Learning paths on elementary university courses in Finnish as a second language

This is an electronic reprint of the original article. This reprint may differ from the original in pagination and typographic detail. Author(s): Title: Year: Version: Please cite the original version: All material supplied via JYX is protected by copyright and other intellectual property rights, and duplication or sale of all or part of any of the repository collections is not permitted, except that material may be duplicated by you for your research use or educational purposes in electronic or print form. You must obtain permission for any other use. Electronic or print copies may not be offered, whether for sale or otherwise to anyone who is not an authorised user. Learning paths on elementary university courses in Finnish as a second language Eloranta, Johanna; Jalkanen, Juha Eloranta, J., & Jalkanen, J. (2015). Learning paths on elementary university courses in Finnish as a second language. In J. Jalkanen, E. Jokinen, & P. Taalas (Eds.), Voices of pedagogical development : expanding, enhancing and exploring higher education language learning (pp. 225-240). Research-publishing.net. https://doi.org/10.14705/rpnet.2015.000294 2015 225 11 Learning paths on elementary university courses in Finnish as a second language Johanna Eloranta1 and Juha Jalkanen2 Abstract Along with the growing degree of internationalisation, Finnish university education needs to address issues related to learning and teaching Finnish as a second language. From the perspective of teaching Finnish and related pedagogical development, it is essential to recognise when, where and for which purposes learners need Finnish at the various stages of the language acquisition process. This article focuses on the learning paths of three international students who studied Finnish on a one-term elementary course at the University of Jyväskylä Language Centre. The article is based on a socio-cultural and ecological view on language learning and teaching. The data consist of learning diary texts written by the students during the course. Through these texts, university students’ language usage situations and views on the Finnish language and its acquisition are explored. The learners’ narratives conveyed their ideas related to languages and language acquisition, which appeared to be central background factors for different language usage and study practices. The three learner paths represented different forms and degrees of integration. The learners’ goals were closely related to the environments in which they led their daily lives. Keywords: Finnish, second language learning, higher education, internationalisation, university students, interaction. 1. Language Centre, University of Jyväskylä, Finland; [email protected] 2. Language Centre, University of Jyväskylä, Finland; [email protected] How to cite this chapter: Eloranta, J., & Jalkanen, J. (2015). Learning paths on elementary university courses in Finnish as a second language. In J. Jalkanen, E. Jokinen, & P. Taalas (Eds), Voices of pedagogical development - Expanding, enhancing and exploring higher education language learning (pp. 225-240). Dublin: Research-publishing.net. doi:10.14705/rpnet.2015.000294 Chapter 11 226 1. Introduction Increasing internationalisation has also challenged Finnish university education to consider questions related to learning and teaching Finnish as a second language (F2). As a result of international recruitment, universities employ a growing number of teaching and research staff for whom learning Finnish is an important channel for integration into the university community and Finnish society. To some extent, the international students enrolled in master’s degree programmes and doctoral programmes share similar needs. Many exchange students, who usually spend either one or two terms in Finland, also want and need to learn some Finnish. Matching the diverse needs and goals is one of the key challenges for teaching Finnish as a second language at university today. From the perspective of teaching Finnish and related pedagogical development, it is essential to recognise when, where and for which purposes learners need Finnish at the various stages of the language acquisition process. Even though there is relatively abundant research on the integration of immigrants into Finnish society, this research has primarily focused on daily and working life contexts (see e.g. Pöyhönen, Rynkänen,Tarnanen & Hoffman 2013; Suni 2008). The integration of international students into the academic community and the Finnish language community has not been studied from the perspective of learning Finnish. Research into second language (L2) pedagogy, particularly at the university level, has as yet also been scarce in Finland (however, see Aalto & Taalas 2005 and Jalkanen & Vaarala 2013). In this article we explore the learning paths of three international students who studied Finnish on a one-term elementary course at the University of Jyväskylä Language Centre. The focus is on events that are significant for the learning process and on the role of language in them. The following research questions will be answered: • How do the learners describe their F2 learning paths? • How do the learners’ descriptions portray the Finnish language and learning Finnish? Johanna Eloranta and Juha Jalkanen 227 First, we present some current research trends in L2 learning, concentrating on a pedagogical viewpoint. Thereafter, we describe the data used in the article as well as the analysis results divided into three sections. Finally, we discuss what the learners’ descriptions reveal about university students’ initial F2 learning paths and what guidelines the results offer for developing F2 university pedagogy. 