CLIL methodology in teaching english to law students
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32782/2617-3921.2023.24.376-384Keywords:
CLIL, learners, soft CLIL model, hard CLIL model, the English language.Abstract
The article presents the experience of implementing elements of the CLIL methodology in the educational process of students of law specialties. Approaches to the definition of this methodology in scientific literature are highlighted (teaching methodology, the core of which is special professional knowledge; a teaching approach and a pedagogical tool that create a connection between the content of learning and language without the usage of the other language; a teaching method that connects learning foreign language with the study of subject knowledge in the form of a project or case). The conditions for the effective implementation of CLIL are determined (clear formulation of tasks by the teacher, definition of the purpose of the educational activity and the tools of its implementation; visualization, demonstrations, presentations, conducting experiments, etc. when teaching new educational material, based on the principle from simple to more complex and relying on the knowledge students already have; provision of constant feedback with students, which allows the teacher to monitor the success, analyze errors and direct further educational activities of students, etc.). The main components of this methodology are analyzed and the role of each of them is determined (1C – content, which is aimed at mastering professional knowledge; 2C – communication, which focuses on the development of students' fluency in a foreign language. Moreover, communication also means working with texts and developing writing skills . 3C – cognition, aimed at developing cognitive skills of learners, which can be conditionally divided into higher order thinking skills and lower order thinking skills; 4C – culture, which is presented at the macro and micro levels). The main models of this methodology (hard and soft CLIL) are defined and the features of each of them are presented. The experience of working with CLIL methods with students of law specialties is highlighted.
References
Ball P., Kelly K., Clegg J. Putting CLIL in Practice. ELT Journal. 2018. Vol. 72, Issue 1. P. 109–111.
Ball, P. Defining CLIL parameters. URL https://www.onestopenglish.com/clil/article-defining-clil-parameters/550513.article
Chadwick T. Language Awareness in Teaching. A Toolkit for Content and Language Teachers. Cambridge University Press. 2012. 17 p.
Coyle, D., Hood, P., Marsh, D. Content and Language Integrated Learning. 2010. NY: Cambridge Univ. Press. URL https://formacion.intef.es/pluginfile.php/214299/mod_imscp/content/1/2013000000658.pdf
Lightbown P.M. Learning English as a second language in a special school in Quebec. Canadian Modern Language Review. 1997. № 53. P. 315–355.
Long M. Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective. 1991. P. 39–52.
Lorenzo F., Moore L. An analytical framework of language integration in
L2 content-based courses: the European dimension. Language and Education 21.
№ 6. P. 502–514.
Marsh D., Nikula T. Terminological Considerations regarding Content and Language Integrated Learning. Bulletin Suisse de Linguistique Appliquee, Neuchata. 1998. № 1. P. 13–18.
Mehisto, P., Marsh, D. and Frigols, M. J. Uncovering CLIL. Content and Language Integrated Learning in Bilingual and Multilingual Education. Oxford: Macmillan Education. 2008. 238 р.
Naves T. Effective Content and Language Integrated Learning Programmes. Content and Language Integrated Learning . Evidence from Research in Europe. Bristol, 2009. 251 p.
