Eija’s second blog

The teaching methods I have been used are diverse from the perspective of what they demand from teachers and students. I have been lecturing alone and together with a colleague. A good way of giving lectures in English is to do it with a colleague; you can share the burden of preparing materials and talking in English. For students it might be more enjoyable to follow this kind of dialogical lecturing, it becomes more like a conversation than a monologue. Participating in the lectures demands, of course, ability to follow English spoken lecturing and slides, but because we try to connect small discussions inside the lectures, also discussion skills in English in small groups from students. It is not easy to take into account the complicities involved in intercultural communication and being responsiveness and sensitive to the situation and the other participants in these kind of general discussions (see Baker, 2016).

Further, one quite common study method are different group works. Group presentations involve collaboration and discussion with peers coming from different backgrounds and having different mother languages. We have made quite a lot of work to unite our international master’s programme students with our Finnish students studying their master’s level studies in our department, because we think that it is fruitful to study together with students with different backgrounds. Some of the Finnish students are afraid of and anxious about using English language in their studies, which is undoubtedly understandable. The students in the international master’s programme are more ready to communicate in English, because they have known English to be the study language already when applying to the programme. Nonetheless, this kind of working can be also stressful for the students and they may be worried about how well they are succeeding in general, but also about working with peers they do not know beforehand and talking English. We still try to encourage them, because the results of this kind of group working are generally very positive from the perspective of the presentations and as a learning experience. The students can, if they like, to incorporate country-specific knowledge as a part of their group work and make thought-provoking comparisons, for example, on the issues of family life in different countries. What needs to be kept in mind is cultural awareness in order not to produce cultural stereotyping and categorisation, but to construct possibilities to reflect on the differences between, but also the similarities and individual differences within different cultures (see Hahl & Löfström, 2016). The group work as such demands skills to read and interpret quite abstract contents, to plan the presentation and to construct the slides and other material for the presentation, to think of how to activate the listeners, and to bear responsibility for the outcome of the group presentation. Giving a presentation means also acting /performing under the eyes of others, and speaking and communicating in English. It might be also worthwhile to reflect on how culture is made in these group presentations and discussions (Piller, 2012).

Eija

 

Baker, W. (2016) English as an academic lingua franca and intercultural awareness: student mobility in the transcultural university, Language and Intercultural Communication, 16:3, 437-451, DOI: 10.1080/14708477.2016.1168053

Hahl, K. & Löfström, E. (2016). Conceptualizing interculturality in multicultural teacher education, Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 11:3, 300-314. DOI:10.1080/17447143.2015.1134544

Piller, (2012). Intercultural communication: An overview. In C. B. Paulston & S. F. Kiesling & E. S. Rangel (Eds.), Handbook of intercultural discourse and communication.

 

EMI, FMI, who cares?

For most cases, I fail to see any difference in the language requirements between English or Finnish medium instructions. Or more precisely, I fail to see issues that would be due EMI that would not exist in instructions given in native languages. This does not mean that the level of my language skills, specifically, English skills would be at the same level as my native Finnish, but that the problem is not really the use of “secondary language”. The question is, of course, do you know the topic and have the active vocabulary to tell about it? If yes. Then looking from that point, the question is that does your audience have it? Naturally different things come in play here, but basically the difference is in vocabulary, language, in different levels of understanding. As established many times in class before, the academic language or more accurately any specific technical vocabulary is not the first language for anyone. The learning curve is high and existing for both EMI and FMI, or whatever.

During this fall, I have had several lectures in Finnish that have included much more vocabulary issues with native speakers than in my daily encounters with Master students who (most of them) use their second (or even third) language. There is one main difference between two groups that might elaborate the reason why this sort of difference has appeared. The FMI groups have been at basic level and with the participants who were less connected to the daily academic life and studies in HEI. The EMI groups have been and are (“my”) degree students completing their advanced level studies. While these courses are part of our MA curriculum that I have be in my part planning, the FMI “lectures” have been more or less disconnected from my daily work.

So, the main issues, the ones with vocabulary, have been caused by me failing to calibrate my “language” and thinking to the level of the audience. The issue does not really depend from the language, but the “language”. Also, issues are not really about practices or methods, but misalignments in practical preparedness. Furthermore, issues is a strong word here, few mistakes later I had recalibrated my level and clarified the conceptual misunderstandings and or lack of understanding.

