Dr. Elena Shelestyuk,
Department of Theoretical and Applied Linguistics, Faculty of History and Philology, Chelyabinsk State University, Russia
Abstract
This article advances a humanistic reconceptualization of foreign/second language learning by proposing the integration of a practical psychology module—grounded in Social and Emotional Learning (SEL)—as culturally neutral content in foreign language instruction. Challenging the widespread assumption that foreign/second language teaching must transmit national culture, the author critiques traditional approaches for enabling “uninvited acculturation,” particularly in instrumental contexts such as general foreign language courses, CLIL, or LSP. Drawing on ecolinguistics, critical applied linguistics, and humanistic SLA, the proposed model replaces culturally branded materials with universal psychological themes—emotions, relationships, self-regulation—that invite learners to reflect within their own cultural frameworks. A two-week qualitative pilot with 12 B1-level Chinese students of Russian as a Foreign Language (RFL) explored the feasibility of embedding psychologically oriented texts, short films, and non-therapeutic group exercises into regular classroom instruction. Thematic analysis of observational notes, reflective journals, and post-activity debriefs suggested gains in communicative willingness, affective engagement, and lexical imprinting—all while affirming learners’ cultural sovereignty. Crucially, the approach required no extra class time, specialist training, or therapeutic expertise, and aligned with CEFR B1–B2 linguistic objectives. By positioning the target language as a medium for ethical dialogue rather than cultural accommodation, the model supports non-expansionist language education focused on international communication. The model supports non-expansionist language education focused on international communication and holistic development through culturally neutral, globally resonant themes—including emotions, relational dynamics, climate responsibility, AI ethics, urban sustainability, etc.—thereby upholding learners’ right to linguistic engagement without cultural or ideological imposition.
Keywords: CLIL, Practical Psychology, Socio-Emotional Learning, Ecolinguistics, Linguacultural Integrity, Humanistic SLA
(To Download PDF File of This Full Article in full Details, Click Here)
- Introduction
Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) is widely promoted as an efficient, neutral pedagogy that develops both disciplinary knowledge and linguistic proficiency through a foreign language. Yet, as critical applied linguistics has long argued, language education, especially integrated with humanities, is never ideologically innocent (Pennycook, 2001; Canagarajah, 2013). When CLIL draws its content from hegemonic epistemologies, it often functions as a vehicle for unacknowledged cultural and epistemic imposition, embedding foreign historical narratives, literary tropes, or social values under the guise of “universal knowledge.”
This dynamic is especially problematic in non-heritage contexts, where learners study a foreign language for instrumental purposes—international communication, global mobility, professional communication, or scientific exchange. There, culturally saturated content can produce what we term “uninvited acculturation”: the implicit expectation that linguistic competence requires internalizing alien worldviews.
Uninvited acculturation denotes the implicit pedagogical expectation that linguistic competence requires internalizing a target culture’s worldview without learner consent. It is delimited from Berry’s (1997) acculturation strategies (integration, assimilation, separation, marginalization)—which describe adaptive responses within structurally constrained immigrant contexts—and from Schumann’s (1978) hypothesis correlating SLA success with reduced social/psychological distance in naturalistic settings. Our construct addresses a distinct phenomenon: the presumption of cultural alignment embedded in instrumental FL/SL curricula.
This construct complements (rather than contradicts) the frameworks of intercultural competence (Byram, 1997) and symbolic competence (Kramsch, 1998), which teach learners to be reflective agents (“How do others see the world?”), to observe critical distance alongside respectful openness to otherness. Byram equips learners with critical cultural awareness (savoirs), and Kramsch introduces “third place” and symbolic competence to enable learners to navigate cultural meaning.
Though ethically rich, these approaches presuppose engagement as normative and do not explicitly address learners’ right not to engage culturally when their goals are instrumental. Uninvited acculturation, however, goes even further: it erases the very possibility of the right not to engage, distance oneself from the target culture, or use language entirely instrumentally without cultural uptake. It implies cultural alignment as a prerequisite for linguistic legitimacy (“To speak this language well, you must see the world as they do”). Where intercultural competence invites dialogue with cultural difference, uninvited acculturation conflates language-as-tool with language-as-cultural-initiation—an epistemic overreach that subordinates linguistic competence to cultural assimilation.
This concept reflects a broader scholarly concern: while contemporary pedagogies (including CLIL, LSP, EAP) aspire to neutrality and intellectual rigor, they remain vulnerable to reproducing dominant cultural narratives under the guise of universality. As Canagarajah (2013), Sharma (2021), Phan Le Ha (2009, 2017), Gray (2010), Bruton (2013), Kubota & Lehner (2004), Benesch (1993), Kullman (2013) and others demonstrate, even transformative approaches can mask ideological assumptions beneath claims of universality—positioning learners as passive recipients of “common knowledge” rather than co-constructors of meaning.
Empirical validation of uninvited acculturation emerges, among other things, from systematic textbook analyses revealing how linguistic competence becomes implicitly contingent on cultural alignment. Gray (2010) demonstrates how globally marketed coursebooks function as neoliberal branding instruments, embedding Western worldviews under claims of universality. In CLIL contexts, Cucchi and Costa (2018) expose the cultural inscription of ostensibly neutral science content, while Lap et al. (2025) identify structural misalignments in EFL settings where curricula presume cultural engagement irrespective of learners’ environment and goals. They propose localized CLIL models. Poveda-García-Noblejas and Antropova’s (2024) review of 142 CLIL studies reveals socio-cultural influence on implementation success in Spain, Germany, Finland, and the Netherlands. It also shows that culture/community in CLIL studies remains largely underexplored (15 studies) compared to communication (72 studies). Collectively, these findings confirm the structural presumption that linguistic legitimacy requires cultural alignment, rather than a pedagogical choice grounded in learner agency.
To summarize: the concept of “uninvited acculturation” achieves conceptual clarity through its structural definition. It differentiates between two key phenomena: explicit coercion (direct pressure) vs. implicit assumption that linguistic proficiency necessarily requires cultural alignment (uninvited acculturation). This concept becomes empirically measurable through the observable phenomenon of linguistic (lexical, grammatical) imprinting without cultural uptake This distinction transforms the idea from a purely theoretical critique into a quantifiable social process. The most significant contribution of this concept lies in addressing a previously scarcely acknowledged area of the rights of instrumental language learners to acquire language as a tool. The scholarly value of “uninvited acculturation” stems from its ability to maintain analytical objectivity without moralistic judgments and provide a precise diagnostic framework for analysis.
