Clil methodology in teaching academic writing and integrity

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru

Clil methodology in teaching academic writing and integrity

Viktoriia Tokarchuk,

Ph.D. in Philology, Senior Lecturer at the Department of English Philology and Teaching English Bohdan Khmelnytsky National University of Cherkasy

Yuliia Shuba,

Ph.D. in Philology, Associate Professor at the Department of English Philology and Teaching English Bohdan Khmelnytsky National University of Cherkasy

The article provides an overview of CLIL methodology as a contemporary approach to teaching non-language subjects in an additional (foreign) language. Having its roots in the French immersion programs and bilingual education in Canada and the USA in the 1950s, CLIL has been gaining popularity in Europe in the last decade. Ukraine has also become one of the countries where CLIL methodology is being actively implemented at different educational levels. CLIL differs from ESP in that the latter aims at forming those foreign language skills which are required from future professionals in the professional environment while CLIL has a dual focus on the content and language. The theoretical framework of CLIL is constituted by 4Cs: content, communication, cognition, and culture. The interrelation of these four principles is supposed to ensure the balanced acquisition of a subject and a foreign language. Researchers differentiate between two models of CLIL - `soft' and `hard'. `Soft' CLIL is language-focused while `hard' CLIL is subject/content- focused. Between the two ends of the `soft-hard ' continuum there can exist multiple versions of CLIL when teachers select a necessary balance of content and language with regard to the students' capabilities and needs. CLIL implies the use of only authentic materials (e.g., textbooks and videos which are intended for native speakers and can represent real life situations). Another important idea behind CLIL is scaffolding - supporting students at all the stages of studying. Scaffolding aims to compensate for the lack of verbal explanation which sometimes can be too complicated and be at variance with the students' language competence. Scaffolding can be verbal (vocabulary of the subject) and non-verbal (colours, gestures, pictures, movements, sounds, etc.) with one complementing another. In this paper we provide examples of applying CLIL methodology while teaching academic writing and integrity.

Key words: academic integrity, academic writing, CLIL (content and language integrated learning), ESP (English for special purposes), 4Cs framework, scaffolding.

Вікторія ТОКАРЧУК,

кандидат філологічних наук, старший викладач кафедри англійської філології та методики навчання англійської мови Черкаський національний університет імені Богдана Хмельницького (Черкаси, Україна)

Юлія ШУБА, teaching academic writing

кандидат філологічних наук, доцент кафедри англійської філології та методики навчання англійської мови Черкаський національний університет імені Богдана Хмельницького (Черкаси, Україна)

ЗАСТОСУВАННЯ CLIL-МЕТОДОЛОГІЇ В НАВЧАННІ АКАДЕМІЧНОГО ПИСЬМА ТА АКАДЕМІЧНОЇ ДОБРОЧЕСНОСТІ

У статті окреслюється основні принципи методології інтегрованого навчання предмету та мови (CLIL), яка є популярної сучасною практикою/методикою навчання немовних предметів іноземною мовою протягом останніх десятиліть. Історично перші прояви концепції CLIL прослідковуютьсяу французьких програмах повно-го занурення у мову, що знайшли застосування у білінгвальній освіті Канади та США у 1950-х роках. В Україні ця методика активно обговорюється освітянами та апробується в освітніх закладах різних рівнів. Маючи спільну кінцеву мету з моделлю навчання англійської мови для спеціальних цілей, CLIL-методологія суттєво відрізняєть-ся від неї, адже модель навчання англійської мови для спеціальних цілей прагне сформувати ті навички володіння іноземною мовою, які потребуватимуть майбутні фахівці для роботи в професійному середовищі, в той час як CLIL-методологія має подвійний фокус - мова і контент. Теоретичну основу CLIL-методології складають 4К - контент (зміст предмету), комунікація (мова, безпосереднє спілкування), когніція (знання, пізнання, осягнення світу в щоденному житті людини, набуття досвіду в повсякденній взаємодії людини з навколишнім світом) та культура. Взаємодія цих чотирьох принципів має забезпечити збалансоване оволодіння предметом та іноземною мовою, якою він викладається. Дослідники виокремлюють два підходи у застосуванні CLIL-методології - так званий `soft' для формування гнучких навичок та `hard' для формування професійних навичок студентів. Якщо у варіанті `soft' зусилля спрямовані на навчання мови, то у `hard'-моделі фокус уваги зосереджено на предметі, тобто його змісті. Цілком логічним є припущення існування численних версій CLIL-методології, адже кожен учитель визначає той баланс у поєднання контенту і мови, який відповідає здібностям і потребам його студен- тів/учнів. CLIL-методологія передбачає використання лише автентичних матеріалів, тобто тих підручників чи відеоматеріалів, які розраховані на носія мови і репрезентують справжні життєві ситуації. Розроблена за методикою система опор має надавати підтримку (змістову та мовленнєву) студента протягом усього навчан-ня. Система опор має на меті заповнити прогалини, які виникають у студентів/учнів через брак розуміння вер-бального пояснення, яке може бути або занадто складним, або не відповідає рівню мовленнєвої компетенції учнів/студентів. У цій статті пропонуються приклади застосування CLIL-методології в навчанні академічного письма та академічної доброчесності.