Simply, I don’t really think that I have practices or methods that I would use exclusively for EMI teaching, but for teaching in general. Moreover, I would rather talk / write about attitude, which is much more important for teacher…  Teaching is a relational thing, in a dynamic relation of beings – whom all exist in a situation with individual aspirations, motivations and temporal orientations. At least if we are talking of the active modern interpretation of the thing (=teaching) instead of the more superficial and static forms. The question is, how we can make everyone engaged? Or should we just try our best and leave the responsibility for the receiver?

If the language is not the issue for the instructor – for example, instructor does not panic, lose concentration and thus words – all the issues can be simply resolved by numerous examples and rewordings. This might be time consuming, but you just have to find the ones that connect with the recipient. This practice fits both the traditional lectures and more modern collaborative group work, even in flipped settings. Also, while these and even the readings and digital solutions can be made engaging, “we” often do not really do so, “we” leave it on the responsibility of the students themselves.

How can teacher in traditional contact teaching be engaging? The thing is to be prepared to change the plan, be alert, aware and sensible etc. to stay on the top of the situation. It is a dynamic relation that requires reactions. While this – not sticking to the plan – might seem a bit unprofessional, I claim that this actually is possible only at the later stages of professional life. And that this is the trademark of generally well performing instructors, lecturers and performers. And teachers, if they really care and try to be dialogical. You cannot really be dialogical in static or unilateral situation. For one, most of the time the lesson/course plan is too booked, there is no time to adjust and adapt, and to listen and discuss. We forget that when something is added, something usually must come out. To be dialogical in the real philosophical sense of the term, well, it requires time. Therefore, I could actually as a practise and method recommend blending of flipped practices that free space of encounters and interactions in class. But at this point, I would rather claim that teaching practices and methods are irrelevant if the teaching philosophy is sound enough, and students/targets properly motivated to search and absorb the information. In this, teacher is no more teacher, but more a facilitator and mirror offering one more reflective relation to actively process the knowledge. Though it would not harm (or it would be necessary) to understand what learning is and how it happens as a proper teacher should.

While the above is more and more inclining towards improvisation and creative practices, for more or less fresh instructors I would recommend a rigorous planning and preparation. Same goes if you are new to EMI or go back to FMI after a while. I, for example, have to remind myself about the level of my Finnish groups, so I do not enter too deep waters. Good plan and preparation also eases the time management and coherence. However, the issue is, that well planned and prepared presentation is not living if it is rigorously performed. If the performer is not sensitive for the reactions of the audience and just sticks to the plan. It might be a total miss, and will always appear at least a bit stiff (and rigid). Not good as presentation wise. A good presentation is always dynamic and “reacts to the movements” of the audience, almost like a stand-up comedians. This is possible for more seasoned veterans – whom however should stay off too many jokes –  if they can put up the effort. Advice would be, that make sure that the overall course plan and big picture are both crystal clear – and that you are on the top of your topic, know your audience and have the confidence to mess-up and recover. If so, just loosen up you tie and let it flow. Adapt and adjust on the go. Improvise and create, it is a once in a lifetime performance that you should enjoy. But remember, it is not about you, it is about the students! If it feels easy, you are not engaged enough. If it feels impossible, keep practising!

So, if one method should be named, it would be listening. Listen your group, and then act accordingly. As a practice, it is good to make plans, but expect them to fail…

Banal Nationalism

In a multicultural classroom, the national boundaries may dissolve very quickly. Only if everyone understood that we all have some personal identifications to our national structures and our national culture. And one should not judge others for such identifications. Individually students and teachers may have a personal identification with their own national identity. Because of which students may or may not be comfortable discussing a few things about their nation in the classroom. It might be a reason for someone to judge. As a teacher, my own reflection on my own identity and my own process of identification of my national identity may help me to understand this process. Also, this stops me from over judging the students.  The challenge is to keep these identifications under control in a classroom setting. As a teacher, I need to be even more responsible for the classroom teaching to ensure learning beyond the national boundaries.

