CLIL and immersion: how clear-cut are they?

Thomas Somers, Jill Surmont

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

24 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)113-116
Number of pages4
JournalEnglish Language Teaching Journal
Volume66
Issue number1
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jan 2012

Keywords

  • Content and language integrated learning (CLIL)
  • immersion
  • similarities and differences

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'CLIL and immersion: how clear-cut are they?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this