- Methods and Materials
To address the ethical tension, we envisioned a reconceptualized CLIL model grounded not in national culture, but in practical psychology—a domain centered on universal human experiences: emotions, relationships, self-regulation, empathy, and personal growth. Unlike history or literature, psychological content is transculturally negotiable, affectively resonant, and communicatively functional. It invites learners to reflect on their own lives—within their own cultural frameworks—while using the target language as a tool of articulation, not assimilation.
Our two-week pedagogical intervention with B1-level Chinese students of Russian as a Foreign Language (RFL) at a Russian university illustrates how a “CLIL in Practical Psychology” module can be implemented in ethically grounded, affectively engaging, and linguistically productive ways. Being brief, the intervention aimed not at quantitative validation but at exploring the module’s feasibility, ethical integrity, and pedagogical potential.
It took place in April 2024 at the Ural State Forest Technical University (USFTU) with 12 Chinese undergraduate linguistics students (aged 19–21, CEFR B1) in a short-term exchange program. Their motivation for learning Russian was instrumental—oriented toward academic and professional goals.
Activities were embedded into standard RFL units during regular 90-minute lessons, requiring no extra time or specialist training. The instructor facilitated discussion, modeled respectful language, and prioritized psychological safety, while linguistic goals (e.g., adjective–noun agreement, emotion lexicon) emerged through meaningful interaction.
To enhance methodological transparency, data collection followed explicitly defined components:
The observation scheme tracked four indicators per lesson—communicative willingness (frequency/duration of voluntary utterances), affective engagement (non‑verbal cues such as sustained eye contact, smiles, laughter, relaxed postures), lexical imprinting (spontaneous reuse of target lexicon like подлинный [genuine] and творческий [creative] in subsequent lessons), and cultural anchoring (whether learners referenced target‑culture symbols or their own sociocultural frameworks)—with real‑time notes expanded within two hours post‑lesson.
Reflection prompts included post-task scaffolds (after pre‑task lexical priming and while‑task reading/viewing/speaking). Learners completed 5‑minute written reflections in Russian: “Which moment reminded you of your own life?”, “Describe a character’s feeling using new words”, or “What stayed with you after reading/watching/performing this?” Learners’ responses were subsequently collected and analyzed as part of the qualitative dataset. All prompts were designed to invite personal meaning‑making while avoiding trauma narratives, value judgments, or prescriptive cultural comparisons. Two further data streams were maintained throughout the intervention: the researching instructor’s recorded field notes, and their reflexive journal—documented assumptions, pedagogical decisions, and evolving interpretations. These materials, together with anonymized learner reflection responses, formed the qualitative corpus for analysis.
For coding phases, this qualitative corpus underwent Braun & Clarke’s (2006) six‑phase thematic analysis: familiarization; initial coding (yielding 47 descriptive codes salient to our research question, including spontaneous lexicon reuse and culture reference [target-language, native, third‑culture]); searching for themes; reviewing themes; defining and naming themes; and producing the report. Inter‑coder agreement was 82% between the instructor and a research assistant blind to the study’s hypotheses.
Regarding researcher positionality, I served as both instructor and researcher—a Russian‑native linguist with extensive EFL experience and recent RFL teaching practice. To ensure analytical integrity, data analysis prioritized observable behaviors (utterance frequency, spontaneous lexical reuse) over inferred internal states and employed independent coding by a bilingual research assistant blind to the study’s hypotheses. Reflexive journaling and field notes documented assumptions—for instance, an initial expectation of hesitancy among Chinese learners toward interpersonal reflection tasks—which were bracketed during interpretation. Ethical approval was obtained from Chelyabinsk State University and Ural State Forest Technical University; the study adhered to the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki (1964, as amended).
- Theoretical Framework
3.1. Revisiting CLIL: Beyond the 4Cs
Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) has traditionally been defined through the 4Cs framework—Content, Cognition, Communication, and Culture (Coyle, Hood and Marsh, 2010). In this model, language serves as a medium for acquiring disciplinary knowledge, while subject content provides a meaningful context for linguistic development. Cognition is activated through higher-order thinking tasks, while culture is framed as exposure to the target-language society’s values, history, and practices.
However, the “Culture” dimension has increasingly come under scrutiny. As Bruton (2013) notes, mainstream CLIL often assumes that cultural component is a natural and desirable byproduct of language learning. When a dominant language delivers knowledge, issues of epistemic authority, linguistic equity, and cultural sovereignty inevitably arise. In humanities CLIL, Western worldviews are often presented as “universal knowledge”, effectively enacting what Canagarajah (2013) calls epistemicide. In STEM CLIL, learners face cognitive overload from processing complex content in an emerging L2. Moreover, even scientific knowledge is branded: figures like Thomas Edison are globally canonized, while equally significant contributors—such as Russian inventor Pavel Yablochkov, developer of the first practical electric arc lamp—are excluded from international curricula. This selective visibility reinforces epistemic hierarchies under the pretence of objectivity.
The acculturation assumption neglects a fundamental ethical question: do learners—or their parents—consent to internalising a foreign worldview simply by choosing to study a foreign language? Learners choose languages like English, Russian, or Mandarin for pragmatic or prestige-based reasons (Norton, 2013; Dalton‑Puffer et al., 2014). Most pursue language study instrumentally—for international communication, academic access, professional mobility, and social advancement—not for identity transformation. Even apparent desires for “integrativeness” (e.g., among pre‑service English teachers; Yılmaz, 2017) must be understood within the context of decades of Anglo‑American soft power (Nye, 2004), where global media, policy, and markets have naturalized English as a marker of prestige and modernity, blurring the boundary between authentic agency and internalized hegemony (Phillipson, 1992; Pennycook, 2001, 2017).
Conflating linguistic competence with cultural endorsement risks imposing an unspoken ideological contract that may contradict learners’ values or intentions. Though rarely coercive, this convention constitutes epistemic overreach, subordinating cultural self-determination to the myth that “authentic” learning requires cultural immersion.
We diverge from this default. Culture in CLIL should not be imported but co-constructed—grounded in learners’ lived experiences and universal human concerns, not national narratives. This reorients CLIL from transmissive to transformative pedagogy (Freire, 1970), prioritising interpersonal understanding and self-development—best realised through practical psychology, a culturally neutral, ethically grounded, and pedagogically resonant domain.
