M99C0101 梁馨予 M99C0112 蔡玫燕 M99C0201 劉韋廷 m99c0208 唐詩婷
1.1. Literature review
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). 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 meaning-oriented, the learners might not be able to produce the language
M99C0101 梁馨予 M99C0112 蔡玫燕 M99C0201 劉韋廷 m99c0208 唐詩婷
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
M99C0101 梁馨予 M99C0112 蔡玫燕 M99C0201 劉韋廷 m99c0208 唐詩婷
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. 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
M99C0101 梁馨予 M99C0112 蔡玫燕 M99C0201 劉韋廷 m99c0208 唐詩婷
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.
A:
1. M1  GREEN COLOR
M2 YELLOW COLOR
M3 PINK COLOR
2. Indicator
3. Cyclic pattern