Abstract:

In non-English-speaking countries, university courses conducted in English are becoming increasingly common, for various reasons: to raise international profiles; improve university rankings; develop students’ language skills. SUPSI and USI (universities in the Italian-speaking region of Switzerland) are following this trend. In order to ensure quality standards (both content and language), universities must develop and support policies promoting CLIL-type teaching practices involving collaboration between content and language teachers.
At SUPSI, in the next academic year there will be two Business Administration Programmes: one will teach languages as a separate subject, while in the other, languages will be integrated into subject modules, delivered partly in English or German.

A number of concerns have been raised about this new format:
- Do the content teachers speak English well enough?
- Will sufficient resources be allocated?
- Will linguistically weaker students manage?
- How will students be assessed? Will the required content and language objectives be achieved?

The following measures have been proposed to address the first three issues:
- Content teachers will receive support in terms of language tutoring.
- Extra resources will be invested in the modules delivered in English. Language teachers will collaborate in the lesson preparation process, working with content teachers to identify key points, and how to present them. The Collaborative Planning tool proposed by Macaro et al (2016) will be used to facilitate this process.
- Modules delivered in English will begin in Semester II. Linguistically weaker students will attend language classes in Semester I.

Regarding assessment, procedures have not yet been formalised, but will involve assessment grids clearly separating the language and content components. Attainment levels however are still a point of discussion, but data (on hand, and collected during the academic year) will be used to evaluate and compare the linguistic progress made by the students in the two groups (traditional and languageintegrated formats), and the language levels achieved. It is hoped that this process will be useful in future course design and implementation activities.

The poster will include: Course design details / Statistics / Lesson Plans.

References:
[1] P. Ball, K. Kelly, & J. Clegg, Content and Language Putting CLIL into Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016.
C.N. Coonan, La metodologia task-based e CLIL, in Il futuro si chiama CLIL: una ricerca interregionale sull’insegnamento veicolare ( a cura di F. Ricci Garotti), Trento, IPRASE del Trentino.
[2] F. Costa, CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning) through English in Italian Higher Education. Milan: LED, 2016.
M. Gotti and C. Nickenig, Multilinguismo, CLIL e innovazione didattica. 7th AICLU conference, Brixen-Bressanone, 7–9 July 2011. Atti del convegno, a cura di. Bozen-Bolzano University Press, 2013.
[3] E. Macaro, M. Akincioglu, J. Dearden, English Medium Instruction in Universities: A Collaborative Experiment in Turkey, in: Studies in English Language Teaching, Vol.4, No.1. 2016. Retrieved from www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/selt
[4] D. Marsh, V. Vázquez, & M. Frigols Martin, The Higher Education Languages Landscape: Ensuring Quality in English Language Degree Programmes. Valencia: VIU, 2013.
[5] P. Mehisto, Excellence in Bilingual Education: A Guide for School Principals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012.

Keywords:

CLIL methodology, university, collaboration, language learning outcomes.