/LING
|
Update: February 24, 2023 The new version of Termout.org is now online, so this web site is now obsolete and will soon be dismantled. |
Lista de candidatos sometidos a examen:
1) non-clil (*)
(*) Términos presentes en el nuestro glosario de lingüística
1) Candidate: non-clil
Is in goldstandard
1
paper corpusRLAtxt191 - : Similarly, ^[63]Navés (2011) analyzed data from CLIL and non-CLIL learners from the 5^th to 10^th grades in Catalonia and observed that CLIL learners outscored their non-CLIL peers at each grade in listening, dictation and grammar. How ever, when compared to older non-CLIL students, "CLIL learners matched or outperformed learners two or three grades ahead of them in all proficiency tests except for listening comprehension" (Navés, 2011:179 ), showing that, although benefits from CLIL on listening are detected when students in the same grade are considered, when contrasted to older learners, the less positively affected skill is, comparatively, oral comprehension.
2
paper corpusRLAtxt229 - : As for written production in L1 in primary school, a differential achievement was detected between CLIL/non-CLIL learners in some areas: CLIL students significantly outperformed their peer in expressive richness and spelling, whereas the non-CLIL group was ahead in planning strategies, and in the use of text typologies (Nieto, 2020 ). In this context, this study intends precisely to get insight into written production development in L1 in secondary school, and therefore aims to provide a clearer picture on the evolution of development of literacy in L1 in CLIL throughout primary and secondary education.
3
paper corpusRLAtxt229 - : As shown in [54]Graph 2, CLIL students scored significantly higher than their non-CLIL counterparts in all the dimensions of written production assessed: planning strategies (CLIL=5 .4; non-CLIL=4), text typology (CLIL=6.1; non-CLIL=5), fluency (CLIL=6.77; non-CLIL=5.3) and accuracy (CLIL=6.175; non-CLIL=4.5).
4
paper corpusRLAtxt229 - : Both groups showed lowest results in planning (CLIL=5.4; non-CLIL=4), while their highest ones were recorded in fluency (CLIL=6.77; non-CLIL=5.3). The greatest differences between the groups were detected in accuracy (CLIL=6.175; non-CLIL=4.5), which means that CLIL students were remarkably more advanced when writing texts in their mother tongue with the correct spelling and grammar. The CLIL group obtained scores above 5 points out of 10 in all the dimensions of written production, whereas the non-CLIL recorded below 5 points out of 10 in two of them: planning their written productions and writing accurate texts in terms of correct use of grammar and spelling . The non-CLIL group "passed" in following the conventions of the given text typology, but only with just 5 points out of 10.
Evaluando al candidato non-clil:
1) learners: 6 (*)
5) planning: 4 (*)
7) detected: 3
9) listening: 3 (*)
non-clil
Lengua: eng
Frec: 61
Docs: 7
Nombre propio: / 61 = 0%
Coocurrencias con glosario: 3
Puntaje: 3.732 = (3 + (1+4.08746284125034) / (1+5.95419631038688)));
Candidato aceptado
Referencias bibliográficas encontradas sobre cada término
(Que existan referencias dedicadas a un término es también indicio de terminologicidad.)| non-clil |
: Canga Alonso, Andrés. (2015). Receptive Vocabulary of CLIL and Non-CLIL Primary and Secondary School Learners. Complutense Journal of English Studies, 23, 59-77. : Gené-Gil, M., Juan-Garau, M. & Salazar-Noguera, J. (2015). Development of EFL writing over three years in secondary education: CLIL and non-CLIL settings. Language Learning Journal, 43, 286-303. : Olssen, E. and Sylvén, L.K. (2015). Extramural English and academic vocabulary. A longitudinal study of CLIL and non-CLIL students in Sweden, en ApplesJournal of Applied Language Studies, 9, 2: 77-103. |