Language in CLIL settings: research overview

• Authors: Beata Nawrot-Lis

Title variants

PL

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

Abstracts

EN

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.

PL

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 świadczących o skuteczności nauczania metodą CLIL oraz zachęcenie przyszłych badaczy do dalszego zgłębiania tej tematyki.

Keywords

PL

zintegrowane kształcenie przedmiotowo-językowe; nauczanie dwujęzyczne; efekty; uczniowie; sprawności językowe

EN

CLIL; bilingual education; effects; students; language skills

• Publisher: Akademia Humanistyczno-Ekonomiczna w Łodzi
• Journal: Językoznawstwo
• Year: 2020
• Volume: 14
• Pages: 223-235

Dates

published

2020

Contributors

author

Beata Nawrot-Lis

• Uniwersytet Technologiczno-Humanistyczny im. Kazimierza Pułaskiego w Radomiu

• https://orcid.org/0000000164738010

References

• 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.
• 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.
• Cummins J., Swain M. (1986), Bilingualism in Education, London.
• Dalton-Puffer C., Smit U. (2008), Empirical Perspectives on CLIL Classroom Discourse, Frankfurt–Wien.
• 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.
• 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.
• Genesee F. (1987), Learning Through Two Languages. Studies in Immersion and Bilingual Education, Cambridge.
• Hamalainen M. (1998), Aidinkielen kehittyminen vieraskielisessa opetuksessa, Turku.
• 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.
• 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].
• Lasagabaster D. (2011), English achievement and student motivation in CLIL and EFL settings, “Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching”, no. 5, p. 3–18.
• Llinares A., Whittaker R. (2012), The roles of language in CLIL, Cambridge.
• 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.
• Lyster R. (2004), Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction, “Studies in Second Language Acquisition”, no. 26, p. 399–432.
• Lyster R. (2007), Learning and Teaching Languages Through Content. A counterbalanced approach, Philadelphia.
• Mehisto P., Marsh D. (2008), Uncovering CLIL, London.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• Muñoz C. (2007), CLIL: Some thoughts on its psycholinguistic principles, “Revista Española de lingüística aplicada”, no. 1, p. 17–26.
• 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.
• Nikula T. (2007a), Speaking English in Finnish content-based classrooms, “World Englishes”, no. 26, p. 206–223.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• Rahman H. (2001), Kaksikielisen (suomi-englanti) ja suomenkielisen kuudennen luokan aidinkielen kirjoitelmien vertailua yhdyssanojen oikeinkirjoituksen osalta, Helsinki.
• Roquet H. (2011), A study of the acquisition of English as a foreign language: Integrating content and language in mainstream education in Barcelona, Barcelona.
• Ruiz de Zarobe Y. (2008), CLIL and Foreign Language Learning: A Longitudinal Study in the
• Basque Country, “International CLIL Research Journal”, no. 1, p. 60–73.
• Seikkula-Leino J. (2007), CLIL Learning: Achievement Levels and Affective Factors, “Language and Education”, no. 21, p. 328–341.
• Seregely E. (2008), A comparison of lexical learning in CLIL and traditional EFL classrooms, Vienna.
• Skogen M. (2013), Reading in CLIL and in regular EFL classes: to what extent do they differ in reading and strategy use? Oslo.
• Spada N., Lightbown P. (2008), Form-Focused Instruction: Isolated or Integrated? “TESOL Quarterly”, no. 42, p. 181–207.
• 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.
• Xanthou M. (2011), The impact of CLIL on L2 vocabulary development and content knowledge, “English Teaching: Practice and Critique”, no. 10, p. 116–126.
• Zydatiß W. (2006), Bilingualer Fachunterricht in Deutschland: eine Bilanz, “Fremdsprachen Lehren und Lernen”, no. 36, p. 8–25.

Identifiers

DOI

10.25312/2391-5137.14/2020_14bnl

Biblioteka Nauki

2192202