Yabancı dil eğitiminde içerik temelli öğretim modeli ve eylem odaklı yaklaşım

Year 2022, Issue: 29, 815 - 832, 21.08.2022

Rıfat Günday

https://doi.org/10.29000/rumelide.1164892

Cited By: 1

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı, içerik temelli öğretim modeli ile eylem odaklı yaklaşımın yabancı dil eğitiminde kullanımını karşılaştırmalı olarak irdelemektir. Çalışmada, nitel araştırma yöntemlerinden doküman/içerik analizi modeline dayalı olarak yürütülmüştür. Bu çerçevede içerik temelli öğretim (CBI) modeli ve eylem odaklı yaklaşım arasındaki benzerlik ve farklılıklar, söz konusu model ve yaklaşımın olumlu ve olumsuz yanları saptanmaya çalışılmış ve hedef dilin yabancı dil olarak öğretimi/öğrenimi açısından bunlardan hangisini izlemenin daha uygun olacağı üzerine değerlendirmelerde bulunulmuştur. 1990’lı yıllardan itibaren yaygın olarak ikinci dil ve zaman zamanda yabancı dil öğretiminin disiplinlerarası bir çerçevede içeriğe dayalı öğretilmesi/öğrenilmesini öngören farklı öğretim modelleri geliştirilmiştir. İçerik temelli öğretim modeli de bunlardan birisidir. Bu model, 1990’lı yıllarda Amerika Birleşik Devletleri ve Kanada’da kullanılmaya başlanmıştır. İçerik temelli öğretimde aynı anda hem içeriğe hem de hedef dile odaklanma söz konusudur. Bununla birlikte bu modelin farklı türlerinde içerik veya dile odaklanma derecesi değişmektedir. Eylem odaklı yaklaşıma gelince, 2000’li yıllardan sonra Avrupa’da yabancı dil öğretimi/öğrenimine yönelik benimsenen bir yaklaşımdır. Hedef dilin tematik yapılanma doğrultusunda sosyo-kültürel bağlama dayalı sürdürülmesini öngörmektedir. İçerik temelli öğretim modelinin arka planında hedef dili disiplinlerarasılık boyutunda kullanmak ve çok dillilik felsefesi bulunurken, eylem odaklı yaklaşımın arkasında çok dillilik ve dili günlük yaşamda iletişim, etkileşim ve eyleme dayalı kullanmak amacı bulunmaktadır denilebilir. Konu ikinci dil eğitimi açısından değerlendirildiğinde hedef dili disiplinlerarası bağlamda da kullanabilmek oldukça önemli iken, yabancı dil eğitimi açısından değerlendirildiğinde hedef dili günlük yaşamda kullanabilmek çok daha önceliklidir. Bu nedenle yabancı dil eğitimini eylem odaklı yaklaşıma göre sürdürmek daha yararlı görünmektedir.

Keywords

Yabancı dil eğitimi, içerik temelli öğretim, eylem odaklı yaklaşım, karşılaştırma

Content-based instruction model and action-oriented approach in foreign language education

Abstract

This study aims to comparatively examine the use of the content-based instruction model and action-oriented approach in foreign language education. Within this scope, the similarities and differences between the content-based instruction (CBI) model and the action-oriented approach and the positive and negative aspects of these were determined. Evaluations were made on which of them would be more appropriate to follow in teaching/learning the target language as a foreign language. Since the 1990s, various teaching models have emerged that envisage content-based teaching/learning of the second language and, at times, foreign language teaching in an interdisciplinary framework. One of them is the content-based instruction model. This model became popular in the United States and Canada in the 1990s. The focus of content-based teaching is on both the content and the target language at the same time. However, the degree of focus on content or language varies across models. The action-oriented approach was adopted for foreign language teaching/learning in Europe after the 2000s. It intends to maintain the target language based on the socio-cultural context in accordance with the thematic structuring. While the background of the content-based instruction model is to use the target language in the dimension of interdisciplinarity and the philosophy of multilingualism, it can be said that behind the action-oriented approach, there is multilingualism and the purpose of using the language in daily life based on communication, interaction and action. While it is essential to be able to use the target language in an interdisciplinary context when evaluating the subject in terms of second language education, it is more crucial to use the target language in daily life when evaluating the subject in terms of foreign language education. For this reason, employing an action-oriented approach in foreign language education appears to be more beneficial.

Keywords

Foreign language education, content-based instruction, action-oriented approach, comparison.

