Anna Sirotova

This article is devoted to the analysis of procedural characteristics of the three main approaches to foreign languages teaching in non-linguistic universities – vocationally-oriented (English for specific purposes – ESP), which is predominant nowadays in the Russian professional linguodidactics, communicative approach (Communicative language teaching – CLT), which is widely used in teaching general English and integrated learning of foreign language and professional disciplines (Content and language integrated learning – CLIL), which popularity in the academic sphere is only growing. The timeliness of this topic lies in the fact that despite having many foreign research studies in the field of using CLIL as well as Russian works on the modelling CLIL in the universities there is still a lack of practical implications studies. In our opinion, it is the lack of certain guidelines and ready-made solutions in integrating language and content in the university that hinders the implementation of this promising approach in higher education in Russia. Consequently, authors set a goal to give a procedural characteristic to the three approaches focusing in CLIL as well as to illustrate them with the certain practical example in order to show similarities and differences in practical implementation of these approaches. To do this authors have chosen a certain content and specific language to teach and on the basis of given analysis compiled procedural characteristics for each. In conclusion the analysis of results is given, the grounding for the similarities and differences in practical implementation is found. Authors have come to the conclusion that such information can be useful for the newcomers in CLIL, willing to shift from traditional ESP and CLT to a new approach, as the article gives the chance to compare not only theoretical and methodological basis of the three approaches, but also the ways of their implementation. Moreover, procedural characteristics can be used by teachers practicing CLIL in order to have a tool for self-control and further self-development.

This article is devoted to the problem of modelling content and language integration in a non-linguistic university. The timeliness of this topic stems from several factors. Firstly, nowadays the need in a well-trained highly-qualified specialist who is able to speak a foreign language in his/her professional field for further education, actualizing his/her knowledge within a lifetime and exchanging his/her professional experience is evident to all. Secondly, due to the Bologna requirements university instruction should encourage students’ academic mobility, while Russian higher education ought to take the internationalization path. Thirdly, more and more university instructors consider content and language integration as an option to raise the efficiency of using a small number of class hours given to foreign language teaching as well as to make teaching special subjects more modern and up-to-date. Modelling content and language integration in higher schools is a challenge as there are many faces of content and language integrated learning and not every way of its implementation can successfully be incorporated into academic environment. Besides, the choice of the very specific model will allow to set the right context for content and language integration in the university as well as to facilitate the further planning process. The aim of this paper is to analyze the existing models of content and language integration, make a decision and ground the choice of the most suitable model for a non-linguistic university. To reach this goal the comparative analysis of all described in the literature models of content and language integration was conducted, then they were grouped into four categories, described in detail, further their key features, benefits and drawbacks for university usage were singled out. As a result, the author has made a thoughtful choice of the most suitable model of content and language integration for a non-linguistic university. In conclusion, the article states the possibility of using these results for further modelling and planning the integration of foreign language and subject disciplines in a non-linguistic university.