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

Each methodology has its own rules of the game and only following these rules will facilitate us to achieve success. If ESP is a language-led approach (with the focus on the language needed for professional purposes), it should not go deeply into subject concepts; if CLIL is a dual-focused one, it should make language learning dominant, particularly in case when it is provided by subject teachers. Cooperation will be a good factor for the both methodologies, as many respondents noted, at least, in terms of learning and teaching materials' design, but it is a very complicated process requiring coordination from the university authority. However, as the respondents say, teaching materials in fact is not such a big problem, this task is quite solvable due to the modern Internet-world: the methods teachers choose matter much more. Studentcentred methods have clear advantages over teacher- focused ones. The methods are to be active, implying students' involvement with the focus on cognitive and conscious studying through solving practical tasks. In order to make tasks interesting, they are to be solvable with a clear input and only in this case we can expect to get a reasonable output.

Conclusion

The research conducted by the two universities has revealed that, while pursuing similar goals, the two countries face similar problems. In this paper we attempted to analyse the teaching practice involving two different methodologies - CLIL and ESP. We have not set as goal to compare which one is better or what country has better practices and results. The choice is an individual thing. The methodology will be "right" if it is in line with university goals and resources, as well as students' needs and ambitions. There is no need to start CLIL without a good reason and without well- developed facilities for it. Thus, if a well established practice of ESP proves to be effective and satisfies all the parties, there is little sense in trying to replace it with something more innovative.

References

1. Ting, T. (2010) In Focus: CLIL Appeals to How the Brain Likes its Information: Examples from CLIL-(Neuro) Science. International CLIL Research Journal. 1 (3). [Online] Available from: http://www.icrj.eu/13/article1.html

1. Hutchinson, T. & Waters, A. (1987) English for Specific Purposes: A learner-centered approach. Cambridge University Press.

2. Gatehouse, K. (2001) Key Issues in English for Specific Purposes (ESP) Curriculum Development. The Internet TESL Journal. VII (10). [Online] Available from: http://iteslj.org/

3. Coyle, D., Hood, P. & Marsh, D. (2010) CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge University Press.

4. Cimermanova, I. (2021) A Review of European Research on Content and Language Integrated Learning. Integratsiya obrazovaniya - Integration of Education. 25 (2). pp. 192-213. (In Russian). DOI: 10.15507/1991- 9468.103.025.202102.192-213

5. Commission of the European Communities. (2003) Promoting language learning and linguistic diversity: An action plan. COM (2004-2006) 449 final. [Online] Available from: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2003:0449:FIN:en:PDF

6. EURIDICE. [Online] Available from: http://www.eurydice.org

7. Marsh, D. (2008) Language awareness and CLIL. Encyclopedia of language and education. 6. pp. 233-246.

8. Del Pozo, M. (2017) CLIL and ESP: Synergies and mutual inspiration. International Journal of Language Studies. 11 (4). pp. 29-48.

9. Liew, K.L. & Khor, C.P. (2014) ESP at tertiary level: Traditional ESP or integrated ESP? [Online] Available from: http://dspace.unimap.edu.my/xmlui/handle/123456789/34587

10. Dalton-Puffer, C. (2007) Discourse in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.

11. Dalton-Puffer, C. (2011) Content and language integrated learning: From practice to principles. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics. 31. pp. 182-204.

12. Grabe, W. & Stoller, F.L. (1997) Content-based instruction: Research foundations. In: Snow, M.A. & Brinton, D.M. (eds) The content-based classroom: Perspectives on integrating language and content. New York: Longman. pp. 1-21.

13. Cenoz, J., Genesee, F. & Gorter, D. (2014) Critical analysis of CLIL: Taking stock and looking forward. Applied Linguistics. 35 (3). pp. 243262.

14. Jendrych, E. (2013) Developments in ESP Teaching. Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric. 34 (1). pp. 43-58.

15. Fernandez, D.J. (2009) CLIL at the university level: Relating language teaching with and through content teaching. Latin American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning. 2 (2). pp. 10-26.

