İçerik Temelli Yabancı Dil Öğretim Modeli

Year 2013, Volume: 30 Issue: 2, 107 - 121, 15.02.2016

Şebnem Yalçın

Abstract

İçerik temelli yabancı dil öğretim modeli, yabancı dil ve içerik bilgisini farklı yoğunlukta olsa da aynı anda öğretmeyi amaçlar. Model, ikinci dil olarak İngilizce öğrenilen ülkeler ile çift dilde eğitim yapan kurumlarda sıklıkla uygulanmaktadır. Bu model, uluslararası yabancı dil öğretimi alanında sistemli bir şekilde araştırılan başarılı bir modeldir. Ancak, bu konuyla ilgili Türkiye gibi İngilizce’nin yabancı dil olarak öğrenildiği ülkelerde sınırlı sayıda araştırma bulunmaktadır. Yakın bir zamana kadar bu alandaki bilgi kaynağının tamamını Amerika ve Kanada gibi ikinci dil ortamlarında yürütülen çalışmalar oluşturmaktaydı. Bu durum Avrupa’da da bu modelin yaygın şekilde uygulanmasıyla değişmiştir ve Avrupa’da dil ve içerik tümleştirilmiş modele ait yürütülen çalışmalar önemli katkılar sağlamaya başlamıştır. Türkiye’de ise Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı’nın yeni yabancı dil eğitim müfredatlarında özellikle 7. ve 8. sınıflarda içerik temelli modelin uygulanmasını planlandığını açıklamasıyla içerik temelli model uygulamalarının artacağı öngörülmektedir. Bu durum göz önünde bulundurularak bu modelin kırk yılı aşkın süredir araştırıldığı Kuzey Amerika örnekleri gözden geçirilmeli ve araştırmaların ortaya koyduğu sonuçların ışığında planlanmalıdır. Ayrıca Türkiye’de günümüze dek uygulanmış uygulama örnekleri ve araştırma çalışmalarının bulguları yeni programların oluşturulması aşamasında ele alınmalı ve programlar bu bağlamda oluşturulmalıdır.

Keywords

İçerik temelli yabancı dil öğretimi, içerik bilgisi, dil becerisi, biçim odaklı yabancı dil öğretim metodu

