How does our class content compare to others?

From classroom case studies set in the Netherlands, KLAASSEN (2001) identified several areas of effective lecturing behavior needing emphasis in EMI contexts:

a. the orientation and organizational aspects of structure;

b. the use of interaction as a means of feedback and exploration of understanding in a more traditional type of lecture;

c. the use of non-verbal behaviour as a means to support interaction and;

d. the use of qualitatively well-prepared visuals to support content matter presentation.

(KLAASSEN 2001: 78) She also points out that students need explicit explanation of the requirements of the lecturer.

In a later article (KLAASSEN 2008), she defines the three essential aspects of a course for EMI lecturers as being pedagogical quality, intercultural communication, and English language proficiency. She explains that in courses for lecturers at her institution participants do not always welcome the pedagogical aspects, feeling that the language is the only barrier to successful teaching in a foreign language. In order to combat this attitude, it is necessary to spend time acquainting lecturers with difficulties experienced by student learners in EMI courses. It may be also useful to point out that student evaluations of the effectiveness of EMI depend largely upon teaching skills, particularly on how lecturers dealt with explaining new terminology, explaining things in various ways, and using clear examples, as well as on their liveliness, effective use of gestures, and eye contact (KLAASSEN 2001). It seems that other aspects such as intercultural communication and second language learning are included in their curriculum, but not labeled as such. This is an approach worth considering for future courses at our institution, as well, considering the lower importance assigned to such topics in the needs analysis, and thus its lower face value.

B^JÖRKMAN (2011), who examined the use pragmatic strategies in both EMI lectures and student groups, recommends teaching lecturers pragmatic strategies that foster interaction and comprehension. These include signaling discourse structure both prospectively and retrospectively (signposting) and signaling significance of information to draw attention to central points. We dealt with these topics to some extent, but could probably expand and include more activities to practice this.

WILKINSON noted that academic staff considered language skills important, and felt that training was needed, but extensive professional experience would also help. Interestingly,

“most of the respondents thought it was important to be trained in how to develop students’

language abilities in the discipline, in particular how to assess the students’ linguistic abilities in both speaking and writing and provide effective feedback” (W^ILKINSON 2005: 5). Perhaps

71

due to the short duration of the course, or the lack of actual student work, this issue did not arise during our course.

Conclusions

We designed and carried out a 60-hour course to assist lecturers at a Hungarian university in the task of teaching their subjects in English. In general, the course was considered to be a success by all involved in it. Evaluations were very positive, and several participants requested further courses in the future, or commented that the two-week course should be extended to at least three weeks. While we were basically satisfied with our curriculum, there is of course room for improvement. In any further courses for lecturers who teach or plan to teach their subjects in English, we will also draw on the accounts of similar courses in other European institutions. Another useful source reinforcing the need for pedagogical change and offering suggestions for content teachers (beneficial to all students, not just those in EMI courses) is available in FELDER & SILVERMAN (1988), aimed specifically at those teaching engineering but more widely applicable as well.

In the process of researching, designing and teaching this course, it has become clear that EMI lecturers actually need far more than a language course, despite what the lecturers themselves may believe. Rather, “(t)eaching in English-medium higher education settings…rests on three pillars: language proficiency, effective lecturing behaviour and personal attitude” (TATZL

2011: 254). The appropriate attitude includes the willingness to try out a range of methods and being responsive to student needs; we need to find a way to foster such an attitude, especially in the traditional lecture-centered disciplines.

Despite the short duration of the course, we hope that it has had some effect on language proficiency, at least in the area of the language of instruction. We would be delighted if the experience had any influence on the lecturing behavior or attitudes of the participants. In any case, the influence has been mutual: through the discussions, sample lectures, and stories shared during the course we had the opportunity to learn more about the way that our colleagues in the disciplines teach and work, and the greater contact between language and content teachers has led to further opportunities for development on both sides. We hope that this trend will continue, for the benefit of all, and most of all for our students.

Acknowledgements

We thank Mrs. Éva Pataki, for joining us in planning and carrying out the course. We gratefully acknowledge the support of the TÁMOP-4.1.1.C-12/1/KONV-2012-0001 project (no. 6130005), in the framework of the New Hungarian Development Plan. The realization of this project is supported by the European Union, co-financed by the European Social Fund.

References

A^IREY, J. (2008): Language and engineering: Towards bilingual scientific literacy. Paper delivered at the Engineering Education Development Conference, Stockholm, Sweden.

BJÖRKMAN,B. (2011): Pragmatic strategies in English as an academic lingua franca: Ways of achieving communicative effectiveness? Journal of Pragmatics, 43(4), 950‒964.

COLEMAN,J.A. (2006): English-medium teaching in European Higher Education. Language Teaching, 39(1), 1–14.

DOIZ, A., LASAGABASTER, D. & SIERRA, J.M. (2011): Internationalization, multilingualism and English-medium instruction. World Englishes, 30(3), 345–359.

72

FELDER, R.M. & SILVERMAN, L.K. (1988): Learning and teaching styles in engineering education. Engineering Education, 78(7), 674‒681.

HINCKS, R. (2010): Speaking rate and information content in English lingua franca oral presentations. English for Specific Purposes, 29, 4‒18.

KLAASSEN, R.G. (2001): The International University Curriculum: Challenges in English-Medium Engineering Education. PhD dissertation, Technical University of Delft.

K^LAASSEN,R.G. (2008): Preparing lecturers for English-medium instruction. In W^ILKINSON, R. & ZEGERS,V. (eds.), Realizing Content and Language Integration in Higher Education.

Maastricht, Netherlands: Maastricht University Language Centre. pp 32‒42.

T^ATZL,D. (2011): English-medium masters’ programmes at an Austrian university of applied sciences: Attitudes, experiences and challenges. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 10, 252-270.

THØGERSEN,J.&AIREY,J. (2011): Lecturing undergraduate science in Danish and in English:

A comparison of speaking rate and rhetorical style. English for Specific Purposes, 30, 209‒

221.

VINKE,A.A. (1995): English as the Medium of Instruction in Dutch Engineering Education.

PhD dissertation, Technical University of Delft.

WILKINSON,R. (2005): The impact of language on teaching content: Views from the content teacher. Conference proceedings: Bi- and multi-lingual universities: Challenges and future prospects. Helsinki.

73

Zsuzsanna Zsubrinszky Budapest Business School

College of International Management and Business zsubrinszky.zsuzsanna@kkfk.bgf.hu