Content and Language Integrated Learning in Tertiary Education: Perspectives on Terms of Use and Integration

  • Olena Zarichna Vinnytsia Mykhailo Kotsiubynsky State Pedagogical University, Ukraine
  • Svitlana Buchatska Vinnytsia Mykhailo Kotsiubynsky State Pedagogical University, Ukraine
  • Liudmyla Melnyk Vinnytsia Mykhailo Kotsiubynsky State Pedagogical University, Ukraine
  • Tetiana Savchuk Vinnytsia Mykhailo Kotsiubynsky State Pedagogical University, Ukraine
Keywords: Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL), English for Specific Purposes (ESP), English as a Medium of Instruction (EMI), content-based instruction, Basic Interpersonal Communication System (BICS), Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP), high order thinking skills.

Abstract

This paper reports on a classroom investigation into a tertiary variation of content and language integrated learning (CLIL) as well as addresses the conceptual and methodological parameters of this method as distinguished from the other two content-based English-taught courses: ESP and EMI. A special challenge for this research was to study the functionality of CLIL in the university settings in terms of content retention and language acquisition as well as the development of communicative culture in university students. With this purpose we conducted a pilot project on CLIL also designing a triple vector observation scheme (content retention; language acquisition; communication culture) and adding the high order thinking skills dimension as a pivotal learning goal in a CLIL-based English classroom. The project comprised 8 syllabi-based sub-modules that featured scientific content and was conducted among 78 humanities majors.  Findings show that students’ cognitive and communicative needs do not find sufficient support in the existing L2 courses to which CLIL may serve as a solution. Introduction of CLIL even at the level of a variable sub-module may considerably raise students’ satisfaction with L2 courses and provide a reliable backing in the development of their academic thinking and communicative culture.

References

  • Григорьева К.С., Салехова Л.Л. Реализация принципов предметно-языкового интегрированного обучения с помощью технологий Web 2.0 в техническом вузе. Вестник РУДН. Серия ИНФОРМАТИЗАЦИЯ ОБРАЗОВАНИЯ. 2014. № 2. С. 11-18.
  • Знанецька О.М. Основні дидактичні та методичні принципи викладання іноземної мови. Актуальні проблеми викладання іноземних мов для професійного спілкування : Матеріали Всеукр. наук.- практ. конф., 6–7 квіт. 2012 р. : У 3 т. Д. : Біла К.О., 2012. С. 60-62.  Retrieved from: http://www.confcontact.com/2012edu/2012edu_tom1.pdf
  • Barrios, E., Lara, M. (2020). CLIL methodology, materials and resources, and assessment in a monolingual context: an analysis of stakeholders’ perceptions in Andalusia. The Language Learning Journal, 48(1), 60-80.
  • Cummins, J. (1984). Bilingualism and Special Education. In Issues in Assessment and Pedagogy. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
  • Dafouz, E., Nunez, B., Sancho, C., & Foran, D. (2007). Integrating CLIL at the Tertiary Level: Teachers’ and Students’ Reactions in Diverse Contexts-converging Goals: CLIL in Europe, edited by D. Marsh and D. Wolff. (pp. 91–101). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
  • Fortanet-Gómez, I. & Bellés-Fortuño, B. (2008). The relevance of discourse markers in teacher training courses for Content and Language Integrated Learning in higher education. In O. Martí Arnáinz, & M. P. Safont Jordá (Eds), Achieving multilingualism: Wills and ways. Proceedings of the First international conference on multilingualism (ICOM) (pp. 149-159)Castelló de la Plana: Universitat Jaume I.
  • Graham, K. M, Choi, Y., Davoodi, A., Razmeh, S., & Dixon L.Q. (2018). Language and Content Outcomes of CLIL and EMI: A Systematic Review. LACLIL11(1), 19-37.
  • Jiang, Li., Jun Zhang, L., & May, S. (2019). Implementing English-Medium Instruction (EMI) in China: Teachers’ Practices and Perceptions, and students’ Learning Motivation and Needs. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. 22(2), 107-119.
  • Meyer, O. (2010). Introducing the CLIL-Pyramid: Key Strategies and Principles for CLIL Planning and Teaching. Basic issues in EFL Teaching and Learning, 295-313.
  • Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. (2010). Immersion and CLIL in English: More differences than similarities. ELT Journal64(4), 367-375.
  • Yang, W. (2016). ESP vs CLIL: A Coin of Two Sides or a Continuum of Two Extremes? ESP Today. Vol. 4(1). P.43-68.