2. Learning L2 in interaction Recent research into second-language acquisition highlights that language is learned in interaction, not for it (e.g. Suni 2008). This seemingly small distinction is visible, in particular, in viewing language skills as situational (Dufva & Aro 2012; Gee 2004; Pennycook 2010). The approach implies that interaction is the starting point for learning, not its terminal point. Practice is still needed, but structures and vocabulary are approached by examining the situations in which they are typically used. The linguistic environment is thus highly significant for the learning process. Teaching should help learners to analyse different interaction situations at school and in their leisure time as well as the surrounding linguistic environment. Language is today actually regarded as an activity in which linguistic resources are utilised. These resources vary from one situation and modality to the next. This approach basically includes the spatial variation and temporal regeneration of language (Dufva & Aro 2012). From the language acquisition point of view, this means that language proficiency is not demonstrated as mastery of grammar but as a strategic ability to use different multimodal meaning-making tools in a goal-oriented way (Canagarajah 2008; Pennycook 2010). Within L2 learning, ground has been particularly gained by holistic theories that aim at explaining the complex and dynamic nature of the language acquisition process. Complexity theory (Larsen-Freeman & Cameron 2008) and an ecological approach (van Lier 2004) share a systemic approach to Chapter 11 228 language acquisition and highlight the need to understand the connections between processes occurring at different levels. Larsen-Freeman and Cameron (2008) also emphasise that it is essential to see language as a dynamic system that is constantly shaped in human interaction. From a pedagogical viewpoint, the idea of dynamic language usage implies that, for example, the discussions recorded in learning materials are always in a certain sense frozen and static. On the other hand, teaching should also provide safe possibilities to test the application of language systems (see also Gee 2005). Even though teaching plays a central role in L2 acquisition, its primary purpose is to support and structure the learning process rather than to define or control learning sequences based on assumed language difficulty levels (Larsen-Freeman & Cameron 2008; Suni 2008). By following the learners’ progress, pedagogical support can be targeted at different process stages at the right time. This is how the learners’ orienteering on their learning paths can be guided toward the next control point, whereby they can structure a part of the linguistic system as a meaningful and intelligible whole (Larsen-Freeman & Cameron 2008). 3. The context and data Students who attend F2 courses at, for instance, Finnish university language centres have very different backgrounds and starting points. They come from different parts of the world, with different school and learning cultures, and speak different languages. Furthermore, it is typical for these courses that the groups consist of exchange students, international master’s degree programme students and postgraduate students. As a consequence of this heterogeneity and differing personal plans and goals, the participants’ expectations for their learning outcomes also vary. Exchange students who stay in Finland for four months may be motivated to study Finnish in order to facilitate everyday situations, or some of them are interested in knowing an exotic language. On the other hand, master’s degree students who intend to pursue a career and remain permanently in Finland may aim at applying for a job in Finnish within Johanna Eloranta and Juha Jalkanen 229 a few years. Naturally, in addition to these extreme cases, there are a large number of students with no clear plans and hopes for the future yet. At the initial stage, teaching therefore involves finding a balance between students’ diverse interests and learning paths. The data for this study were collected on an initial F2 course in the autumn of 2014 (target level: CEFR A1 / basic user). Instead of a presumed hierarchical learning sequence, the course was designed based on language usage situations that are meaningful for the learners. A common starting point for initial teaching is the idea of a basic language proficiency that must be acquired before language can be used in interaction. This approach influences learning materials so that the spectrum of texts and language usage situations becomes narrow and irrelevant for the needs of the user. In order to avoid this disadvantage, we mapped the learners’ language usage situations via an inquiry before designing the course. The situations chosen for the course included different types of linguistic resources, which the students either analysed or learned to identify. All the situations also entailed linguistic resources that were beyond the learners’ comprehension abilities. The aim was to direct their focus to the development of strategic skills and discovery of core content. The course was organised for the first time in its new format while collecting the resources, and the new approach was piloted with one student group. Students with varying countries of origin, mother tongues and student statuses were selected for the study. The aim was to cast light on learner paths that had different individual starting points. According to these criteria, three participants were chosen: Julie, Naoto and Daniel (the names are pseudonyms). The research data consist of the learning diaries written by the participants in the course online learning environment. The diary entries were written approximately once a month. The narrative nature of the data links our study to a narrative research approach, which according to Webster and Mertova (2007) is optimally suited for analysing the complex and nuanced experiences that learning and teaching involve. In narrative research, individual experiences are Chapter 11 