Of L. N. Gumilyov Eurasian National University педагогика. Психология. ӘЛеуметтану
DOI: https://doi org/10.32523/2616-6895-2021-134-1-43-51
жүктеу/скачать 3,76 Mb. Pdf көрінісі
|
| DOI: https://doi org/10.32523/2616-6895-2021-134-1-43-51
Received: 12.09.20 / Accepted: 8.11.20 Introduction Science and education play an important role in a globalized world. Education is a very powerful tool for social change and transformation and innovative teaching practice that is the only way to improve the education quality. Educational establishments should educate students to achieve success during a complex and interconnected world that faces rapid technological, cultural, economic and demographic change. Thus, it is necessary to use innovative approaches in education aimed at educating the future specialists who are flexible in the modern context. Using modern teaching methods and new approaches we can enhance student’s engagement, motivation and attainment in learning. One of the widely used approaches in the world is Content language integrated learning (CLIL) technology created by David Marsh in 1994 as an attempt to join language and content together through a foreign language [1;1]. For the first time, CLIL technology was applied in Jyväskylä Finnish University and in the country of the Netherland in the late 90s of the last century. Content language integrated learning is a dual-focused educational approach in which an additional language is used for the learning and teaching of both content and language’ [2;1]. Some CLIL scholars claim that the integration of content and language learning distinguishes CLIL from other existing approaches, such as immersion, whose main focus is content 44 № 1(134)/2021 Л.Н. Гумилев атындағы Еуразия ұлттық университетінің ХАБАРШЫСЫ. Педагогика. Психология. Әлеуметтану сериясы ISSN: 2616-6895, eISSN: 2663-2497 learning, and content-based instruction, which is one of the approaches in the framework of language education, although CLIL shares many educational practices with existing approaches [3;1]. While other scholars claim that (CLIL) is placed in the middle of a continuum between approaches of English as a foreign language (EFL), which emphasizes structural learning, and the other polar, those of English as a second language (ESL), which encourages natural language acquisition [3;15]. CLIL is also used as an umbrella term to include all the approaches from immersion to student exchanges We take one of the definitions of CLIL in Ikeda [4;32]., which was described as a typical CLIL, where ‘academic subjects such as geography or science are taught in English by non-native content teachers’, since it reflects the context of CLIL implementations we investigate in this study. English medium instruction (EMI) classes are included in the definition of CLIL. CLIL was first introduced in European countries in the mid-1990s to adhere European Union’s (EU) multilingual policies. The European Commission explicitly states that their citizens should acquire ‘at least two community languages in addition to their mother tongue’. Mehisto, Marsh, and Frigols introduce core 30 features of CLIL [5;30]: 1. Multiples focus: supporting language learning in content classes; supporting content learning in language classes integrating several subjects; organizing learning through cross- curricular themes and projects supporting reflection on the learning process. 2. Safe and enriching learning environment: using routine activities and discourse; displaying language and content throughout the classroom; building student confidence to experiment with language and content; using classroom learning centers; guiding access to authentic learning materials and environments; increasing student language awareness. 3. Authenticity: letting the students ask for the language help they need; maximizing the accommodation of student interest; making a regular connection between learning and students’ lives; connecting with other speakers of the CLIL language; using current materials from the media and other sources. 4. Active learning: students communicating more than the teacher; students help set content, language and learning skills outcomes; students evaluate progress in achieving learning outcomes; favoring peer cooperative work negotiating the meaning of language and content with students; teachers acting as facilitators. 5. Scaffolding: building on a student’s existing knowledge, skills, attitude, interests and experience; repackaging information in user- friendly ways; responding to different learning styles; fostering creative and critical thinking; challenging students to take another step forward and not just coast in comfort. 6. Co-operation: planning courses/lessons/ themes in co-operation with CLIL and non-CLIL educators; involving parents in learning about CLIL and how to support students; involving the local community, authorities, and employers. жүктеу/скачать 3,76 Mb. Достарыңызбен бөлісу:
|