CONTENT BASED LEARNING

Towards a European Citizenship: Content-based Learning

Sonia Casal and Francisco J. Lorenzo

El concepto de ciudadanía europea conlleva dos implicaciones fundamentales para el

aula de L2: la puesta en marcha de una educación plurilingüe / pluricultural y el

desarrollo de una identidad social europea. Teniendo en cuenta la dificultad práctica de

estos dos objetivos propuestos, el capítulo apoya la concepción del proceso de

enseñanza / aprendizaje de una L2 desde una perspectiva holística, es decir, un punto de

vista en el que el éxito en el aprendizaje esté basado no sólo en cuestiones cognitivas

sino también afectivas. En este sentido, la enseñanza basada en contenidos constituye

un enfoque útil en el que desarrollar este planteamiento. Combinada con el aprendizaje

cooperativo, donde los alumnos trabajan en pequeños grupos estructurados, la

enseñanza basada en contenidos permite no sólo el desarrollo cognitivo y lingüístico de

los alumnos sino también el desarrollo de una identidad común. En definitiva, el

artículo pretende transmitir que si se pretende desarrollar una ciudadanía europea en el

aula de L2, es preciso tener en cuenta no sólo las habilidades cognitivas y lingüísticas

sino también las sociales.

1 Introduction

In the last few years of the ongoing European unification process, the Council of

Europe has responded to the complex diversity of our continent through a series

of guidelines, policies and documents devoted to creating a European

citizenship. Such a citizenship is guaranteed by the European Constitution, where it is stated that “Every national of a Member State shall be a citizen of the

Union.Citizenship of the Union shall be additional to national citizenship and

shall not replace it.” (European Parliament 2004: article I-10).

The equivalence of terms (‘nationality’ of a member state = ‘citizen’ of the

Union) in the article I-10 inevitably leads to the link binding language and

nationality, which is not a recent issue. History has repeatedly shown that a

common nationality may push governments towards monolingualism. Examples

of attempts towards monolingualism abound. Most were promoted through the

discouragement of one language or another in different parts of the world as a

way of bringing about national cohesion (Wringe 1996: 71).

Compared to this view, monolingualism can also be thought of as a ‘curable

disease’ – in Edward Said’s fortunate expression. If such were the case, Europe

would fulfil the requirements, then, of a perfectly-healthy language speaking

community. Taking its own linguistic diversity as its point of departure – which

could be observed as a drawback for some – Europe has turned this diversity

into one of its linguistic keystones: plurilingualism. Documents such as The

Sonia Casal and Francisco J. Lorenzo 50

Common European Framework (Council of Europe 2001) or The European Portfolio (Council of Europe 2001) show an unavoidable link between European

citizenship and plurilingualism.

In effect, historical linguists place the intellectual birth of Europe in the

existence of different groups on the Continent sharing the same geographical

and cultural past but speaking different tongues (Eco 1998). The respect for

plurilingualism present on many occasions in European history is unparalleled in

other civilizations. This is represented, for instance, in the maxim that presided

over the trading activity in the Bruges stockmarket in the XVIth

c. in usum negotiatiorum cuiuscumque nationis ac linguae.

What the goal of this linguistic, social, political and global movement seems

to be is nothing short of the individual acceptance and approval of the overall

socio-political project of uniting under a common citizenship. This fact has

important consequences for education in general and L2 education in particular.