16. Tarnopolsky, O. (2013) Content-based instruction, CLIL, and immersion in teaching ESP at tertiary schools in non-English-speaking countries. Journal ofELT and Applied Linguistics (JELTAL). 1 (1). pp. 1-11.

17. Coyle, D. (2007) Content and Language Integrated Learning: Towards a connected research agenda for CLIL pedagogies. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. 10 (5). pp. 543-562.

18. Dafouz, E. (2011) English as the medium of instruction in Spanish contexts: A look at teacher discourse. In: Ruiz de Zarobe, Y., Sierra, J.M. & Gallardo del Puerto, F. (eds) Content and Foreign Language Integrated Learning: Contributions to Multilingualism in European Contexts. Bern: Peter Lang. pp. 89-110.

19. Dearden, J. (2014) English as a medium of instruction - A growing global phenomenon. British Council.

20. Gonzalez Ardeo, J.M. (2013) (In)compatibility of CLIL and ESP courses at 30 university. Language Value. 5 (1). pp. 24-47. [Online] Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6035/LanguageV.2013.5.3

21. Arno-Macia, E. & Mancho-Bares, G. (2015) The role of content and language in content and language integrated learning (CLIL) at university: Challenges and implications for ESP. English for Specific Purposes. 37 (1). pp. 63-73.

22. Coleman, N. (2006) Critical incidents in multicultural training: an examination of student experience. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development. 34 (3). pp. 168-182.

23. Marsh, D. & Laitinen, J. (2005) Medium of instruction in European higher education: Summary of research outcomes of European Network for Language Learning Amongst Undergraduates (ENLU) Task Group 4. Jyvaskyla: UniCOM, University of Jyvaskyla.

24. Foran, D. & Sancho, C. (2009) CLIL approaches in university Applied Science environments. In: Dafouz, E. & Guerrini, M. (eds) CLIL across education levels: Experiences from Primary, Secondary and Tertiary Contexts. Madrid: Richmond Publishing. pp. 113-123.

25. Riley, C. (2013) A long hard climb - getting from the bottom to the top of the CLIL incline. Recherche etpratiquespedagogiques en langues de speciality. Cahiers de l'Apliut. 32 (3). pp. 30-56.

26. Widdowson, H.G. (1983) Learning Purpose and Language Use. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.

27. Wiesemes, R. (2009) Developing theories of practices in CLIL: CLIL as post-method pedagogies? In: Zarobe, Y. & Ratalan, R. (eds) Content and Language Integrated Learning: Evidence from Research in Europe. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. pp. 41-59.

28. Sidorenko, T., Rybushkina, S. & Rosanova, Ya. (2018) CLIL practices in Tomsk Polytechnic University: Successes and failures. The Education and Science Journal. 20 (8). pp. 164-187. (In Russian). DOI: 10.17853/1994-56392018-8-164-187

29. Rдisдnen, C. (n.d.) The promise and challenge of CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning) as a mediator for internationalization. Paper presented at the Conference of multilingual competence for professional and social success in Europe. Warsaw, Poland. [Online] Available from: http://konferencje.frse.org.pl/img/default/Mfile/319/file.pdf

30. Valiukine, R. (2013) Avenues for peer Development in Cross-subject Teams. Verbum. Research in Linguistics and Education Science. 4: pp. 134-143.

31. Taillefer, G. (2013) CLIL in higher education: the (perfect?) crossroads of ESP and didactic reflection. Asp. 63. pp. 31-53.

32. Hyland, K. (2002) Specificity revisited: how far should we go now? English For Specific Purposes. 21. pp. 385-395. [Online] Available from: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/english-for-specific-purposes

33. Flowerdew, J. & Peacock, M. (eds) (2001) Research Perspectives on English for Academic Purposes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

34. Snow, M. (1991) Teaching language through content. In: Celce-Murcia, M. (ed.) Teaching English as a second or foreign language. Heinle & Heinler. pp. 315-328.

35. Knezovic, A. (2016) Rethinking the Languages for Specific Purposes Syllabus in the 21st Century: Topic-Centered or Skills-Centered. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology. 10 (1). pp. 117-132.

Размещено на Allbest.ru