CLIL and ESP at tertiary education: Perspectives of Russia and Lithuania

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

CLIL and ESP at tertiary education: Perspectives of Russia and Lithuania

Tatyana V. Sidorenko1,

Yanah V. Rosanova2,

Olga Medvedeva3,

Vaiva Eimuliene4

Abstract

Nowadays, ESP and CLIL are the two main players in the language teaching arena in global tertiary education. The aim of this paper is to evaluate the "strengths" and "weaknesses" of these two approaches and their methodologies. The data have been collected through interviews to trace: (a) factors that cause a university to adopt one language teaching methodology over the other; (b) advantages and disadvantages of each one; (c) level of teachers' professional satisfaction in using CLIL or ESP, and (d) availability of didactic tools and materials. education language interviews

Keywords: English for specific purposes (ESP); content-language integrated learning (CLIL); multidisciplinary language learning; language awareness; teachers' job satisfaction

Introduction

Numerous reforms in the field of higher education (HE), emerging in response to social change, make its participants face and deal with various challenges, which require quick and effective solutions. One of such challenges is integration to international educational, scientific and business communities ensuring the high level of technological and social development of a country. Integration means the transformation of the status of knowledge from national to international. This transformation, in its turn, requires a good command in English as a "lingua franca" and as a tool for communication. Therefore, one of the priority tasks for universities is to strengthen the language policy and improve language teaching technologies as the main instrument to implement the global goals.

Currently, the situation with the language awareness among all university stakeholders, inter alia students, is not very optimistic because the language competence is still low. This could be attributed to the fact that the traditional foreign language learning classroom is barely related to real communication, and, mainly, it is explained that learning input is extremely predictable because the learning context is embedded (Cummins 2000; Cummins 2008). In this regard, the idea pronounced by T. Ting seems very relative to the issue: "... if input is predictable and output not spontaneous, how can we expect learners to be effective communicators if real-life communication is, just that, real" [1. P. 5]. The aim of this research is to sum up and analyze the authors' experience of teaching English at the tertiary level where a special accent is made on ESP (English for Specific Purposes) and CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning), the two main methodologies which are now considered by some teachers as rivals and as collaborators by others.

ESP is viewed as being single-focused on the language (subject content), whereas CLIL is meant to teach both language and subject-content simultaneously. The central message of this paper is to evaluate "strengths" and "weaknesses" of ESP and CLIL as viewed by teachers. The data is collected through surveys and interviews in the context of two countries - Russia and Lithuania, who 40 years ago shared a common vision of how to teach foreign languages, but, since then, have developed their education policies separately. The main points are to be examined: (a) the strengths and weaknesses of the methodologies, (b) the advantages and disadvantages of each one, (c) the level of teachers' professional satisfaction evaluated via professional motivation and aspiration to professional development, (d) the availability of didactic tools and materials.

The preliminary data have shown that due to the third- force factors (political, economic, geographical, cultural and social) the tendencies in these two countries in the language policies are different - Russia placed a bet on CLIL as quick and more effective for professional language development whereas Lithuania remained traditional and opted for ESP. Thus, the research data cannot be called comparable from the point of statistical science but they might be interesting for pedagogical communities and university teachers (both subject and language) from the point of real "classroom data".

The practical significance can be in the authors' conclusion that ESP principles should be interacted with CLIL ones but with some amendments, taking into consideration the specificity of each methodology. The work supports the belief that there are more areas of convergence than divergence between ESP and CLIL. In doing so, the authors do not claim to overview all the aspects of university language teaching and all possible technologies and methodologies that are currently in use, they only offer reflections based on personal teaching experience and relate them to some theoretical and practical issues of ESP and CLIL application.

Theoretical background

There is little left unsaid about the applications of ESP as one of the methodology used in teaching a foreign language for professional purposes. Although, much is still "behind the curtains" regarding a CLIL approach to be used at the tertiary level. For a long time, ESP has been recognized as the most popular approach to language teaching and learning at all levels of education. ESP terminologically is described as teaching English to students whose first language is not English but who need it for a particular job, activity, or purpose.

