N.A. Serzina

Murmansk, Russia

DEVELOPMENT OF MULTYLINGUISM OF THE PERSONALITY OF A STUDENT (FRON THE WORKING

EXPERIENCE AS AFINNISH TEACHER IN THE GYMNASIUM # 9,

MURMANSK)

In the article the experience of working as a Finnnish teacher on the development of multylinguism is concluded. The article dwells upon the characteristic features of teaching the second language in the gymnasium with extra classes of English. The article shows how the problem of developing multylinguism is solved in class and during out-of-class activities by menas of using research and project methods. The results achieved by the students are also discussed.

Key words: multylinguism, cross-cultural, research, project method.

372.881.111.1 – 37.028.8

J.A. Hanssen

Bodø, Norway

THEORETICAL AND PEDAGOGICAL APPROACHES TO THE FORMATION OF A COLLEGE-LEVEL ESOL COURSE FOR INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS

This paper clarifies the theoretical and pedagogical perspectives that I have implemented as I created the English Language Support (ELS) course at the University of Nordland, and then contextualizes these perspectives as they are applied in the classroom. A secondary goal of the paper is to evaluate how elements of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFRL) and the European Language Portfolio (ELP) can be used to determine student ability and to further the stated purpose of the ELS course.

Keywords: theoretical and pedagogical perspectives, English Language Support (ELS) course, Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFRL), European Language Portfolio (ELP), student’Ь ability, purpose of the ELS course.

In the most basic sense, in order to adequately explain the theories which surround planning a college English course for L2 learners, it is first necessary

to clarify what it means to be a college English teacher today. According to Al-

ЛОЫЭ KТЭгСКЛОЫ, EЧРХТЬС КЬ К ПТОХН ОЧМШЦЩКЬЬОЬ “К ЬОЪЮОЧЭial and cumulative ПТОХН ШП ЬЭЮНв аТЭС ЭСЫОО КЫОКЬ: ХКЧРЮКРО, ХТЭОЫКЭЮЫО, КЧН МШЦЩШЬТЭТШЧ” [5]. This

239

definition was given at the Dartmouth Conference of 1966, which sought to

ПШЫЦЮХКЭО ЭСО ЛКЬТЬ ПШЫ аСКЭ ТЬ ЧШа ФЧШаЧ КЬ МШЦЩШЬТЭТШЧ ЬЭЮНТОЬ. KТЭгСКЛОЫ’Ь definition was not especially well received because it was interpreted as static and without taking into consideration what it is that college English teachers ac-

tually do, or to be even more specific, what they should be doing [Op. cit]. There is a distinctiШЧ ЦКНО ЛОЭаООЧ ЭСО “НТЬМТЩХТЧО” ШП EЧРХТЬС КЧН ЭСО “ЩЫШПОs-

ЬТШЧ” ШП EЧРХТЬС, КЧН аСТХО ТЭ ТЬ ЩШЬЬТЛХО ПШЫ К МШХХОРО EЧРХТЬС ЭОКМСОЫ ЭШ ЫОЭТЫО into the library and produce solipsistic works of scholarship ad infinitum, or to teach the same tired courses year after year with little consideration for how our courses really benefit students and our communities, this form of self-imposed exile denies teachers the opportunity to take our cultural capital and transform it into achieving a truly literate society. By focusing on the fantastic opportunities available to engage our knowledge of a language, we can most effectively in-

crease our potential to transform the way our students communicate with the

аШЫХН КЭ ХКЫРО. AЬ ЬЮМС, MТХХОЫ ОбЩКЧНЬ KТЭгСКЛОЫ’Ь НОПТЧТЭТШЧ of college English to include four areas: literary and cultural studies, language studies, writing studies, and English education. ESOL, then, falls under the area of language studies (ibid.), but there is also a distinct overlap, particularly in the areas of cultural studies and writing studies, making ESOL an interesting, relevant, and yes, strategic topic of specialty.

