CLIL PRACTICES IN TOMSK POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY: SUCCESSES AND FAILURES

Introduction. Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) has recently been applied into education system, but a range of supporters is rapidly increasing, covering diverse countries. The CLIL approaches simultaneously use a foreign language as an object to studying and as an instrument to learning other subjects. The emergence of CLIL was related to a wide distribution of bilingualism in society and the need to cope with the problems related to this process, including the elimination of international conflicts, the consolidation of society as the factor of a social well-being, the support of a competitive labour market, etc.

Despite growing popularity of CLIL across the world and recognised status by the European Union as one of the leading effective means to implementing international language policy of multilingualism, the academic teaching staff of Russian higher school does not still fully understand the organisational mechanisms and forms of a similar learning process, largely as a result of national characteristics and traditions. In a globalising world, CLIL didactics is currently becoming a perspective direction of higher education and an effective way both of acquiring and improving language and communicative competencies to provide further successful professionalising of students and to facilitate their career promotion in the chosen field of activity.

The aim of this paper was to sum up and discuss the experience of Tomsk Polytechnic University in conducting CLIL-based courses.

Methodology and research methods. The concept of practice-oriented vocational education was used as the methodological base of the experimental work in order to search optimal variants when developing foreign language knowledge in the students of engineering specialties. In the course of the research, the approaches of comparative analysis, synthesis, generalisation, forecasting, design, modelling, prolonged monitoring of learning outcomes, observation and questionnaire survey were applied.

Results and scientific novelty. The actualising reasons for CLIL approach in the Russian high school education were formulated and proved. The brief historical overview of didactic concepts was presented. The authors analysed temporary challenges which preceded the implementation of CLIL methodologies in the learning process of Tomsk Polytechnic University (TPU) and the introduction of programme “Vocational Training and Education in a Foreign Language” (3rd-4th years of education). The stages of teaching foreign language evolution at the university were distinguished: the anglification of engineering education transformed into multidisciplinary model of English for Specific Purpose (ESP); the creation of “pedagogical tandems” – the organization of courses with “double agents”; and, finally, CLIL training in which a cognitive component can be seen as the key characteristic and the main advantage. Success and failure in the field of CLIL practices available today at TPU were revised. The examples of private implementable practices were described and analysed. The research findings revealed the rationality when using various applied variations of CLIL methodology.

Practical significance. The research outcomes allowed the authors to adjust not only the main educational programmes of higher education institution, but also internal programmes of professional development of teachers. Although the long-term experiment summarised in the publication in a single higher education institution does not apply for universality and mass circulation, the authors believe that experimentative materials will contribute to consistent embedding of CLIL courses into a complete system of vocational training. 

1. Lasagabaster D. A., Sierra J. M. Internationalisation, multilingualism and English-medium instruction. World Englishes. 2011; 30.3: 345–359.

2. Lasagabaster D., Sierra J. M. Immersion and CLIL in English: More differences than similarities. ELT Journal. 2009; 64, 4: 367–375.

3. Lasagabaster D., Doiz A., Sierra J. M. Motivation: Making connections between theory and practice. In: Lasagabaster, D., Doiz A., Sierra J. M. (eds.). Motivation and foreign language learning: From theory to practice. Amsterdam: John Benjamins; 2014. p. 173–183.

4. Dalton-Puffer Sh., Smit U. Empirical perspectives on CLIL classroom discourse [Internet]. Franktfurt, Vienna etc.: Peter Lang.; 2009 [cited 2017 Jul 20]. P. 7–23 Available from: https://www.univie.ac.at/Anglistik/Dalton/SEW07/DaltonPuffer.pdf

5. Van de Craen P., Mondt K., Allain L., Gao Y. Why and how CLIL works. An outline for a CLIL theory. Views. 2007; 16: 70–78.

6. Bruton A. CLIL: Some of the reasons why … and why not. System [Internet]. 2012 [cited 2017 Jul 23]; 41: 587–597. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259127119_CLIL_Some_of_the_reasons_why_and_why_not

7. Dearden J., Macaro E. Higher education teachers’ attitudes towards English: A three country comparison. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching. 2016; 6.3: 30–34.

8. Ting T. CLIL … not only immersion but also more than the sum of its parts. ELT Journal [Internet]. 2011 [cited 2017 Aug 21]; 65.3: 314–317. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccr026

9. Rumlich D., Stebner F. Cognitive load theory in the context of bilingual education: Exploring unchartered territory. In: 9th International Cognitive Load Theory Conference; 2016; Bochum, Germany. p. 22–24.

