CC BY
42
ВОПРОСЫ ВОСПИТАНИЯ В СОВРЕМЕННОМ МИРЕ
УДК 378.147
Т. В. Бельская
Старший преподаватель, Российская академия народного хозяйства и государственной службы при Президенте РФ (ФГБОУ ВО РАНХиГС), г. Москва; аспирант Института образования Национального исследовательского университета «Высшая школа экономики»(НИУ ВШЭ), г. Москва E-Mail: tbelskaya@hse.ru
Tatyana V. Belskaya
Senior Lecturer, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration; Postgraduate Student, Doctoral School of Education, National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russia
TEAM TEACHING APPROACH TO ENGLISH MEDIUM INSTRUCTION
КОМАНДНОЕ ПРЕПОДАВАНИЕ АКАДЕМИЧЕСКИХ ДИСЦИПЛИН НА АНГЛИЙСКОМ ЯЗЫКЕ
Комментарии: Автор благодарит своего первого научного руководителя Канонир Татьяну Николаевну (PhD), а также коллег из Института образования ВШЭ: Терентьева Евгения Андреевича (PhD), Абдурахманову Элен Магомедовну, Дремову Оксану Викторовну, Кондратьева Владимира Владимировича, Михайлову Александру Михайловну и Угланову Ирину Львовну — за поддержку, конструктивную критику и помощь в переработке статьи.
Over the past few decades the internationalization process has resulted in Englishization of higher education curricula and the proliferation of English Medium Instruction (EMI) which, despite a myriad of implementation challenges at the classroom level and its 'elusive' nature, has firmly established itself in numerous national contexts worldwide, including Russia. Nonetheless, lack of explicitly articulated language objectives in the definition of EMI and the reluctance, or rather mere inability, of content teachers to be language teachers may adversely affect students' subject matter learning. Having conducted state-of-the-art literature review of the phenomenon, the author of the article seeks to address this contradiction by exploring the latest conceptual and pedagogical approaches in order to inform EMI implementation praxis in this country and collaboratively reconsider the
Как цитировать статью: Бельская Т. В. Team teaching approach to english medium instruction. Командное преподавание академических дисциплин на английском языке // Отечественная и зарубежная педагогика. 2020. Т. 1, № 6 (72). С. 182-196.
way forward. To this end, the article starts with an overview of the key drivers, challenges and EMI implementation models. A separate section is devoted to comparing and contrasting English Medium Instruction (EMI) and Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) to substantiate an argument that EMI can be viewed as an extension or a special case of CLIL and thus benefit from a recent scholarship on pedagogical approaches devised for CLIL. Consequently, the most recent CLIL pedagogical approaches are surveyed and, finally, the focus shifts to a possible alternative solution — team teaching — which has been endorsed by a host of EMI researchers lately. The article invites all stakeholders — policy-makers, university administrators, international program directors, curriculum developers and EMI practitioners — to ponder on wider contextual questions such as: What in essentia is EMI? Is EMI that different from CLIL? What theory and pedagogies can guide its propitious implementation? What are the main foci and who are the potential allies in the EMI teaching/learning process? How can content and language integration be achieved in an EMI setting given the above-mentioned constraints?
Keywords: EMI/CLIL, content and language integration, counterbalanced approach, cognitive discourse functions, pluriliteracies, team teaching, Russian tertiary education.
За последние несколько десятилетий процесс интернационализации привел к англификации программ высшего образования и распространению нового феномена — английский язык как средство обучения (English Medium Instruction, или EMI). Несмотря на многочисленные вызовы, возникающие при внедрении таких программ, и концептуальную неопределенность в отношении самого феномена, английский язык как средство обучения прочно утвердился во многих национальных контекстах по всему миру, включая Россию. Однако отсутствие в определении феномена открыто сформулированных целей в отношении изучения языка, нежелании или, скорее, неспособности преподавателей предметов быть одновременно и преподавателями содержания, и преподавателями языка, а также отсутствие применимой к данному феномену методологии и разработанных и апробированных методик обучения могут негативно влиять на качество освоения студентами дисциплин на английском языке. Статья написана на основе проведенного обзора последних исследований в попытке разрешения вышеизложенных противоречий путем анализа существующих концептуальных и педагогических подходов, а также для ознакомления и дальнейшего обсуждения возможных способов реализации этого феномена в российском контексте. В статье представлен обзор основных движущих сил, вызовов и предлагаемых моделей внедрения; проведен сравнительно-сопоставительный анализ английского языка как средства обучения (EMI) и предметно-языкового интегрированного обуче-
ния (CLIL); приведены аргументы в пользу рассмотрения EMI в качестве частного случая CLIL и, таким образом, обосновано применение разработанных и апробированных для CLIL педагогических методик; наконец, предложен альтернативный подход к преподаванию на англоязычных дисциплинах — командное обучение. Статья приглашает все заинтересованные стороны — директоров и разработчиков англоязычных программ, методистов и, конечно же, преподавателей — к дискуссии по более широким контекстуальным вопросам, а именно: Что, по сути, представляет собой феномен английский как средство обучения? Чем он отличается от предметно-языкового интегрированного обучения? На что делать упор и из чего состоит развивающее предметно-языковое интегрированное преподавание / обучение?