Understanding the necessity for college teachers to engage themselves in teaching ESOL courses, one must then determine the specific goals of ESOL

courses when it comes to adult learners at the college level. According to Joan Fridenberg and Curtis H. Bradley [3], КЧ ESOL ЩЫШРЫКЦ ПШЫ КНЮХЭЬ “ЬСШЮХН Тn-

clude discrete-point grammar teaching, as well as opportunities for the students

to integrate the discrete points into meaningful messages which will aid them in

НОЯОХШЩТЧР ТЧЭОЫЩОЫЬШЧКХ МШЦЦЮЧТМКЭТШЧ ЬФТХХЬ,” ЬФТХХЬ аСТМС аТХХ ОЧКЛХО ХОКЫn- ers to enhance their employment prospects and develop satisfying relationships with other users of English [Op. cit.]. Fridenberg and Bradley stress the importance of achieving communicative competence over more traditional styles of grammar instruction and creating a functional syllabus [Op. cit., p. 404], meaning one that gives students opportunities to integrate components of language for communicative purposes. They cite Anne Farid as she identifies the five criteria by which a teacher can develop a good communication activity. According to Farid [2], a dialogue activity should be structured so that

1)the topic is interesting;

2)the topic does not lie outside of the students semantic skills;

3)the students participate more or less equally;

4)the participating students experience a feeling of success, regardless of the correctness of their English; and

5)the non-participating students are motivated to listen to content rather than to form [2, p. 300].

240

These criteria are a good starting point, I feel, for the theoretical foundation of a course in general and not just limited to the activities within the course. When asked to construct an ESOL course for international students at a college or university, in my case the University of Nordland, these criteria, along with the idea of the functional syllabus and the combination of discrete-point grammar teaching with interpersonal communication skills, formed the basis of my planning on a more holistic level.

With respect to the idea of increasing the possibility of L2 students reaching out to other users of English, and considering the limited parameters of a 5 ECTS course, which translates to one two-hour session per week, I decided to use the resource of international students who happen to be L1 users of English to mediate small group communication sessions. While this is, in a sense, an innovative feature of ELS and one which I am especially proud of having organized, there is also a theoretical basis for this type of instruction from the area of

educational psychology, which is the concept of the Zone of Proximal Development established by Lev Vygotsky. Vygotsky maintains tСКЭ К ХОКЫЧОЫ’Ь МШg-

nitive development does not occur in isolation but within a social milieu. The more sophisticated or competent the milieu, the more potential exists for learners to master and internalize the instruction (c.f. Beliavsky) [1]. Therefore, by placing the L2 learners in small groups led by L1 users of the language, and asking for everyone to engage each other in conversation, the ZPD for the L2 learners increases in a way that feels organic because, from their perspective, they are simply talking to a more competent peer rather than performing discursively for a teacher. The short length of the conversations, 45 minutes, and the idea that the conversations are topically centered, lowers the threshold for entry for the L2 user, and the small group size limits the amount of non-participation.

The general structure of the class was meant to encourage positive and intercultural interaction within the parameters of practicing oral English. Vygotsky also mentions that language development takes place in the context of purposeful interaction with native speakers in social contexts. Not to take this idea too far out of context, since his theories did apply primarily to L1 learning situations, I find that in a situation where everyone has a certain threshold amount of the target language, that further language development can be encouraged in this way. It is for this reason that I tried to secure native speakers as Student Assis-

tants for the course. Throughout my planning and implementation, the idea of

“ЩЮЫЩШЬОПЮХ ТЧЭОЫКМЭТШЧ” аКЬ КХаКвЬ ПШЫОЦШЬЭ ТЧ Цв ЦТЧН.