Teaching and learning other continental languages will achieve the goals of 1)

mobility, 2) preservation of labour rights and 3) interaction among natives from

various countries. This will make European plurilingual speakers more tolerant,

with a more open-minded attitude towards others, more maturity and more

independence of thought. Being plurilingual is not only society or career

oriented. It also has also positive aspects for the individual’s cognitive skills and

overall development as a human being:

Being able to think about something in different languages can enrich our understanding

of concepts, and help broaden our conceptual mapping resources. This allows better

association of different concepts and helps the learner go towards a more sophisticated

level of learning in general. (Marsh 2003: 8)

As the Common European Framework stresses, plurilingualism is not to be

mistaken with multilingualism. In contrast with a person who can speak several

languages – a multilingual speaker, a plurilingual individual

[…] does not keep these languages and cultures in strictly separated mental

compartments, but rather builds up a communicative competence to which all

knowledge and experience of language contributes and in which languages interrelate

and interact. (Common European Framework: 4)

A tacit agreement has been reached that instead of language knowledge, all that

can be required from EU citizens is a ‘communicative competence’. This point

is clearly illustrated in the Common European Framework, where a new

competence is laid out: ‘existential competence’. Shifting the focus from the

computational components of the language to the attitudinal realm, the Common European Framework ascertains that after all the knowledge of a language is a

very affective matter after all, depending ultimately on one’s willingness and

desire to communicate. In short, what can be required of Europeansis tolerance

towards the so called confusio linguarum.

Towards a European citizenship: Content-based learning 51

Emphasis is also given to the fact that individuals learn a language based

cultural patterns. This interrelation between culture and language brings us to

Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory (Vygotsky 1978, 1992, 1996). Speakers build

up their own knowledge within a given social and cultural framework, which

goes beyond the boundaries of the individual. This cultural and social

framework the individual is embedded in makes them participants in a language

and a nationality. Language is learnt in society, which is understood as the small

groups that (culturally) make it up: family, school, groups of friends, colleagues,

etc. Research has proven that the perception of groups arises very early in

childhood. Children (as young as six years old) are already conscious of the

existence of different groups and they even hold opinions towards national

groups (Zlobina 2003: 788).

In its 17th article, the European Constitution goes on to state: “Citizenship of

the Union shall complement and not replace national citizenship.” As with

plurilingualism, where the individual compares and contrasts different

languages, European citizenship should not replace national citizenship. But is it

actually possible to create a transnational social identity through L2 teaching

and learning, which at the same time respects individual nationalities?

This new mindset of plurilingualism, pluriculturalism and a common social

identity leading to a European citizenship needs to be materialised in a new

conception – if not a philosophy – of language learning and further in a new

educational wrapping. The advantages are many, but some difficulties may also

be encountered.

2 European citizenship: ideal assets and real difficulties

European citizenship, a condition to be granted to those who inhabit the

countries of the old continent, is a rather ambitious goal. This is so because such

citizenship attempts to bring unity among nationals stemming from very

different societal conditions and background. The only common ground for

these people is the very intangible condition of being Europeans.

Social Identity Theory is the result of Henri Tajfel and John Turner’s

experiments (Tajfel/Turner 1979) devoted to explaining relationships between

large groups such as social classes, categories or nationalities. In this research,

minimal groups (groups created according to a number of minimal conditions)

were formed: 1) group members had no face-to-face interaction and their

personal identity was not known; 2) there was no particular advantage in

belonging to a particular group, nor a logical reason for holding a negative

attitude against the group, and 3) there was no advantage or gain for the

individual as a result of their making a particular response (Shiffman/Wicklund

1992). Minimal groups tried to eliminate all the possible variables that are


usually linked with favouritism among members of a same group (in-group

favouritism) and discrimination against those who do not belong to their group

(out-group discrimination).

Tajfel and Turner’s experiments showed that, despite the minimal group

conditions, individuals appeared to automatically think of their group (to which

they had been randomly assigned) as better for them than any alternative out-

group. They also perceived themselves as similar to the members of their groups

and different from the other out-groups. The conclusion drawn from their studies

proved that individuals have a tendency to sort people into social categories or

groups. Once their social world is divided, individuals tend to enhance

intergroup boundaries by accentuating similarities within groups and differences

between these same categories (Aron/McLaughlin-Volpe 2001: 95). According

to this finding, individuals would be generally predisposed to cooperate with

those they perceive as similar to themselves (in terms of citizenship, in this case)

and would be likely to reject those who they regard as different. The classroom,

a world microcosm, reflects this same pattern (Levy et al. 2004: 130).

