Technology of Integrated Foreign Language Teaching at University
Marina Georgiyevna Sergeeva1, Vladimir Vladimirovich Zotov2, Tatyana Yuryevna Tsibizova3, Irina Zosimovna Skovorodkina4, Alexander Grigorievich Tereshchenko5

1Marina Georgiyevna Sergeeva*, Research Institute of the Federal Penitentiary Service of Russia, Moscow, Russia.
2Vladimir Vladimirovich Zotov, Kosygin State University of Russia, Moscow, Russia.
3Tatyana Yuryevna Tsibizova, Bauman Moscow State Technical University, Moscow, Russia.
4Irina Zosimovna Skovorodkina, Academy of Social Management, Moscow, Russia.
5Alexander Grigorievich Tereshchenko, Zhukovsky – Gagarin Air Force Academy, Voronezh, Russia.
Manuscript received on July 20, 2019. | Revised Manuscript received on August 10, 2019. | Manuscript published on August 30, 2019. | PP: 4586-4592 | Volume-8 Issue-6, August 2019. | Retrieval Number: F8888088619/2019©BEIESP | DOI: 10.35940/ijeat.F8888.088619
Open Access | Ethics and Policies | Cite | Mendeley
© The Authors. Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering and Sciences Publication (BEIESP). This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (

Abstract: This article analyzes the procedural characteristics of three main approaches to teaching foreign languages at non-linguistic universities, including English for specific purposes prevailing in the professional language education of today’s Russia, communicative language teaching mostly used for teaching general English and content and language integrated learning gaining popularity in the existing academic environment. The study is relevant because available foreign articles on content and language integrated learning, as well as Russian scientific works on modeling content and language integrated environment at non-linguistic universities do not cover the implementation of the above-mentioned approach. The authors of the article believe that the absence of specific instructions and ready-made solutions for implementing a foreign language and its content in institutions of higher education hinders the introduction of this promising approach. Accordingly, the authors have set an objective to distinguish procedural characteristics of these three approaches (with emphasis on content and language integrated learning) and referred to specific examples to demonstrate similarities and differences in their implementation. To this end, the authors have selected certain subject and language content, thoroughly analyzed it and compiled procedural characteristics of lessons for each approach. To sum up, the authors analyze the results obtained and substantiate the existing similarities and differences in the implementation of the above-mentioned approaches. The authors conclude that this information can be useful for beginning teachers who want to upgrade traditional approaches of teaching a foreign language at universities to integrated learning since this article enables them to compare not only theoretical and methodological foundations of these methods but also ways of their implementation. In addition, teachers engaged in content and language integrated learning can use procedural characteristics for self-control and further professional development.
Keywords: CLIL, content and language integration, integration learning, non-linguistic university, procedural characteristic.