The Didactics of Bilingual Education: Disciplinary Teaching and Language

  • Georges Faustin Koumje École Normale Supérieure, University of Yaoundé 1, Cameroon

Abstract

The didactics of teaching and language are pioneer subjects to be considered, when learning any particular language. This article puts to light the specificity of the learning process through different approaches such as: the comprehensive input and the balance approach. The theory of joint action, which constitutes the theoretical frame of reference for this work, will allow us to grasp two essential aspects of the relationship between disciplinary knowledge and language. The findings showed that there is a close interdependence of disciplinary knowledge and language. The social function of transmitting knowledge of language is now universally accepted in the scientific community: knowledge is acquired through participation in mediated experiences in communication with an expert. The acquisition of language and the acquisition of disciplinary knowledge are, however, treated as two distinct domains, as if thought were a purely mental object without a necessary relation to language.
Keywords: Didactics, Disciplinary teaching, Learning process, Epistemic contents, Integrated learning, Knowledge transmission.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Bailey, A. L., Heritage, H. M. (2008). Formative Assessment for literacy, grades K-6: Building reading and academic language skills across the curriculum. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corxin Press.
Becker-Mrotzek, M., Vogt, R. (2009). Teaching communication. Linguistic analysis methods and research results. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.
Cassirer, E. (1923). Philosophy of symbolism for men. Berlin: Bruno Cassirer Verlag.
Cassirer, E. (1922). The concept of symbolic form in the construction of the sciences of the spirit. Three essays on the symbolic (Works VI). Paris: The Deer.
Hallet, W. (2013). Generic learning in specialized education. In Becker-Mrotzek, M., Schramm, K., Thürmann, E., Vollmer, J.H. (Eds.). Language in the subject. Münster: Publisher Waxmann.
Hammond, J., Gibbons, P. (2001). What is scaffolding? In Hammond, J. (ed.). Teaching and Learning in Language and Literacy Education. Newton, Australia: Primary English Teaching Association.
Handro, S. (2013). Language and historical learning. Dimensions of a key problem of history teaching. In Becker-Mrotzek, M., Schramm, K., Thürmann, E., Vollmer, J.H. (Eds.). Language in the subject. Linguistic and technical learning. Münster: Waxmann.
Jeismann, K.-E. (1978). Didactics of the story. The specific condition field of history teaching. In Behrmann, G., Jeismann, K.-E., Suessmuth, H. (ed.). History and politics. Didactic foundation of a cooperative lesson. Paderborn: Schöningh.
Jeuk, S. (2011). First steps in the second language German. Freiburg im Breisgau: Fillibach-Verlag.
Kant, I. (1781). The Critique of Pure Reason. Riga: J.F. Hartknoch.
Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford, New York, Toronto: Pergamon.
Krashen, S. (1978). Individual variation in the use of the monitor. In Ritchie, W. (ed.). Second Language Acquisition Research. New York: Academic Press. pp: 175-183.
Krashen, S. (1977). Some issues relating to the Monitor Model. In Brown, H., Yorio, C., Crymes, R. (Eds.). In TESOL 77. Washington D.C .: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages. pp: 144-158.
Leinfellner, W. (1965). Introduction to the theory of knowledge and science. Mannheim: Bibliographic Institute.
Long, M. (1985). A role for instruction in second language acquisition: task-based language teaching. In Hyltenstam, K., Pienemann, M. Modeling and Assessing Second Language Acquisition. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters.
Long, M. (1983). Does second language instruction make a difference? A review of the research. TESOL Quaterly, 17(3): 359-382. DOI: 10.2307 / 3586253
Long, M. (1981). Questions in foreigner talk discourse. Language Learning, 31(1): 135-157. DOI: 10.1111 / j.1467-1770.1981.tb01376.x
Scarcella, R. (2008). Academic language: Clarifying terms. Accelerate! The Quarterly Newsletter of the National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition, 1(1), 5-6.
Sensevy, G., Mercier, A. (2007). Acting together: Elements of theorizing the joint action of the teacher and the students. Rennes: University Presses of Rennes.
Sfard, A. (2000). Symbolizing mathematical reality in being: How mathematical discourse and mathematical objects create each other. In Cobb, P., Yackel, K.E., McClain, K. (eds.). Symbolizing and communicating: perspectives on Mathematical Discourse, Tools, and Instructional Design. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Slobin, D. I. (2003). Language and Thought Online: Cognitive Consequences of Linguistic Relativity. In Gentner, D., Goldin-Meadow, S. Language in Mind. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In Cook, G., Seidlhofer, B. (eds). Principle and practice in applied linguistics. Studies in honor of H. G. Widdowson. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In Gass, S., Madden, C. (eds). Input in the second language classroom. Rowley, MA .: Newbury House.
Thürmann, E. (2012). Subject literacies and the right to quality education in the context of democratic citizenship and participation. In Education Department. Language Policy Unit DG II - Report. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Verret, M. (1975). The time of studies. Paris: Honoré Champion Bookstore.
Vollmer, H. J. (2009). Language (s) from other disciplines. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Retrived from www.coe.int/lang.
Statistics
22 Views | 35 Downloads
How to Cite
[1]
Koumje, G. 2018. The Didactics of Bilingual Education: Disciplinary Teaching and Language. International Journal of Educational Technology and Learning. 4, 1 (Jul. 2018), 8-12. DOI:https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.20448/2003.41.8.12.
Section
Articles