Ключевые слова: английский как средство обучения, предметно-языковое интегрированное обучение, когнитивные дискурсивные функции, плюриграмотность, командное преподавание, англоязычные программы российского высшего образования.
Introduction
Impacted by various drivers at different levels — the globalization and a consequent internationalization of higher education, the harmonization of the EU educational space, the Bologna process and the ensuing rise in teacher/ student mobility [4; 11; 23; 24] — the tertiary system worldwide has witnessed the advent of a new phenomenon — English Medium Instruction (EMI). Having been dubbed 'galloping', 'rapidly-growing', 'burgeoning', 'a high-speed train', 'pandemic' and a 'here-to-stay' phenomenon, it has recently been propelled to the center stage of research on content learning through second language and of a wider discussion on the efficacy of tertiary education internationalization and has particularly impacted the field of applied linguistics. Despite the commensurate surge of international studies, which nonetheless cannot keep up with a rapid evolution of the field, there is a dearth of quality research on the issue, lack of consensus among researchers on implementation methodology and conceptual framework, and hence a myriad of implementation challenges at the classroom level [28]. Even the very definition of EMI is still a subject of debate and controversy.
Defined as 'the use of the English language to teach academic subjects (other than English itself) in countries or jurisdictions where the first language of the majority of the population is not English' [17], the term is usually applied to tertiary education settings and is sometimes suggested as an umbrella term [8; 18] for teaching subjects through English in various national contexts. Since
the current definition implies that the overwhelming majority of students and teachers partaking in such courses are non-native speakers of English and since this definition does not contain explicit language goals, it is no wonder that the discussion about the role and impact of the language on content instruction is particularly pertinent.
Indeed, studying in academic English at a higher education institution is a daunting task even for native speakers of English. As one researcher has insightfully pointed out, 'academic English is no one's first language' [13, p. 1]. In an EMI context the situation is further exacerbated since most participants may lack sufficient language proficiency [8; 22] and/or have heterogeneous language proficiency [5; 15] compelling many researchers to express a concern about the adverse effects of learning content through the medium of English [8; 22; 29] and to call for the deployment of language support and language-sensitive pedagogies. In spite of these concerns, most EMI subject teachers do not view themselves as language teachers [7, 18], are not trained to address language issues [6; 14] and often resort to teacher-fronted (input-oriented) learning environments [22] that impede student interaction, language development and deep learning.
Russia's higher education system is no stranger to EMI. Driven by the accession to the Bologna process in 2003 and the launch of 5-100 Project in 2012, many universities throughout this country have embarked on the path of offering English-mediated courses and even degrees. Notwithstanding a relatively few studies of the phenomenon in the Russian context, the conclusions and findings produced by Russian researchers are congruent with the identified above issues and concerns [1; 2; 21].
Aforesaid, this paper seeks to address the following research question — how to deliver subject content through a foreign language without the detriment to content knowledge in a setting, where some or most of the participants lack requisite English proficiency, and with the help of subject specialists who do not view themselves as language teachers? To this end, the state-of-the-art literature review was conducted in order to (1) present various current conceptualization models for implementing EMI; (2) compare and contrast EMI and CLIL in the quest of identifying relevant pedagogical approaches; and (3) discuss an interdisciplinary team teaching approach as a possible solution to the EMI conundrum.
