truc 6 Content-Based Ins Content and Language Learning (CLIL) tion and Integrated Introduction sl -ather than aroun s y vit ne, each supporting the develon, c tim ents thus learn language and content at the same , ae oats Based Instruction has been com, ment of the other (Lyster 2007). While the term Content : i é sarticularly in North America, in Europe, monly used to des es related approach is known as Conter he two pea A ch in the way that Situational L anguage Teaching ang the Audiolingual Method (one developed in Europe; one in the United States) differed ig focus (see Chapters 3 and 4). Roth CAland CLILare part ofa growing trend in many pa Es f (Graddol 2006). ‘They have features through English, working with a content teacher to co-teach a course, of a content teacher designing and teaching a course for ESL learners. “teaching content through a second or foreign language, as does CBL but als ‘Stet omc ng gp ca a he CERPEU "originate in the language class, whereas CBI tends to Ihave as its starting point the Rous (@@ContenVtassy CBI emerged somewhat organically, advocated by a number of acadercs and educators supported by an extensive literature extending over a considerable perio! of time but without official sanction. CLIL, on the other hand, was officially proposed is European Commission policy paper in which member states were encouraged to develop “teaching in schools through the medium of more than one language” (EC 1976) The acronym “CLIL” has been widely circulated within member states of the European 60 ‘munity since 1994 and has become, by decree “the core instrument for achieving poli? aims directed at creating a multilingual population in Europe” (Dalton-Putfer 2007: And unlike CBI, CLIL not only aims at stimulating multilingualism of all citizens in tb€ European community but also strives to “preserve the independence and health of lo! . eee qumpice 2013). This is because CLIL does not Fepresent an immersion pr gain en sein og pel development of English language skills in those *° - Escaneado con CamScannerince they refer to a set of principles do not prescribe the methods that can be used ul : Several reasor or the design o language with them, BUNe courney expansiot Pansion of Programs of this kind in recent years, s account for the ipleof CLE srOOns shoul foe A defining Fre exchange of information: an ideal situation Wyo feal communication and ; nd language lea would be one where the subject mater of language teaching ee ee eto, tions or some other language-based unit of o 18 Was not grammar or func- matter from outside the domain of languag ind for secon age rganization, but content, tha The' Since the latte : F part of the twenti century, many En; lish-speaking. count have received large slits of eae as wel as people displaced by upheavals in their own countries, On-arial pe typically focus on the language newly arri a i ived immigrants and others in a countr need for survival. Such learners typically need to learn how to deal with differing ends of real-world content as a basis for social survival, Content-based programs have com- monly been used in these situations. Mainstreaming programs or Programs for Students with Limited English Proficiency (SLEP) serve especially those children whose parents might be served by the on-arrival programs, but are more generally designed to provide in-class or pullout instruction for any school-age children whose language competence is insufficient to participate fully in normal school instruction. These programs focus on giving students the language and other skills needed to enter the regular school curricu- lum. Such skills often involve learning how to carry out academic tasks and understand academic content through a second language. CBI was seen as an approach that would promote both academic skills development and language proficiency. 3, Gipporijorimmersiomedieation In attempts to promote language learning by majority language speakers, such as English-speaking Canadians studying French, an approach known as immersion education has been used in some countries since the 1980s. t the subject of instruct language is the vehicle for content instruction; it is not cai an English-speaking child might enter a primary schoo in which the me ii ich tum of instruction for all the content subjects is a ae .d in many parts 0 or a student’ age and abilities ; 5 s; (d g designa ent ateaofthe cure Jor pogamshave bended = Fo Fe eee nePejternative forms of immersion have be jorth America, an Escaneado con CamScanner18 Current approaches and mets be found ina numberof languages including ese, and Hawaiian. ch, In Burope the substantial increase in cy based programs of diferent kinds is pat of «policy '0 Prom itagualism in Bron, as reflected in the European Commission’ white paper a ing a eonine Towarg. the Learning Society (1995) “in which a stated objective was the °° Policy thats for ky citizens to have competence in their mot! her tongue plus two Community foreign. guages” (Llinares, Morton, and Whittaker 2012: 1). CLIL in Europe has been desctibeg as a response to globalization, States, immersion programs can German, Spanish, Japanese, Chi the need for knowledge-driven economies and s, Mach CLL cestoom pac cite four reasons for the spread of CLIL in Europe: Families wanting their children to have some competence in at least one foreign lan, guage; governments wanting to improve languages education for socio-economic advantage; at the supranational level, the European Commission wanting to lay the foundation for greater inclusion and economic strength; and finally, at the educational level, language experts seeing the potential for further integrating languages education with other subjects. As a consequence of the factors above, different kinds of content-based and CLIL courses are now common in many parts of the world and differ significantly from traditional approaches to second and foreign language instruction. In order to understand the prac- tices that are used in CBI and CLIL programs, it will be necessary to first examine the principles that underlie them and then look at how these are applied in language teaching programs and teaching materials. Both approaches will be considered together, except in areas where they differ. CBI and CLIL are built around a number of core principles that can be stated as follows: if. This principle distinguishes CBI and CLIL from conventional language courses where a language syllabus is used as the basis for organization and content is chosen according to how well it supports a linguis- tic syllabus. 6 7 This principle reflects the fact that CBI programs serve to prepare learners for academic studies or for survival in an English language environment. CLIL programs similarly rt said both t Escaneado con CamScanner6 Content-Based Instruction and CLIL 119 «Conteh Provides the basis OPAC VTRg WIN iS CHUTE AHA NE ERICU CHA PROCESSED that are the starting point for second language learning. A focus on the comprehension and expression of of Counhivepilesthatyaresbasiyto leering and to intellectual as well as interactional processes that support naturalistic second language development. Brinton (2007) provides a more detailed rationale for CBI: (Gitte content-based curriculum removes the arbitrary distinction between language and content. 2. Itreflects the ififerestslaiid heeds Of thelleatner by taking into account the eventual uses the le; i ign language. 3 Ito al conditions fo by CRORES meaningfuland cognitively demanding language in the form of authentic materials and tasks. B provides pedagogical accommodation to learner proficiency levels and skills. views language as learned within a larger framework of communication. (@B) tt holds sustained content as necessary for providing authentic, meaningful substance for students to acquire language. (@P kt views rich, comprehensible input as necessary but not sufficient for the development of high-level academic language proficiency. @® it places a high value on feedback on accuracy to help students develop target-like output. Mit supplements exposure to input through language-enhanced instruction (e.g., skills- based instruction and consciousness raising about uses of grammar, lexis, style, and register). Se —— ere , principles underlying the approach refer to the fact that CLIL is believed to help achieve individual as well as educational, social, and intercultural goals for language learning. These principles, as described by Coyle et al. (2010: 42), can be sum- marized as follows: ° is not only about acquiring knowledge and skills, it is about tH@GaEneD creating | ersonalized learning). © Content is related to learning aff@lUhinilting pHOeesseelCOBINON)DTo enable the learner to create their @WRMIECEDFEtaLIONYoRycontent, it must be analyzed for its linguistic demands. © The language learned needs to be related to the learning context, to learni | “that language, to reconstructing the content, and, as mentioné (QE This language needs to be transparent and accessible. © Interaction in the learning context is fundamental to learning. This has implications he ening peo GSES ey Escaneado con CamScanner