students and users of English
Preparations, advance information and scheduling
During the spring and summer of 2004, I made the initial plans for the course, decided on the study materials and informed the institutes about these and about the working practices on the course. The institutes published the advance information on the courses on their homepages and in programme handouts available at local libraries and at a number of other public premises well before the beginning of the autumn term. The bigger institute sent its programme to all local households while the smaller one sent it only by request. The students enrolled over the phone, by email or the Internet or sent their enrolment form by post. The institutes revised my draft of the course aims and contents to make it conform to their overall layout and choice of the informed issues based on their expertise in what should be included from the viewpoint of their customers. As a result, the information given by the two institutes differed in some aspects but the target level was A2–B1 in both.
The studies would aim at functional English skills in oral communication and speaking on the course would take place in plausible speech situations resembling natural ones.
The two parallel English courses started in late September and lasted to the end of November or early December, respectively. At 45 hours, they were the longest among the short courses at these institutes. Financial resources and the long experience of the institutes of the time that adult students could and wished to invest in a single project (see also Tarkka-Tierala 2004) dictated the length of the course. The weekend (WE) group in the smaller institute studied eight hours on Saturday and seven hours on Sunday once in September, October and November. Between each period of one hour and a half, there was a break with coffee or lunch. The group had altogether 11 students who enrolled separately for each of the three weekends, which brought some variation in the size of the group. One student found the level of the course too low and enrolled only for the first weekend, another could not participate in the last weekend and one student entered the course for the last weekend. Otherwise, absences from the sessions were very few and everyone participated in the conversational interviews. The evening (E) group initially with 19 members, met once a week and had three hours with a break in the middle and a six-hour session with breaks on two Saturdays. Absences were more common here, especially those caused by participants’
autumn holidays. Five of these students discontinued the course in an early phase and were not interviewed and do not appear in the list of course participants’ first name aliases and their group membership (see Appendix 6). Students in both groups commented on their course schedule in the conversational interviews.
Ari: Yes, of course, we have courses in our firm, but it’s hard for a salesman because you’re on the move so much. I prefer having it at the weekend. It’s hard after a day’s work. At the weekend, so you get some benefit from it. In the morning at least you feel fresh, err, so yes, for me it works better like that.
Maarit: Yeah, I really liked it because on Saturday there was more time. That was the reason I joined that course; not the level. So it was because of those Saturdays that, I, yeah, really liked it because it’s a longer time. That’s the reason I joined the course. It wasn’t the level. I came because of those Saturdays because I reckoned the thing was, like, I can immerse myself and so reinforce what I’m learning because you have to be there a long time and you can’t, like, run away once you’ve arrived and then you’re just there.
Annukka: First, I was afraid of the two and a half hours. It was a really long time but, once I got myself there, then the hard work of learning started. And the break in-between.
The E group members usually came to the course after the working day while the WE group most probably had no work duties on the same day. For some participants the weekend studies were the only feasible course time. In long sessions one could really focus on English and learn a lot. No one in the weekend group mentioned the long gap between the study weekends as a drawback. Some students in the E group had to wait at their place of work or somewhere else for the course to begin; others had to rush to arrive in time but nonetheless, the general feeling was that they left the class refreshed. In advance, even if no longer on the actual course, a session of two and a half hours in the evening after a long break in studies appeared even frighteningly long. On the other hand, there were people in the same group who were disappointed when they missed one or both of their long Saturday sessions because of their other duties and commitments. Not being able to participate in them and their many activities and shared hours aroused feelings of being less included in the group.
A changing programme, varying activities, the experience of learning and the breaks made the time even fly and invigorated even after a working day. The breaks were well-timed and also the days with 7-8 hours passed quickly. Long sessions, either over the weekend or on Saturdays, seemed to take place without tiredness or hurry and allowed for a good time with focus and joy in learning. They had also been a significant factor in the choice of the course, even more important than the level. However, one student in both groups said that they had once got tired, even exhausted, on a long session even if one of them assumed that it was partly caused by her general tiredness. No one mentioned that this would have happened in the short evening sessions.
The diversity in the schedules and in the length of sessions increases adults’ opportunities for participation in the language courses that for them more often than not, take place alongside of daily work and other duties. When a course extends over the whole term, it unavoidably causes absences, for example owing to seasonal holiday trips, travelling, impediments caused
by work, family, illnesses and competing interests. Weekend courses with day-long studies are a good alternative for those whose work demands travelling, are busy on the week or cannot participate in the evenings on the week when most courses are available. Two whole days on three weekends had brought people who were ready to stake themselves. Weekend studies and even a few Saturdays between evening classes give unique and welcome opportunities to concentrate on English. One is not tired then. Despite the will to learn, a student can experience the thought of joining a session as uncomfortable. Getting over this threshold and joining a long session rewards the student with many hours of English studies, a wide range of experiences and immersion in English.
