Student learning strategies under internationalization policy Learner characteristics and linguistic asymmetries Robert Wilkinson & René Gabriëls Maastricht University Netherlands

Student learning strategies under internationalization policy: learner characteristics and linguistic asymmetries ▪Introduction, English-medium instruction (EMI), theoretical background ▪Qualitative interview study and findings ▪Discussion ▪Guiding question: ▪Are there conditions in an EMI environment that contribute to linguistic asymmetries?

1. INTRODUCTION, THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND METHOD

Introduction ▪Internationalization ▪A strategic response to globalization ▪Higher education characterized by: ▪Mobility (students, researchers, programmes, etc.) ▪Commercialization ▪International academic networks ▪University policies ▪Networks; academic mobility; Increase of international & comparative themes in programmes ▪Focus on international/intercultural competences; recruitment of foreign students ▪Double degrees; cross-border delivery of programmes; etc. (Knight, 2008) No mention of language, multilingualism

RESEARCH QUESTION  The aim of the research project: to explore the language policy (practice) of universities with a focus on student learning strategies.  Central research question: does a change of instructional language stimulate students to modify their individual (language) learning strategies?  Case-study: Maastricht University. ▪Universities adopt variants of Content and Language Integrated learning (CLIL), especially EMI ▪Language goals – tacit? ▪In EMI, do students change their (language) learning strategies?

A MICROSCOPIC VIEW  Theoretical presupposition > with respect to the central research question, it’s important to study linguistic asymmetries.  Linguistic asymmetry: a cost-benefit balance between using different languages to accomplish the same act (pace Van Parijs, 2002; Grin, 2012).  Language learning strategies can be aimed at overcoming linguistic asymmetries, because they affect content learning (learner agency).  It is relevant to explore the conditions in EMI that contribute to linguistic asymmetries.  A study of linguistic asymmetries touches upon the issue of linguistic justice > perception of inequity.  Instead of a macroscopic view on it (Phillipson, 2003, 2015; Van Parijs, 2002, 2004), we take a microscopic view.

Model ▪More complex than this! Constellation of preferred learning strategies Deviation (linguistic asymmetry) No deviation (linguistic symmetry) Learner characteristics # languages spoken # residence abroad parental education level reasons for choosing study Content-focused Language-focused Dual-focused etc. Learner identities Learner motivations Learning context Learner agency

2. RESEARCH FINDINGS

Qualitative study ▪Exploratory study ▪Method ▪Semi-structured interviews: 9 students (3 Dutch, 2 German, 2 French, 2 English); 2 academic staff; 2 administrative staff ▪Questionnaire: background data ▪Procedure: informed consent, dual recording ▪A qualitative study can do justice to the way how students and staff perceive CLIL > the first-person perspective reveals what they perceive as asymmetrical and unjust.

INTERVIEWEESSEXNATIONALITYMOTHER TONGUE OTHER LANGUAGES SPOKEN RESIDENCE IN OTHER COUNTRIES MOTHER’S HIGHEST LEVEL OF EDUCATION FATHER’S HIGHEST LEVEL OF EDUCATION 1 femaleFrench/ItalianFrenchEnglish, Italian, Spanish, Arabic France, Luxembourg, Netherlands University 2 maleBelgium/FrenchDutch/FrenchEnglishFrance, Netherlands Higher vocational University 3 maleBritishEnglishnoNetherlandsSecondaryUniversity 4 maleBritish/AmericanEnglishSpanish/DutchNetherlandsUniversity 5 femaleGerman English/French/ Spanish/Swedish Netherlands, France, Sweden Higher vocational 6 maleGerman EnglishNetherlands/ UK Higher vocational University 7 femaleDutchLimburgs (dialect) Dutch, EnglishnoHigher vocational 8 femaleDutch EnglishnoHigher vocational 9 femaleDutch EnglishUSUniversity

LEARNING STRATEGIES  Context: learning at Maastricht University is based on Problem-Based Learning > more emphasis on group sessions than on lectures; students are supposed to be active.  Distinction, but not separation: 1. Language learning strategies. 2. Content learning strategies.  For interviewed students, content learning strategies are of more weight.  Convergence: the six strategy groups Rebecca Oxford (1990) distinguishes (memory strategies, cognitive strategies, compensation strategies, metacognitive strategies, affective strategies and social strategies) are applicable to language learning as well as content learning.

INDIVIDUAL LEARNING STYLES  No attempt to generalize from small study  The learning styles are most based on individual preferences.  Int. 7: “I like to learn via lectures that someone tells me what is going on. After that I can read and make questions about it.”  Int. 5: “I prefer reading books than to listen. I know that I grasp things better.”  Some students indicate that they are well-organized, others aren’t.

DIFFICULTIES  Most non-native-English interviewees: only in the beginning did they have difficulties with EMI:  “In the beginning it was hard to adjust, but a lot of people have problems even native speakers to get used to an academic way of reading and writing. But now I am really used to it.” [Int. 8]  One of the interviewees [int. 7] addresses the problem of the time-consuming translation: “For me it takes a lot of time, because I have to translate a lot of words and I need to write my paper and do my exams in Dutch, while the tutorials and lectures are in English.”