 

As a teacher, I try to use the multicultural classroom to my benefit. Especially during the discussions, I encourage students to share examples from their own countries. For example, once I was mentioning about car sharing model in Germany to explain boundaries of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). There were some exchange students from Germany in the class who started smiling. They immediately identified the phenomena and were happy to explain the phenomena to the rest of the class. This encouraged active participation in the class. Students identify with examples that are local to their nation. But sometimes student associate shame and stigma with specific examples from a certain region. For example, a student from India may find it very difficult to explain child labor or cases related to social injustice. As a teacher I need to understand these tensions and awkwardness around specific example in the class.  I need to handle it in a more relaxed way providing them some context and why it is necessary to know about that example with some positive twist.

The aim was to write about my practical experience with Banal nationalism. But I suppose this more of my personal thoughts about the situation when one has to deal with banal nationalism.

Reflection on EMI teaching

A couple of weeks back I along with Dr. Marjo Siltaoja taught a course about – Managing a green organization. Marjo was teaching about the leadership and human issues, while I was teaching the environmental management systems (EMS) and practical aspects of implementing a green strategy in an organization. Leadership and human issues were taught first, and then I introduced the class with the EMS.

The teaching material included EMS standards (EMAS standards and ISO 14001 standards, GRI indicators) and PowerPoint slides.

One of the significant challenges for me during the course was not to make it a monologue. As the guidelines are of hundreds of pages and explaining them can be very mechanical or robotic in nature. I was teaching this for the first time, I was very tensed about how to deal with this situation. As a student, I never enjoyed monologues and non-stop instructions.

Another challenge was to relate all that I was teaching with what Marjo had already explained in the class.

To deal with the first issue, I divided my class into two parts. The first half would be a monologue and instructions for about 30 minutes. In the second half in groups students picked one company from different industries (For example Nuclear power plant, a paper mill, a clothes manufacturing company, etc.). I came up with a set of guiding questions, that might help the students to deal with implementing these EMS guidelines in real jobs. I asked the students to answer these guiding questions for implementing an EMS for the chosen company. During these group discussions, I would go to each group and ask them to explain to me their approach, where I would challenge them and push them beyond their present thinking. Also, I noted interesting questions and ideas that were discussed with the individual group and shared them collectively at the beginning of the next class.

This approach, gave the students an idea about practical challenges while implementing an EMS. Also, how to find the right indicators from the guidelines.

To deal with the second challenge, I would ask them some direct questions during the group discussion, how would they as leaders deal with a particular situation and ask them to reflect on what they learned in the first half of the course. Further during the last class, I invited the ex-global Sustainability Director of Nokia, to share his experiences and challenges as a leader to manage sustainability at a global level. This interaction was exciting, as students came up with interesting questions that they were trying to deal during the group discussions and got some excellent answers from real life experiences.

Another practical issue that I noticed very quickly in the first class was that students were not familiar with specific terms. I was expecting that the master’s student would be familiar with terms like benchmarking, the scope of carbon emissions and a few more. Anyhow, during the first class, I could notice blank faces in my classroom when I was talking about benchmarking. Then I explained them the term and asked them to stop me whenever I used an unfamiliar term. I was thinking that the class would be shy to stop me, but luckily that was not the case.

To summarize, my EMI was based on short monologues that provided instructions, then reflection on the teachings in groups and answering questions and discussion with the teacher and sharing of the learnings with rest of the class.

Thoughts on EMI teaching

Reflecting on my own EMI teaching takes me back to a course that took place about a year ago. At the time, I was part of a teaching group on a course on professional agency and identity, for both international and Finnish master students in educational sciences. The course included a few lectures and a seminar. I had one seminar group of about 15 students and we met four times totally.

We had a nice opportunity to plan the course together with colleagues. Thus, we were able to discuss the pedagogigal methods to be used and applied in our seminar meetings. This meant, for example, that in every seminar meeting, various arts-based methods were utilized – in order to support the active participation of the students. Thus, more room was given to the student participation – and the methods (e.g. sociometry, drawing, symbolic work etc.) played a central role in making this possible. Considering that the content we were working with was an abstract one and that there were various understandings on it (e.g. identity as an individual vs. collective phenomena) among the participants, I found the ways of working very productive and safe.