Ключові слова: академічна доброчесність, академічне письмо, CLIL (методологія інтегрованого навчання предмету та мови), модель навчання англійської мови для спеціальних цілей, 4К основа, опора.

Establishing the problem. Education of the 21st century poses new challenges for the educators teach-ing various age groups - from primary school learners to tertiary education students and stimulates educa-tors to implement more effective methods of teaching where both mastering the content and formation of foreign language communicative skills are integrated. CLIL-based approach is a methodology which sug-gests strategies for gaining this aim. Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) is understood as «a dual-focused educational approach in which an additional language is used for the learning and teach-ing of both content and language». Thus, the focus in the learning process is on both content and language. According to D. Coyle and O. Meyer (Coyle & Meyer, 2021: 3), CLIL is a constantly evolving approach to learning and teaching various subjects in multilingual and multicultural classrooms. One more aspect that makes CLIL so attractive for teachers is its flexibility. As D. Coyle states, «there are many different models depending on a range of contextual factors», corre-spondingly «the learning focus and outcomes differ according to the model adopted» (Coyle, 2005).

CLIL has become increasingly piloted and prac-tised over the last decades across very different con-texts and places of learning on a global scale. There has been a particular emphasis on defining what is meant by CLIL and how it relates to other forms of learning, especially those that involve more than one language.

The article aims to outline the principles of CLIL methodology and point out its difference from ESP, Communicative Approach and Task-Based Learning; to suggest ideas of implementing CLIL principles in teaching academic writing and integrity.

Previous research. Since CLIL is a relatively new teaching methodology, research of its principles goes hand-in-hand with its application in various educa-tional systems. M. L. Perez-Canado (Perez-Canado, 2012: 316) argues that CLIL has its roots in French immersion programs as well as North American bilingual teaching models. Canada and the USA have had a long-established tradition of bilingual educa-tion since the 1950s. The investigation of French immersion and North American bilingual education proved their effectiveness at the linguistic, subject content, cognitive, and attitudinal levels. European international schools, where students had different native languages, also had a successful experience of teaching subjects in more than one additional language. These days CLIL is being implemented and researched in numerous educational systems of Europe: the UK, Germany, Spain, Estonia, Latvia, the Netherlands, Austria, Sweden and some others (Perez-Canado, 2012: 316-320). Extensive studies of CLIL include the works of D. Coyle (2005; 2007), D. Coyle, P Hood & D. Marsh (2010), D. Coyle & O. Meyer (2021), P. Ball, K. Kelly & J. Clegg (2019). In recent years there has been an increase in the inter-est to CLIL methodology within Ukrainian scholars (Tarasenkova, Akulenko, Kulish, Nekoz 2021).

Major issues. The term «CLIL» was coined in 1994 by David Marsh, a Finnish educator working on multilingualism and bilingualism education, to spec-ify teaching different subjects to students through a foreign language. D. Marsh insisted on the necessity to learn and teach both content and language, as only their interconnection could provide students' profi-ciency in a second or a foreign language they learnt. In 2005, he expressed the idea of CLIL being «a gen-eral `umbrella' term to refer to diverse methodologies which lead to dual focused education where attention is given to both topic and language of instruction» (Kovacs, 2014: 48-49). In his interview to the Inter-national House Journal of Education and Develop-ment in 2009, D. Marsh defines Content and Lan-guage Integrated Learning (CLIL) as «an educational approach where some content learning (like a topic on global climate, or a subject) is taught in an additional language (such as the English language in Korea). It is a single educational approach which involves very different models. In other words, the foundation is the same, but the way in which it is carried out differs - and this depends on what educators want to achieve in a given place and time. It is an innovation, but based on putting together long-standing chunks of good educational practice into special packages» (The IH Journal of education and development, 2009).

