0 Bewertungen0% fanden dieses Dokument nützlich (0 Abstimmungen)
29 Ansichten22 Seiten
CLIL as a pathway to additive language learning across language backgrounds
Thomas Somers, Esli Struys, Jill Surmont & Piet Van de Craen
MuRe, Multilingual Research Group
Vrije Universiteit Brussel
Originaltitel
CLIL as a pathway to additive language learning across language backgrounds
CLIL as a pathway to additive language learning across language backgrounds
Thomas Somers, Esli Struys, Jill Surmont & Piet Van de Craen
MuRe, Multilingual Research Group
Vrije Universiteit Brussel
CLIL as a pathway to additive language learning across language backgrounds
Thomas Somers, Esli Struys, Jill Surmont & Piet Van de Craen
MuRe, Multilingual Research Group
Vrije Universiteit Brussel
Two-way immersion enrichment bilingual education for two homogeneous language groups (bilingualism = resource) BE types by language orientation The target groups approach International migratory patterns (e.g. Lambert 1999, Vila 2001) diversity of IM languages number of IM speakers in total number of speakers per IM language interspersed settlement pattern qualified teachers Instructional materials language codification & elaboration dialect & standard varieties
Limitations and problems The target groups approach Dominant-language-only pedagogy disempowering (Kubota 2003) ignores learners cultural identity (Pavlenko & Blackledge 2004) economically limiting (Banks 2004) pedagogical succes? (Cummins 2009)
Two-way immersion (Valds 1997, 1998; Palmer 2009) Power distribution Relative language status (need versus option) Political/economic language status (EU versus immigrant)
Limitations and problems The target groups approach A target groups approach to education may cause subtractive bilingualism may lead to segregation
Organizational formulas based on the homogeneity of students clearly no longer work
A different perspective on diversity is needed! Conclusions IM students in CLIL
Influx of IM students in majority bilingual education (CLIL/immersion)
CLIL may provide a more suitable alternative to effective language learning for IM students (Van de Craen et al. 2007, Sierra & Lasagabaster 2008)
31/12/2011 | pag. 8 Subtractive? L1 support ? (Cummins e.g. 1981)
language disadvantage doesnt disappear with removal (Genesee 2007)
L2+L3 = greater difficulties? (Wolff 2005)
Concern that they will not have adequate opportunities to develop L2 (e.g. Dagenais & Berron 1999)
31/12/2011 | pag. 9 Research results Paucity of research and lack of agreement (Gunderson 2007, Auerbach 1993)
Studies from Canada (e.g. Dagenais et al.), BAC (e.g. Sierra & Lasagabaster 2008), Catalonia (e.g. Vila 2001, 2009; Nussbaum & Unamuno 2006)
Looking at Beliefs and attitudes: more positive (e.g. Makropoulos 2005; Dagenais 2003, Dagenais & Day 1998, 1999; Manzanos & Ruiz Pinedo 2005) Motivation: investment (e.g. Pierce 1995, Makropoulos 2009, Ibarran, Lasagabaster & Sierra 2008) Achievement: equal or even better (overview by Roy & Galiev 2009)
31/12/2011 | pag. 10 Explanations Two strands of explanations can be discerned:
1. Explanations from a pedagogical perspective
2. Explanations from a learning theoretical perspective
31/12/2011 | pag. 11 Pedagogical perspective CLIL is the ultimate communicative language teaching CLT should be communicative CLT should be inherently repetitive CLT should be functional/pragmatic
CLIL cannot be but inherently communicative, repetitive, and functional/pragmatic.
31/12/2011 | pag. 12 Pedagogical perspective L1 support through flexible language arrangements code-switching (Gajo 2007, Ferguson 2003) translation (Manyak 2004) Translanguaging (Garcia 2009) transfer (Cummins 2007) collaborative dialogue (Swain 2001) Language as a cognitive tool for learning (Swain & Lapkin 2005) Visual aids, gestures, Language awareness
31/12/2011 | pag. 13 Theory of learning perspective CLIL is a form of implicit learning Implicit learning is not associated with academic learning It refers to a non-structured, non-guided, scaffolded, holistic, unconscious mode of learning Content is learnt through language, but no explicit language teaching takes place, at least not initially The status of this way of learning is different from explicit learning
31/12/2011 | pag. 14 Theory of learning perspective What is implicit learning ? Implicit learning is such a form of learning in which [complex information] is [learned] without complete verbalisable knowledge of what is learned (Seger 1994: 164).