Implementation models (Conceptualization)
Acknowledging the urgent needs to inform EMI praxis and 'to identify prevalent instructional types', a growing body of research has sought to conceptualize the phenomenon. For instance, Schmidt-Unterberger synthesized 'a timely conceptualization of the varieties of English-medium teaching' [36, p. 52] entitled 'the English-medium Paradigm' and depicted it graphically (Figure 1). She distinguishes between five distinct forms of English-medium teaching depending on the extent of language learning integration. As the term implies, Pre-sessional ESP (English for Specific Purposes) / EAP (English for Academic Purposes) denotes courses which precede an EMI course and involve language specialists deploying ESP teaching methodology to prepare students for subject-matter studies. Both Embedded ESP/EAP and Adjunct ESP run concurrently with an EMI course and are geared towards equipping students with requisite language skills and knowledge of genres. EMI stands for a subject delivery mode without an explicit language focus, and finally ICLHE (Integrating Content and Language in Higher Education) is a complete inCegraXonofiangxtgeundcnntentlosrxtnu uajectives that presupposes 'the intense involvement of language specialists in both curriculum design and programme delivery', a metaphorical 'dovetailing' [36, p. 534-535].
Figure 1. The English-medium Paradigm
Note: Reprinted with the author's permission from "The English-medium paradigm: a conceptualisation of English-medium teaching in higher educa-tion"[36].
The second framework is provided by Macaro [29] and is a comprehensive account ofdiverseEMIimplementationmodels based on his extensivere-search into various national contexts. He draws a clear distinction between five models. The SelectionModelimplies well-definedEnglishproficiencyentry requirements, which, in his view, does not necessarily guarantee EMI course
success and may lead to 'elitism and divisiveness' in education. The Preparatory Year Model serves as a bridge between secondary and higher education and is supposed to familiarize students with requisite vocabulary and genres. The effectiveness of the Concurrent Support Model is highly contingent on good understanding of students' linguistic needs by both content and language specialists. The Multilingual Model (or code-switching) is resorted to in order to alleviate content comprehension problems and may be quite controversial in the presence of international students in the classroom. Finally, the Ostrich Model ignores the EMI-related issues altogether.
EMI versus CLIL
The overarching question that Macaro poses is the extent to which EMI resembles Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) [29]. In fact, EMI is often used interchangeably with CLIL despite some distinctions. Firstly, EMI mostly refers to tertiary contexts, while CLIL is implemented at all levels. Secondly, unlike EMI, CLIL environments are not limited to the use of English only (though recent trends point to the overwhelming preponderance of the English language). Thirdly, students entering EMI classrooms are expected to possess a minimally requisite proficiency level — B2 in Spain [14], for example, or the National University Entrance Examination in China [22]. As a result, the fourth difference is that EMI materials are customarily authentic (taken unchanged from the original source). On the other hand, since there are no language entry requirements in CLIL, the materials are usually adapted and pared down. Finally, the most crucial distinction relates to the stated goals — CLIL is 'a dual-focused educational approach in which an additional language is used for the learning and teaching of both content and language' [12, p. 1], while EMI's definition does not contain overt language goals and, as indicated earlier, EMI academics pay little attention to students' language development.
From the comparison it emanates that CLIL is a more encompassing term with distinctions pertaining to the educational stage, the extent of materials adaptation and entry level language requirements. Hence, EMI may be viewed as a special case of CLIL as it particularly resembles 'hard CLIL' (content-driven versus language-driven objectives). A similar stance was articulated by Airey, who argued that 'it is a fallacy to think that content and language can be separated' [3, p. 73]. Should we posit the conceptual congruence of CLIL and EMI, this refined conceptualization may open up new avenues for enriching EMI praxis by tapping into an accumulated scholarship of pedagogical approaches developed for CLIL.
EMI/CLIL pedagogical approaches
Three approaches that are currently gaining momentum in CLIL are of particular relevance to an EMI context. They are the counterbalanced approached devised by Lyster [26], cognitive discourse functions proposed by Dalton-Puffer [16] and Pluriliteracies Teaching for Learning (PTL) approach developed by the Graz group [31].
