Subject Teacher Training and Teaching in English

The purpose of this Master s thesis is on one hand to find out how CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning) teachers and English teachers perceive English and its use in teaching, and on the other hand, what they consider important in subject teacher education in English that is being planned and piloted in STEP Project at the University of Helsinki Department of Teacher Education. One research question is also what kind of language requirements teachers think CLIL teachers should have. The research results are viewed in light of previous research and literature on CLIL education. Six teachers participate in this study. Two of them are English teachers in the comprehensive school, two are class teachers in bilingual elementary education, and two are subject teachers in bilingual education, one of whom teaches in a lower secondary school and the other in an upper secondary school. One English teacher and one bilingual class teacher have graduated from a pilot class teacher program in English that started at the University of Helsinki in the middle of the 1990 s. The bilingual subject teachers are not trained in English but they have learned English elsewhere, which is a particular focus of interest in this study because it is expected that a great number of CLIL teachers in Finland do not have actual studies in English philology. The research method is interview and this is a qualitative case study. The interviews are recorded and transcribed for the ease of analysis. The English teachers do not always use English in their lessons and they would not feel confident in teaching another subject completely in English. All of the CLIL teachers trust their English skills in teaching, but the bilingual class teachers also use Finnish during lessons either because some teaching material is in Finnish, or they feel that rules and instructions are understood better in mother tongue or students English skills are not strong enough. One of the bilingual subject teachers is the only one who consciously uses only English in teaching and in discussions with students. Although teachers good English skills are generally considered important, only the teachers who have graduated from the class teacher education in English consider it important that CLIL teachers would have studies in English philology. Regarding the subject teacher education program in English, the respondents hope that its teachers will have strong enough English skills and that it will deliver what it promises. Having student teachers of different subjects studying together is considered beneficial. The results of the study show that acquiring teaching material in English continues to be the teachers own responsibility and a huge burden for the teachers, and there has, in fact, not been much progress in the matter since the beginning of CLIL education. The bilingual subject teachers think, however, that using one s own material can give new inspiration to teaching and enable the use of various pedagogical methods. Although it is questionable if the language competence requirements set for CLIL teachers by the Finnish Ministry of Education are not adhered to, it becomes apparent in the study that studies in English philology do not necessarily guarantee strong enough language skills for CLIL teaching, but teachers own personality and self-confidence have significance. Keywords: CLIL, bilingual education, English, subject teacher training, subject teacher education in English, STEP

Language universals and linguistic complexity : Three case studies in core argument marking

In this dissertation I study language complexity from a typological perspective. Since the structuralist era, it has been assumed that local complexity differences in languages are balanced out in cross-linguistic comparisons and that complexity is not affected by the geopolitical or sociocultural aspects of the speech community. However, these assumptions have seldom been studied systematically from a typological point of view. My objective is to define complexity so that it is possible to compare it across languages and to approach its variation with the methods of quantitative typology. My main empirical research questions are: i) does language complexity vary in any systematic way in local domains, and ii) can language complexity be affected by the geographical or social environment? These questions are studied in three articles, whose findings are summarized in the introduction to the dissertation. In order to enable cross-language comparison, I measure complexity as the description length of the regularities in an entity; I separate it from difficulty, focus on local instead of global complexity, and break it up into different types. This approach helps avoid the problems that plagued earlier metrics of language complexity. My approach to grammar is functional-typological in nature, and the theoretical framework is basic linguistic theory. I delimit the empirical research functionally to the marking of core arguments (the basic participants in the sentence). I assess the distributions of complexity in this domain with multifactorial statistical methods and use different sampling strategies, implementing, for instance, the Greenbergian view of universals as diachronic laws of type preference. My data come from large and balanced samples (up to approximately 850 languages), drawn mainly from reference grammars. The results suggest that various significant trends occur in the marking of core arguments in regard to complexity and that complexity in this domain correlates with population size. These results provide evidence that linguistic patterns interact among themselves in terms of complexity, that language structure adapts to the social environment, and that there may be cognitive mechanisms that limit complexity locally. My approach to complexity and language universals can therefore be successfully applied to empirical data and may serve as a model for further research in these areas.

The regional differences between countries in traffic safety: A cross-cultural study and Turkish Case

Road traffic accidents are a large problem everywhere in the world. However, regional differences in traffic safety between countries are considerable. For example, traffic safety records are much worse in Southern Europe and the Middle East than in Northern and Western Europe. Despite the large regional differences in traffic safety, factors contributing to different accident risk figures in different countries and regions have remained largely unstudied. The general aim of this study was to investigate regional differences in traffic safety between Southern European/Middle Eastern (i.e., Greece, Iran, Turkey) and Northern/Western European (i.e., Finland, Great Britain, The Netherlands) countries and to identify factors related to these differences. We conducted seven sub-studies in which I applied a traffic culture framework, including a multi-level approach, to traffic safety. We used aggregated level data (national statistics), surveys among drivers, and data on traffic accidents and fatalities in the analyses. In the first study, we investigated the influence of macro level factors (i.e., economic, societal, and cultural) on traffic safety across countries. The results showed that a high GNP per capita and conservatism correlated with a low number of traffic fatalities, whereas a high degree of uncertainty avoidance, neuroticism, and egalitarianism correlated with a high number of traffic fatalities. In the second, third, and fourth studies, we examined whether the conceptualisation of road user characteristics (i.e., driver behaviour and performance) varied across traffic cultures and how these factors determined overall safety, and the differences between countries in traffic safety. The results showed that the factorial agreement for driver behaviour (i.e., aggressive driving) and performance (i.e., safety skills) was unsatisfactory in Greece, Iran, and Turkey, where the lack of social tolerance and interpersonal aggressive violations seem to be important characteristics of driving. In addition, we found that driver behaviour (i.e., aggressive violations and errors) mediated the relationship between culture/country and accidents. Besides, drivers from "dangerous" Southern European countries and Iran scored higher on aggressive violations and errors than did drivers from "safe" Northern European countries. However, "speeding" appeared to be a "pan-cultural" problem in traffic. Similarly, aggressive driving seems largely depend on road users' interactions and drivers' interpretation (i.e., cognitive biases) of the behaviour of others in every country involved in the study. Moreover, in all countries, a risky general driving style was mostly related to being young and male. The results of the fifth and sixth studies showed that among young Turkish drivers, gender stereotypes (i.e., masculinity and femininity) greatly influence driver behaviour and performance. Feminine drivers were safety-oriented whereas masculine drivers were skill-oriented and risky drivers. Since everyday driving tasks involve not only erroneous (i.e., risky or dangerous driving) or correct performance (i.e., normal habitual driving), but also "positive" driver behaviours, we developed a reliable scale for measuring "positive" driver behaviours among Turkish drivers in the seventh study. Consequently, I revised Reason's model [Reason, J. T., 1990. Human error. Cambridge University Press: New York] of aberrant driver behaviour to represent a general driving style, including all possible intentional behaviours in traffic while evaluating the differences between countries in traffic safety. The results emphasise the importance of economic, societal and cultural factors, general driving style and skills, which are related to exposure, cognitive biases as well as age, sex, and gender, in differences between countries in traffic safety.