Practical Implementation of Integrative Bilingual Teaching/Learning at a Technical University

Introduction

The value and importance of the integrative bilingual teaching/learning foreign language and engineering is building bridges between cognition and communication, finding ways for establishing a dynamic balance between them in the mind of an engineering student.

The CLIL type of teaching follows the general principles (Mehisto, Marsh, & Frigols, 2008), of which the most important are: authenticity, multiple focus, active learning, safe learning environment, and scaffolding. D. Fernandez (2009) lists a variety of CLIL-like methodologies and notes that all of them are characterized by the following features: content is inseparable from linguistic expression; it is necessary to coordinate the learning of language and subject-matter; language is the major medium of instruction and learning; subject-matter content contextualizes language learning. Many ways to follow these principles are familiar to the practitioners of English as Foreign Language (EFL), English for Specific Purposes (ESP), English as Medium for Instruction (EMI), and exist at universities all over the world (Wielander, 2015; Vilkanciene, 2011; Khalyapina, 2017; Salekhova, 2017; Goldfarb, 2013).

In the practical success of CLIL and its analogs an important role is played by a university administration which can contribute to an appropriate teaching environment by implementation of the initial cycle for foreign language learning (Fernandez, 2009; Sidorenko at all, 2018). As a result, the students bring to CLIL classes a general knowledge of the foreign language, shaped-up learning styles and somewhat of self-confidence.

The practical implementation of CLIL-like methodologies depends greatly on the interdisciplinary collaboration. Very often practical CLIL courses are driven by language teachers, while the implementation of English as medium of instruction is almost exclusively in the hands of content lecturers (Arnó-Macià & Mancho-Barés, 2015). This results in breaking the balance between the language and content. One obvious issue is that there is a need for special training programs for all teachers involved in the CLIL-like education (Bertaux et al., 2010; Mancho-Barés & Arnó-Macià, 2017; Banegas, 2012; Kewara & Prabjandee 2018). But the problem is more serious, content driven courses in many cases suffer from heterogeneity and indeterminacy because of the absence of standards and due guidance (Vilkanciene & Rozgiene, 2017).

Being under the umbrella of CLIL, the integrative bilingual teaching/learning suggests some new solutions for this pedagogy. Here the integration of language and content is somewhat an intrapersonal process, driven by a person’s needs and manifested itself in the process of intensive cognitive activity coupled with communication. The learning process starts with an interest and needs, and then strokes repeatedly between language/communication and content/knowledge. The complex multifaceted activity of learners determines content, means, and forms of the integrative teaching, related to mental operations and psychological patterns. The chapter discusses the peculiarities of solving problems, other active exercises, and suggests the practical recommendations. The pilot projects for bachelors and masters are discussed in this chapter, taken with their difficulties, findings and results.