It is important to stress that, within the framework of ESOL at the college

level, I as a teacher, and the Student Assistants in supportive roles are not

МСКЫРОН аТЭС “ЭОКМСТЧР” ЭСО ХКЧРЮКРО. TСТЬ аШЮld have not only been unnecessary but impossible given the time allotted and the student population we served,

which already had (although not always properly documented) a threshold level

ШП EЧРХТЬС. АО ЦОЫОХв ЩЫШЯТНОН ЭСТЬ “ЩЮЫЩШЬОПЮХ ТЧЭОЫКМЭТШЧ” КЧН “Ьocial con- ЭОбЭЬ.” TСО аООФХв НТЬМЮЬЬТШЧ ЭШЩТМЬ аОЫО ТЧЭОЧЭТШЧКХХв ЧШЧ-academic, but fo-

241

cused heavily on cultural touchstones such as foods, customs, arts, and the workplace. I feel that this removed a certain amount of the pressure on both the

students taking the class, as well as the Student Assistants, and this again low-

ОЫОН ЭСО ЩОЫМОТЯОН ХКЧРЮКРО ЛКЫЫТОЫ. I ЮЬО ЭСО аШЫН “ЩОЫМОТЯОН” ТЧЭОЧЭТШЧКХХв, ПШЫ it is my distinct observation that many of the students had rather strong oral English skills but did not feel secure about using them in a mixed crowd; this insecurity would obviously present problems in the context of the college environment. Therefore, by focusing the class around social situations, it was meant to provide an organic learning experience along the lines which Vygotsky imagined.

Another set of theoretical perspectives for the course came from the European Language Portfolio (ELP). I was particularly impressed by the work of

Angela Hasselgreen et al. [4] in this area in what has come to be known as the

“BОЫРОЧ ЩЫШУОМЭ.” SЩОМТПТМКХХв, ЬСО КЧН СОЫ ЫОЬОКЫМС ЩКЫЭЧОЫЬ ЬШЮРСЭ ЭШ МХКЫТПв

some terms from the ELP which have particular relevance in the ESOL context.

SОМЭТШЧ 2.3 ШП ЭСО ЦКЧЮКХ TСО BОЫРОЧ ‘CКЧ DШ’ PЫШject outlines some of the

specific oral assessment criteria, which I used on a regular basis when following the class conversations: “IЧ ЭСО МКЬО ШП ЬЩОКФТЧР, (МШЦЦЮЧТМКЭТЯО ХКЧРЮКРО КЛТl-

ity) does not only involve vocabulary, grammar, pronunciation/intonation but also:

fluency – keeping the talk going smoothly and linking what is said both inside and across turns

socio-cultural skills – having a sense for the most appropriate language for the situation

strategies – coping with gaps/possible misunderstandings due to language limitations [Opt. cit., p. 22].

Since it would obviously have been difficult to document student work using the ELP as a dossier-based indicator, it was nevertheless possible and helpful to have a clear sense of the criteria for a reasonable oral assessment. I advised and encouraged the Student Assistants to follow these guidelines, with an emphasis on the idea of increasing fluency through eliminating, whenever pos-

sible, gaps on the conversation. This really helped to maximize the conversation

КЬЩОМЭ ШП ЭСО МШЮЫЬО, КЬ ЭСОЫО аКЬ ЫОХКЭТЯОХв ХТЭЭХО “НОКН ЭТЦО.” TСО ОХТЦТЧКЭТШЧ

of conversation gaps also enabled me to have more opportunities to listen to stu-

НОЧЭЬ’ ШЫКХ ЩЫШНЮМЭТШЧ КЧН ЦКФО КЬЬОЬЬЦОЧЭЬ.

