Content and language integrated learning: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 14:26, 20 August 2018

Revision as of 19:02, 5 September 2018

Line 19:

===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) (Cenoz et al., 2014).<ref name="Cenoz">{{cite journal|last1=Cenoz, Gennessee & Gorter|title=Critical analysis of CLIL: Taking stock and looking forward.|journal=Applied Linguistics|date=2014|volume=35|issue=3|pages=243-262|accessdate=10 January 2018}}</ref> However, others argue that CLIL and CBI represent very different concepts, where CLIL represents the intersection between content and language from the content perspective (i.e., CLIL happens in content classes), while CBI is an attempt at responding to the content needs of learners in language classes (Dalton-Puffer et al., 2014).<ref name="Dalton-Puffer">{{cite journal|last1=Dalton-Puffer, Llinares, Lorenzo & Nikula|title=“You can stand under my umbrella”: Immersion, clil and bilingual education. A response to Cenoz, Genesee & Gorter (2013).|journal=Applied Linguistics|date=2014|volume=35|issue=2|pages=213-218|accessdate=10 January 2018}}</ref>

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"></ref> 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"></ref>