Przejdź do głównego menu Przejdź do sekcji głównej Przejdź do stopki
Językoznawstwo baner

Nr 14 (2020)

Artykuły

Wpływ zintegrowanego kształcenia przedmiotowo-językowego na sprawności językowe uczniów – przegląd literatury

DOI: https://doi.org/10.25312/2391-5137.14/2020_14bnl  [Google Scholar]
Opublikowane: 11.01.2021

Abstrakt

Niniejszy artykuł zgłębia potencjał nauczania metodą CLIL i analizuje możliwe korzyści oferowane przez edukację dwujęzyczną. Prezentuje on przegląd literatury oraz gruntowną analizę badań w zakresie zastosowania metody CLIL w nauczaniu języków obcych. Literatura oceniająca programy CLIL, mimo ich ogólnego sukcesu, zwraca również uwagę na słabości uczniów w odniesieniu do sprawności produktywnych, zarówno mówienia jak i pisania oraz do kompetencji gramatycznych i socjolingwistycznych. Intencją autorki artykułu było przedstawienie dowodów dowodzących skuteczności nauczania metodą CLIL oraz zachęcenie przyszłych badaczy do dalszego zgłębiania tej tematyki.

Bibliografia

  1. Agustín-Llach M., Canga A. (2014), Vocabulary growth in young CLIL and traditional EFL learners: evidence from research and implications for education, “International Journal of Applied Linguistics”, no. 26, p. 211–227. [Google Scholar]
  2. Burmeister P., Daniel A. (2002), How effective is late partial immersion? Some findings from a secondary school program in Germany, [in:] Burmeister P., Piske T., Rohde A. (ed.), An Integrated View of Language Development, Trier. [Google Scholar]
  3. Cummins J., Swain M. (1986), Bilingualism in Education, London. [Google Scholar]
  4. Dalton-Puffer C., Smit U. (2008), Empirical Perspectives on CLIL Classroom Discourse, Frankfurt–Wien. [Google Scholar]
  5. Ellis R. (2002), Does form-focused instruction affect the acquisition of implicit knowledge? A review of the research, “Studies in Second Language Acquisition”, no. 24, p. 223–236. [Google Scholar]
  6. Gassner D., Maillat D. (2006), Spoken competence in CLIL: A pragmatic take on recent Swiss data, “ViewZ – Vienna English Working Papers”, no. 15, p. 15–22. [Google Scholar]
  7. Genesee F. (1987), Learning Through Two Languages. Studies in Immersion and Bilingual Education, Cambridge. [Google Scholar]
  8. Hamalainen M. (1998), Aidinkielen kehittyminen vieraskielisessa opetuksessa, Turku. [Google Scholar]
  9. Hüttner J., Rieder-Bünemann A. (2007), The effect of CLIL instruction on children’s narrative competence, “ViewZ – Vienna English Working Papers”, no. 16, p. 20–28. [Google Scholar]
  10. Korpela L. (2013), Learning English Grammar in Content and Language Integrated Learning: Comparing the Grammatical Proficiency of CLIL Students and Students Receiving Mainstream EFL Instruction, https://helda.helsinki.fi/handle/10138/42771 [access: 16.01.2020]. [Google Scholar]
  11. Lasagabaster D. (2011), English achievement and student motivation in CLIL and EFL settings, “Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching”, no. 5, p. 3–18. [Google Scholar]
  12. Llinares A., Whittaker R. (2012), The roles of language in CLIL, Cambridge. [Google Scholar]
  13. Loranc-Paszylk B. (2009), Integrating Reading and Writing into the Context of CLIL Classroom: Some Practical Solutions, “International CLIL Research Journal”, no. 1, p. 47–53. [Google Scholar]
  14. Lyster R. (2004), Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction, “Studies in Second Language Acquisition”, no. 26, p. 399–432. [Google Scholar]
  15. Lyster R. (2007), Learning and Teaching Languages Through Content. A counterbalanced approach, Philadelphia. [Google Scholar]
  16. Mehisto P., Marsh D. (2008), Uncovering CLIL, London. [Google Scholar]
  17. Merikivi R., Pietila P. (2014), The Impact of Free-time Reading on Foreign Language Vocabulary Development, “Journal of Language Teaching and Research”, no. 5, p. 28–36. [Google Scholar]