References

• Barik, H.C. & Swain, M. (1975). Three-year evaluation of a large scale early grade French immersion program: The Ottawa study. Language Learning, 25, 1-30.
• Briton, D., Snow, M.A. & Wesche, M.B (2003). Content Language Instruction. University of Michigan Press.
• Brinton, D.M., Snow, M.A. & Wesche, M. J. (1989). Content-based second language instruction. New York: Newbury House.
• Brown, H., & Bradford, A. (2017). EMI, CLIL, & CBI: Differing approaches and goals. In P. Clements, A. Krause, & H. Brown (Ed.), Transformation in language education. Tokyo: JALT.
• Butler, Y. G. (2005). Content-based instruction in EFL contexts: Considerations for effective implementation. JALT Journal, 27, 227-245.
• Cenoz, J. (2015). Content-based instruction and contentand language integrated learning: the same or different? Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28/1, 8–24.
• Crandall, J. (1993). Content-centered learning in the United States. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 13, 111-126.
• Crandall, J., & Tucker, G. R. (1990). Content-based language instruction in second and foreign languages. In S. Anivan (Ed.), Language teaching methodology for the nineties (s.83-96). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.
• Genesee, F. (1987). Learning through two languages: Studies of immersion and bilingual education. Cambridge: Newbury House.
• Grabe, W., & Stoller, F. L. (1997). Content-based instruction: Research foundations. In M.A. Snow ve D. M. Brinton (Edt.), The content-based classroom: Perspectives on integrating language and content (s.5-21). White Plains, NY: Longman.
• Günday, R. (2021). İçerik ve Dil Bütünleştirilmiş Öğrenme Modeline Farklı Açılardan Yaklaşım. International Journal of Languages’ Education and Teaching, 9/4, 232-249.
• Günday, R. (2015). Yabancı dil öğretiminde yaklaşımlar, yöntemler, teknikler ve multimedya araç ve materyalleri. Ankara: Favori Yayınları.
• Harley, B. (1993). Instructional strategies and SLA in early French immersion. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 245-259.
• Hart, C. (2018). Doing a Literature Review Releasing the Research Imagination. UK: Sage Publications.
• Krashen, S.D. (1982). Principles and practices in second language acquisition. New York: Pergamon Press.
• Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. M. (2010). Immersion and CLIL in English: More differences than similarities. ELT Journal, 64, 367–375.
• Lightbown, P. M. & Spada, N. (2006). How languages are learned (3. Basım). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Lyster, R. (2007). Learning and teaching through content: A counterbalanced approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Mehdiyev, E., Uğurlu, C.Y. & Usta, H.G. (2019). İngilizce Dil Öğreniminde İçerik Temelli Öğretim Yaklaşımı: Bir Eylem Araştırması. Cumhuriyet Uluslararası Eğitim Dergisi, 8/2, 408-422.
• Memiş, M.R. ve Erdem, M.D. (2013). Yabancı dil öğretiminde kullanılan yöntemler, kullanım özellikleri ve eleştiriler. Turkish Studies, 8/9, 297-318
• Mesureur, G. (2012). Content-based instruction for all levels of EFL students. Keisen University Bulletin, 24, 71-80.
• Met, M. (1999). Content-based instruction: Defining terms, making decisions. Washington, DC: The National Foreign Language Center.
• Mohan, B.A., Language and Content. Addison-Wesley, MA, 1986.
• Diller İçin Avrupa Ortak Başvuru Metni (2001).
• Olmedo, B.V. (2013). Content-Based Instruction: A Relevant Approach of Language Teaching. Innovaciones Educativas, XV/20, 73- 83.
• Omoto, M.P. (2013). Wesonga Justus Nyongesa, Content- Based Instruction: A Study of Methods of Teaching and Learning English in Primary Schools in Butula District. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 4/5, 236-244.
• Pérez-Cañado, M. L. (2012). CLIL research in Europe: Past, present, and future. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 15, 315–341.
• Perrichon, E. (2008). Agir dʼusage et agir dʼapprentissage en didactique des langues-cultures étrangères, enjeux conceptuels, évolution historique et construction dʼune nouvelle perspective actionnelle, Université Jean Monnet de Saint Etienne, Thèse De Doctorat.
• Puren, C. (2004). Usages des nouvelles technologies dans l'enseignement des langues étrangères. Ela : études de linguistique appliquée: revue de didactologie des langues-cultures et de lexiculturologie, 2004/2, No:134, 133-136.
• Puren, C. (2002). Perspectives actionnelles et perspectives culturelles en didactique des langues : vers une perspective co-actionnelle-co-culturelle. Les Langues modernes, No: 3/2002, 55-71.
• Puren, C. (1988). Histoire des méthodes, Paris: CLE.
• Richards, J. & Rodgers, T. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University press.
• Rosen, E. (2009). Perspective actionnelle et approche par les tâches en classe de langue. Le français dans le Monde, Janvier 2009.
• Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (2008). CLIL and foreign language learning: A longitudinal study in the Basque Country. International Journal of CLIL Research, 1, 60–73.
• Saifurahman, A. L. Z. (2019). Content-Based Instruction. International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR), 8/6, 1372-1375.
• Snow, M. (2001). Content Based and Immersion Models for Second and Foreign Language¬Teaching. In Celce-Murcia, M. (Ed.), Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language. Third Edition. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle Thomp¬son Learning.
• Toller, F. (2008). Content-based instruction. In N. Van Deusen-Scholl & N. H. Hornberger (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and education. Volume 4: Second and foreign language education. New York: Springer.
• Wain, M. (1978). 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 (s.234-250).
• Swain, M. & Lapkin, S. (1982). Evaluating bilingual education: A Canadian case study. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
• Yıldırım, A. & Şimşek, H. (2005). Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri, Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
• Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Wesche, M.B. & Skehan, P. (2002). Communicative, task-based, and content-based language instruction. R. B. Kaplan (Haz.). The Oxford handbook of applied linguistics (s. 227-228). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
• Wolff, D. (2003). Integrating language and content in the language classroom: Are transfer of knowledge and of lan-gauge ensured.https://scholar.google.com.tr/scholar? Erişim tarihi: 02.10.2021.
• Yalçın, Ş. (2013). İçerik Temelli Yabancı Dil Öğretim Modeli. Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 30/2, 107-121.
• http://2023vizyonu.meb.gov.tr. Erişim tarihi: 15.10.2021.