{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.027915382162219622, 'fraction_numerical': 0.013075369405761667, 'mean_word_length': 5.537317581653927, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 1, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 2, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
IDENTIFYING WEAKNESSES OF CLIL IN THE MILITARY HIGHER EDUCATION CLASSROOM

. Due to the ever-increasing expansion of English language integration into content courses within higher educational institutions (HEIs), this study seeks to gain insights into how domestic students, as well as content and language lecturers perceive integrating English for Specific Academic Purposes (ESAP) in an academic/vocational military university using Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL). We investigate firstly on how mostly domestic, non-native English speaking students perceive learning academic military content in an English Educational Environment (EEE), and secondly, how content and ESAP lecturers perceive collaborating within CLIL at the Swedish Defense University. Using a mixed-methods approach with data gathered from students and lecturers, the results are useful for HEIs looking to increase their English integration. Our results indicate that NNES students indeed learn content and language knowledge simultaneously using CLIL because communicative ESAP tasks enable them to process, and increase content knowledge. However, as this article will show, students prefer drastically different CLIL methods for reasons that we argue can be traced to varying L2 proficiencies. Meanwhile, lecturers had different expectations of, and perceived, interdisciplinary collaboration differently. This study concludes by suggesting that CLIL step 3 is inherently flawed due to a mismatch of implicit methods and explicit expectations of language proficiency, which consequently complicate lecturer roles and interdisciplinary collaboration.


INTRODUCTION
In a push for internationalization, Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) are incorporating English into courses and programs at staggering rates (Wächter and Maiworm 2014;Macaro, Curle, Pun, An, Dearden 2018;Hurajova 2021). Offering English Educational Environments (EEE)programs in English or with English language supportis thought to work towards the goals of internationalization to appeal to international students and faculty, and to prepare domestic students to participate professionally in fields in which English is the Lingua Franca. While these intentions are good, oftentimes the ways in which languages are incorporated into programs are decided with little or no consultation from language-learning experts or content lecturers (CLs), with negligible regard for the implications on language learning for students (Galloway and Rose 2021;Macaro et al. 2018), and with CLs potentially ill-prepared to teach adequately in English (Hurajova 2021).
To meet internationalization aims, HEIs are increasingly trialing and implementing Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) in which students should develop content knowledge and language competence simultaneously (Arnó- Macià and Mancho-Barés 2015;Fajardo, Argudo, and Abad 2020;Mehisto, Marsh, and Frigols 2008); the responsibility for student language and content learning is shared between language lecturers (LLs) and CLs since pedagogical collaboration is expected. While CLIL is similar to Content Based Language Teaching (CBLT), CLIL is a European approach to teaching and learning that suits the internationalization and multilingual goals of European countries (Eurydice 2006) as it places an equal emphasis on language and content learning objectives (Halloway and Rose 2021). Moreover, CLIL is widely known to be an effective and motivating method for learning language (Banegas 2018;Roy, Kudry, and Naya 2020;Sylven 2017) since students use the target language (TL) to complete relevant, real-world tasks and learn content simultaneously (Woźniak 2017;Gawlik-Kobylińska and Lowińska 2014;Mehisto et al. 2008). Universities may also mistakenly view CLIL as a financial incentive like 'getting two subjects for the price of one'.
Implementing CLIL is a challenging and complex process in part because institutions are rapidly implementing EEEs in which structural policies for language integration are inadequate (Aguilar 2017: 732). Additional complications occur as lecturers struggle to negotiate their roles (Bonnet and Breidbach 2017) during collaboration between language and content disciplines (Arnó- Macià and Mancho-Barés 2014;Wozniak 2017). Implementing CLIL before teaching staff are adequately prepared with appropriate didactic preparation is also common, yet problematic (Gawlik-Kobylińska and Lowińska 2014). Not to be forgotten are the domestic students who may or may not care to have a substantial portion of their education in EEE (Hurajova 2021). Learning from others' experiences is both time and cost effective, so reporting on the difficulties and possible solutions of CLIL implementation can be beneficial for the wider research community. This paper focuses on internationalization at home where a CLIL environment is created for a dominant group of domestic students and a few international students who will work both domestically and internationally within the military after graduation.

