The article presents a comparative analysis of digital and traditional approaches to teaching English to medical students in the United States and South Korea in the context of preparing them for global healthcare and international scientific research. The relevance of the topic is determined by the growing role of English as a key tool for professional communication, academic writing, and intercultural interaction in the medical field. The article emphasizes that proficiency in English is essential for medical students’ participation in international conferences, clinical exchanges, and research projects, as well as for effective integration into the global healthcare system. The study analyses current trends in English language instruction at medical universities in the United States and South Korea. In the U.S., language training is directly integrated into both academic and clinical practice, combining traditional teaching methods with digital technologies, simulation programs, and international projects. In South Korea, the process is more centralized, relying on government initiatives such as Brain Korea 21 (BK21) and BK21 Plus, aimed at the internationalization of higher education. At the same time, research indicates a gap between academic language preparation and the real communicative demands of clinical practice. Particular attention is given to comparing the effectiveness of traditional and digital methods. Traditional approaches (lectures, seminars, written assignments, clinical practicums) develop basic grammatical and lexical competence but do not always foster productive skills, such as participation in discussions, presentations, and interdisciplinary collaboration. Digital technologies (online courses, interactive platforms, simulation environments, webinars) provide new opportunities for practical mastery of professional English, allowing students to receive immediate feedback and work in settings close to real clinical situations. Combining digital and traditional methods contributes to the development of communicative competence, academic writing skills, presentation abilities, and intercultural collaboration. The article highlights the need to reconsider the evaluation system of medical students’ language achievements. Traditional standardized tests (TOEFL, IELTS, TEPS) primarily assess receptive skills, while productive skills (oral communication, academic writing, participation in discussions) remain largely unexamined. The introduction of practice-oriented assessment forms is recommended, including clinical case simulations, group projects, and international research presentations. In conclusion, the study emphasizes that effective language training for future medical professionals requires the integration of disciplinary specificity, traditional and digital teaching methods, and international experience. The combination of classroom instruction with digital platforms, simulation-based training, and inter-university collaboration creates conditions for developing globally competent specialists capable of intercultural communication and participation in international research. Future research should focus on developing integrated English language training models for various medical specialties, improving tools for assessing productive skills, and expanding comparative international studies of language education practices.
Khvalyboha et al. (Wed,) studied this question.