Profiles of Second Language Learners in Bilingual Education: A Comparative Study of the Characteristics of Finnish and American Students

The purpose of this comparative study is to profile second language learners by exploring the factors which have an impact on their learning. The subjects come from two different countries: one group comes from Milwaukee, US, and the other from Turku, Finland. The subjects have attended bilingual classes from elementary school to senior high school in their respective countries. In the United States, the subjects (N = 57) started in one elementary school from where they moved on to two high schools in the district. The Finnish subjects (N = 39) attended the same school from elementary to high school. The longitudinal study was conducted during 1994-2004 and combines both qualitative and quantitative research methods. A Pilot Study carried out in 1990-1991 preceded the two subsequent studies that form the core material of this research. The theoretical part of the study focuses first on language policies in the United States and Finland: special emphasis is given to the history, development and current state of bilingual education, and the factors that have affected policy-making in the provision of language instruction. Current language learning theories and models form the theoretical foundation of the research, and underpin the empirical studies. Cognitively-labeled theories are at the forefront, but sociocultural theory and the ecological approach are also accounted for. The research methods consist of questionnaires, compositions and interviews. A combination of statistical methods as well as content analysis were used in the analysis. The attitude of the bilingual learners toward L1 and L2 was generally positive: the subjects enjoyed learning through two languages and were motivated to learn both. The knowledge of L1 and parental support, along with early literacy in L1, facilitated the learning of L2. This was particularly evident in the American subject group. The American subjects’ L2 learning was affected by the attitudes of the learners to the L1 culture and its speakers. Furthermore, the negative attitudes taken by L1 speakers toward L2 speakers and the lack of opportunities to engage in activities in the L1 culture affected the American subjects’ learning of L2, English. The research showed that many American L2 learners were isolated from the L1 culture and were even afraid to use English in everyday communication situations. In light of the research results, a politically neutral linguistic environment, which the Finnish subjects inhabited, was seen to be more favorable for learning. The Finnish subjects were learning L2, English, in a neutral zone where their own attitudes and motivation dictated their learning. The role of L2 as a means of international communication in Finland, as opposed to a means of exercising linguistic power, provided a neutral atmosphere for learning English. In both the American and Finnish groups, the learning of other languages was facilitated when the learner had a good foundation in their L1, and the learning of L1 and L2 were in balance. Learning was also fostered when the learners drew positive experiences from their surroundings and were provided with opportunities to engage in activities where L2 was used.

Perspectives interculturelles et interlinguistiques sur le discours académique – Crosscultural and Crosslinguistic Perspectives on Academic Discourse. Volume 1

The Department of French Studies of the University of Turku (Finland) organized an International Bilingual Conference on Crosscultural and Crosslinguistic Perspectives on Academic Discourse from 2022 May 2005. The event hosted specialists on Academic Discourse from Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Norway, Spain, and the USA. This book is the first volume in our series of publications on Academic Discourse (AD hereafter). The following pages are composed of selected papers from the conference and focus on different aspects and analytical frameworks of Academic Discourse. One of the motivations behind organizing the conference was to examine and expand research on AD in different languages. Another one was to question to what extent academic genres are culturebound and language specific or primarily field or domain specific. The research carried out on AD has been mainly concerned with the use of English in different academic settings for a long time now – mainly written contexts – and at the expense of other languages. Alternatively the academic genre conventions of English and English speaking world have served as a basis for comparison with other languages and cultures. We consider this first volume to be a strong contribution to the spreading out of researches based on other languages than English in AD, namely Finnish, French, Italian, Norwegian and Romanian in this book. All the following articles have a strong link with the French language: either French is constitutive of the AD corpora under examination or the article was written in French. The structure of the book suggests and provides evidence that the concept of AD is understood and tackled to varying degrees by different scholars. Our first volume opens up the discussion on what AD is and backs dissemination, overlapping and expansion of current research questions and methodologies. The book is divided into three parts and contains four articles in English and six articles in French. The papers in part one and part two cover what we call the prototypical genre of written AD, i.e. the research article. Part one follows up on issues linked to the 13 Research Article (RA hereafter). Kjersti Fløttum asks wether a typical RA exists and concentrates on authors’ voices in RA (self and other dimensions), whereas Didriksen and Gjesdal’s article focuses on individual variation of the author’s voice in RA. The last article in this section is by Nadine Rentel and deals with evaluation in the writing of RA. Part two concentrates on the teaching and learning of AD within foreign language learning, another more or less canonical genre of AD. Two aspects of writing are covered in the first two articles: foreign students’ representations on rhetorical traditions (Hidden) and a contrastive assessment of written exercices in French and Finnish in Higher Education (Suzanne). The last contribution in this section on AD moves away from traditional written forms and looks at how argumentation is constructed in students’ oral presentations (Dervin and Fauveau). The last part of the book continues the extension by featuring four articles written in French exploring institutional and scientific discourses. Institutional discourses under scrutiny include the European Bologna Process (Galatanu) and Romanian reform texts (Moilanen). As for scientific discourses, the next paper in this section deconstructs an ideological discourse on the didactics of French as a foreign language (Pescheux). Finally, the last paper in part three reflects on varied forms of AD at university (Defays). We hope that this book will add some fuel to continue discussing diverse forms of and approches to AD – in different languages and voices! No need to say that with the current upsurge in academic mobility, reflecting on crosscultural and crosslinguistic AD has just but started.