In the collective monograph «Content and Lan-guage Integrated Learning» (2010), D. Coyle, P. Hood, and M. Marsh summarize the theory on CLIL and share the experience of implementing CLIL prin-ciples in European primary and secondary schools as well as in English language schools. The funda-mentals of successful content and language learning they refer to are authenticity, focus on dual purpose, scaffolded instruction, students' cognitive engage-ment and cultural awareness. The other researchers of CLIL advantages as well as practitioners (P. Ball, K. Kelly, J. Clegg, N. Tarasenkova, I. Akulenko,Kulish, I. Nekoz) also consider these principles to be fundamental for CLIL-based approach.

In CLIL contexts, authenticity implies the usage of only authentic materials, e.g., textbooks and vid-eos which are intended for native speakers and can represent real life situations. P. Ball, K. Kelly, and

J. Clegg, discussing the concept of authenticity, point out that «all of this input may appear to be `authentic', since it is intended for a native-speaker audience, but it may not be realistic or relevant to the NNS reader or listener» (Ball, Kelly, Clegg, 2019: 105). The researchers dwell on the importance of authenticity in CLIL and cite H. Widdowson who distinguished the difference between genuineness and authenticity as a genuine text demonstrates «the language characteris-tics typical of the genre it belongs to», while authen-tic text «relates appropriately to the task and the kind of interaction and response that occurs» (Ball, Kelly, Clegg, 2019: 105). In other words, CLIL-based approach supports the idea of the task being authentic to the subject which is taught in a foreign language.

Focus on the dual purpose lies in the nature of CLIL as it implies both learning of content and a foreign language at the same time. In the review of D. Coyle, P. Hood, and M. Marsh's book «Content and Lan-guage Integrated Learning», D. England draws atten-tion to the obvious difference of CLIL from the more conventional Communicative Approach and from the more current Task-Based Learning. According to the Communicative Approach, language work focuses mainly on «quasi-meaningful, non-authentic prac-tice of grammatical forms», while the Task-Based Learning emphasizes the importance of using criti-cal thinking skills and various language structures in the learning process to achieve particular tasks, and diminishes the importance of developing com-prehension skills to understand a particular content area. CLIL, D. England believes, «seeks to do just this: provide an integrated, equal partnership between language and content development» (England, 2011).

CLIL differs from other educational approaches in that it is neither a form of language education nor it is a form of content education. It is rather a fusion of both (Coyle, Hood, Harsh 2010: 1). CLIL encompasses the elements of bilingual education and immersion but is not synonymous with them.

The difference of CLIL-based practice from ESP approach is quite obvious as the latter aims at forming those foreign language skills which are required from future professionals in the professional environment. Ukrainian researchers of implementing CLIL in teaching Mathematics (N. Tarasenkova, I. Akulenko, I. Kulish, I. Nekoz) consider these two approaches to have the same ultimate goal of forming both «subject mathematical competence» and «foreign-language communicative (linguistic) competence of future spe- cialists». What differentiates these two approaches are intermediate learning goals, content, process and learning outcomes (Tarasenkova, Akulenko, Kulish, Nekoz, 2020: 972).

Scaffolded learning is an inseparable feature of CLIL. Scaffolding is a teaching strategy which is used to move students progressively toward stronger understanding and greater independence in the learn-ing process. Successive levels of temporary support provided by teachers enable students to reach higher levels of achievement than they would do without assistance. In case students do not need these sup-portive strategies any longer, they can be gradually removed (Ball, Kelly, Clegg, 2019: 306). Among these language support types are full scripts, brief pre-activity language practice, word lists, informa-tion gap, jigsaw tasks, sentence starters, substitution tables, annotated visuals, speaking frames etc. (Ball, Kelly, Clegg, 2019: 137).

