AN INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACH TO TEACHING ENGLISH FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES AT UNIVERSITY

Edita Poórová, Trnava, Slovakia

Abstract:

The article deals with an interdisciplinary approach to teaching English for specific purposes at university. It comes out from the theoretical framework of ESP teaching within which an interdisciplinary approach represents an imperative. The author illustrates the theory by an example of teaching ESP at university and provides results of the research conducted within her dissertation thesis in recent years that show an interdisciplinary approach of ESP teachers in all study programs having been researched. The conclusion justifies an interdisciplinary approach to teaching professional languages at universities in terms not only of higher education but of lifelong education as well.

Keywords: Interdisciplinary approach, English for Specific Purposes, university, teacher, cooperation, lifelong education.

Teaching English for Specific Purposes at universities

Except for teaching English as a linguistic discipline in philological study programs at universities there is also teaching English for specific purposes which is commonly applied in non-philological study programs; in social, natural, technical and other sciences. Having different aims this teaching requires different methodologies and thus different approaches. One of very important approaches is an interdisciplinary approach as “specific” in ESP teaching means its relation to a scientific discipline within which English is taught.

The ESP methodological approach has become very effective also because of its appropriateness in non-philological study programs and its compliance with the change of a teaching paradigm at university focused on student centred teaching and learning and life-long learning (Celce-Murcia, 2001).

In teaching English for specific purposes at universities content and language integrated learning (CLIL) is a very common methodological approach. Teachers try to use this method in order to meet the requirements specified in the profiles of different study programs.

CLIL teachers at universities usually work with students whose level in the language used for learning is lower than their individual cognitive levels. However, what can be seen as a disadvantage that can be taken as a challenge and “….. therefore CLIL can been introduced as a professional development catalyser within faculties of higher education institution.” (Coyle et al., 2010, p. 24). The recent research linked with CLIL has brought the evidence that gains may be activated even with relatively low levels of language competence. Moreover, other research findings, related to English proficiency of CLIL students, show overall superiority particularly in vocabulary knowledge mainly of items associated with the subject being studied (Coyle et al., 2010, p.166).

Applied to English specifically, CLIL is based on several assumptions, like language acquisition, authenticity, integration of English into the curriculum, motivation, further education, increase in vocabulary, improvement of oral skills (Ur 2012, p. 220). That is why teaching approaches, strategies and tasks which emphasize scaffold learning may be useful both for students and teachers.

CLIL is the planned pedagogical integration of contextualized content, cognition, communication and culture into teaching and learning practice. The teacher becomes a facilitator and his or her main aim is to provide students with language competences to be able to communicate in their professional life. “If communication in languages is identified as a key skill for lifelong learning, success in effective communication skills is no longer seen in terms of attaining near-native competence in a language but in developing different appropriate skills according to need “(Coyle et al., 2010).

Cooperation between ESP teachers and subject teachers

Cooperation of university teachers is important also because of the changes in a higher education teaching paradigm that is oriented on a student (student-centred teaching). In the Knowledge Age integration, convergence and participative learning are three key characteristics which are influencing decisions on what and how we teach young people. Unprecedented developments in technology and global communication have radically altered the way people learn and behave (Coyle et al., 2010, p.5).

Concerning teaching languages for specific purposes it is necessary to look beyond languages as separate linguistic systems and consider a language as a medium of learning, the coordination of language learning and content learning, language socialization of the learners into social practices of communities (Mohan 2007, p.303).

As linguistic diversity increases, teachers with different specialisms are being brought together. Language teachers and subject teachers must work together to engage in curriculum planning. Meaningful cooperation between subject teachers and ESP teachers is an important component in a program whose goals are to raise levels of academic achievement, content knowledge in English, and the entrance to professional practice. Enhancing such cooperative partnerships may have benefits for all students, teachers and the university community.

CLIL methodology enables an ESP teacher to base on a remarkable diversity of curricula. When preparing a curriculum for teaching English in any non-philological study program at university it is necessary to do a needs’ analysis, that is one of typical features which distinguish an ESP curriculum from other approaches (Ur, 2012). Such a needs´ analysis, in order to be proper, naturally expects a reasonable cooperation between English teachers and mainstream content teachers.

Cooperation between teachers within a particular study program is supported also by authors of specialized literature concerning this theme. Coyle (2010, p. 25), for instance, gives different curricular variation modules in CLIL among which there is also an interdisciplinary approach module that represents a specific module involving teachers of different disciplines. According to it CLIL can act as a professional development catalyst within faculties of a higher education institution. Language teaching is field-specific with language teachers embedded in departments and not seen as external providers – students successfully learn content and gain the ability to use the CLIL language for specific purposes.

However, the introduction of CLIL in higher education sector has been influenced by discussion over whether the ability to know and use a specific language is a basic competence or an additional competence. This in turn has opened discussion on whether language teaching and language specialists have been viewed as “auxiliaries“ in some countries then teachers may have a lower position within hierarchies.