3.2. Why Practical Psychology? A Transculturally Negotiable Domain
Practical psychology is a domain that is relatively low in national-cultural inscription. Unlike history, literature, or political science—which carry national narratives and culture-specific symbols—it addresses universal dimensions: emotions, relationships, self-regulation, empathy, trust, conflict resolution, and personal growth. These invite learners to reflect on their own experiences—within their cultural frameworks—while using the target language as a medium of expression, not assimilation. This upholds the learner’s right to engage with a foreign language “inasmuch as and to the extent they want to” (Shelestyuk, 2023).
This approach embodies co-constructed culture, integrating personal histories into meaning-making without transmitting static artifacts. The resulting transformation is voluntary, temporary, and non-coercive—deepening self-understanding while affirming existing values. By “transformation” we mean growth in emotional and interpersonal literacy, yielding shifts like empathetic listening or willingness to communicate, not internalisation of foreign norms.
Practical psychology also reverses traditional CLIL’s power dynamic: learners become active agents of self-exploration. Discussing films like “Nothing Happened” or reflecting on “What qualities do you value in others?” fosters dialogic education (Freire, 1970)—learning with others, not about them.
Operationally, this model uses a tripartite framework:
Popular-psychological texts from Russian (e.g., Kozlov, Levi) and international authors (e.g., Berne, Brown, Kabat-Zinn), plus accessible articles from Psychologos.ru, Greater Good, and major media. These focus on universal interpersonal dynamics without cultural exceptionalism.
Short socio-psychological films (5–20 min)—like “Nothing Happened,” “Tea,” and “Moscow–Vladivostok”—present moral or emotional dilemmas without national anchoring. Post-viewing questions (“Has this happened to you?”) ensure personal resonance.
Socio-psychological training (SPT) exercises, drawn from the Russian tradition and the University of Practical Psychology (Univer-PP), including “Give a Compliment to Everyone” and “Golden Mirror.” These are strength-based, voluntary, and avoid trauma probes or judgment.
Linguistically, this triad aligns with CEFR B1–B2 goals—activating adjective–noun agreement, verbal government, and complex syntax through affectively charged tasks: describing personality, expressing emotions, giving feedback. Reading, writing (reflections), and speaking promote deep processing, critical thinking, and lexical imprinting.
Pedagogically, the model aligns with humanistic second language acquisition (SLA) (Stevick, 1980; Arnold, 1999): it lowers the affective filter (Krashen, 1982), creates psychological safety (Dewaele, 2013), and treats learners as whole persons.
Psychologically, it aligns with social and emotional learning (SEL) and fills a global gap: despite evidence that practical psychological literacy underpins cognition, motivation, communication, and personality growth (Immordino-Yang, 2016; Durlak et al., 2011), it is largely absent from formal education curricula.
Given this, and given the well-documented role of affective variables—such as (low) anxiety, self-concept, and willingness to communicate—as strong predictors of success in language acquisition (MacIntyre et al., 1998; Dewaele, 2013), why not integrate practical psychology (social and emotional learning) into foreign/second language education?
Indeed, an integration of practical psychology (social and emotional learning) into foreign/second language education would offer a culturally neutral, ethically grounded space where learners can develop both interpersonal awareness and linguistic competence. Combining language learning with psychologically informed content does not merely enrich the curriculum; it addresses a dual educational gap: the systemic underdevelopment of emotional and social literacy in formal schooling, and the persistent affective challenges that impede linguistic engagement. This synergy may be pedagogically rational and empirically warranted.
In teaching socio-emotional literacy and competencies, self-reflection—metacognitive awareness of communicative choices (Schön, 1983)—is central. Through debriefs, insights like “I feel valued when listened to” or “Words and deeds can change a person’s mood and attitudes” establish stable mental models shaping future behavior (Vygotsky, 1978; Wenger, 1998), create safe, non-judgmental spaces (Boud, Keogh and Walker, 1985), which foster willingness to communicate (MacIntyre et al., 1998).
This CLIL module can reorient humanities education: from cultural transmission to co-creation, from cognitive overload to affective engagement, from epistemic imposition to ethical dialogue—restoring the whole person to language learning and affirming that meaningful culture is co-constructed through shared human inquiry.
- 4. Classroom Application
The feasibility and ethical value of a “CLIL in Practical Psychology” module were explored during a two-week teaching practicum in April 2024 at the Ural State Forest Technical University (USFTU) in Yekaterinburg, Russia. The participants included 12 Chinese undergraduate students, aged 19–21, majoring in linguistics. These students had studied Russian for at least three years in China and were classified at CEFR level B1. They participated through an enrolled short-term academic exchange program. The focus of their study aligned well with psychological topics due to the curriculum’s unit “Appearance and Character” at the time of our intervention (Voiskovskaya & Guskova, 2022).
Although the brief duration precluded systematic data collection or long-term assessments, this initiative functioned primarily as a pedagogical pilot. Its purpose was not to quantitatively validate outcomes but rather to assess its integration potential into standard Russian-as-a-Foreign-Language (RFL) instruction. Additionally, it aimed to explore the module’s ability to resonate emotionally and ethically within existing educational frameworks.
4.1. Implementation Design
As mentioned above, three types of psychologically oriented content were selectively embedded into daily lessons:
- Textual input included short excerpts from N. Kozlov’s “A Book for Those Who Like to Live, or The Psychology of Personal Growth” and “Philosophical Tales for Those Who Ponder Life”, as well as V. Levi’s “The Color of Fate” and “The Nonstandard Child”, to introduce vocabulary related to personal growth, relationships, leadership, inner and outer harmony, authenticity, and social masks. Learners encountered lexical items such as деловой (businesslike), строгий (strict), вспыльчивый (irritable), тактичный (tactful), emotion-related terms like обида (offense), доверие (trust), скука (boredom), and relational verbs including доверять кому-то (to trust someone), завидовать кому-то (to envy someone), сопереживать (to empathize). Through text-based activities, they practiced nuanced grammatical structures: adjective–noun agreement, verb–object relations, verb–adverb adjoinment.