230 recorded through the construction and reconstruction of personal stories, which makes it possible to record and retell events that have been the most influential for participants. Therefore, the narrative approach allows researchers to portray experiences holistically, in all their complexity and richness, trying to illustrate the temporal notion of experience, which is based on the idea that an individual’s understanding of people and events changes (Webster & Mertova 2007). The objective of narrative analysis is to discover in the data those stories that represent the phenomenon. Narrative analysis yields generalisations about thinking, activity, meanings and attitudes that are related to the phenomenon. In this study, we read the students’ learning diaries first alone and then compared our observations and interpretations. Even though the aim in interpreting the diaries was to convey each learner’s personal voice, the interpretation involved retelling the stories. The students wrote their diaries in English, and their diverse language skills may have affected the way they verbalised their experiences. The aim was also to take this into account in analysing the texts. The following sections present the participants’ learning paths, first by introducing their backgrounds. The learners’ reasons for studying Finnish and set learning outcomes are described thereafter. Then we characterise how language and its learning are manifested in the learners’ narratives, as well as potential turning points that appear as meaningful for the learning process. Finally, the focus will be on the learners’ retrospective thoughts about learning Finnish. The structure of the descriptions is chronological, that is, they proceed as the course progresses. 4. Three beginners’ learning paths 4.1. Path 1: the language enthusiast Julie was an exchange student from Central Europe. Her mother tongue was French and her major subject during the six-month exchange period was political science. Johanna Eloranta and Juha Jalkanen 231 According to Julie, learning Finnish was an essential part of a relatively long stay in Finland. She found that in addition to the practical functions of language, such as going to shops and talking to people, it also opens a window to the Finnish mindset and culture. Moreover, Julie mentioned that for her learning languages was a hobby. Julie’s aim was that after living four months in Finland she would be able to speak Finnish, as she described it, ‘at the basic level’. She also wanted to know some Finnish grammar. Julie specified the means of achieving her learning outcomes on a general level by using passive constructions. She regarded the Finnish course as the primary step in learning the language and mentioned daily life language usage situations, such as going to shops and cafes and using public transport, in this context. Julie noted that conversations with native speakers of Finnish were a good way to learn the language, particularly vocabulary. However, she suspected that the language she would learn from Finns would mainly be slang and vulgar vocabulary. Because of the general nature of her description, it was difficult to conclude which of the aforementioned language usage situations Julie intended to utilise in her learning. As the course progressed, Julie frequently reflected on the differences and similarities between Finnish and the other languages she knew (French, Italian, English and Russian), trying to define her relationship to the structural system of the language. Julie explained that her Russian skills helped her perceive the structures of Finnish, even though she generally found the differences between Finnish and the Indo-European languages challenging. Nonetheless, she remarked that she enjoyed learning a new linguistic system. Julie seemed to have a relatively structure-oriented approach to Finnish, which was manifested distinctly as a conflict between her interests (verbs, tenses, suffixes) and the situational approach applied in the course (forming questions, asking for directions, agreeing on appointments). In addition to structures, Julie frequently mentioned wanting to expand her vocabulary, yet without specifying the type of vocabulary she needed. She also regarded speaking and writing as individual subareas to be developed separately. Chapter 11 232 Julie defined language usage as a game of two levels: on the first level, one learns and uses language in the closed, safe and undisturbed course environment, whereas the second level involves language usage in more challenging contexts characterised by time pressures and external distractions. According to Julie, practising on the first level, that is, in the classroom, prepares students for the second level. The turning point in Julie’s language learning process can be dated to the final stage of the course, at which her language usage environments expanded to meaningful extramural situations. She mentioned reading Moomin books and buying tickets on the internet as examples of these situations. When comparing her achieved learning outcomes to her initial goals, she noted having obtained the keys to speaking and understanding Finnish at the basic level. Julie found that the course had been useful for living in Finland even though its major benefit for her was the opportunity to explore Finnish language and culture, in compliance with her attitude toward languages as a hobby. 