|
Dòng
|
Nội dung
|
|
1
|
CLIL and non-CLIL : differences from the outset / Ángeles Broca.
// ELT journal 2016, Vol.70, No.3. Oxford University Pres, 2016.Tr. 320-331. This article reports on a survey that argues that secondary level Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) cohorts are different to their non-CLIL counterparts in a number of respects at the start of their courses. These include students’ previous grades (especially for English, the target foreign language), along with parental interest and students’ future expectations. A high percentage of the CLIL students think their programmes are selective, and the students’ previous grades suggest that CLIL courses exclude the less academically able, while not always selecting all the most able students. Most of the CLIL students believe that CLIL programmes are good for their schools, but they should not be imposed on all students. A number of the CLIL students find their programme difficult. One conclusion is that CLIL programmes exclude certain students, and, even if CLIL is successful, this is partly due to its selective nature. Furthermore, CLIL courses should not divert attention away from existing foreign language classes, especially in non-CLIL courses, which have a more diverse student cohort.
|
|
2
|
Does education for intercultural citizenship lead to language learning? / Melina Porto
// Language, Culture and Curriculum Volume 32, No 1/2019 2019p.16-33 This paper reports a bilateral university project designed to promote intercultural citizenship and foreign language development simultaneously. It is concerned with developing active and responsible citizenship through content-language integrated learning within an ordinary foreign language classroom. The need and rationale for broadening the scope of language courses and combining them with intercultural citizenship or human rights education has been explained elsewhere and empirical studies reporting on classroom practice are recently available. These studies have connected both types of education (language and citizenship/human rights) and have demonstrated growth in self and intercultural awareness, in criticality and social justice responsibility, as well as the emergence of a sense of community of international peers during the projects. However, the concern remains as to whether this combination leads to language learning and this article addresses this issue. The article describes one transnational intercultural citizenship project in the foreign language classroom in Argentina and the UK and focuses on the research question: Does an intercultural citizenship project lead to language learning? Findings – taken from the Argentinean data – show that students developed procedural knowledge by using the foreign language with a genuine need, engaged in multiliteracies practices and developed their plurilingual competence within a translingual orientation.
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
|
|