In this response we comment on Lasagabaster and Sierra's (2010) contribution to this journal, in which they set out to differentiate between CLIL and immersion. While we agree with the need to resolve the confusion surrounding these two approaches, we were disappointed with the manner in which an intended 'clear-cut' distinction was attempted. We point out and correct internal contradictions and inaccuracies in the original arguments, and offer counter-arguments where necessary. By showing that most of the proposed differences are in fact points of resemblance, that they present a static and monolithic picture, ignoring the myriad variations that exist in CLIL and immersion, and the potential of a convergence, we provide proof for a less clear-cut distinction between CLIL and immersion.
|Number of pages||4|
|Journal||English Language Teaching Journal|
|Publication status||Published - 1 Jan 2012|
- Content and language integrated learning (CLIL)
- similarities and differences