The document discusses integrating content and language learning in tertiary education. It describes a project at VAMK University of Applied Sciences where a content course in strategic planning was combined with an English language booster course for mechanical engineering students. Tests showed variation in students' vocabulary and reading comprehension outcomes, and most students had an implicit language learning style. The authors propose models where cognitive language learning style and linguistic self-esteem may mediate or moderate the relationship between content-language integrated instruction and language learning outcomes. They suggest areas for further research.

1. It was nice to realize that reading professional texts inEnglish turned out to be quite easyTeaching Strategic Planning in Engineering Education Using CLIL Lotta Saarikoski (ContentTeacher) Eeva Rauto (LanguageTeacher) VAMK University of Applied Sciences Vaasa Finland Presentation at University of Turku 25th September, 2009 Saarikoski & Rauto

2. FLM Instruction in TertiaryEducation WhyshouldContent and LanguagebeIntegrated in TertiaryEducation? 3. VAMK Project 2006-2009 - ImplementationModel - ResearchResults ResearchProposals for furtherResearch in Language Learning in FLM/CLIL Environment Proposal for FutureImplementation of CLILL in TertiaryEducation Saarikoski & Rauto Contents:

3. 1. FLM Instruction in TertiaryEducationBackground Current Trend: English-Medium Instruction is increasing in Finnish universities (of Applied Sciences) Flickr:Walraven Motive: usually boosting international profileand recruiting international students . BUT... ... Saarikoski, Rauto

5. Can language be learned efficiently without recognized language learning goals?

6. Our experience is: NOSaarikoski & Rauto

7. 2.Why shouldContent and LanguagebeIntegrated in TertiaryEducation? A sadstoryaboutourB.Sc. (IT) Degreestudent Mr. ”LiangYuang” ….. Source: Flickr Input and InteractionTheory (eg. Gass, Ellis) Input lectures, readingmaterials Output learner’sownlanguageproduction ? vv Saarikoski & Rauto

8. 3.VAMK Project 2006-2009 - ImplementationModel - ResearchResults Saarikoski & Rauto

9. 3rd yearMechanical Engineering Students N tot = 49 ContentTeacher Lotta: StrategicPlanning(42 h) LanguageTeacher Eeva: EnglishLanguage Booster (16 h) integratedintoLotta’scourse ImplementationModel VAMK 2006 - 2009 Project Arrangements : 1 Saarikoski & Rauto

10. VAMK LanguageSupportedContentCourseImplementation Design Saarikoski, Rauto & Koski

11. RESEARCH RESULTS Data obtainedwith the followingmeasuringinstruments 1) Languagetests (initial and finaltest) Targeted to find out aboutchanges in: Readingcomprehension Vocabulary Syntax 2) On-linesurvey (initial and finalsurvey ) Targeted to find out abouteg.: Cognitivelanguagelearningstyle Linguisticself-esteem Learners’ opinions, self-rating etc. Saarikoski & Rauto

12. ObtainedResultsfromLanguageTestsVocabularyresults of individuallearnersbefore and after FLM course After Before Scores obtained max 26 Learners N = 41 -> Variationbetweenlearners. The samekind of variationalso in syntax and readingcomprehension

13. ObtainedResultsfromOn-LineSurvey -SelfConcept as LanguageLearners (after the course) One learnedEnglishwithoutnoticingitalthoughitwasdifficult in the beginning ”(By usingdifferentreadingmethods) textswhichseemedtoodifficultto readarenowcontrollable ” Quitecool, I IearnedEnglish at the sametime Itwasnice to noticethat readingEnglishtextspresented no difficulties Saarikoski & Rauto

14. ObtainedResultsfromOn-LineSurvey -languagelearningpreferences Number of students (2006 survey ) -> The majority of the studentsseem to haveimplicitlanguagelearningstyle Saarikoski & Rauto

16. Learners’ cognitivelanguagelearningstylecouldbemediatingormoderatingvariables? EXPLICIT LANGUAGE LEARNING STYLE IMPLICIT LANGUAGE LEARNING STYLE Saarikoski & Rauto

17. Suggestedotsikko-----MEDIATING VARIABLE MODEL : (IN GENERAL) Z (MEDIATING VARIABLE) X Y X INFLUENCES THE MAGNITUDE OF Z (BUT NOT VICE VERSA) AND X INFLUENCES Y ONLY THROUGH Z Saarikoski & Rauto

