Discourse in Content and Language Integrated Learning Clil Classrooms

By Christiane Dalton-Puffer. 2007

697 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Developmental and Educational Psychology, Language and Linguistics, Literature and Literary Theory

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/7614363585b8056b0bcf674ea429eee627a54158

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

In Language and Linguistics

In Literature and Literary Theory

Citations in the corpus

Research into practice: Grammar learning and teaching (2015, positive): “, Dalton-Puffer 2007; Lyster 2007). Swain (1985) built on her findings by making the case for comprehensible output, asserting that the value of learners’ producing the language was unappreciated with Krashen’s exclusive focus on comprehensible input (see also Morgan-Short & Bowden 2006; Toth 2006).”
Written discourse development in CLIL at secondary school (2011, positive): “In fact, extensive classroom observations such as those reported by Dalton-Puffer (2007) show little focus on writing in these CLIL classes.”
The influence of context on patterns of corrective feedback and learner uptake: a comparison of CLIL and immersion classrooms (2014, neutral): “Email: ana.llinares@uam.es The Language Learning Journal, 2014 Vol. 42, No. 2, 181–194, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2014.889509 Dalton-Puffer 2007; Duff 2001; Genesee 1987; Hoare and Kong 2008; Lyster 2007; Musumeci 1996).”
EXAMINING TEACHER ROLES AND COMPETENCES IN CONTENT AND LANGUAGE INTEGRATED LEARNING (CLIL) (2013, background): “…be an effective way to increase the linguistic level of students participating in these kinds of programmes (Admiraal, Westhoff & de Bot, 2006; Merisuo-Storm, 2007; Dalton-Puffer, 2007b; Marsh, 2007; Lasagabaster, 2008; Lorenzo, Casal and Moore, 2009; Dobson, Pérez & Johnstone, 2010; Navés, 2011).”
Content-based instruction and content and language integrated learning: the same or different? (2015, background): “CLIL and CBI are often considered as two labels for the same reality (Coyle et al., 2010, p. 9; Dalton-Puffer, 2007, p. 6; Van de Craen, Ceuleers, & Mondt, 2007, p. 186).”
Reconceptualizing and describing teachers’ knowledge of language for content and language integrated learning (CLIL) (2018, background): “In an Austrian CLIL context, Dalton-Puffer (2007) found that most lessons in her corpus followed the common initiation-response-follow-up (IRF) format (Sinclair and Coulthard 1975), with teachers asking (known answer) questions, students responding, and teachers evaluating their answers.”
Implementing English-medium instruction (EMI) in China: teachers’ practices and perceptions, and students’ learning motivation and needs* (2019, background): “In view of the complexity of naturalistic classroom language practices, Dalton-Puffer (2007, 42) has commented that it is ‘difficult to envisage a theoretical and/or descriptive framework which will do equal justice to all aspects to the event’.”
Own-language use in language teaching and learning (2012, background): “The applied linguistic arguments advanced in its favour (Dalton-Puffer 2007: 257–277, ICRJ 2008 onwards) draw upon the old SLA view that exposure and attention to meaning will be sufficient factors for language learning success, and also on analogy with contentbased instruction in bilingual second…”
Critical Analysis of CLIL: Taking Stock and Looking Forward (2014, background): “However, research conducted in actual CLIL classrooms shows that it is difficult to achieve a strict balance of language and content (Dalton-Puffer 2007; Mehisto 2008; Pérez-Vidal and Juan-Garau 2010).”
Content-based language teaching: Convergent concerns across divergent contexts (2011, background): “The call for increased professional development is urgent because the odds are such that most teachers working in CBLT contexts have been trained to teach either language or a nonlanguage subject area, but not both, even though for years there has been a growing consensus in the research literature ”
CLIL in Sweden – why does it not work? A metaperspective on CLIL across contexts in Europe (2013, result): “In some countries, these investigations show very positive results (Dalton-Puffer 2007; Isidro 2010; Lasagabaster 2008).”
The role of content and language in content and language integrated learning (CLIL) at university: Challenges and implications for ESP (2015, background): “Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL), which has grown in Europe since the 1990s (Dalton-Puffer, 2007), has been defined as “an educational approach where [content] subjects […] are taught through the medium of a foreign language” to students at all educational levels (Dalton-Puffer,…”
CLIL classroom discourse: Research from Europe (2013, background): “Nevertheless, a qualitative analysis of student responses brought to light that students’ preference for short, single noun-phrase answers seems independent of the type of question asked (Dalton-Puffer 2007).”
The comprehending teacher: scaffolding in content and language integrated learning (CLIL) (2020, methodology): “Some of these strategies have been identified in previous CLIL literature (Dalton-Puffer 2007; Mahan, Brevik and Ødegaard 2018).”
Integration in CLIL: a proposal to inform research and successful pedagogy (2015, background): “Finally, following Dalton-Puffer et al.’s (2010) coordinate system, a fourth strand of research can be classified as micro- and process-oriented, which depicts studies with a focus on CLIL classrooms as interactional space (e.g. Dalton-Puffer, 2007; Nikula, 2007, etc.).”
The effect of first and second language use on question types in English medium instruction science classrooms in Hong Kong (2018, background): “Questioning is also exploredmore generally by Dalton-Puffer (2007).”