LITERATURE REVIEW
Traditionally, HEIs have offered English for Specific Purposes (ESP) or English for Academic Purposes (EAP) courses. However, without the specific connection to students' specialization, student needs are not well met (Galloway and Ruegg 2020). Meanwhile, tailoring English for Specific and Academic Purposes (ESAP) courses for discipline-specific courses places significant demands and responsibilities on language specialists to know relevant content outside their specialty area (Galloway and Rose 2021) even if they may have "expertise in ESP teaching in particular domains" (Woźniak 2017, 248).
CLIL, like ESP, utilizes the discipline-specific English found in the content of nonlanguage disciplines and includes the teaching of professional practices or skills. Differences between these approaches arise mostly in how CLs approach the role of language within the content course. Within CLIL, CLs are said to approach language learning differently (Aguilar 2017;Arnó-Macià and Mancho-Barés 2015;Yang 2020) by including scaffolding, frequent questions, feedback, and discussion (Llianares and Morton 2017). During CLIL's systematic collaboration, some research suggests CLs' confidence in using English increases, as does LLs' confidence in teaching with discipline materials (Bruton and Woźniak 2013). Importantly, their heightened confidence may stem from the added support that both discipline experts gain from working collaboratively to prepare lectures and materials to identify what tasks and content are most essential.
Moreover, CLIL is adaptable and accommodates a wide range of student needs within HEIs (Aguilar 2015(Aguilar , 2017Coyle et al. 2010;Greere and Räsänen 2008;Hurajova 2021;Mehisto et al. 2008). While CLIL retains the focus of discipline-specific language learning and skills typical for ESP, recently research shows that students and lecturers may require ESAP lessons in EEEs to complement content lessons prepared with an explicit languagelearning focus (Galloway and Rose 2021). In this study, we have used a modified version of Step 3 CLIL from Greere and Räsänen's (2008, 6) five-step CLIL classification in which some cross-disciplinary collaboration among lecturers occurred and student officers received additional ESAP lessons. Noteworthy for Step 3 CLIL is that language learning is expected to occur incidentally. This is appropriate for our study since explicit proficiency requirements for students do not exist in their program of study, yet language-learning aims do.

CLIL in HEIs
Arnó-Macià and Mancho-Barés (2015) research on lecturer and student views of CLIL implementation showed both groups viewed the CLIL experience more positively than the ESP option. CLIL was more favorable because of the focus on discipline-specific language use in a more relaxed atmosphere with a focus on fluency rather than grammatical accuracy. These aspects, settings, and expectations have been noted to be beneficial for language learning in other language learning settings (Yakut and Bada 2021, 624;Stanojevič Gocič and Jankovič 2021, 608). Woźniak (2017) studied LL perceptions of their role as CLIL tutors for CLs, and found that implementing CLIL required redoubled focus on methodological and pedagogical approaches in content lessons. Consequently, CLs became aware of the role of discipline-specific languageand how to address it in their teaching.
Traditionally, linguists have driven CLIL integration and research (Galloway and Rose 2021), and because of their disciplinary language expertise, they can positively influence the integration of language and content courses in tertiary institutions (Taillefer 2013). Since, "more input from content specialists" regarding CLIL experiences is desirable (Airey 2017, 301), and this study shares the experiences a joint CLIL implementation by both content and language experts at a military university.