This approach targets CEFR B1–B2 communicative demands, engaging students in reflections on autonomy vs. control, trust vs. manipulation, and freedom vs. conformity—themes resonant with their lived experiences. Combined with linguistic scaffolding, contextualized repetition, interactive discussion, and exposure to varied registers, it enhances students’ ability to express themselves clearly and confidently in Russian, while preparing them for authentic communicative interactions beyond the classroom.
For instance, analyzing Levi’s dialogue “Mom, I’m going out to play.” “Have you done your homework?” (The kid dragged themselves to do homework, but the text in the book looked like gibberish to him) prompted discussions of power dynamics and cultural norms as well as individual freedom and responsibility, with students connecting insights to their own backgrounds. The Chinese students referenced xiao (filial piety) alongside notions of personal agency. A follow-up exercise on the article “How to Exit the Drama Triangle” invited introspection on roles like “rescuer,” grounding reflection in learners’ socio-emotional histories.
Writing assignments (e.g., letters to one’s future self, narrative responses) reinforced lexico-grammatical mastery, voice development, and metacognition, illustrating how linguistic growth intersects with existential concerns. Through structured reflection, such as journaling or post-activity debriefs, these insights become reified into stable mental models that shape future linguistic and social conduct (Vygotsky, 1978; Wenger, 1998).
An impactful activity used Kozlov’s contrast between “social roles and masks” and authentic self-expression. After identifying terms like маска (mask), роль (role), and подлинность (authenticity), students debated: “Do you adopt different roles and personas depending on the situation? How does this relate to your cultural values?” They linked these ideas to Chinese sociocultural constructs such as mianzi (face-saving), with one noting: “Maintaining a ‘mask’ reflects sensitivity toward others.”
This learner-centered approach links language use to identity and feeling. As Hyland (2003), Manchón (2011), and Grabe & Stoller (2019) show, such tasks deepen critical thinking and retention while enabling reflection on universal experiences—without cultural erosion.
- The second component employed short narrative films ranging from five to twenty minutes in length, drawn from publicly available Russian video platforms such as «Дядя Ваня Фильм» (Uncle Vanya Film) and «St Petersburg Filmmakers’ Union Youth Centre». These films present universal moral or emotional dilemmas without national or ideological anchoring. Combined with linguistic scaffolding, contextualized repetition, interactive discussion, and exposure to varied registers, this component enhanced students’ ability to express themselves clearly and confidently in Russian, while preparing them for authentic communicative interactions beyond the classroom. In our intervention, we used three specific works:
– “Nichego ne bylo” (“Nothing Happened”) by Helga Tarasova features elderly Mark and Tatyana, a dacha, a rediscovered phone number, and a late-life rekindling of romance. It invites reflection on whether such a return is a nostalgic illusion, a meaningful closure, or a bittersweet acknowledgment that, in the end, “nothing really happened”—and whether that absence itself carries profound emotional truth.
– “Chay” (“Tea”) starring Pyotr Mamonov: a meditative dialogue between an elderly man and a young girl, a parable in which a quiet ritual of brewing tea becomes an allegory for inner presence, self-acceptance, and authentic living. It invites B2 learners to discuss daily life stresses and ask: What does it truly mean to “be yourself,” and how much of our daily life is merely performance?
– “Moscow–Vladivostok” (dir. Vadim Norstein) is a short film about Sasha, a failed young musician who leaves Moscow for Vladivostok by train. En route, he bonds with Ivan, a middle-aged worker, and they co-write songs and perform together, forming a regenerating friendship and successful band. Through visuals, dialogues and songs of the group «Зима всегда» (“Forever Winter”), it explores dreams, creative resilience, and intergenerational connection—ideal for B1 RFL learners. We scaffolded viewing through pre-, while- (rarely) and post-tasks. Post-viewing questions encouraged culturally neutral discussion in Russian, e. g. “Has anything similar ever happened to you or someone you know?”, “Which character did you empathise with most—and why?”, “What would you have done in this situation?”.
For example, “Nothing Happened” prompted the Chinese students’ exploration of nostalgia, regret, and the emotional weight of absence, with one student observing that “sometimes absence itself can hold meaning.” “Tea” inspired reflections on mindfulness, inner peace, and authentic living, with one learner drawing parallels to Confucian ideals of harmony and self-cultivation. “Moscow–Vladivostok” sparked conversations about resilience, hope, intergenerational cooperation, and the unifying power of music, with one student likening the protagonist’s journey to his own aspirations and emphasizing the importance of persistence.
Through these discussions, learners expanded their lexical repertoire with terms such as сожалеть (to regret), примиряться (to reconcile), принять (to accept), подлинный (authentic), осознанность (mindfulness), путешествовать через всю страну (to journey across the country), совместное творчество (joint creation), and настойчивость (perseverance). They practiced complex structures in context: сожалеть о несделанных делах (to regret things left undone), находить спокойствие среди хаоса повседневной жизни (to find peace amidst the chaos of daily life), Практикуя осознанность, мы учимся лучше понимать себя (By practicing mindfulness, we learn to understand ourselves better), and Путешествия расширяют кругозор и вдохновляют (Travel can broaden horizons and inspire).
Students also acquired functional discourse markers for nuanced dialogue, including Я ничего в этом фильме не поняла (I didn’t understand anything in this film), Мне кажется, идея фильма другая (It seems to me that the idea of the film is different), and Возможно, вы правы, но… (Maybe you’re right, but…).
As a final touch, students were asked to respond to the films through prompts (e.g., ‘Describe a moment in the film that reminded you of your life’). Thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006) of their responses suggested that learners tended to interpret narratives through their own frameworks—recentering meaning within their ethical and emotional contexts.
- Psychologically-oriented mini-trainings were integrated into the curriculum as low-stakes, non-clinical exercises focused on fostering positive interpersonal interaction. Activities such as “Guess Who Described You This Way” and “Give a Compliment to Everyone” enabled students to practice composing brief statements in Russian, including anonymous character sketches that used vocabulary related to peers’ personality traits and behavioral patterns. Exercises like “Wish Something to Your Neighbor” required learners to formulate formal compliments employing appropriate register and politeness strategies, thereby reinforcing specific grammatical and stylistic features. Linguistically, these tasks provided intensive practice of adjective–noun agreement and polite address forms; affectively, they cultivated a warm, supportive classroom climate marked by reduced inhibition and stronger peer rapport.