ESP teaching at university needs specific goals. Goals together with the instruments have been a backbone of each teaching – learning process since the times of Comenius (Chodera 2013, p. 71). Determining the goals of foreign language teaching influences also the limitation of the subject content to which language instruments and skills, together with a choice of adequate teaching methods, belong. (Benes et al., 1970, p. 10).

According Carpini (2017) working in an interdisciplinary way accomplishes a variety of goals:

• Cooperation between mainstream and ESP teachers facilitates the acquisition of language and content in the subject area for ESP students. In addition, the dual acquisition of the English language and academic content places additional demands on ESL students and can make academic success challenging.

• Cooperation between mainstream and ESP teachers creates a deeper and more meaningful understanding of the unique needs of ESP students.

• Cooperation promotes the growth of a community of students in a study program, construct meaning and engage in inquiry based, constructivist learning that bridges differences, celebrates diversity and enhances academic achievement and language acquisition for ESP students.

In teaching ESP at universities an interdisciplinary approach is one of the priorities for a design of a language teaching process as it should be considered part of the whole study program aimed at fulfilment of a graduate profile specification. That is why ESP teachers should take into account specific needs of the students and thus base the content of their curricula on the content of main stream subjects within a study program. Such an approach naturally expects interdisciplinary relations between ESP teachers and the teachers of mainstream subjects. Normally, impulses come from the ESP teachers as other teachers are not very interested in teaching languages for specific purposes, they even very often do not consider language teachers to be equally important for a study program.

The effectiveness of the relationship between ESP and mainstream teachers depends greatly on how it is handled by both parties, but, since it is usually the ESP teachers who have enlisted the help of the subject specialists it is their main responsibility to ensure that potential problems are anticipated and avoided and that a harmonious working arrangement is created (Hutchinson 1987, p. 164).

One of the most characteristic features of ESP in practice is a material design. Main reasons are the following (Hutchinson 1987, p. 106):

1. A teacher or an institution may wish to provide teaching materials that will fit with the specific subject area of particular learners. Such materials are not available commercially.

2. Even when suitable materials are available it may not be possible to buy them because of different reasons.

3. The available materials are not suitable for teaching and learning and must be didactically adapted.

For designing a material for ESP teaching a cooperation between a specific study program teachers is really inevitable. The mainstream subjects may have an influence on the language content, nevertheless, the selection of language items – a suitable text, vocabulary and particular grammatical or structural forms – is in the competence of an ESP teacher.

An interdisciplinary approach in practice

In my dissertation thesis (2016) whose theme was the university students’ assessment I focused on university teachers of English for specific purposes in different non-philological study programs in Slovakia, among them also in the study program European studies that is taught at our faculty. Within a qualitative research methodology - document review, observation, interview and non-standardized questionnaire – we researched nine respondents, teachers of ESP in different study programs at three universities. We had designed a conceptual frame for our research within which we created categories which determine teachers’ strategies and realization of students’ assessment within a semester. Among the categories were also those which are related to the interdisciplinary approach in teaching ESP at university.

Based on my own experience with teaching ESP in different study programs at our university, I considered students’ assessment to be part of a complex process including decision making concerning a curriculum design as well. I presupposed that my respondents use an interdisciplinary approach and therefore I included in our research design the category of a cooperation of ESP teachers with teachers in study fields. I expected that my respondents would necessarily cooperate with teachers of the study field subjects in the study program in which English language was taught. So, the category “cooperation between teachers” belonged to our research conceptual framework and the data gained for this category were the subject to analysis and complemented the results of our research which were displayed by means of case studies and illustrated also by within-case and cross-case analysis displays for which we had found the theoretical issues in a very useful methodological work of Miles and Huberman (1984).

Our research has brought several findings. Although the research was preferably focused on the process of student assessment, we researched the whole teaching process including its preparing, i.e. curriculum design, and thus we achieved also findings which concern cooperation of ESP teachers with teachers of main stream subjects. They, together with other findings, have proved the undeniable autonomy of our respondents, university teachers, which enables them to decide in the process of a curriculum design and at this point all our respondents cooperated with main stream subject teachers.

Although teaching strategies of our respondents were different they all were based on the ESP methodological approach and therefore it was not a surprise that all our respondents paid a considerable attention to the contextual corpus of a relevant study program and considered cooperation with teachers of mainstream subjects crucial for the curriculum design and teaching as well. Their aim was to comply language teaching with a graduate profile of a study program in which a specific language competence is implemented.

However, our respondents were not offered any systematic ESP training, they had to take responsibility for fostering cooperation with subject teachers and had to “fight” for their position of a “respected” teacher in the community of study field professionals.

Although our findings may suffer from the limitations of a qualitative research I suppose that ESP teaching is similar at all Slovak universities. In the best cases ESP teachers try to apply the interdisciplinary approach with all its pros and cons, while, in the worst ones, there may be teachers who provide their students only with general English teaching or there are even university students who do not have any language teaching at all.