Background to CLIL Implementation
Within European military academies and universities, warfare disciplines are naturally central; equally essential is the need to communicate beyond national borders and typically in English. Officers are required to discern in groups and individually the implications and responses to complex and multifaceted events, to disseminate orders clearly and succinctly under time pressure, and to communicate continuously. Such challenging tasks, which are both complex and abstract, require officers to have intercultural awareness and communicative strategies (CSs) to ensure communicative competence (CC) with diverse interlocutors as these tasks also typically include more communicative breakdowns and difficulties due to the complexity of them (Paramasiwam 2009). Moreover, research has shown that extensive exposure to a TL influences the communicative strategies learners choose to gradually liken the TL communicative strategies more so than L1 strategies (Yakut and Bada 2021, 622). Thus, exposure to the TL will likely aid speakers in communicating with other speakers of English.
Additionally, "building a content-language competence is particularly important for effective communication between military staff members from various academies" (Gawlik-Kobylińska and Lowińska 2014, 115). Within NATO, and NATO Partners for Peace (PfP) countries, English proficiency for military purposes is essential. Military students need to have a sufficient level of receptive English knowledge to read relevant military literature related to their academic studies. Additionally, students need to produce discipline-specific English for specific military purposes like during crises, under threats of large-scale violence, or in academic settings. For these reasons, CLIL appears to be an effective method for an academic military institution in which languagelearning objectives, including communicative competence and key technical language, are as essential as content objectives, and they also have a symbiotic relationship.
Indeed, researchers at the Polish National Defense University (PDU) suggest that CLIL could be effective in higher military education because the CLIL modality can be tailored to the needs of specific groups of learners (Gawlik-Kobylińska and Lowińska 2014, 114-15). Researchers suggest CLIL could ameliorate the transition for domestic military students of acquiring discipline studies from a native to a foreign language (L2). Furthermore, they argue that learning in an L2 enhances students' abilities to view content from differing perspectives which is clearly beneficial for cross-cultural interaction and interoperability. Gawlik-Kobylińska and Lowińska therefore suggests that "since in military areas a specific language must be used in different contexts and circumstances, the CLIL approach is a viable tool for the maximization of teaching effects" (2014, 115). As research certifying the applicability of CLIL in academic military settings is outstanding, this paper intends to shed light on lecturer and students views of a CLIL trial in a highly specialized military/vocational and academic setting similar to the PDU so that HEIs with specialized academic and vocational student groups can gain insight in how content and language can be implemented successfully.
Although CLIL appears to be effective in academic and vocational settings, and appropriate for the purposes of tertiary military education, challenges remain for its implementation. Initially, CLs may perceive their own English abilities as insufficient (Aguilar 2017), or that content must be simplified for student comprehension (Arnó- Macià and Mancho-Barés 2015). Yet, other research suggests that students and lecturers appear to adjust to each other's L2 language proficiency (Nikula 2010;Smit 2010). These trepidations certainly deserve consideration prior to implementation of any CLIL program.
Challenges in CLIL integration could also stem from a distrust between disciplines e.g. LLs perceiving themselves to be in a "butler stance"subordinate to the CLsrather than filling a role of their own (Raimes 1991). Conversely, if LLs assume a leadership or expert role in the collaborative processes, they may appear too dominant or to undermine the expertise of the discipline experts (Jacobs 2007;Weinberg and Symon 2017). Since the CL in this study are military officers and accustomed to hierarchical settings, these challenges are particularly relevant and could impede CLIL integration.
The specific socio-lingual contexts in which CLIL interventions are embedded can be another hurdle. For this study, CLIL implementation requires unique solutions because of the need to comply with Swedish law (HSV 2008) on parallel language use (PLU)the concurrent use of several languages within one or more discipline without one language "abolish[ing] or replac[ing] the other" (MR-U 2006, 93). In practice, students must understand and communicate course content in English and Swedish and therefore meet high standards in both languages. Notwithstanding, PLU allows for flexibility with course design, course literature, and language integration.

Aims and research questions
Given the challenges highlighted in research on implementing a CLIL-approach, more research is needed on trial designs of CLIL approaches in HE that reflect the lived experiences of CLIL (Nikula 2017, 311). This pilot study examines the perceptions of students and lecturers involved in implementing CLIL in higher military education at a Swedish university, subject to PLU requirements. Specifically, we aim to address the following research questions: 1. How did the military officers experience practicing their oral and written English skills as they developed their content knowledge during the CLIL implementation? 2. How did CLs and LLs experience their roles during the teaching and planning process, and how do they view future integration?

INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT AND DESIGN OF THE STUDY
This section presents the institutional context and design of the study, examining the implementation of CLIL within the master's program for career officers at the Swedish Defence University (SEDU). The program aims to increase the students' professional and academic English proficiency required for their studies and service in the Swedish Armed Forces (SwAF), while preparing some students to continue their studies at English-medium military universities. Their professional requirements entail the need to communicate clearly and accurately under time pressure and threats of large-scale violence or life-threatening conditions.
Miscommunication or misunderstandings can be lethal. Because the language of military command typically is English, the pressure increases for officers to be able to lead and exploit forces during joint operations in both national and international settings. Interoperability with other nations' militaries demands CC and cross-cultural understanding in addition to being expert military officers. However, while not all officers have the English proficiency to work internationally, they still have the opportunity to complete the program and to advance in their careers domestically, so preventing someone from graduating because of sub-par English skills for domestic work is controversial. Instead, the aim for language teaching is to aid them in their language learning and use of strategies to overcome communicative difficulties.
This study implemented CLIL in a military theory course in which 86 percent of 1,400 pages of academic texts was English-medium. Students used English productively in one formal written response and one seminar (henceforth the CLIL-seminar). The remaining written responses, seminars, and course literature were in Swedish to fulfill PLU requirements. The course is student-centered and the ESAP lessons include communicative activities that focus on vocabulary acquisition and instruction of language learning strategies to improve their language and is conducive for these autonomous learners (Stanojevič Gocič and Jankovič 2021, 608). During the course, LLs were allocated weekly 90-minute lessons to address key terminology, concepts, and communicative techniques. In some lessons, students summarized course literature and discussed seminar questions. However, LLs tailored lessons to their specific student needs rather than a prescribed syllabus. Consequently, less proficient student groups focused on making sense of the literature, while more proficient student groups advanced to discussing and applying the theories to their future needs. See Table 1 below for a detailed overview of the course. The CLIL approach chosen by the course director aimed to improve students' English proficiency and professional readiness. Students attended weekly ESAP language lessons, which utilized content materials in tasks, and attended content lectures that were predominantly in Swedish. Ahead of the English-medium seminar (henceforth the CLILseminar), one LL paired with one military professional lecturer and/or one military historian. Each pair/group determined the extent of collegiate collaboration. The CL led the CLIL-seminar while the LL evaluated language use and assisted if linguistic breakdowns occurred. For the written assignment due ahead of this seminar, LLs evaluated the language use while CLs assessed the content of each student's submission. LLs evaluated the use of correct lexis rather than grammatical accuracy relevant for communicative competence as SLA research shows incorrect lexical use causes miscommunication more frequently than grammatical inaccuracy (Politzer, 1972 as cited in Levenston 1979, 147) and because the course does not include English language production requirements.
It should be noted that the course documents specify requirements for "correct" Swedish language (SEDU, 2020a: 9), but fail to outline explicit English language requirements, requirements for English proficiency, or correct use of English terminology. Instead, students should achieve English language proficiency through language lessons aiming to: a) Increase the student's ability to independently gather and process written and oral information in English. b) Develop and consolidate the student's ability to present and support their own ideas in writing and in spoken English at a level equivalent to the requirements for command positions within the SwAF and for international deployments.
c) Develop and consolidate the student's ability to argue, discuss, and reason hypothetically about relevant topics for the officer's profession at all command levels and in an academic context (SEDU 2018, 5). Accordingly, accurate English terminology and communicative competence were primary foci while grammatical correctness was secondary.

RESEARCH METHODS
Through a mixed-methods approach, this study seeks to gain insights into CLs' and LLs' perceptions of their experience. It reports on quantitative and qualitative data that research has called for (Nikula 2017) collected during one academic semester (Fall 2020), including discrete and free response questions from three sources: students, content, and LLs. Of the 172 students enrolled in the course, four were exchange students with L1s other than Swedish. Of the twelve war studies or military history CLs, eleven spoke Scandinavian L1s and one had English as their L1. All LLs spoke a variety of English as their L1 and instruct graduate and undergraduate military students in ESAP courses.
The officers' questionnaires aimed to uncover the perceptions of officers and lecturers regarding the CLIL implementation. Immediately after the course ended, we sent questionnaire links to CLs and LLs respectively. Officers received their link via their virtual learning platform and a blanket email requesting their participation. We chose online questionnaires mainly for ethical reasons based on the university's work-at-home policy during COVID-19, and viewed interviews with the participants as potentially problematic as the authors were lecturers of the course. We considered that longer interviews or mainly free responses could affect the response rate, given officers' strenuous course load and examination schedule. For these reasons, we invited participants to respond anonymously to the questionnaires. The limitations following from the study's narrow focus and lack of in-depth interviews prevent drawing conclusions with larger implications.
The first part of the questionnaires included questions in which participants responded on a four-point Likert scale with a commentary section following each question. Participants could respond in either English or Swedish. We translated Swedish responses to English and included an additional open-response question in each questionnaire to detect themes and to elicit more qualitative feedback. Participants could reply as extensively as they wished in commentaries after each question and in free-response questions.
The officer questionnaire focused on officer perceptions of the literature and tasks in English in this CLIL course and their English lessons. The CLs questionnaire included questions regarding their own and their officers' abilities to communicate effectively in the CLIL-seminar. We asked LLs about the language teaching and collaboration with CLs ahead of the CLIL-seminar. Lastly, all questionnaires asked for participants' views on future CLIL implementation.
We collected the questionnaire data from officers' (n = 63), CLs' (n =12), and LLs' (n = 9) responses, and used descriptive statistics to identify trends. Statistical analysis procedures were deemed unnecessary, as participants' perceptions and opinions could be seen using distributive statistics. The open-ended responses were coded and are presented thematically.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
This section, divided into two parts, presents and discusses the officers' learning experiences and the planning and teaching experiences of CLs and LLs. As will be shown, our findings underscore the problem of managing officers' divergent expectations and preferences during CLIL implementation, and the issues surrounding the collaborative process involving CLs and LLs.