  18. Merisuo-Storm T., Soininen M. (2014), Students’ First Language Skills After Six Years in Bilingual Education, “Mediterranean Journal of Social Science”, no. 5, p. 72–81. [Google Scholar]
  19. Mewald C. (2007), A comparison of oral foreign language performance of learners in CLIL and in mainstream classes at lower secondary level in Lower Austria, [in:] Dalton-Puffer C., Smit U. (ed.), Empirical perspectives on CLIL classroom discourse, Frankfurt am Main. [Google Scholar]
  20. Moore P. (2011), Collaborative interaction in turn-taking: a comparative study of European bilingual (CLIL) and mainstream (MS) foreign language learners in early secondary education, “International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism”, no. 14, p. 531–549. [Google Scholar]
  21. Muñoz C. (2007), CLIL: Some thoughts on its psycholinguistic principles, “Revista Española de lingüística aplicada”, no. 1, p. 17–26. [Google Scholar]
  22. Neda Z., Hamidreza F. (2014), The Effect of CLIL on Vocabulary Development by Iranian Secondary School EFL Learners, “Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences”, no. 98, p. 2004–2009. [Google Scholar]
  23. Nikula T. (2007a), Speaking English in Finnish content-based classrooms, “World Englishes”, no. 26, p. 206–223. [Google Scholar]
  24. Nikula T. (2007b), The IRF pattern and space for interaction: Comparing CLIL and EFL classrooms, [in:] Dalton-Puffer C., Smit U. (red.), Empirical perspectives on CLIL classroom discourse, Frankfurt. [Google Scholar]
  25. Nikula T., Marsh D. (1999a), Focus on the classroom, [in:] Marsh D., Langé G. (ed.), Implementing Content and Language Integrated Learning. A Research-driven TIE-CLIL Foundation Course Reader, Jyväskylä. [Google Scholar]
  26. Nikula T., Marsh D. (1999b), Language learning in CLIL, [w:] Marsh D., Marshland B. (red.), Learning with Languages. Professional Development Programme for Introducing Content and Language Integrated Learning, Jyväskylä. [Google Scholar]
  27. Pérez-Vidal C. (2007), The need for focus on form (FoF) in Content and Language Integrated approaches: An exploratory study, “Revista española de lingüística aplicada”, no. 1, p. 39–54. [Google Scholar]
  28. Rahman H. (2001), Kaksikielisen (suomi-englanti) ja suomenkielisen kuudennen luokan aidinkielen kirjoitelmien vertailua yhdyssanojen oikeinkirjoituksen osalta, Helsinki. [Google Scholar]
  29. Roquet H. (2011), A study of the acquisition of English as a foreign language: Integrating content and language in mainstream education in Barcelona, Barcelona. [Google Scholar]
  30. Ruiz de Zarobe Y. (2008), CLIL and Foreign Language Learning: A Longitudinal Study in the [Google Scholar]
  31. Basque Country, “International CLIL Research Journal”, no. 1, p. 60–73. [Google Scholar]
  32. Seikkula-Leino J. (2007), CLIL Learning: Achievement Levels and Affective Factors, “Language and Education”, no. 21, p. 328–341. [Google Scholar]
  33. Seregely E. (2008), A comparison of lexical learning in CLIL and traditional EFL classrooms, Vienna. [Google Scholar]
  34. Skogen M. (2013), Reading in CLIL and in regular EFL classes: to what extent do they differ in reading and strategy use? Oslo. [Google Scholar]
  35. Spada N., Lightbown P. (2008), Form-Focused Instruction: Isolated or Integrated? “TESOL Quarterly”, no. 42, p. 181–207. [Google Scholar]
  36. Swain M. (1996), Discovering Successful Second Language Teaching Strategies and Practices: From Programme Evaluation to Classroom Experimentation, “Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development”, no. 17, p. 105–113. [Google Scholar]
  37. Xanthou M. (2011), The impact of CLIL on L2 vocabulary development and content knowledge, “English Teaching: Practice and Critique”, no. 10, p. 116–126. [Google Scholar]
  38. Zydatiß W. (2006), Bilingualer Fachunterricht in Deutschland: eine Bilanz, “Fremdsprachen Lehren und Lernen”, no. 36, p. 8–25. [Google Scholar]

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.