Content deleted Content added
Padarquetty (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
WikiEditor50 (talk | contribs) Reference cleanup |
||
Line 1:
{{Short description|Learning through an additional language}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=October 2023}}
'''Content and language integrated learning''' ('''CLIL''')<ref>{{Cite web |title=British Council BBC Teaching English |url=http://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/think/knowledge-wiki/clil |
==CLIL origin==
The term '''CLIL''' was created in 1994 by
==CLIL and language immersion==
Line 12 ⟶ 13:
==CLIL objectives==
CLIL objectives are varied, but among the most relevant ones the following can be pointed out
CLIL advocates claim that this educational approach
==CLIL in English as an international language==
The integration of content and language learning in [[international English|English as an international language]] (EIL) is found in approaches to [[bilingual education]].<ref name="TESOL" /> These approaches include [[language immersion|immersion]], [[content-based instruction]] (CBI), content-based language teaching (CBLT), and the movement towards [[English-medium education|English medium instruction]] (EMI). All of these approaches raise a number of questions that a view of English as an international language has for content-integrated approaches
===Multiplicity of terms===
The multiplicity of terms used to refer to instructional approaches for the integration of content and language learning (immersion, CBI, CBLT, CLIL, EMI) can be a source of confusion in EIL studies, although they all commonly share the purpose of additive bilingualism via a dual focus on content and language learning. Debate continues about the extent to which immersion, CBLT, CBI, and CLIL are different, similar, or the same. Some argue that CLIL represents an appropriate umbrella term that can be used to house various approaches towards content integration (e.g., immersion is a type of CLIL), where terms can be used interchangeably (e.g., CLIL and CBI are the same concept with a different name
The similarities (and variability) between approaches lead to circular arguments about whether the key features of one approach are also shared by others (e.g., immersion and CLIL), and therefore they are indistinguishable. In some ways, this is an inevitable result of terms being used outside of academia, by educators applying ideas from one context to another,<ref name="Dalton-Puffer" /> and the lines of demarcation become more unclear as approaches are transported to different countries and contextualized to meet different learning situations.<ref name="TESOL" />
In EIL studies, different terms have been associated with different regions, such as CLIL, which is associated with Europe, and was "purposefully coined" by European educators and researchers attempting to influence language policy and ideology
==See also==
|