T HE ISSUE OF EU- SPECIFIC BACKGROUND KNOWLEDGE

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.

4.2.1 Students’and teachers’ views

Both the student interview and the questionnaire results show that the majority of the EU English students do not have EU-specific background knowledge. EU-related studies were not pursued by the students neither in Hungarian nor in English on the European Union before taking the EU English course. Only one student interviewee reported that she held relevant EU-specific knowledge she obtained as part of her International Relations BSc level studies. She said that she had extensive knowledge about the EU, which included the knowledge of the EU institutions; however, when further questioned, for example, about the working mechanisms of the institutions, she had to confess she lacked this knowledge.

The subject knowledge issue raises two major areas of concern for the EU English teacher that need to be answered before designing a detailed teaching material for EU English purposes. The first one is relative to the teacher’s EU-specific background knowledge, which is essential to successfully work in class as suggested by the experts. The EU-specific background knowledge possessed by the teacher needs to be estimated in order to be able to rely on complementary pedagogical sources if needed. The second area of concern before attempting to design the course is how much EU-specific background knowledge is necessary and in what proportion it should be incorporated in the course compared to the linguistic contents of the EU English class.

Responses given by the teacher-researchers indicate that the EU English teacher is thought to be responsible for the subject knowledge in the EU English class, which means that the teacher provides this input for the class and cannot rely on the students’ expertise. At the same time, the respondents underlined the importance of content-based teaching for two main reasons. The first one referred to the students’ lack of background knowledge which often results in becoming demotivated in the EU English class.

The students are not motivated once they find out their background knowledge is not extensive enough to understand, for example, the names of the EU institutions or basic legislative procedures in the EU. In the next excerpt, Sandra comments critically on the issue of EU-specific background knowledge and points out how it affects the students’ motivation:

The students come to the EU English class without prior knowledge about the EU in Hungarian and this is one of the biggest difficulties for us. In addition, they do not have sufficient English language proficiency. As a result, the students fail to stay motivated.

This is the most difficult thing for the teacher. (Sandra, TR/1)

This extract indicates that decisions have to be made by the EU English teacher about the proportion of the EU background knowledge that is to be taught and also with regard to how this knowledge is represented in the coursebook in order to maintain the students’ motivation.

Furthermore, the issue of EU-specific background knowledge is linked with another crucial consideration about the instructional methods employed to provide the content knowledge in class. The pedagogical judgement relative to teaching methods denotes primarily the use of the Hungarian and the English language in the EU English class. The teacher-researchers commenting on their own choice mentioned that the translation of previously unknown EU-related words, expressions or phrases into the students’ own native language facilitate the learning process and the flow of the activities in the classroom. The theme of instructional choice will be elaborated in a later section (Section 4.10), but it was found important to refer to it here to stress in advance the interrelatedness of background knowledge and the judgement about the instructional methods applied in class.

The teachers agreed that EU-specific background knowledge formed part of our general knowledge since joining the EU. The students were not schooled in the EU in Hungarian and the EU English class could help them make up for this lack. In the next excerpt, Lea, the teacher at one of the universities in Budapest, clarifies how she views the issue of background knowledge:

In my opinion, content-based teaching is very important. Based on my experience it often happens that the language teacher does not only teach the language, but she teaches and explains the subject-related expressions as well as lots of background knowledge about the subject field. If I had to work out the syllabus of an EU English course, I would certainly do it by following the syllabus of a Hungarian language EU studies course.

This is to establish the most important content-based background for the learners.

Having done so, I would start to teach the language including the EU English-related sentence structures, expressions and everything that language wise needs to be included.

My first consideration would definitely be given to content-based teaching. (Lea, TR/2) Lea’s example seems to endorse explicitly the idea of the necessity to draw on EU-specific background information that needs to be taught to EU English learners. Furthermore, it is indicated in the extract that she ranks background knowledge first in the order of the two main elements of the course. She would teach the language related issues after having provided the most important background knowledge.

4.2.2 Learners’ job-related EU-specific background knowledge needs

The EU professionals who were questioned about the same issue shared the teacher-researchers’ views on the value of establishing sound theoretical EU-specific background knowledge for the learners of EU English classes. All of them reported that even though EU employees had generally full working proficiency of the languages they use, they could not cope without the necessary content-based background knowledge. The employees either in the Hungarian or in an international context who use EU-specific language need to be aware of the unique institutional set-up of the EU. The awareness – prior to work – of the names of the EU institutions, their roles and powers in the working mechanism of the EU all facilitate the everyday work of employees in the EU context.

Blanka, the interpreter, talked openly about constant and changing elements of background knowledge she found important to teach to EU English learners:

It was very useful for me to learn the geography of the EU in secondary school. But we were taught only the basics of the institutional system. I think someone who does not necessarily want to become a translator, it is advisable to learn permanent facts related to the background knowledge on the EU. The institutional powers and responsibilities are important. There are components of the knowledge about the EU, which are constant. The Treaties, for instance, or it is useful to know that the European Council and the Council of Europe are not the same institutions. However, there are facts, which constantly change. The legislative procedures are like that, for example. It is worth learning the facts, which do not change. (Blanka, EUPR/4)

Blanka’s ideas, on the one hand, confirm previously detailed learner needs (Section 4.

1) in an EU English class, on the other hand, they complement the former suggestions by casting light on a prevailing characteristic of EU English studies which embodies the knowledge of permanent and changing facts and the eagerness to stay up-to-date in an ever-changing learning context.

In summary, it can be claimed that the subject knowledge dilemma in the EU English class can be identified at two levels: a) the responsibility of the teacher and b) the difficulties of the students. On the one hand, there is a need for the teacher to be the expert on the subject, yet on the other hand, as the subject content knowledge is essential in the target situation, it should be carefully delivered and planned since the students are not familiar with it and it prevents them from learning the language if they do not acquire the content knowledge of the subject.