Conference Proceedings. Academic Mobility Blending Perspectives - Mobilité Académique Perspectives croisées

Les 21, 22 et 23 septembre 2006, le Département d’Études Françaises de l’Université de Turku (Finlande) a organisé une conférence internationale et bilingue (anglais et français) sur le thème de la mobilité académique ; le but de cette rencontre était de rendre possible la tenue d’un forum international et multidisciplinaire, susceptible d’être le siège de divers débats entre les différents acteurs de la mobilité académique (c’estàdire des étudiants, des chercheurs, des personnels enseignants et administratifs, etc.). Ainsi, ont été mis à contribution plus de cinquante intervenants, (tous issus de domaines aussi variés que la linguistique, les sciences de l’éducation, la didactique, l’anthropologie, la sociologie, la psychologie, l’histoire, la géographie, etc.) ainsi que cinq intervenants renommés1. La plupart des thèmes traités durant la conférence couvraient les champs suivants : l’organisation de la mobilité, les obstacles rencontrés par les candidats à la mobilité, l’intégration des étudiants en situation d’échange, le développement des programmes d’études, la mobilité virtuelle, l’apprentissage et l’enseignement des langues, la prise de cosncience interculturelle, le développement des compétences, la perception du système de mobilité académique et ses impacts sur la mobilité effective. L’intérêt du travail réalisé durant la conférence réside notamment dans le fait qu’il ne concentre pas uniquement des perspectives d’étudiants internationaux et en situation d’échange (comme c’est le cas de la plupart des travaux de recherche déjà menés sur ce sujet), mais aussi ceux d’autres corps : enseignants, chercheurs, etc. La contribution suivante contient un premier corpus de dixsept articles, répartis en trois sections : 1. Impacts de la mobilité étudiante ; 2. Formation en langues ; 3. Amélioration de la mobilité académique. À l’image de la conférence, la production qui suit est bilingue : huit des articles sont rédigés en français, et les neuf autres en anglais. Certains auteurs n’ont pas pu assister à la conférence mais ont tout de même souhaité apparaître dans cet ouvrage. Dans la première section de l’ouvrage, Sandrine Billaud tâche de mettre à jour les principaux obstacles à la mobilité étudiante en France (logement, organisation des universités, démarches administratives), et propose à ce sujet quelques pistes d’amélioration. Vient ensuite un article de Dominique Ulma, laquelle se penche sur la mobilité académique régnant au sein des Instituts Universitaires de Formation des Maîtres (IUFM) ; elle s’est tout particulièrement concentrée sur l’enthousiasme des stagiaires visàvis de la mobilité, et sur les bénéfices qu’apporte la mobilité Erasmus à ce type précis d’étudiant. Ensuite, dans un troisième article, Magali Hardoin s’interroge sur les potentialités éducationnelles de la mobilité des enseignantsstagiaires, et tâche de définir l’impact de celleci sur la construction de leur profil professionnel. Après cela arrive un groupe de trois articles, tous réalisés à bases d’observations faites dans l’enseignement supérieur espagnol, et qui traitent respectivement de la portée qu’a le programme de triple formation en langues européennes appliquées pour les étudiants en mobilité (Marián MorónMartín), des conséquences qu’occasionne la présence d’étudiants étrangers dans les classes de traductions (Dimitra Tsokaktsidu), et des réalités de l’intégration sur un campus espagnol d’étudiants américains en situation d’échange (Guadalupe Soriano Barabino). Le dernier article de la section, issu d’une étude sur la situation dans les institutions japonaises, fait état de la situation des programmes de doubles diplômes existant entre des établissements japonais et étrangers, et tente de voir quel est l’impact exact de tels programmes pour les institutions japonaises (Mihoko Teshigawara, Riichi Murakami and Yoneo Yano). La seconde section est elle consacrée à la relation entre apprentissage et enseignement des langues et mobilité académique. Dans un premier article, Martine Eisenbeis s’intéresse à des modules multimédia réalisés à base du film « L’auberge espagnole », de Cédric Klapish (2001), et destinés aux étudiants en mobilité désireux d’apprendre et/ou améliorer leur français par des méthodes moins classiques. Viennent ensuite les articles de Jeanine Gerbault et Sabine Ylönen, lesquels traitent d’un projet européen visant à supporter la mobilité étudiante par la création d’un programme multimédia de formation linguistique et culturelle pour les étudiants en situation de mobilité (le nom du projet est EUROMOBIL). Ensuite, un article de Pascal Schaller s’intéresse aux différents types d’activités que les étudiants en séjour à l’étranger expérimentent dans le cadre de leur formation en langue. Enfin, la section s’achève avec une contribution de Patricia KohlerBally, consacrée à un programme bilingue coordonné par l’Université de Fribourg (Suisse). La troisième et dernière section propose quelques pistes de réflexion destinées à améliorer la mobilité académique des étudiants et des enseignants ; dans ce cadre seront donc évoquées les questions de l’égalité face à la mobilité étudiante, de la préparation nécessitée par celleci, et de la prise de conscience interculturelle. Dans un premier chapitre, Javier Mato et Bego

