagogy, P.E.)
... Drama techniques and activities are used to develop communication skills through fluency, pronunciation, co-operative learning, confidence-building and intercultural awareness. Ohlberger et al. [53] argue in their study that there was a great effect on students' self-efficacy. The CLIL students have different attitudes towards English compared with the non-CLIL students. ...
Article
Full-text available
The current study aimed at exploring the impact of a proposed programme grounded on CLIL and drama on developing 9th graders' English speaking skills and their self-efficacy. The sample of the study were two ninth-grade classes who were chosen randomly from El-Mamounia preparatory girls' school A for Palestinian Refugees in Gaza city. Each class has (34) students. One class was considered as an experimental group and the other as a control group. For the purpose of the study, the researchers used two main tools: (1) a pre-post speaking test, and (2) a students' self-efficacy scale. The findings revealed that the suggested program based on CLIL and drama was effective in improving 9th graders' speaking skills and their self-efficacy. The results showed that the students after they were exposed to the suggested programme, can speak more fluently, accurately, and confidently in English. It became clear that dramatizing the CLIL facilitates understanding the content as it is greatly connected to the learners' life that helps them interact effectively with different situations. The suggested program based on CLIL and drama showed improvement in the students' speaking skills. This may be attributed to different reasons: students were motivated to participate during the implementation of the program as it was interesting to present the lesson in a dramatized way. In light of these findings, the researchers recommend EFL Palestinian teachers to dramatize the CLIL as a means of improving learners' speaking skills and their self-efficacy to learn English and educational drama.
... The researchers state that self-efficacy pertains to a person's self-judgment of how well she\he can perform their behaviors in particular conditions. Ohlberger et al. (2019), pertains that while academic success positively influences one"s perceived selfefficacy, negative emotions such as stress, anxiety and fatigue have detrimental effects. Students with high levels of self-efficacy actively participate in lessons and exhibit a better overall performance when compared to students with lower perceived self-efficacy (Donat et al., 2008). ...
Article
Full-text available
This study aimed at exploring the impact of Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) and drama on students' self-efficacy towards learning English through drama. The sample of the study was (68) ninth graders (divided into two equal groups) from Al-Mamounia preparatory school in Gaza Strip. The two researchers used a self-efficacy scale. The findings revealed that the program based on CLIL and Drama was effective to improve the students' self-efficacy towards learning English in general and towards learning English through drama. The researchers recommend that EFL Palestinian teachers should use the CLIL and drama approach as a tool for enhancing students' self-efficacy.
Book
Das Buch liefert einen Einblick in fachbezogene Inklusionsdiskurse in nahezu jeder Fachdidaktik. Zudem werden für die jeweiligen Fachdidaktiken „typische“ Phänomene schulischer Inklusion herausgearbeitet und beispielhaft illustriert. Im Durchgang durch die unterschiedlichen fachdidaktischen „Aneignungsformen“ des bildungspolitischen Impulses der UN-BRK zur Institutionalisierung eines inklusiven Schulsystems zeigt sich, dass die disziplinären Eigenlogiken der Fächer durchaus wirksam sind, zugleich aber vielfältige schulpraktische Lösungen angeboten werden. So bietet das Buch insgesamt eine Synopse des fächerspezifischen Inklusionsdiskurses als Antwort auf die governanceanalytische Frage: „Was implementiert sich da eigentlich?“ Die Herausgeber*innen Dr. Michael Braksiek ist wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter im Fach Sportwissenschaft an der Universität Vechta. Prof. Dr. Bernd Gröben ist Professor für Sportwissenschaft an der Universität Bielefeld. Dr. Kinga Golus ist wissenschaftliche Mitarbeiterin im Fach Philosophie an der Universität Bielefeld. Prof. Dr. Martin Heinrich ist Professor für Schulentwicklung und Schulforschung und Leiter der Wissenschaftlichen Einrichtung Oberstufen-Kolleg an der Universität Bielefeld. Dr. Peter Schildhauer ist Akademischer Rat im Fachbereich ‚Teaching English as a Foreign Language‘ an der Universität Bielefeld. Dr. Lilian Streblow ist wissenschaftliche Mitarbeiterin in der Bielefeld School of Education an der Universität Bielefeld.
Chapter
Im vorliegenden Beitrag werden fachspezifische Ansätze einer inklusiven Biologiedidaktik beschrieben. Zunächst werden der Inklusionsbegriff im Fachdiskurs sowie der Forschungsstand für das Fach Biologie dargestellt. Als fachspezifische Merkmale zur Gestaltung und Untersuchung von Inklusion können die Diversität, die emotional geprägten Vorerfahrungen der Lernenden mit einigen Inhalten und ihr Lebensweltbezug herausgestellt werden. Abschließend wird der diversitätssensible Umgang mit den Themen Evolution und Sexualität als fachspezifisches Phänomen schulischer Inklusion näher ausgeführt.