Another thread of social identity research, which is interesting for our

purposes, centres on the components of social identity as a concept. There are

three distinctive components involved in social identity: 1) a cognitive

component, that is, the awareness that you belong to a group from which you

can recognize your role in society; 2) an evaluative component: comparing your

own group to other groups usually makes you portray your own group in a

positive light; 3) an emotional component: those within the same group are

viewed as similar to yourself (in-group) while those in other groups are looked

upon as different (out-group) (Bergami/Bagozzi 2000: 556).

Having these three components in mind, the difficulty of fostering a European

citizenship arises when individuals/students identify strongly with a nationality

and observe others as members of a particular citizenry, depersonalising them.

They are considered as people who react as group members and not as

individuals with personal traits or differences with their national group. In other

words, following social identity theory, stereotypes and prejudices tend to arise

among national groups due to the division drawn between in-groups and out-

groups (Zlobina 2003: 783).

The questions posed at this point are ‘whether and how’ plurilingualism fits

into Social Identity Theory. Language and language variation have usually been

thought of as a determining factor not only for categories such as socioeconomic

status but also for the social construction of one’s identity. Moreover,

knowledge of the national language has been the single most important factor

for the acceptance of an outsider as an equal citizen. This is the case in Spain,

among many other nations, where knowledge of Spanish ranks first for

acceptance as a national, even before religious creed, ethnic origin or race (Díez


Medrano 2005). It is also the case in Britain, where more often than not,

language tests must be passed as a citizenship requirement (Blackledge 2006).

It does not come as a surprise, then, that European policies have developed an

ideology that considers identity under a new light. This mindset is based on an

idealistic socialization construct, less deterministic and less bound to immanent

features like birth place or mother tongue and geared towards plurilingualism/

pluriculturalism. While language knowledge draws the line between the

dominant and the dominated, the legal and the illegal, the fellow citizen and the

alien, European language policies attempt to construct a society where language

variation – as marked by nativeness, accent, code switching among other

features – is non-judgementally observed.

In tune with new social theories ascertaining that individuals are dynamic

selves imbued with a process of continuous growth, European language policies

have established the concept of ‘multiple identities’ as a cultural aspiration

linked to plurilingualism. By this it is meant that one may add new layers of

being to oneself without necessarily eroding one’s first identity – shaped around

one’s mother tongue (see Coulmas 1991, Lorenzo 2005, Van Els 2001 for a

review). Second and even third language learning are sites for identity

construction; taking place in actual scenarios such sites can be negotiated, added

to, modified or neglected through one’s own will (Pavlenko/Blackledge 2003,

Ushioda 2006). The crux of the argument is that if one becomes a social as well

as a linguistic being in infancy, one develops a (more) moral being during

adulthood as new languages are incorporated, that is, as plurilingualism comes

into scene.

It is in this sense that identity theoreticians have attempted to relate the

concept of European identity to plurilingualism over the years. They argue that

L2 learning is part of secondary and tertiary socialization processes, which help

to enlarge one’s ego boundaries primarily tied to the small world of one’s

mother tongue. What this process causes is not only cognitive growth but also a

richer and wider understanding of the world and that being the case, a moral

socialization (Byram/Tost 1999).

3 Implications of the creation of a European citizenship for

L2 teaching and learning

Unarguably, the project of a common European citizenship is an ambitious one

in political, linguistic and social terms. Moreover, it should be remembered here

that the European Union as it is understood is arising from a contradiction in

terms: the fact that ‘union’ may arise from ‘diversity’. European citizenship

stands, therefore, at a far too theoretical level. Its actual implementation would


not be tangible if it did not take shape in an educational embodiment consistent

with the theoretical corpus.