A more advanced activity involved enacting scripted dialogues on conflict resolution, simulating real-life scenarios such as misunderstandings in group projects. In these exchanges, students consciously applied contrasting linguistic cues—“syntones” (cooperative signals) versus “conflictogenes” (adversarial triggers). Syntonic communication featured open interrogatives (“How might we resolve this issue together?”), inclusive pronouns (“Let’s brainstorm solutions”), and hedged assertions (“Perhaps there’s another way”), while conflictogenic speech relied on absolutes (“You’re always complaining”), accusatory phrasing (“It’s your fault we’re behind schedule”), and prescriptive imperatives (“Stop interrupting”). By juxtaposing these styles, learners gained pragmatic awareness of how linguistic choices shape interactional outcomes. This task targeted lexical fields—including emotion verbs, evaluative adjectives, and modal auxiliaries—and practiced complex sentence constructions essential for effective interpersonal communication.
Another activity required students to describe well-known figures using only physical descriptors and character traits, producing concise profiles with descriptive clauses and prepositional phrases (e.g., приятные манеры [winning ways], в очках [wearing glasses]). Follow-up guessing games reinforced morphosyntactic accuracy while allowing learners to reference culturally significant figures from their own backgrounds.
Collectively, these exercises advanced both linguistic proficiency and socio-emotional intelligence, aligning with CEFR B1–B2 benchmarks for managing communication, formulating agreements, and expressing interpersonal nuance. Ultimately, the mini-trainings enhanced not only language competence but also the capacity for constructive dialogue, empathy, and mutual understanding.
4.2. Empirical Evidence and Pedagogical Viability
Qualitative observation during the two-week intervention with B1-level Chinese students of RFL revealed consistent, interrelated outcomes that affirm both the affective and pedagogical efficacy of the practical psychology module. Although no formal instruments were employed, four key patterns emerged across all sessions.
First, increased communicative willingness was evident: students who had previously remained silent began participating actively, particularly during exercises like “Give a Compliment to Everyone.” One participant remarked, “It’s easier to speak when we talk about real feelings, not just grammar.” This shift was accompanied by enhanced motivation, with learners initiating conversations beyond assigned tasks.
Second, affective engagement manifested through smiling, laughter, sustained eye contact, and gestures of appreciation—behavioral indicators of psychological safety (Dewaele, 2013). No student expressed discomfort, and all activities respected personal boundaries by avoiding trauma probes, corrections of “negative traits,” or evaluations of personal worth.
Third, lexical imprinting occurred: psychological adjectives (e.g., тактичный [tactful], вспыльчивый [quick-tempered]) and constructions (e.g., обижаться на кого-то [to feel hurt by someone], гордиться кем-то) reappeared spontaneously in later lessons—even outside the designated thematic units—suggesting deep, affectively anchored internalization.
Fourth, cultural sovereignty was consistently upheld. Learners interpreted content through their own lived experiences and, sometimes, sociocultural frameworks—for instance, discussing N. Kozlov’s reflections on social roles through the lens of Chinese mianzi (“face”) and the value of group harmony and V. Levi’s dialogue about personal duties and agency through the notion of xiao (“filial piety”). The film “Moscow–Vladivostok,” despite its Russian setting, prompted psychological rather than cultural analysis: students engaged with themes of resilience, creative renewal, and intergenerational solidarity through the lens of personal aspiration and emotional experience, not through assumptions about Russian geography, national identity, or culture. This confirms that the materials did not impose foreign worldviews or violate the principle of linguacultural integrity and inviolability (Shelestyuk, 2023).
The learners’ occasional cultural self-referencing (mianzi, xiao, Confucian harmony) affirms the module’s ethical integrity in an instrumental context. Yet this does not preclude future engagement with Russian or other cultural perspectives when learners choose such dialogue—on their own terms, as co-equal interlocutors.
Importantly, this module required no additional class time, specialized psychological training, or resource-intensive materials. All activities fit within standard 90-minute RFL lessons and relied only on a projector, handouts, and basic facilitation skills—namely, guiding discussion, ensuring ethical containment, and connecting language forms to personally meaningful expression.
In sum, the intervention demonstrates that practical psychology offers an ecolinguistically responsible, affectively supportive, and pedagogically viable alternative to traditional CLIL. It avoids the core pitfalls of conventional models: it does not presume cultural assimilation, does not brand foreign celebrities or historical narratives, and does not subordinate the learner’s native worldview. Instead, it positions the foreign language as a neutral, humanistic medium—one that enables self-articulation, mutual understanding, and ethically grounded dialogue, especially in non-expansionist contexts where Russian serves as a language of international communication.
(To Download PDF File of This Full Article in full Details, Click Here)
- Discussion: Toward a Human-Centered CLIL
In the context of globalization, Content and Language Integrated Learning has been widely promoted as a neutral, efficiency-driven pedagogy that simultaneously advances disciplinary knowledge and linguistic proficiency through a foreign or second language. Originating in both European and Eurasian[1] educational traditions, CLIL has since expanded globally, often hailed as a best practice for fostering multilingual competence and academic mobility. Yet, as critical applied linguistics has long argued, language education is never ideologically innocent. When CLIL draws its content predominantly from hegemonic epistemologies—especially Anglophone ones—it risks functioning not as a neutral conduit, but as a vehicle for cultural and epistemic imposition, embedding foreign historical narratives, worldviews, and value systems under the guise of “universal knowledge.”
This dynamic raises profound ethical concerns in contexts where learners engage with foreign languages primarily for international communication—not cultural assimilation. The uncritical adoption of imported CLIL materials, particularly in the humanities, can lead to what we term ‘uninvited acculturation’: the imposition of alien discourses that neither reflect learners’ lived realities nor align with their communicative goals. Such practices threaten a core principle of ethical language education: linguacultural integrity and inviolability—the learner’s right to engage with a foreign language “inasmuch as and to the extent they want to,” without compromising their native cultural or psychological grounding (Shelestyuk, 2023).
These concerns extend beyond English to any target language, including Russian. RFL curricula that rely on narratives of Imperial or Soviet history, canonical literary excerpts, or essentialist commentaries on “Russian mentality” may feel irrelevant to learners from China, the Arab world, or Latin America. While such content holds value in heritage or area-studies contexts, its inclusion in instrumental language programs—where the goal is functional communication, not cultural integration—raises legitimate ethical questions.
