Evaluating a CLIL student: Where to find the CLIL advantage
Evaluating a CLIL student: Where to find the CLIL advantage
复制标题
评估 CLIL 学生：在哪里可以找到 CLIL 优势
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2014
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Thomas Somers
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Jill Surmont;P. V. D. Craen;E. Struys;Thomas Somers
以前人们常常认为双语对认知发展有负面影响。例如，Anastasi & Cordova（1953）或Darcy（1963）的研究表明，双语者的表现优于单语者。人们普遍认为，双语不利于儿童的认知发展，而单语应是最理想的。然而，Peal和Lambert（1962）的开创性研究引发了一场革命，表明双语者在各种任务中的表现优于单语者。尽管自那时以来发生了很大变化，但许多社会利益相关者仍然相信，在单语环境中长大对孩子更有利，双语教育的机会应限制在最低限度（Bollen & Baten 2010）。然而，这种说法是不真实的证据呈指数级增长，以至于问题已经从“双语对儿童的发展有害吗”转变为“在哪些层面上可以注意到双语/多语的积极影响？“.自1995年以来，欧洲一直在正式促进多语教育。欧洲委员会指出，每个国家都应该在18岁时实现三语化，这意味着除了母语之外，人们还应该精通至少两种其他语言（白色文件1995）。实现这一目标的最佳途径是实行多语言教育，因为传统的语言教育显然无法确保必要的熟练程度。最新的欧洲晴雨表显示，46%的欧洲人无法用母语以外的另一种语言进行交流（2012年特别欧洲晴雨表）。根据加拿大沉浸式课程的结果，欧洲联盟委员会正在推广内容和语言综合学习，作为传统语言教育的替代办法。多语言、多文化、跨文化能力和全球化是当今的流行语，但它们也带来了许多关于将CLIL引入课程的后果的问题。本文的目的不仅是总结CLIL与语言能力相关的研究结果，而且还解释和说明为什么CLIL不仅仅是一种语言学习方法。我们将解释CLIL如何刺激认知和大脑的发展，以及它如何创造一个不同的-更好的-类型的学习者，这意味着CLIL的优势不应该只在语言水平上寻找。目标语言立即被利用，并在一个有意义的环境中使用，降低（甚至消除）学生使用目标语言可能遇到的任何障碍。Coyle等人，2010年）。重点不是语言本身，而是关于内容的沟通。因此，语言不是目的，而是交流的手段，学生必须在真实的情况下使用语言，在这种情况下，语言的使用是实用的和功能的（Gatbonton和Segalowitz 2005）。这意味着学生更多地用目标语言进行练习。研究表明，在CLIL课堂上，学生和教师之间的互动比传统课堂更多（Nikula 2010; Blom 2013）。因为学习目标语言不是主要（或唯一）目标，所以正确使用语言的压力较小。这并不意味着错误会被忽视，这意味着学生不会感到压力，每次他们说，他们说的每一个字都被评分。Nikula指出，在CLIL课堂上，学生有“更多的互动空间”（Nikula 2007，203）。由于练习时间更长，正确使用语言的压力更小，因此研究表明，在CLIL环境中的学生比传统学校的同龄人更好地说目标语言并不令人惊讶（例如，见Lorenzo et al...
IntroductionIt was often formerly thought that bilingualism had a negative impact on cognitive development. Research by, for example, Anastasi & Cordova (1953) or Darcy (1963) showed that bilinguals were outperformed by monolinguals. It was generally accepted that bilingualism was detrimental for the cognitive development of a child and that monolingualism should be the ideal. However, the seminal research of Peal and Lambert (1962) initiated a revolution by showing that bilinguals outperformed monolinguals on multifarious tasks. Although much has changed since then, many societal stakeholders are still convinced that being raised in a monolingual environment is more advantageous for a child, and that opportunities for bilingual education should be restricted to a minimum (Bollen & Baten 2010). Yet the evidence that such claims are untrue is growing exponentially up to the point where the question has changed from "is bilingualism detrimental for a child's development" to "on which levels can the positive influence of bi/multilingualism be noted?".Europe has been promoting multilingual education officially since 1995. The European Commission stated that every country should aim for trilingualism at the age of eighteen, meaning that besides the mother tongue(s), people should be proficient in at least two other languages (White Paper 1995). The best way to reach this goal is to introduce multilingual education, as it is clear that traditional language education is unable to ensure the necessary level of proficiency. The latest Eurobarometer shows that 46% of all the Europeans are unable to communicate in another language than their mother tongue (Special Eurobarometer 2012). Based on the results of immersion programmes in Canada, the European Commission is promoting Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) as an alternative to traditional language education. Multilingualism, multiculturalism, intercultural competences and globalization are buzzwords nowadays, but they bring up many questions concerning the consequences of introducing CLIL into the curriculum. The aim of this paper is not only to summarise the results of CLIL related to language competence, but also to explain and show why CLIL is more than a language learning approach. We will explain how CLIL stimulates cognitive and brain development and how it creates a different - better - type of learner, meaning that the CLIL advantage should not only be looked for at the language proficiency level.2 The language advantages of CLILCLIL is different from traditional language learning because it combines language learning with content learning. The target language is immediately exploited and used in a meaningful environment, lowering (and even removing) any barriers students may have to use the target language (cf. Coyle et al. 2010). The focus is not on the language itself, but on communication about the content. The language is therefore not the goal but the means of communication, and students have to use the language in authentic situations where the language usage is pragmatic and functional (Gatbonton & Segalowitz 2005). This implies that students practice more in and with the target language. Research has shown that in a CLIL class, more interaction between student and teacher takes place than in a traditional class (Nikula 2010; Blom 2013). Because learning the target language is not the main (or only) goal, the pressure on using the language correctly is lower. This does not mean that errors go unnoticed, it means that students do not feel the pressure every time they speak that every word they say is graded. Nikula states that in a CLIL classroom students have "more space for interaction" (Nikula 2007, 203). Therefore the 'fear' of using the target language diminishes.Because the amount of practising time is greater and because the pressure to use the language correctly is lower, it does not come as a surprise that research shows that students in a CLIL environment speak the target language better than their traditionally schooled peers (see, for example, Lorenzo et al. …