Charting policies, premises and research on content and language integrated learning
Charting policies, premises and research on content and language integrated learning
复制标题
制定有关内容和语言整合学习的政策、前提和研究
DOI：
10.1075/aals.7.01dal
复制
发表时间：
2010
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Ute Smit
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Christiane Dalton;Tarja Nikula;Ute Smit
这一教育实践所包含的理论和实践意义将在本卷的最后一章更详细地讨论。将CLIL视为20世纪90年代以来在许多国家教育体系中占据主导地位的一项重大教育创新当然是合理的，但是，矛盾的是，同样合适的是指出，用外语教学是一种古老的做法，可以在过去的许多文明中找到。仅举一个例子，考虑几个世纪以来拉丁语作为一种教学语言在欧洲享有的地位（参见Mehisto， Marsh & Frigols 2008: 9）。事实上，几个世纪以来，接受一门著名的外语教育一直是名校精英教育的特权。因此，当今CLIL的一个本质区别在于，它植根于主流教育：本书中报道的所有上下文都是公共资助教育提供的一部分。不可否认的是，精英主义的残余味道很可能促成了家长（和一些学生）对CLIL的热情接受，特别是在通过英语进行教学方面，由于英语作为当今事实上的国际语言的突出地位，其地位很高。最后要说明的是CLIL这个术语本身：这个术语是在20世纪90年代初在欧洲专家倡议的背景下创造的（Mehisto et al. 2008: 9），最有可能的目的是创造一个中立的、普遍可访问的标签，以促进国际专家之间的交流。因此，CLIL这一术语不仅可以作为广泛的教育实践的保护伞，还可以作为与特定语言文化、国家、教育和学科传统相关的更广泛术语的保护伞。它已被语言专家、研究人员和教师教育工作者所接受，并在不同背景下以不同的速度在执业教师中传播（参见Eurydice 2006）。鉴于过去15年来该地区的动态发展，该术语已经获得了一些品牌名称的特征，并具有积极的象征意义：创新，现代，有效，高效和前瞻性。像本卷这样的卷的意图是找出这些归属的基础，以便教学方法继续在理论和经验上良好的基础上蓬勃发展，并且“CLIL”标签保留其开放性，作为通过额外语言进行非语言内容教学的许多现实的总称。
e theoretical and practical implications entailed in this educational praxis will be discussed in more detail in the concluding chapter of this volume. It is certainly justified to regard CLIL as a major educational innovation that took hold in many national education systems from the 1990s onwards, but, paradoxically, it is equally appropriate to point out that teaching and learning in a foreign language is an ancient practice that could be found in many civilizations of the past. To mention only one example, consider the role Latin enjoyed for centuries as a language of instruction and learning across Europe (cf. also Mehisto, Marsh & Frigols 2008: 9). In fact, being educated in a prestigious foreign language has been the prerogative of elite education at prestigious institutions for centuries. An essential difference of present-day CLIL, therefore, is the fact that it is rooted within mainstream education: all the contexts reported on in this book are part of publicly financed educational provision. It cannot be denied though that a lingering flavour of elitism has most likely contributed to the enthusiastic acceptance of CLIL by parents (and some students), in particular as regards being instructed through English, whose status is high given its prominence as the de facto international language of today.A final note is in order on the term CLIL itself: the term was coined in the early 1990s (Mehisto et al. 2008: 9) in the context of a European expert initiative, most likely with the intention to create a neutral and generally accessible label to facilitate communication among international experts. e term CLIL thus functions as an umbrella not only for a wide array of educational practices but also for an even wider array of terms tied to specific lingua-cultural, national, educational and disciplinary traditions. It has found acceptance among language experts, researchers and teacher educators and is spreading also among practising teachers at varying speeds in different contexts (cf. Eurydice 2006). Given the dynamics of the area over the last 15 years, the term has acquired some characteristics of a brand-name, complete with the symbolic capital of positive ascriptions: innovative, modern, effective, efficient and forward-looking. It is the intention of volumes like the present one to sound out the basis of these ascriptions so that the teaching approach continues to thrive on theoretically and empirically sound foundations and the label ‘CLIL’retains its open nature as an umbrella term for many realities of non-language content teaching through an additional language.