The Counterbalanced Approach
Informed by an extensive research on various immersion programs in Canada as well as grounded in socio-cognitive and social-constructivist views of education, the counterbalanced approach provides insights on how to realize the full potential of content-based classrooms. It places a special emphasis on learning through interaction and advocates systematic 'integration of content-based and form-focused instructional options to develop learners' interlanguage system' [26, p.23]. According to Lyster, proactive form-focused instruction entails pre-planned activities to foreground target language features through noticing, awareness and opportunities for practice, where noticing and awareness tasks constitute receptive practice to internalize the linguistic input, and controlled and communicative in purpose practice tasks are aimed at producing comprehensible output. On the other hand, a reactive form-focused approach signifies providing corrective feedback 'in response to students' production during teacher-student interaction' [26, p. 47]. Subject specialists are urged to employ various questioning techniques with less emphasis on facts, but rather on providing students with opportunities 'to explain, define and give reasons' [26, p. 92]. Meanwhile, disparate feedback forms encompass recasts ('a reformulation of the learner's utterance minus the error(s)') 'to enable learners to participate in interaction about subject matter that requires linguistic abilities exceeding their current development level' [26, p. 96], and recasts and repetitions to confirm/disconfirm meaning and form. Another effective form of feedback is prompts which can range from clarification requests to metalinguistic clues and elicitation. Their significance lies in the fact that they trigger self-repair, which 'arguably requires a deeper level of processing than repetition of a teacher's recast' [26, p. 118]. It is worthwhile to note that recasts are preferable when students interact about unfamiliar content, whereas prompts are advisable in the situations with familiar content and, in general, prompts are preferred over recasts. Finally, Lyster concludes that 'content-based and form-focused instruction are expected to interact with one another in dialectical fashion and in complementary ways' [26, p. 134].
Cognitive Discourse Functions
Ar^c^tl^a^i' ^¡^j^n^fii^i^iatandjp^r^i^l^icalc^ontr^liu^i^oii to content-and-language integra^iedp^^c^i^g^o is theconsdruct ofcognitive disco urse functionsCCDFs) whicCt in proposed by DaCCon-Oufferandsuggested es azone ofcOTvergence between content and language' [16, p. 216]. The researcher identified two main prioritien m ranteM-andi!angua0' mtegration at the cmp^iamoatot;wn level, namrfy ll to convinee siibjeclt ^^achers to share lanouapo deedopment respc^niibil^t^ir with lanouage -peciatictr and t) to cnrich language -owere pedago^e sine e attention ia kuguare ii largely reseevsd to lexicoi matters [16, p. 219]. To this end, she proposes the transdisciplinary construct of CDFs that servtsas the dearesc prrxyforularsroom mtrcaction, tpedfipally, uvolcs servabia c^oonit^a^e (Shoupht( p-acosses nnrl pron-dec 'sparkem with tcOameta (discoursa^ jix^! ant grammatical) for ctping with cIзnnard lituatlanr in dealing with the task of building knowledge and making it intersubjectively accessible' [16, p. 231]. These functions are grouped around communicative intention; (pliaserefer totaMe Cbttow)and'raortccnt: tiiroofieetioa ence [)l^,]i.230] efIubjectexpepfs ond enpcatorswhobeiong toa disconrceeommuntiy. Aecoedinc to DaitoniPuffer, they ore Oeth nr^^a^e rad public thoughts, which establish 'inter-subjectivity in the classroom, making knowledge eecessMe so tiarI ir aan be internalized' [ t.<j>, 1]. Un]ike Bloams taxonomy, thoy rnr nai dttplayed in^O^^^rarchical order.
Table 1. ListocrfCDF ray]rar ondUntlenlpme CommunIattiva hetentions
Function Type Communicative Intention Labet
Type 1 1 tell you how we can cm op the world according to certain Ideas CLASSIFY
Type 2 1 tell you about the extension of this object of specialist knowledge Define
Type3 1 tell you details of what can be seen (also metaphorically) Discs)*»
Type ü 1 tell you what my position is vis a vis X Evaluate
Type 5 1 give you reasons for and tell you cause/s ofX Explain
Type 6 1 tell you something that is potential Explore
Type 7 1 tell you about sth. external to our immediate context on which 1 have a legitimate knowledge claim Rfcpoer
Note. Reprinted with the author's permission from "A construct of cognitive discourse functions for conceptualizing content-language integration in CLIL and multilingual education" [16].