Thesis
Full-text available
The current study aimed at investigating the effectiveness of a suggested programme based on CLIL and drama on developing 9th graders' English speaking skills and their self-efficacy. The sample of the study were two ninth grade classes who were chosen randomly from from El-Mamounia preparatory girls' school A for Palestinian Refugees in Gaza city. Each class has (34) students. One class was considered as an experimental group and the other as control group. For the purpose of the study, the researcher used two main tools: (1) a pre-post speaking test, and (2) a students' self-efficacy scale. The findings revealed that the suggested program based on CLIL and drama was effective in improving 9th graders' speaking skills and their self-efficacy. The results showed that the students, after they were exposed to the suggested programme, have the ability to speak more fluently, accurately and confidently in English. It became clear that dramatizing the CLIL facilitates understanding the content as it is greatly connected to the learners' life that helps them interact effectively with different situations. The suggested program based on CLIL and drama showed improvement in the students' speaking skills. This may be attributed to different reasons: students were motivated to participate during the implementation of the program as it was interesting to present the lesson in a dramatized way. In light of these findings, the researcher recommends EFL Palestinian teachers to dramatize the CLIL as a tool of enhancing students' speaking skills and their self-efficacy towards learning English and educational drama.
Thesis
Full-text available
The current study aimed at investigating the effectiveness of a suggested programme based on CLIL and drama on developing 9th graders' English speaking skills and their self-efficacy. The sample of the study were two ninth grade classes who were chosen randomly from from El-Mamounia preparatory girls' school A for Palestinian Refugees in Gaza city. Each class has (34) students. One class was considered as an experimental group and the other as control group. For the purpose of the study, the researcher used two main tools: (1) a pre-post speaking test, and (2) a students' self-efficacy scale. The findings revealed that the suggested program based on CLIL and drama was effective in improving 9th graders' speaking skills and their self-efficacy. The results showed that the students, after they were exposed to the suggested programme, have the ability to speak more fluently, accurately and confidently in English. It became clear that dramatizing the CLIL facilitates understanding the content as it is greatly connected to the learners' life that helps them interact effectively with different situations. The suggested program based on CLIL and drama showed improvement in the students' speaking skills. This may be attributed to different reasons: students were motivated to participate during the implementation of the program as it was interesting to present the lesson in a dramatized way. In light of these findings, the researcher recommends EFL Palestinian teachers to dramatize the CLIL as a tool of enhancing students' speaking skills and their self-efficacy towards learning English and educational drama.
Article
Full-text available
Bilingualer Unterricht (im europäischen Kontext ‚Content and Language Integrated Learning‘, kurz: CLIL) ist seit Jahren ein fester Bestandteil der deutschen Schullandschaft. Evaluiert wurden diese Programme anfangs jedoch selten und nur mit geringen Stichprobenumfängen sowie mittels zweifelhafter Designs, sodass Ergebnisse schwer verallgemeinert werden konnten. Dieser Artikel gibt einen Überblick über die bisherige Forschung zu CLIL und zeigt Forschungslücken auf, die bisher selten beachtet wurden. So ergibt der Studienreview seit 2000 überwiegend positive Forschungsergebnisse in Bezug auf die sprachlichen Kompetenzen der Schüler und auch inhaltlich wird selten von Einbußen berichtet. Bei einer genaueren Betrachtung der bisherigen Studien wird deutlich, dass sehr oft an vorselektierten Stichproben geforscht wurde – dieser Umstand basierte auf der Tatsache, dass in traditionellen bilingualen Programmen Schülerinnen und Schüler gezielt nach Noten und Motivation für bilinguale Klassen ausgesucht wurden, was den Vergleich mit regulär beschulten Kontrollgruppen invalide machte. Dementsprechend wenig ist bisher über die Wirkung von CLIL auf reguläre, heterogene Klassen bekannt. Weitere Ergebnisse zeigen einerseits, dass Lehrer wie auch Eltern von dem Unterrichtskonzept überzeugt sind, andererseits aber große Unsicherheit besteht, was die ‚korrekte‘ Erteilung von CLIL-Unterricht angeht. Es deutet sich an, dass weitere Evaluationen von allen bilingualen Unterrichtsformen in gut durchdachten Forschungssettings durchgeführt werden müssen, darüber hinaus aber auch vermehrt Schritte in der Lehrerausbildung unternommen werden müssen, um bilingualen Unterricht für Schülerinnen und Schüler und Lehrkräfte noch effektiver zu gestalten.
