A Study on the Attitudes and Language Proficiency of Students and Teaching Staff

This study empirically questions the context of English as a medium of instruction (EMI) in a university setting, namely the University in Klagenfurt, Austria, where the primary language of instruction is German. English has been proposed in the study as a language of Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL), which is a teaching method whereby students learn a new content in a foreign language. Apart from examining the attitudes towards English in this respect and the levels of proficiency of the students at the University of Klagenfurt (AAU), the study also covered said attitudes and proficiency of the teaching staff. One survey was prepared for the staff and another for the students. Twenty links to different C-tests, aimed at attesting English language proficiency, were distributed across departments and faculties. 114 students took the survey and 75 of them completed the C-test. Moreover, 21 teachers completed the survey and 15 of them completed the C-test.


Introduction
Recent research revealed increasingly international settings at higher education institutions (HEIs) globally with over twice as many tertiary students enrolled outside their country of citizenship now than a decade before (Baker and Hüttner 2017). For example, in 2010, the international student population reached nearly 3.6 million worldwide (Cang, Choudaha, and Kono 2013) and the number has been growing ever since.
International students particularly tend to choose Anglophone settings but also non-Anglophone settings where the expansion in English medium instruction (EMI) programmes is high (Baker and Hüttner 2017).
Notably, contemporary teaching methods emerged correspondingly in the international tertiary setting. CLIL or "Content and Language Integrated Learning" has been implemented as a dual approach to education whereby students learn a new content in a foreign language. CLIL was launched in 1994, by following inputs from the European Commission. In the European context, CLIL is defined as a dual-focused educational approach in which an additional language is used for learning and teaching the content and for developing new language skills. "Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL)" refers to the use of the foreign language for the integrated teaching of teaching content and language skills outside of the class in the subjects "English" and "Second living foreign language" by incorporating elements of foreign language didactics. The teaching of foreign language skills must be integrated in such a way that the students are supported in the technical and linguistic area in developing knowledge and skills as well as foreign language and communication skills. The importance of foreign language competence for professional practice and for an international professional field is ensured by integrated language learning [...] (Karre, Kralicek, Veis, and Zöchmeister 2017) In other words, CLIL functions as a pedagogical approach aiming at integrated learning of the subject matter and the target language used as the medium of instruction for the subject. The concept of English as an additional language (EAL) in schools and at universities emerged in the last few decades because of the implementation of both political policies and educational strategies. The political policies supporting multilingualism and contributing to an increased language repertoire in university settings have been influenced significantly by the mobility in tertiary education, which required a higher level of language competence in designated languages. In Europe, the most spoken and most significant languages are English, French and German, or the "Modern Languages" (Attard Montalto, Chrysanthou, Theodorou and Walter 2016). Furthermore, the implementation of a designated language as a language of CLIL in the European classroom of the 21 st century means making an endeavour for an improved quality of teaching and learning. In addition, a classroom where all students learn in a foreign language, most likely non-native for everyone, should eventually appear as a setting equal for all learners. Significantly, the implementation of an additional language and the whole CLIL concept aims at teaching the content and language, while pursuing the content and language mastery to predefined levels (Marsh, Mehisto, Wolff and Frigols-Martin 2010), and English acts as the most dominant foreign language to be used in this way.
The introductory chapter of this paper provides an insight into its main topic and the structure of the paper, while surveying the research literature and briefly discussing the practice of English as a language of CLIL. Chapter 2 elaborates on the methodology used for the empirical research conducted at the University of Klagenfurt, while the results are presented and discussed in chapter 3. The survey results provide an overview of the attitudes, while the results of the C-tests reveal the English proficiency of students and teachers at the university according to these test scores. After presenting the qualitative and quantitative results of the case study, chapter 4 finally proposes solutions and strategies for implementing English as a language of instruction at the University of Klagenfurt.

