![]() ![]() As well as being internally ambiguous, the term CLIL is not clearly defined when compared with other approaches that integrate content and language teaching for L2 learning. In fact, we will show shortly that definitions of CLIL and the varied interpretations of this approach within Europe indicate that it is understood in different ways by its advocates. However, although CLIL’s origins in Europe might make it historically unique, this does not necessarily make it pedagogically unique. The desire for a distinct European frame of reference for promoting L2 competence in schools is exemplified by Coyle ( 2008: 97), who considers CLIL to be unique and different from ‘ bilingual or immersion education and a host of alternatives and variations such as content-based language teaching, English for Special Purposes, plurilingual education’. According to CLIL advocates, there was a need for CLIL in Europe because European approaches to bilingual education were being described using terms ‘ “ borrowed” from other contexts with over 30 descriptors to choose from, but especially drawing on immersion and bilingual movements in the USA and Canada’ ( Coyle 2007a: 544). Since then, the European Commission and the Council of Europe have funded many initiatives in support of CLIL because it responded to a need in Europe for enhancing second-language (L2) education and bilingualism that was well received in Marsh’s words, it was ‘… a pragmatic European solution to a European need’ ( Marsh 2002: 11). The term Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) was launched in Europe in the 1990s by a group of experts from different backgrounds, including educational administrators, researchers, and practitioners 1 ( Marsh 2002). ![]() Clarification is critical if CLIL is to evolve and improve systematically and if CLIL educators are to benefit from the experiences and knowledge acquired in other educational settings. The aim of this article is to examine these ambiguities and to call for clarification of the definition of CLIL. We argue further that attempts to define CLIL by distinguishing it from immersion approaches to L2 education are often misguided. However, the definition and scope of the term CLIL both internally, as used by CLIL advocates in Europe, and externally, as compared with immersion education in and outside Europe, indicate that the core characteristics of CLIL are understood in different ways with respect to: the balance between language and content instruction, the nature of the target languages involved, instructional goals, defining characteristics of student participants, and pedagogical approaches to integrating language and content instruction. The growing interest in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) has resulted in enthusiasm in and active pursuit of improved methods of foreign/second-language (L2) teaching in Europe.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |