SLA AS IDENTITY FORMATION: EVIDENCE FROM STUDY ABROAD AND CLIL CONTEXTS

1. IntroductionBack in 1997, Firth and Wagner (2007) criticised the widely-held perception that SLA studies have focused on the cognitive nature of SLA, thereby marginalising the social (and I would add 'cultural') dimension they recognise as inherent to every instance of SLA - a label that will be used here as an umbrella term to cover the increasingly blurred categories of 'foreign' and 'second language' (Graddol 2006:110), with clear implications for the 'learning' vs. 'acquisition' binary.Research has since signalled learning context among the external factors that intervene in SLA (Collentine and Freed 2004). Indeed, Formal Instruction (FI) is receiving increasing competition from other learning contexts and methodologies, most especially 'Study Abroad' (SA), and 'Content and Language Integrated Learning' (CLIL).Given the scope of this work, it is impossible to provide a full overview of what either SA or CLIL involves, although a few introductory remarks are probably necessary, if only to contextualise our discussion. Particularly favoured by US academic authorities (Kinginger 2008:1), and increasingly popular in Europe through the Erasmus / Socrates programme, SA involves travelling to, and spending some time in a target-language country, during which time the student may also receive FI. This, which should in turn imply a variety of spontaneous communicative situations, appears as different enough from FI, in which teacherled focus on form may be thought to result in substantially different learner input and, eventually, output (Collentine and Freed 2004:155). These authors, therefore, contend that, whereas FI should primarily be regarded as a learning context, SA may well combine both learning and communicative contexts (155-156), involving target-culture situations and natural interaction with native speakers of the target language.As for the possible language gains to be derived from SA, most of the research in the field points to SA as more beneficial than FI, although a great deal of caution is required here since (1) most of the studies undertaken so far do not allow for generalisation; and (2) the only truly conclusive results that have been reached concern oral fluency (Isabelli-Garcia 2003; Segalowitz and Freed 2004) and vocabulary (Ife et al. 2000). Other than that, the 'progress found in many SA studies is narrowly limited' (Dekeyser 2007:23).CLIL, for its part, largely owes its existence to the French immersion programmes implemented in Canada since the 1960s. It involves learning the target language in a content setting 'where attention is given both to the language and the content' (Coyle et al. 2010:3). CLIL is particularly visible in Europe, not least through the European Union's institutional and economic support (Education and Culture DG 2011).Much of the spread of CLIL approaches throughout Europe can be attributed to the support it has received from constructivist theorists, for whom CLIL encourages learner autonomy, self-organisation and self-responsibility whilst, in the specific field of language learning, presenting vocabulary and grammar in 'authentic', 'specific' contexts through 'social activities in which students interactively construct their knowledge of language use and practices' (Wilhelmer 2008:20-21). This has led to claims that CLIL students cognitively process their L2 at a deeper, more intense level (Aliaga 2008).Evidence has therefore begun to emerge of this methodology's potential benefits, particularly in the field of receptive language skills (Ruiz de Zarobe 2011:223; 229-230). The literature also reports benefits in highly complex language areas, including pragmatic behaviour (Nikula 2005) and morphosyntactic and discursive competence (Vartuki 2010), whilst parents' fears are also put at rest since findings show that CLIL methodologies do not result in defective content processing or lower LI skills (Costa and Coleman 2010). Additional benefits reported include the fostering of students' motivation and autonomy, and a wider range of foreign language topics well beyond those normally dealt with in conventional FI settings (Coyle 2006). …

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.