Data and Methodology
The study aimed at finding out how to implement English as a medium of instruction (EMI) formally and successfully at the University of Klagenfurt. For this purpose, feedback from students and teaching staff were collected. In order to propose a strategical approach to EMI and CLIL at the University, this study wanted to examine the attitudes of the potential learners, i.e. the students and the teaching staff respectively. It was necessary to find out their general opinion about this international and contemporary way of studying, as well as to reveal how open the students and teachers at the university are to implement this approach. By analysing participants' feedback, this study gained a considerable overview of the attitudes towards EMI and CLIL, as well as an insight into concerns regarding potential difficulties. Therefore, the study aimed at contributing to the university, particularly to the Department of English and the international study programmes, to prevent or reduce potential difficulties "step by step". Moreover, the results of the C-tests provided an input regarding the English language proficiency of both the students and teachers. Accordingly, additional courses and professional help in English can be planned and provided. The study aimed at examining (1) the attitudes or how EMI has been perceived amongst the university students and teaching staff and (2) the English language proficiency of respondents, meaning to what extent the students and the staff outside of the English Department have been ready to implement EMI.
In order to gain an insight into the opinions of the students and staff at the university in this respect, the study used surveys, while the C-tests were used in order to approximate their English language proficiency. The target groups were as follows: -students of the University of Klagenfurt who have been enrolled in a study programme at the university apart from Anglophone areas of study, and -teaching staff, meaning academics, teachers, professors, or external lecturers at the University of Klagenfurt who have been teaching the students, or training the teachers, or who are involved in developing the teaching curricula apart from Anglophone areas of study.
According to these research methods and approaches, the following research questions emerged: 1. How is English as a language of instruction (EMI) accepted and perceived outside of the Department of English at the University of Klagenfurt?
2. How proficient are the students and teaching staff in using the English language?
Both students and staff received a mail invitation to participate in this project. They were introduced to the research and its aims, i.e. that it deals with the current topic of English as a medium of instruction, therefore, with a class setting in which the exercise and practical material of a regular curriculum are provided in English. Hence, the target groups received the links to (1) a survey and (2) a C-test and were asked to consider doing them both, which resulted in: -114 students and 21 teachers who completed the surveys, -75 students and 15 teachers who completed the C-tests. All respondents were students or teachers at various departments at the University of Klagenfurt.

Survey and Test Results
One survey was prepared for the students, and another for the teaching staff. Besides examining the attitudes towards English as a language of instruction, both surveys aimed at finding out what linguistic and organisational difficulties might occur when using English as the language of CLIL. Hence, the questions in the student survey wanted to examine how often students use English in communication, how they evaluate their English proficiency and if they consider themselves ready to use English at the university. Furthermore, the questions in the survey analysed the opinions of students about working through English in class, the potential difficulties as well as their attitudes regarding the relevance of English practice in general. The survey for teaching staff proposed the questions in a way to examine their language repertoire, self-reported English proficiency, and their background knowledge about CLIL and its teaching methods. Finally, the questions of the staff survey aimed at finding out how interested the teachers are to utilise English in the classroom, while additionally shedding light on their general opinion on implementing EMI at the University and examining the attitudes in terms of potential difficulties.
The C-test is a gap-filling test based on the principle of reduced redundancies and is used as an overall and rather fast measure of a general language proficiency in the target language (Eckes and Rüdiger 2006). However, the redundancies ensure the linguistic communication (Beck and Klieme 2007). Being used as a global instrument for determining general linguistic competence since the 1980s, the C-test has appeared to be one of the most thoroughly studied language tests (Baur and Spettmann 2009). The test regularly consists of a short text in which the second half of the word or the word-ending is deleted according to certain principles, whereby the first and last sentences in the whole test remain unchanged. In natural language use, various aspects of language, such as word meanings and syntactic aspects or collocations constitute the meaning of a message (Beck and Klieme 2007). Many conditions, such the ability to apply and integrate contextual, semantic, syntactic, morphological, lexical, and orthographic information and to use them properly in written form, have been considered (ibid.). In order to examine the validity and reliability of C-tests, the results from 843 participants who took both the German C-test and the standard DaF (German as a Foreign Language) test have been analysed in the study (Eckes and Rüdiger 2006). The results displayed a high reliability of the C-test. Therefore, the test appeared to be as a significantly reliable and valid instrument measuring standard language proficiency, i.e. competence in the four language skills: reading, listening, writing, and speaking. Moreover, the research showed that the C-test offers a comprehensive and more specific analysis of language proficiency. These findings indicated implications for the multicomponent and constructive measurement (ibid.). Figure 1 represents one of the tests used in the study. The C-tests were chosen as the most competent and response-friendly method to assess language proficiency of the study participants 1 . Accordingly, links to the tests were included in an email, together with a link to the corresponding survey. The links included a C-test and an open question before the test. The students were asked about the grade they received in their final English exam when leaving high school, i.e. the "Matura" (A-Level) grade they received in English. Teaching staff, on the other hand, were asked to state the years of experience they have as teachers at university. The time for doing the test was limited to 10 minutes and the results of both test groups were categorized according to the number of correctly filled gaps as follows: -Low score (0-7 correct gaps), -Medium score (8-16 correct gaps), -High score (17-25 correct gaps).
Proof that the breakdown of democracy in the thirties was caused by the absence of an emotional attachment to its creed is provided by Mussolini's own experience.

Student Survey and Test
The first question in the survey aimed at examining the frequency of using English on a free or daily basis and regardless of setting. The respondents were asked to report on how often they use English as a means of communication. They could choose only one answer from the following five options: every day, often, occasionally, hardly ever and never, or to choose other as an option and leave a comment about specific situations or settings where they use English. According to the results, more than a half of the students who responded the survey used English as a means of communication often or every day. More precisely, 39 students, that is 34.2 %, reported that they use English every day, and 34 students or 29.8 % reported often, which makes a total of 64 % students who reported using English regularly. Furthermore, 25 students or 21.9 % answered that they use English occasionally, while 13 students or 11.4 % replied that they hardly ever use English as a means of communication. Finally, only 2 out of 114 students reported that they never use English, which makes 1.8 % of all questioned students.
The second question of the survey aimed at examining how the students perceive their level of English. The students were asked to choose an option from the following four: low, manageable, average or excellent for each of the four foundational language skills (reading, writing, speaking, and listening). According to the answers, students perceived their English language skills as considerably high, since most of them assessed their English competence as average or excellent in each of four language skills. In the third question of the survey, the students were asked about their age. Accordingly, the average age of the students who participated in the survey was 25. Furthermore, the students were asked to comment on their English language competence acquired during their school education. The aim was to find out if the students consider that they need more courses aiming merely and particularly at practicing English, or if they consider themselves sufficiently prepared for its use at the university for researching, studying, and other class work. Students' opinions were divided equally. Thus, 47 students or 41.2 % of the total number of respondents claimed that their high school preparations contributed and made them sufficiently prepared for using English at the university. Nevertheless, almost the same number of students, precisely 46 students or 40.4 % of the total number of respondents, said that the preparations were helpful but that they still needed to attend

Reading
English language courses at the university. Finally, 21 students or 18.4 % of the total number of respondents, chose other as their answer and made additional comments about their own opinions and experiences. In summary, these students stated that the English-speaking environment and the practice of English as "a language for fun" in media and entertainment both contributed to developing their English proficiency.
The fifth question aimed at finding out if the students considered themselves ready to present class-related work (presentations, homework, group assignments) in English without significant difficulties. Students were asked to choose between: strongly disagree, disagree, remain neutral, agree or strongly agree about their competence in presenting in English in class without difficulties. Accordingly, most of the students either agree (51 students or 44.7 %) or even strongly agree (28 students or 24.6 %) that they are able to present classwork in English without major difficulties. Furthermore, 23 students or 21.2 % were neutral about this question, 9 students or 7.9 % claimed that they disagree, and only 3 students or 2.6 % chose strongly disagree.
In relation to the previous question, the students were then asked about the type of difficulties they might most likely be facing with in an EMI/CLIL setting.  Correspondingly, the highest percentage of students chose no difficulties, with 55 students or 48.2 % of their total number selecting this answer. While apparently expressing a general interest in courses with English language instruction, 24 students or 21.1 % of the total number claimed that they experienced organisational difficulties concerning the integration of such courses into their curricula. The same number of students claimed that they experience either motivational either linguistic difficulties, meaning that 14 students particularly reported not interested in participating the class where English is a working language, while the other 14 reported experiencing linguistic difficulties. The students who answered other (7 out of 114, or 6.1 %) additionally offered different comments. Some of these students claimed how they "forget" English vocabulary because they "get so nervous", while others stated how they "mix English words with words from the other languages".
Furthermore, students were asked about their opinion when it comes to studying new content in English. The following answers were offered to them: implied, effective, helpful, complex, or they could choose other and comment on the question.   In question number 8, students were asked to choose a context in which, according to their opinion, proficiency in English is the most relevant. English proficiency is highly relevant when Frequency Percent Other 7 6.1 Building self-confidence 11 9.6 Getting a job 28 24.6 Achieving international visibility 56 49.1 Obtaining a degree 12 10.5 Students seemed to be convinced that English proficiency benefits them in terms of material prosperity and international work. Therefore, 56 students or 49.1 % of the total number stated that English will benefit them when working on the international level, and 28 students or 25.6 % recognised English as a considerable factor that can help them find a job. 10 students or 10.5 % reported English as an important means that can help them obtain a degree at the university. Thus, 7 students or 6.1 % reported that English is an important means helping them in all the above mentioned: "Multiple of them." "Everything." "A combination of all the above. English is a requirement for modern life.
Getting a good viewpoint of the world and society beyond one's country's border requires English as a basis of communication. Learning new skills in English greatly increases the amount of potential material available for learning. A lot of technical jobs nowadays require English skills." "All." "Answers: 1 st , 2 nd and 3 rd ." Furthermore, students reported how English is a means that opens "social" opportunities for them as follows: "Meeting new people who don't know your language or getting around places where you don't speak the language." These results showed that students are increasingly convinced how English is a contemporary means that helps them in many aspects, e.g. in terms of their material prosperity or with regards to potential work in an international environment.
Moreover, the case study wanted to shed light on students' attitudes concerning their future professions. Therefore, students were asked if they consider themselves acting competently in a teamwork setting and being able to work independently in international environments upon graduation. Accordingly, most of the students were considerably convinced that they are going to be able to work successfully in the abovementioned contexts. 49 students or 43 % responded that they believe they will be able to work satisfactorily both in teamwork and international work settings. 38 students or 34.2 % strongly agreed with this claim. Only 2 students or 1.8 % indicated clearly that they will not be able to work in this context and 12 students or 10.5 % chose disagree, while 13 students or 11.4 % remained neutral about this.
When asked about their understanding of differences between social and academic English and their competence in both fields, students' feedback was highly positive. 93 students or 81.5 % answered that they either agree or strongly agree on this. 13 students or 11.4 % remained neutral, while eight students or 7 % of the total number reported that they do not know the difference between these two concepts. The students added the need to use English more frequently, stating this as a major advantage that will contribute to a more prosperous professional future for all students.
Another group of students identified English as a language of instruction with a desirable multi-perspective approach to education and academia that creates an educational background for future working careers. Furthermore, the students reported a need to learn through English and to use the language in regular class curricula, claiming that such regular practice will increasingly improve their English language proficiency.
The following comment summarised all the benefits of EMI that were reported by the students who participated in the survey: "I strongly enforce it [English as a working language in class] since a lot of the literature is written in English and, therefore, we should be able to read and talk about these topics in the original language. Maybe I see it as something important since in my opinion the message or the meaning of e.g. articles is getting lost when translating everything and racking your brain for the right German words. It's also a good preparation for the international labour market, since without English you are not going places nowadays. In addition, the more opportunities you have to talk in English and practise, the better you get, and you can grow even more when it comes to your self-confidence." Concerning the issue of solving or reducing language difficulties, students claimed that the frequent use of English should contribute to them becoming more confident and competent to speak English at university. Furthermore, reported difficulties mostly referred to the diversity of courses and programmes, concerns that the English language will impose a dominance over the local language, and, partially, that the students and staff are not proficient in English. 75 students completed the C-tests. The results are shown in table 5.
The results of students' C-tests according to the achieved correct points Low (0-7) 3

