Recent Perspectives on Task-Based Language Learning and Teaching 2017
DOI: 10.1515/9781501503399-015
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Foreword: New Frontiers in Task-Based Language Teaching Research

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
4
1

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 36 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Attempts to find similarities and differences between CLIL and other bilingual education programmes such as immersion (see Dalton-Puffer, 2011;Dalton-Puffer & Smit, 2013), or Content-based instruction (CBI; see definition in Richards & Schmidt, 2010) have been made, but the description of what CLIL is in comparison to other bilingual education programmes is not clear (Morton & Llinares, 2017). In particular, while some define CLIL as an example of CBI (Lyster, 2017;Shehadeh, 2018), others find equivalences between CLIL and CBI (e.g., Cenoz, 2015). All in all, they share theoretical and pedagogical considerations , but they are distinct in the following respects: (a) CLIL programmes in Europe are characterized by the use of a foreign language (typically English) instead of a L2 as the language of instruction for content subjects; (b) less than 50% of the curriculum is taught in the foreign language; (c) apart from content instruction through the foreign language, English is also taught as a typical language subject; (d) teachers are usually non-native speakers of the TL and generally they are content specialists rather than language specialists; and (e) basic literacy skills are acquired before the CLIL experience (Lasagabaster & Sierra, 2010;Nikula et al, 2013).…”
Section: Css In Clil Settingsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Attempts to find similarities and differences between CLIL and other bilingual education programmes such as immersion (see Dalton-Puffer, 2011;Dalton-Puffer & Smit, 2013), or Content-based instruction (CBI; see definition in Richards & Schmidt, 2010) have been made, but the description of what CLIL is in comparison to other bilingual education programmes is not clear (Morton & Llinares, 2017). In particular, while some define CLIL as an example of CBI (Lyster, 2017;Shehadeh, 2018), others find equivalences between CLIL and CBI (e.g., Cenoz, 2015). All in all, they share theoretical and pedagogical considerations , but they are distinct in the following respects: (a) CLIL programmes in Europe are characterized by the use of a foreign language (typically English) instead of a L2 as the language of instruction for content subjects; (b) less than 50% of the curriculum is taught in the foreign language; (c) apart from content instruction through the foreign language, English is also taught as a typical language subject; (d) teachers are usually non-native speakers of the TL and generally they are content specialists rather than language specialists; and (e) basic literacy skills are acquired before the CLIL experience (Lasagabaster & Sierra, 2010;Nikula et al, 2013).…”
Section: Css In Clil Settingsmentioning
confidence: 99%