THE DYNAMICS OF COGNITION IN CLIL: INTEGRATING CONTENT AND LANGUAGE IN THE CLASSROOM

Arun  George

doi:10.29121/shodhkosh.v4.i1.2023.2081

Authors

Arun George Assistant Professor, Department of English, Government College Kottayam, Kerala, India

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.29121/shodhkosh.v4.i1.2023.2081

Keywords:

Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL), Meta-Cognitive Skills, Higher Order Thinking Skills, Learner-Centred Activities, Dialogic Teaching, Teacher-Led Instruction, Comprehensible Input, Comprehensible Output, Participatory Learning, Scaffolding, Mediated Learning, Personalized Learning, Constructivism, Legitimate Peripheral Participation and Situated Learning Theory

Abstract [English]

Cognition is a critical factor in the effectiveness of Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL). In classrooms where subject content drives communication, cognitive development is enhanced through the integration of language and meaningful content. This reciprocal relationship between content and language not only supports language acquisition but also deepens subject understanding. This paper explores the key elements that contribute to successful cognitive development in CLIL classrooms, with a focus on strategies and practices that enhance both content learning and language proficiency.

References

Alexander, R. (2017). Towards dialogic teaching: Rethinking classroom talk (5th ed.). Thirsk, England: Dialogos.

Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning. Educational Researcher, 18, 32–42. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X018001032

Bruner, J. S. (1961). The Act of Discovery. Harvard Educational Review, 31, 21–32.

Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge: CUP. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009024549

Cummins, J. (1979). Cognitive/Academic Language Proficiency, Linguistic Interdependence, the Optimum Age Question and Some Other Matters. Working Papers on Bilingualism, 19, 121–129.

Curriculum Decision-making in Content-based Language Teaching. (1998). In J. Cenoz & F. Genesee, Beyond Bilingualism: Multilingual Education. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Dalton-Puffer, C. (2011). Content-and-language integrated learning: From practice to principles? Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 182–204. doi:10.1017/s0267190511000092 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190511000092

Dale, L., & Tanner, R. (2012). CLIL Activities: A Resource for Subject and Language Teachers. CUP.

Grosser, C. (1999). Multilingualism across Europe through Plurilingual Education. In Learning Through a Foreign Language: Models, Methods and Outcomes.

Haneda, M., & Wells, G. (2008). Learning an additional language through dialogic inquiry. Language and Education, 22(2), 114–136. doi:10.2167/le730.0 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2167/le730.0

Krashen, S. D. (1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. London: Longman.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: CUP. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815355

Llinares, A., Morton, T., & Whittaker, R. (2012). The Roles of Language in CLIL. Cambridge: CUP.

Mohan, B., & Van Naersen, M. (1997). Understanding Cause-Effect: Learning through Language. Forum, 35, 22–29.

Mercer, N. (2000). Words and Minds: How we Use Language to Think Together. London: Routledge.

Paterson, F. (1998). Positively Bilingual: Classroom Strategies to Promote the Achievement of Bilingual Learners. Nottingham: Nottingham Education Authority.

Swain, M. (2000). The Output Hypothesis and Beyond: Mediating Acquisition through Collaborative Dialogue. In J. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning. Oxford: OUP, 97–114.