Medium (8-16) 17
High (17-25) 55  The approximate result of the students appeared to be 18.12 out of 25, which equals an average performance of 72.5 %. The average high-school final grade in English reported by students was 1.53 2 , which is considerably higher than the result they showed in the test. The students completed their C-test in approximately 6.24 minutes.

Staff Survey and Test
In the first question, the survey for teaching staff aimed at finding out their areas of  As can be seen, English and German manifested themselves as the most spoken languages in general, both used by 20 out of 21 survey respondents, which revealed English and German each being spoken by 95.2 % of the teaching staff who participated the survey. Since being spoken by eight respondents, French emerged as the third most frequently used language, followed by Italian as the fourth. In general, these results revealed that a large majority of teaching staff are proficient in English, German and French. This confirmed the results of the framework for the analysis of institutional language choice, which is then applied to the European Commission, as well as it corresponds to the results of Quell's research on European "Modern languages" (Quell 1997). Finally, the teachers showed a considerably broad language repertoire of 13 different languages in total.
The teachers reported comparable self-evaluations regarding their English language proficiency as had already been seen in the participating students' responses. The teachers reported that they have considerably high English skills. More than a half of the teaching staff, respectively 13 or 61.9 % of them, self-assessed as "proficient", while 7 or 33.3 % chose "advanced" as an answer to this question. Only one participant selected "higher intermediate" as an answer. Figure 10: Staff survey statistics. Self-reported English proficiency.
While examining the age reported by each respondent, the results revealed that the average age of the teachers who participated the survey is 42.3 years. Furthermore, when being asked about their understanding of the concepts of cultural awareness, needs analysis, self-reflection, and action research, the teaching staff who submitted the survey offered absorbing explanations of these terms. The respondents were asked to consider and explain the terms from a pedagogical perspective, as well as in the context of a classroom. Hence, "cultural awareness" refers to a conscious understanding of the role that culture plays in language learning and communication. In today's classroom, the term intercultural awareness has a more specific meaning (Baker 2012). According to their comments, the teachers were considerably familiar with the term: cultural awareness and seemed to recognise its importance in class. Their answers corresponded with the more contemporary term intercultural awareness, since some teachers proposed that an educator considers cultural differences, displays "understanding of classroom diversity" or tries to "accommodate" in terms of cultural differences. Furthermore, the concept of needs analysis (NA) represents one of the key stages in course and syllabus design, which features every CLIL setting, whereby the responsibility for the class affects both the learners and the teacher as well as a large number of additional stakeholders (Fortanet-Gómez and Ruiz-Garrido 2014). The teachers mostly explained the idea of needs analysis as an individual approach to a student, and less likely as analysis of the needs of other stakeholders involved in teaching. However, they perceived the term as slightly less important than cultural awareness or self-reflection. Notably, self-reflection of academic staff and lecturers is fundamental for a prosperous education system (Ananiadou and Claro 2009). According to the answers, the teachers acknowledged the high importance of self-reflection and seemed to clearly understand that this approach refers to their teaching role and professional development. Moreover, action research, as an innovative pedagogical approach, particularly established in the social sciences, ideally features teaching of a contemporary teacher (McNiff and Whitehead 2011). When compared to the feedback given for the other three methods in CLIL, the teachers showed a lower understanding of this method. Apparently, the teachers were less familiar with the method but recognised action research as a new approach that is mostly related to social sciences. However, their answers revealed that they understand the method to some extent.
Question number 6 examined if the teachers are interested in involving English as a language of instruction/curricula in their classes. Figure 11: Staff survey statistics. Self-reported interest in involving English as a language of instruction/curricula in class.
According to the answers, a large majority of respondents were highly interested in involving CLIL in their classes. More precisely, 17 or 81 % of the respondents showed an interest in involving CLIL in their teaching at university. However, 4 of them or 19 % of the total number reported that they are not interested.