Future directions

Knowledge economies depend on collective intelligence and social capital, both of which involve sharing and creating knowledge amongst professionals. Therefore the cooperation between ESP teachers and mainstream subject teachers needs to be more clearly defined and a curriculum design needs to involve language teachers and subject specialists as cooperative planning and cross-disciplinary delivery of the curriculum is currently often left to chance or is dependent on the “goodwill” of head teachers or university management.

One of the keys to success in this area for ESP teachers is to establish clear guidelines about their and the specialists´ separate and joint roles and responsibilities. The most „available’’ and “knowledgeable” specialist may not be useful as the one who has the best understanding of and greatest sympathy for ESP.

Although there exist networked communities which present themselves as powerful inclusive spaces where CLIL teachers can work together to form a collective “voice’, there is a need for sustainability of CLIL teaching and learning and for a systematic teacher training to design programs which conceptualize the integration of content and language, bring together content teachers and language teachers and specialists on all levels, address the needs of learners, encourage participants to become skilled in terms of language competence and content knowledge, empower teachers to create their own resources and share them. “Sharing ideas and expertise, providing moral support when dealing with new and difficult challenges, discussing complex individual cases together – this is the essence of strong collegiality and the basis for professional communities (Hargreaves, 2003).

CLIL invites investigation. Some countries, like the Netherlands providing CLIL teacher education programs, have invested heavily in teacher education whereas in others teachers are left to cope with changes of policy and direction sometimes leading to self-help groups which cut across national boundaries (Coyle 2010, p.163).

There has also been a recent trend towards competence-based education. In terms of language competence the framework for key competences for lifelong learning in Europe lists communication in languages (including the first language) alongside mathematics, science and technology, digital applications, interpersonal, intercultural and social competences (Commission of the European Communities, 2006).

The meaning of literacy today has shifted from a simple ability to read and write to a more broadly understood complex ability “……to use materials associated with varying contexts. It involves a continuum of learning to enable an individual to achieve his or her goals, to develop his or her knowledge and potential and to participate fully in the wider society.” (UNESCO, 2004).

I, as a skilled ESP teacher, having many years of experience in teaching English at different university study programs, consider an interdisciplinary approach to teaching my subject as an important and fundamental issue. I must say that cooperation with mainstream teachers and professionals is not always ideal, usually I have to rely on myself, mainly in the decision making process as they usually limit their help and support to a provision of the themes and material which is often not suitable for teaching ESP. Moreover, I constantly have to fight for the position among other teachers of a faculty or study program as the mainstream teachers as well as the management have never in my ESP teacher career considered my work to be equal to the work of other teachers at the faculty. On the one hand, higher education institutions in Slovakia agree with a necessity of the achievement of professional language competences, which is declared in many documents related to higher education, but, on the other hand, teaching professional languages at universities is either not adequately supported or even cancelled.

I would suggest to do a relevant research in the field of ESP teaching at universities to foster professional solving of this issue on all levels in order to improve this methodological approach including interdisciplinary cooperation within study programs participants and thus to achieve higher quality of university education in Slovakia.

References:

1. BENES E. et al.: Metodika cizich jazyku, Praha, SPN,1970

2. CARPINI M.D.: Teacher Collaboration for ESL/EFL Academic Success, Lehman College, The City University of New York (New York, NY, USA), available at: http://iteslj.org/Techniques/DelliCarpiniTeacherCollaboration.html (Accessed 17 January, 2017)

3. CELCE-MURCIA, M. ed.: Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language, Henle, Boston USA, 2001 ISBN -13: 978-0-8384-1992-2

4. COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES: Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 on key competences for lifelong learning. 2006, Official Journal of the European Union, I. 394/10.

5. COYLE D., HOOD P., MARSH M.: CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning, Cambridge University Press, 2010 ISBN: 978-0-521-13021-9

6. HARGREAVES A.: Teaching in the Knowledge Society, Maidenhead: Open University Press, 2003, ISBN: 0-8077-4359-3

7. HUTCHINSON T., WATERS A. : English for Specific Purposes, Cambridge University Press, 1987 ISBN: 978-0-521-31837-2

8. CHODERA R.: Didaktika cizich jazyku, Academia Praha, 2013, ISBN: 978-80-200-2274-5

9. MILES, M.B., HUBERMAN, A.M.: Qualitative Data Analysis, London 1984, Sage Publications, ISBN: 9781452257877

10. MOHAN B.A.: Knowledge Structures in Social Practices, in: Cummins J. and Davison, C. (eds.), 2007, International Handbook of English Language Teaching, Vol. II, Norwell, MA: Springer,

11. MORROW K. ed.: Insights from the Common European Framework, Oxford University Press, 2004, ISBN: 0-19-430950-9

12. UNESCO: The Plurality of Literacy and its Implications for Policies and Programs: Position Paper, Paris: UNESCO. Available at: http://unesdoc.unesco.org//images/0013/001362136246.pdf (Accessed 12 January 2017)

13. UR P.: A Course in English Language Teaching, Cambridge University Press, 2012 ISBN: 978-1-107-68467-6