Cooperation and development for academic language skills in the university context

2.1 The participants

This study involved a group of 25 students belonging to the Master’s Degree Course in Cooperation and Development (Department of Political Science), in the second semester of the academic year 2017–2018. They were observed and monitored during the three-month course, English for Academic Writing in Cooperation and Development, which offered dynamic lessons, constant collaborative group work and the frequent use of videos aimed at developing listening skills, while encouraging critical thinking in relation to the topics presented through the video clips. Moreover, course objectives included (a) writing skills with specific focus on academic writing and the development of a Research Proposal; (b) speaking skills (i.e. oral production and interaction) with specific focus on delivering a well-developed oral presentation. Through the presentation, they were asked to highlight significant points, explain the main points with reasonable precision, provide details, evaluate situations, express opinions specifically related to their field of study, while using appropriate vocabulary.

The students reacted with enthusiasm to the didactic approach and teaching techniques, which they considered appropriate to the academic needs of their university career (Harding 2007; Jordan 1997). Moreover, they contributed to the selection of topics to be discussed in class with the support of videos.

2.2 Objectives of the study

Based on the premises outlined in the introduction, the study aimed at analysing these target students’ learning processes while they were expanding their knowledge of specialized language in a specific academic field. At the same time, it aimed to evaluate the students’ ability to improve their self-assessment competences in relation to their language development. In order to obtain both subjective and objective data, an analysis was carried out comparing students’ self-assessment, elicited at the beginning and at the end of the course, with the instructor’s evaluation. The latter was based on students’ exam performance and thus on the competences they had objectively achieved. Specifically, we wanted to find answers to the following questions: (a) what goals students want to reach in terms of competences in general and academic English language; (b) how they self-assess their competences at mid-term and at the end of the course; (c) how their self-assessment correlates with the level achieved at the final exam.

2.3 Strategies and teaching resources

As highlighted in the previous section, the language objectives were to expand students’ knowledge of the main elements of spoken and written discourse in English in the academic context with a particular focus on specialized language in their field of study. It was therefore crucial to understand students’ needs and trigger their motivation and enthusiasm. Therefore, the European Language Portfolio (ELP), video recordings, students’ critical thinking and feedback on language activities were the resources provided and strategies used during the course. Each of them contributed to the development of self-awareness in their learning path. In particular, the ELP was the tool they used as a benchmark; video recordings helped them to gain self-confidence and monitor their learning process; critical thinking and feedback on language progress enabled them to focus on their learning process and overall experience. As a consequence, although in the short run the students’ objective was to achieve the final goal of passing the exam (i.e. instrumental motivation), they had the opportunity to acquire specific tools and competences which could be useful in the long run for the pursuit of lifelong learning. The following section will focus on the didactic tools used.

3.1 Video recordings

Video recordings were fundamental for both teaching and learning. Watching videos about students’ fields of interest, cooperation and economic development in this case, allowed them to improve their listening strategies and their ability to reflect on the content of video presentations, seminars, talks and authentic materials. In addition, this led them to broaden their vocabulary, focus on pronunciation and different types of accent in the English language, and seize cultural aspects and values in different contexts. During these lessons, students demonstrated their ability to ask and answer questions about key details, express thoughts, follow rules for discussions, understand and use questions.

However, watching videos did not serve only cultural purposes. Video recordings were also used in order to have a record of their class performances. As a class activity, students could observe themselves and critically analyses their performance in order to explore the language used, identify the possible mistakes made regarding the lexicon used, the pronunciation and the style (e.g. body language, contacts with the interlocutors). This was an excellent way to help them to gain self-confidence, monitor their learning process and become independent learners.

3.2 Critical thinking and students’ perceptions

Critical thinking refers to individuals’ ability to think and make good decisions independently. According to Elder and Paul (1994), critical thinking is the ability of individuals to take charge of their own thinking and develop appropriate criteria and standards for analysing their own thinking. As Brown (2004) states, we believe that the objectives of a curriculum should not be strictly limited to linguistic factors alone, but should also include the art of critical thinking.

Based on these premises, students were strongly encouraged to think critically about their language experiences and analyse their language needs in order to identify appropriate learning methods, and monitor their learning process while reflecting on the topics of their fields of study. This helped them to understand how meaningful language learning can be for them. In small groups, they were encouraged to improve their oral and writing competences through discussions and presentations and the use of authentic material, such as videos, which activated the students’ interests. After watching the videos, students analysed the topic presented, engaged in discussions, shared opinions, and suggested solutions. These practices enhanced their active participation. Moreover, listening to authentic material provided them with key words and advanced language structures they could then internalize and express in both oral and written form. As regards their written production, students were encouraged to share their research proposal drafts, respecting their pace and readiness. This mutual exchange helped them to develop their understanding of concepts and reflect on accurate lexical and syntactic structures. This process contributed to a friendly non-competitive atmosphere and created more proficient learners. Indeed, for the purposes of this study, it was crucial to ask students to provide feedback about their learning experience. Feedback occurred frequently from the beginning of the course. The goal was to provide students with information about how well they performed and also how they could have improved. The combination of their personal feedback and the feedback provided by the teacher or by other students encouraged cooperative learning and helped them to develop both a deeper understanding of academic topics presented in class as well as a better identification of their language needs and improvements. However, the most important feedback was from students’ perspective, i.e. their reflection on their own progress, and classmates’ reflections on one another’s performance which led to co-operative learning.

