Response Essay Immersion And Clil In English English Language Essay

Refering similarities between these attacks, Lasagabaster and Sierra trade with different definitions about CLIL and Immersion to province that they are used randomly confusing sentence. First, citing Marsh ( 2002 ) Lasagabaster and Sierra say CLIL, which is used as a medium in instruction and larning a linguistic communication, differs from Bilingual or Immersion instruction. The 2nd definition about CLIL and Immersion trades with its deficiency of acquaintance for instructors and scholars. Last, those who define CLIL and Immersion argue that it is rather the same. On the other manus, Lasagabaster and Sierra conclude that CLIL and Immersion have more differences than similarities. Revise the whole paragraph. Are you really giving definitions?

Harmonizing to David Lasagabaster and Juan Sierra, there are some rules that CLIL and Immersion both encompass thought? . The first one is related to the degree that pupils reach in both the L1 and L2 what about this? . Second, the linguistic communication that pupils larn should be new for them. Third, the teaching staff should be bilingual, in order to implement the programme with the greatest warrant of success[ 1 ]. And last but non least, the communicative attack is the cardinal 1 in these procedures. It is because the aim is to obtain effectual communicating and for that it is cardinal to hold a acquisition environment that motivates pupils. Revise first portion of paragraph. Truly confounding! I agree with these rules and I consider that both programmes are the best attacks to take into history for our categories. Because through them Students are likely to larn more if they are non merely larning linguistic communication for linguistic communication ‘s interest, but utilizing linguistic communication to carry through concrete undertakings and larn new content. Besides, by steering pupils through experiments or activities that relate straight to their lives and communities, and concentrating on the acquisition of content, linguistic communication acquisition is really maximized.

Another issue that the writers highlight is the differences between both programmes. Lasagabaster and Sierra claim that there is unsimilarity in different facets, such as Language of direction, Teacher staff, Teaching stuffs, Language objectives, foreign pupils, and etcetera. With respects to the Language of direction, the writers say that the linguistic communication used in CLIL is non linguistic communication spoken locally different from Immersion programmes in which the linguistic communication used is the one which refers to the pupil ‘s immediate context ( place, society, etc ) . Personal computer? Taking into history the facet of the Teacher, Lasagabaster and Sierra consider that instructors in Immersion programmes are largely native talkers and they have an first-class bid of the linguistic communication, the stuffs used in this programmes are largely aimed at native talkers and in linguistic communication aims, the end of Immersion programmes is to make proficiency in L2 similar to native talkers, whereas this is non normally the instance in CLIL programmes. Revise punctuation and organisation first portion I think that CLIL and Immersion are rather different. Submergence programmes are successful in assisting pupil ‘s proficiency in linguistic communication ; as a consequence much emphasis is placed on communicating accomplishments. On the other manus, CLIL is a tool for learning and acquisition of content and linguistic communication at the same clip. Therefore, Here the end is non in merely in communicating accomplishments but besides in listening, composing and reading 1s thought? . I consider that for our educational context the best attack is CLIL because the end in the schools is non to learn English as native linguistic communication like Immersion does

In drumhead, the CLIL attack stems from Immersion programmes and apart from that it is really of import to separate between these two types of programmes because the differences are singular revision coherence. I agree with the writers, I feel that instructors need to cognize the differences between these two programmes in order non to utilize them randomly. But besides, I consider that instructors have to bear in head in which educational context they are in order to utilize the right attack.

A

A Mention

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 A

RESPONSE ESSAY

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

David Lasagabaster and Juan Manuel Sierra

A

In nowadays life, instructors frequently find the term CLIL and Immersion interchangeable even though there are of import 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 world they have more differences than similarities.A A In the article David Lasagabaster and Juan Manuel Sierra manner make a strong and effectual point about the differentiation between both programmes.

In the article, Lasagabaster and Sierra take into history different definitions about CLIL and Immersion to province that they are used randomly. The writers explain that CLIL refers to learning topics such as scientific discipline, history and geographics to pupils through a foreign linguistic communication. This can be by the English instructor utilizing cross-curricular content or the topic instructor utilizing English as the linguistic communication of direction. On the other manus, the construct of submergence attacks trade with the development of pupil ‘s female parent lingua on an equal degree as those who are native talkers. Taking into history these definitions we can understand that both programmes have something in common, but we have differences excessively. In the instance of CLIL we use the common life linguistic communication to pass on in English, on the other manus, Immersion ‘s end is to speak English as a native talker.

Harmonizing to David Lasagabaster and Juan Sierra, there are some rules that CLIL and Immersion portion. The first one is related to the degree that pupils reach in both L1 and L2 because pupils use the 2nd linguistic communication as their linguistic communication of work and communicating and develop intercultural competences and multidimensional subject- specific cognition at the same clip. Second, the linguistic communication that pupils larn should be new for them. Children should be encouraged to pull on their cognition about linguistic communication in order to do sense of new constructs. Third, the teaching staff should be bilingual, in order to implement the programme with the greatest warrant of success[ 2 ]. And last but non least, the communicative attack is the cardinal 1 in these procedures. It is because the aim is to obtain effectual communicating and for that it is cardinal to hold a acquisition environment that motivates pupils. I agree with these rules and I consider that both programmes are the best attacks to take into history for our categories. Because through them pupils are likely to larn more if they are non merely larning linguistic communication for linguistic communication ‘s interest, but utilizing linguistic communication to carry through concrete undertakings and larn new content. Besides, by steering pupils through experiments or activities that relate straight to their lives and communities, and concentrating on the acquisition of content, linguistic communication acquisition is really maximized.

Another issue that the writers highlight is the differences between both programmes. Lasagabaster and Sierra claim that there is unsimilarity in different facets, such as linguistic communication of direction, teacher staff, learning stuffs, linguistic communication aims, foreign pupils, etc. As regard linguistic communication of direction, the writers say that the linguistic communication used in CLIL is non linguistic communication spoken locally different from Immersion programmes in which the linguistic communication used is the one which refers to the pupil ‘s immediate context ( place, society, etc ) . Harmonizing to Lasagabaster and Sierra consider that instructors in Immersion programmes are largely native talkers and they have an first-class bid of the linguistic communication. When the writers refer to the stuffs used in these programmes, they province that these are largely aimed at native talkers. With regard of linguistic communication aims, the end of Immersion programmes is to make proficiency in L2 similar to native talkers, whereas this is non normally the instance in CLIL programmes.

I think that CLIL and Immersion are rather different. Submergence programmes are successful in assisting pupil ‘s proficiency in linguistic communication ; as a consequence much accent is placed on communicating accomplishments. On the other manus, CLIL is a tool for learning and larning content and linguistic communication at the same clip. Therefore, in CLIL programmes the end is non merely in communicating accomplishment but besides in listening, composing and reading accomplishments. I consider that for our educational context the best attack is CLIL because the end in schools is non to learn English as native linguistic communication like Immersion does

In drumhead, CLIL attack and Immersion programmes have some rules in common, but the differences are singular. I agree with the writers, I feel that instructors need to cognize the differences between these two programmes in order non to utilize them randomly. But besides, I consider that instructors have to bear in head in which educational context they are in order to utilize the right attack.

A

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *