Undirbúningur framhaldsskólanemenda fyrir notkun ensku í háskólanámi : námskrár og nýtt íslenskt málumhverfi

Abstract

Í þessari grein er varpað ljósi á ákveðið misræmi sem myndast hefur milli opinberrarstefnu í kennslu ensku og breyttrar stöðu ensku í íslensku málumhverfi.Rýnt er í nýlegar rannsóknir á stöðu ensku á Íslandi, á viðhorfum íslenskra nemendatil gagnsemi enskunáms í framhaldsskóla og viðhorfum nemenda í HáskólaÍslands til eigin færni til að takast á við námsefni á ensku (Anna Jeeves, 2010;Birna Arnbjörnsdóttir og Hafdís Ingvarsdóttir, 2010). Þær rannsóknir gefa vísbendinguum að um þriðjungur nemenda eigi í erfiðleikum með að skilja námsbækurá ensku í háskólanámi en um 90% námsefnis á háskólastigi er á ensku.Í þessari rannsókn er reynt að varpa frekara ljósi á þann undirbúning sem nemendurfá í framhaldsskólum. Í þeim tilgangi eru skoðaðar áherslur og inntak áfangaí ensku í tveimur aðalnámskrám og fjórum nýlegum skólanámskrám, einkum meðtilliti til áherslu á akademíska ensku. Í ljós kemur að hvorki í aðalnámskrá frá 1999né 2011 er lögð sérstök áhersla á að undirbúa nemendur fyrir lestur námsefnis í há-skólanámi. Í nýjum skólanámskrám eru hins vegar áfangar þar sem lögð er áherslaá markvissan undirbúning af þessu tagi.Höfundar telja að meiri áhersla þurfi að vera á akademíska ensku í framhaldsskólumog að slík enska eigi jafnvel heima á fjórða hæfniþrepi en ekki því þriðjasem er hæsta hæfniþrep fyrir erlend tungumál samkvæmt núgildandi námskrá.Þá er bent á að gera þurfi skýrari greinarmun á færni til að lesa fræðigreinar ogbókmenntatexta og að mikil áhersla á efri stigum á bókmenntir geti verið á kostnaðannars konar textategunda (e. genre). Einnig er sett fram sú spurning hvort ekkiþurfi að setja ákveðnari og skýrari viðmið en nú er um færni í ensku til að hefjaháskólanám á Íslandi og erlendis. Lesþjálfun nemenda á framhaldsskólastigi þyrftiþví að vera markvissari til að undirbúa þá til að takast á við ýmsar gerðir texta semlíklegt er að þeir þurfi að glíma við í námi og starfi.

Findings of recent studies on the status of English suggest that a new linguisticenvironment is emerging in Iceland. The studies uncovered a discrepencybetween the official status of English which is defined as a foreign languageand the reality of the immense, daily English exposure and English use inIceland. The vast majority of Icelanders hear, read and write conversationalEnglish daily which seems to lead to proficiency in informal rather than formalregisters. This seems to lead to an overestimation of English skills as speakersare not aware of the difference in their capacity to receive and comprehendinformal contextualized English, and to what extent they are able to produceEnglish while speaking and writing, especially using more formal registers.This is apparent in recent studies that show that over a third of universitystudents struggle with academic textbooks at the University of Iceland whichare almost entirely written in English and the increased workload working witha second language entails (Birna Arnbjörnsdóttir and Hafdís Ingvarsdóttir,2010). Many students claim that the English they learned in secondary schooladded little to the English they learned outside of school (Anna Jeeves, 2013).This paper will focus on the aspects of these studies that pertain to teachingand learning English at the secondary level, particularly with regard topreparation for English for use at university. The paper describes a follow -upstudy focusing on to what extent current national and school curriculumguidelines are in line with the needs of Icelandic students and their identifieduse of English in a new linguistic context in Iceland. Some inconsistencieswere identified. The first part of the study examined the National CurriculumGuidelines for English in Secondary Schools that took effect in 1999 and 2011.There is little reference in these Guidelines as to how courses should preparestudents for university studies in English. Upper level courses seem heavilyfocused on reading and interpretation of literary texts. The National CurriculumGuidelines from 2011 are based on proficiency scales and learning outcomesrather than descriptions of individual courses, the content of which are left toschools. This Curriculum is very general and open to interpretation, especiallythe highest, third level.As convention has it, there seems to be an overemphasis on literary genres atthe upper levels. An examination of four school curricula based on the generalGuidelines from 2011 does little to disspell this notion. One of the schools waschosen especially as it served as a curriculum development site for the secondarysystem in accordance with the 2011 Guidelines. The four schools offercourses with the stated aim of preparing students for academic studies, but yetagain there is an overrepresentation of literature at the expense of othergenres. The authors express concern that university students are not gettingenough preparation in formal academic English and call for further studies ofwhether students lack of familiarity with academic genres are exclusive toEnglish or whether they are symptomatic of a larger issue namely that studentsare not adequately prepared to tackle academic genres in any language.The overall implications are that the preparation of students may need to berefocused to include familiarity with the variety of genres, in English andIcelandic that they will encounter in their tertiary education and the workforce.This reexamination may be approriate as secondary education is being reducedto three years. The authors also call for a reexamination of teacher developmentand more support for working teachers to refocus their syllabi to bettermeet the needs of the growing number of students who go on to tertiaryeducation.