The difference with explicit learning processes is that implicit learning is: more robust independent of age less prone to give rise to variation independent of IQ more suited to shared learning (cf. Reber 1993)
31/12/2011 | pag. 15 Theory of learning perspective Implicit knowledge is later engaged to acquire explicit knowledge, e.g. grammatical knowledge
The movement from implicit to explicit learning is recognized as one of the most powerful learning mechanisms (Reber 1993, Cleeremans 1997, Shanks 2005)
The learning outcomes are stronger, and thus creates stronger learners.
31/12/2011 | pag. 16 Theory of learning perspective In CLIL schools when children learn how to read a difficult language such as French and English, pupils have better results when they start reading in an easy language also when that language is not their mother tongue
Wallonian children have better reading results in their mother tongue if they have started reading in Dutch (Vandersmissen 2010, Veron 2012)
31/12/2011 | pag. 17 Example: Reading Conclusion CLIL as a highly stimulating learning environment
In which implicit learning processes are central
That goes beyond the distinction between additive and subtractive language learning
As learning is language-driven, but not language-specific.
31/12/2011 | pag. 18 Thank you for your attention
Merci de votre attention
Vielen Dank fr Ihre Aufmerksamkeit Thomas.Somers@vub.ac.be References (I) Auerbach, E. (1993). Reexamining English Only in the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly 27, 9-32. Banks, J. (2004). Cultural diversity and education: Foundations, curriculum, and teaching. 4 th ed. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Cleeremans, A. (1997). Principles for Implicit Learning. In D. Berry (Ed.), How implicit is implicit learning? Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 196-234. Cummins, J. (1981). The role of primary language development in promoting educational success for language minority students. In California State Department of Education (ed.), Schooling and language minority students: A theoretical framework. Los Angeles: Evaluation, Dissemination and Assessment Center California State University, pp. 349. Cummins, J. (2007): Rethinking monolingual instructional strategies in multilingual classrooms. The Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics 10, 221240. Cummins, J. (2009). Multilingualism in the English-language classroom: Pedagogical considerations. TESOL Quarterly 43, 317-321. Dagenais, D. (2003). Accessing imagined communities through multilingualism and immersion education. Language, Identity and Education 2, 269-283. Dagenais, D., Armand, F., Maraillet, E., & Walsh, N. (2008). Collaboration and co-construction of knowledge during language awareness activities in Canadian elementary school. Language Awareness 17, 139-155. Dagenais, D., Armand, F, Walsh, N., & Maraillet, E. (2008). Lveil aux langues et la co-construction de connaissances sur la diversit linguistique. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics 10, 197-219. Dagenais, D. & C. Berron (1999). A Case Study of Multilingualism and Educational Choices in Immigrant Families. Research on Immigration and Integration in the Metropolis. Working Papers 20, Vancouver. Dagenais, D. & Berron, C. (2001). Promoting multilingualism through French immersion and language maintenance in three immigrant families. Language, Culture and Curriculum 14, 142-155. Dagenais, D. and Day, E. (1998). Classroom language experiences of trilingual children in French immersion. The Canadian Modern Language Review 54, 376-393. Dagenais, D. and Day, E. (1999). Home language practices of trilingual children in French immersion. The Canadian Modern Language Review 56, 99-123 Dagenais, D. & Jacquet, M. (2000). Valorisation du multilinguisme et de l'ducation bilingue dans les familles immigrantes. Journal of International Migration and Integration 1, 389-404.
