Immersion And Clil In English English Language Essay

In ELT Journal 64/4, in the article Immersion and CLIL in English: more differences than similarities David Lasagabaster and Juan Manuel Sierra (2010) claim that these two labels are shown as being one; in reality they have more differences than similarities.   The article is divided into two topics, similarities between CLIL and Immersion and Differences between both. Since it is arguable which one would be the best for our practical classes as a teacher or if CLIL and Immersion are the same approaches, after dealing with the content of the article I will consider some reasons why CLIL and Immersion are, in a way, different.

Concerning similarities between these approaches, Lasagabaster and Sierra deal with different definitions about CLIL and Immersion to state that they are used indiscriminately confusing sentence. Firstly, quoting Marsh (2002) Lasagabaster and Sierra say CLIL, which is used as a medium in teaching and learning a language, differs from Bilingual or Immersion education. The second definition about CLIL and Immersion deals with its lack of familiarity for teachers and learners. Lastly, those who define CLIL and Immersion argue that it is quite the same. On the other hand, Lasagabaster and Sierra conclude that CLIL and Immersion have more differences than similarities. Revise the whole paragraph. Are you actually giving definitions?

According to David Lasagabaster and Juan Sierra, there are some principles that CLIL and Immersion both encompass idea?. The first one is related to the level that students reach in both the L1 and L2 what about this?. Secondly, the language that students learn should be new for them. Thirdly, the teaching staff should be bilingual, in order to implement the programme with the greatest guarantee of success [] . And last but not least, the communicative approach is the fundamental one in these processes. It is because the objective is to obtain effective communication and for that it is fundamental to have a learning environment that motivates students. Revise first part of paragraph. Really confusing! I agree with these principles and I consider that both programmes are the best approaches to take into account for our classes. Because through them Students are likely to learn more if they are not simply learning language for language’s sake, but using language to accomplish concrete tasks and learn new content. Also, by guiding students through experiments or activities that relate directly to their lives and communities, and focusing on the learning of content, language learning is actually maximized.

Another issue that the authors highlight is the differences between both programmes. Lasagabaster and Sierra claim that there is dissimilarity in different aspects, such as Language of instruction, Teacher staff, Teaching materials, Language objectives, foreign students, and etcetera. With regards to the Language of instruction, the authors say that the language used in CLIL is not language spoken locally different from Immersion programmes in which the language used is the one which refers to the student’s immediate context (home, society, etc). PC? Taking into account the aspect of the Teacher, Lasagabaster and Sierra consider that teachers in Immersion programmes are mostly native speakers and they have an excellent command of the language, the materials used in this programmes are mostly aimed at native speakers and in language objectives, the goal of Immersion programmes is to reach proficiency in L2 similar to native speakers, whereas this is not usually the case in CLIL programmes. Revise punctuation and organization first part I think that CLIL and Immersion are quite different. Immersion programmes are successful in helping student’s proficiency in language; as a result much stress is placed on communication skills. On the other hand, CLIL is a tool for teaching and learning of content and language at the same time. Therefore, Here the goal is not in only in communication skills but also in listening, writing and reading ones idea?. I consider that for our educational context the best approach is CLIL because the goal in the schools is not to teach English as native language like Immersion does

In summary, the CLIL approach stems from Immersion programmes and apart from that it is very important to distinguish between these two types of programmes because the differences are remarkable revise cohesion. I agree with the authors, I feel that teachers need to know the differences between these two programmes in order not to use them indiscriminately. But also, I consider that teachers have to bear in mind in which educational context they are in order to use the correct approach.

 

 Reference

Lasagabaster, D and Sierra, J M. 2010 Immersion and CLIL in English: more differences than similarities. ELT. Journal Volume 64/4

Language and Written Expression III

Bezuch, Barbara  

RESPONSE ESSAY

“Immersion and CLIL in English: more differences than similarities”

David Lasagabaster and Juan Manuel Sierra

 

In nowadays life, teachers often find the term CLIL and Immersion interchangeable even though there are important differences. On ELT Journal 64/4, in the article Immersion and CLIL in English: more differences than similarities David Lasagabaster and Juan Manuel Sierra (2010) claim that these two labels are shown as being one; in reality they have more differences than similarities.  In the article David Lasagabaster and Juan Manuel Sierra style make a strong and effective point about the distinction between both programmes.

In the article, Lasagabaster and Sierra take into account different definitions about CLIL and Immersion to state that they are used indiscriminately. The authors explain that CLIL refers to teaching subjects such as science, history and geography to students through a foreign language. This can be by the English teacher using cross-curricular content or the subject teacher using English as the language of instruction. On the other hand, the concept of immersion approaches deal with the development of student’s mother tongue on an equal level as those who are native speakers. Taking into account these definitions we can understand that both programmes have something in common, but we have differences too. In the case of CLIL we use the common life language to communicate in English, on the other hand, Immersion’s goal is to talk English as a native speaker.

According to David Lasagabaster and Juan Sierra, there are some principles that CLIL and Immersion share. The first one is related to the level that students reach in both L1 and L2 because students use the second language as their language of work and communication and develop intercultural competencies and multidimensional subject- specific knowledge at the same time. Secondly, the language that students learn should be new for them. Children should be encouraged to draw on their knowledge about language in order to make sense of new concepts. Thirdly, the teaching staff should be bilingual, in order to implement the programme with the greatest guarantee of success [] . And last but not least, the communicative approach is the fundamental one in these processes. It is because the objective is to obtain effective communication and for that it is fundamental to have a learning environment that motivates students. I agree with these principles and I consider that both programmes are the best approaches to take into account for our classes. Because through them students are likely to learn more if they are not simply learning language for language’s sake, but using language to accomplish concrete tasks and learn new content. Also, by guiding students through experiments or activities that relate directly to their lives and communities, and focusing on the learning of content, language learning is actually maximized.

Another issue that the authors highlight is the differences between both programmes. Lasagabaster and Sierra claim that there is dissimilarity in different aspects, such as language of instruction, teacher staff, teaching materials, language objectives, foreign students, etc. As regard language of instruction, the authors say that the language used in CLIL is not language spoken locally different from Immersion programmes in which the language used is the one which refers to the student’s immediate context (home, society, etc). According to Lasagabaster and Sierra consider that teachers in Immersion programmes are mostly native speakers and they have an excellent command of the language. When the authors refer to the materials used in these programmes, they state that these are mostly aimed at native speakers. With respect of language objectives, the goal of Immersion programmes is to reach proficiency in L2 similar to native speakers, whereas this is not usually the case in CLIL programmes.

I think that CLIL and Immersion are quite different. Immersion programmes are successful in helping student’s proficiency in language; as a result much emphasis is placed on communication skills. On the other hand, CLIL is a tool for teaching and learning content and language at the same time. Therefore, in CLIL programmes the goal is not only in communication skill but also in listening, writing and reading skills. I consider that for our educational context the best approach is CLIL because the goal in schools is not to teach English as native language like Immersion does

In summary, CLIL approach and Immersion programmes have some principles in common, but the differences are remarkable. I agree with the authors, I feel that teachers need to know the differences between these two programmes in order not to use them indiscriminately. But also, I consider that teachers have to bear in mind in which educational context they are in order to use the correct approach.