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

Jana Javorčíková 1  and 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.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • 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

Journal + Issues

Search