Content-based instruction and content and language integrated learning: the same or different?

By J. Cenoz. 2015

237 citations recorded by the source corpus.

This article looks at the characteristics of Content-Based Instruction (CBI) and Content land Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) in order to examine their similarities and differences. The analysis shows that CBI/CLIL programmes share the same essential properties and are not pedagogically different from each other. In fact, the use of an L2 as the medium of instruction, the language, societal and educational aims and the typical type of child are the same in CBI and CLIL programmes. The use of both CBI and CLIL refers to programmes where academic content is taught through a second or additional language and the preference for one term over the other is associated with contextual and accidental characteristics. In this article, there are examples from Basque education where academic content is often taught through the medium of Basque and English to students with Spanish as a first language. The examples show that even if there are more subjects taught through the medium of Basque than through the medium of English, there are no essential differences between CBI (partial immersion in the Basque example) and CLIL (English-medium instruction in the Basque example). The need to share the research findings of CBI/CLIL programmes is highlighted.

Subfields: Electronic, Optical and Magnetic Materials, Literature and Literary Theory

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/e8bfebc657d0eefb8759c552b0e7b3bc48609c29

How researchers see this paper

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

In Electronic, Optical and Magnetic Materials

In Literature and Literary Theory

Citations in the corpus

Analysing students’ content-learning in science in CLIL vs. non-CLIL programmes: empirical evidence from Spain (2019, background): “…immersion programmes in North America (Cenoz 2013, 2015; Lasagabaster and Sierra 2010; Pérez-Cañado 2012; Ruiz de Zarobe 2008; Ruiz de Zarobe and Cenoz 2015), and pedagogy, teacher training and effective teaching performance (de Graaff et al. 2007; Escobar Urmeneta 2013; Llinares 2015; Pavón…”
Exploring translanguaging in CLIL (2019, background): “Indeed, the emergence of translanguaging in the field can be associated with a paradigm shift (Cenoz 2015b) in language education.”
The Routledge handbook of English language teaching (2018, background): “Our identities are social, psychological, historical and cultural at the same time.”
Reconceptualizing and describing teachers’ knowledge of language for content and language integrated learning (CLIL) (2018, background): “While there has been debate about the differences between these terms, there is a growing consensus that they can be seen as roughly equivalent (Cenoz 2015), with some authors proposing CLIL as the umbrella term (Dalton-Puffer et al. 2014).”