In this sense, content-based instruction is the ultimate evidence in the

educational realm. It puts an end to the atavistic bond between language and

national loyalty, shifting from monolingualism to plurilingualism. It is for this

reason that, as mentioned above, content-based instruction is considered to be a

European solution to a European need (see Marsh 2002 for a review). It should

be added, perhaps, that it is not the solution to an instrumental need – the most

common orientation in language learning – but to an essential integrative need

of the Continent.

Cooperative learning, on the other hand, leads effectively to different forms of

interactive and communicative talk, fostering collaboration and promotion of

social skills. First implemented in the USA as part of the endeavours to fight

against racial and social segregation, cooperative learning techniques have been

equally successful in European contexts (see Casal 2005 for a review).

Both being umbrella terms (content-based learning falling under the wider

umbrella term of bilingual teaching and cooperative learning covering different

team-based approaches), both concepts have been created to work out solutions

to political and social problems: content-based instruction as a means of coping

with linguistic diversity and cooperative learning as a way of dealing with

discrimination and social and racial segregation. Both approaches taken together

are geared towards the development of a European identity in a pluralist

democratic society.

3.1 Building up European citizenship in the classroom:

plurilingualism and content-based language learning

One of the basic assumptions of European language policies is that ‘languages

are for all’. Furthermore this assumption is a crucial element for democratic

citizenship. The equation of language and democracy reaches the extent of total

identification, with mottos like ‘more languages, more democracy’ being often

brandished in European circles (Bliesener 2003: 82). In a sense, more than a

new methodological proposal, content-based instruction is a political move,

since it is a particular model of bilingual teaching and does not differ much from

the well known Écoles Européennes. The important caveat here is that these

schools were for the cultural elite only, whereas content-based instruction is

expanding mostly through State school networks. It is only through this insight

that one can fully grasp how radically content-based instruction departs from

traditional L2 teaching. This happens in a number of fields considered below,

such as psycholinguistics or language teaching and learning methodology.


Psycholinguistically, content-based instruction differs from mainstream L2

teaching and learning in one fundamental aspect. Teaching an L2 through

academic content implies that language will be learnt incidentally, without

consistent attention to the formal properties of the language, or at least viewing

these elements as secondary. Although there is little doubt that incidental

theories of learning are fundamentally correct as opposed to a secular focus-on

forms tradition – which interpreted languages in terms of formal objectivism –

there are not many educational traditions that embrace and foster teaching

languages incidentally (Long 2000, Lorenzo 2006).

Incidental teaching in content-based instruction affects basic aspects of

education. First, language syllabuses tend to vanish and be replaced by academic

content. Second, language teachers have to find new areas in teaching, which

effectively amounts to them reinventing themselves as practitioners. In many

areas content-based instruction has been taken as a model for enhancing

language learning in formal settings, including Andalusia, Berlin, Lombardia or

Turk (see Wolff/Marsh 2006 for a review). What this has meant is that teachers

are asked to incorporate new skills: dual degrees, certified levels of language

knowledge or even native competence. It takes a lot of determination for an

Educational Administration to initiate a reform of this calibre. The decision is

only understandable if it is a response to a political challenge set by the EU.

Methodologically, content-based instruction also departs from traditional L2

learning and teaching. Although communicative methods and notional

syllabuses were of European inspiration, it soon became clear that this attempt

had fallen short of the European ambitions to spread plurilingualism. Although

content-based learning does not normally depart from a communicative rationale

– in fact one of its most common shapes is task-based teaching – it incorporates

a new element uncommon in mainstream communicative methods. Usually, in

content-based learning communicative activities in content-based learning are

geared to developing academic language. The goal is not to make students

streetwise but to empower them to take part in high profile professional circles.

This being the case, content-based learning empowers students for the same

reason that language students are qualified when they develop cognitive

academic skills (as opposed to simply intercommunicative skills). Content-based

learning sets the path for effective integration in the social world beyond the

geolinguistic borders of their tongues. The logic of the educational goals comes

full circle with the political goals of the EU.