In long sessions as in shorter ones, intensive thinking and participation in many activities and assignments must alternate with well-timed, sufficient breaks. The less active phases in the session support learning and wellbeing and prevent tiredness and fatigue because they allow the students to relax and gear themselves up. In case the teacher fails to notice the signs of tiredness and fatigue in class, it is important that the students feel free to suggest, for example, a change in the programme or an earlier break.
Classrooms and other site arrangements
The weekend group was given a large spacious room where it was easy to move around and find space and distance when necessary. The room had big windows, comfortable chairs, a carpet and pot plants. It lacked desks but the easy chairs were low enough to allow study material to be kept on the floor. Available services included lunch and coffee in the dining room. The evening group met in an austere physics classroom at an upper level comprehensive school. The swivel chairs were hard and necessitated an upright sitting position but they were height adaptable, easy to move and turned to both sides for a pair work and towards the board. We started without desks but soon changed to two or three students sitting around one desk but with no one their back to the blackboard or behind another student. There was no cafeteria to go to during the breaks but the electric cooker in the classroom inspired us to prepare potluck lunches in our two Saturday sessions. In both session rooms, we had maps of the world, the USA and the British Isles for reference, posters of landscapes and large sheets of paper with language items, such as phrases and vocabulary on a given theme. The evening group had two blackboards, the weekend group a flip chart. My table for papers, the CD player and fresh flowers was inconspicuous.
Minna (group WE): I thought it was really nice, the class. It was a small thing, but anyway it was the semicircle. That was the good part of it. Really good. That it was really good. First I was a bit surprised, that “oh yeah”. It looks a bit different here.
Ritva (group E): The feeling you get at school was missing, or actually the feeling you get when you study. And that was good. You’re not talking down the neck of the person in front of you. Nobody talks like that. It was good that the environment was different right from the start.
Most of the comments on the study environment concerned the semicircle and its benefits and drawbacks. The semicircular seating in language studies was new but the students soon got used to it and recognised its benefits. Above all, it did not give the feeling of a school classroom. The easy swapping of places and the frequent change of people sitting next to you came with the semicircle. In real life oral communication people do not speak to the back of each other’s neck. The semicircle allowed everyone to speak face-to-face with everyone.
However, I noticed that, despite the semicircle, the students often spoke to me instead of the whole group (E2). The semicircle helped the students stay alert and receptive. You could not hide behind a desk for security. It took little time to get used to the openness of the semicircle but carrying out tasks and assignments quickly brought the essential experience of security. The semicircle also ensured better hearing. The lack of tables for study material caused some inconvenience in the E group. The small tables adopted for use turned out to be a good solution but they paired or grouped people, which slightly diminished the feeling of togetherness and the experience of cohesion. The weekend group enjoyed their comfortable, low and wide armchairs. No one mentioned the lack of tables as a source of inconvenience.
The quality of the classrooms and their furniture influence expectations of the studies and are important for effective learning. Comfortable chairs seem to contribute positively to the atmosphere. These rooms conveniently allowed whole group and small group activities and this way promoted participation from the very first class. Semicircular seating is good and helpful in studying where communication and the participation of everyone are central aims. This seating, common in suggestopedia and cooperative learning because of the good eye contact between all involved (Lozanov & Gateva 1989, 20; Leppilampi 2002, 292), facilitates general and multi-directional communication better than seating where the students face only the teacher. Being able to see the face of everyone who speaks makes it easier to hear and understand what people say.
Semicircular seating where swapping places is easy familiarises everybody with each other, which fosters togetherness, equality and the social quality of learning. This seating does not pose the traditional choice between sitting at the back or in front. However, students very often speak to the teacher, not to everyone in class. When new, sitting in a semicircle can make people insecure. The semicircle suggests that people have to speak there, but it does not tell them how it will take place, which may make people feel less secure at the beginning. Thus, it is necessary to alleviate it through practices that create safety. On the other hand, the semicircle setting can diminish the negative memories of earlier studies. Unfortunately, such memories can be relived, for example through the practice of having to read in turns in the circle.