10. Roussel S., Joulia D., Tricot A., Sweller J. Learning subject content through a foreign language should not ignore human cognitive architecture: A cognitive load theory approach. Learning and Instructions. 2017; 52: 69–79.

11. Coyle D., Hood P., Marsh D. CLIL: Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2012. 552 p.

12. Meyer O. Introducing the CLIL-pyramid: Key strategies and principles for CLIL Planning and teaching. In: Eisenmann, Maria and Summer, Theresa (eds.): Basic Issues in EFL-Teaching and Learning. Heidelberg: Winter; 2011. P. 295–313.

13. Vdovina E. K. Professional’nyj anglijskij jazyk dlja jekonomistov = Professional English for economists. St.- Petersburg: St.-Petersburg State Polytechnic University; 2013. 131 p. (In Russ.)

14. Popova N. V., Kogan M. S., Vdovina E. K. Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) as actualisation methodology of interdisciplinary links in technical university. Vestnik Tambovskogo universiteta. Serija: Gumanitarnye nauki = Tambov University Review. Series: Humanities. 2018; 23 (173): 29–42. (In Russ.)

15. Inozemceva K. M., Bondaletova E. N., Borisova T. D. Evolution of ESP as the methodology of teaching foreign languages for professional purposes in Russian non-linguistic universities. Gumanitarnye nauchnye issledovanija = Humanities Scientific Research [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2017 Jul 23]; 2. Available from: http://human.snauka.ru/2016/02/13994 (In Russ.)

16. Gudkova S. A., Burenkova D. Yu. CLIL methodology. Advantages and disadvantages of practical application at universities. In: Aktual’nye problemy teoreticheskoj i prikladnoj lingvistiki i optimizacija prepodavanija inostrannyh jazykov: mezhdunarodnaja nauchnaja zaochnaja konferencija = International Conference of the Modern Issues of Theoretical and Applied Linguistics and the Optimization of Teaching Foreign Languages; 2014; Tolyatti. Tolyatti; 2014. p. 167–173. (In Russ.)

17. Burenkova D. Yu., Gudkova S. A. Tools of practical implementation of CLIL at universities. Vektor nauki Tolyattinskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta = Vector of Science of Tolyatti State University. 2015; 4 (23): 50–56. (In Russ.)

18. Chuchalin A. I., Veledinskaya S. B. Modeling processes of freeing language teaching from the quality control perspective. Inzhenernoe obrazovanie = Engineering Education [Internet]. 2005 [cited 2017 Aug 20]; 3: 136–143. Available from: http://aeer.ru/files/io/m3/art_19.pdf (In Russ.)

19. Polyakova L. O. Why does an engineer need a foreign language? (Analysis of professional standards). Sovremennyie problemyi nauki i obrazovaniya = Modern Issues of Science and Education [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2017 Aug 20]; 6. Available from: https://www.science-education.ru/ru/article/view? id=23067 (In Russ.)

20. Ferents I. Razvitie politiki v oblasti internacionalizacii vysshego obrazovanija v Evrope, ili “ravnoskorostnaja internacionalizacija” = Politics development in internationalization of higher education in Europe. Imperativy internacionalizacii = Internationalisation imperatives. Ed. by Larionova V. M., Perfileva O. V. Moscow: Publishing House Logos; 2013. p. 162–186. (In Russ.)

21. Filippov V. M. Vnutrennjaja internacionalizacija v rossijskom vysshem obrazovanii = Internal internationalization in Russian higher education. Imperativy internacionalizacii = Internationalisation imperatives. Ed. by Larionova V. M., Perfileva O. V. Moscow: Publishing House Logos; 2013. p. 200–213. (In Russ.)

22. Knight J. Five truths about internationalization. International Higher Education. Boston College Magazine [Internet]. 2012 [cited 2017 Aug 21]; 69. Available from: www.bc.edu/cihe

23. Sidorenko T. V., Rybushkina S. V. CLIL in Russian technical universities. Obrazovanie i nauka = The Education and Science Journal. 2017; 19 (6): 182– 196. (In Russ.)

24. Marsh D. CLTL/EMILE – the European dimension: Actions, trends and foresights potential. Brussels: The European Union; 2002: 203 p.

25. Cummins J. BICS and CAPL: Empirical and theoretical status of the distinctions. In: Encyclopedia of Language and Education. 2nd edition. Vol. 2: Literacy. New York: Springer Science + Business Media LLC; 2008. p. 71–83.