LSP communication in a digital age: the outcomes of teaching and learning in tertiary education

This paper discusses the changes brought by the communication revolution in teaching and learning in the scope of LSP. Its aim is to provide an insight on how teaching which was bi-dimensional, turned into a multidimensional system, gathering other complementary resources that have transformed, in a incredibly short time, the ways we receive share and store information, for instance as professionals, and keep in touch with our peers. The increasing rise of electronic publications, the incredible boom of social and professional networks, search engines, blogs, list servs, forums, e-mail blasts, Facebook pages, YouTube contents, Tweets and Apps, have twisted the way information is conveyed. Classes ceased to be predictable and have been empowered by digital platforms, innumerous and different data repositories (TILDE, IATE, LINGUEE, and so many other terminological data banks) that have definitely transformed the academic world in general and tertiary education in particular. There is a bulk of information to be digested by students, who are no longer passive but instead responsible and active for their academic outcomes. The question is whether they possess the tools to select only what is accurate and important for a certain subject or assignment, due to that overflow? Due to the reduction of the number of course years in most degrees, after the implementation of Bologna and the shrinking of the curricula contents, have students the possibility of developing critical thinking? Both teaching and learning rely on digital resources to improve the speed of the spreading of knowledge. But have those changes been effective to promote really communication? Furthermore, with the increasing Apps that have already been developed and will continue to appear for learning foreign languages, for translation among others, will the students feel the need of learning them once they have those Apps. These are some the questions we would like to discuss in our paper.

The background impact in HEI math lectures: an experience in math in the 1st year of Accounting and Management Degree

It is a fact, and far from being a new one, that students have been entering Higher Education courses with many different backgrounds in terms of secondary school programs they attended. The impact of these basic skills is a general and worldwide challenge, fundamentally when facing some specific “constructive” subjects like foreign languages and Mathematics. Working with students with an extensive variety of Math qualifications is an outrageous challenge when they enter an advanced Math course, leading to an almost generalized expectations’ failure - from students enrolled in course and from their teachers, who feel powerless in trying to monitor knowledge construction from completely different “starting points”. If teachers’ "haste" is average, more than half of the students do not “go along” and give up, even before experiencing any kind of evaluation procedure. On the contrary, if the “speed” is too low, others are discouraged (feeling not progressing at all) and the teacher runs the risk of not meeting the minimum objectives (general and specific) of its course, which may have a negative impact on students’ future training development. Failure in Mathematics, despite being a recurrent and global issue, does not have any “magical solution”, however, in general, teachers in this area seem untiring, searching, investigating, trying and implementing new and old “recipes” to tackle and demystify this subject. In this article we describe a project developed in a Math course, with the first year students from an Accounting and Management bachelor degree, and its outcomes since it was brought to practice, revealing its impact in students’ success, from approval to dropout rates, in this course. We will shortly describe students’ differentiated Math backgrounds, their results in a pre-assessment analysis and how we try to deal with these differences and level them up, having in mind the same “finish line”. One should never forget that all these students where officially accepted in higher education institutions, so they are ones’ reality, the reality of institutions whose name one should value and strive to defend.