The effect of implementing CLIL on subject learning in the context of business English
Keywords:content, subject, specific, vocabulary, communicative competence, CLIL
This paper aims to outline the effect of implementing Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) approach in teaching Business English through task-based practice. This includes gap-filling exercises, words in context activities, reading comprehension of ESP texts, translation of specialized terms, and oral presentation rubric. Students were divided into a CLIL and a Non-CLIL group. The aim was to assess students’ speaking skills in terms of acquisition of subject-specific profession-related terms depending on the used approach. The obtained qualitative data revealed higher progress of the students in the CLIL group. The results support the importance of CLIL methodology as a relatively new and more effective approach for an overall improvement of language skills and more specifically for the development of communicative competence in terms of teaching Business English terminology and ESP as an important part of preparation for problem solving in real-life situations enhancing future career opportunities.
Ball, P., Kelly, K., & Clegg, J. (2015, January). PuttingCLIL into Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccx063.
Coyle, D. (2002). Relevance of CLIL to the European Commission’s language learning objectives. In D. Marsh (Ed.), CLIL/EMILE. The European dimension: Actions, trends and foresight potential. University ofJyväskylä, Finland, 27–28.
Coyle, D. (2008). CLIL—A pedagogical approach from the European perspective. Encyclopedia of language and education. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-30424-3_92
Coyle, D., Marsh, D., & Hood, P. (2010). CLIL : Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Eurydice. (2017). Eurydice [online]. Available from:https://eacea.ec.europa.eu/national-policies/eurydice/ [Accessed 21 December 2021].
Gabillon, Z. (2020). Revisiting CLIL: Background,Pedagogy, and Theoretical Underpinnings. Contexteset didactiques [Online], 15, 11 July [Accessed21 December 2021]. Available at: http://journals.openedition.org/ced/1836; https://doi.org/10.4000/ced.1836
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A Revision of Bloom‘sTaxonomy: An Overview. Theory Into Practice, 41:4, 212–218. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2.
Marsh, D. (2008). Language Awareness and CLIL. Encyclopedia of Language and Education. http://doi:10.1007/978-0-387-30424-3_152.
Mehisto, P., Marsh, D., & Frigols, J. M. (2008). Uncovering CLIL: Content and Language IntegratedLearning in bilingual and multilingual education. Oxford: Macmillan Publishing House.
Mossino, P. (2018). How to use CLIL methodology in adult learner classroom. European Commission. Blog. [online]. November 15. Available from:https://epale.ec.europa.eu/en/blog/how-use-clilmethodology-adult-learner-classroom [Accessed 21 December 2021].
Smit, U., & Dafiuz, E. (2012). Integrating content and language in higher education: An introduction to English-medium policies, conceptual issuesand research practices across Europe. AILAReview 25, 1–12. Available from: http://doi:10.1075/aila.25.01smi.