Content Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) and Non Native English Speaking (NNES) Learners English Language Acquisition

Senorica Yulia Sari

doi:10.24036/jelt.v12i1.122827

Content Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) and Non Native English Speaking (NNES) Learners English Language Acquisition

Senorica Yulia Sari⁽¹⁾,
(1) Universitas Negeri Padang, Padang, West Sumatra

Indonesia

Corresponding Author
Copyright (c) 2023 Senorica Yulia Sari, S.Pd., M. Tesol

DOI : https://doi.org/10.24036/jelt.v12i1.122827

Full Text:

Language : en

Abstract

This essay aims to outline the potential of the CLIL method in helping Non Native English Speaking (NNES) students studying in Anglosphere countries to optimize their English competence. Existing literature were analysed to explore how CLIL also plays a role in developing students’ English learning while they are comprehending subjects’ content. These studies show that CLIL has a positive relationship with students’ motivation; thus, it can develop their English ability. Moreover, CLIL has the Triptych concept or three interrelated aspects of language processing: language for learning, language of learning, and language through learning. These perspectives reflect how language can be integrated thoroughly into certain subjects with more time compared to the length of time in traditional classrooms.

Keywords

CLIL, EFL, language competency

References

Abebe, W.Y. (2013), “Fostering Academic Genre Knowledge of EFL Learners through Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL)”, International Journal of Society, Culture & Language, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 133–144.

Catalán, R.M.J. and Zarobe, Y.R. De. (2009), “The receptive vocabulary of EFL learners in two instructional contexts: CLIL versus non-CLIL instruction”, Content and Language Integrated Learning: Evidence from Research in Europe, pp. 81–92.

Coyle, D., Hood, P. and Marsh, D. (2010), CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Dale, L. and Tanner, R. (2012), CLIL Activities: A Resource for Subject and Language Teachers, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Doiz, A., Lasagabaster, D. and Sierra, J.M. (2014), “CLIL and motivation: the effect of individual and contextual variables”, The Language Learning Journal, Routledge, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 209–224.

Gené-Gil, M., Juan-Garau, M. and Salazar-Noguera, J. (2015), “Development of EFL writing over three years in secondary education: CLIL and non-CLIL settings”, The Language Learning Journal, Routledge, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 286–303.

Hüttner, J. and Rieder-Bünemann, A. (2010), “A cross-sectional analysis of oral narratives by children with CLIL and non-CLIL instruction”, in Dalton-Puffer, C., Nikula, T. and Smit, U. (Eds.), Language Use and Language Learning in CLIL Classrooms, John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 61–70.

Lasagabaster, D. (2011), “English achievement and student motivation in CLIL and EFL settings”, Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 3–18.

Lasagabaster, D. and Sierra, M.J. (2009), “Language attitudes in CLIL and international EFL classes”, International CLIL Research Journal, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 4–17.

Llinares, A.G., Morton, T. and Whittaker, R. (2012), The Roles of Language in CLIL, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Lyster, R. (2007), Learning and Teaching Languages through Content: A Counterbalanced Approach, John Benjamins Publishing Company, Philadelphia, available at: https://benjamins.com/catalog/lllt.18.

McIntyre, D. (1996), “Global Issues in EFL. Why and How”, Japan Association for Language Teaming Lume, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 117–131.

Mehisto, P. and Marsh, D. (2011), “Approaching the Economic, Cognitive and Health Benefits of Bilingualism: Fuel for CLIL”, in Bern, P.L. (Ed.), Content and Foreign Language Integrated Learning, p. 36.

Mehisto, P., Marsh, D. and Frigols, M.J. (2008), Uncovering CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning in Bilingual and Multilingual Education, Mcmillan Published Limited, Bangkok.

Moeller, A.J. (2009), “Learning and Teaching Languages through Content: A Counterbalanced Approach by LYSTER, ROY”, The Modern Language Journal, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Vol. 93 No. 2, pp. 305–307.

Nikula, T., Dalton-Puffer, C. and García, A.L. (2013), “CLIL classroom discourse: Research from Europe”, Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, Vol. 1 No. 1, available at:https://doi.org/10.1075/jicb.1.1.04nik.

Oxford, R. and Shearin, J. (1994), “Language Learning Motivation: Expanding the Theoretical Framework”, The Modern Language Journal, Vol. 78 No. 1, pp. 12–28.

Paran, A. (2013), “Content and Language Integrated Learning: Panacea or Policy Borrowing Myth?”, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 317–342.

Pinner, R. (2013), “Authenticity of purpose: CLIL as a way to bring meaning and motivation into EFL contexts”, Asian EFL Journal, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 138–159.

Rose, K.R., Lightbown, P.M. and Spada, N. (1995), “How Languages Are Learned”, TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 197–200.

Seikkula-Leino, J. (2007), “CLIL Learning: Achievement Levels and Affective Factors”, Language and Education, Routledge, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 328–341.

De Smet, A., Mettewie, L., Galand, B., Hiligsmann, P. and Van Mensel, L. (2018), “Classroom anxiety and enjoyment in CLIL and non-CLIL: Does the target language matter?”, Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, Vol. 8 No. 1 SE-Articles, pp. 47–71.

Várkuti, A. (2010), “Linguistic Benefits of the CLIL Approach: Measuring Linguistic Competences”, International CLIL Research Journal, Vol. 1 No. 3.