18. MEDIATING VARIABLE MODEL : (IN OUR CASE) Saarikoski & Rauto FL-MEDIUM INSTRUCTION LINGUISTIC SELF-ESTEEM LANGUAGE LEARNING OUTCOME LANGUAGE LEARNING MOTIVATION The effect is notdirectbut via linguistic self-esteem and languagelearningmotivation

19. MODERATOR VARIABLE MODEL : (GENERAL MODEL) Z (MODERATING VARIABLE) X Y MODERATOR VARIABLE (Z) ONLY INFLUENCES THE EFFECT OF X ON Y, AND THE MODERATOR VARIABLE IS UNCORRELATED TO X AND Y Saarikoski & Rauto

20. MODERATOR VARIABLE MODEL : (IN OUR CASE ) COGNITIVE LANGUAGE LEARNING STYLE LANGUAGE LEARNING OUTCOME FL-MEDIUM INSTRUCTION Example: FLM instruction for studentswithimplicitll.stylewillincreasetheirlanguagelearningoutcomemorethan for studentswithexplicitll.style Saarikoski & Rauto

21. Summary of SuggestedResearchQuestions Does the cognitivelanguagelearningstyle (implicit vs. explicitof the learnersmoderate the relationbetween the FLM-instruction and learnerslanguagelearningoutcome? Is FLM-instructionparticularlysuitable for the implicitlanguagelearner? DoesFLM-instructionincrease the learners’slinguisticself-esteem?Ifso, will the increasedself-esteemincreaselanguagelearningoutcome? Is linguisticself-esteemthus a mediatingvariablebetweenFLM-instruction and languagelearning? Saarikoski & Rauto

22. The FollowingHypothesesmightinterestresearhcers: H1 Cognitivelanguagelearningstylemoderates the relationshipbetween FLM teaching and languagelearning. Saarikoski, Rauto & Koski H2 Learner’slinguisticself-esteem is a mediatingmediatingvariablebetweenFLM-teaching and languagelearning The duration and intensity of the FLM-coursehas a linear / nonlineareffect on the linguisticoutcome

24. When ?

25. How ?

26. What ?Saarikoski & Rauto

27. OurFuture Vision forImplementing ”CLIL”on TertiaryLevel Saarikoski, Rauto & Koski LSP course Content course Course materials Assignments Presentation

28. 2.1. General Models PotentialModels to beused in FLM programs /instruction (Eg. doubledegreeprograms) LANGUAGE-SUPPORTED CONTENT COURSE INTEGRATING CONTENT AND LANGUAGE LEARNING TWIN-COURSE Content course: materials (at least partly) in foreign language Course lectures in native language Content course: materials in foreign language Course lectures in foreign language Content course: both lectures and materials in foreign language Language course (LSP) partly integrated into content Our2006-2009 project Tailored parts of LSP course Tailored language “booster” unit or Tailored parts of LSP course Future (2010 - xxx project)? Saarikoski & Rauto

29. Saarikoski, Rauto CurrentPedagogicalReform is going on: Competencebasedcurriculum(ECTS Bologna Process) -> changefromsubject-isolated to subject-integratedteaching. Highhopes for ’smuggling’ in CLILL!

30. Thankyou ! Questions ? Comments ? Saarikoski & Rauto

31. LearningExperience Experiment on Statics + LanguageBooster - Course: Choosing the contentcourse for LanguageSupportedcontentcourserequirescarefulconsideration: the coresubjectshouldbecontainenoughlanguage (to provideverbal input for learners) Saarikoski & Rauto

33. Contentteacher Timo Statics (38h) 2 ndyearmechanical engineering Students as learners LanguageteacherSanna-Liisa: EnglishLanguage Booster (14h) integrated into Timo’scourse LanguageSupportedContentCourse(light version, model2) experimentedwasextended in 2008 Saarikoski & Rauto Thisexperimentdidnotwork! !

34. Vocabulary Test Tasks Matching exercise (identification) Translation (FinnishEnglish, English Finnish) In translation exercise the initial letter of the English target word given to trigger the memory (the ”grey area”) Words picked from the course material Vocabulary of academic language or general professional vocabulary of the field Saarikoski & Rauto

35. ReadingTest Texts taken from the course material Tasks T/F statements Questions in Finnish; answers in Finnish Finding certain expressions in the text A sufficient number of questions to obtain enough evidence on improvement in the learners’language skills Saarikoski & Rauto