Progress meetings – HAN

Teaching team: Ilse de Wit, Stephan Plat, Hendrik Brasjen, Robert Westra, Erkan Yalcin

University and degree programme: HAN University of Applied Sciences, Business Management

Course: International business

Timing: 18-01-2024 – current

CLIL pilot type: Moderate

CLIL assignments: Two oral Progress Meetings per group, team-taught by content and language lecturers

Language: English

Course Description and Objectives:
The International Business Project engages third-year students in a real-world consulting task for a company interested in international expansion. Students form groups of four and act as junior internationalization experts, responsible for acquiring their own client company and delivering professional advice. They report their progress both in writing and, notably for this CLIL pilot, in two oral progress meetings and one final presentation.

CLIL 10 Parameters Implementation:

Sequence:
The project runs over seven weeks, during which each group delivers two formal oral progress updates. These take place in a seminar-style format where multiple groups are present. Students prepare their updates and receive live, dual feedback from both a Business English lecturer and a content lecturer. These sessions are scheduled after key project milestones, allowing timely and focused feedback.

Concept and Task > Language:
 Students must explain their business case development, client interactions, and project planning using accurate business and sector-specific terminology. Content lecturers focus on strategic clarity and depth, while the Business English lecturer guides students in structuring professional oral updates, using appropriate business discourse, and refining pronunciation and fluency.

Guided Multimedia Input:
 Before the first progress meeting, students receive examples of effective status updates (videos and scripts) through the online learning environment. They are also given a template with key expressions (e.g., “We are currently in the phase of…”, “One challenge we faced was…”) to support their preparation.

Key Language:
 English is the working language throughout the course. Students are required to communicate with their peers, lecturers, and companies in English. The real-life setting enhances their use of academic and professional language beyond classroom-based tasks.

Instructions:
Clear guidelines for the progress meetings were provided in week 1. Students were informed of their dual audience (content and language lecturers) and advised on structure, timing (10–15 minutes), and the type of language expected. They also received tips on how to handle spontaneous questions and peer feedback.

Interactions:
Each progress meeting is interactive. Besides responding to questions from lecturers, groups also answer questions and receive feedback from peer groups. This peer-to-peer interaction is a core part of the session and encourages active listening, question formulation, and constructive feedback in English.

Thinking:
The meetings require students to reflect critically on their progress, evaluate project risks, and present strategic decisions. The sessions reveal the students’ analytical depth, not just in terms of content but also in how well they can justify choices and anticipate further steps – all in a second language.

Supported Output:
Students prepare collaboratively using a structured outline provided by lecturers. They rehearse their meetings in advance and receive feedback between the two sessions. Templates for key language, flow, and visuals are shared. Feedback focuses on both content clarity and language performance.

Feedback:
Lecturers noted a higher level of engagement compared to written reports. They appreciated the immediacy and depth of face-to-face conversations and were better able to assess students’ understanding. Early feedback highlights that students appreciate the dynamic format and value the opportunity to practice professional communication. Peer feedback also plays an important role, though students may need more training in giving constructive criticism. A full student evaluation is scheduled post-project.

Team Teaching:

This pilot stands out for its team-teaching element. Having both a content and a language lecturer present reinforces the integrated nature of the feedback. The cooperation proved highly effective, as each lecturer focused on their domain while remaining aware of the overall learning goals. This dual presence also modeled professional collaboration for students.

Further Development Ideas:

• Provide peer feedback training before the first meeting to improve quality of interaction.
• Introduce a self-assessment form to be completed after each progress meeting.
• Consider recording the sessions so students can reflect on their own performance.
• Explore the integration of short vocabulary building tasks prior to the meetings, focusing on sector-specific terms.

Download the file here: Evaluation