CLIL: Analytical Comparison between CLIL and non-CLIL Classes
•
1 j'aime•1,139 vues
Analysis of performance between 3 CLIL groups: should CLIL students be selected? A study of evaluation results from 3 secondary schools. Read about it in: http://aclil2climb.blogspot.com
Recommandé
Contenu connexe
Plus de Chiew Pang
Plus de Chiew Pang (20)
Dernier
Dernier (20)
CLIL: Analytical Comparison between CLIL and non-CLIL Classes
- 2. School X has refused me permission to use its data for any purposes whatsoever
- 4. 1º B (CLIL Group)
- 5. 1st Evaluation, CLIL Subjects AlonsoQuesada, 1ºB
- 6. 1st &2nd Evaluation, CLIL Subjects AlonsoQuesada, 1ºB
- 7. Comparison of failures between 1st & 2nd Evaluations 10% decrease AlonsoQuesada, 1ºB
- 8. 1st Evaluation, non-CLIL Subjects AlonsoQuesada, 1ºB
- 9. 1st &2nd Evaluation, non-CLIL Subjects AlonsoQuesada, 1ºB
- 10. Comparison of failures between 1st & 2nd Evaluations 9% decrease AlonsoQuesada, 1ºB
- 12. 1º A (non-CLIL)
- 13. 1st Evaluation, CLIL Subjects AlonsoQuesada, 1ºA
- 14. 1st &2nd Evaluation, CLIL Subjects AlonsoQuesada, 1ºA
- 15. Comparison of failures between 1st & 2nd Evaluations 4.6% decrease AlonsoQuesada, 1ºA
- 16. 1st Evaluation, non-CLIL Subjects AlonsoQuesada, 1ºA
- 17. 1st &2nd Evaluation, non-CLIL Subjects AlonsoQuesada, 1ºA
- 18. Comparison of failures between 1st & 2nd Evaluations 3.45% decrease AlonsoQuesada, 1ºA
- 20. 1º C (non-CLIL)
- 21. 1st Evaluation, CLIL Subjects AlonsoQuesada, 1ºC
- 22. 1st &2nd Evaluation, CLIL Subjects AlonsoQuesada, 1ºC
- 23. Comparison of failures between 1st & 2nd Evaluations 1.12% decrease AlonsoQuesada, 1ºC
- 24. 1st Evaluation, non-CLIL Subjects AlonsoQuesada, 1ºC
- 25. 1st &2nd Evaluation, non-CLIL Subjects AlonsoQuesada, 1ºC
- 26. Comparison of failures between 1st & 2nd Evaluations 15.33% decrease AlonsoQuesada, 1ºC
- 28. Comparison between classes AlonsoQuesada
- 29. Los Tarahales
- 30. 1º B (CLIL Group)
- 31. 1st Evaluation, CLIL Subjects Tarahales, 1ºB
- 32. 1st &2nd Evaluation, CLIL Subjects Tarahales, 1ºB
- 33. Comparison of failures between 1st & 2nd Evaluations 14.27% decrease Tarahales, 1ºB
- 34. 1st Evaluation, non-CLIL Subjects Tarahales, 1ºB
- 35. 1st &2nd Evaluation, non-CLIL Subjects Tarahales, 1ºB
- 36. Comparison of failures between 1st & 2nd Evaluations 0% Tarahales, 1ºB
- 38. 1º A (non-CLIL)
- 39. 1st Evaluation, CLIL Subjects Tarahales, 1ºA
- 40. 1st &2nd Evaluation, CLIL Subjects Tarahales, 1ºA
- 41. Comparison of failures between 1st & 2nd Evaluations 7.78% increase Tarahales, 1ºA
- 42. 1st Evaluation, non-CLIL Subjects Tarahales, 1ºA
- 43. 1st &2nd Evaluation, non-CLIL Subjects Tarahales, 1ºA
- 44. Comparison of failures between 1st & 2nd Evaluations 3.33% decrease Tarahales, 1ºA
- 46. 1º C (non-CLIL)
- 47. 1st Evaluation, CLIL Subjects Tarahales, 1ºC
- 48. 1st &2nd Evaluation, CLIL Subjects Tarahales, 1ºC
- 49. Comparison of failures between 1st & 2nd Evaluations 2.22% decrease Tarahales, 1ºC
- 50. 1st Evaluation, non-CLIL Subjects Tarahales, 1ºC
- 51. 1st &2nd Evaluation, non-CLIL Subjects Tarahales, 1ºC
- 52. Comparison of failures between 1st & 2nd Evaluations 4.67% increase Tarahales, 1ºC
- 54. Comparison between classes Tarahales
- 55. Comparison between schools (CLIL groups)
- 58. For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the licence terms of this work.
- 59. Any of these conditions can be waived if you get permission from the copyright holder.
- 60. Nothing in this license impairs or restricts the author's moral rights.http://acliltoclimb.blogspot.com Chiew N Pang http://acliltoclimb.blogspot.com
Notes de l'éditeur
- Please don’t remove head nor tail slides. Thank you. All slides licensed to Chiew N Pang.
- Average drop in failures of CLIL subjects
- Average drop in failures of non-CLIL subjects
- Passes/Failures were obtained by summing up all the passes of all the subjects and dividing it by the nº of subjects.
- Average decrease in failures of CLIL subjects
- Average decrease in failures of CLIL subjects
- Passes/Failures were obtained by summing up all the passes of all the subjects and dividing it by the nº of subjects.
- Average decrease in failures of CLIL subjects
- Average decrease in failures of CLIL subjects
- Passes/Failures were obtained by summing up all the passes of all the subjects and dividing it by the nº of subjects.
- Passes/Failures were obtained by summing up all the passes of all the subjects and dividing it by the nº of subjects. Figures based on 2nd evaluation results.
- Average drop in failures of CLIL subjects
- Average drop in failures of non-CLIL subjects
- Passes/Failures were obtained by summing up all the passes of all the subjects and dividing it by the nº of subjects.
- Average increase in failures of CLIL subjects
- Average decrease in failures of CLIL subjects
- Passes/Failures were obtained by summing up all the passes of all the subjects and dividing it by the nº of subjects.
- Average decrease in failures of CLIL subjects
- Average decrease in failures of CLIL subjects
- Passes/Failures were obtained by summing up all the passes of all the subjects and dividing it by the nº of subjects.
- Passes/Failures were obtained by summing up all the passes of all the subjects and dividing it by the nº of subjects. Figures based on 2nd evaluation results.
- Passes/Failures were obtained by summing up all the passes of all the subjects and dividing it by the nº of subjects. Figures based on 2nd evaluation results.
- Please don’t remove head nor tail slides. Thank you. All slides licensed to Chiew N Pang.