Question number 7 wanted to examine if the teachers are concerned that they might experience language difficulties when using English as a language of instruction. Figure 12: Staff survey statistics. Self-reported concern about experiencing the language difficulties in CLIL class.
Apparently, most of the staff considered that they will not experience language difficulties. 16 teachers or 76.1 % stated this, while 5 or 23.8 % claimed that they might experience difficulties in CLIL classes.
Furthermore, the teachers answered the question if they are concerned about a potential reduction in quality of teaching in an CLIL setting. Figure 13: Staff survey statistics. Self-reported concern about the reduced lesson quality.
Here, the teachers were slightly more concerned. However, 14 teachers or 66.7 % answered that they are not concerned about this, while 7 teachers or 33.3 % reported a concerning a potential loss of quality if English was used as a language of instruction.
The next question wanted to investigate the attitudes of teachers regarding the effect of CLIL on students, when being compared to the effects of a regular class.  Most of the staff were certain that a certain English language proficiency will contribute to students achieving a higher international academic mobility, with 17 teachers or 81 % of the total number confirming this. Accordingly, the students in the CLIL context might become more competent particularly among other candidates regarding employment, which was reported by 19 teachers or by 90.5 % of the total number. More than a half of the survey respondents, more precisely 54.2 % of all teachers who responded the survey, reported that a higher English language proficiency might contribute to students' abilities to look at things from multiple perspectives. Moreover, only 38.1 % of the teachers reported that having English in class might contribute to students gaining considerably more self-confidence. On the other hand, the students who completed the student survey claimed that they might achieve higher self-confidence through English practice in class. However, most of the staff or 52.3 % were uncertain about this point.   According to the responses, by offering courses in English, the university would strongly promote academic mobility (confirmed by 20 teachers, or 95.2 %), facilitate project development (confirmed by 16 or 76.2 % teachers) and contribute to the scientific community (16 or 76.2 %). However, a certain number of staff respondents were uncertain about these three possible effects, while a lower number of the staff stated that the contributions will most likely be insignificant (table 8).
In question number 12, the teaching staff were asked to choose an answer concerning the contribution of EMI to helping international students to improve their academic achievements at the University of Klagenfurt. This may also be relevant to local students of the university when attending programmes abroad. The teachers mainly reported strongly agree (confirmed by 8 teachers or 38.1 %) or agree (5 teachers or 23.8 % of the total number) about the increased contribution of the university to international students' performance by implementing English as an additional language. However, a certain number of them chose neutral (2 teachers or 9.5 %) and 4 teachers or 19 % of the total number reported that they strongly disagree about the claim. One teacher who chose other as an answer, added the following comment: ""Strongly depends on English proficiency of the international students."" In the last question of the survey, the staff were asked to report their opinion on having English as a language of CLIL at the University of Klagenfurt. This question wanted to examine the advantages and disadvantages of CLIL according to teachers' opinion, as well as to find out their general opinion about EMI and CLIL at the university. The teaching staff mostly reported responses similar to those of the students, namely that they overwhelmingly see English as an advantage in future professions and welcome its use in teaching but also pointed out to general difficulties and the potential practical problems in teaching different subjects in English. These are some of the responses reported by the staff in the last survey question: "Integrating English learning/training for better English provides students with a better foundation for their future life and the jobs they will occupy." "Necessary in today's work. The more one practices, the better one becomes. Too many students are too weak in English → practice more. Necessary in international surroundings, job market, for cultural understanding etc." "Language as an additional challenge in the understanding of difficult subjects." The C-tests were only completed by 15 teachers and the results have been collected in the same way as the results of the students.