Article
Full-text available
This paper discusses factors that determine school achievement in general, with special reference to school type, and the factors that make schools different, such as the students’ economic and sociocultural level and family support. Then, it provides data about academic achievement in CLIL and non-CLIL programme groups and across three different types of schools: public (bilingual and non-bilingual), private (bilingual) and charter (non-bilingual), with a research design that matches students in terms of verbal intelligence and motivation. A total of 13 public (n = 551), one private (n = 42) and three charter (n = 127) schools at both the primary and secondary levels from the provinces of Cádiz and Málaga in Andalusia, Spain, participated in the study. Performance in L1 (Spanish), FL (English) and subjects taught in English in CLIL (or bilingual) schools (Natural, Social and Cultural Environment Education in primary education, Natural Science in compulsory secondary education) is compared. Results show differences in performance between the CLIL and the mainstream, non-CLIL programme and between school types-particularly at the secondary level. Additionally, results from discriminant analyses seem to provide evidence that factors such as motivation, verbal intelligence, extramural exposure to English and socioeconomic status cannot account for differences between CLIL and non-CLIL groups.
Article
Full-text available
This article documents the findings of a quantitative study to gauge the impact of CLIL and extramural exposure on foreign language attainment. The relationship between CLIL and input-related variables is examined from a double-fold perspective. First, it is determined if CLIL scenarios favour more extramural exposure to English (in the form of books and magazines, TV series and movies, the Internet and videogames, songs and private lessons). Then, we reveal if language outcomes are better by means of CLIL or Formal Instruction (FI) and how this varies according to type of school. Finally, we explore whether the language proficiency differential between the CLIL and the EFL groups can be ascribed to this extramural exposure or whether other variables (such as motivation, verbal intelligence, socioeconomic status, or the CLIL programme itself) account for the greatest proportion of variance. Ten public bilingual and charter schools (in Primary and Compulsory Secondary Education) in the autonomous community of Extremadura have taken part in the study, with a total of 156 CLIL learners and 162 EFL students.
Article
English connects all areas of science around the world. Productive and receptive English-language skills are thus a crucial tool that schools must provide their students with in order to prepare them for higher education and professional life. The introduction of bilingual instruction of subject matter, often referred to as Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL), allows for incorporating English as a medium of communication directly into the science classroom. However, such bilingual lessons are often only accessible in the context of bilingual programmes for which students have to qualify based on their previous performance. The present study assessed the applicability of bilingual modules in non-selected groups of students. For this, a bilingual teaching unit on immunology was developed and implemented in standard German ninth grade classes. After the unit, bilingually taught students showed the same content knowledge gains as their peers who had been taught solely in their native language. Average achievement motivation ratings before and after the unit were medium to high in all classes, and the majority of students was open to more bilingual lessons. An evaluation of student comments provides further indications for the development of future bilingual units.
Article
Content and language integrated learning (CLIL) programmes are increasingly popular throughout Europe, but are sometimes accused of inducing a selection bias in the pupil population, both through selection mechanisms of the schools themselves and self-selection of the pupils (and/or their parents). As a result, the outcomes of the CLIL approach may be artificially promoted, and, at the same time, such a selection bias can contribute to an elitist education model, which arguably runs counter to the aims of the approach. This paper looks into a number of background variables of both English and Dutch CLIL learners in Francophone Belgium and compares them to their non-CLIL counterparts. Results from a logistic regression indicate that there is indeed evidence of selection: the socio-economic status of the pupils appears as the main predictor of whether a pupil is in a CLIL or a non-CLIL track, whereas other, more personal, variables such as non-verbal intelligence play a minor (or additional) role. Moreover, Dutch CLIL programmes appear to be more selective than English CLIL programmes in this context. We conclude that CLIL (and particularly Dutch CLIL) in French-speaking Belgium, although a priori open to anyone, is particularly attractive to a socially privileged public. For a free copy of this article, see https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/KIWJZ2NNUKIHFUZVH5MJ/full?target=10.1080/07908318.2019.1571078 (or request full-text).
Article
Language learning strategies (LLS) are suggested to facilitate learning and support learner autonomy. The integration of content and language in foreign language education increases the cognitive work load. Furthermore, self-efficacy has been identified as a key predictor for strategy use and language achievement. The present study aimed to (1) investigate LLS use in content-based versus traditional foreign language environments and (2) assess the impact LLS use and self-efficacy have on language proficiency. Participants were Year 9 Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) and regular English as a foreign language (EFL) students (N=378) in Germany. Structural equation modelling, controlling for a range of confounding variables, showed that (1) there was no difference in LLS use between CLIL and EFL students. (2) LLS use had a negative impact while self-efficacy predicted higher language proficiency. These results suggest that students may best be supported by enhancing their self-efficacy while they should carefully choose their strategies.