4.1 Step 1: Goal setting

Students were asked to define a personal goal to be achieved by the end of the course in terms of language competences. This task helped them to increase their self-awareness and, therefore, analyse in depth their needs in order to reach their objectives. Most importantly, it greatly increased their motivation.

 The results of the first step are reported in Figures 2 and 3.

Figure 2:

Results of the goal-setting step – General English.

Figure 3:

Results of the goal-setting step – Academic English.

 As Figure 2 shows, with reference to General skills, 84% of students defined the B1 level in Reading, Speaking (production and interaction) and Writing as their personal goal of achievement. For Listening, 41% identified B2 as the level of competence they would like to achieve. Just 2% of students chose A1 or A2 levels, whereas the remaining 14 percent indicated C1 or C2. Such a high goal for Listening shows on the one hand an initial lack of awareness of how difficult it is to master listening skills, but also highlights, on the other hand, the importance that they assign to a skill which is fundamental for effective communication.

 With regard to Academic skills (Figure 3), most students identified the B2 level as their objective, 5% aimed at the A levels, while 11% indicated the C levels. These data indicate that a great number of students set high targets for themselves at the beginning of the course.

4.2 Step 2: Mid-term self-assessment

The second step was carried out at midterm. The objective of this task was to monitor and analyse students’ learning process, to identify possible problems and provide additional support.

 Mid-term self-assessment is reported in Figures 4 and 5.

Figure 4:

Results of the mid-term self-assessment phase – General English.

Figure 5:

Results of the mid-term self-assessment phase – Academic English.

 Figures 4 and 5 showed that the majority of students evaluated themselves at the B1 level for General skills and A2 level for Academic skills. This indicated that students felt less confident compared to the first data collection, especially in relation to the academic competences. However, these results outlined a more realistic picture of students’ competences and showed that their awareness was gradually developing.

4.3 Step 3: End-of-term self-assessment

The third step was based on students’ end-of-term self-assessment which was correlated to the actual level of competences they were given at the exam. Both General and Academic competences were assessed in the Summer session.

 The results of the final self-assessment are reported in Figures 6 and 7.

Figure 6:

Results of the final self-assessment phase – General English.

Figure 7:

Results of the final self-assessment phase – Academic English.

 Figure 6 shows that most students indicated the B range as the level of competence they believed they had achieved in all skills. In addition, if we observe the difference in self-assessed levels between General and Academic language, we can see that it decreased noticeably when compared to the mid-term assessment. We believe this was due to an increased self-awareness and self-confidence with the self-assessment parameters.

 Figures 8 and 9 illustrate the correspondence between the final self-assessment and the levels achieved at the exams. We wanted to understand if students were able to use the ELP accurately and with full awareness.

Figure 8:

Correspondence between final self-assessed levels and levels achieved at the exams – General English.

Figure 9:

Correspondence between final self-assessed levels and levels achieved at the exams – Academic English.

 With reference to General English competences, it is remarkable that 88% of students, represented with the three shades of green, were able to evaluate themselves correctly (i.e. within a half level higher or lower than the level achieved at the exam). In particular, there was a perfect match for 44% of students. Therefore, only 12% of students assessed themselves incorrectly (i.e. at least a level higher or lower than the one achieved at the exam). For Academic English competences, 80% of students assessed themselves almost correctly. Among these, 41% obtained the same level they had self-assessed, while 20% of students failed to identify their level appropriately. This last result shows that, despite the intensive input that they had throughout the course, a small number of students were not able to carry out appropriate self-evaluation. This may be due to their lack of confidence or to superficial motivation towards learning a language.

4.4 Moving ahead

The overall satisfaction that the students showed about the course experience at the end of the semester reassured us about the objectives that we wanted to reach: a majority of students who would gradually become more aware of their language learning process. We believe nonetheless that a reconsideration of some tools that we offered them during the course would be beneficial. In particular, we thought that it was appropriate to update the descriptors of the Academic English competences of the ELP grid used, based on the suggestions provided by the new CEFR Companion Volume. Particular attention should be paid to the new descriptors for mediation and for building on plurilingual and pluricultural repertoires. As the CEFR states, “the plurilingual approach emphasises the fact that as an individual person’s experience of language in its cultural contexts expands, from the language of the home to that of society at large and then to the languages of other peoples (whether learnt at school or college, or by direct experience), he or she does not keep these languages and cultures in strictly separated mental compartments, but rather builds up a communicative competence to which all knowledge and experience of language contributes and in which languages interrelate and interact” (Council of Europe 2018 section 1.3, 3–4). Learners should indeed be enabled to enhance all of their linguistic and cultural resources in order to fully participate in social and educational contexts. As language professionals, this is what we constantly need to pursue for the benefit of our students.