References

• Alptekin, C., Erçetin, G., ve Bayyurt, Y. (2007). The effectiveness of a theme-based syllabus for young L2 learners. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 28, 1-17.
• Anderson, J. R. (1990). Cognitive psychology and its implications (3. Basım). New York: W. H. Freeman.
• Bayyurt, Y. (2013). 4+4+4 Eğitim Sisteminde Erken Yaşta Yabancı Dil Eğitimi. A. Sarıçoban ve H. Öz (Haz.), Türkiye’de Yabancı Dil Eğitiminde Eğilim Ne Olmalı? Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi İngiliz Dili Eğitimi Anabilim Dalı 1. Yabancı Dil Eğitimi Çalıştayı Bildirileri (ss. 115-126). Ankara: Hacettepe Üniversitesi Yayınları.
• Bayyurt, Y., ve Alptekin, C. (2000). EFL syllabus design for Turkish young learners in bilingual school contexts. J. Moon & M. Nikolov (Haz.), Research into teaching English to young learners (pp.312-322). Pécs, Hungary: University of Pécs Press.
• Bayyurt, Y., ve Yalçın, Ş. (2014). Content-based instruction. Basım için teslim edilmiş metin.
• Barik, H.C., ve Swain, M. (1975). Three-year evaluation of a large scale early grade French immersion program: The Ottawa study. Language Learning, 25, 1-30.
• Brinton, D.M., Snow, M.A., ve Wesche, M. J. (1989). Content-based second language instruction. New York: Newbury House.
• Burger, S., ve Chrétien, M. (2001). The development of oral production in contentbased second language courses at the University of Ottawa. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 58, 84-102.
• Cantoni-Harvey, G. (1987). Content-area language instruction: Approaches and strategies. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
• Crandall, J. (1987). ESL through content-area instruction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
• Crandall, J. (1993). Content-centered learning in the United States. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 13, 111-126.
• Crandall, J., ve Kaufman, D. (Eds.). (2002). Content-based instruction in higher education settings. TESOL: USA.
• Cummins, J. (1980). The cross-lingual dimensions of language proficiency: Implications for bilingual education and the optimal age issue. TESOL Quarterly, 14, 175-187.
• Cummins, J., ve Swain, M. (1986). Bilingualism in education. London: Longman.
• Dalton-Puffer, C. (2007). Discourse in content and language integrated (CLIL) classrooms. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Day, E. ve Shapson, S. (1991). Integrating formal and functional approaches to language teaching in French Immersion: An experimental study. Language Learning, 41, 25-58.
• Day, E. ve Shapson, S. (1996). Studies in immersion education. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
• Demirezen, M. (2013). 4+4+4 Yasasının Eğitimsel Yapısı ve Uygulanmasındaki Olgular. A. Sarıçoban ve H. Öz (Haz.), Türkiye’de Yabancı Dil Eğitiminde Eğilim Ne Olmalı? Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi İngiliz Dili Eğitimi Anabilim Dalı 1. Yabancı Dil Eğitimi Çalıştayı Bildirileri (ss. 107-114). Ankara: Hacettepe Üniversitesi Yayınları.
• Doughty, C., ve Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus on form. C. Doughty & J. Williams (Haz.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (ss. 114-138). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Doughty, C., ve Williams, J. (1998). Pedagogical choices in focus on form. In C. Doughty ve J. Williams (Haz.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 197-261). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Edwards, .H., Wesche, M., Krashen, S., Clement, R. ve Kruidenier, B. (1984). Second Language acquisition through subject-matter learning: A study of sheltered psychology classes at the University of Ottawa. Canadian Modern Language Review, 41, 268-282.
• Ellis, R. (2001). Introduction: Investigating form-focused instruction. Language Learning, 51(1), 1-46.
• Gaffield-Vile, N. (1996). Content-based second language instruction at the tertiary level. ELT Journal, 50, 108-114.
• Genesee, F. (1987). Learning through two languages: Studies of immersion and bilingual education. Cambridge: Newbury House.
• Genesee, F. (1994). Language and content: Lessons from immersion (Educational Practice Report No.11). Washington DC: Center for Applied Linguistics, and National Center for Research on Cultural Diversity and Second Language Learning.
• Grabe, W., ve Stoller, F. L. (1997). Content-based instruction: Research foundations. In M.A. Snow ve D. M. Brinton (Haz.), The content-based classroom: Perspectives on integrating language and content (pp. 5-21). White Plains, NY: Longman.
• Harley, B. (1989). Functional grammar in French immersion: A classroom experiment. Applied Linguistics, 10, 331-359.
• Harley, B. (1993). Instructional strategies and SLA in early French immersion. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 245-259.
• Harley, B. (1998). The role of form-focused tasks in promoting child acquisition. In C. Doughty ve J. Williams (Haz.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 156-174). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