The students worked throughout the seminar in groups of 3-4 members. They had an assignments to produce a presentation on professional agency in practice (to make it concrete through the manifestations) – in a format they chose themselves. So the assignment was a “loose” one. Through this way, we also wanted to give the students the agency on deciding the way the worked together and the form of the outcome they wanted to present to the others. And they came up with such creative and inspiring presentations (such as a play, a movie, an interview presentation, a discussion activity for the seminar participants etc.) that evoked a lot of discussion and important questions around the topic.

What this course thought me the most was that relying on the students, supporting their participation and giving the autonomy and space to work with their ideas is important. Further, an also from the point of view of using languge, I found that the arts-based methods applied supported the students to speak up, and to take a more active role in the group. Especially, using symbolic artefacts led us to nice discussions on professional identity and agency. At the time of the course, I did not really reflect on this from the point of view of language. The last TACE meeting took me back to this issue, and I realized that the ways of working were also important in terms of using language in a different way, than for example in lecture contexts. The descriptions and arguments were, in my opinion, more rich and explicit due to the methods used in the group. An important aspect for making this happen, was a safe environment for all participants and the autonomy of choosing the level and ways of participation individually.

Currently, I do not have any EMI teaching planned. I do hope, that I will be able to continue to develop this way of teaching and learning in the future as well.

On my EMI teaching

The task of this blog post is hard for me as I haven’t really done any EMI teaching. I am about to teach my first course in English only next spring, which is also the reason why I wanted to take this course. I have presented a lot of papers in conferences and seminars in English, but that is not quite the same thing. In conferences, it seems to me, the presenters are often not that interested of any pedagocial aspects of their presentations, which is also understandable as its not really a teaching situation. The language dimension is also easily forgotten; it is seen as a mere vehicle for getting your ideas out, not something to be that conscious or interested of.

When planning my spring course, I hadn’t really given much thouht to the language question. The last TACE session (22.10.) however offered many important points that I should take into consideration and so, instead of outlining examples of the methods that I commonly use (haven’t) I could discuss what I thought were the most interesting and important parts of the session.

I consider myself a pretty old school teacher. The kind of lecturer who is standing in front of the amphitheatre (as in one of Fergal’s slides), talking for an hour and then exiting the scene without much discussion. For this reason, this course has not only helped me to rethink the EMI aspects of my teaching, but has also offered a lot of new ideas for my teaching in general.

First of all, I now see the use of small group work as very effective. Being exactly the kind of introverted guy who will always just listen silently in the back row of the classroom, I can relate to the idea of them as “safe learning environments”. In small groups the students (also introverted ones) will get to discuss new ideas and reflect them from different angles. TACE has also applied small group discussions a lot, and I always feel like I’m almost getting the most out of them. However the group dynamic is very important: if the discussion is reserved or very forced, it can also be simply a waste of good 10 minutes of lecturing time. Anyhow, I will definitely have some sort of group work in my next teaching.

I also thought that the advice on pronounciation and intonation was very important. First of all, as I don’t speak English that often nowadays, I sometimes encounter trouble when I have to pronounce some terms for the first time or after a long pause. So now that I’m planning the slides for my lecture series I should remember to practice the pronounciations of the key terms and not leave it until the very day of the lecturing. For example: “strategy”! I read and write the word all the time, but when I have to actually say the word: stratzzizzy, strätzizi… Mumbling like that comes out.

Intonation is also important. Maybe it is also one of the reasons for why the native English speakers are usually rather easy to listen and sound interesting. Their language lives and flows almost like music and it keeps your attention up. It is true that Finnish speak can be rather monotonous and the worst cases of monotonous lecturers will almost make you sleep. I never thought about this before but I think I should really improve my intonation too…

On language and power

Today we had the first group teaching session, organized by Bhavani, Kirsi, Bhavesh and Yusuf. The idea was to experiment with teamwork in small groups. Task: to build as high a tower as possible using spaghetti and duct tape, AND to make it strong enough for holding a marshmellow on the top of it. Its the legenary ”spaghetti-marshmellow -challenge” that has been studied with various different groups from architects, business leaders to kindergarden kids around the age of five.