In response, this paper proposes a reimagined CLIL model grounded not in national culture, but in practical psychology: a domain centered on universal human experiences such as emotions, relationships, self-regulation, empathy, and personal growth. Unlike history or literature, practical psychology provides culturally neutral, affectively resonant, and communicatively functional content that aligns with everyday language use while honoring the learner’s cultural sovereignty. By integrating psychological texts, short socio-psychological films, and ethically bounded socio-psychological training (SPT) exercises, our model fosters not only linguistic competence but also emotional literacy, interpersonal awareness, and learner agency.
As we see it, this approach is anchored in four interlocking theoretical traditions that together reframe a foreign/second language teaching as an ethically responsive, human-centered practice:
– Critical pedagogy and applied linguistics (Freire, 1970; Pennycook, 2001, 2017; Canagarajah, 2013; Sharma, 2021; Holliday, 2020; Kubota, 2012) challenging Western epistemological dominance in language education, calling for pedagogies and discourse that validate local knowledge systems. Gray (2010) criticizes ELT materials for commodifying and branding culture, while Kullman (2013) argues that teaching materials actively shape teacher and learner identities. These insights underscore language education as a contested terrain with ethical implications for cultural representation, epistemic justice, and identity formation.
– Humanistic second language acquisition (SLA) (Stevick, 1980; Arnold, 1999; Gregersen & MacIntyre, 2017; Dewaele, 2013; Krashen, 1982) foregrounding the learner as a whole person, emphasizing the inextricable interplay of affect, identity, and cognition—and insisting that emotional safety, agency, and authentic self-expression are prerequisites for meaningful language development.
– Ecolinguistics (van Lier, 2004; Stibbe, 2015; Skutnabb-Kangas & Phillipson, 1994; Shelestyuk, 2023) upholding linguacultural integrity and inviolability—the learner’s right to engage with a second/foreign language only to the extent desired, free from uninvited cultural or ideological influence. It opposes subtractive practices that displace local epistemologies, challenging cultural assimilation (acculturation) and treating language as a neutral tool for international communication.
– A reconceptualized view of intercultural communicative competence (Byram, 1997) reframing dialogue not as the acquisition of a foreign culture, but as a mutual and non-assimilative exchange rooted in shared human experiences—free from the expectation that learners internalize the values or norms of the target culture.
These commitments are supported through an ethical lens of rhetorical influence (Shelestyuk, 2014): all materials are screened for suggestive or manipulative potential to ensure they preserve—rather than undermine—learners’ psychological and cultural autonomy.
The resulting model, which we term human-centered CLIL, shifts the focus from cultural transmission to co-constructed meaning-making. Here, the foreign language becomes not a portal into another nation’s past, but a reflective medium for exploring questions that matter to all: How do we manage anger? How do we give feedback without hurting? What makes a relationship meaningful? This reframing is especially vital in non-expansionist language contexts, where learners study languages like Russian for professional, academic, or scientific purposes—not to internalize foreign ideologies or historical narratives.
This approach mitigates the risks of subtractive bilingualism and L1 attrition by avoiding the “branding” of foreign celebrities, institutions, or political symbols common in mainstream CLIL textbooks (Gray, 2010; Shelestyuk, 2023). Instead, it safeguards the learner’s first language as a legitimate space of thought, identity, and emotional expression.
Moreover, practical psychology enables what Freire (1970) called dialogic education: learning not about others, but with others. Exercises like “Give a compliment to everyone” or discussions of films such as “Moscow–Vladivostok” and “Nothing Happened” foster mutual recognition, empathetic listening, and collective meaning-making—all while developing linguistic competence. These are not “soft” strategies; they are ethically rigorous, linguistically productive, and ecologically responsible. All content is non-therapeutic, strength-based, and voluntary, avoiding probing of trauma, correction of “negative traits,” or judgment of personal worth—ensuring psychological themes serve pedagogical, not clinical, ends.
From a curricular standpoint, psychological content integrates seamlessly into standard RFL units (e.g., “Emotions,” “Character,” “Communication”) and activates high-frequency grammatical structures—adjective-noun agreement, prepositional government, complex syntax—in affectively charged, personally relevant contexts. Unlike STEM-based CLIL, which can overwhelm B1 learners with cognitive load, psychology speaks directly to lived experience, enhancing motivation and deep processing.
Ultimately, the integration of practical psychology into CLIL transcends the false dichotomy between “language” and “culture.” It shows that culture need not be imported to be meaningful—it can be co-constructed through dialogue about what it means to be human. In doing so, this model realizes a vision long advocated in language education: a pedagogy that is critical, humanistic, and ecologically sustainable—one that affirms the learner not as a passive recipient of foreign knowledge, but as an active, self-determined agent of intercultural dialogue.
In an era marked by linguistic hegemony, cultural defensiveness, and epistemic contestation, such an approach may be pedagogically promising and ethically consequential.
- Conclusion and Future Directions
This paper has proposed a reimagined model of Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL)—one that shifts the focus from disciplinary knowledge transmission to humanistic development through language. Rather than integrating a conventional subject such as history or biology, we advocate for the inclusion of practical psychology not as a curricular domain per se, but as a repertoire of tools for personal and interpersonal growth: self-reflection, emotional regulation, empathetic listening, constructive feedback, and identity-aware communication. This distinction constitutes the core novelty of our approach: it is not what is taught, but how it cultivates the whole person—an orientation still underexplored in CLIL research.
The proposed module aligns with several converging paradigms that are gaining traction in language education: ecolinguistics, humanistic education and positive psychology, critical applied linguistics, and intercultural communicative competence as mutually respectful dialogue about universal human experiences.
Our two-week classroom pilot with B1-level Chinese students of RFL demonstrated that psychological texts, short films, and socio-psychological exercises can be seamlessly woven into existing curricula (e.g., a unit on “Appearance and Character”) without imposing foreign worldviews. Instead, they fostered psychological safety, group cohesion, and motivated, authentic language use—conditions long recognised as conducive to acquisition (Krashen, 1982; Dewaele, 2013). Learners engaged not as passive recipients of culture, but as active agents of self-expression, drawing on their own cultural frameworks while using Russian as a neutral, reflective medium.
This approach is fully compatible with the foundational CLIL framework of Coyle, Hood, and Marsh (2010)—yet it reinterprets the “Culture” dimension not as national heritage, but as shared humanity. In doing so, it addresses critical concerns raised by Bruton (2013), Dalton-Puffer (2014), and others about the epistemic and cultural risks of mainstream CLIL.
