Insights into CLIL methodology

• Authors: Nawrot-Lis Beata

Title variants

Wgląd w metodologię Zintegrowanego Kształcenia Przedmiotowo-Językowego (CLIL)

• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

The following article analyses the true nature of CLIL on a practical level. It begins with stating the CLIL pedagogic framework and explains the mutual relation between language and content in CLIL settings. All these facts have been presented in order to fully account for CLIL methodology which is deeply rooted in the dual focus nature of CLIL. The features of CLIL methodology have been consecutively listed and thoroughly discussed in the paper. Each of the points analysed is followed by some practical considerations.

PL

Poniższy artykuł stanowi analizę prawdziwej natury CLIL na poziomie praktycznym. Początkowe akapity artykułu omawiają ramy pedagogiczne CLIL i wyjaśniają wzajemne relacje między językiem a treścią w trakcie zajęć realizowanych tą metodą. Wszystkie te aspekty zostały poruszone w celu pełnego zrozumienia metodologii CLIL, która jest głęboko zakorzeniona w podwójnej naturze tej metody nauczania. Cechy metodologii CLIL zostały kolejno wymienione i szczegółowo omówione. Po każdym z analizowanych punktów zaproponowan także praktyczne rozwiązania możliwe do zastosowania w trakcie lekcji.

Keywords

EN

CLIL; bilingual education; methodology; content; communication; cognition; culture

PL

CLIL; edukacja dwujęzyczna; metodologia; treści przedmiotowe; komunikacja; poznanie; kultura

• Publisher: Sieć Badawcza Łukasiewicz – Instytut Technologii Eksploatacji, Radom
• Journal: Edukacja Ustawiczna Dorosłych
• Year: 2020
• Issue: 1
• Pages: 66-79

Contributors

author

Nawrot-Lis Beata

• Uniwersytet Technologiczno-Humanistyczny im. Kazimierza Pułaskiego w Radomiu

References

• Anderson W., Krathwohl D. (2001), A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Addison Wesley Longman, New York
• Baker C. (2006), Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism, Multilingual Matters, Clevedon.
• Bloom B. (1984), The 2 Sigma Problem: The Serach of Methods of Group Instruction as Effective as One-to-One Tutoring, „Educational Researcher”, 13 (6), 4–16.
• Bloom B., Krathwohl D. (1956), Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals, by a commiteee of college and university examiners. Handbook 1: Cognitive domain, Longmans, New York.
• Brinton D., Snow M.A., Wesche M.B. (1989), Content-based second language instruction, Newbury House, New York.
• Byram M. (2009), Multicultural Societies, Pluricultural People and the Project of Intercultural Education, https://tinyurl.com/we44x2m (dostęp: 22.01.2020).
• 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. (2008), Content and language integrated learning. Motivating learners and teachers, https://tinyurl.com/sunnafd (dostęp 22.01.2020).
• Coyle D., Holmes B., King L. (2009), Towards an integrated curriculum – CLIL National Statement and Guidelines, The Languages Company, London.
• Coyle D., Hood P., Marsh D. (2010), CLIL Content and Language Integrated Learning, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
• Crandall J. (1987), ESL through content-area instruction: Mathematics, Science, Social Studies, Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
• Cummins J. (1998), Immersion Education for the Millennium: What We Have Learned from 30 Years of Second Language Immersion?, https://tinyurl.com/rmhhtyt (dostęp: 22.01.2020).
• Dalton-Puffer C. (2008), Outcomes and processes in content and language integrate learning (CLIL): Current research from Europe, [w:] Delanoy W., Volkmann L. (red.) Future Perspectives for English Language Teaching, Carl Winter, Heidelberg, 139–157.
• Dalton-Puffer C., Smit U. (2007), Empirical Perspectives on CLIL Classroom Discourse, Peter Lang Verlag, Frankfurt/Wien.
• De Graaff, R., Koopman G., Anikina Y., Westhoff G. (2007), An observation tool for effective L2 pedagogy in content and language integrated learning (CLIL), „International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism”, 10 (5), 603–624.
• Deller S., Price C. (2007), Teaching other subjects through English, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
• Finocchiaro M., Brumfit C. (1983), The functional notional approach. From theory to practice, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
• Gardner H. (1998), A multiplicity of intelligences, „Sceintific American”, 11, 5–17.
• Gilmore A. (2007), Authentic materials and authenticity in foreign language learning, „Language Teaching”, 40, 97–118.
• Graddol D. (1997), The Future of English? A guide to forecasting the popularity of the English language in the 21st century, British Council, London.
• Kiely R. (2009), CLIL – The question of assessment, https://tinyurl.com/tgyg664 (dostęp: 22.01.2020.).
• Kozulin A., Gindis B., Ageyev V., Miller S. (2003), Vygotsky’s educational theory and practice incultural context, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
• Krashen S. D. (1985), The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications, Longman, London.
• Lantolf P. J. (2000), Socio-cultural theory and second language learning, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
• Larsen-Freeman D. (2000), Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
• Lyster R. (2007), Learning and Teaching Languages Through Content. A counterbalanced approach, John Benjamins Publishing Company, Philadelphia.
• Marenzi I., Zerr S. (2012), Multiliteracies and active learning in CLIL – The Development of LearnWeb 2.0., „IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies”, 5 (4), 336–348.
• Mehisto P., Marsh D., Frigols M. (2008), Uncovering CLIL, Macmillan Books for Teachers, London.
• Met M. (1998), Curriculum Decision-Making in Content-Based Second Language Teaching, [w:] Cenoz J., Genesee F. (red.), Beyond Bilingualism: Multilingualism and Multilingual Education, Multilingual Matters, Clevedon, 35–63.
• Mohan B. A. (1986), Language and content, Addison-Wesley, Michigan.
• Piechurska-Kuciel E. (2011), Perceived teacher support and language anxiety in Polish secondary school EFL learners, „Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching”, 1 (1), 83–100.
• Pinner R. (2013), Authenticity and CLIL: Examining Authenticity from an International CLIL Perspective, „International CLIL Research Journal”, 2 (1), 44–54.
• Richards J., Rodgers T. (2001), Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
• Snow M.A., Met M., Genesee F. (1989), A conceptual framework for the integration of language and content in second/foreign language instruction, „TESOL Quarterly”, 23 (2), 201–217.
• Strigel S. (2014), Optimising classroom communication: Verbal scaffolding in CLIL, International Students Experience Journal”, 2 (1), 20–2
• Swain M. (2000), The output hypothesis and beyond: mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue, [w:] Lantolf J. P. (red.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 97–114.
• Vygotsky L.S. (1978), Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes, Harvard University Press, Massachusetts.
• Wood D., Bruner J., Ross G. (1976), The role of tutoring in problem solving, „Journal of Child Psychology and Child Psychiatry”, 17, 89–100.

Identifiers

ISSN

1507-6563