L ANGUAGE PROFICIENCY IN THE EU E NGLISH CLASS

4.1.1 The students’ perceived and real English language proficiency

The information regarding the needs relative to language proficiency for EU English course design is based on data gathered by student interviews and the student needs analysis questionnaire. Ten UTE student interviewees and 25 respondents of the needs analysis questionnaire provided data about their perceived language proficiency and their actual language examination. The age of the participating EU English students was between 20-24.

Their subject areas of study at UTE represented the following areas: Architecture (five students), Regional and environmental economics (three students), Electrical engineering (two students), Mechatronical engineering (three students), Bioengineering (three students), Mechanical engineering (two students) Chemical engineering (two students), Industrial design engineer (three students), International Management (three students), Regional and Environmental Economics (three students), Chemical engineering (two students), Leadership and Organisation (two students), and Civil engineering (two students).

Data suggest that the students’ perceived English language proficiency level – prior to the course – was intermediate or higher. As many as 23 students indicated that they were at the B2 level, five students reported that they were between the B2 and C1 levels and seven of them

marked the C1 level. As Table 14 shows, 19 students held a B2 level, 18 students a C1 level English language certificate.

Table 14 EU English students’ language proficiency

Age Perceived Language Proficiency Language exam

20-24 B2 23 students B2 19 students

B2 - C1 5 students C1 18 students

C1 7 students

Based on the author’s experience, and also underpinned by UTE teacher interviewees’

opinion, the actual language competence of the majority of the UTE students learning EU English was at the intermediate level or below at the time. Only one or two students in each class taught by the author and the two other UTE teachers had a higher level of proficiency. It was also documented in the teacher’s diary that the discrepancy between the perceived and the actual language ability prevented the students from successfully performing in class because the course materials presupposed a better command of English. The students’ inadequate level of English was observed in their inability of comprehending EU documents of different genres included in the book. However, this was not the sole area of difficulty identified as a result of the lack of appropriate language proficiency. At this point of the presentation of the results, the issue of learner difficulty is not discussed further, as it will be described in more detail in Section 4.9.1.2. However, it is worth noting here that despite the most careful planning of an ESP course, language proficiency is heterogeneous in EU English classes. This is stated in the UTE teachers’ and the teacher-researcher interviews, which also reported great diversity in the language proficiency of the student population explored.

Two of the teacher-researchers, Szandra and Lea assumed that for EU English students, it is advisable to have at least a B2 English level proficiency in order to be able to study

efficiently. As opposed to their views, the third interviewee, Hanna thought that the level of language proficiency was not important, thus, in her opinion, EU English can be taught even to beginners:

I think when beginners are taught, though it is rare today among university students, the most important thing is to raise their interest in the subject they are learning. The teacher has to compile the teaching material according to the learners’ language proficiency and it is clear that specialist texts, which are not very complicated, have to be chosen. I do not think that EU English can only be taught above a certain language proficiency.

(Hanna, TR/3)

Although the latter statement may be justified from an ESP pedagogic point of view (Dudley-Evans & St John, 1998), all the four EU professionals in this study suggested that employees are expected to have higher level language proficiency in the workplace context.

4.1.2 Language proficiency needs in the EU context

According to the EU professionals, the employees who aim to work or already work in the EU context, must be at an advanced level in general English, including oral and written language skills in order to communicate effectively in EU positions. Results of the EU professional interviews regarding English language proficiency requirements at the workplace show that in the EU context working advanced level language proficiency is necessary in order to deliver language related tasks in a professional manner. The EU professional interviews revealed that EU English specific language competence was not required from potential employees at workplaces prior to employment. However, the responses suggest that in order to accomplish workplace duties in English, familiarity with the specific grammatical, lexical and textual components of EU English is a significant advantage. Moreover, the data indicate that the workplace EU English needs comprise the knowledge of the terminology of the specialised EU sub-fields the employees are working with. Three out of four EU professional respondents stressed that it would have been helpful for them to receive EU English instruction before they started to work, as they admitted to encountering substantial language difficulties while

carrying out their workplace tasks.

The findings pertaining to language competence show that there is a discrepancy between the perceived and the actual language level of EU English students at UTE. Moreover, it has been pointed out that employees in the EU context need active advanced level general English language proficiency to perform language related tasks; additionally, it is recommended to learn EU English prior to work since it is a great advantage in the workplace situation.

Overall, the data regarding the students’ perceived and real language competence imply that the teacher must be flexible in handling the EU English course and the content of the teaching materials, which may need continuous revision in light of the English language learning needs more accurately observed during the process of teaching. The heterogeneity of the language knowledge at the same time suggests that there might be students in the class whose preliminary expectation from the course is general language learning. To meet these students’ expectation, the teacher has to acknowledge teaching subject-specific activities by applying more motivating instructional methods that call these students’ attention to the actual objectives of the course.