[Motetti Ave verum corpus]

Soitinnus: sekakuoro, jousiorkesteri.

Assessment of Young Learners’ English Proficiency in Bilingual Content Instruction CLIL

This applied linguistic study in the field of second language acquisition investigated the assessment practices of class teachers as well as the challenges and visions of language assessment in bilingual content instruction (CLIL) at primary level in Finnish basic education. Furthermore, pupils’ and their parents’ perceptions of language assessment and LangPerform computer simulations as an alternative, modern assessment method in CLIL contexts were examined. The study was conducted for descriptive and developmental purposes in three phases: 1) a CLIL assessment survey; 2) simulation 1; and 3) simulation 2. All phases had a varying number of participants. The population of this mixed methods study were CLIL class teachers, their pupils and the pupils’ parents. The sampling was multi-staged and based on probability and random sampling. The data were triangulated. Altogether 42 CLIL class teachers nationwide, 109 pupils from the 3rd, 4th and 5th grade as well as 99 parents from two research schools in South-Western Finland participated in the CLIL assessment survey followed by an audio-recorded theme interview of volunteers (10 teachers, 20 pupils and 7 parents). The simulation experimentations 1 and 2 produced 146 pupil and 39 parental questionnaires as well as video interviews of volunteered pupils. The data were analysed both quantitatively using percentages and numerical frequencies and qualitatively employing thematic content analysis. Based on the data, language assessment in primary CLIL is not an established practice. It largely appears to be infrequent, incidental, implicit and based on impressions rather than evidence or the curriculum. The most used assessment methods were teacher observation, bilingual tests and dialogic interaction, and the least used were portfolios, simulations and peer assessment. Although language assessment was generally perceived as important by teachers, a fifth of them did not gather assessment information systematically, and 38% scarcely gave linguistic feedback to pupils. Both pupils and parents wished to receive more information on CLIL language issues; 91% of pupils claimed to receive feedback rarely or occasionally, and 63% of them wished to get more information on their linguistic coping in CLIL subjects. Of the parents, 76% wished to receive more information on the English proficiency of their children and their linguistic development. This may be a response to indirect feedback practices identified in this study. There are several challenges related to assessment; the most notable is the lack of a CLIL curriculum, language objectives and common ground principles of assessment. Three diverse approaches to language in CLIL that appear to affect teachers’ views on language assessment were identified: instrumental (language as a tool), dual (language as a tool and object of learning) and eclectic (miscellaneous views, e.g. affective factors prioritised). LangPerform computer simulations seem to be perceived as an appropriate alternative assessment method in CLIL. It is strongly recommended that the fundamentals for assessment (curricula and language objectives) and a mutual assessment scheme should be determined and stakeholders’ knowledge base of CLIL strengthened. The principles of adequate assessment in primary CLIL are identified as well as several appropriate assessment methods suggested.