Course participants and their histories as students and users of English
At the beginning of the courses, I received the lists of the participants and their telephone numbers – I only used them for the second conversational interviews – and copies of the registration forms from one of the two institutes. During the course, I learned that some
of them had studied languages or other subjects at the same or a corresponding institute, but most of them were first-timers in both respects. Very few people knew somebody else in the group. Four fifths of the participants were women. The oldest students were born in the 1930s and the two youngest who studied in the WE group, were in their early twenties.
Study experiences varied. Students and their learning are affected by the education of their teachers, the beliefs about learning psychology at that time and the materials (Kaikkonen 2004, 163–164; Kohonen 2005, 9), the teachers’ personalities, their ways of working and their theoretical and methodological preferences.
I asked the course participants about their expectations, wishes and needs, which resulted in a few comments. Halfway through the course I inquired about their opinions on the course contents and its implementation to adjust it to their wishes and needs (E6 and W3). For the people in the evening group, the strongest reason for choosing the course was the development of their English competence to functional proficiency (E1). My course diary contained many notes on their questions and comments and on our discussions on learning, language and on grammar, too (E1–E6 and E8). In the latter half of the course, especially after our halfway discussions, the evening group typically shared their difficulties and problems concerning English and their successful and less successful experiences of speaking and strivings for this proficiency (E6, E8, E11 and E13). There were also spontaneous discussions on learning between individual students and me before and after the sessions and during the breaks.
The advance information of the WE group had emphasised speech and defined the course as suggestopedic. This group had less interest in text exploration and grammar issues than the evening group, wished for conversation and discourse phrases, was very keen to start work on the assignments and enjoyed long and extensive conversational tasks (WE 1 and 2). The WE group used to consult each other instead of presenting their questions in class. General discussions on learning and English were fewer there. (WE 1–6).
The course participants’ personal reasons and the advance information contribute to their choice of course and influence its formation and the life on the course and to some extent, its contents and it is the contents that demand listening, interpretation of the situation and impartial flexibility. On courses like these, people are assumed to be eager to speak and here they turned out to be such. For some people the aim of developing one’s English oral foreign language competency and its promotion to proficiency are indicated by asking questions on the target language, expressing and discussing one’s problems in the use of English, sharing one’s experiences of it and receiving ideas and advice from others. Especially in liberal education, such questions and discussions are helpful for the teacher because they also inform about the participants interests, level, difficulties and needs concerning the target. A few questions can also suggest that to give the students more, the level of the course could be higher.
The course participants spontaneously told about their earlier English studies and use of English, their expectations and goals and about their weaknesses and needs in English, which appear as the first four categories in the conversational data table. I would like
to point out that these, like the other data in the table, emerged in the interviews after the course. When placed here in Part II, these data and the discussion on them serve as background information for the course implementation and its results. The time that had elapsed on the course cannot have changed much of their histories as students and users of English. Instead, the growth of awareness of one’s aims and needs is an ongoing process resulting from experiences and learning, and the course certainly had an impact on thinking about one’s expectations, goals, needs and weaknesses, and on changing the last of these.
The criterion for the formation of the groups in the discussion on all four topics was the amount and length of earlier English studies. Each topic begins with a representative of the group with the most extensive studies and ends with the one of the group with least studies.
Some of the students mentioned all their studies, others only the school years, vocational studies and/or their English studies ongoing elsewhere. If the student had mentioned little or nothing of his/her earlier studies, I chose the group based on his/her participation in the lessons documented in the course diary notes. The unusually ample citations aim at telling about the course participants as people with different, unique histories, needs and hopes as users and students of English. In addition, it opened up a new view for the researcher, too.
Earlier English studies
Maarit: The thing with me is that I’ve studied English for a hundred years but I’ve never needed to, or I’ve never had a chance to speak it.
Ritva: For me, my strong language is German and then I also speak Russian, but English. Yes, I know enough to cope as a tourist but that’s all.
Ilkka: What have I studied? I’ve had all sorts of things, at least studying English for various occupational fields.
Elina: I studied English for a couple of years in primary school, but I’m sure I’ve forgotten all of it. I’ve studied on my own a lot. As well as on adult education centre courses … I always started at the beginning and then I stopped and then I started once again.
Maarit represents those who had studied English in the comprehensive school or its predecessor and in the upper secondary school, perhaps followed by field specific studies.
Surprisingly, these people with the most extensive English studies formed the biggest group on this A2–B1 level course. Three of them had studies of written English ongoing.
The members of the small second group, represented by Ritva here, had shorter, either
The members of the small second group, represented by Ritva here, had shorter, either