ESP is preceded by general English. As it has been argued, ESP is associated with mature learners by and large because it is bridged with professional field. Although ESP is a controversial issue, consequently, there is much misinterpretation concerning the exact definition of ESP. As an example, there is much talk whether or not English for Academic Purposes (EAP) could be considered as ESP. Some scholars (Mackay and Mountford (1978), Hutchinson and Waters (1987), Strevens (1988), Dudley-Evans and St John (1998) said "yes" because "specific purposes" are defined as specific needs of learners, and learners as a target group are becoming the peculiarity of ESP methodology. Primarily, the ESP target group is adult learners who are usually "highly conscious" of the reasons to achieve English proficiency in a field of their specialization. The likewise state that, "ESP is an approach to language teaching in which all decisions as to content and method are based on the learner's reason for learning" [2. P. 19].

Based on the ESP characteristics we can conclude that ESP as methodology combines three things - teaching specific English (specialized discourse) to learners (adults) who will use it in a particular setting (business, engineering, medical field, science, etc.) in order to achieve a practical purpose. Accordingly, ESP teachers should not concentrate on teaching general English, they have to satisfy the students' needs for the language used in different professional fields in order to apply the language linguistically correct verbally and on paper [3].

The CLIL methodology appeared later, approximately in the 1990s as a methodology of bilingual education. The first country to host this approach was Canada. The CLIL focus is learning a language whilst simultaneously teaching content from a subject area such as humanistic or scientific area [4]. The CLIL methodology seems to be aimed at building bridges: between language and content; a learner and a new subject knowledge; if possible, a language teacher and a subject teacher. Among the main CLIL frameworks scholars use D. Coyle's 4 Cs and language triptych.

The 4Cs are the following: Content (the topic to study), Communication (the language in use to express the content, thoughts, intentions), Culture (background for all types of communication inter alia interpersonal one), Cognition (cognitive skills activated according to the Bloom taxonomy such as LOTs or HOTs) (https://skyteach.ru/2019/10/10/lower-and-higher-order- thinking-skills-lots-and-hots/).

The language triptych is usually described as a language for three purposes:

- Language of Learning (content) - essential vocabulary and grammar associated with the topic for a communicative approach. The language is used in authentic interactive contexts in order to develop communicative skills, rather than focusing exclusively on grammar;

- Language for Learning - (meta-cognition and grammar system) the kind of language needed to operate in a foreign language environment. Learners need skills for pair or team work, cooperative work in groups which requires the ability to ask questions, debate, evaluate, analyse, etc.

- Language through Learning (cognition) - new meanings will require new language. It needs to be captured during the learning process, then recycled and developed.

CLIL has substantially increased across Europe in recent years and it is also reflected in research. The earliest studies primarily examined the impact of CLIL on foreign-language performance; later, the focus was shifted to the content learning impact and different aspects which may influence the results of CLIL application on language and content learning. To identify the relevant studies, four databases from the Web of Science Core Collection were used as a source of high-quality peer-reviewed studies, namely (1) Science Citation Index Expanded, (2) Social Sciences Citation Index, (3) Arts & Humanities Citation Index, and (4) Emerging Sources Citation Index. The time was limited to the studies published in the period from 2010 till 2020. The basic search (looking for "CLIL research" studies) resulted in 395 studies [5].

As said above, CLIL is debated much but it has not been well-termed yet and lacks a practice base. All this is compounded by differences in cultural backgrounds and social-educational patterns, established in each country. Since 2000, the European Union gives to CLIL a status of one of the leading effective tools for multilingualism and international language policy development. This is evidenced by the following documents: Promoting Language Learning and Linguistic Diversity (European Commission) [6] and A Guide to Languages in EU [7]. Despite the extensive geography and popularity of the approach, there are different points of view on the frequency and prospects of its use, due to the national characteristics of the educational systems and the level of academic mobility of the countries. The study of works on CLIL allowed us to conclude that the approach is highly popular in the university environment. However, fragmented and national context-driven knowledge that gives an insight into the specificity of the approach, based mostly on practice, remains evident. In this context the words of D. Marsh seem particularly sensible: "There is no single blueprint of content and language integration that could be applied in the same way in different countries - no model is for export" [8]. Further we consider how ESP and CLIL are developing at tertiary level in different countries and cultural and educational backgrounds.

CLIL and ESP at tertiary education:

Rivals or collaborators?

At the outset it should be noted that in the part describing the relations between ESP and CLIL we will not provide any strict conclusions towards which approach is better. However, we believe the topic of ESP and CLIL and their interaction is worth studying, especially through practice, because only by using classroom data is one able to draw the true picture of the real situation.

