CLIL: Conceptual differences in teaching “realia” to philological and non-philological students

Jana Javorčíková 1  und Anna Zelenková 1
  • 1 Matej Bel University in Banská Bystrica, , Slovakia

Abstract

In Slovakia, modern Cultural Studies of English-speaking countries have been integrated into university curricula since the 1990s. However, there is a fundamental difference in the role CLIL plays in teaching “realia” (alternatively: cultural studies, country studies and area studies) for philological students and for business students of non-philological faculties. While philological students study realia with primary linguistic and cultural goals (i.e. to learn new words, terminology, context and comparative cultural aspects), non-philological students’ goals are business oriented (i.e. allow a successful graduate to function effectively in a new business environment). That affects the methodology, teaching procedure and assessment of both disciplines in debate.

Falls das inline PDF nicht korrekt dargestellt ist, können Sie das PDF hier herunterladen.

  • Badinská, M. (2011). CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning) implemented to the Modul Slovak Studies. International Conference Applied Natural Sciences 2011. Častá Papiernička, October 2011.

  • Barker, Ch. (2000). Cultural Studies. Los Angeles, CA: Sage publications.

  • Bennett, T. (1998). Culture: A Reformer’s Science. St. Leonard’s, NSW: Allen & Unwin.

  • Byram, M. (1989) Cultural Studies in Foreign Language Education. Clevedon, Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters.

  • Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and Assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 34–73.

  • Byram, M. & Morgan, C. et al. (1994). Teaching and Learning Language and Culture. Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters, 50–51.

  • Byram, D., Nichols, A. & Stevens, D. (2001). Developing Intercultural Competence in Practice. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

  • Chenetier, M. (2008). “New” “American Studies”: Exceptionalism redux? European Journal of American Studies. 2008 (3-3). Retrieved April 29, 2019 from http://journals.openedition.org/ejas/7453. DOI: 10.4000/ejas.7453.

  • Coyle, D. (2007). Content and Language Integrated Learning Motivating Learners and Teachers. Retrieved June 3, 2018 from https://blocs.xtec.cat/clilpractiques1/files/2008/11/slrcoyle.pdf.

  • Coyle, D. (2019). 4Cs. (figure). Retrieved Une 2, 2019 from https://clilingmesoftly.wordpress.com/clil-models-3/the-4-cs-model-docoyle/.

  • Dalton-Puffer, Ch. (2007). Discourse in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) Classrooms. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

  • Gierlinger, E. (2014). Presentation at EUROSLA24. Retrieved May 5, 2019 from https://clilingmesoftly.wordpress.com/clil-models-3/the-4-cs-model-docoyle/.

  • Gondová, D. (2012). CLIL očami žiakov. In Z. Kráľová (Ed.), CLIL – Nová výzva. (7–36). Ústí na Labem, CZ: Univerzita J. E. Purkyně.

  • Gondová, D. (2013). CLIL – integrované vyučovanie obsahu a jazyka. Žilina: EDIS.

  • Hall, S. (1997). ‘The Work of Representation’ In S. Hall (Ed.), Representations: Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices. London: Sage, 13–75.

  • Hallet, W. (1998). The Bilingual Triangle. Praxis des neusprachlichen Unterrichts. 45(2) 115–125.

  • Infolist. (2019). Retrieved April 1, 2019 from https://www.umb.sk/app/cmsFile.php?disposition=i&ID=4853.

  • Kačmárová, A. (2012). O kultúrnom kontexte: niektoré špecifiká slovenskej a americkej kultúry. Jazyk a kultúra, 9, Retrieved June 10, 2019 from http://www.ff.unipo.sk/jak/cislo9.html.

  • Krashen, S. (1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. Harlow: Longman.

  • Lantolf, J. P. (Ed.). (2000). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Mehisto, P. & Marsh, D. & Frigols, M. J. (2008). Uncovering CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning in bilingual and Multilingual Education. Oxford: MacMillan.

  • Menzlová, B., Farkašovská, E. & Pokrivčáková, S. (2008). Didaktická efektívnosť metódy CLIL na prvom stupni ZŠ vo vyučovaní CJ. Bratislava: ŠPÚ. Retrieved March 12, 2019 from http://www.statpedu.sk/files/articles/dokumenty/vyskumne-ulohy-experimentalne-overovania/projekt_didakticka_efektivnost_metody_clil.pdf.

  • Met, M. (1998). Curriculum decision-making in content-based language teaching. In J. Cenoz & F. Genesee (Eds.), Beyond bilingualism: Multilingualism and multilingual education (pp. 35–63). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

  • Pokrivčáková, S. (2012). Súčasné metódy vo vyučovaní CLIL. In S. Pokrivčáková et al (Eds.). Obsahovo a jazykovo integrované vyučovanie (CLIL) v ISCED 1. (67–75). Bratislava: ŠPÚ.

  • Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.). Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 97–114). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Šmídová, T., Tejkalová, L. & Vojtková, N. (2012). CLIL ve výuce: jak zapojit cizí jazyky do vyučování. Praha: Národní ústav pro vzdělávání.

  • Van Lier, L. (1996). Interaction in the Language Curriculum: Awareness, Autonomy & Authenticity. New York: Longman Group Ltd.

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

  • Zelenková, A. & Hanesová, D. (2019). Intercultural Competence of University Teachers: a Challenge for internalisation. JoLaCe. 7(1). 1–18. DOI: 10.2478/jolace-2019-0001.

OPEN ACCESS

Zeitschrift + Hefte

Suche