Analysis of the conceptual provisions of CLIL for integrated learning of professionally oriented Englishlanguage communication of future journalists
Abstract
The conceptual provisions of CLIL are caused by the language policy supported by the European Commission and imply plurilingual institutional education. In accordance with the educational goal of CLIL foreign language is acquired with development of competency in the future specialty. The main provisions are derived from the definition of content-language integrated learning, which is related to any learning situation in which an additional language is used to teach non-linguistic subjects: attention is paid both to the content of the discipline and the language, they are studied in the integrated unity, the target language serves as a mediator of instruction for teaching specialty subject.
References
Baetens Beardsmore H. (2008) Multilingualism, Cognition and Creativity. International CLIL Research Journal, 1(1). 4-19.
Baker C. (2006). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism. Bristol: Multilingual matters.
Coyle D. (2004). Supporting students in CLIL contexts: Planning for effective classroom. In J. Masih (Ed.), Learning through a foreign language: Models, methods and outcomes (pp. 40-45). Lancaster, UK: Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research
Coyle D. (2007) 'Content and Language Integrated Learning: Towards a Connected Research Agenda for CLIL Pedagogies'. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10: 5, 543-562.
Coyle D. (1999). Theory and planning for effective classrooms: Supporting students in content and language integrated learning contexts. In J. Masih (Ed.), Learning through a foreign language (pp. 46-62). London: CILT.
Coyle D., Hood P., & Marsh D. (2010). CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.
Cummins J., & Swain M. (1986). Bilingualism in education: aspects of theory research, and practice. London, Longman. MLA (7th ed.).
Dalton-Puffer C. (2007). Discourse in Content and language Integrated Learning (CLIL) classrooms. Amsterdam etc.: Bejamins.
Dalton-Puffer C. (2008). Outcomes and processes in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL): current research from Europe. In W. Delanoy and L. Volkmann (Eds.), Future Perspectives for English Language Teaching (pp. 139-158). Heidelberg: Carl Winter.
Dalton-Puffer C., Llinares A., Lorenzo F., & Nikula T. (2014). “You Can Stand Under My Umbrella”: Immersion, CLIL and Bilingual Education. A Response to Cenoz, Genesee & Gorter (2013). Applied Linguistics, 35(2), 213-218. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amu010
Directorate General for Education and Culture. 2000. Study on the contribution of Multilingualism to creativity, Brussels: European Commission.
Escobar Urmeneta, C. (2019). An Introduction to Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) for Teachers and Teacher Educators. CLIL Journal of Innovation and Research in Plurilingual and Pluricultural Education. 2(1). 7-19. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/clil.21
Gallagher E., & Morilla C. (2009). A new CLIL method: AMCO and the practical use of multiple inteligences in the classroom. In V. Pavón & J. Ávila (Eds.), Aplicaciones didácticas para la enseñanza integrada de lengua y contenidos (pp. 131-151). Sevilla: Consejería de Educación de la Junta de Andalucía-Universidad de Córdoba.
Grenfell M. (Ed.) (2002). Modern Languages across the Curriculum. Routledge, London.
Halliday M. A. K. (1993). Towards a Language-Based Theory of Learning. Linguistics and Education. 5. 93-116.
Harrop E. (2012). Content and language integrated learning (CLIL). Limitation and possibilities. Encuentro. 12. 75-70.
Kowal M., & Swain M. (1997). From semantic to syntactic processing. How can we promote it in the immersion classroom? In R. K. Johnson & M. Swain (Eds.), Immersion education: International perspectives. (pp. 284-309). Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.
Krashen S. D. (1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications, New York: Longman
Lantolf J. P., & Sunderman G. (2001). The struggle for a place in the sun: Rationalizing foreign language study in the twentieth century. The Modern Language Journal. 85(1). 5-25.
Lightbown P. M., & Spada N. (2006). How Languages Are Learned (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University.
Llinares A. & Lyster R. (2014). The influence of context on patterns of corrective feedback and learner uptake: A comparison of CLIL and immersion classrooms’, Language Learning Journal 42(3).
Llinares A., Morton T. and Whittaker R. (2012). The Roles of Language in CLIL. Cambridge University Press.
Lyster R. (2007) Learning and Teaching Languages Through Content: A counterbalanced approach. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Maljers A., Marsh D., Coyle D., Hartiala A. K., Marsland B., Pérez-Vidal C. & Wolff D. (eds.). (2002). CLIL/EMILE The European Dimension – Actions, Trends and Foresight Potential (pp. 65-69). Finland: The Continuing Education Centre of the University of Jyväskylä.
Marsh D. (2008). Language awareness and CLIL. In J. Cenoz & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education: Knowledge about language. (2nd ed., Vol 6, pp. 233-246). New York: Springer, 233-246
Marsh D. (2013). The CLIL trajectory: Educational Innovation for the 21st century iGeneration. Códoba: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Córdoba.
Marsh D., Langé G. (Eds.). (2000). Using languages to learn and learning to use languages. Finland: University of Jyväskylä.
Marsh D., Maljers A., & Hartiala K. (2001). Profiling European CLIL classrooms: languages open doors. Jyväskylä, Finland: University of Jyväskylä.
Mehisto P. (2008). CLIL counterweights: recognising and decreasing disjuncture in CLIL. International CLIL Research Journal, 1(1). 93-120.
Mehisto P., March D., Fligol M. J. (2008) Uncovering CLIL. Content and Language integrated learning in bilingual and multilingual education. MacMillans books for teachers.
Met M. (1998). Curriculum decision-making in content-based language teaching. In J. Cenoz and F. Genesee (Eds.), Beyond Bilingualism: Multilingualism and Multilingual Education (pp. 35–63). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Papaja K. (2014). Focus on CLIL: A qualitative evaluation of content and language integrated learning (CLIL) in Polish secondary education. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Pérez Cañado M. L. (2016). Evaluating CLIL Programmes: Instrument Design and Validation. Pulso. Revista de educación, 39. 79-112
Tsou W. (2018). Implementing content language integrated learning (CLIL) in Taiwan- a review study. https://conference.pim.ac.th/thai/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/K-EDUCATION-IN-THE-DIGITAL-AGE.pdf
Tsuchiya K., & Pérez Murillo M. D. (2015). Comparing the language policies and the students’ perceptions of CLIL in tertiary education in Spain and Japan. Latin American Journal of Content and Language Integrated Learning, 8(1). 25-35. https://doi.org/10.5294/laclil.2014.8.1.3 e ISSN 2322-9721.
Tudor I. (2013). From content to competency: Challenge facing higher education language teaching in Europe. In M. L. Pérez Cañado (Ed.), Competency-based Language Teaching in Higher Education (pp. 21-32). Amsterdam: Springer.
Van de Craen P., Mondt K., Allain L., & Gao Y. B. (2007). Why and how CLIL works. An outline for a CLIL theory. CLIL Special Issue 2, 16(3), 70-78.
Wilkinson R. (Ed.) (2004). Integrating Content and Language. Meeting the Challenge of a Multilingual Higher Education. Proceedings of the ICL Conference, October 23-25 2003. Maastricht: Universitaire Pers Maastricht.
Wolff D. (2003). Integrating language and content in the language classroom: Are transfer of knowledge and of language ensured? Asp. 41-42. 35-46.
Zydatiß W. (2007). Bilingualer Fachunterricht in Deutschland: eine Bilanz. Fremdsprachen Lehren und Lernen.36, 8-25.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
_small1.png){kind=logo}