Morton takes a practical stance of CDFs and suggests guidelines to 'inform CLIL practice at the levels of curriculum development, materials design, classroom teaching andcesessment' [33, p. 7].He expandsthe notion of CLOL to include subject literacy which is in line with a proposition of disciplinary literacy put forward earlier by Airey [3]. Morton likens CDFs to 'a bridge between contentlearning objertfvFe, ikeenecifintyFes of communication (literacies) associated with academic subjects, and the language used to express knowledge and thinking' [33, p. 8], which is graphically represented in Figure 2 below:
Figuee 2. The ralatinnsfrps between content, literacy and language (adapted from Cammarata & Cavanagh, 2018) [9]
Note. Reprintedwiththe author'spermission from "CognitiveDiscourse Functions:ABridgebetweenContent,Literacyand LanguageforTeaching andAssessmentinCLIL" [33].
PreciselybecauseCDFsareexpressed asverbs,theycanbeeasilyconverted into expected learning outcomes with regards to content learning objectives, designingrelevant tasksand linkingthem with morefocused assessmentas a result.Clearlystated learningoutcomescoupledwithexplicitlyarticulated tasks (both expressed in terms of CDFs) can guide an EMI/CLIL practitioner in elaborating and equipping students with discipline-specific language of, for and through learning.
Pluriliteracies Approach It is this complex interplay of cognitive discourse functions and pluriliteracies ('literacy skills in more than one language', [33]) that are at the heart of Pluriliteracies Approach to Teaching for Learning devised by a group of international experts (The Graz Group) and aimed at bridging 'internal processes of knowledge construction with external processes of communicating that knowledge in appropriate ways through corresponding genres' [30].
Figure 3. Revised Model of Pluriliteracies Teaching for Learning
D EM ON STB AT I MG & COMMUNICATING UNDERSTANDING
ACTIVATING PRIOR KNOWLEDGE, CONCEPTUALISING £ REFINING SKILLS
Note. Reprintedwiththe author'spermissionfrom "BeyondCLIL: Fostering Student and Teacher Engagement for Personal Growth andDeeper Learning" [31].
These experts posit that language mediates conceptual development, on the one hand, and makes understanding and thinking visible, on the other. Pedagogical interventionsand scaffoldingreconfigure students' conceptual structures and aid in internalization of conceptual knowledge, while ample practice opportunities throughcontrolled and communicative practices result in automatization of subject-specific procedures, skills and strategies. This model expands the traditional notion of literacies, underscoring the fact
that progression in literacies is a 'non-linear' and 'complex product of many interrelated components and factors' [30, p. 218]. As evidenced by Figure 3 below, the model has been revised to recognize the social nature of learning and, consequently, 'to incorporate aspects such as learner engagement and its impact on task performance, academic self-efficacy as well as personal beliefs and values' [31, p. 282]. The findings of a recent mixed-method study conducted by Thompson et al. [38] at a Japanese university affirmed the importance of self-efficacy and demonstrated that self-efficacy is a direct and statistically significant predictor of EMI success.
Discussion and Conclusion
The article presented an overview of the main implementation models and pedagogical approaches to address content and language integration and the key EMI challenge — how to improve teaching/learning experience in an EMI setting given inadequate/heterogeneous proficiency of students, insufficiently trained subject specialists and absent a consensus on methodology and pedagogical guidelines. The juxtaposition of the two recent implementation frameworks (conceptualizations) presented above, namely the English Medium Paradigm and the model outlined in Macaro's monograph [29], reveals a host of similarities between them. The Preparatory Year Model is akin to Pre-sessional ESP/EAP, whereas the Concurrent Support Model resembles Embedded ESP/EAP and Adjunct ESP. The research conducted in the Turkish [27] and the Chinese contexts [22] demonstrated that the effectiveness of the Preparatory and Pre-sessional model is questionable, whereas the Concurrent language support, provided that it is tailored and targeted, was shown to be beneficial for both effective content acquisition and the enhancement of learner self-efficacy at a Japanese university [38]. With the exception of the Selection model (which establishes the English proficiency threshold to be enrolled in an EMI course) and the Multilingual model (which entails code-switching in the classroom to ensure content comprehension), the correspondence between the two models points to the 'meeting of minds' of university and program administrators regarding the need to provide language support to students. The good news is that acting on their reflective practice some subject teachers are starting to incorporate linguistic activities into their teaching practices. For instance, Doiz et al. report that all subject lectures surveyed as part of their study acknowledge the linguistic aspect of the teaching/learning process to be an imperative, partially attribute their unwillingness to teach language to
being unqualified in the language domain and 'generally judge the possibility of collaboration as a promising initiative that could help students perform much better in the classroom, specifically in the development of academic literacies' [20, p. 171].