After considering the essence of ESP and CLIL as methodological approaches and comparing their didactics and application peculiarities (presented briefly in this research), the paper will analyse the practice observed in two different countries and universities; this will be underpinned with the discussion of the reasons for choosing this or that approach. Both ESP and CLIL practitioners have to find a balance between the target language and professional subject matter in their instruction [9. P. 32]. Likewise, Liew and Khor [10] argue that CLIL and ESP are indeed two separate approaches, but university learners expect language courses to facilitate the learning of subject content, which moves ESP a step closer to CLIL.

At present, all ESP courses at universities are instructed by language teachers, including both native and non-native speakers. However, CLIL courses are mostly delivered by content teachers with the exception of a few language teachers who have sufficient content knowledge which they are certified to teach. Many universities define CLIL as an integrated ESP model. They believe that CLIL has the potential to overcome some shortcomings of traditional ESP. At the same time, numerous discussions end with the conclusion that a good CLIL is possible provided there is fruitful collaboration between subject and language teachers [11-13].

In addition, Cenoz, Genesee and Gorter [14] argue that due to a broader concept of CLIL, many different language learning approaches dealing with English as the medium of instruction, such as ESP, turn CLIL into a rather narrow vision. Thus, they argue that any attempt to distinguish CLIL from other language teaching approaches is often misleading. Jendrych [15] mainly discusses the complexity of ESP teaching today and attributes the emergence of CLIL to the development of

ESP. She underlines the fact that CLIL is the evolution of ESP that requires teachers' higher qualifications, such as content knowledge and transferable skills. These demands can cause difficulties, constraints and negative attitudes on the part of ESP teachers, which may prevent them from agreeing to teach CLIL courses [15. P. 48].

However, many researchers have a relatively more positive attitude towards the similarities between the two approaches. First of all, Fernandez [16. P. 17] claims that CLIL can be a generic term, covering many similar notions, even including ESP. The interpretation of different tracks of CLIL mainly lies in the ontological and epistemological beliefs. Some researchers argue that ESP and CLIL share similar theoretical principles. As claimed by Tarnopolsky [17. P. 3], the most common feature of the two approaches is integrating language learning with content matter of non-linguistic disciplines, where CLIL has a broader scope and ESP is usually posited as a language course. Also, Jendrych [15] considers that in some cases teaching ESP is similar to teaching CLIL, as both approaches emphasize teaching language and professional skills.

Coyle specifies some aspects to distinguish CLIL from other approaches to foreign language teaching through content: "the distinctiveness lies in an integrated approach, where both language and content are conceptualized on a continuum without an implied preference for either" [18. P. 544]. Therefore, in pure "unadulterated" CLIL, language and content have an equal status regarding learning objectives. Although CLIL is a most widely used term at various educational levels, the practice at higher education institutions lacks the dual focus of a truly integrated approach [19, 20] and the term English Medium Instruction (EMI) is preferred. A different denomination is the distinction between "soft" CLIL (with more focus on language learning) and "hard" CLIL (with focus on content, where language is seen as a vehicle).

The redesigned curricula within the Bologna Process show an increase in CLIL programs to the detriment of ESP courses [21. P. 44]. Content subjects in English are being offered instead of ESP subjects, causing what Gonzalez Aredo describes as the "vulnerability of ESP in CLIL contexts". This, in consequence, produces an underestimation of the role of language instructors at university [22. P. 69]. Although ESP and CLIL currently coexist in courses at higher education, an increasing tendency towards CLIL is observed.

Given the "Englishization" of higher education [23, 24], it could be ventured that institutional decisions will continue to support CLIL in preference to ESP in the short and long term. However, in most cases CLIL at university lacks a true integration of content and language, and consequently EMI is a more suitable term for these contexts. This rapidly increasing trend has been described in a British Council report [25] which states explicitly that EMI is different from CLIL and from ESP. In EMI, students are expected to develop language proficiency by mere exposure to the English language. In this context, ESP courses would be of major assistance.

The collaboration between content and ESP lecturers, to address the language needs of both lecturers and students, would provide coherence and robustness to a CLIL program [26, 27]. That is why we would like to affirm our belief that it seems useless to debate on the rivalry for supremacy of CLIL over ESP or vice versa. Opting for the common and shared aspects in both approaches may be a more viable alternative.

CLIL and ESP approaches converge in terms of the common goal, i.e. improving language fluency, but they diverge in focus. Table 1 recaps the attributes of both approaches through several descriptions, which attempt to demonstrate the differences between them [28-31]. The presented specific features of each approach can facilitate choosing a proper methodology [9. P. 31].

T a b l e 1

ESP and CLIL Components