An Reflective Research on Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL): Implementation Strategies in Pedagogical-oriented Class for English Majors Students

Jieyu Li; Baobao Wen

doi:10.6918/IJOSSER.202410_7(10).0017

Authors

Jieyu Li
Baobao Wen

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.6918/IJOSSER.202410_7(10).0017

Keywords:

CLIL; Methodology and Curriculum; College English; Chinese Pedagogical Context.

Abstract

CLIL is currently getting popularity across the educational field. It is considered as a method applied in subject classes to improve students’ both content knowledge and language ability in the medium of additional language. However, the problem of the balance between language and content for instruction makes the implementation of CLIL complicated and challenge-able. investigation from different perspectives were conducted: some investigation take CLIL as a methodological approach; meanwhile some others view CLIL in terms of curriculum. CLIL has been implemented as a mainstream approach at all stages of education in European countries since it was coined in twenty nineties. However, it is a new pedagogical approach in Chinese context, especially in Chinese college education. English as a foreign language for Chinese students, has been considered one of the most crucial subjects in school. Educators tend to ignore its instrumental function. With the increasing investigation on English teaching, it focuses no longer on the instruction of grammar, vocabulary and sentence pattern. More importantly, it is necessary to integrate the knowledge of nature, geography, humanities and other related subjects into English teaching, and constantly enhance students’ English communication ability, thereby giving full play to the role of English as a communication tool. Therefore, this reflective investigation attempts to present and justify an appropriate curriculum of CLIL in Chinese college based on both my college learning and teaching experience, and illustrate the implementation strategies in CLIL classroom.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

[1] Baetens Beardsmore, H. 2002. The significance of CLIL/EMILE. In: CLIL/EMILE the European Dimensio (Marsh, D. (ed.), University of Jyva¨skyla¨ (pp. 24–6).

[2] BAnEgAs, D. L., 2015. Sharing views of CLIL lesson planning in language teacher education. Latin American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning, 8(2), 104-130.

[3] Çekrezi, R., 2011. CLIL and teacher training. Procedia-Social and Behavioural Sciences, 15, 3821-3825.

[4] Cenoz, J., Genesee, F., & Gorter, D., 2014. Critical analysis of CLIL: Taking stock and looking forward. Applied linguistics, 35(3), 243-262.

[5] Chang, K., Chen, I., & Sung, Y., 2002. The effect of concept mapping to enhance text comprehension and summarization. The Journal of Experimental Education 71(1), 5-23.

[6] Chi, Y. L., 2009. Ontology-based curriculum content sequencing system with semantic rules. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(4), 7838-7847.

[7] Coyle, D., 1999. ‘Theory and planning for effective classrooms: supporting students in content and language integrated learning contexts’ in J. Masih (ed.). Learning Through a Foreign Language. London: CILT.

[8] Coyle, D., P. Hood, and D. Marsh., 2010. Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge University Press.

[9] Coyle, D., 2013. “Listening to Learners: An Investigation into ‘Successful Learning’ Across CLIL Contexts.” International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 16 (3): 244–266.

[10] Eurydice, 2006. Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) at School in Europe. Eurydice.

[11] Gondová, D., 2015. Selecting, adapting and creating CLIL materials. CLIL, 153.

[12] Hönig, I., 2009. Assessment in CLIL (Doctoral dissertation, uniwien).

[13] Ioannou Georgiou, S., 2012. Reviewing the puzzle of CLIL. ELT journal, 66(4), 495-504.

[14] Kiely, R., 2011. ‘CLIL-history and background’ in S. Ioannou Georgiou and P. Pavlou (eds.). Guidelines for CLIL Implementation in Primary and Pre-primary Education. Nicosia: Cyprus Pedagogical Institute.

[15] Krathwohl, D. R., 2002. A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory into practice, 41(4), 212-218.

[16] Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. M., 2009. Language attitudes in CLIL and traditional EFL classes. International CLIL investigation journal, 1(2), 4-17.

[17] Lasagabaster, D., 2011. English achievement and student motivation in CLIL and EFL settings. Innovation in language Learning and Teaching, 5(1), 3-18.

[18] Manouchehri, A., & Lapp, D. A., 2003. Unveiling student understanding: The role of questioning in instruction. MATHEMATICS TEACHER-WASHINGTON THEN RESTON VA-, 96(8), 562-573.

[19] Massler, U., 2011. Assessment in CLIL learning. Guidelines for CLIL implementation in primary and pre-primary education, 114-136.

[20] Mehisto, P., 2012. Criteria for Producing CLIL Learning Material. Online Submission.

[21] Meyer, O., 2010. Towards quality CLIL: successful planning and teaching strategies. PULSO. Revista de Educación, (33), 11-29.

[22] Swain, M., 1993. The Output Hypothesis: Just speaking and writing aren’t enough. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 50, 158-165.

[23] Van Der Stuyf, R. R., 2002. Scaffolding as a teaching strategy. Adolescent learning and development, 52(3), 5-18.

[24] Wolff, D., 2010. Developing curricula for CLIL: Issues and problems. Language learner autonomy. Policy, curriculum, classroom. A festchrift in honour of David Little, 103-120.