Round tables 2026

The discussion at the first round table focused primarily on what constitutes a high-quality university language programme and the extent to which it should be standardised or tailored to a particular discipline. Participants repeatedly noted that, despite the existence of the UNIcert® and CEFR frameworks, much of the programme content remains dependent on the needs of individual faculties and fields of study. They discussed, for example, the differences between courses focusing on general academic skills and those addressing terminology and communication specific to a particular profession.

Artificial intelligence in the teaching and assessment of languages for specific purposes was another major topic. Participants discussed how to respond to AI-generated texts, whether and how to assess them, and the extent to which examination formats and writing tasks should change. Several language centres are therefore placing greater emphasis on writing in class or during examinations without the use of a computer. Participants also noted that, while model materials and sample tests promote greater standardisation and transparency, they can also influence how students prepare for examinations.

The discussion also covered the use of authentic materials, working with copyrighted texts, and the potential for creating databases of freely available materials. Participants compared how courses are organised across faculties, optimal group sizes, and opportunities for progression between certification levels. They also emphasised the importance of professional communities and regular exchanges of experience between language centres.

The second round table focused primarily on approaches to teaching languages for specific purposes and the use of different types of teaching materials. Participants compared the benefits and limitations of in-house and commercial materials, noting that commercial textbooks can provide a useful supplement, while course content and teaching approaches must remain tailored to the specific needs of students and their fields of study. They also discussed the extent to which a textbook should be a fixed component of an accredited programme and how to retain flexibility in course design.

A substantial part of the discussion addressed active and collaborative learning. Examples included team-based learning, simulations, colloquia, and various forms of group discussion in which students learn to respond to others' views, contribute to subject-specific debate, and present arguments even when their knowledge of the topic is incomplete. Several participants emphasised the importance of creating opportunities for all students to participate actively, rather than only the most dominant individuals.

Participants also discussed a genre-based approach to teaching languages for specific purposes and the need to develop students' ability to work with different types of specialist texts systematically. Suggestions concerning writing included text editing, error correction, and work with short text genres. Several participants reflected on the changing role of writing in an era of widespread AI use. Specific digital tools used in teaching, such as Padlet, and various forms of online collaboration were also mentioned.

The third round table focused primarily on the profile of teachers of languages for specific purposes and collaboration with subject departments. The discussion showed that these teachers are increasingly addressing the content of communication as well as language itself. Several participants emphasised the need to connect language education with real-life professional situations and authentic specialist texts.

Collaboration with subject departments was a major topic. Participants noted that disciplines differ in their requirements for language skills, text types, and terminology, making communication between language centres and practising professionals essential. Examples of successful collaboration included developing materials, selecting topics, and linking language courses to the subjects students are currently studying. Several participants also pointed out that subject departments are not always fully aware of the range of skills that language teaching can develop.

The discussion also addressed the education and training of teachers of languages for specific purposes. Participants highlighted the need for systematic professional development in teaching methodology, specialist terminology, functional grammar, and intercultural communication. They emphasised the value of placements abroad, induction for new teachers, and support materials for those entering the profession. Specific initiatives aimed at developing the teaching competences of doctoral students and university teachers were also mentioned.

The final round table focused primarily on examinations, assessment, and standard setting within language programmes and the UNIcert® system. A substantial part of the discussion concerned action-oriented and scenario-based approaches to testing, in which students address realistic communicative situations rather than isolated language tasks. Experiences from German universities were presented, highlighting the growing emphasis on problem-oriented tasks, mediation, and the integration of several language skills within a single activity.

Participants also discussed practical issues in assessing productive skills, particularly speaking and writing. They repeatedly noted that assessing these components is time-consuming and always involves some degree of subjectivity, with assessment criteria and rating scales based on CEFR descriptors playing an important role. The discussion also addressed differences between assessing general academic language and languages for specific purposes, where the accuracy of information is often more important than in general language contexts.

The changing role of artificial intelligence in teaching and testing was another major topic. Participants discussed the potential use of AI to develop materials and listening comprehension activities, and to transform texts. They also raised questions about the quality of AI output and how to integrate AI meaningfully into the assessment of languages for specific purposes. The discussion further addressed the need for closer collaboration between UNIcert® LUCE centres, for example in developing shared assessment frameworks or exchanging sample tasks and examples of good practice.