Content and Language Integrated Learning: A research agenda

Dalton‐Puffer, Christiane; Smit, Ute

doi:10.1017/s0261444813000256

Cited by 123 publications

(54 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This is also the case of many scholars associated with CLIL (Eurydice, 2006;Marsh, 2002;Smala, 2014). However, other scholars consider that CLIL can only be used for languages such as English, French or German or for foreign but not second languages (Dalton-Puffer & Smit, 2013;Lasagabaster & Sierra, 2010). To exclude some languages because they are not as 'important' as English, French or German is a clear case of language discrimination.…”

Section: Target Languagementioning

confidence: 96%

“…In most cases, teachers are multilingual and are proficient in both the majority language and the additional language(s). It has been argued that CLIL is different from CBI because CLIL teachers are usually non-native (Dalton-Puffer & Smit, 2013;Lasagabaster & Sierra, 2010). This reasoning is quite problematic for several reasons.…”

Section: Target Languagementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Another feature associated with CLIL by some scholars is that the implementation of CLIL usually takes place in secondary education after learners have already acquired literacy skills in their first language (Dalton-Puffer & Smit, 2013;Lasagabaster & Sierra, 2010). The level at which CBI/CLIL is introduced cannot possibly be an essential or defining feature of CLIL because there are CBI/CLIL programmes starting in preschool, primary school, secondary school and even higher education.…”

Section: Starting Agementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Content-based instruction and content and language integrated learning: the same or different?

Cenoz

2015

Language, Culture and Curriculum

200

100

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article looks at the characteristics of Content-Based Instruction (CBI) and Content land Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) in order to examine their similarities and differences. The analysis shows that CBI/CLIL programmes share the same essential properties and are not pedagogically different from each other. In fact, the use of an L2 as the medium of instruction, the language, societal and educational aims and the typical type of child are the same in CBI and CLIL programmes. The use of both CBI and CLIL refers to programmes where academic content is taught through a second or additional language and the preference for one term over the other is associated with contextual and accidental characteristics. In this article, there are examples from Basque education where academic content is often taught through the medium of Basque and English to students with Spanish as a first language. The examples show that even if there are more subjects taught through the medium of Basque than through the medium of English, there are no essential differences between CBI (partial immersion in the Basque example) and CLIL (English-medium instruction in the Basque example). The need to share the research findings of CBI/ CLIL programmes is highlighted.Keywords: content-based instruction; CLIL; multilingual education; language teaching; Basque; English A school in the Basque Country We visit a class in a school located in the Basque Country where Basque is spoken by approximately 30% of the population. The use of Basque is not the same in different areas and our school is located in a Spanish-speaking area, Bilbo Handia-Gran Bilbao, in the Basque Autonomous Community (BAC) where only 23.1% of the population can speak Basque and Spanish is the majority language spoken by the whole population. There are 22 students in this class. The students are in the third year of secondary school (14-15 years old). All the students have Spanish as a first language except for two immigrant children who speak Romanian at home. These immigrant children also have Spanish as their dominant language because they have lived in the Basque Country for more than 10 years, and they speak Spanish to their classmates. They can understand Romanian very well but they often answer their parents in Spanish and they always speak Spanish with their © 2015 The Author(s). Published by Taylor & Francis. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.*Email: jasone.cenoz@ehu.es Language, Culture and Curriculum, 2015 Vol. 28, No. 1, 8-24, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2014 friends. The class we visit is what is known in the Basque Country as the B model which has Basque and Spanish as the languages of instruction (see Cenoz, 2009). This ...

show abstract

Section: Target Languagementioning

confidence: 96%

Section: Target Languagementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Starting Agementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Content-based instruction and content and language integrated learning: the same or different?

Cenoz

2015

Language, Culture and Curriculum

200

100

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Issues of strategy selection and deployment, learner identity, and context will also need to be considered if students are to successfully complete a course in English for Specific Purposes (ESP), designed to prepare them for any of the "perceived needs and imagined futures" (Belcher, 2006, p. 133) for which such courses have been developed. In more recent years, CLIL (content and language integrated learning) courses have become popular (e.g., Dalton-Puffer & Smit, 2013). The dual focus of such courses may well require students to adjust their familiar strategy repertoires in order to deal effectively with both content and language goals at the same time.…”

Section: The Learning Target/goalmentioning

confidence: 99%

Language learning strategies: An holistic view

Griffiths

Cansiz

2015

SSLLT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The language learning strategy question has been debated on a number of levels, including definition, the strategy/success relationship and strategy coordination. In addition, awareness has been steadily growing of the importance of taking an holistic view of the strategy phenomenon and examining strategies not just in isolation but as part of an overall picture which includes learning situation, learning target and individual learner characteristics. This article will first of all review the literature and the previous research on these controversial issues, and suggest a workable definition. Then, in order to illustrate the importance of such an holistic view, the results of a small scale study which looks at the strategies used by 16 successful language learners who were all either teaching English or teaching in English at university level will be reported. The quantitative results indicated that these successful learners used many strategies, especially those that suited their goals and their situations; they also frequently used and carefully orchestrated strategy repertoires which suited their own individual needs. The responses of one highly successful respondent were also examined qualitatively. The implications of these findings and the importance of viewing learners holistically are discussed and suggestions are made for ongoing research.

show abstract

“…From these developments, the need arose for greater language understanding and development among teachers, specific regarding the conceptual and technical demands of their content-based classroom interaction (Dalton-Puffer and Smit, 2013). As a result, more attention was devoted to ongoing language development, including forms of contingent and communicative teaching, alongside the existing regulatory behavioral characteristics of classroom interaction.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Teacher Educators’ Understanding of Their Language-Oriented Development in Content-Based Classroom Interaction

Swart¹,

Onstenk²,

Knežić³

et al. 2018

WJE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many studies have suggested that personal practical knowledge is essential for professional development. Recently, there has been growing recognition of the importance of teacher educators' personal practical knowledge of 'language' for student learning development. However, the need for teacher educators to first understand their own language-oriented development in content-based classroom interaction has not received as much emphasis. The current intervention study investigates how eleven experienced teacher educators understand their language-oriented development through the control of task difficulty, small-group instruction and directed response questioning. Data were examined by conducting content and constant comparison analyses. The results showed that the intervention affected the educators' language-oriented development, which in turn affected their awareness and decisions made to improve their methods of initiation and response during classroom interaction. The results call for more concrete ways to expend teacher educators' practical knowledge of language to further develop and enhance their language-oriented teaching performance in content-based classroom interaction.

show abstract

Content and Language Integrated Learning: A research agenda

Cited by 123 publications

References 31 publications

Content-based instruction and content and language integrated learning: the same or different?

Content-based instruction and content and language integrated learning: the same or different?

Language learning strategies: An holistic view

Teacher Educators’ Understanding of Their Language-Oriented Development in Content-Based Classroom Interaction

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About