In addition, Hasselgreen et al. provides some specific information on how

ЭШ КНКЩЭ ЭСО ELP ЭШ ПШМЮЬ ШЧ ЭСО “МКЧ НШ” КЬЩОМЭ. SТЧМО ТЭ аКЬ Цв ТЧЭОЧЭ ЭШ ЩЫo-

vide a positive and supportive venue for improving oral English, I was obvious-

Хв ТЦЩЫОЬЬОН Лв ЭСО ELP’Ь ОЦЩСКЬТЬ ШЧ ЭСО “МКЧ-НШ”, ЫОПХОМЭТЯО ЧКЭЮЫe of lan-

РЮКРО ХОКЫЧТЧР. TСО ЦКЧЮКХ ШЧ ЭСО BОЫРОЧ ‘CКЧ DШ’ PЫШУОМЭ НОЬМЫТЛОЬ ЭСО аКвЬ

in which taking a reflective tack seems to affect the role of both the students and

ЭСО ЭОКМСОЫ: “FШЫ ЬШЦО ЬЭЮНОЧЭЬ ТЭ аКЬ ОКЬв КЧН ЧКЭЮЫКХ ЭШ ЛО ЫОПХОМЭТЯО КЛШЮЭ their approach to study and their lives. Then again, for others it was difficult,

242

and only when there was a good and trustworthy atmosphere did they start to open up. You need to proceed with caution. At the same time the learning atmosphere should also be very supportive” [Op. cit., p. 61].

This experience, which the writers of the project experienced in a grade 7- 9 context, is also directly representative of the issues I faced when asking my own students to reflect on their experiences in a positive way. Too many students were, at least at first, overly critical of their own abilities without taking adequate caution of the damage this can cause. When these barriers were broken, through good communication and rapport with myself and the Student Assistants, then there was a distinct drop in this sort of negativity.

Perhaps the most important influence on the philosophy of the English

LКЧРЮКРО SЮЩЩШЫЭ МХКЬЬ, СШаОЯОЫ, аКЬ ЭСО ТНОК КЧН ТЦЩХОЦОЧЭКЭТШЧ ШП ЭСО “МКЧ- НШ” ТЭЬОХП. AЬ I СКЯО ЦОЧЭТШЧОН, ЦКЧв ШП ЭСО ЭКЫРОЭ РЫШЮЩ of students had indeed

studied English at an adequate level yet still felt unprepared for the realities of

ЮЬТЧР EЧРХТЬС НКТХв, ОЬЩОМТКХХв ТЧ ЭСО КМКНОЦТМ КЧН ЬШМТКХ МШЧЭОбЭЬ. TСО “МКЧ НШ” ЬОХП-evaluative approach, taken from the ELP but modified for my specific needs, served two purposes. For the stronger students, they were reassured that they indeed had the necessary skills and abilities. For the weaker students, it was an indicator that they were working towards acquiring these skills. It was clearly

beneficial and in line with the course goals to focus on what students can do in-

ЬЭОКН ШП аСКЭ ЭСОв МКЧ’Э, КЧ КЭЭТЭЮНО аСТМС I ТЧЭОЧНОН ЭШ КХЬШ КЬЬТЬЭ ЭСШЬО ЬЭu- dents from economically disadvantaged backgrounds in feeling as though they are on equal ground with other students who have clear social and/or economic advantages.

In order to serve the language needs of a large body of international students who have varied experience using English on a regular basis, I strove to design a course that would maximize effectiveness while maintaining a positive and nurturing atmosphere. The pedagogical theories I employed tended to stress the importance of native competence being brought into the L2 classroom. I was very glad to see how strongly the students who chose to take the class responded

to this approach. I was also pleased to discover the reciprocal effect in the Stu-

НОЧЭ AЬЬТЬЭКЧЭЬ ТЧ ЭСО МШЮЫЬО. SТЧМО ЭСО МШЮЫЬО ШПЭОЧ ПШМЮЬОН ШЧ ЭСО “МКЧ-НШ” elements of the ELP, rather than limiting itself to what students cannot do, the tone remained positive, which again increased the likelihood of true cultural and instructive exchange.

Bibliography

1.Beliavsky N. Revisiting Vygotsky and Gardner: recognizing human potential / N. Beliavsky // Journal of Aesthetic Education. 2006. 40(2). P. 1-11.

2.Farid A. Communication in the classroom: student improvised dialogues / A. Farid // TESOL Quarterly. 1976. 15(4). P. 11-403.

243