4.2. Path 2: the persistent labourer Naoto was an exchange student of biological and environmental science, whose mother tongue was Japanese. He lived in Finland for approximately nine months during his studies. Naoto told that he chiefly attended the Finnish course in order to master everyday situations, which he described as ‘a quiz game’. For example, figuring out the content of food packages and prices in supermarkets presented great challenges to him in spite of contextual clues. Furthermore, he regarded studying Finnish as an opportunity to learn more about Finnish culture. At the beginning of the course, Naoto’s only objectives were knowledge of grammar and fluency of speech. He said that he studied Finnish in order to be able to use it; such simple phrases as yksi kahvi (one coffee) he mentioned having already adopted in his everyday usage. The initial situation for learning Finnish differed from what he had expected: his social network included mainly other Johanna Eloranta and Juha Jalkanen 239 Canagarajah, A. S. 2008. Foreword. In A. Clemente & M. Higgins (eds.), Performing English with a post-colonial accent: ethnographic narratives from Mexico. London: The Tufnell Press, 9–13. Dufva, H. & Aro, M. 2012. Oppimisen kronotooppisuus: aika, paikka ja kielenkäyttäjä. In L. Meriläinen, L. Kolehmainen & T. Nieminen (eds.) AFinLA-e: soveltavan kielitieteen tutkimuksia 4. Jyväskylä: AFinLA, 7–21. Gee, J. P. 2004. Situated language and learning: a critique of traditional schooling. New York: Routledge. Gee, J. P. 2005. Learning by design: good video games as learning machines. E-Learning, 2 (1), 5–16. doi:10.2304/elea.2005.2.1.5 Jalkanen, J. & Vaarala, H. 2013. Digital texts for learning Finnish: shared resources and emerging practices. Language Learning & Technology, 17 (1), 107–124. Larsen-Freeman, D. & Cameron, L. 2008. Complex systems and applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Partanen, M. 2013. Kieli tulee kielen päälle: kansainvälisten opiskelijoiden käsityksiä suomen kielen oppimisesta. In M. Eronen & M. Rodi-Risberg (eds.), Haasteena näkökulma, Perspektivet som utmaning, Point of view as challenge, Perspektivität als Herausforderung. Vaasa: VAKKI Publications 2, 257–268. Pennycook, A. 2010. Language as a local practice. New York: Routledge. Pöyhönen, S., Rynkänen, T., Tarnanen, M. & Hoffman, D. 2013. Venäjänkiliset IT-alan asiantuntijat työyhteisöissä – monikieliset käytänteet, identiteetit ja osallisuuden kokemukset integroitumisessa. In T. Keisanen, E. Kärkkäinen, M. Rauniomaa, P. Siitonen & M. Siromaa (eds.), Osallistumisen multimodaaliset diskurssit. Multimodal discourses of participation. Jyväskylä: AFinLAn vuosikirja. Suomen soveltavan kielitieteen yhdistyksen julkaisuja, 77–102. Suni, M. 2008. Toista kieltä vuorovaikutuksessa. Kielellisten resurssien jakaminen toisen kielen omaksumisen alkuvaiheessa [Second language in interaction: sharing linguistic resources in the early stage of second language acquisition]. Jyväskylä: Doctoral dissertation, University of Jyväskylä. Retrieved from http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-951-39-3209-1 van Lier, L. 2004. The ecology and semiotics of language learning: a sociocultural perspective. Boston: Kluwer Academic. doi:10.1007/1-4020-7912-5 van Lier, L. 2007. Action-based teaching, autonomy and identity. Innovation in Language. Learning and Teaching, 1(1), 46–65. Chapter 11 240 Webster, L. & Mertova, P. 2007. Using narrative inquiry as a research method: an introduction to using critical event narrative analysis in research on learning and teaching. London: Routledge. Published by Research-publishing.net, not-for-profit association Dublin, Ireland; Voillans, France, [email protected] © 2015 by Research-publishing.net (collective work) Each author retains their own copyright Voices of pedagogical development - Expanding, enhancing and exploring higher education language learning Edited by Juha Jalkanen, Elina Jokinen, & Peppi Taalas Rights: All articles in this collection are published under the Attribution-NonCommercial -NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) licence. Under this licence, the contents are freely available online (as PDF files) for anybody to read, download, copy, and redistribute provided that the author(s), editorial team, and publisher are properly cited. Commercial use and derivative works are, however, not permitted. Disclaimer: Research-publishing.net does not take any responsibility for the content of the pages written by the authors of this book. The authors have recognised that the work described was not published before, or that it is not under consideration for publication elsewhere. While the information in this book are believed to be true and accurate on the date of its going to press, neither the editorial team, nor the publisher can accept any legal responsibility for any errors or omissions that may be made. The publisher makes no warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein. While Research-publishing.net is committed to publishing works of integrity, the words are the authors’ alone. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. Copyrighted material: Every effort has been made by the editorial team to trace copyright holders and to obtain their permission for the use of copyrighted material in this book. In the event of errors or omissions, please notify the publisher of any corrections that will need to be incorporated in future editions of this book. Typeset by Research-publishing.net Cover design by © Antti Myöhänen ISBN13: 978-1-908416-25-4 (Paperback - Print on demand, black and white) Print on demand technology is a high-quality, innovative and ecological printing method, with which the book is never ‘out of stock’ or ‘out of print’. ISBN13: 978-1-908416-26-1 (Ebook, PDF, colour) ISBN13: 978-1-908416-27-8 (Ebook, EPUB, colour) Legal deposit, Ireland: The National Library of Ireland, The Library of Trinity College, The Library of the University of Limerick, The Library of Dublin City University, The Library of NUI Cork, The Library of NUI Maynooth, The Library of University College Dublin, The Library of NUI Galway. Legal deposit, United Kingdom: The British Library. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data. A cataloguing record for this book is available from the British Library. Legal deposit, France: Bibliothèque Nationale de France - Dépôt légal: septembre 2015.