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.
