CLIL and immersion: how clear-cut are they?

Thomas Somers, Jill Surmont

Onderzoeksoutput: Article

24 Citaten (Scopus)

Samenvatting

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.
Originele taal-2English
Pagina's (van-tot)113-116
Aantal pagina's4
TijdschriftEnglish Language Teaching Journal
Volume66
Nummer van het tijdschrift1
StatusPublished - 1 jan 2012

Vingerafdruk

Duik in de onderzoeksthema's van 'CLIL and immersion: how clear-cut are they?'. Samen vormen ze een unieke vingerafdruk.

Citeer dit