Group Four：謝秉翰、蔡宏奇、詹易芝、黃世豪
There is a great deal of diversity as to forms of foreign language medium
instruction
(FLMI) in different educational settings. Content and language integrated
learning (CLIL)which has become one of the most widely used form of
FLMI in Europe ‘encompasses any
activity in which a foreign language is used as a tool in the learning of a
non-language subject
in which both language and subject have a joint role’ (Marsh, 2002, p. 58).
A survey
report on CLIL activity at schools in Finland reveals that there is growing
interest being
given towards CLIL by the foreign language teaching community (Nikula
and Marsh,
1996 cited in Eurydice Online). And Marsh’s survey (2002) which
comprises analysis,
observations, comments and recommendations on CLIL in Europe
presents some examples
of innovation and good practice. CLIL is usually found to improve the
target language
proficiency without impairing the acquisition of the subject content
(Coleman,
2006; Stohler, 2006). Finnish research has shown that CLIL can produce
excellent results
(Jarvinen, 1999; Laitinen, 2001; Rauto, 2003 cited in Eurydice Online;
Jappinen, 2005;
Nikula, 2007). The studies conducted in Sweden indicate that both the
teachers and the
students seem satisfied with the CLIL (Sylven, 2006). In addition,
findings of other studies
conducted in pre-school through to vocational educational settings in
Europe have been
rather positive about the impact of CLIL (EuroCLIC Online; Bel Gaya,
1994; Masih,
1999; Johnstone, 2001; Newby, 2003). Another form of FLMI is content
based instruction
(CBI) which likewise aims to concurrently teach the academic subject
matter and the target
language skills (Brinton et al., 1989). There is a growing body of research
supporting
effectiveness of CBI in several contexts in North America (Deen and
Hacquebord, 2002).
Moreover, CBI has been found very effective in increasing motivation
and interest levels
(Grabe and Stoller, 1997). Extensive evaluations, which have also been
carried out to compare
forms of CBI with formal English language instruction, suggest that
teaching English
as a school subject is unlikely to be as effective as any form of CBI (Elley,
1991; Met, 1991;
Genesee, 1994; Grabe and Stoller, 1997; Byrnes, 2000). Empirical
research has supported
this idea that the authentic use of the foreign language promotes the
language learning better
than using the pseudo real and fictitious contents of the formal English
language
instruction (Marsh, 2002).
These concepts are not from author, and the author introduces the idea of
(CLIL). Also, the author does not comment this article. Move 1
However, English only programs, in which the content plays
the most emphasised organisational role, have not been proved to be as
effective as some
other forms of FLMI (Hakuta, 1990; Krashen, 1991, 1997; Ramirez et al.,
1991; Gonzales
and Maez, 1995; August and Hakuta, 1997; Crawford, 1997; Cummins
and Corson, 1997;
Cummins, 1998; Bialystok, 2001). According to Swain (1988) cited in
Deen and Hacquebord
(2002, p. 223), Short (1997) and Gibbons (2003), when the language use
is too meaningoriented, the learners might not be able to produce the language
appropriately and to
engage in interaction in content classes. It seems that the mastery of the
content through a
foreign language can be insufficient unless adequate foreign language
support is available.
Therefore, a closer look into what happens in content classes with respect
to the interaction
processes and learner output can be very revealing (Zuengler and Brinton,
1997 cited
in Deen and Hacquebord, 2002, p. 223).
Although much has been said about the usefulness of CLIL and CBI from
pre-school to
secondary education, the role of FLMI in HE has generally received less
attention until
recently. Reasons such as internationalization, and student exchanges
have increased
the interest towards FLMI (namely English) in HE (Schroder and Macht,
1983; Maiworm
and Wachter, 2002 cited in Coleman, 2006, p. 5), and have probably
made it the focus of
research attention. Maastricht ICL (Integrating Content and Language)
Conferences
(ICL, 2003; ICLHE, 2006 Online) have added a good deal to current
knowledge of forms
of EMI in HE. The proceedings of the ICL, 2003 Conference (Wilkinson,
2004) highlights
research on issues which affect HE learning through a foreign language in
various parts ofthe world. The conferences suggest that implementations
of EMI in HE have the potential
for success. Gaffield-Vile (1996) describes the techniques used in
integrating the two
aspects, language and content in HE, and the usefulness of this approach,
both academically,
and in providing a cultural orientation for study in Britain. However,
several studies
in South Africa have indicated how students are negatively affected by
learning through a
foreign language in HE (Leibowitz, 2005). In the US, where English is
the L1, research
focused on language of instruction in HE points out the drawbacks of
EMI (Wong-Fillmore
and Valadez, 1985 cited in Bruce, 1990, p. 23). Pally (1999) poses the
question ‘‘if
graduate students already accepted into degree programs were writing
and speaking at
odds with English language norms, how were younger students or those
still in ESL programs
communicating?” Moreover, some case studies which examine forms of
target language
use in HE, although insufficient in number, display highly questionable
outcomes.