In fact, team teaching, a cooperation between subject and language teaching experts who willingly work together to plan learning outcomes, develop methods and assessment and to jointly deliver the course, has been endorsed lately by a number of researchers as an alternative collaborative format to organize language support to students [3; 6; 25; 28; 29; 35]. English for Specific Purposes (ESP) and language teaching professionals can potentially play a pivotal role in these collaborative alliances by creating win-win situations for all participants. Conversely and very unfortunately, they are often viewed as inferior or 'marginalized' to subject instructors 'because language teaching and literacy are "not matters of intellectual interest in most academic departments" [37, p. 143]. It is particularly disheartening because ESP and language teaching specialists have so much to offer to the alliance. They can definitely alleviate speaking anxiety by helping students with speaking strategies and constructive feedback, their suggestions on writing assignments and familiarity with genres can improve the quality of students' written work and contribute to the advancement of academic literacy skills. Students will also gain by participating and practicing 'in real discourse communities' [37, p. 145], which may increase their motivation and understanding. Being more sensitive to students' language needs, English language instructors may advise content teachers on the pace of the activities, which ultimately contributes to the depth, rather than breadth of the acquired knowledge. Finally, Dearden notes that subject teachers themselves often need help with the language [19]. On the other hand, for a language teaching expert the participation in such an alliance can open new possibilities for professional development, unleash their creativity and empower their work [37]. In a nutshell, a team teaching approach can inform and tremendously enrich EMI teaching and learning praxis in several ways: firstly, just borrowing a few techniques from an SLA (Second Language Acquisition)/ESP repertoire can improve student comprehension and diversify an EMI session; secondly, EMI practitioners may tap into the communicative approach and interactive pedagogy to significantly improve the delivery method and academic language retention; thirdly, if planned and executed well, team teaching may potentially resolve some language-related issues inherent in EMI.
EMI is still an evolving concept, which is open for discussions about guiding theories and the applicable pedagogy. Thus, a number of EMI/CLIL scholars have endorsed Halliday's systemic functional linguistics perspective acknowledging that it is a fallacy to disintegrate content and language teaching [3]. Cammarata & Haley, for instance, posit that 'academic language, thinking processes, and academic literacy are intricately connected and thus should not be considered in isolation' [10, p. 334] and cite the biggest issue of the Canadian immersion programs — 'the creation and implementation of well-balanced programs, where both content and language instruction are targeted simultaneously' [10, p. 333]. In the same vein, Pecorari and Malmstrom point to the paradox that EMI is 'neither understood nor practiced primarily as an approach to language learning' [35, p. 509], which they attribute to a lack of 'critical scrutiny' of the phenomenon. They go further by suggesting an alternative definition of EMI — the one that 'involves an educational setting in which language learning objectives are in symbiosis rather than in tension with subject content objectives [...]' [35, p. 511]. On the other hand, Block & Moncada-Comas caution not to 'draw on a naive theory of language learning.. .that the mere fact of sitting in classrooms in which content is taught in English will lead to the learning of English' [7, p. 3], what they dubbed CLILised EMI [32].
It is quite evident that the EMI fabric is intricately interwoven with various domain threads such as pedagogy, cognitive and applied linguistics, psychology and education. Future research, as outlined by Nikula et al., requires a combination of approaches 'complementing linguistically- and socioculturally-oriented analyses of classroom discourse with ethnographically-oriented approaches that would help highlight both the participants' emic understanding of CLIL as well as reveal the whole ecology of CLIL. and prevalent discourses around language and education that impact on classroom realities' [34, p. 92].
Литература / References
1. Соловова Е. Н., Козлова З. А. Глобальный феномен EMI — английский язык как средство обучения // Вестник ВГУ 2017. № 4. С. 144-149.
2. Халяпина, Л.П., Шостак, Е. В. Плюрилингвальный и транслингвальный подходы как новые тенденции в теории интегрированного обучения иностранным языкам и профессиональным дисциплинам студентов технических вузов // Вестник ПНИПУ. Проблемы языкознания и педагогики. 2019. № 2. С. 119-130. DOI: 10.15593/2224-9389/2019.2.11.
3. Airey J. EAP, EMI or CLIL? // The Routledge Handbook of English for Academic Purposes / K. Hyland, P. Shaw (eds.). London: Routledge, 2016. P. 71-83. DOI: 10.4324/9781315657455.