Looking ahead, we call for:
– the development of ready-to-use RFL materials embedding practical psychology across CEFR levels;
– teacher training modules that equip language instructors to facilitate psychologically informed, ethically bounded activities;
– empirical studies examining the long-term impact of such modules on affective factors (e.g., anxiety, empathy) and linguistic outcomes (e.g., fluency, lexical depth).
The integration of practical psychology into language education offers a culturally negotiable, affectively supportive, and universally relevant framework that transcends the boundaries of specific methodologies or linguistic contexts. Whether in TESOL classrooms with multilingual migrants, TEFL settings in East Asia, or CLIL programs in Europe and beyond, this approach upholds the principle of linguacultural integrity by prioritizing shared human experience over imported worldviews. It replaces cultural spectacle with ethical dialogue, cognitive overload with affective engagement, and passive reception with co-constructed meaning. As such, the “Psychology CLIL” model is not confined to Russian or English language teaching—it is a transferable, scalable, and humanistic paradigm for 21st-century language education, one that respects learners as whole persons and affirms their right to learn a language on their own cultural and psychological terms.
We admit that, for all its ethical clarity and humanistic warmth, the “CLIL in Practical Psychology” model risks replacing one universalism with another: where traditional CLIL presumes the indispensability of national culture, this alternative presumes the neutrality of psychological experience. Yet even emotions, empathy, and selfhood are culturally mediated—not absent of ideology, but differently encoded. The challenge ahead is not to avoid culture altogether, but to ensure that the “universal” remains open to local interpretation, and that the classroom, while psychologically safe, never becomes a space where critical questions about the origins of its own content are silenced.
While our pilot focused on practical psychology, the underlying principle—that language can serve as a medium for exploring shared human concerns without mandating cultural alignment—may inform other content domains where universal relevance and cultural negotiability intersect.
6.1. Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
6.2. Data Availability
The datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are not publicly available due to privacy and ethical considerations involving minor participants and institutional protocols but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request and with appropriate ethical safeguards. The anonymized datasets supporting the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
6.3. Ethical Approval and Consent to Participate
All procedures performed in this study involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committees of Chelyabinsk State University (Russian Federation) and Ural State Forestry Technical University (Russian Federation), and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments. Informed consent was obtained from all participants. Participation was voluntary, anonymous, and respondents were informed of their right to withdraw at any stage without consequence.
References
Arnold J (ed.) (1999) Affect in Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Berne E (1964) Games People Play: The Psychology of Human Relationships. New York: Grove Press.
Benesch S (1993) ESL, ideology and the politics of pragmatism. TESOL Quarterly, 27, 705–717.
Berry JW Immigration, acculturation, and adaptation. Applied Psychology: An International Review. 1997;46:5–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.1997.tb01087.x
Boud D, Keogh R and Walker D (eds) (1985) Reflection: Turning Experience into Learning. London: Kogan Page.
Braun V and Clarke V (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3(2): 77–101. DOI: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
Bruton A (2013) CLIL: Some of the reasons why … and why not. System 41(3): 587–597. DOI: 10.1016/j.system.2013.07.001.
Byram M (1997) Teaching and Assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Canagarajah S (2013) Translingual Practice: Global Englishes and Cosmopolitan Relations. New York: Routledge.
Coyle D, Hood P and Marsh D (2010) CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Craik FIM and Lockhart RS (1972) Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 11(6): 671–684. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-5371(72)80001-X.
Dalton-Puffer C, Llinares A, Lorenzo F and Nikula T (2014) “You can stand under my umbrella”: Immersion, CLIL and bilingual education. A response to Cenoz, Genesee & Gorter. 2013. Applied Linguistics 35(2): 213–218.
Dewaele J-M (2013) Emotions in Multiple Languages. 2nd ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Durlak JA, Weissberg RP, Dymnicki AB, Taylor RD and Schellinger KB (2011) The impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of school-based universal interventions. Child Development 82(1): 405–432. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01564.x.
Emelyanov YN (1985) Active Socio-Psychological Training. Leningrad: Leningrad State University Press.
Freire P (1970) Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Herder and Herder.
Grabe W and Stoller FL (2019) Teaching and Researching Reading. 3rd ed. London: Routledge.
Gray J (2010) The branding of English and the culture of the new capitalism: Representations of the world of work in English language textbooks. Applied Linguistics 31(5): 714–733.
Greater Good Science Center (n.d.) The science of gratitude. Greater Good Magazine. Available at: https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/the_science_of_gratitude (accessed 1 December 2025).
Greater Good Science Center (n.d.) The gift of empathy. Greater Good Magazine. Available at: https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/the_gift_of_empathy (accessed 1 December 2025).
Greater Good Science Center (n.d.) Why active listening matters. Greater Good Magazine. Available at: https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/why_active_listening_matters (accessed 1 December 2025).
Gregersen T and MacIntyre PD (2017) Capitalizing on Language Learners’ Individuality: From Premise to Practice. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Cucchi CA, Costa F (2018) Are Science Textbooks Free from Cultural Biases? A Case Study. English for Young Learners from Pre-school to Lower Secondary: A CLIL Teacher-Training Project in Italian Schools. Universitas Studiorum, 77–98.
Holliday A (2020) Doing and Writing Qualitative Research. 3rd ed. London: SAGE.
Hyland K (2003) Second Language Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Immordino-Yang MH (2016) Emotions, Learning, and the Brain: Exploring the Educational Implications of Affective Neuroscience. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
Kozlov NI (1997a) Kniga dlya tek, kto lyubit zhizn’, ili Psikhologiya lichnostnogo rosta [A book for those who like to live, or The psychology of personal growth]. Moscow: Novaya Shkola.
Kozlov NI (1997b) Filosofskiye skazki dlya obdumyvayushchikh zhyt’yo, ili Veselaya kniga o svobode i nravstvennosti [Philosophical tales for those who ponder life: A lighthearted book on freedom and morality]. Moscow: Novaya Shkola.
Kramsch C (1998) Language and culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Krashen SD (1982) Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.
Kubota, R (2012) Critical Approaches to Intercultural Discourse and Communication. The Handbook of Intercultural Discourse and Communication. Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 90-109. DOI: 10.1002/9781118247273.ch6
Kubota R, Lehner A (2004) Toward critical contrastive rhetoric. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 7–27.
