Case Study of Finnish Engineering Students Attending FL-Medium Courses

1. Case Study of Finnish Engineering Students Attending FL-Medium Courses Eeva Rauto Esko Johnson Vaasa Central Ostrobotnia University of Applied Sciences Technology and Communication eeva.rauto@puv.fi esko.johnson@cop

2. Need for Research on Tertiary Level Learnersin FL-Medium Learning Environment Our first studies were carried out 2003- 2004 before current (2005-2006) research project: • in Kokkola (Johnson & Finell 2004) Survey on learners’ attitudes • Vaasa (Rauto 2003): changes in written performance

3. Description of Earlier Vaasa 2003 Research(Rauto 2003) • What: decreasein grammatical errors in engineering students’ written production • Why: effectof FL-medium instructionon language acquisition • How: longitudinal measurement (time span of 1.5 years)

4. Description of Earlier Vaasa 2003 Research Target Group

5. Description of Earlier Vaasa 2003 ResearchProfiency levels evened out Error score test 1 test 2

6. Description of Earlier Vaasa 2003 ResearchChanges in Grammar and Vocabulary 45 % Improvement in precentages in learners’ (N19) grammar and vocabulary scores within 1,5 years proficiency levels 40 % 35 % highest 30 % 25 % intermedi 20 % ate 15 % lowest 10 % 5 % 0 % • The differencies between proficieny levels were evened out • Grammar skills: most beneficial to the lowest group • Vocabulary skills: beneficial to all groups grammar vocabulary

7. Internationalisation at Home survey, COU (Johnson & Finell 2005) • Students (n=139) stressed the benefits English-medium education and measures to increase institution-wide multiculturalism in various ways • Most students in English-medium education (courses and programmes) reported they had learned even more English than they had expected and were happy with their instruction • Needs to improve of English-medium education: instruction was difficult to follow (cognitive load/abstractness; task complexity cf. Ellis 2003:205-240); variability of teachers’ English skills

8. New Research Interest in 2005 The results of previous (2003-2004) studies apply to learners indegree programs taught in English. What happens to the learner’s language in a single course / module taught in English in a mainstream Finnish-medium degree program?

9. 2 target groups in both projects: Vaasa Project: VG1(N=11) VG2 (N=10/11) Kokkola Project: KG1 (N= 11) , KG2 (N=10) Total N= 43/44 learners Current Research Project 2005 – 2006 Co-operation: Central Ostrobotnia University of Applied Sciences the (Kokkola Project) Vaasa University of Applied Sciences (the Vaasa Project) FL-medium module: one term / group In contrast to previous research: Focus on shorter / less intensive exposure to target language

10. Research Instrument Longitudinal approach • 2. LanguageTests measuring changes in: • - Reading comprehension • - Vocabulary acquisition • Syntax Sample survey: https://www.webropol.com/P.aspx?id=170590&cid=30579063

11. Current Research Set-Up

12. Research Questions(Current Research 2005 –2006) • The learners’ views (self-rating) of • their language learning styles(Implicit / Explicit?) • their language proficiencybefore and after(Recognize changes?) • What possible changes can be discovered in the learner’s target language syntax, vocabularyandreading skillsbylangauge tests - Vaasa project (Support results obtained by self-rating?) • Does exposure to L2 (English) present extra work load to learning the content in question (FL-medium module too heavy for some learners?) • The learners’ views and expectations of the FL-medium course: 4.1. In which conditions is (teacher) intervention necessary and how should it be implemented?