As our group started to work on the problem, it was indeed very interesting to observe the dynamics that begin to emerge in the group: someone throws in an idea and it gets developed a bit further. And at at some point, maybe someone just takes action on his own. The question we were supposed to explore with the experiment was (if I remeber correctly) what are the possibilities, benefits and challenges of teamwork. The discussions we had on this topic after the experiment were also very interesting. An important reminder was that groupwork and especially involvement of people with varying backgrounds in it is not always helpful. For instance, if there is one architect in the group building a tower out of spaghetti, the rest of the group will really not bring much, might evern harm the process.

After this task we studied language and social interaction. The focus was on the academic setting but the basic ideas apply almost everywhere. English is the global language and I would argue it will also remain so long into the future, no matter how global politics evolve (rise of China and such). Competence in English thus opens a lot of doors, but incompetence in it (or even an appearance of incomptence) can easily close them…

Language can be seen as an instrument of power. Networks and carreer opportunities are based on competence in languages, which today means more or less, in English. In the academic setting this is often seen in scenarios such as, that if one is not fluent with English, he/she can be then thought to be a bad teacher or incompetent in his field of research. (Well, sometimes this shouldn’t be denied too; if a teacher’s English is really bad or his pronounciation is almost uncomprehensible, well, maybe he is not a bad teacher, but at least I don’t feel like learning much.)

Yet fluency or the correct accent shouldn’t be that important as English is a global language. It is no more owned by the people with anglo-saxon background, but spoken everywhere. The native language of Jamaicans, for example is English, and India and Nigeria have English as an official language – in the latter it is even spoken by the majority of the people. Academic English is even less owned by anyone.

As for me, I’ve always felt rather comfortable with my Finnish accent. Yet I cannot deny, that when I see someone, coming from the Unites States for example, giving an academic presentation with excellent and clear pronounciation, plus having the relaxed yet compelling presentation skills that are typical to American presenters (I know, I know, some brute cultural essentialization here), they just feel more competent and persuasive. This is perhaps partly because they come from a culture which appreciates and also reinforces such extrovert traits, but also because they feel very natural with the language they are using.

Reflection about EMI teaching

My (and my colleagues) ongoing EMI course aiming at develop master students 21st century competencies (e.g. collaboration, creativity and learning). Our course is blended learning course, which consist of  face-to-face lecturers, seminars, small group work, and independent study. In this year our virtual learning environment is Peda.net.

Primarily our students working together (both online and face-to-face) in small groups of 3-4 members in order to write theoretical and practical recommendation paper (to an external group of practitioners who are developing higher education to better meet the requirements of the working life) on a certain topic. They are randomly divided into the groups of 3-4 members and collaborated for writing task via web 2.0 technology i.e in shared Google Docs document. We have instructed students to follow a four phase script procedure, in which collaborative writing task is divided into the different phases in order to support students’ collaboration.

The structure of the our four-phase collaborative writing process (script):
Phase 1: Current problem > Regarding collaborative learning in university studies
Phase 2: State of the art > Look for theoretical ideas and/or empirical evidence that might be applied to the problem at hand.
Phase 3: Advantages > Evaluate what aspects of the theoretical ideas and/or empirical evidence can be well applied and which ones not.
Phase 4: Disadvantages > Theoretical aspects; Focus on critical points of view and/or empirical evidence.

At the beginning of the task each small group divides themselves into student 1, student 2, student 3, and student 4.  Then each student starts writing draft in a way that student 1 starts in phase 1, student 2 in phase 2 etc.  Working is based on rotation system, so after one week students change their “roles” in a way that student 1 change into phase 2, student 2 into phase 3 etc. Each small of their specific topic by utilising their main source and at least one additional source chosen by themselves (can be the source provided by the teachers). Students write their task in joint Google document following the scripted phases.

In summary, my main EMI teaching methods in current course are: small group work, scripted collaboration, technology-enhanced teaching and learning. In language perspective the course is demanding , because it’s combine both English and academic language. Also in students’ perspective the course is challenging, because students from different cultural backgrounds have to work, write and collaborate together for written document that need to follow academic language (written). Also our teaching method is demanding because it challenges students to collaboration and critical thinking. During our course it’s important to keep spoken English as simple as possible and repeat main points (e.g. the instructions for scripted working).