4. Altbach P. G., Knight J. The internationalization of higher education: Motivations and realities // Journal of Studies in International Education. 2007. Vol. 11, No. 3-4. P. 290-305. DOI:
10.1177/1028315307303542.
5. Ball P., Lindsay D. Language Demands and Support for English-Medium Instruction in Tertiary Education. Learning from a Specific Context // English-medium instruction at universities: Global challenges / Doiz A., Lasagabaster D., Manuel Sierra J. (eds.). Bristol / Buffalo / Toronto: Multilingual Matters, 2013. P. 44-61. DOI: 10.21832/9781847698162-007.
6. Banks M. Exploring EMI lecturers' attitudes and needs. LSP in Multi-disciplinary contexts of Teaching and Research: Papers from the 16th International AELFE Conference. 2018. Vol. 3. P. 19-26 / Curado A. (ed.) [Электронный ресурс]. URL: https://easychair.org/publications/open/k9B5 (дата обращения: 27.10.2020).
7. Block D., Moncada-Comas B. English-medium instruction in higher education and the ELT gaze: STEM lecturers' self-positioning as NOT English language teachers // International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. 2019. DOI: 10.1080/13670050.2019.1689917.
8. Briggs J., Dearden J., Macaro E. English medium instruction: Comparing teacher beliefs in secondary and tertiary education // Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching. 2018. Vol. 8, No. 3. DOI: 10.14746/ssllt.2018.8.3.7.
9. Cammarata L., Cavanagh M. In search of immersion teacher educators' knowledge base: Exploring their readiness to foster an integrated approach to teaching // Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education. 2018. Vol. 6, No. 2. P. 189-217. DOI: 10.1075/jicb.18009.cam.
10. Cammarata L., Haley C. Integrated content, language, and literacy instruction in a Canadian French immersion context: a professional development journey // International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. 2018. Vol. 21, No. 3. P. 332-348. DOI: 10.1080/13670050.2017.1386617.
11. Coleman J. A. English-medium teaching in European higher education // Language Teaching. 2006. Vol. 39, No. 1. P. 1-14. DOI: 10.1017/S026144480600320X.
12. Coyle D., Hood P., Marsh D. CLIL: Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2010. 184 p.
13. Culp L. A. Academic English is no one's first language: A multidisciplinary approach to teaching writing. Ph. D. Diss. University of Arizona, 1999 [Электронный ресурс]. URL: https://repository. arizona.edu/bitstream/handle/10150/288964/ azu_td_9927467_sip1_m.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y (дата обращения: 06.11.2020).
14. Dafouz E., Camacho M., Urquía E. 'Surely they can't do as well': a comparison of business students' academic performance in English-medium and Spanish-as-first-language-medium programmes // Language and Education. 2014. Vol. 28, No. 3. P. 223-236. DOI: 10.1080/09500782.2013.808661.
15. Dafouz E. English-medium instruction in multilingual university settings — An opportunity for developing language awareness // The Routledge handbook of language awareness (1st edition) / Garrett P., Cots J. M. (eds.). Abingdon, UK: Routledge, 2018. P. 170-185. DOI: 10.4324/9781315676494-11.
16. Dalton-Puffer C. A construct of cognitive discourse functions for conceptualizing content-language integration in CLIL and multilingual education // European Journal of Applied Linguistics. 2013. Vol. 1, No. 2. P. 216-253. DOI: 10.1515/eujal-2013-0011.
17. Dearden J. English as a medium of instruction-a growing global phenomenon: Phase 1. London: British Council, 2014 [Электронный ресурс]. URL: https://www.britishcouncil.es/sites/default/ files/ british_council _english_as_a_medium_of_instruction.pdf (дата обращения: 27.10.2020).
18. Dearden J., Macaro E. Higher education teachers' attitudes towards English medium instruction: a three-country comparison // Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching. 2016. Vol. 6, No. 3. P. 455-486. DOI: 10.14746/sllt.2016.6.3.5.
19. Dearden J. The Changing Roles of EMI Academics and English Language Specialists // Key Issues in English for Specific Purposes in Higher Education / Kirkgoz Y., Dikilitaç K. (eds.). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, 2018. P. 323-338. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-70214-8_18.