Open Access Research Data Repository for Corpus Linguistic Data – A Modular Approach

Presentation at Open Repositories 2014, Helsinki, Finland, June 9-13, 2014

Portfolio as an Indicator of Young Learners’ English Proficiency in Mainstream Language Instruction (EFL) and Bilingual Content Instruction (CLIL)

Tämä soveltavan kielitieteen ja kielitaidon arvioinnin toimintatutkimus tarkasteli kieliportfolion ominaisuuksia ja mahdollisuuksia nuorten oppijoiden englannin kielen arvioinnissa kahdessa eri oppimiskontekstissa: englanti oppiaineena (EFL) ja kaksikielinen sisällönopetus (CLIL). Tutkielman itsenäiset, kahteen eri englannin kielen rekisteriin (arkikieli ja akateeminen kieli) kohdistuneet portfoliokokeilut olivat erillisiä tapaustutkimuksia. Molemmat portfoliot perustuivat väljästi Eurooppalaiseen kielisalkkumalliin, ja ne olivat osa tutkielmantekijän luokkaopetusta ja -toimintaa. EFL -portfoliokokeilu 9-10-vuotiaille kolmasluokkalaisille toteutettiin marraskuun 2011 ja toukokuun 2012 välisenä aikana, kun CLIL -portfoliokokeilu n. 7-9-vuotiallle ensimmäisen ja toisen luokan oppilaille kesti kaksi lukuvuotta 2012–2014. Molemmissa kokeiluissa myös oppilaiden vanhemmat kuuluivat tutkimusjoukkoon, samoin CLIL -portfolion toteutuksessa avustaneet ja opettajanäkökulmaa edustaneet opettajaopiskelijat. Portfoliokokeilun aloitti myös kaksi muuta CLIL -opettajaa, mutta kumpikin kokeilu päättyi alkuvaiheeseensa. Tarkemman tarkastelun kohteina olivat tutkimuksen osallistujien kokemukset ja mielipiteet portfoliokokeiluista. Erityisesti tavoitteena oli selvittää, miten informatiivisena englannin kielitaidon indikaattorina kieliportfoliota pidettiin. Myös kehitysehdotuksia kerättiin. Trianguloitu aineisto koottiin sekä puolistrukturoiduin kyselyin että vapaaehtoisin teemahaastatteluin, jotka äänitettiin. EFL -aineisto koostui 18 oppilaskyselystä, 17 huoltajakyselystä ja 7 oppilashaastattelusta. CLIL -aineistoon sisältyi 19 oppilaskyselyä, 18 huoltajakyselyä, 7 oppilashaastattelua ja yksi opettajaopiskelijoiden (N=3) ryhmähaastattelu. Aineisto analysoitiin pääosin kvalitatiivisin menetelmin temaattisen sisältöanalyysin keinoin, mutta myös laskien frekvenssejä ja prosenttisosuuksia. Osallistujien mielipiteet ja kokemukset olivat hyvin samankaltaiset ja positiiviset kummassakin portfoliokokeilussa. Merkittävä enemmistö sekä oppilaista että huoltajista koki, että portfolion avulla on mahdollista osoittaa englannin kielitaitoa ja sen kehittymistä. Oppilaat kuvailivat portfoliotyötä hauskaksi ja kivaksi, ja heidän mielestään portfoliotehtävien pitäisi olla tarpeeksi haastavia, sisältää taiteellisia ja luovia elementtejä sekä kohdistua tuttuihin, mielenkiintoisiin aiheisiin. He totesivat, että portfolion avulla voi oppia lisää kieltä. Vanhempien mielestä portfolio kertoo koulun vieraiksi jääneistä oppisisällöistä, auttaa ymmärtämään lapsen ajatusmaailmaa ja motivaatiotasoa sekä paljastaa heidän kielitaidostaan uusia ulottuvuuksia. Opettajaopiskelijat havaitsivat, että portfolion avulla voi tutustua oppilaiden kieli- ja kulttuuritaustoihin sekä kartoittaa heidän kielellisiä tarpeitaan. Tämän tutkielman teoreettisen tarkastelun ja tulosten mukaan kieliportfolio tukee erinomaisesti uuden Perusopetuksen Opetussuunnitelman (NCC 2014) tavoitteita ja arvioinnin uudistuspyrkimyksiä sekä lainsäädännön arvioinnille asettamia edellytyksiä. Portfolio on erittäin suositeltava nuorten oppijoiden kielitaidon arviointimenetelmä perinteisten rinnalle.

De forma, altero, interno, nobiliori, essentiali principio corpus naturale constituente

Variantti C.