Officers' learning experiences: A mixed picture
This section presents officer perceptions of the receptive and productive aspects of the CLIL intervention, highlighting the disparate views of learning and discussing academic content in L2 English, and their preferences for future CLIL implementation.

Receptive elements within the CLIL intervention
A majority of officers, 67 percent, viewed the English-medium literature favorably as an aid to later production of course content. One-third considered it aided them very little, while eight percent perceived no aid at all. A common theme among the responses indicates students found the English-medium literature beneficial for exposure to central terminology, including: (1) "Much of the terminology used in the seminar are [sic] defined and described in the literature, therefore I think it was helpful"; Others noted the benefits to proficiency: (2) "Definitely helped to read a lot of English literature during the course, helps me get into the mindset of speaking english [sic]"; (3) "I also found listening to the literature as an audio-recording helped me a lot to get prepared for the seminar in English"; Accordingly, most officers viewed the inclusion of a majority of English-medium course literature positively because it aided their preparation for production. Relatedly, qualitative data suggests some students would have preferred more receptive Englishmedium content lectures to reinforce their language learning from the literature: (4) "[Acquiring terminology from the literature] would [have made an] even greater impact if the lecture as well was performed in English [sic]. These findings coincide with other research that notes that extensive exposure to the TL materials seems to improve L2 productive skills for CC purposes (Yakut and Bada 2021). Thus, officers generally perceived the receptive elements of the CLIL intervention were beneficial for their learning, and some desired more English-medium lectures. However, officer opinions differed broadly regarding productive elements of the course, as presented below.