All in all, the content-based learning move has a firm footing in the notion

that there is nothing essential that makes European languages different. In any

case, they are not different enough to make speakers of different tongues have a

different worldview. This would deter them from sharing the same political

projects, feelings of belonging, or a common citizenship. This has never been


questioned, not even by the strongest believers of linguistic relativism (Whorf or

Sapir). One of their oft-forgotten intuitions is that there is some underlying

similar ground in all European languages that made them all essentially similar.

In their own terminology, this is called ‘Standard Average European’. European

history proves this fact to be true. The belief that language, nation, and

citizenship have had a one-to-one correspondence has not usually been part of

the past of the continent (see Braunmüller/Ferraresi 2003, Burke 2004). That is

why monoglot ideologies have never and (one dares say) will never succeed in

the continent.

3.2 Building up European citizenship in the classroom: social

skills and cooperative learning

If content-based instruction’s motto is ‘languages are for all’, cooperative

learning’s is ‘success for all’ (Slavin 1995). Cooperative learning practitioners

aim to help all students to reach the highest levels of achievement, giving special

attention to disadvantaged children such as those from minority groups. That is

why cooperative learning has been used consistently in bilingual contexts.

As content-based instruction, cooperative learning differs from mainstream

L2 teaching and learning. As opposed to the traditional teacher monologue,

cooperative learning techniques allow students to learn by contrasting and

comparing what they have assimilated with what their classmates did. Students

become more aware of the opinions of others and benefit from those different

perspectives. Likewise, they learn to negotiate and, where necessary, to give up

their own interests in favour of the group objective.

Psycholinguistically, cooperative learning articulates elements from three

different perspectives: 1) learning is a social process that relies on interaction

with others. Communicative interaction provides the development of cognitive

and personal growth, interpersonal relationships and peformance in social

groups different from their own; 2) L2 learning involves negotiation of meaning.

Interactive situations which occur in cooperative situations offer participants the

chance to explain their point of view and communicate it in an understandable

manner and to be in the position of explaining, giving instructions or helping

others to perform a common task; 3) L2 learning needs affective support. When

the groups communicate something to the rest of the class, the students find a

better support and they feel more confident because their answer is not only

theirs, but the group’s. Students may also encourage each other, feeling that they

are not studying for themselves, but for the group’s sake.

Methodologically, cooperative learning does not simply consist of placing the

students in different groups and expecting them to carry out their task together.

Johnson and Johnson (1999) state that for the students to work in a truly


cooperative way, the educational context must comply with a series of

conditions. First, classroom distribution must enable face-to-face interaction. In

an ideal situation, all members of the group can see each other and also the

blackboard, allowing the teacher to approach any student.

Second, a group task must be assigned, that is, a specific aim the different

students must achieve together as a group is necessary. A cooperative setting

will not work properly if students simply speak or exchange ideas. The same is

true even if they happen to help each other at a given moment when in the end

they can carry out their task without the contribution of the rest of the group.

This inter-relation is called positive interdependence. There are several ways to

transmit this idea to the students, such as making the group share information to

accomplish their objective.

Third, Johnson and Johnson (1999) maintain that solving common tasks or

problems requires the contribution of each of the participants. The group

responsibility in the accomplishment of the task objective is supported by that of

the individual student. Quoting Cohen (1994: 8), a group task is:

a task that requires sources (information, knowledge, heuristic problem-solving

strategies, materials and skills) that no single individual possesses so that no single

individual is likely to solve the problem or accomplish the task objectives without at

least some input from others.

This is known as individual accountability. Each member of the group must feel

that they are contributing to the group’s success with their participation and

learning. In order to encourage individual accountability each student may

perform an individual test, task or written text on the matter of study; one group

member might be chosen at random to explain something or answer a question;

every member of the group would be responsible for one section of the project,

etc.

