Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Cultural Variability: Teacher Development in a Translation Studies Department in Finland. (Language Teaching & Learning)

2001; Rapid Intellect Group; Volume: 5; Issue: 3 Linguagem: Inglês

1096-1453

Johan Franzon, Mike Garant, Leena Immonen,

Second Language Learning and Teaching

Abstract The University of Helsinki Translation Studies Department in Kouvola teaches translation from English, Russian, German and Swedish into and out of Finnish. This paper will report on a teacher cooperative development action research project that aimed to enhance effectiveness in our department. Teacher informants from Swedish, Finnish and English language sections met for two terms and discussed their first-year written communications courses based on student portfolios, student feedback and teacher reflective discussions. Results suggest that on a broad scale, similar texts can he approached at similar periods within the term across the language sections. However, exact equivalence in text types is problematic. This change of approach also served as a useful way of strengthening cooperation among written communication instructors within our department. Teachers from the various sections had different feelings and impressions toward their courses that were probably influenced by their cultural backgrounds. This study suggests that such cultural difference should be taken into account when planning and administering departments with multicultural personnel. ********** Introduction The drive to improve university based teaching and learning in recent years has taken on a new momentum in Finland. This has taken a variety of forms including internal and external audits, large-scale learner and teacher surveys and other methods of improving the education process. The University of Helsinki is no exception. On a global level, the Programme for the Development of Teaching and Studies at the University of Helsinki 2001-2003 states: Teaching practices and methods, as well as examination practices, will be reassessed at all levels. At the same time, teaching contents, methods and scheduling will be coordinated so that studies can progress efficiently and the student workloads are evenly distributed during the academic year. This will require increased cooperation between teachers, and between teachers and students, when planning and implementing instruction. (Anon. 2000, 25) At the departmental level where strategies are implemented, officially stated goals do not always reflect what actually takes place. In reality, there is a growing tendency toward funding individual departments based on their graduation rate and research production, especially the number of Ph.D. graduates from each academic department: every department must produce at least one doctoral thesis per year or forfeit a substantial amount of their overall funding. More concretely, in departmental budgets for the year 2001 within the University of Helsinki Faculty of the Humanities, departments either gained or lost approximately 300,000 Finnish Marks or about 50, 000 US Dollars per doctorate. In contrast, a MA degree was worth only 30,000 Finnish Marks or about 5,000 US Dollars and BA degrees did not count at all for funding. Although there is increasing emphasis on graduation rates and doctoral production, almost no emphasis has been given to changing basic courses which integrate the students into the university and influence retention rates and, eventually, provide future scholars for graduate study. This has tended to lead to a feeling of powerlessness among junior faculty who are not involved in Ph.D. supervision but are still affected by the results or lack of results on the senior level. The administration's intentions are clear but it is difficult to see how their method of implementation can enhance cooperation between teachers and concern for students other than those pursuing a doctoral studies. This top-down number-based approach to improvement is discussed widely in Finland at the moment. Opposing forces within the university quality control systems contribute to mixed messages for students and the faculty who teach them. Superb departmental research means nothing to incoming students who are unhappy with their first-year courses. …