Productive elements within the CLIL intervention
Roughly 73 percent of officers viewed the English-medium written assignment in preparation for the CLIL-seminar as beneficial with only one-fourth responding "very little" or "not at all". See Figure 1. Comments spanned from positive (5) to neutral (6) to negative (7) and (8): (5) it helped "facilitate my thoughts and arguments, since the seminar was in English"; (6) "no distinction from the [writing assignments ahead of] seminars in Swedish"; (7) that "to write and speak in English felt hampering"; (8) "[t]here was far too much focus on writing grammatically correct rather than [on] content". Comments (5) and (6) indicate some found the writing assignment beneficial for processing content, and writing in English was not negative. Meanwhile, comment (7) can be expected in an SLA environment, as students notice gaps in their productive knowledge and are pushed to produce comprehensible output (Swain 1995). Comment (8) reflects one officer's uncertainty about language proficiency goals. 1 As coming sections will show, the lack of explicit language learning criteria and/or the language aims that were not clearly disseminated to officers explain why they held such differing views of how CLIL should be implemented. Still, most officers perceived benefits from engaging with the written assignment in English.
Thereafter, we asked officers to estimate how effectively they could participate in the English-medium CLIL-seminar (see Figure 2 below), and then how much the seminar contributed to their understanding of course content. An overwhelming majority, 73 percent, 1 The course description outlined no specific language learning goals. Fig. 2 Officer responses on how well they perceived they were able to participate effectively in the CLIL-seminar.
viewed they were able to participate effectively in English during the seminar, as compared to 27 percent who responded "very little" or "not at all". It is noteworthy that the same percentage of officers who felt they could participate in the seminar effectively also viewed that the written assignment aided their learning. Therefore, other HEIs should consider including written assignments ahead of spoken seminars to aid students in noticing their gaps of linguistic knowledge (Schmidt, 1990) which will consequently aid students in oral production. Awareness-raising and increased perception of successful production are likely to increase their motivation (Stanojevič Gocič and Jankovič 2021, 608). Albeit overwhelming perceptions of effective participation, only 37 percent perceived the CLIL-seminar aided their understanding of the course content to some or a large extent. Meanwhile, 63 percent perceived it aided them "very little" or "not at all". The most prevalent theme within the qualitative data indicates officers felt constrained when discussing content topics in English. Comments included:  (9) and (10) are expected during a learning process, and frustrated students may not necessarily interpret this feeling as "negative" but as a means to an end (see comment 10).
A secondary theme that became evident from the results indicated that the language proficiency of some officers or lecturers impeded their content discussions or caused misunderstandings. Comments include: (11) "Speaking english [sic] in a seminar is challenging and misinterpretations among students/teachers were common"; (12) "I gain a deeper understanding by listening, discussing, and arguing with my group-comrades [in Swedish. Conducting the seminar in English] "hampered us all -including the seminar leader"; (13) "Some students avoid participating. Those that do participate "have difficulties formulating more thorough discussion contributions, which contributes to a shallow understanding of the subject"; (14) "I am skeptical to a seminar in English. Interesting ideas and thoughts are missed, and too much focus is placed on speaking grammatically correctly or not at all"; Comments (11) and (12) reference breakdowns in communication due to participants' lack of proficiency which research indicates is one reason some lecturers are skeptical to participating in CLIL-seminars (see e.g. Aguilar 2017; Arnó- Macià and Mancho-Barés 2015). Relatedly, comments (13) and (14) note that some perceived their insufficient language proficiency prevented full comprehension of course content, another point repeated in research (Galloway and Rose 2021). Idealy miscommunication would not occur, yet overcoming miscommunication and practicing CC strategies is especially useful for officers and is actually also inherently part of increasing linguistic proficiency, a program aim. A key to successful implementation may be to raise officers' awareness to this so they perceive it as practice rather than failure. Lastly, comment (14) relates to comment (8) and reinforces the idea that language, proficiency, and content objectives of the CLIL intervention were insufficiently disseminated to students.
The remaining qualitative data from officers' perceptions of the CLIL-seminar show completely divergent opinions. Some officers responded that the seminar maintained the same/similar level of discussion quality as in Swedish and that language was essentially unproblematic: (15) "no distinction from a Swedish seminar": (16) "[c]onducting the seminar in English did not hamper me in any way in understanding"; While others noted: (17) The CLIL-seminar "was helpful for language [proficiency], but not for [gaining] deeper understanding of content"; (18) "Separate the content and language by discussing the content first and then focusing on the language. It would have been better to have the examining warfare and flexibility seminar in Swedish and have the seminar as well in the following English class to be able to focus on the language"; Comments (15) and (16) indicate that some officers perceived they could participate fully in the CLIL-seminar and gain content knowledge, perhaps due partially to their own and their groups' collective language proficiency, something noted in other research (Sylvén, 2017). These officers were thus able to utilize the synergy that CLIL offerslearning language and content simultaneously. Others did not perceive the same synergy (comments 17 and 18). Comment (18) indicates difficulties in combining content and language learning in that some need to understand the content first before being able to focus on the language. This disparity could likely be caused by variations in officers' English proficiency before starting the program as they perceive an extra hurdle of first comprehending and synthesizing the English-medium material before processing the content well enough to discuss it in English in an academic EEE. Comments 9 and 10 further strengthen this argument. These opposing and often diverging views are underscored in the following sections, in which officer preferences for future CLIL iterations are presented. Before that, officer perceptions of the ESAP lessons are presented.
Regarding the ESAP lessons, Figure 3 (below) illustrates student responses were split nearly evenly, with a slight majority that viewed ESAP lessons aided their ability to understand content. The split perceptions could be due to the officers' different needs within ESAP groups. Groups who were potentially more able to manage the heavy reading load in English might have had their ESAP lessons focus on improving other areas of English (e.g. fluency, or academic vocabulary), whereas those who struggled with the reading might have needed more support withand therefore the ESAP lesson focused onunderstanding the literature (see comment 19 below). Consequently, officers whose ESAP lessons were less focused on processing content, but perhaps more on reading comprehension or other fluency activities might have responded negatively to this question. Correspondingly, commentary for this question shows disparity and underscores the benefits of ESAP lessons. While some officers struggled to keep up (19), the dominant theme highlighted officer satisfaction with ESAP activities that aimed to synthesize the content material by having them summarize and discuss [Swedish] seminar questions in English (comments 20 to 22): (19) "the heavy reading task" left "little time for text-analyzes [sic]" and to "do the actual reading". This student opted for "finding some information" to present in the English classes; (20) "[T here is great potential for us to use the English lessons to discuss the seminar questions. This worked well in my language study group"; (21) "[w]hen I prepared my summar [ies], I also had to understand my topic in order to describe it for my colleagues"; (22) "it is really good to have English class every week, to get the language ongoing.
Also to support all the reading in English literature". Generally, officers viewed the ESAP lessons were beneficial for their language learning, but less so for processing course content. These results further indicate that ESAP lessons should remain flexible and include scaffolding to aid learner reception and production of key terminology, technical terms, and communicative strategies for some, and tasks to further understanding and develop fluency for those who can independently process the literature. Given these different needs and expectations, officers' opinions for future CLIL integration differed.