Finally, sufficient resources must be available for the correct development of

the activity (Johnson/Johnson 1999). To this purpose, dictionaries, grammar

references, etc., should be at hand. Students can be asked to bring their own

material from home, such as old games, books, etc. This material can be part of

the classroom resources. This way, in a cooperative framework, students are

given the chance to know each other and overcome possible misunderstandings

and stereotypes. Often such views are held by students against people that are

different from themselves as pointed out by Tajfel and Turner. Learning in

groups helps the students share their knowledge and their lack of knowledge

with their peers. It gives them a more flexible attitude towards the different roles

they will need to learn in their lifelong language learning processes.


4 Conclusions

European citizenship as it is currently understood is based on pluralism

(plurilingualism, pluriculturalism) and on being united under a common identity:

that of sharing the more or less intangible condition of being European.

Apparently stemming from a contradiction (a ‘common’ identity born from

‘pluralism’), European citizenship is reinforced by diversity through the

different European guidelines, policies and documents. Diversity represents the

real wealth of our continent, unparalleled in other civilizations. However, this

ideal and theoretical ideology may encounter some difficulties when put into

practice. Two of the problems mentioned in the paper are: 1) the atavistic

relationship between language and nation (one language-one nation) and the still

important factor of language as the most important, current admission criteria

for citziens judging outsiders and 2) the natural human tendency described by

Tajfel and Turner’s Social Identity Theory to categorize others into groups,

emphasizing similarities with those who belong to the same group or country

and stressing differences with those who do not.

The implementation of this new mindset, therefore, calls for changes in the

educational realm. These changes should contribute to the formation of

responsible plurilingual individuals in a pluralist democratic society. Content-

based instruction stands as the solution to the European need of integration.

Teaching L2 incidentally through academic content and fostering cognitive

academic skills in students are factors. On the other hand, cooperative learning

through structured group work not only enhances learning and increases

academic achievement and success for all, but also improves socialization

processes which serve as the basis for a common European identity.

References

Aron, Art / McLaughlin-Volpe, Tracy (2001): Including others in the self. Extensions to own

and partner’s group memberships. In: Sedikides, Constantine / Brewer, Marilyn B. (eds.)

(2001): Individual Self, Relational Self, Collective Self. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.

89-108.

Bergami, Massimo / Bagozzi, Richard P. (2000): Self-categorization, affective commitment

and group self-esteem as distinct aspects of social identity in the organization. British Journal of Social Psychology 39: 555-577.

Blackledge, Adrian (2006): The magical frontier between the dominant and the dominated:

Sociolinguistics and social justice in a multilingual world. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 27: 22-42.

Bliesener, Ulrich (2003): European language policy: Frustration and hope. A personal view of

the state of affairs. In: Ahrens, Rüdiger (ed.) (2003): Europäische Sprachenpolitik. European Language Policy. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag. 73-82.


Braunmüller, Kurt / Ferraresi, Gisella (eds.) (2003): Aspects of Multilingualism in European Language History. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Burke, Peter (2004): Language and Communication in Early Modern Europe. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Byram, Michael / Tost, Manuel (eds.) (1999): Social Identity and European Dimension. Graz:

European Center for Modern Languages.

Casal, Sonia (2005): Enseñanza del Inglés. Aplicaciones del Aprendizaje Cooperativo.

Badajoz: Abecedario.

Cohen, Elizabeth G. (1994): Designing Groupwork. Strategies for the Heterogeneous Classroom. New York: Teachers College Press. 2

nd edition.

Coulmas, Florian (1991): A Language Policy for the European Community: Prospects and Quandaries. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Council of Europe (2001): Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Strasbourg.

Council of Europe Education Committee (2000): European Language Portfolio (ELP).

Principles and Guidelines. Strasbourg.

Díez Medrano, Juan (2005): Nation, citizenship and immigration in contemporary Spain.

International Journal on Multicultural Societies 2: 133-156.

Eco, Umberto (1998): The Search for the Perfect Language. London: Blackwell.

