Acceso usuarios
Content and language integrated learning (CLIL) aims to unify linguistic and extra-linguistic goals. However, as research indicates [e.g. Lyster 2007. Learning and Teaching Languages through Content. A Counterbalanced Approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins], it is still searching for an optimal balance between linguistic and content gains as learners do not, typically, demonstrate productive grammar skills on a par with their content knowledge, lexical repertoire and receptive skills [Tedick and Cammarata 2012. “Content and Language Integration in K-12 Contexts: Student Outcomes, Teacher Practices, and Stakeholder Perspectives.” Foreign Language Annals 45 (S1): S28–S53. doi:10.111/j.1944-9720.2012.01178.x.]. The aim of the paper is to outline a possible solution to the problem by proposing content-based structured input (CBSI) as a means of balancing linguistic and extra-linguistic gains in CLIL. As hypothesized, CLIL may lead to the processing of both content and form, provided that input is structured in such a way that subject matter becomes accessible to the learner only through the analysis of the target language structure. As assumed, this should reinforce the positive effects found for structured input [e.g. VanPatten 2015a. “Foundations of Processing Instruction.” International Review of Applied Linguistics 53 (2): 91–109. doi:10.1515/iral-2015-0005] with those observed for content learning [e.g. Dalton-Puffer 2007. Discourse in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) Classrooms. Amsterdam: John Benjamins] and, in consequence, effect long-term changes in learners’ underlying linguistic systems. The theoretical discussion is supported by the results of a quasi-experimental study carried out among 41 adult L1 Polish learners of English, which compared the effectiveness of CBSI to comprehension-based instruction in the context of CLIL.