Discussion and Outlook
This study examined the potential of English as a language of CLIL and its future practice at the University of Klagenfurt. The main sources of data were (1) surveys aimed at examining attitudes of students and teaching staff towards English as a medium of instruction at the University of Klagenfurt and (2) language proficiency tests (C-tests) aimed at examining language competence of the same sample of respondents. The total number of 135 surveys (114 from students and 21 from the teaching staff) and 90 Ctests (75 from students and 25 from the teaching staff) showed highly positive responses reported by students on English as a language of instruction and considerably positive feedback on this matter reported by teaching staff.
Both surveys offered absorbing data from both students and staff, which have been quantitively and qualitatively analysed in this paper. The second student survey question revealed the self-report of 114 students on their self-assessed level of English in reading, writing, speaking, and listening. The students mostly chose average or excellent as proficiency level for each of these four skills. Furthermore, 21 teachers who participated the survey for teachers also self-reported their general English proficiency level as mostly proficient or as advanced in the third question of the survey for teachers. Most of the students chose agree (51 students) or even strongly agree (28 students) as an answer to the fifth question about using English for spoken production in class without difficulties, while the teachers answered similarly when it comes to providing feedback in English. Moreover, most of the teachers (16 teachers) answered that they are not concerned about experiencing language difficulties when using EMI. Both students and teachers reported highly positive attitudes towards learning and teaching in English. Only 8 out of 114 students claimed that studying content in English is complex, while all the others reported this as implied (20 students), effective (41 students) or helpful (41 students), whereby teachers mostly explained providing feedback in English as functional (4 teachers), beneficial (13 teachers) or implied (3 teachers). Only one teacher reported unproductive as an answer to survey question 10. Additionally, 56 students claimed in the eight question that proficiency in English is highly relevant when achieving international visibility (56 students) and getting a job (25 students), while the teachers answered similarly in the relevantly linked ninth survey question. The students and the teachers both reported that English is highly important in terms of international work and professional success, which is also evident in their answers to the last (open) questions of both surveys.
Students particularly welcomed EMI in terms of international work and professional success, and teaching staff stated the same but seemed to be slightly more reserved in terms of potential difficulties considering different curricula. Moreover, the students accomplished varying results in the C-test with a few divergent cases which were highly low (zero, two or 6 correct gaps). The approximate result of the students was 18.12 out of 25, which equals an average performance of 72.5 %. The average high-school final grade in English reported by students was 1.53, which is considerably higher than the result they showed in the test. The results of the C-test for teachers displayed a high performance of 21.4 out of 25, which equals 85.6 %.
The theoretical results of the CLIL analysis, English proficiency of students, potential language difficulties and different curricula attest positively to a strategic approach to implementing EMI at the University of Klagenfurt. Therefore, this research proposes the following strategies and training to encourage implementing CLIL successfully at the University of Klagenfurt:

a) Elementary course for lecturers
This course would aim at studying basic English terminology with regards to the ELF, CLIL and Business English. Furthermore, the course would be based on developing the professional, technical, administrative, and academic vocabulary in English, while improving and practicing pronunciation, presentation and communication skills.

b) Elementary course for students
The course would aim at studying and refining students' competence in English grammar, syntax, pronunciation, and vocabulary as it is related to academic writing, digital literacy, media and collecting information from valid and reliable online sources and scientific articles.

c) Advanced course or further education for lecturers
The course would aim at studying and refining advanced English vocabulary, academic writing skills, presenting in English, self-reflection, action research, and teaching methods in English.

d) Advanced course or further education for students
The course would aim at studying advanced English, formulating research proposals and planning term papers, writing in English, presenting in English, peerassessment, writing applications, CVs and reports. e) Providing help by an English teacher and CLIL teacher.
The university would offer regular assistance from an English teacher specialised in CLIL, who will cooperate and assist other teaching staff at the university in the CLIL context.
In addition, English proficiency tests should be obligatory before and after both courses a) and b). The aim would be to determine if the performance of the participants in English has improved and if so, to what extent.