Future CLIL integration: Mixed preferences
This section address officers' preferences for future CLIL integration and summarizes their view of the CLIL implementation. Regarding how content and language could be integrated going forward, nearly the same percentage of comments cover: i) no integration or EMI; ii) separate ESP and content lessons; or iii) fully-dual CLIL (section 2). As noted in other PLU settings (Sylvén, 2019), students with EMI preferences find the combination of languages confusing, and therefore suggest an English-medium only course instead. Conversely, comment (23) below suggests the English-language elements were more burdensome than beneficial, which indicates a preference for the removal of English-medium course elements.
(23) "The output of writing reports and having seminars in english [sic] will not have the long term effect that I think you are hoping for. The cost is far greater than the profit in this case"; The "cost" mentioned in comment 23 was another theme found throughout the questionnaire responses and qualitative data related to the amount of coursework in the limited timeframe. This is illustrated in comment (19) above and the following: (24) "The course was overloaded with things to do in the stipulated time. To reach a deeper understanding one should have more time to do text-studies and discussions about content before the actual seminar"; Managing the course was challenging enough for some prior to adding what they perceived as the extra burden of learning content in an L2. This potentially led them to prefer removing English, sentiments reflected in other EEE settings (Hurajova, 2021). Yet, an equal number of other officers disagreed, expressing comments like: (25) "Please remove english [sic] as a subject from the schedule and integrate in the common classes" In sum, the number of offiercers who thought a complete integration of content and language without specific ESAP lessons was equal to the number who preferred a monolingual course. Finally, one-third felt that some language training is good and that the current implementation was acceptable.
In sum, a majority of officers considered the amount of English-medium receptive activities to be satisfactory or increasable (comments 2 and 3). Tasks for language production were seen as beneficial for language learning, but less so for content learning (Figure 2 and comment 17). The ESAP lessons were most valuable to those who could independently manage the literature, as they utilized them to improve fluency and to synthesize content and language (comments 21 and 22). However, some officers were unable to make use of these lessons, likely due to their sub-optimal reading skills and/or receptive language proficiency (comment 19). Comments 8 and 14 also indicate that SEDU ambiguously disseminated language aims and proficiency requirements, which likely created confusion about the officers' expectations of their own language production, and what the ESAP lessons should provide. Finally, the officer's program includes language aims, without specific requirements, yet officers know they will need to produce specific terminology in their profession. This discrepancy may be the source of confusion and frustration. Thus, CLIL step 3 illogically pairs implicit language learning aims with explicit content aims that require adequate proficiency and explicit technical language. Explicit language production in an L2 requires explicit language learning methods (e.g. Hulstijn, 2005).

Lecturers' experiences: a mixed picture
This section presents language and content lecturer perceptions of CLIL. Two key themes emerge: i) LLs and CLs were not equally satisfied with the current collaboration; and ii) lecturers were unclear about their CLIL responsibilities and how collaboration should occur.

Collaboration
The amount of collaboration between LLs and CLs regarding key terminology and concepts was limitedonly two language teachers engaged in collaboration ahead of the CLIL-seminar. Multiple reasons explain the limited interdisciplinary collaboration. First, the course director served as an interface with a contact person in the language section, jointly coordinating the use of literature in the English classes and preparing the seminar. This may have sent a signal to some lecturers to 'hold rank' and deflect to the coordinators, rather than taking initiative for further collaboration themselves. Another reason is that eleven out of twelve CLs perceived themselves qualified to lead the CLILseminar. Their perceived confidence combined with a military attitude to "make do" even during difficult situations might have influenced their approaches. Clearly, the message to collaborate across disciplines was unclear.
Additionally, CLs and LLs perceived the seminar and the collaboration within it differently. CLs were positive about their experiences and satisfied with the current collaboration, as noted in comments 26-28.
(26) "Great to integrate more language teacher [sic] and skills into the seminars"; (27) "[The CLIL-seminar] was a challenge, but also very useful for the students to discuss in English -with each other and me, but also with the English teacher who took an active part in these discussions"; (28) "I think the one seminar we had, was good. Doesn't need to be too complex.
Just let them talk more English in class. I think the whole point is to make their English come more casually, and more exposure to english [sic] will contribute greatly to this. Keep it up!" Yet, comment 28 calls into question how invested some CLs were in the collaboration. Simply speaking more English does not necessarily fulfill even incidental learning, expected in step 3 CLIL. However, CLs' positive responses could also indicate that they appreciated the professional development opportunity while working towards the goals of internationalization of the university and the Swedish Armed Forces. Still, comment 30 insinuates that this CL failed to understand fully what ESAP lecturers do and could explain why some LLs were less satisfied than CLs with the collaboration as seen in the comments below: (29) "Time was running low, and with only a one minute left, [the seminar leader] asked if I had any comments about language. I felt like I was an afterthought rather than a teacher"; (30) "I would prefer to feel like I'm on equal footing with the content teachers through team teaching"; Comments 29 and 30 are prevalent among LLs in other studies as well (Airey 2016;Jacobs 2007;Raimes 1991;Taillefer 2013;Woźniak 2017). Although LLs were positive to the CLIL-seminar, nearly 70 percent would have preferred "more integration with the CLs ahead of [the CLIL-seminar]" (emphasis added). Meanwhile, three LLs responded they did not prefer having more collaboration with CLs. One possible reason for this is that they perceived themselves as, and preferred, to remain in the role of an LL.
As in other CLIL studies, LLs could have contributed by aiding the CLs ahead of the seminar (Hurajova 2021;Woźniak 2017), or by taking a more active role during the seminar (Arnó- Macià and Mancho-Barés 2015). Such measures are systematically found in more explicit CLIL implementations like steps 4 or 5 (Greere and Räsnänen 2008) in which collaboration between discipline lecturers is explicit and extensive. However, this study implemented CLIL in a program that lacks language proficiency requirements and systematic collaboration. Consequently, proficiency expectations and expectations on how interdisciplinary collaboration could occur likely differed between CLs and LLs. Collegial distrust and feeling their expertise is undermined could have indeed impaired collaboration (Jacobs 2007;Weinberg and Symon 2017). The inherent ambiguity of implementing CLIL under these circumstances makes role expectations and performance requirements unclear for officers and lecturers. Interdisciplinary collaboration falters as each group of lecturers strives to meet expected aims, but their expectations misalign. Collaboration becomes uneven, insufficient, or non-existent, potentially resulting in suboptimal learning experiences for the students.

