Перейти к главному меню навигации Перейти к основному контенту Перейти к нижнему колонтитулу сайта
Językoznawstwo baner

№ 14 (2020)

Artykuły

Language in CLIL settings: research overview

DOI: https://doi.org/10.25312/2391-5137.14/2020_14bnl  [Google Scholar]
Опубликован: 2021-01-11

Аннотация

This article presents an overview of the literature relating to the effects of the Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) approach on the process of language and content acquisition. The overview is divided into five sections and the effects of CLIL on the students’ language system is described according to four language skills (reading, writing, speaking and listening, vocabulary and grammar). It is stated that while CLIL leads to a general improvement in relation to language proficiency, there are also some observations proving that certain language areas (e.g. syntax, pragmatics) are unaffected.

Библиографические ссылки

  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]

Скачивания

Данные скачивания пока недоступны.