Dickens (1987) reports communication problems of the students in their
academic field
who undertake their university studies through the medium of English at
the University
of Dar es Salaam in Tanzania. Marsh and Laitinen (2005) cited in
Coleman (2006, p. 7)
emphasise that staff are unlikely to have specialist knowledge of the
particular demands
of university-level education through an L2 even if they have an adequate
command of
English. Documentary studies which investigate internationalisation
strategies in Japan
indicate that there is no research substantiating the practicality of English
medium instruction
in the unique Japanese university environment (Willis, 1998), and no
assistance is
given to the Japanese students who are lost in the courses given through
English (Tsuneyoshi,
2005). Hadley (1999, p. 95) explains this with the caution that ‘‘it is far
from clear
whether the present developments in Japanese tertiary ELT will result in
a language learning
renaissance for Japanese universities, or if a new reform will restrict the
teaching of
English to a few specialist institutions”. The study, (Marsh et al., 2000
cited in Coleman,
2006, p. 5) which investigates late EMI in Hong Kong, has found large
negative effects in
non-language subjects when English education is delayed until secondary
school. Another
study in Hong Kong, which examines students’ perceptions of EMI,
suggests that students’
language needs and preferences are in many cases more consistent with
dual-medium
English and Cantonese instruction than with an all EMI (Balla and
Penning, 1996).
However, the language of instruction dispute in Hong Kong is
comparable to that in Turkey;
the question of whether English, Cantonese or mixed-code which echoes
Turkish style
EAI should be used in university education has not been answered yet
(Boyle, 1997; Bruce,
1990). The research discussed above may well demonstrate the need for
comprehensive
studies on various factors affecting quality and/or type of FLMI.
The currently insufficient body of research in the Turkish context reveals
more negative
than positive effects of EMI in HE. Alptekin (2003) and Soylu (2003)
emphasise benefits of
EMI on cross-cultural and mental development of the learners. Kırkgo¨z
(2005) found that
the students have prioritised a mix of integrative motivation (personal
interest of the learner
in the people represented by the L2) and instrumental motivation (the
learner’s wishes
to acquire the language for job and/or study related purposes) towards
EMI. On the other
hand, she has also found that the students are particularly concerned
about the negative
effects of EMI on the acquisition of the academic content. Sert (2000) has
found that the
academic attainment of the students considerably decreases when the
content is given
through the medium of English at one of the most prominent universities
in Turkey.
Results of another study which has examined the effectiveness of EMI at
Middle
East Technical University indicate that, although EMI helps the students
improve theirreceptive skills, it does not seem to be that effective in
promoting their ability to engage in
meaningful, communicative tasks in English (Aku¨ nal, 1992). Dalkız
(2002) reports that
students in an English medium program have difficulties in grasping the
questions, and
thus can not answer them adequately. Derin and Go¨kc_e (2006) likewise
state that prospective
English teachers with high and average anxiety have difficulty in
organising their
thoughts and producing ideas in English (which is the medium of
instruction at their
university). Kılıc_kaya (2006) has found that Turkish instructors are more
favourable to
the idea of adopting Turkish as an instructional medium rather than
English considering
the difficulties that students may experience.
The author began to comment and gave the new idea. Move 2
Nevertheless, since the studies mentioned here
are only a few, more data is needed so as to further speculate on the
language of instruction
dilemma in the Turkish context
Therefore, it is hoped that the present study will
contribute to the debate on the language of instruction problem in Turkey,
in addition
to serving as a model for future language of instruction studies in
different contexts where
research in HE is scarce.
The author began to have a say that what kind of research he or she wants to
promote. Move 3
Move 1 Blue Move 2 Red Move 3 Green