A Steel Company Entering the Market Area of St. Petersburg

Tutkimuksen tavoitteena on selvittää tarkoituksenmukaisin etabloitumismenetelmä teräsyhtiön kansainvälistymisessä Pietarin markkinoille. Vaikka kansainvälistymistä onkin tutkittu paljon, kyseisen kontekstin erityispiirteisiin on aiemmissa tutkimuksissa kiinnitetty vain vähän huomiota. Kansainvälistymisteorioista työhön valittiin John Dunningin eklektinen paradigma sekä Uppsala-malli. Etabloitumismenetelmän valintaa puolestaan tarkastellaan eri vaihtoehtojen kautta, jotka kattavat viennin, suorat ulkomaan investoinnit, sopimusjärjestelyt sekä yhteisyrityksen. Valintaa selitetään taustalla vaikuttavien tekijöiden sekä kansainvälistymisprosessin kautta. Kohteena olevan markkina-alueen potentiaalin, ongelmien sekä yrityksen kilpailuetujen arvioinnin jälkeen ehdotetaan optimaalista ratkaisua. Omat haasteensa operaatiomuodon valintaan luovat potentiaalinen mutta haastava kohdemarkkina-alue sekä yrityksen sisäiset tekijät. Kontekstiin parhaiten sopivaksi etabloitumismenetelmäksi esitetään aloittamista välittömällä viennillä asiakkaiden etsimiseksi ja suhteiden luomiseksi. Kun asiakkuuksia alueella on riittävästi, myyntikonttorin perustaminen Pietarin lähelle nähdään tarkoituksenmukaisena paikallisen läsnäolon lisäämiseksi. Empiirinen data kattaa kahdeksan asiantuntijahaastattelua, jotka yhdessä muun lähdeaineiston kanssa rakentavat perustan empiirisille tuloksille. Tutkimuksen tulokset tarjoavat yritykselle perustellun ratkaisuehdotuksen siitä, kuinka Pietarin markkinoille tulisi etabloitua.

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.