CLIL in Europe
Edited By David Marsh and Dieter Wolff
IV. Integrating and evaluating language and content
Language in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) Heini-Marja Järvinen 1. Introduction It is well known that content and language integrated learning programmes produce learning outcomes that measure up with content learning in L 1 teaching and are better than language learning results in regular language teaching. Why are the results so good? There are features that are characteristic of programmes that combine the teaching of content and language that may have a facilitating impact on dual learning. First of all, it is typical of these programmes that language exposure is more extensive than in formal language learning, i.e., students are exposed to understandable language, or comprehensible input (Krashen, 1985) for Jong periods, which is believed to enhance implicit language learning. Language and content learning take place in a meaningful context with opportunities to use the language as a tool to learn content. Target language (L2) learning is similar to first language learning, where focus on meaning produces implicit language learning. In CLIL, content- and language- learning is an integrated and reciprocal process: "...as students master language, they are able to learn more content, and as students learn more content, they're able to improve their language skills" (Stoller, 2004). Recently, the focus has shifted from enhancing understanding to improving accuracy. Apart from focus on meaning, focus on form is emphasized. This means that models of CLIL increasingly must focus on language and the accuracy of form component. 2. Models of CLIL tt is typical of the majority of models...
You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.
This site requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals.
Do you have any questions? Contact us.Or login to access all content.