Article
Self-concept and self-efficacy are important constructs in educational psychology. They have frequently been the object of research in the past, mostly, however, in separate studies. Thus, little is known about their juxtaposition and incremental validity they possess for predicting academic performance. This study sheds some light on the interdependence of three subject-related academic self-concepts and three corresponding subject-related academic self-efficacies as well as on their predictive power opon the respective scholastic achievements (grades in the subjects English, History, Mathematics). The sample comprised N = 825 Chinese middle-school students (M = 14.46 years, SD = 0.79). All variables were measured on the same level of generality. Confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) revealed two "self"-factors (self-concept, self-efficacy) within each school subject and three subject-specific factors (English, History, Mathematics) within each "self"-construct. Pooled CFA confirmed six dimensions: three subject-related academic self-concept factors and three subject-related academic self-efficacy factors. Less differentiated models did not fit well. Multiple regression analyses and commonality analyses revealed that the subject-specific academic self-concepts scales were more powerful statistical predictors of scholastic achievements than the subject-specific academic self-efficacy scales. The common (indivisible) explained variances amounted to 29.9 % (English), 17.0 % (History), and 31.5 % (Mathematics). The unique parts of the achievement variances exclusively explained by the self-concept scales versus the self-efficacy scales amounted to 5.3 % vs. 3.4 % (English), 8.0 % vs. 0.4 % (History), and 8.1 % vs. 1.8 % (Mathematics). The discussion underpins that academic self-concepts and academic self-efficacies are correlated, albeit differe"t constructs. The relevance of school subjects for the distinctiveness, measurement, and validity of academic "self”-constructs is stressed. -------------------- Selbstkonzept und Selbstwirksamkeit sind zwei wichtige pädagogisch-psychologische Konstrukte. Über ihre gegenseitige Beziehung und diskriminanten und inkrementellen Vorhersagevaliditäten für schulische Leistungen ist nur wenig bekannt, weil sie zumeist separat analysiert wurden (entweder Selbstkonzept oder Selbstwirksamkeit). Untersucht wurden die Interdependenzen von drei schulfachspezifischen akademischen Selbstkonzeptskalen und drei schulfachspezifischen akademischen Selbstwirksamkeitsskalen sowie deren statistische Vorhersagekraft für Schulleistungen (Zensuren). Die Fächer waren Englisch, Geschichte und Mathematik. Untersucht wurden N = 825 Jugendliche, die chinesische Mittelschulen besuchten (Alter: M = 14.46 Jahre, SD = 0.79). Konfirmatorische Faktorenanalysen (CFA) belegten einerseits in jedem Schulfach zwei separate akademische "Selbst"-Faktoren (Selbstkonzept und Selbstwirksamkeit) und andererseits inner- halb eines jeden „Selbst“-Konstrukts drei Schulfachfaktoren (Englisch, Geschichte und Mathematik). Eine gemeinsame CFA über alle "Selbst"- Items führte zu sechs prägnanten Dimensionen: drei fachspezifische Selbstkonzeptfaktoren und drei fachspezifische Selbstwirksamkeitsfaktoren. Sparsamere Alternativmodelle waren weniger gut mit den Daten vereinbar. Entsprechend zusammengestellte Skalen hatten gute psychometrische Kennwerte. Multiple Regressionsanalysen und Kommunalitätenanalysen zeigten, dass die akademischen Selbstkonzeptskalen die erfassten Schulzensuren wesentlich besser statistisch vorhersagten als akademischen Selbstwirksamkeitsskalen. Die von beiden "Selbst"-Skalen gemeinsam aufgeklärten (d. h. nicht weiter aufteilbaren) Schulleistungsvarianzen betrugen 29.9 % (Englisch), 17.0 % (Ge- schichte) und 31.5 % (Mathematik). Die spezifischen (d. h. nicht mit der jeweiligen anderen "Selbst" Skala konfundierten) Varianzaufklärungen lagen für die akademischen Selbstkonzepte bzw. akademischen Selbstwirksamkeiten bei 5.3 % bzw. 3.4 % (Englisch), bei 8.0 % bzw. 0.4 % (Geschichte) und bei 8.1 %. bzw. 1.8 % (Mathematik). Die Diskussion betont die große Relevanz der Schulfächer für die konzeptuelle und empirische Differenzierbarkeit sowie die hohe prädiktive Validität der beiden „Selbst“-Konstrukte für Zeugniszensuren.