13. Research Questions(Current Research 2005 –2006) 4.2. What improvements would the learners recommend? Scope for development in teaching practices?) • Are there possible changes in • the learners’ motivation to use the target language self-concept as language learners • the learners’ • Subject teacher’s views of learners’ academic success 7. Indvidual variables(age, sex, how much the learner uses English)

14. The learners’ Views of their Cognitive Language Learning Preferences(Research Question 1)

15. The learners’ Views of their Cognitive Language Learning Preferences Vaasa learners Kokkola learners

16. The learners’ Views of their Cognitive Language Learning Preferences Difference between Vaasa and Kokkola learners: • Vaasa Learners: use of implicit (as opposed to explicit) learning style dominant • Kokkola Learners: learners also use explicit style ”One learned English without noticing it – although it seemed difficult at first .”VG2

17. Kokkola learners: (final survey) KG 1: slight negative change (-) (contradiction in control question +) KG2: 0 one open end answer: ”No change in grammar because no grammar instruction was included in the course” Vaasa learners: (longitudinal approach) VG 1: slight posive change (+) VG 2: slight negative change (-) Change in Command of Target Language Grammar: Self-rating (research question 1.2)

18. Change in Command of Target Language Syntax: Language Test • VG2 mean before: 13,96 credit points mean after: 14,68 credit points

19. Correlation between Learning preferences and Language Achievement? Changes in target language Syntax LL-style (implicit, explicit) ? Results by Measurements Results by Self-rating Hypothesis: the implicit learners would have more changes in their target language grammar than explicit learners

20. Kokkola learners: no / marginal negative change ”Real-life” use has made the explicit-type learners more critical and conscious of interlanguage deficiences Vaasa learners: (marginal) positive change FL-medium studies beneficial to learners preferring implicit learning process / intermediate level learners: target language grammar becoming slightly more analyzed Change in Learners’ of Grammar in relation to Language Learning Preference

21. Changes inVocabulary Command • Structured survey questions • no clear indication of change • Vocabulary test • mean before 5,43 (max score 16) • mean after 7,71

22. Changes in vocabulary command Open-end aswers “ I learned many new interesting words”KG1 . “ I learned many new useful words”VG1 “ One gets to know more subject-related vocabulary (VG2) “I learned a lot of subject-related vocabulary (4 learners in KG2)” “ I learned a lot of vocabulary by reading /by assisting in lessons (1 learner) /by doing tasks (3 learners) ”One learns best by reading”KG2(one learner)

23. Vaasa learnes Language support was provided Kokkola learners 2 learners: ”Subject teacher should have given feedback”. Is Teacher Intervention Necessary?(research question 4.1) ?Learners’view of Language Support Module

24. Did the use of Foreign Language Present Extra Work Load to Learning the Content in Question? (research question: 3)

25. Did the use of Foreign Language Present Extra Work Load to Learning the Content in Question?(research question: 3)

26. Indication of Decrease of Workload Related to Reading Texts becoming easier • Self-rating and Reading Comprehension test: • marginal positive trend (both VG and KG learners) • Positive feedback from learners’ open end answers: . . ” I now read more fluently and don’t need to stop to translate the text” VG2 ” reading textsbecame easier and dealing with English materials presented no problem” (VG1)

27. Workload Imposed by FL-Medium StudiesSummary • Response to Structured questions and open-end answers support each other: the majority did not consider the work load to be too heavy • Results encouraging but more evidence needed

28. Indication of Increase of Self-Concept positive feedback form learners’ open end answers: I understood more Englishthan I had originally thought (KG1) . . ” ”it was nice to notice that reading English texts presented no problem , (VG1) I understoodsurprisinglywell what thetext dealt with although I don’t think very highly of my language proficiency. (KG1))

29. Language learning motivation and the learner’s self-concept • Language learning motivation is multidimensional (e.g. personal, social) and situational, and it has various orientations: intrinsic, integrative and instrumental motivation • Language learner’s self-concept (“kieliminä”) is my perception of myself as a language learner: general, language specific, and task-specific perceptions/beliefs • Motivational orientation, experience of teaching and learning, affective/emotional and efficacy aspects have an important role in foreign language learning (e.g. Kantelinen 1995)

30. Improvements Suggested by Learners(cf. Research Question 4.2 ) • Explaining concepts and giving vocabulary support : language teacher or subject teacher? More vocabularies should be provided (3 learners; VG2) By providing some vocabulary related support, because finding professioanally related vocabulary was difficult to find so a lot turned out to be guess-work (K G1) If a vocabulary list was provided in the beginning of the course it would help a lot. Particularly (KG1) Vocabulary should be explained in the classes (VG1) Habit acquired from ESP-classes?

