Integration is not a new phenomenon either in the educational field in general or in foreign language teaching. It was born out of a need to replace the standard curriculum with a more relevant and vibrant one where the contents of various disciplines can be combined into meaningful clusters (Drake and Burns, 2004: 2). The dictionary definition of integration is “the act or process of uniting different things” (Merriam Webster, 2016). Despite the seemingly simple definition, there are nowadays multiple ways of implementing integration in education. As a consequence, the terms and concepts used to discuss it are not always clear. Aaltonen (2003: 48, 54) explains in her research on vocational teachers’ pedagogical thinking and action in the context of integrated learning how the use of several definitions and concepts of integration make the discussion often blurred. In fact, there is often no explicit definition of integration or the definitions and views vary so drastically that comparing different theories is difficult. She also draws attention to the many dimensions that integration as an umbrella term has: integration is a term that is used not only in education but also in politics, sociology, psychology and economics (Aaltonen, 2003: 48). For this reason, it is essential to narrow down the definition of integration out of all the possible theories to the one that is relevant in the present study.
The present study focuses on integration within the field of foreign language teaching. However, even in this field integration can become to mean several things. Integration is a word used for, for instance, such teaching models as immersion and Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL). Both of these models, however, are concerned with teaching the content solely in a foreign language (Dalton-Puffer, Nikula and Smit, 2010: 1). However, in the present study I am more interested in how English studies can be made a more natural and interwoven part of the vocational studies without necessarily changing the teaching language of the study program. As English has become more interwoven with every-day work tasks and workplace interaction, it is strange to think that English and the subject matter are still taught in separation. Thus, the definition of integration used in the present study takes content-based second language instruction (Brinton, Snow and Wesche, 2003) and interdisciplinary integration (Drake and Burns, 2004) as its starting point. However, it is important to point out that integration is understood in a very loose way in the present study as one of the aims is to find out which way of implementing integration students and teachers favour. Although the basic definition
of integration is needed, the different forms that it can take can vary and are among the points of interest in the present study.
Brinton, Snow and Wesche (2003: 2) define content-based second language instruction “as the integration of particular content with language-teaching aims”. More specifically, since this method of teaching is most often used in higher education, they emphasise that the method consists of teaching the academic content and second language skills at the same time. The aim of this method is therefore to eliminate the artificial separation between language and subject instruction. However, it could be argued that the English language teaching in University of Applied Sciences is already content-based at least to an extent as the courses are designed around those language skills and topics that students are likely to need in their future professions (English for Working Life course description, 2014; Kantelinen and Airola, 2009). For this reason, to arrive at a better understanding of integration and what it means in the present study, I will look at the different ways of content-based instruction.
Content-based instruction is a method that takes many forms. Brinton, Snow and Wesche (2003: 14–
17) recognise three teaching models in higher education: theme-based, sheltered and adjunct language instruction. Theme-based language courses are structured around topics or themes that are relevant for the target student group. In theme-based language instruction the language items are usually contextualised through relevant themes and varied, often teacher-generated materials. Sheltered language instruction is often used in immersion education where second-language learners need to be separated from native speakers for extra language tuition. In a sheltered course the content is taught in the second language by a content teacher who is a native speaker of the target language. The adjunct language instruction model, however, consists of two linked courses, a language course and a content course, in which the students are enrolled simultaneously. The idea behind this model is that the courses share the same content base and mutually coordinated assignments. Second language learners attend both the language course and the content course where they study together with native speakers. As is evident from chapter 1.3, the current way of teaching English in University of Applied Sciences follows to a large extent the theme-based second language instruction model. Although relevant themes are taught in the current model, a tighter connection between the language and vocational studies would help bind the themes together and, for example, make the students see the relevance of the language courses in relation to their future career.
Similarly to the adjunct model, Drake and Burns (2004: 12) define interdisciplinary integration as an approach where teachers organise the curriculum around common learnings across disciplines. In other words, common learnings are combined in order to emphasise interdisciplinary skills and concepts. In this model the disciplines can be identified but the emphasis on each is less announced than, for instance, in the multidisciplinary approach where there are more disciplines combined and the focus is much more on each discipline. Although Drake and Burns (2004) discuss interdisciplinary integration mainly within the context of comprehensive school, it could also be implemented in higher education and the model introduced by them bears resemblance to the adjunct model by Brinton, Snow and Wesche (2003).
In the present study I understand integration as a way of teaching that is inspired by the two models discussed above: the adjunct model and interdisciplinary integration. To meet the needs and aims of the present study, I define integration in the present study as a model where the artificial separation between the language and subject instruction is removed and English language skills are taught as part of the vocational courses with the vocational and language teacher collaborating. More importantly, in this model of integration language teaching is integrated into the vocational courses over a longer period of time instead of being implemented as an intensive language course during the first study year. This way English would be better integrated with the vocational studies over a longer stretch of time instead of being taught in isolation as an intensive course by the language teacher alone. However, unlike in the adjunct language instruction model there are no native English-speakers involved in the present study. Integration can also follow either a model where English is only taught within vocational courses or a model where the students study English within vocational courses but also participate in supporting language classes.
Integration of language and vocational content has been implemented recently in Finnish higher education. Pirhonen (2015) reports of a pilot program started at the University of Jyväskylä Language Centre in 2014. The participants of the programme were first-year physics students. The goal was to meet the demands of the increasingly multilingual and multicultural working life and to make language and communication studies a more natural part of the studies instead of being seen as extra courses. To reach this goal, the pilot program looked for ways of making the language studies a more integral part of the discipline-specific courses and steering away from the current model where languages are taught separately from each other and from the subject courses. The teachers designed the courses around topics and language skills that were relevant and needed both during the first-year studies and in the future. However, instead of language teachers collaborating with subject teachers,
in the pilot program the different language teachers collaborated with each other by co-teaching courses. The findings of the program will be reported later on in chapters 2.4 and 2.5.