Immersion and CLIL in English: more differences than similarities

Lasagabaster, David; Sierra, Juan Manuel

doi:10.1093/elt/ccp082

Cited by 263 publications

(148 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

138

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This can be explained in part by the similarities in the design of the CLIL classrooms in Madrid and the JI classrooms in the US: that is, both allotted 50% of the curriculum to instruction through the target language and both target languages can be considered foreign languages. It seems then that, in the same way that the design of CLIL programmes is not monolithic across Europe (Lasagabaster and Sierra 2010), the characteristics of immersion programmes differ from one context to the next (Tedick and Cammarata 2012). As Dalton-Puffer (2011: 183) suggested, '[w]hether a programme is referred to as immersion or CLIL often depends as much on its cultural and political frame of reference as on the actual characteristics of the program'.…”

Section: Differences and Similarities Across Contextsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The influence of context on patterns of corrective feedback and learner uptake: a comparison of CLIL and immersion classrooms

Llinares

Lyster

2014

The Language Learning Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study compares the frequency and distribution of different types of corrective feedback (CF) (recasts, prompts and explicit correction) and learner uptake in 43 hours of classroom interaction at the 4th-5th grade level across three instructional settings: (1) two content and language integrated learning (CLIL) classrooms in Spain with English as the target language; (2) four French immersion (FI) classrooms in Quebec (using published data from Lyster and Ranta 1997); and (3) three Japanese immersion (JI) classrooms in the US (using published data from Lyster and Mori 2006). The findings revealed that teachers in all three settings used recasts, prompts and explicit correction in similar proportions, with recasts being the most frequent, followed by prompts then explicit correction. However, in the CLIL and JI classrooms, the majority of learner repair moves followed recasts, whereas the majority of repair moves in FI classrooms followed prompts. The similarities and differences across contexts are discussed in terms of the different types of recasts used by the teachers (i.e. didactic recasts in CLIL and JI; conversational recasts in FI), as well as in terms of context-specific influences and the teachers' professional trajectories.

show abstract

Section: Differences and Similarities Across Contextsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The influence of context on patterns of corrective feedback and learner uptake: a comparison of CLIL and immersion classrooms

Llinares

Lyster

2014

The Language Learning Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This report shows that between the years 2004 and 2005, most countries offered CLIL in mainstream secondary and, in second place, primary education as a result of imposed educational policies. Dalton-Puffer and Nikula (2006) observe that CLIL has become a common practice in many European countries as primarily reported by practitioners describing or researching their own classroom experiences in an experimental quantitative paradigm in countries such as Austria (Dalton-Puffer, 2007;Dalton-Puffer, Hüttner, Schindelegger, & Smit, 2009;Gierlinger, 2007), Finland (Haataja, 2007b;Nikula, 2007;Seikkula-Leino, 2007), Italy (Favilla, 2009;Lucietto, 2008), Belgium (Chopey-Paquet & Amory-Bya, 2007), Hungary (Várkuti, 2010), Poland (Loranc-Paszylk, 2009), Portugal (Costa & Godinho, 2007, p. 70), Spain (Halbach, 2009;Lasagabaster & Sierra, 2010;Lasagabaster & Ruiz de Zarobe, 2010;Llinares & Whittaker, 2009;Lorenzo, Casal, & Moore, 2010;Monte & Roza, 2007) and Sweden (Airey, 2009) among others.…”

Section: Cbi-clil Research In Programme Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Integrating content and language in English language teaching in secondary education: Models, benefits, and challenges

Banegas

2012

SSLLT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the last decade, there has been a major interest in content-based instruction (CBI) and content and language integrated learning (CLIL). These are similar approaches which integrate content and foreign/second language learning through various methodologies and models as a result of different implementations around the world. In this paper, I first offer a sociocultural view of CBI-CLIL. Secondly, I define language and content as vital components in CBI-CLIL. Thirdly, I review the origins of CBI and the continuum perspective, and CLIL definitions and models featured in the literature. Fourth, I summarise current aspects around research in programme evaluation. Last, I review the benefits and challenges of this innovative approach so as to encourage critically context-responsive endeavours.

show abstract

“…The introduction of the content and language integrated learning approach (CLIL) in the countries of the European Union was bound to influence other language teaching contexts in the world (Lasagabaster, 2008;Lasagabaster & Sierra, 2010;Meyer, 2010). In the Far East, for example, English teachers in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Hong Kong have conducted several studies to investigate CLIL and to compare its effectiveness to their traditional English as a Foreign Language (EFL) teaching methods (e.g., Yamano, 2013;Yang & Gosling, 2014;Yang, 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Promoting Writing Competence and Positive Attitudes among College Students in a CLIL English Course

Alrabah

2017

IJEL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The study targeted a group of 27 students at a college in Kuwait who were enrolled in a Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) English course during the academic year 2015-2016. The purpose of the study was to monitor students' assessments of their writing competence in English and to measure their attitudes toward the CLIL course. Data collection utilized a total of five focus-group interviews with the students which were recorded and transcribed, and a category system was generated to describe the commonalities in the participants' responses. Additionally, an online survey using Google Forms was based on the categories delineated from the interview data. The Microsoft Excel program was used for counting the means, standard deviations, and percentages for each of the survey items. The results of the study indicated that the majority of the students (80%) thought that the CLIL course enhanced their writing competence both within and beyond the sentence level. Writing skills within the sentence level included the accurate use of punctuation marks and capitalization rules. Writing skills beyond the sentence level included paragraph organization, use of proper transition words, and writing cause-and-effect paragraphs. Approximately 20% of the students did not think CLIL improved their writing competence beyond the sentence level. Furthermore, the students displayed highly positive attitudes toward all aspects of the CLIL course. Implications were drawn for specialized teacher training to cope with the demands of CLIL courses, and longitudinal studies to track students' development of writing competence over time.

show abstract

Immersion and CLIL in English: more differences than similarities

Cited by 263 publications

References 7 publications

The influence of context on patterns of corrective feedback and learner uptake: a comparison of CLIL and immersion classrooms

The influence of context on patterns of corrective feedback and learner uptake: a comparison of CLIL and immersion classrooms

Integrating content and language in English language teaching in secondary education: Models, benefits, and challenges

Promoting Writing Competence and Positive Attitudes among College Students in a CLIL English Course

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About