31. Improvements Suggested by Learners More possibilities for practising output (Swain’s (1985) output-hypothesis There should be opportunities for speaking. . We could discuss in teams so it would be more pleasant for everybody. (KG1) One learns by speaking, more chances for practising(VG2) I was satisfied with the course but more opportunities for speaking(VG2) • 5

32. Summary of results • Changes in Language Proficiency • Minor changes in learners’ productive language skills Short period of exposure to L2 (English): Learners resources spent on reading comprehension (cf. “intake”-hypothesis) • Some changes in learners’ receptive skills> evidence of workload becoming smaller • No clear evidence in learners’ self-concept as language learners and motivation. Contradiction in self-rating and open-end answers: more evidence needed

33. Summary of results • Learners’ Recommendations and Preferences • More opportunities for speaking (output hypothesis) • Teacher intervention preferred • More English-medium modules (1 learner) If more courses were given in English, the exchange students could participate in them. Then we would have no other options but use English “VG1

34. Summary of results • Learners’ attitudeto FL-Medium Instruction: • Mainly positive feedback fromopen-end answers • Some critique KG2 learners)… ”I did not learn so much because the teacher did not always speak correct English”. On the hand: ”The teacher spoke in simple terms and it was easy to understand her”

35. Conclusions • More evidence needed • Some survey questions difficult to process on metacognitive level: open end answers more reliable data • Encouraging results from the view-point of implementing these modules • The learners would recommend the courses for next year-students • Some thought that participation in the course is a good way of learning a language > didactic method ” More FL-medium teaching should be included in the degree program because that is the way to learn the language better”KG1

36. Setting up a co-operative project • To find more evidence on • Different degrees of intensity of exposure / duration and language outcome • To establish a large-scale database with different L1 backgrounds • Possibly an EU project with several participating countries (models, experimentation, follow-up research?)

37. Thank you for your attention!

38. Literature Ellis, R. (2003) Task-Based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Johnson, E. & Finell, P. ( 2005). Se tuo kansainvälisyyttä, erilaisuutta ja vaihtelua”.Opiskelijoiden käsitykset Keski-Pohjanmaan ammattikorkeakoulusta kansainvälisenä opiskelu- ja oppimisympäristönä. In H. Aho (ed) Sovellusta optimaalisen tasapainon saavuttamiseksi. Opettaja oman työnsä tutkijana II symposiumiin artikkelit. Keski-Pohjanmaan ammattikorkeakoulu. A: Tutkimusraportteja-Forskingsraporter 47-55. Kantelinen, R. (1995). Ruotsin kielen opiskelumotivaatio ammatillisessa koulutuksessa. Tutkimus koti- ja laitostalousalan opiskelijoiden opiskelumotivaatiosta ja siihen yhteydessä olevista tekijöistä. Joensuun yliopisto. Kasvatustieteellisiä julkaisuja N:o 21. Rauto, E. (2003) Välikielen kehitys vieraskielisessä opetuksessa. Tutkimus muutoksista englannin kieliopin hallinnassa. Jyväskylän yliopisto. Soveltavan kielentutkimuksen laitos. Available also at http://selene.lib.jyu.fi:8080/julpu/9513915425.pdf(with English summary) Swain, M. 1985. Communicative Competence: Some Roles of Comprehensible In­put and Comprehensible Output in its Development. Teoksessa S. Gass & C. Madden (toim.) Input in Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 235-253.

39. Appendix: Interesting Learner Profiles Learners 2, 3 and 4 (Vaasa adults) show positive development • in syntax, (figure 1), • vocabulary (figure 2) • and reading comprehension (figure 3) • Was these learners’ motivation higher than that of others?