Soft CLIL in Electronics: Developing a Hybrid Unit for Practical Application
Main Article Content
Abstract
In higher education, integrating language development with technical instruction has become an increasingly important challenge, particularly in Algerian electronics education. Therefore, this paper demonstrates the development of a hybrid electronics learning unit for third-year students at El Oued University, designed according to the Integrated Content and Language (ICL) approach. More importantly, the unit focuses on the Analog-to-Digital Converter, aiming to establish a correlation between disciplinary knowledge and English language proficiency within a technological context. To achieve the objectives, the unit was structured using the 6Ts model, including Theme, Topic, Text, Task, Transition, and Thread. At the lesson level, activities were developed using the 5Es instructional framework, which involves: Engage, Explore, Explain, Elaborate, and Evaluate. Consequently, technical content and language objectives are aligned and mutually reinforced, thereby facilitating a holistic learning experience. In addition, the unit incorporates multimodal, scaffolded, and collaborative tasks, which enable students to engage with authentic technical discourse while simultaneously improving their English skills. In addition, the unit was used in a hybrid format, combining eighty percent campus-based instruction with twenty percent distance learning. This approach not only fosters learner autonomy but also accommodates different learning preferences and encourages positive interaction among students. Most importantly, the study emphasizes conceptual unit development rather than empirical implementation. As a result, it demonstrates how Soft CLIL principles can be adapted to the Algerian higher education context to advance language-enabling technical instruction. Furthermore, the study provides practical guidance for replicating English integration in technical units by highlighting the importance of teacher collaboration, purposeful task design, and longitudinal evaluation to ensure sustained learning outcomes. In conclusion, the proposed unit exemplifies how structured instructional frameworks, combined with hybrid delivery and scaffolded activities, can simultaneously support technical mastery and language development. Therefore, it offers a replicable model for bridging content and language in higher education and contributes to ongoing efforts to implement context-sensitive, language-enriched instruction in Algeria and comparable educational settings.
Metrics
Article Details
References
Anastasi, R., & Candia, C. (2014). Analog and digital communication systems. Springer.
Ball, P., Kelly, K., & Clegg, J. (2015). Integrating content and language: An introduction to CLIL. Cambridge University Press.
Banegas, D. L. (2019). Teacher professional development in language-driven CLIL: A case study. Latin American Journal of Content and Language Integrated Learning, 12(2), 242–264. https://doi.org/10.5294/laclil.2019.12.2.5
Bower, K., Coyle, D., Cross, R., & Chambers, G. N. (Eds.). (2020). Curriculum integrated language teaching: CLIL in practice. Cambridge University Press.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 0969595980050102
Bybee, R. W. (2014). The BSCS 5E instructional model: Creating teaching and learning environments to promote understanding. BSCS.
Coyle, D. (2021). Revisiting the 4Cs framework: CLIL as a catalyst for innovation. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 34(3), 249–263. https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2021.1906925
Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge University Press.
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2007). Discourse in content and language integrated learning (CLIL) classrooms. In C. Dalton-Puffer, T. Nikula, & U. Smit (Eds.), Diversity in CLIL: Language, culture and cognition (pp. 27–46). John Benjamins.
El Fathi, T., Saad, A., Larhzil, H., Lamri, D., & Al Ibrahmi, E. M. (2025). Integrating generative AI into STEM education: Enhancing conceptual understanding, addressing misconceptions, and assessing student acceptance. Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research, 7(6). https://doi.org/10.1186/s43031-025-00125-z
Hemmi, C., & Banegas, D. L. (Eds.). (2021). International perspectives on CLIL. Palgrave Macmillan.
Gibbons, P. (2002). Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning: Teaching second language learners in the mainstream classroom. Heinemann.
Jantassova, D., Churchill, D., Tentekbayeva, Z., & Aitbayeva, S. (2024). STEM language literacy learning in engineering education in Kazakhstan. Education Sciences, 14(12), Article 1352. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14121352
Lasagabaster, D. (2017). The impact of CLIL on students’ motivation. The Language Learning Journal, 45(2), 236–248. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 09571 736. 2016.1167883
Linares, A., Morton, T., & Whittaker, R. (2012). The roles of language in CLIL. Cambridge University Press.
Luelmo del Castillo, M. J., Izquierdo-Sánchez-Migallón, E., Vinuesa-Benítez, V., & García-Manzanares, N. (2025). Design and validation of a self-assessment tool for STE(A)M teachers in CLIL contexts. Journal of Technology and Science Education, 15(1), 186–203. https://doi.org/10.3926/jotse.2933
Marsh, D. (2002). CLIL/EMILE – The European dimension: Actions, trends and foresight potential. In D. Marsh & D. Coyle (Eds.), Language and content: Teaching, education and society in a multilingual context (pp. 2–4). Peter Lang.
Marsh, D. (2002). CLIL/EMI: The European language portfolio: A framework for the future. The Language Learning Journal, 26(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571730285200321
Martínez-Soto, T., & Prendes-Espinosa, P. (2023). A systematic review on the role of ICT and CLIL in compulsory education. Education Sciences, 13(1), 73. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13010073
Mehisto, P., Marsh, D., & Frigols, M. J. (2008). English language teaching in the content classroom: CLIL in practice. Cambridge University Press.
Andriichuk, T., Lazorenko, L., & Doronina, N. (2024). Content and language integrated learning (CLIL) in teaching IT students English for specific purposes (ESP). International Journal of Innovative Technologies in Social Science, 4(44), 12–19.
Pérez-Cañado, M. L. (2012). CLIL research in Europe: Past, present, and future. International CLIL Research Journal, 1(1), 1–12.
Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 97–114). Oxford University Press.
Wakerly, J. F. (2010). Digital design: Principles and practices. Prentice Hall.
Zayas-Martínez, F., Estrada-Chichón, J. L., & Segura-Caballero, N. (2024). Pre-service CLIL teachers’ conceptions on bilingual education: Impact of initial training on the development of their teaching skills. Education Sciences, 14(12), 1331. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14121331