Taking the Show on the Road

by Susan M. Gorga and Jeffrey J. Mondak IN 1997 AND 1998, we team-taught political science courses at Babes-Bolyai University, in Cluj-Napoca, Romania. The students all had studied English, but their proficiency was varied. We were cognizant of the problems students would have understanding instruction in English, but we were unable to teach in Romanian. To address this problem, we designed courses using content-based instruction in English as a second language (ESL). This article describes our experience. The Language Barrier Most students we met in Romania had some knowledge of English, but few were sufficiently skilled in English to follow a typical college lecture. One problem is that the English spoken in American classrooms includes complex grammatical structures that would challenge even highly proficient nonnative speakers. A further complication is that American lecturers disperse idioms more frequently than the president's press secretary runs ideas up the flagpole. Finally, political science, like other fields, has its own specialized vocabulary. It is unreasonable to expect nonnative English speakers to follow the nuances of lectures laced with such terminology. We see four options for overcoming the language barrier: use only instructors who speak the students' primary language, limit enrollment to highly proficient English speakers, have simultaneous translation, or endeavor to ensure that classes taught in English are accessible to all students who have at least basic proficiency in English. Although we selected the last of these options, the first three approaches warrant brief discussion. Teach Courses in the Students' Native Language As a university broadens its curriculum, its need for visiting instructors from all fields rises, but it is not always possible to hire scholars who speak the students' native language. For example, most political scientists who speak Romanian specialize in East European politics. Universities in Romania have little need for foreign scholars to teach in this area because the resident faculty members are well equipped to do so. Conversely, few American political scientists who specialize in methodology or American government speak Romanian. Teaching courses in the students' native language is desirable, but this option simply is not viable in most instances. Limit Enrollment to Students with High Levels of English Proficiency If enrollments in courses taught in English are limited to students who are highly proficient in English, many students will be turned away for reasons unrelated to substantive aptitude. Moreover, even students with high levels of English proficiency tend to be unfamiliar with American idioms and technical vocabulary. Hence, restricting enrollments will not relieve instructors of the responsibility of ensuring that lectures are comprehensible to nonnative English speakers. Simultaneous Translation Courses taught by English-speaking instructors can be made accessible to all students if lectures are translated into the students' native language, but this is not an ideal solution. Translation inevitably disrupts class meetings. The instructor must pause to allow for the translator to speak, resulting in choppy lectures. Because everything is said twice, translation also consumes valuable time. Moreover, effective translation requires a translator who can capture in another language the meaning of technical vocabulary. In reality, access to such high-caliber translators is limited. Each of the options we have discussed has substantial disadvantages. These liabilities can be overcome if instruction takes place in English in courses in which systematic effort is made to ensure that the class material is widely accessible to the students. Accessible Instruction in English Three advantages accrue from teaching in accessible English. First, no student with a basic understanding of English is denied admission. Second, unlike with simultaneous translation, instructors can be certain of what information is being presented to the students. Third, instruction in English prepares students for interaction with Westerners. Our students were being trained so that they could attend conferences in the United States, participate in exchange programs, and submit research to Western journals. To do any of these, the capacity to communicate in English is essential. We designed our courses following the principles of content-based ESL, an approach in which language instruction is integrated with substantive instruction. Such content-based courses work best when instructors with experience in ESL and the relevant substantive area work collaboratively. Although we view instruction in English as preferable to the options discussed above, this approach also has some limitations. First, because the techniques are intensive, it is necessary to prioritize depth of instruction over breadth. Second, preparation of classes is highly time consuming because idioms and complex grammatical structures must be avoided, and multiple definitions and examples of technical terminology must be presented. In our courses, we focused on basic themes in empirical social science, a topic that had not been taught during the communist era. Consequently, discussion of contemporary political science needed to start with fundamentals, and proceed to the introduction of the specialized vocabulary of empirical social science. We decided to begin the course with a discussion of the meaning of science. From there, we would review patterns of causal relationships among variables, and then introduce hypothesis testing and measurement. We planned to use a laboratory experiment to demonstrate how these concepts come together in the form of a research design. Students then would work in small groups to design and conduct laboratory experiments, and to deliver oral reports on their findings. All terms discussed in class would be presented using a four-part technique. First, new concepts would be introduced as vocabulary. Terms would be written on the blackboard, and students would be taught their pronunciation. Second, we would deliver lectures regarding the new concepts. We planned to include multiple examples from applied research in the lectures. Third, on the day after new terms were introduced, students would work on review exercises in pairs or small groups. Finally, students would