31/12/2011 | pag. 20 References (II) Gajo, L. (2007): Linguistic Knowledge and Subject Knowledge: how does bilingualism contribute to subject development? The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 10, 863-582 Genesee, F. (2007). The Suitability of French Immersion for Students who are At-Risk: A Review of Research Evidence. The Canadian Modern Language Review 63, 655-687. Gunderson, L. (2007). English-only instruction and immigrant students in secondary schools: a critical examination. Mawah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Ibarraran, A., Lasagabaster, D. & Sierra, J.M. (2008). Multilingualism and language attitudes: Local versus immigrant students perceptions. Language Awareness 17, 326-341. Kubota, R., 2003. New approaches to gender, class, and race in second language writing. Journal of second language writing 12, 31-47. Lambert, R.D. (1999). A Scaffolding for language policy. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 137, 3-25. Makropoulos, J. (2005). A case study of French immersion stayers in an Ottawa high school: Cultural capital, investment, and identification to French. In J. Cohen, K. T. McAlister, K. Rolstad, & J. MacSwan (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th international symposium on bilingualism. Somerville, MA:Cascadilla Press. Makropoulos, J. (2009). Factors Related to Student Participation in French Immersion Programs. Journal de l'immersion/Immersion Journal 31, 31-32. Manyak, P.C. 2004. What did she say? Translation in a primary-grade English immersion class. Multicultural Perspectives, 6, 1218. Manzanos, C. & Ruz de Pinedo, I. (eds.) (2005). La infancia inmigrante en las escuelas de Vitoria-Gasteiz. Vitoria-Gasteiz: UPV/EHU, Denon Eskola, Bachue Nussbaum, L., Unamuno, V. (eds) (2006). Apropament a lescola multilinge. Usos i competncies multilinges entre escolars dorigen immigrant. Bellaterra: Publicacions de la Universitat Autnoma de Barcelona. Palmer, D. K. (2009). Middle-class English speakers in a two-way immersion bilingual classroom: 'Everybody should be listening to Jonathan right now...'. TESOL Quarterly 43, 177-202. Pavlenko, A., & A. Blackledge. (2004). Introduction. In A. Pavlenko and A. Blackledge (eds.), Negotiation of identities in multilingual contexts. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters, 1-33. Pierce, B.N. (1995) Social identity, investment, and language learning, TESOL Quarterly 29, 9-31. Reber, A. S. (1993). Implicit learning and tacit knowledge: An essay on the cognitive unconscious. NY: Oxford University Press.
31/12/2011 | pag. 21 References (III) Roy, S. & Galiev, A. (2009). Pourquoi les immigrants veulent-ils apprendre le franais? Journal de l'immersion/Immersion Journal 31, 38-40. Seger, C. A. (1994). Multiple mechanisms in implicit learning. In Proceedings of the 16 th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 794-799. Shanks, D. R. (2005). Implicit learning. In K. Lamberts and R. Goldstone (eds.), Handbook of Cognition. London: Sage, 202-220 Sierra, J.M. & Lasagabaster, D. (2008). Los programas AICLE en aulas diversas: una alternativa para todos?. Lenguaje y textos 28, 131-142. Swain, M. (2001). Integrating language and content teaching through collaborative tasks. Canadian Modern Language Review 58, 4463. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2005). The evolving sociopolitical context of immersion education in Canada: Some implications for program development. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 15, 169186. Valds, G. (1997). Dual language immersion programs: A cautionary note concerning the education of language-minority students. Harvard Educational Review 67, 391429. VALDS, G. (1998). The world outside and inside school: Language and immigrant children. Educational Researcher 27, 4-18. Van de Craen, P., E. Ceuleers, K. Lochtman, L. Allain, and K. Mondt. (2007). An interdisciplinary research approach to CLIL learning in primary schools in Brussels. In C. Dalton-Puffer and U. Smit (eds.). Empirical Perspectives on CLIL Classroom Discourse. Frankfurt am Mein: Peter Lang. Vandersmissen, C. (2010). CLIL en lezen: onderzoek naar leesbaardigheid in meertalig onderwijs. Unpublished Master thesis. Vrije Universiteit Brussel. Veron, K. (2012). Nederlandse taalvaardigheid in meertalige Waalse scholen: een vergelijkende studie. Unpublished Master thesis.Vrije Universiteit Brussel. Vila, I. (2001). Algunes qestions referides a l'aprenentatge lingstic de la infncia estrangera a Catalunya. Articles de didctica de la llengua i de la literatura 23, 22-28. Vila, I. (2009). Els programes de canvi de llengua de la llar a l'escola: el repte de la catalanitzaci escolar. Treballs de Sociolingstica Catalana 20, 229-257. Wolff, D. (2005). Approaching CLIL. In: Marsh, D. et al. (2005). Project D3-CLIL matrix Central workshop report 6/2005 (Graz, 3-5 November 2005). European Centre for Modern Languages. 10-25. Retrieved on 9 November 2011 at http://archive.ecml.at/mtp2/clilmatrix/pdf/wsrepD3E2005_6.pdf.