Future iterations
The lecturers also weighed in on how to develop the CLIL approach further for forthcoming iterations. Nine out of ten responded positively to including at least one CLILseminar in future courses, of these three-fourths responded "to a great extent". Only one lecturer from each discipline responded "very little". CLs considered no future change was necessary (comment 28, above), and, no CL responded that they needed additional support to conduct future CLIL-seminars, which calls into question how invested they were in the collaboration. In contrast, LLs requested additional elements to facilitate further integration, including CL training and extra time allocation: (31) "[m]ore time [is needed] for collaboration with content teachers and an openness that both content and language teachers have something to contribute to the way content and language can be delivered for optimal effect". Regarding how future integration could develop, LLs were divided about whether or not fully integrated CLIL, rather than a single seminar, was appropriate or desirable (see Figure 4 below). One reason against full integration was PLU. Yet, full integration does not preclude the use of Swedish. LLs clearly favored greater integration. However, the clear division within the group signals again the need for clearly disseminating the integration aims, the extent of collaboration, and lecturers' roles; in essence more systemic structural support (Gawlik-Kobylinska and Lewinska 2014; Hurajova 2021). This study aimed to identify advantages and disadvantages from implementing CLIL step 3 by examining how military officers viewed developing their English skills in tandem with progression in their content knowledge, and how lecturers viewed the interdisciplinary collaboration. Results show that officers felt extensive English-medium receptive material aided their production of English terminology and proficiency, and relatedly, that ESAP lessons enabled them to be able to process the hefty amount of English-medium content literature through interaction during the ESAP lessons. This indicates that HEIs intending to implement CLIL should augment it with specific and flexible ESAP 'supportive processing lessons' in which students address content in the TL outside of content lessons. This study also shows that producing structured, TL written output before spoken output helped the officers to participate more effectively in meaning-making and processing of content. Thus, the symbiotic relationship of CLIL was successful in this vocational/academic EEE.
One significant outcome of this study is that, while integrating step 3 CLIL (Greere and Räsänen, 2008) may seem enticing to HEIs looking for a less controversial inclusion of English in EEE, step 3 CLIL misses the mark by not achieving true integration. Specifically, the incidental language learning methods of CLIL step 3 are misaligned with the explicit productive expectations of specific terminology and vocabulary needed to achieve the expected content aims. Ambiguous and incidental language learning aims only create confusion for learners regarding expectations of their (intended) performance, as they attempt to align their efforts to elusive objectives. Ambiguous aims also create confusion for LLs' regarding their role and responsibilities in collaboration. Instead, a clear delineation and separation of the content and language aims would improve the learning effect for both content and language. It is important to that a structured approach to CL and LL collaboration should include clear specifications of integrational and general aims to make similar interdisciplinary collaborations more productive and transparent to learners.
Results from this study indicate future research could consider the role that learner proficiency plays in integration, and whether the repetition of certain tasks in the L2 may allow less proficient students to maintain motivation and gain confidence as they are allowed to focus on specific-language in authentic contexts.