Kullman J (2013) Telling tales: Changing discourses of identity in the ‘global’ UK-published English language coursebook. Critical Perspectives on Language Teaching Materials. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp.17–40.
Lap TQ, Vy PNT, Hanh NTM, Tuan LC, & Hung NT (2025) Toward the Content Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) shift: What are EFL teachers’ understandings, practices, and needs? SAGE Open, 15(3):1-17. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440251363336
Levi VL (1993a) Tsvet sud’by [The color of fate]. Saint Petersburg: Piter.
Levi VL (1993b) Nestandartnyy rebyonok [The new nonstandard child]. Saint Petersburg: Piter.
MacIntyre PD, Clément R, Dörnyei Z and Noels KA (1998) Conceptualizing willingness to communicate in a L2: A situational model of L2 confidence and affiliation. The Modern Language Journal 82(4): 545–562. DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.1998.tb05543.x.
Manchón RM (ed.) (2011) Learning-to-Write and Writing-to-Learn in an Additional Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Mindful Staff (n.d.) How to set boundaries without guilt. Mindful.org. Available at: https://www.mindful.org/how-to-set-boundaries-without-guilt/ (accessed 1 December 2025).
Mindful Staff (n.d.) Mindful listening in everyday conversations. Mindful.org. Available at: https://www.mindful.org/mindful-listening-in-everyday-conversations/ (accessed 1 December 2025).
Mindful Staff (n.d.) How to give constructive feedback without sounding critical. Mindful.org. Available at: https://www.mindful.org/how-to-give-constructive-feedback/ (accessed 1 December 2025).
Norton B (2013) Identity, literacy and the multilingual classroom. In: May S (ed.) The Multilingual Turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL and Bilingual Education. New York: Routledge, pp.103–122.
Nye JS (2004) Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. Public Affairs.
Pennycook A (2001) Critical Applied Linguistics: A Critical Introduction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Pennycook A (2017) The Cultural Politics of English as an International Language. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge.
Petrovskaya LA (1982) Teoreticheskie i metodicheskie problemy sotsial’no-psikhologicheskogo treninga [Theoretical and methodological problems of socio-psychological training]. Moscow: Moscow State University Publishing House.
Phan Le Ha (2009) Strategic, passionate, but academic: Am I allowed in my writing? Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 8, 134–146.
Phan Le Ha (2017) Transnational Education Crossing ‘the West’ and ‘Asia’: Adjusted Desire, Transformative Mediocrity, and Neo-colonial Disguise. London and New York: Routledge.
Phillipson R (1992) Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Poveda-Garcia-Noblejas B, & Antropova S (2024) Analysis of CLIL-related research in school settings: A systematic review. Journal of Language and Education, 10(1), 146-159.
Psychologos.ru (n.d.-a) Kak vyiti iz dramaticheskogo treugol’nika [How to exit the drama triangle]. Available at: https://www.psychologos.ru (accessed 1 December 2025).
Psychologos.ru (n.d.-b) Rol’ spasatelya v igrah Berna [The role of the rescuer in Berne’s games]. Available at: https://www.psychologos.ru (accessed 1 December 2025).
Psychologos.ru (n.d.-c) 365 solnechnykh dnei v godu: Kak uluchshit’ otnosheniya s partnerom [365 sunny days a year: How to improve relationships with your partner]. Available at: https://www.psychologos.ru (accessed 1 December 2025).
Psychology Today (n.d.) How to exit the drama triangle. Available at: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/drama-triangle (accessed 1 December 2025).
Schön DA (1983) The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books.
Schumann JH (1978) The acculturation model for second-language acquisition. In R. C. Gingras (Ed.), Second Language Acquisition and Foreign Language Teaching (pp. 27–50). Arlington, VA: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Sharma SK (2021) Decolonising English Studies in India. Indian Journal of English Studies (ISSN: 0537-1988), Vol. LVIII (2022), pp. 21-39.
Shelestyuk EV (2014) Rhetorical Influence: Ontology and Methodology of Research. 2nd ed., rev. and enl. Moscow: FLINTA; Nauka.
Shelestyuk EV (2023) Ecolinguistics of teaching a foreign language as a language of international communication. Vestnik Chelyabinskogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta 5(475): 138–148.
Skutnabb-Kangas T and Phillipson R (1994) Linguistic imperialism and human rights: Overcoming some barriers to communication. In: Phillipson R (ed.) English in Global Context. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, pp.67–78.
Stevick EW (1980) Teaching Languages: A Way and Ways. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Stibbe A (2015) Ecolinguistics: Language, Ecology and the Stories We Live By. London: Routledge.
Swain M (2000) The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In: Lantolf JP (ed.) Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.97–114.
The Economist (2021) Active listening is a superpower. 1843 Magazine, 21 October. Available at: https://www.economist.com/1843/2021/10/21/active-listening-is-a-superpower (accessed 1 December 2025).
The Guardian (2019) The power of small talk. The Guardian, 26 January. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/jan/26/the-power-of-small-talk (accessed 1 December 2025).
The New York Times (2020) The power of micro-moments of connection. Well Section, 15 July. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/15/well/mind/relationships-connection-micro-moments.html (accessed 1 December 2025).
University of Practical Psychology (Univer-PP) (n.d.) Collection of Socio-Psychological Games. Available at: https://www.univer-pp.ru/ (accessed 1 December 2025).
Van Lier L (2004) The Ecology and Semiotics of Language Learning: A Sociocultural Perspective. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Voiskovskaya V and Guskova E (2022) Russkaya leksika dlya zhizni: teoriya i praktika [Russian vocabulary for life: Theory and practice]. Saint Petersburg: Izdatel’stvo Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta.
Vygotsky LS (1978) Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cole M, John-Steiner V, Scribner S and Souberman E (eds). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wenger E (1998) Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Yilmaz C (2017) L2 motivational self system and its relationship with gender, proficiency and year. New Trends and Issues Proceedings on Humanities and Social Sciences. 4(3), pp 185-193.
Zakharov VP and Khryashcheva NY (1989) Socio-Psychological Training. Leningrad.
[1] This includes Soviet-era models of bilingual subject teaching, which focused on delivering academic content through a second language.
(To Download PDF File of This Full Article in full Details, Click Here)