• Hauptman, P.C., Wesche, M. B., ve Ready, D. (1988). Second language acquisition through subject-matter learning: A follow-up study at the University of Ottawa. Language Learning, 38, 433-475.
• Holdsworth, P. (2004). EU policy on language learning and linguistic diversity as it relates to content and language integrated learning and higher education. In R. Wilkinson (Haz), Integrating Content and Language: Meeting the challenge of a multilingual higher education (ss. 20-27). Maastricht: Maastricht University Press.
• Johnson, R. K., & Swain, M. (Haz.). (1997). Immersion education: International perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Krashen, S.D. (1982). Principles and practices in second language acquisition. New York: Pergamon Press.
• Lapkin, S. ve Swain, M. (1996). Vocabulary teaching in a grade 8 French immersion classroom: a descriptive study. Canadian Modern Language Review, 53, 242- 256.
• Lightbown, P. M., ve Spada, N. (2006). How languages are learned (3. Basım). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Lorenzo, F. (2007). An analytical framework of language integration in L2 contentbased courses: The European dimension. Language and Education, 21, 502- 513.
• Lyster, R. (1994). The effect of functional-analytic teaching on aspects of French immersion students’ sociolinguistic competence. Applied Linguistics, 15, 264- 287.
• Lyster, R. (2007). Learning and teaching through content: A counterbalanced approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Marsh, D. (2003). The relevance and potential of content and language integrated learning (CLIL) for achieving MT+2 in Europe. ELC Information Bulletin 9 Nisan 2003. http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/elc/bulletin/9/en/marsh.htmladresinden alınmıştır.
• Met, M. (1991). Learning language through content: Learning content through language. Foreign Language Annals, 24, 281-295.
• Met, M. (1999). Content-based instruction: Defining terms, making decisions. Washington, DC: The National Foreign Language Center. http://www.carla.umn.edu/cobaltt/modules/principles/decisions.html adresinden alınmıştır.
• Mohan, B. (1986). Language and content. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
• Norris, J. M., ve Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417-528.
• Rogers, D. M. (2006). Developing content and form: Encouraging evidence from Italian content-based instruction. The Modern Language Journal, 90, 373-386.
• Serra, C. (2007). Assessing CLIL at primary school: A longitudinal study. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10, 582-602.
• Short, D. J. (1991). How to integrate language and content instruction: A training manual. Washington DC: CAL.
• Snow, M. A., ve Brinton, D. M. (1988). Content-based language instruction: investigating the effectiveness of the adjunct model. TESOL Quarterly, 22, 553-574.
• Snow, M. A., Met, M., ve Genesee, F. (1989). A conceptual framework for the integration of language and content in second/foreign language instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 23, 201-217.
• Spada, N. (1997). Form-focused instruction and second language acquisition: A review of classroom and laboratory research. Language Teaching, 30, 73-87.
• Stoller, F.L., ve Grabe, W.B. (1997). Six T’s approach to content-based instruction. M. A. Snow & D. M., Brinton (Haz.), Content-based classroom: Perspectives on integrating language and content. (ss. 78-94). White Plains, NY: Longman
• Swain, M. (1978). French immersion: Early, late or partial? Canadian Modern Language Review, 34, 577-585.
• Swain, M. (1993). The output hypothesis: Just speaking and writing aren't enough. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 50, 158-164.
• Swain, M. (1996). Manipulating and complementing content teaching to maximizing second language learning. R. Phillipson, E. Kellerman, L. Selinker, M. Sharwood Smith ve M. Swain (Haz.), Foreign/Second language pedagogy research (p.234-250), Cleveland, UK: Multilingual Matters.
• Swain, M., ve Lapkin, S. (1982). Evaluating bilingual education: A Canadian case study. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
• Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Wesche, M.B., ve Skehan, P. (2002). Communicative, task-based, and content-based language instruction. R. B. Kaplan (Haz.), The Oxford handbook of applied linguistics (ss. 227-228). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
• Williams, M. ve Burden, R. (1997). Psychology for language teachers: A social constructivist approach. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
• Yalçın, Ş. (2012). Content-based instruction at tertiary level in Turkey. Y.Bayyurt & Y. Bektaş-Çetinkaya (Haz.), Research perspectives on teaching and learning English in Turkey: Policies and Practices (ss. 217-234). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
• Yalçın, Ş. (2007). Exploring the effects of content-based instruction on skilldevelopment, domain-specific knowledge and metacognition in the L2. Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi, Boğaziçi Üniversitesi, Istanbul, Türkiye.
• İnternet Kaynakçası: http://ttkb.meb.gov.tr/www/guncellenen-ogretim-programlari/icerik/151