D. Coyle, P. Hood, and M. Marsh claim effective content learning is the result of students' cognitive engagement and appeal CLIL teachers to «consider how to actively involve learners to enable them to think through and articulate their own learning» as well as to «support students in developing life skills such as dealing with the unexpected, observational skills, and constructing knowledge which is built on their interaction with the world, yet purposefully guided by values and convictions». High levels of stu-dents' achievements can be reached through the intel-lectual challenge of transforming information and ideas, solving problems, comprehending, discovering new meaning. The result of these efforts is students' awareness of how to use a knowledge base they have got through life (Coyle, Hood, Marsh, 2010: 29-30).

The importance of culture for CLIL can be explained by the interaction between culture and lan-guage as language immediately reflects all changes in culture. Students' active engagement into interac-tive and dialogue learning within the classroom and beyond contributes to successful language learning. The potential of CLIL for offering a wide range of opportunities for intercultural interaction cannot be denied (Coyle, Hood, Marsh, 2010: 40).

According to D. Coyle (Coyle, 2005) CLIL meth-odology relies on the four guiding principles known as 4Cs: content, communication, cognition, culture. Con-tent, or the subject learnt, is considered to be the heart of the learning process, the starting point of develop-ing a class outline. Communication presupposes the use of language of a particular subject area. It is pos-sible to apply the formula learning to use language and using language to learn to this principle which goes beyond the knowledge of the grammar system and involves learners in applying language in a way somewhat different from language learning lessons. Cognition is understood as developing learners' think-ing skills through various tasks aimed at activating mental processes of perceiving, processing, structuring information within the learnt subject area. Acquiring and applying new knowledge should be accompanied by raising cultural awareness which is an inseparable component of a language user's competence in today's multicultural and multilingual world.

The 4Cs framework involves teachers and learners in applying the triptych linguistic approach (Coyle, 2007: 553-554): using and developing the language of learning, for learning and through learning. Lan-guage of learning is the language needed for learn-ers to understand basic concepts and skills related to the subject theme. Sometimes, it is not obligatory for systematic grammatical understanding to be led to an ideal level as major focus is on the content. Lan-guage for learning is the language of the school envi-ronment - classroom expressions the teacher uses to involve students in pair work, group work, asking questions, debating, chatting, enquiring, thinking, memorizing, etc. Language through learning is the language used by learners when they articulate what they understand in class. As Coyle suggests (Coyle, 2007: 554), «learners need language to assist their thinking and they need to develop their higher-order thinking skills to assist their language».

This 4Cs conceptual framework is valid for differ-ent types of CLIL related to answering the question of whom this teaching approach is best intended for: language teachers or subject teachers. The so-called `soft' CLIL is a language-led approach due to which the attention is focused on linguistic features of the special context, the so-called `hard' CLIL is a sub-ject-led approach due to which 50% of the subject curriculum is studied in a foreign language (Ball, Kelly, Clegg, 2017: 27-28). We suppose there can be variations of `softness' and `hardness' of CLIL meth-odology in the soft-hard continuum. The flexibility of the approach provides teachers with the possibility to move freely between the two ends of the continuum and select such a balance of integrating content and language that best matches the learning objectives.

Below we provide an illustration of how CLIL methodology can be applied to teaching academic writing and integrity. The specification of the 4Cs in terms of academic writing and integrity can be the following. Content is associated with the procedure of writing academic texts of various genres (term-pa-pers, summaries, essays, abstracts, journal articles, etc.) as well as the structure of such texts. Communi-cation presupposes the knowledge of cliches (words, word combinations, sentences) typical of academic texts, syntactic structures and punctuation rules com-monly employed in the writing process. Cognition is related to developing the strategies of processing and structuring information objectified in an academic text. Culture is linked with raising awareness of cross-cultural approaches to creating academic texts, for instance, differences in authorization, citing and referencing rules.

We consider it plausible to illustrate the application of CLIL methodology in teaching the theme «Describ-ing graphs». Graphs often represent figures and trends following from the quantitative analysis of research data. Empirical research generally implies data anal-ysis which a lot of students find difficult to cope with. CLIL-ling the teaching / learning process can facilitate the students' progress while mastering the theme.

