CONTENT AND LANGUAGE INTEGRATED LEARNING IN RUSSIAN TECHNICAL UNIVERSITIES
https://doi.org/10.17853/1994-5639-2017-6-182-196
Abstract
Introduction. The paper presents an overview of and reasons behind Content-Language Integrated Learning (CLIL). Nowadays, CLIL is clearly on its way to becoming an option – not yet an obligation – for higher education in the world. Against the background of internationalization and globalization perspectives, educational institutions around the globe face the need to create borderless education that entails the challenge of programme competitiveness and language acquisition. CLIL is considered as a driver for both. The efficacy of the approach made Russian educators look at its side taking into account the lack of «drag and drop» practices and the specificity of Russian university environment, including national specificity of the country in general.
The aim of the article is to work out some recommendations for smooth implementation of CLIL in Russian higher education.
Methodology and research methods. The methods involve system-based and comparative analysis, generalization and modeling.
Results and scientific novelty. The existing theories and descriptors specifying CLIL approach are analysed; the review of CLIL implementation in higher education abroad is drawn up. The possibilities of inclusion of elements of CLIL approach in educational process of modern higher education institution for the purpose of improvement of language training of experts and a condition of internationalization of high school education in general are considered from the positions of national specifics of the Russian system of higher education, and also culturological, social, economic and political factors.
Practical significance of the published material consists in suggestions and recommendations for improvement of university graduates’ language training, which has to correspond ideally to the level sufficient for implementation of international professional activity. According to the authors, the requirement of such preparation should be recorded in educational standards as an indispensable condition of getting higher education.
About the Authors
T. V. Sidorenko
National Research Tomsk Polytechnic University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Candidate of Pedagogical Sciences, Associate Professor, Head of the Chair of Foreign Languages, Institute of Cybernetics,
Tomsk
S. V. Rybushkina
National Research Tomsk Polytechnic University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Senior Teacher, Chair of Foreign Languages, Institute of Cybernetics,
Tomsk
References
1. Merkish N. E. Iz opita bilingvalnogo obucheniya v Kanade i Germanii. [From the experience of bilingual education in Canada and Germany]. Bilingvalnoe obuchenie: Opit, problem, perspektivi. [Bilingual education: Experience, problems, perspectives]. Saratov, 2004. 26–36 p. (In Russian)
2. Marsh D., Maljers, A., Hartiala, A. Profiling European CLIL classrooms: Languages open doors. Finland: University of Jyväskylä, 2001. Available at: http://www.cec.jyu.fi/kasvatusjaopetus/clil/clilprofiling (Accessed 5 December, 2016). (Translated from English)
3. Marsh D. Content and language integrated learning: The European Dimension – actions, trends and foresight potential. Oxford: Oxford Uni. Press, 2002. 204 p. (Translated from English)
4. Dzhurinsky A. N. Sravnitel’noe obrazovanie. [Comparative education]. Vyzovy XXI veka. [Challenges of the 21st century]. Moscow: Publishing House Prometey, 2014. P. 52– 61. (In Russian)
5. Chostelidou D. Measuring the effect of implementing CLIL in higher education: an experimental research project. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2014. Vol. 116. Р. 2169–2174. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.538 (Translated from English)
6. Bruton A. Is CLIL So Beneficial, or just selective? Re-evaluating some of the research. System. 2011. Vol. 39. № 4. P. 523–532. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2011.08.002 (Translated from English)
7. Coyle D. Theory and planning for effective classrooms: Supporting students in content and language integrated learning contexts. In Masih J. Learning through a foreign language: Models, methods and outcomes. London: Centre for Information on Language Teaching & Research, 1999. P. 46–62. (Translated from English)
8. Lasagabaster D., Sierra J. Immersion and CLIL in English: more differences and similarities. ELT Journal. 2009. 64. № 4. P. 367–375. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccp082 (Translated from English)
9. Lorenzo F., Casal S., Moore P. The effects of content and language integrated learning in European education: key findings form the Andalusian bilingual sections evaluation project. Applied Linguistics. 2009. Vol. 31. № 3. P. 418–442. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp041 (Translated from English)
10. Lucietto S. A Model for quality CLIL provision. International CLIL Research Journal. 2008. Vol. 1. № 1. P. 83–92. (Translated from English)
11. Mehisto P., Marsh D. Uncovering CLIL: Content and language integrated iearning in bilingual and multilingual education. Oxford: Macmillan, 2008. 240 p. (Translated from English)
12. Ting T. CLIL … not only immersion but also more than the sum of its parts. ELT Journal. 2011. Vol. 65. № . 3. P. 314–317. Available at: http://x.doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccr026 (Translated from English)
13. Anderson L., Krathwohl D. A. Taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman, 2001. 336 p. (Translated from English)
14. Klimova B. CLIL and the teaching of foreign languages. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2012. Vol. 47. P. 572–576. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.698 (Translated from English)
15. Huntter J., Smit U. CLIL: the bigger picture. A respond to: A. Bruton. 2013. CLIL: some reasons why … and why not. System. 2014. Vol. 44. № 4. P. 160–167. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.03.001 (Translated from English)
16. Vygotsky L. S. Myshlenie i rech’. [Cognition and speech]. Moscow: Publishing House Labirint, 1999. 352 p. (In Russian)
17. Cummins J. Language, power and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 2000. 320 p. (Translated from English)
18. Zimnya I. A. Psihologiya obucheniya inostrannim yazikam v shkole. [Phycology of language teaching at school]. Moscow: Publishing House Prosveschenie, 1991. 222 p. (In Russian)
19. Filipovich I. I. Content and language integrated learning. The new approaches to competences development. Nauchnyj Vestnik Juzhnogo instituta menedzhmenta. Problemy lingvistiki = Scientific Bulletin of the Southern Institute of Management. The issues of Linguistics. 2015. № 4. P. 74–78. (In Russian)
20. Sidorenko T., Rybushkina S. Foreign language teaching in technical universities in Russia: problems and perspectives. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference ICT for Language Learning. Florence, Italy, 12–13 November, 2015. (Translated from English)
21. Volokh V. A. Migration and Russia: Dynamics, risks and prospects. Vlast = Authority. 2012. № 6. P. 10–16. (In Russian)
22. Podol’naya N. N. The Economic inactivity of population in the labour market. Jekonomicheskij analiz: teorija i praktika = Economic Analysis: Theory and Practice. 2015. № 12 (411). P. 38–45. (In Russian)
Review
For citations:
Sidorenko T.V., Rybushkina S.V. CONTENT AND LANGUAGE INTEGRATED LEARNING IN RUSSIAN TECHNICAL UNIVERSITIES. The Education and science journal. 2017;19(6):182-196. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17853/1994-5639-2017-6-182-196
Views:
1573
Email this article 