European Parliament (2004): European Constitution. Internet document available at:

http://www.unizar.es/euroconstitucion/Treaties/Treaty_Const.htm

Johnson, David W. / Johnson, Roger T. (1999): Learning Together and Alone. Cooperative, Competitive, and Individualistic Learning. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Lambert, Richard / Shohamy, Elena (eds.) (2000): Language Policy and Pedagogy.

Amsterdam: Benjamins. 179-193.

Levy, Inbal / Kaplan, Avi / Patrick, Helen (2004): Early adolescents’ achievement goals,

social status, and attitudes towards cooperation with peers. Social Psychology of Education

7: 127-159.

Long, Michael (2000): Focus on form in task-based language teaching. In: Lambert, Richard /

Shohamy, Elena (eds) (2000): Language Policy and Pedagogy. Amsterdam: John

Benjamins. 179-193.

Lorenzo, Francisco (2005): Políticas lingüísticas europeas: Claves de la planificación y

aprendizaje de lenguas en la UE. Cultura y Educación 17: 253-263.

Lorenzo, Francisco (2006): An analytical framework of language integration in L2 content-

based courses. A proposal from a European context. In: Wolff, Dieter / Marsh, David

(eds.) (2006): Diverse Contexts, Converging Goals: Content and Language Integrated Learning in Europe. Frankfurt: Lang.

Marsh, David (2002): Content and Language Integrated Learning: The European Dimension.

Jyväskyla, Finland: University of Jyväskyla Press.

Marsh, David (2003): Using Languages to Speak and Learning to Use Languages. Milan:

IIRRSE.


Páez, Darío / Fernández, Itziar / Ubillos, Silvia / Zubieta, Elena (eds.) (2003): Psicología Social, Cultura y Educación. Madrid: Pearson.

Pavlenko, Aneta / Blackledge, Adrian (2003): Negotiation of identities in Multilingual Contexts. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. 148-161.

Sedikides, Constantine / Brewer, Marylin B. (eds.) (2001): Individual Self, Relational Self, Collective Self. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.

Shiffman, Rudolf / Wicklund, Robert A. (1992): The minimal group paradigm and its

minimal psychology. Theory and Psychology 2: 29-50.

Slavin, Robert E. (1995): Cooperative Learning. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. 2nd

edition.

Tajfel, Henri (1984): Grupos Humanos y Categorías Sociales. Barcelona: Herder.

Tajfel, Henri / Turner, John C. (1979): An Integrative Theory of Intergroup Conflict. In:

Austin, William G. / Worchel, Stephen (eds.) (1979): The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Monterey: Brooks/Cole. 33-47

Ushioda, Emma (2006): Language and motivation in a reconfigured Europe: Access, identity

and Autonomy. Journal of Multicultural and Multilingual Development 27: 148-161.

Van Els, Theo J. (2001): The European Union, its institutions and its languages: Some

language political observations. Current Issues in Language Planning 2: 311-360.

Vygotsky, Lev S. (1978): Mind in Society. The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Vygotsky, Lev S. (1992): Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Vygotsky, Lev S. (1996): El Desarrollo de los Procesos Psicológicos Superiores. Barcelona:

Crítica.

Wolff, Dieter / Marsh, David (eds.) (2006): Diverse Contexts, Converging Goals: Content and Language Integrated Learning in Europe. Frankfurt: Lang.

Wringe, Colin (1996): The role of foreign language learning in education for European

citizenship. Evaluation and research in education 10/2-3: 68-78.

Zlobina, Anna (2003): Estereotipos nacionales y regionales en Europa y España. In: Páez,

Darío / Fernández, Itziar / Ubillos, Silvia / Zubieta, Elena (eds.) (2003): Psicología Social, Cultura y Educación. Madrid: Pearson. 776-789.

CONTENT BASED LEARNING

Documents

Transcript of CONTENT BASED LEARNING