Engineering programs increasingly demand graduates who can collaborate across disciplines, communicate precisely about complex systems, and adapt to fast-evolving technological ecosystems. Traditional foreign-language instruction focusing on static grammar-translation or decontextualized communicative drills has limited transfer to engineering workplaces. This article proposes a reflective, design-oriented model that integrates Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL), task-based and project-based learning, simulation-supported role-play, corpus-informed micro-writing, and analytics-enabled feedback, all orchestrated through structured cycles of reflection. The study positions reflection not as an add-on but as the engine that converts experience into durable professional language competence. The research aim is to substantiate theoretically and methodologically how reflective practice can structure the acquisition of foreign-language skills for engineering students and to present a practically implementable model for courses at the B1–C1 levels aligned with ESP requirements. Methodologically, the paper follows a design-based approach drawing on experiential learning theory, reflective learning frameworks, and evidence from engineering education. The results section details a sequenced intervention architecture consisting of problem framing with engineering briefs, multimodal language input, authentic production tasks, deliberate reflection with learning journals and e-portfolios, and standards-referenced assessment calibrated by analytic rubrics. The discussion interprets how reflection tightens the coupling between linguistic form, disciplinary meanings, and professional identity, and clarifies the roles of instructors, peers, and AI-enabled tools in scaffolding reflective cycles. The conclusion outlines implications for curriculum design, teacher development, and quality assurance, arguing that reflective, innovation-oriented language pedagogy is particularly suited to engineering education because it operationalizes the same habits of mind—iteration, verification, and ethical responsibility—that underpin engineering practice.  

Reflective approach, ESP, CLIL, engineering education, task-based learning

Kolb D. A. Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1984. 256 p.

Schön D. A. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books, 1983. 374 p.

Gibbs G. Learning by Doing: A Guide to Teaching and Learning Methods. Oxford: Oxford Polytechnic, 1988. 200 p.

Boud D., Keogh R., Walker D. Reflection: Turning Experience into Learning. London: Kogan Page, 1985. 176 p.

Council of Europe. Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Companion Volume. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing, 2020. 248 p.

Hutchinson T., Waters A. English for Specific Purposes: A Learning-Centred Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. 183 p.

Coyle D., Hood P., Marsh D. CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. 173 p.

Ellis R. Task-Based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. 387 p.

Biggs J., Tang C. Teaching for Quality Learning at University. 4th ed. Maidenhead: Open University Press, 2011. 389 p.

Mishra P., Koehler M. J. Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Framework for Teacher Knowledge // Teachers College Record. 2006. Vol. 108, No. 6. P. 1017–1054.

Godwin-Jones R. Emerging Technologies: Global Reach and Local Practice: The Promise of M-Learning // Language Learning & Technology. 2011. Vol. 15, No. 2. P. 7–15.

Flowerdew J. Corpora in Language Teaching // Applied Linguistics. 2012. Vol. 33, No. 3. P. 448–456.

Hyland K. Genre and Second Language Writing. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2004. 208 p.

Dudley-Evans T., St John M. J. Developments in English for Specific Purposes: A Multi-Disciplinary Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. 301 p.

Prince M. Does Active Learning Work? A Review of the Research // Journal of Engineering Education. 2004. Vol. 93, No. 3. P. 223–231.