LANGUAGE AND COMPREHENSION  Not reading a text in the original language, but to read its translation in English.  To the question whether English changes the way one learns a German student (int. 6) said: “I think English is a lot simpler, especially if you read academic texts because I have the feeling that some German scholars make their sentences unnecessarily complicated. I read for instance Habermas in English and German and I get more in English than in German.”

PERCEPTION OF THE EMI CONTEXT  Some students indicate that there is a disadvantage when it comes to EMI: Int. 6: “I think it’s not fair that people are sitting there [the classroom] and don’t know so much about the topic but they just can talk. If I want to say something in English it has to have some consistence.”  One German student (int. 5) also underlines an advantage in comparison to native speakers of English: “The advantage is that you can also read German literature.”

A THRESHOLD  Some students say that during a tutorial they have to cross a threshold in order to say something: “In the tutorial I have now there are three British boys in the class. My vocabulary is less, obviously, because it’s their mother tongue and they have all the words.” [Int. 9] “I find it really difficult to say something in English and most in tutorials I have to think a lot when I want to say something, which words I need to use. And most of the time I am thinking about it and someone else says already what I want to say.” [Int. 7]

A REMARKABLE BENEFIT  One of the French students emphasizes that it can be a benefit not to be a native speaker: “In the international environment it is better to have a, let me say, classical English, something that is not influenced by colloquial accents or dialects. We you can actually see in tutorials that British people are the ones who are asked to repeat themselves, because we don’t understand their accent. We come from an international school with an English that is quite smooth I would say.” [Int. 1]

3. CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION

DIFFERENT STRATEGIES  There is a relation between student’s individual characteristics and their learning strategies.  Some interviewees indicate that having being abroad (int. 6 and 9) or at an international school (int. 1 and 2) advantageous for their EMI integration.  Students use different learning strategies > prefer to attend lectures/read books; work at the library/at home, etc.  However, their content as well as language learning strategies are to a certain extent pre- structured by the Problem-Based Learning method.

TWO LINGUISTIC ASYMMETRIES  The exploratory research shows that a university that embraces CLIL has to deal with a linguistic asymmetry: unequal opportunities (a psychological threshold to say something, the need to translate your mother tongue, etc.).  There are also other forms of linguistic asymmetry > imparity of linguistic esteem: stigmatization of the collective identity of a linguistic community.  This is not an issue for the students that have been interviewed.  However, the unequal linguistic opportunities affect students’ agency and their choice of learning strategies.  They are also perceived as a form of inequity.

THE MODIFICATION OF LEARNING STRATEGIES  The main conclusion is that instructional language stimulates several students to modify their learning strategies > the attempt to overcome linguistic asymmetries as a necessary condition for content learning.  However, some students don’t bother about the instructional language and stick to their learning strategies > interviewees indicate that content learning strategies are of more weight than language learning strategies.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION!

References (selected) Dimová, S., Hultgren, A.K., & Jensen, C. (Eds.) (2015). English-medium instruction in European higher education. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Hultgren, A.K. (2014): Whose parallellingualism? Overt and covert ideologies in Danish university language policies. Multilingua 33(1-2), Hultgren, A.K., Gregersen, F., & Thørgersen, J. (Eds.) (2014). English in Nordic universities: Ideologies and practices. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Jacobs, C. (2015). Mapping the terrains of ICLHE: A view from the south. In R. Wilkinson & M.L. Walsh (Eds.), Integrating content and language in higher education (pp ). Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Knight, J. (2008): Higher Education in Turmoil: The Changing World of Internationalization. Rotterdam: Sense. Lasagabaster, D. (2015). Language policy and language choice at European universities: Is there really a choice? European Journal of Applied Linguistics, DOI /eujal Marginson, S. (2009). The external dimension: Positioning the European higher education area in the global higher education world. In B.M. Kehm, J. Huisman, & B. Stensaker (Eds.), The European higher education area: Perspectives on a moving target (pp ). Rotterdam: Sense. Marginson, S. & van de Wende, M. (2007). Globalisation and Higher Education. OECD Education Working Papers No. 8. Paris: OECD

References (selected) Mufwene, S. S. (2005). Globalization and the myth of killer languages: What’s really going on? Perspectives on Endangerment 2. ▪Oxford, R.L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. New York: Newbury House. ▪Phillipson, R. (2003) English-Only Europe? Challenging Language Policy. London and New York: Routledge. Phillipson, R. (2015). English as a threat or opportunity in European higher education. In S. Dimová, A.K. Hultgren, & C. Jensen (Eds.) English-medium instruction in European higher education (pp ). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. ▪Shohamy, E. (2006): Language Policy: Hidden Agendas and New Approaches. London: Routledge. ▪Spolsky, B. (2004): Language Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ▪Van Parijs, P. (2002). Linguistic justice. Politics, Philosophy and Economics, 1(1), ▪Van Parijs, P. (2004). Cultural diversity versus economic solidarity. Brussels: De Boeck. ▪Wilkinson, R. (2014). Contrasting attitudes towards a bilingual language policy under internationalization. Fachsprache 36(1-2), ▪Wilkinson, R., & Walsh, M.L. (Eds.) (2015). Integrating content and language in higher education: From theory to practice. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.