First, as the above-described theoretical frame-work implies, the teacher is recommended to start with the content component. In case of learning the theme «Describing graphs», the content will be vari-ous kinds of graphs: the students are supposed to dif-ferentiate between them and understand the specifics of applying each kind of graph while describing var-ious trends. In terms of communication, the students will be instructed how to employ vocabulary com-monly used for graph description. In terms of cog-nition, the students will develop the mental skills of observing, analyzing, synthesizing, and summarizing trends following from the obtained research data. In terms of culture, the students will obtain the possibil-ity to conduct a cross-cultural analysis of the obtained data if such data are presented in the research.

The elements of CLIL methodology while teach-ing the ways of describing graphs can be observed at all the traditional stages of learning: introducing new material, training and acquiring skills, practising to use the acquired skills in real life situations.

While introducing new material, the teacher can offer students such activities as:

using visual images of graphs when introduc-ing them to the students (Fig. 1); the teacher names the kind of a graph and imitates the graph form by hand movements;

differentiating graphs by colours is also regarded as appropriate;

introducing major trends by demonstrating the pictures and imitating the trends by hand movements.

The teacher provides students with the vocabulary for describing trends (scaffolding) (Fig. 3), for example,

At the stage of training and acquiring skills the following activities can be suggested to the students:

the teacher checks how students understood the material by naming graph kinds and asking stu-dents to imitate their form by hand movements; the task can have a reverse direction: the teacher provides imitating hand movements and the students name the demonstrated graph kind;

the teacher asks students to complete the sen-tences with an appropriate variant of graph description;

the teacher provides a sample graph descrip-tion (Fig. 4) and asks students to describe a graph in a similar format supplying verbal description with hand movements:

`mute game' in which one student who is given a picture of a graph imitates its type and trends by hand movements; the task of other students is to guess and say aloud what graph kind or trend they think it may be.

At the stage of practising to use the acquired skills in real life situations the students can be offered the task to describe various graphs using the vocabulary given before. This activity is con-sidered much more effective if it is formulated as a communicative situation with all its components: participant roles are identified (WHO the speak-ers are), content of communication is determined (WHAT is said, HOW it is said), circumstances of communication are outlined (WHERE and WHEN something is said), purpose of communication is defined (WHY something is said).

Fig. 1. Graph types

Fig. 2. Trends in describing graphs

Fig. 3. Useful graph vocabulary

Fig. 4. Sample graph description

Teaching academic writing is impossible with-out drawing attention to frequent cases of academic integrity violation, kinds of academic dishonesty and ways to prevent it. Doing the activity Matching terms and definitions (all the names of the activities here are taken from the book «Putting CLIL into Practice» (2019) by P Ball, K. Kelly, J. Clegg), like the one given below, students both get familiar with the aca-demic misconduct terms in context and are provided with standard examples of formal subject language in the definitions. Being accompanied by an illustration, the key terms become the object of easier learning and further consolidation.

An activity Gap-fill suggested next to reinforce the encountered vocabulary focuses, as P Ball, K. Kelly, J. Clegg state, «on the aspects of language that teachers wish to make salient, highlighting words and phrases for a specific purpose» (Ball, Kelly, Clegg, 2017: 109). Such an activity instructs students to read the text and fill the gaps with the words and phrases from the list as well as warns that there is one phrase/word too many.

When students are familiar with background information on academic integrity, they are suggested to do an activity Reading a text andfilling in a chart/ table for developing their reading skills. This activ-ity is considered to be an example of an informa-tion-transfer reading activity as learners are required «to read in order to transfer key information from a linear text to a form of diagrammatical organization» or a table (Ball, Kelly, Clegg, 2017: 116). Among authentic sources chosen for this task can be world university home pages like https://communitystand- ards.stanford.edu/policies-and-guidance/honor-code where learners can get familiarity with codes of hon-our of the most prestigious world university. The typ-ical table to fill in is the following one.

Of course, the scaffolding activities represented in the article are only a few from the numerous possible ones which can support students in their learning and make the study process various, interesting and fruit-ful for both sides - teachers and learners.

