Review of Teacher development for immersion and content-based instruction; Editors: Laurent Cammarata, T.J. Ó Ceallaigh; Publisher: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2018; ISBN: 97890272074877; Pages: 201
pdf

Keywords

review

How to Cite

Papaja, K. L. (2021). Review of Teacher development for immersion and content-based instruction; Editors: Laurent Cammarata, T.J. Ó Ceallaigh; Publisher: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2018; ISBN: 97890272074877; Pages: 201. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 11(2), 305–310. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2021.11.2.8

Number of views: 440


Number of downloads: 369

Abstract

Searching for ways to expand the spectrum of methods of teaching and learning foreign languages triggers valuable initiatives and offers support for both students and teachers. Programs such as French immersion in Canada, content-based instruction (CBI), and content and language integrated learning (CLIL) have become popular across the world (Harrop, 2012), which is rapidly becoming a global village where the role of languages is crucial. In an integrated world, teaching content through language is viewed as a modern form of educational delivery; therefore, as the editors emphasize “teacher preparation and professional development endeavors are key drivers of successful I/B and CBI programs across a variety of models” (p. 3). Teacher Development for Immersion and Content-Based Instruction is a key contribution to the field, which offers valuable insights into the complexity of teacher preparation as well as further professional development in the case of immersion/bilingual contexts.

https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2021.11.2.8
pdf

References

Cenoz, J. (2015). Content-based instruction and content and language integrated learning: the same or different? Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28(1), 8-24.

Dalton-Puffer, C. (2017). Putting CLIL into practice. ELT Journal, 72(1), 109-111.

Genesee, F., & Lindholm-Leary, K. (2013). Two cases of studies of content-based language education. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 1(1), 3-33.

Gierlinger, E. (2007). Modular CLIL in lower secondary education: Some insights from a research project in Austria. In C. Dalton-Puffer & U. Smit (Eds.), Empirical perspectives on classroom discourse (pp. 79-118). Peter Lang.

Harrop, E. (2012). Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL): Limitations and possibilities. Encuentro, 21, 57-70.

Larsen-Freeman, D., & Anderson, M. (2016). Techniques and principles in language teaching. Oxford University Press.

Lave, J. (1996). Teaching, as learning, in practice. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 3, 149-164.

Lewis, C., & Tsuchida, I. (1998). A lesson is like a swiftly flowing river: How research lessons improve Japanese education. American Educator, 22(4), 12-17, 50-52.

Lyster, R., & Mori, H. (2006). Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 269-300.

Morton, T. (2016). Conceptualizing and investigating teachers’ knowledge for integrating content and language in content-based instruction. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 4, 144-167.

Morton, T. (2018). Reconceptualizing and describing teachers’ knowledge of language for content and language integrated learning (CLIL). International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21(3), 275-286.

Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. (2014). Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge University Press.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge University Press.