20. Doiz A., Lasagabaster D., Pavón V. The integration of language and content in English-medium instruction courses: Lecturers' beliefs and practices // Ibérica. 2019. Vol. 38. P. 151-176.
21. Frumina E., West R. Internationalisation of Russian Higher Education: The English Language Dimension // British Council, Moscow, 2012 [Электронный ресурс]. URL: https://www.britishcoun-cil.ru/sites/default/files/internationalisation_of_russian_higher_education.pdf (дата обращения: 06.11.2020).
22. Hu Guangwei. English medium instruction in higher education: Lessons from China // The Journal of Asia TEFL. 2019. Vol. 16, No. 1. P. 1-11. DOI: 10.18823/asiatefl.2019.16.1.1.1.
23. Hultgren A., Jensen C., Dimova S. English-medium instruction in European higher education: from the north to the south // English-medium instruction in European Higher education / Dimova S., Hultgren A., Jensen C. (eds.). Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton, 2015. P. 1-18. DOI: 10.1515/9781614515272.
24. Knight J. The changing landscape of higher education internationalization — for better or worse? // Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher Education. 2013. Vol. 17, No. 3. P. 84-90. DOI: 10.1080/13603108.2012.753957.
25. Lasagabaster D. Fostering team teaching: Mapping out a research agenda for English-medium instruction at university level // Language Teaching. 2018. Vol. 51, No. 3. P. 400-416. DOI: 10.1017/ S0261444818000113.
26. Lyster R. Learning and teaching languages through content: a counterbalanced approach. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamin's, 2007. 172 p. DOI: 10.1075/lllt.18.
27. Macaro E., Akincioglu M., Dearden J. English Medium Instruction in universities: A collaborative experiment in Turkey // Studies in English Language Teaching. 2016. Vol. 4, No. 1. P. 51-76. DOI: 10.22158/selt.v4n1p51.
28. Macaro E., Curle S., Pun J., et al. A Systematic Review of English Medium Instruction in higher education // Language Teaching. 2018. Vol. 51, No. 1. P. 36-76. DOI: 10.1017/S0261444817000350.
29. Macaro E. English Medium Instruction: Content and language in policy and practice. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2018. 336 p.
30. Meyer O., Coyle D. Pluriliteracies Teaching for Learning: conceptualizing progression for deeper learning in literacies development // European Journal of Applied Linguistics. 2017. Vol. 5, No. 2. P. 199222. DOI: 10.1515/eujal-2017-0006.
31. Meyer O., Coyle D., Imhof M., et al. Beyond CLIL: Fostering Student and Teacher Engagement for Personal Growth and Deeper Learning // Emotions in Second Language Teaching / Martinez Agudo J. (ed.). Springer, 2018. P. 277-297. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-75438-3_16.
32. Moncada-Comas B., Block D. CLIL-ised EMI in practice: issues arising // The Language Learning Journal. 2019. DOI: 10.1080/09571736.2019.1660704.
33. Morton T. Cognitive Discourse Functions: A Bridge between Content, Literacy and Language for Teaching and Assessment in CLIL // CLIL Journal of Innovation and Research in Plurilingual and Pluricultural Education. 2020. Vol. 3, No. 1. P. 7-17. DOI: 10.5565/rev/clil.33.
34. Nikula T., Dalton-Puffer C., Llinares A. CLIL classroom discourse: Research from Europe // Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education. 2013. Vol. 1, No. 1. P. 70-100. DOI: 10.1075/jicb.1.1.04nik.
35. Pecorari D., Malmström H. At the Crossroads of TESOL and English Medium Instruction // TESOL Quarterly. 2018. Vol. 52. P. 497-515. DOI: 10.1002/tesq.470.
36. Schmidt-Unterberger B. The English-medium paradigm: a conceptualisation of English-medium teaching in higher education // International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. 2018. Vol. 21, No. 5. P. 527-539. DOI: 10.1080/13670050.2018.1491949.
37. Stewart T. Expanding Possibilities for ESP Practitioners Through Interdisciplinary Team Teaching // Key Issues in English for Specific Purposes in Higher Education / Kirkgoz Y., Dikilita? K. (eds.). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, 2018. P. 141-156. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-70214-8_18.
38. Thompson G., Aizawa I., Curle S., Rose H. Exploring the role of self-efficacy beliefs and learner success in English medium instruction // International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. 2019. DOI: 10.1080/13670050.2019.1651819.