References (translated and transliterated)

  • Grigorieva K.S., Salekhova L.L. (2014). Realizatsia printsipov predmetno-yazykovogo integrirovannogo obucheniya s pomoshchyu tekhnologiy Web 2.0 v tekhnicheskom vuze. [Realisation of subject and language integrated learning principles using Web 2.0 technologies in higher technical school]. Vesnik RUDY. Seriya Informatizatsyia Obrazovaniya. No. 2. P. 11-18.
  •  Znanetska, O. (2012) Osnovni dydaktychni ta metodychni pryntsypy vykladannia inozemnoyi movy [The main didactic and methodical principles of teaching foreign languages]. Aktualni problemy ykladannia inozemnykh mov dlia professiynoho spilkuvannia: materialy Vseukr. nauk.-prakt. konf., 6-7 kvit. 2012 r.: U 3 t. D.: Bila K.O. P. 60-62. Retrieved from:  http://www.confcontact.com/2012edu/2012edu_tom1.pdf
  • Barrios, E., Lara, M. (2020). CLIL methodology, materials and resources, and assessment in a monolingual context: an analysis of stakeholders’ perceptions in Andalusia. The Language Learning Journal, 48(1), 60-80.
  • Cummins, J. (1984). Bilingualism and Special Education. In Issues in Assessment and Pedagogy. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
  • Dafouz, E., Nunez, B., Sancho, C., & Foran, D. (2007). Integrating CLIL at the Tertiary Level: Teachers’ and Students’ Reactions in Diverse Contexts-converging Goals: CLIL in Europe, edited by D. Marsh and D. Wolff. (pp. 91–101). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
  • Fortanet-Gómez, I. & Bellés-Fortuño, B. (2008). The relevance of discourse markers in teacher training courses for Content and Language Integrated Learning in higher education. In O. Martí Arnáinz, & M. P. Safont Jordá (Eds), Achieving multilingualism: Wills and ways. Proceedings of the First international conference on multilingualism (ICOM) (pp. 149-159)Castelló de la Plana: Universitat Jaume I.
  • Graham, K. M, Choi, Y., Davoodi, A., Razmeh, S., & Dixon L.Q. (2018). Language and Content Outcomes of CLIL and EMI: A Systematic Review. LACLIL11(1), 19-37.
  • Jiang, Li., Jun Zhang, L., & May, S. (2019). Implementing English-Medium Instruction (EMI) in China: Teachers’ Practices and Perceptions, and students’ Learning Motivation and Needs. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. 22(2), 107-119.
  • Meyer, O. (2010). Introducing the CLIL-Pyramid: Key Strategies and Principles for CLIL Planning and Teaching. Basic issues in EFL Teaching and Learning, 295-313.
  • Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. (2010). Immersion and CLIL in English: More differences than similarities. ELT Journal64(4), 367-375.
  • Yang, W. (2016). ESP vs CLIL: A Coin of Two Sides or a Continuum of Two Extremes? ESP Today. Vol. 4(1). P.43-68.

Author Biographies

Olena Zarichna, Vinnytsia Mykhailo Kotsiubynsky State Pedagogical University, Ukraine

ORCID: 0000-0002-6999-0538

olenazarichna1977@gmail.com

Svitlana Buchatska, Vinnytsia Mykhailo Kotsiubynsky State Pedagogical University, Ukraine

ORCID: 0000-0001-6063-5858

svitusik@gmail.com

Liudmyla Melnyk, Vinnytsia Mykhailo Kotsiubynsky State Pedagogical University, Ukraine

ORCID: 0000-0002-4025-0106

rozdoba_l@ukr.net

Tetiana Savchuk, Vinnytsia Mykhailo Kotsiubynsky State Pedagogical University, Ukraine

ORCID: 0000-0003-1644-5357

tetsav777@gmail.com

Published
2020-06-30
How to Cite
Zarichna, O., Buchatska, S., Melnyk, L., & Savchuk, T. (2020). Content and Language Integrated Learning in Tertiary Education: Perspectives on Terms of Use and Integration. East European Journal of Psycholinguistics , 7(1). https://doi.org/10.29038/eejpl.2020.7.1.zar
Section
Vol 7 No 1 (2020)