2012
DOI: 10.14746/ssllt.2012.2.1.6
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Integrating content and language in English language teaching in secondary education: Models, benefits, and challenges

Abstract: In the last decade, there has been a major interest in content-based instruction (CBI) and content and language integrated learning (CLIL). These are similar approaches which integrate content and foreign/second language learning through various methodologies and models as a result of different implementations around the world. In this paper, I first offer a sociocultural view of CBI-CLIL. Secondly, I define language and content as vital components in CBI-CLIL. Thirdly, I review the origins of CBI and the cont… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
38
0
15

Year Published

2013
2013
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
4
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 62 publications
(58 citation statements)
references
References 68 publications
0
38
0
15
Order By: Relevance
“…Consequently, there have been attempts to distinguish CLIL from its counterpart in Canada and the USA, CBI (content-based instruction), and from immersion education (Cenoz et al, 2013). However, similarities between CBI and CLIL, and the fuzzy line between CLIL and immersion, have been lately discussed (Banegas, 2012;Cenoz, 2015;Cenoz et al, 2013;Somers & Surmont, 2012). More recently, some authors have stressed the content side of CLIL (see Llinares et al, 2012), but there is wide recognition that although the research reports on language gains realized through CLIL, little has been said about content learning.…”
Section: Defining Clilmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Consequently, there have been attempts to distinguish CLIL from its counterpart in Canada and the USA, CBI (content-based instruction), and from immersion education (Cenoz et al, 2013). However, similarities between CBI and CLIL, and the fuzzy line between CLIL and immersion, have been lately discussed (Banegas, 2012;Cenoz, 2015;Cenoz et al, 2013;Somers & Surmont, 2012). More recently, some authors have stressed the content side of CLIL (see Llinares et al, 2012), but there is wide recognition that although the research reports on language gains realized through CLIL, little has been said about content learning.…”
Section: Defining Clilmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Concepts such as scaffolding, zone of proximal development, and mediation signal that CLIL stresses the need to construct knowledge socially through tools that help learners develop their language competence and non-language content knowledge. In addition, CLIL is also supported by cognitivist views, as CLIL lessons and materials are expected to evolve from lower-order thinking skills, such as describing, to higher-order thinking skills, such as evaluating (see Banegas, 2012).…”
Section: Clil Materialsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For Dale and Tanner, "CBLT [content-based language teaching] deals with teaching content in language lessons" (p. 4), and immersion focuses on subject matter learning but not on language. Dale and Tanner restrict, and Banegas, D. L. (2013 resignify, CLIL scope and models (Banegas, 2012) by stating that "CLIL deals with teaching a subject at the same time as teaching language" (p.4). In addition, Dale and Tanner summarise the benefits that CLIL brings for learners, teachers, and institutions, but they also raise people's awareness of the challenges (challenges for CLIL learners are unpacked in Part 2, pp.…”
Section: Reseña Del Libro Clil Activities: a Resource For Subject Andmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…CLIL combines a number of pedagogies that have proven to work well and, as a result, it has become a well-established part of education systems across Europe (e.g., Banegas, 2012;Bonnet, 2012;Nikula, Dalton-Puffer, & García, 2013;Pérez-Cañado, 2012). There are several reasons why CLIL is different from traditional language learning approaches.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%