What the students could learn in terms of language skills was greatly influenced by the nature of the course, as was already stated above. With the spoken English being the medium of instruction not many possibilities to practice writing or reading comprehension were available. Thus, the learning experienced by the students was all but restricted to the areas of speaking, listening comprehension and vocabulary. For vocabulary learning, however, the written material, such as the vocabulary handouts, emails and English teaching material, were somewhat important factors. All the central factors and how they influenced learning English will now be looked at, mostly as a general experience of all the students, rather than as individual experiences, although some comparison is also made between the individual students’ views, as was the case with factors influencing content learning.
Most factors influencing language learning were viewed either positively or neutrally, that is, they either enhanced learning or had no influence (see Table 21, p. 116). Only the learner factor was viewed mostly in a twofold manner, as having also negative aspects. Positive learner aspects included being already competent and accustomed to using English (Albin), being motivated and active in class or in vocabulary self-study at home (Olli, Sauli) or feeling proud of oneself as a speaker of English (Toni). What motivated the students was considering English skills important as part of their professional competence (Albin) or their present (Sauli) or future studies, e.g. a possible future experience as an exchange student (Olli). Less advanced students seemed to benefit more of having an internal motivator. Learner aspects that may possibly have hindered language learning were not being very motivated to learn language individually outside class (Toni) or feeling that spoken language skills were not very good or strong (Olli, Sauli). Also, an inactive, uninterested attitude or having no goals for language learning (Piia) seemed a negatively influencing aspect within the learner factor. Also feeling already competent enough seemed to lead to a rather passive stance not fostering further language learning (Albin). Expected language learning outcomes expressed before the course reflected the students’ general inner motivation. As was stated, before the course all Finnish students had some expectations, more or less specific, for language learning (also Piia, who claimed otherwise), whereas Albin did not have as clear expectations. Motivation, self-confidence and non-anxiety as positive affective variables have been found to facilitate language learning, according to the
Affective filter hypothesis by Krashen (1982); these variables are often related to how individuals experiences themselves as part of a group.
The group was viewed generally as a positive factor, however, also as only slightly positive or neutral. The atmosphere in the group was considered nice and relaxed. The group members’ level of English was crucial; a fellow student served as a good example if his English was above a student’s own level. Piia, Olli and also Sauli seemed to benefit from the group. The two foreign students (Albin, Igor), although not native speakers of English, in the two groups were not only language models to learn from and sources of comprehensible input necessary for implicit language learning (Krashen 1982), but alsobrought authenticity, making using a foreign language in class more natural, as Piia wrote. The foreign students, who were fellow students, were not experienced as a threat but rather as models and motivators for language learning. Also Sauli seemed to benefit somewhat from Toni who spoke more in class; Sauli learned some words from student-talk, as did Olli. Interestingly, it appears that also Toni benefited from Sauli, who was weaker than him in producing output, as a confidence booster. Whether Sauli, a little shy to speak, experienced Toni, more self-confident about his spoken skills and feeling superior to Sauli, as threatening or provoking anxiety is an interesting question. Anxiety and low self-confidence could impede not only language acquisition but weaken a student’s desire to participate productively (see 2.2.2). For Albin’s language development, the group (Jaana and Olli; in the spring only Olli) seemed insignificant. The fact that instruction was given in a small group setting was experienced as providing a good opportunity for speaking (Olli), or requiring more active participation (Sauli). The social and contextual nature of learning the English language in the VS course was obvious (see 2.2.2).
The teacher was an important source and model of English; he helped by always speaking English, by speaking clearly or simply by speaking proper English, i.e.
provided comprehensible input. He was seen also as a provider of the language material, especially the vocabulary handouts, and of help e.g. in case a student did not understand or lacked a word. That it was possible to use also Finnish as the language of communication in the learning and teaching if needed was considered good by a student (Piia). A systematic shift to the first language from the vehicular language by the teacher or the learner, i.e. translanguaging, including not only spoken language but also the vocabulary materials, is considered normal and appropriate in CLIL e.g. to facilitate
understanding (Coyle et al. 2010: 16). Using the first language of the learner is beneficial especially in establishing the initial link between a word’s form and meaning (Schmitt 2008: 337). English-medium teaching positively required more attention than Finnish one, according to some students. Individual words were picked up from teacher-talk by some students.
The two English-Finnish vocabulary handouts (see Appendices 7 and 8) were considered mostly an important and positive factor enhancing vocabulary learning and enabling independent intentional learning outside class. The vocabularies, as an important adjunct to teacher-talk, provided the students with content-obligatory language or language of learning, especially the more concise Thematic vocabulary with the most essential words for the course, as well as content-compatible language or language for learning (see pp. 22–23), especially the more extensive Alphabetical vocabulary with less essential and extra words, and perhaps the example sentences in the Thematic vocabulary. Those who made good use of them were regarded as comprehensive, handy, useful and helpful, and for them the vocabularies tended to be the most important source of vocabulary learning. Motivated, explicit learner engagement with vocabulary, referring to e.g. increased intention to learn and increased attention focused on the lexical item as well as increased frequency of exposure, has been found to facilitate vocabulary learning (Schmitt 2008). On the other hand, the handouts did not have much significance, although used briefly and considered useful to read (Albin), or had no influence, as they were not used during the course, although considered possibly useful in the future (Piia).
Apart from the handouts, the other English learning / teaching material, i.e. English teaching material handouts (e.g. on blues and on some accompaniment patterns), music sheets with English lyrics, English emails and text messages, was regarded as a rather neutral or slightly positive factor influencing language learning. The English material was experienced as no problem, as doing no harm, but rather helpful in learning to get used to managing all kinds of things in English, and reading properly written emails as educational. A student believed that “everything that is in English” (kaikki englanninkielinen) had an influence on language learning, which is not far from how Schmitt (2008: 339–340) put it: “anything that leads to more and better engagement should improve vocabulary learning”. Two students learned some words from the English teaching material (excluding emails) provided.
The course contents were mostly viewed as influencing language learning positively (Sauli), for example, as they enabled using the vocabulary learned in the JAMK English course in practice (Toni). Thus, the CLIL VS course provided him, and also Sauli, with an opportunity for recycling the explicitly learned vocabulary, consolidating and enhancing their learning (Schmitt 2008: 353–354). Olli thought that the contents helped him improve the fluency of speaking and in vocabulary. Albin and Piia were neutral about the influence of the contents, either not commenting or considering it difficult to say how the contents had influenced; apparently the course contents had no or not significant influence on their learning of English.