design and administer laboratory experiments. Working in small groups, students would be required to state a hypothesis, design an experimental manipulation to test that hypothesis, administer the experiment, analyze the results, and deliver oral presentations on their findings. In June 1997 we taught two three-hour courses over a two-week period. We split the 27 students into two groups on the basis of English proficiency. Students in the advanced section had had several years of training in English, had taken political science courses taught in English, and had read political science materials written in English. In contrast, most students in the second section had had only one or two years of English-language training, and limited exposure to readings and lectures in English. Both sections proceeded relatively smoothly. The students participated actively in paired and small-group work sessions, and the laboratory experiments conducted by the students were very creative. Students chose the topics for their experiments, and all focused on elements of local or national politics in Romania. The opportunity to link abstract concepts to the reality of local politics was vital in helping students to comprehend course material. The key difference between our 1997 and 1998 courses was the number of students. Given our approach to teaching--with emphasis on interaction with students, an informal atmosphere, and group activity--we prefer classes of no more than 30 students. On each of the first two days of the 1998 course, nearly 100 students were in attendance. Ultimately, 79 students completed and passed the course. To account for this unexpectedly large enrollment, we needed to adapt several features of our course on the fly. Course Assessment We administered informal course evaluations in 1997. Standardized evaluations were used in 1998, and we also gathered objective data regarding the impact of the course. In 1997, several advanced students commented on the relaxed, interactive nature of the seminar, and many expressed appreciation for the discussion of the role experiments play in the social sciences. Evaluations written by students in the basic section emphasized language more than substantive content: "I understood almost all, the explanations was very good"; "I understand 100 percent what Susan and Jeff--the instructors--told us. The terms used was explained very good with simple and understanding words." In 1998, we administered evaluations during our final class session. Our key closed-ended question asked "Compared with other courses you have taken in the past year, would you say that 'English for Social Science' was more useful for you (83 percent), about the same as your other courses (17 percent), or less useful for you (0 percent)?" Open-ended questions asked students to report their views regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the seminar. Six positive aspects were mentioned by at least 10 students: teaching style (mentioned by 30 students), discussion of concepts in social science (20), the opportunity to conduct an experiment (19), the opportunity to study English (13), the opportunity to work in groups (13), and the focus on applied subject matter (12). One criticism of the course was expressed by more than 10 students: that there were too many students enrolled in the course. Five students indicated that the course was too short, and four students expressed a preference for additional discussion of political science (as opposed to our research methods focus). We also obtained objective data in 1998. On the first day of class, we divided students into two groups. In one group, students were asked to read a few pages from Common Knowledge, a research monograph on media effects, and to answer five multiple-choice questions regarding the selection. In the second group, students were asked to read a few pages from a textbook, Mass Media and American Politics, and, again, to answer five objective questions. On the final day of the course, we had group one read the excerpt from the textbook and group two read the material from the research monograph. Hence, we were able to obtain two sets of precourse/postcourse data, with each group establishing a baseline for the other. For Common Knowledge, students answered an average of 2.84 items correctly on the precourse measure, versus 3.53 on the postcourse measure. For Mass Media and American Politics, the precourse average was 3.44, versus 4.12 on the postcourse measure. Comprehension of written English increased by a statistically significant margin for both readings, suggesting that participation in a content-based course contributed to students' capacity to understand technical written material published in English. Conclusion Based on our experience in Romania, we urge instructors to resist simultaneous translation and efforts to limit enrollment to students with high levels of English proficiency. If students possess at least basic proficiency in English, they can learn from skilled and patient instructors. Translation is highly disruptive, and limiting course enrollment denies many students a valuable educational opportunity. We also recommend that instructors include applied research as part of their courses. If possible, conduct a research project in collaboration with students and faculty from the host university. We have conducted two surveys and a content analysis project in Romania, and students have reported that participation in these projects has helped them to appreciate the utility of the material discussed within regular course sessions. This same end was achieved in our 1997 and 1998 seminars by requiring students to conduct their own research projects. For instructors from the United States, participation in programs at foreign universities is both rewarding and challenging. Teaching substantive material in English requires particular diligence, but we feel that it is well worth the effort. Courses drawing on content-based language instructional techniques promise to contribute greatly to the advancement of educational programs around the world. *An expanded version of this paper appears in PS: Political Science and Politics, March 2001. The courses described here were sponsored by the International Research and Exchanges Board under a program supported by the Educational and Cultural Affairs Bureau of the U.S. Department of State.