Violation of the Stanford University Honesty Code

Conclusions

The main goal of the present study was to provide an account of CLIL as a contemporary teaching methodology with a dual focus on content and language as well as to demonstrate its possible applica-tion in teaching academic writing and integrity. CLIL relies on the four interrelated guiding principles called 4Cs: content, communication, cognition, and culture. With regard to the main focus - language or content - there exist the language-led model (`soft' CLIL) and the content-led model (`hard' CLIL). The flexibility of the methodology allows for the existence of multiple intermediate models between the `soft' and `hard' ones. CLIL presupposes the use of only authentic materials and scaffolding at different stages of studying. The latter aims to support students and compensate for the lack of teacher's verbal explanation. Applying CLIL methodology while teaching academic writing and integrity can facilitate achieving a two-fold purpose - improving students' competence in a foreign language and in writing academic papers.

Bibliography

Ball P., Kelly K., Clegg J. Putting CLIL into Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019. 320 p.

CLIL: An Interview with Professor David Marsh. The IH Journal of education and development. 2009. Issue 26. URL: http://ihjournal.com/content-and-language-integrated-learning (Last Accessed: 22.06.2022).

Coyle D. CLIL: Planning Tools for Teachers. Nottingham: University of Nottingham, 2005. URL: https://www. academia.edu/23915456/CLIL_Planning_Tools_for_Teachers_4Cs_Curriculum_Guidance_3As_Lesson_Planning_Tool_ Matrix_Audit_Tool_for_Tasks_and_Materials (Last Accessed: 26.06.2022).

Coyle D. Content and Language Integrated Learning: Towards a Connected Research Agenda for CLIL Pedagogies. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. 2007. № 10 (5). P 543-562.

Coyle D., Hood P., Marsh M. CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. 173 p.

Coyle, Do. & Meyer O. Beyond CLIL: Pluriliteracies Teaching for Deeper Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021. 226 p.

England D. CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning) Do Coyle, Philip Hood, David Marsh, CUP. The IH Journal of education and development. 2011. Issue 31. URL: http://ihjournal.com/clil-content-and-language-integrated- learning-do-coyle-philip-hood-david-marsh-cup (Last Accessed: 21.06.2022).

Perez-Canado M. L. CLIL research in Europe: past, present, and future. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. 2012. № 15 (3). Р 315-341.

Tarasenkova N., Akulenko I., Kulish I., Nekoz I. Preconditions and Preparatory Steps of Implementing CLIL for Future Mathematics Teachers. University Journal of Educational Research. 2020. № 8 (3). P 971-982. URL: http://eprints. cdu.edu.ua/4576/ (Last Accessed: 21.06.2022).

References

Ball P., Kelly K., Clegg J. Putting CLIL into Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019. 320 p.

CLIL: An Interview with Professor David Marsh. The IH Journal of education and development. 2009. Issue 26. URL: http://ihjournal.com/content-and-language-integrated-learning (Last Accessed: 22.06.2022).

Coyle D. CLIL: Planning Tools for Teachers. Nottingham: University of Nottingham, 2005. URL: https://www. academia.edu/23915456/CLIL_Planning_Tools_for_Teachers_4Cs_Curriculum_Guidance_3As_Lesson_Planning_Tool_ Matrix_Audit_Tool_for_Tasks_and_Materials (Last Accessed: 26.06.2022).

Coyle D. Content and Language Integrated Learning: Towards a Connected Research Agenda for CLIL Pedagogies. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. 2007. № 10 (5). P 543-562.

Coyle D., Hood P., Marsh M. CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. 173 p.

Coyle, Do. & Meyer O. Beyond CLIL: Pluriliteracies Teaching for Deeper Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021. 226 p.

England D. CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning) Do Coyle, Philip Hood, David Marsh, CUP. The IH Journal of education and development. 2011. Issue 31. URL: http://ihjournal.com/clil-content-and-language-integrated- learning-do-coyle-philip-hood-david-marsh-cup (Last Accessed: 21.06.2022).

Perez-Canado M. L. CLIL research in Europe: past, present, and future. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. 2012. № 15 (3). Р 315-341.

Tarasenkova N., Akulenko I., Kulish I., Nekoz I. Preconditions and Preparatory Steps of Implementing CLIL for Future Mathematics Teachers. University Journal of Educational Research. 2020. № 8 (3). P 971-982. URL: http://eprints. cdu.edu.ua/4576/ (Last Accessed: 21.06.2022).Размещено на Allbest.ru