Reflection on my EMI teaching

Outline some examples of the teaching practices or methods you commonly use in your EMI teaching

When introducing concepts that could be difficult to understand, I sometimes start with the concepts in all of their complexity, definitions of which oftentimes  contain complex and specialised language, but then deconstruct these building on learners’ experiences, and using easier language, pictures, or videos but also the just introduced terminology as part of the definition to help students construct their understanding of the concept. I then build on these concepts to introduce further concepts.

An example from my lecture that Kirsi observed was the cool whip (https://youtu.be/7ZmqJQ-nc_s) to describe assessment of the process of learning, in which teaching, learning and assessment are parts of the same process, building on the newly introduced concepts of reciprocity and transcendence. Once I have checked that the students’ understanding has developed, I then build on this which introducing a further concept, in this case, a dialectical relationship of teaching, learning, and assessment in the process discussed above.

What I also try to do is to ask learners to share and reflect on their own experiences.  This is above all, to engage learners in thinking together rather than ‘imposing’ my own understanding onto them in a unidirectional manner. For example, before challenging the common meaning of the word assessment in the assessment of learning culture, I ask learners to think what comes to their mind when they think about the word ‘assessment’ and then ask if this is the only assessment that they have experienced.

I also use metaphors to develop learners’ critical thinking. One example from the same teaching contact session that Kirsi observed is using the picture attached to first discuss assessment of learning culture but then, towards the end of the session, as hopefully, learners’ understanding of assessment has developed, ask them to think about the same picture again (this time, the intention being that they mention ways of helping different learners to complete the task, finding these ways being the goal of assessment).

(https://marquetteeducator.wordpress.com/2012/07/12/climbthattree/)

Overall, I try to leave the thinking part to learners

What demands do you think they put on the student and on you from a languages perspective?

I think the demand here is not just the language,–thinking just from the perspective of the language is not particularly useful, in my opinion. Rather it is the integration of language and content that creates the complexity. So using language to mediate content and using language to mediate content is what helps.

I think, being conscious about it is what helps me to mediate the language (and content).

After all, the idea is that learners at the end of the day socialise into the academic community, so they should also possess academic language, not just the content knowledge.

How could you improve your EMI teaching practices or methods in order to cater for these demands?

I still am stereotypical sometimes towards learners. For example, I expect somebody coming from the US to have massive experience with standardised tests but less so with assessment for learning, even though they could have spent years in other countries, including Finland. What helps me, again, is being conscious about my stereotypes. Starting with learning about learners experiences is what helps me overcome this. Perhaps, I should do it more often.

I am not saying here that stereotypes are bad–they are a good starting point.

 

Come to think of it,  a lot of the above is about my teaching philosophy, so I guess, there are bound to be overlaps when I start putting it together.

My Methods for EMI Teaching: Keep It Simple

When I have a lecture with international students, my main goal is to keep the lecture topics international as well. What I mean by this is that I find it more suitable to use e.g. case examples outside Finland and cover topics that are more global. This usually creates a better understanding in the class and the topics are easier for students to discuss in small groups.

Because I am not a native speaker of English, it also creates a challenge of its own kind from the perspective of language. Luckily, Pilkinton-Pihko (2013) says that it is not “an appropriate benchmark for assessment of successful use of English”. I would say that I have to overcome a double language barrier when lecturing at the university: the English language barrier and the academic language barrier. Thus, a saying “Keep it simple” guides me and the planning of my lectures.

What I want in the lectures is that the students understand what I am trying to say, and because of that, I try to avoid “academic language” when it is not a necessity. According to Moate’s (2011) typology of teacher talk types, I would consider myself as an exploratory talker who aims at creating understanding together. I try to avoid being an expert and I focus on pupil understanding.

I thus suggest that I should focus on learning academic AND English languages simultaneously to be able to improve my EMI teaching practices in the future. This will help me to keep the things professionally understandable in the lectures and it also offers an improved skill set to accomplish that goal. In other words: by improving my language skills I can still keep the things simple but I probably have a wider variety of tools to do so.

Keeping things informative, understandable, academic, and entertaining at the same time shouldn’t be that hard, right?