ɫɫ��

Learning field-specific concepts is often considered a key component of field-specific language proficiency, as vocabulary is the most easily grasped aspect of language (). When introducing the Technology Sector Finnish project, we have often received questions about teaching field-specific vocabulary. In addition to field-specific contexts, learning field-specific vocabulary can benefit students, for example, in adapting to a new work environment (). However, instructors are wondering how to encourage students to learn field-specific vocabulary as part of regular instruction.

I interviewed two Aalto University instructors who have used student-generated glossaries as coursework in a subject course and a field-specific language course. The assignments are based on : the glossaries are not created by the instructor, but by the learners themselves. The interview focused, among other things, on the teaching philosophy behind developing the glossary tasks, how the learning of field-specific vocabulary can be linked to the overall learning objectives of the course, and what technical solutions enable students’ active learning in glossary assignments.

1. What course was your glossary task part of? Could you describe the course briefly?

MEC-E6007 is essentially a lab course, where students are introduced to the principles of mechanical testing of materials, get hands-on experience with a few representative test methods, and learn critical thinking about mechanical testing: how do you go from a question that can be anwered with results from mechanical testing to planning an appropriate test or test campaign, and how do you critically interpret the results?

2. What need did the glossary task fulfill? What motivated you to design it? 

Materials are all around us. We touch and feel materials all the time. We expect materials to be fit for the purpose of mechanical functions, to such an extent that we rarely think about basic mechanical functioning like not breaking or not deforming too much. As a result, the terminology of mechanical properties of materials is widely used colloquially, not just for mechanical functions of materials or objects; for example we talk about people being strong, soft, weak, or tough mentally as well as physically. But in the context of mechanical testing, this vocabulary has a specific technical meaning, and for accurate communication and critical thinking about mechanical testing it is essential to be precise in how the relevant technical vocabulary is used. Reflecting on the accuracy of translations in a technical context is one way to engage with that issue of precise meaning of words in one context, when those words are also used —correctly— with less precision in other contexts. 

There is also a more personal motivation, related to my own engagement —or lack thereof— with the national languages in the country I have settled in. For better of for worse, my spouse and I have not needed to learn Finnish or Swedish at all for our work, and managed well enough with English in our daily lives outside work too. Learning Finnish felt like it would benefit me more outside work than it would benefit my work, so it felt wrong to prioritise learning Finnish over my work. Or rather, it felt like it would only be after I became as fluent in Finnish as my Finnish colleagues and students are in English, that I would have use of it. Around the same time as I started planning the course, I decided that this is a self-fulfilling prophesy, and I have the power to include some multilingual content in my English-language teaching. My Finnish colleagues and students have been more than happy to meet me where I am at in learning the language, and help me take even small steps towards using Finnish and Swedish more. Making this glossary task a student activity, rather than creating a glossary with vetted translations myself, is an effort to reciprocate the willingness to take small steps towards using the national languages. 

3. What were the learning outcomes for the glossary task, and how did they relate to the learning outcomes of the overall course? 

The task is too small to really result in knowing a significant amount of vocabulary. The Finnish students in the course already have a thorough knowledge of the technical vocabulary in their field. Many of the international students have almost none. The primary learning outcome is affective: to develop an appreciation of the delicacy of accurate language generally in technical writing, and accurate translations specifically. On a micro- level, it exercises critical thinking about mechanical testing when students assess the accuracy of translations of the specific technical terms they chose. On a macro- level, multilingual competences are an important transferable skill for working life. If nothing else, after completing the task the students know that there exist resources for finding domain-specific translations of technical terms. 

4. What were the students required to do in the task (step by step)? Were the students given any alternative ways to complete the task?

Students are required to pick 6 technical terms to translate, that are in some way relevant to the content of the course. Then, for each of those terms, they need to find a multilingual reference in Finnish, Swedish, and English or two bilingual references for any two distinct pairs of those languages, providing reliable translations of the term in an appropriate context. Assessing the reliability of the translations and the appropriateness of the context is the most challenging part of the task. Finally, they make a glossary entry on MyCourses for each term, with an explanation of the term in English, the Finnish and Swedish translations, a link to the reference, and any discussion of nuances or difficulties they wish to highlight in these translations. 

5. What technical tools were used in the task, and how did these tools enable active learning?

The task is deliberately designed so that machine translation is not sufficient to complete the task. For that matter, expert translation by a human is not sufficient either. Students are free to use whatever resources they like, that enable them to actively engage with the context of the translation to verify that it is an accurate translation in a context appropriate to the course. Most students used resources like IATE <> (the European Union’s terminology management system), or the Finnish termipankki.fi for the translations. These sources explicitly address the context of the translation, and often provide links to usage of the term in context. Some students chose documents that are directly from the technical field and incidentally provide translations, such as technical standards translated by standards bodies or data sheets or product brochures from multinational companies based in Finland that provide those documents in multiple languages. 

6. How was the task assessed? How did the assessment of this task relate to the overall assessment in the course?

The task is graded pass/fail, and needs to be completed before students can submit —or even see the detailed instructions for— the case study they do in lieu of an exam as the summative assessment at the end of the course. To complete the task, they need to make 6 accepted entries. Entries are accepted if the explanation in English and the provided translations check out. It does take some of my time to manually accept the entries or reach out to the student when entries are not accepted, but investing that time also serves as engagement with my own language learning. 

7. How did the students perform in the task? What kind of discussions did you have around it? What feedback did you get from the students?

It does not seem to be a difficult or time-consuming task for the students. The feedback ranges from resigned acceptance that I wanted to include some multilingual competences in the course, to enthusiastic appreciation that I am trying to close that gap between teaching in the national languages and teaching in English. Occasionally there are lively discussions in class or online about some of the translations.

At the start of the course, I provide explanations and translations of the technical terms in the course title, as a template for the formatting of students’ own entries. That inevitably reveals that I find it interesting how the current usage of the words “mechanical” and “testing” relates to their etymology. It usually also involves a digression with some anecdotes about misunderstandings that resulted from my slightly inaccurate translations of words in Finnish or Swedish when I had just moved to Finland and was overconfident in my learning of the national languages, and that ultimately demonstrate the importance of communicating clearly about mechanical performance of materials and structures. It is always interesting to observe who in the class enjoys such digressions, and who prefers lectures to focus on technical content! 

1. What course was your glossary task part of? Could you describe the course briefly?

The course is Technology Sector Finnish 3, a Finnish language course designed for international students in technology. The course topics include students’ daily life, studies, and the campus environment. In the course, students learn to talk about their daily lives, studies, and learning environments. Students also have the opportunity to network with fellow students (guild members). 

2. What need did the glossary task fulfill? What motivated you to design it?

The students in the course came from a wide variety of technology majors, so it would have been challenging to compile a ready-made technical vocabulary that would be useful for every student. Instead, the students undertook the task as a vocabulary challenge and compiled a list of terms that were important to them and directly related to their studies and field.

Not only did this allow the students to build a relevant vocabulary, but collecting vocabulary also became a routine. To build vocabulary, one must pay closer attention to the language one hears and sees around them. The idea behind the task was for students to increase their own agency in learning and building a vocabulary. The fact that students were able to choose their own sources from which to collect vocabulary was also motivating to them. 

3. What were the learning outcomes for the glossary task, and how did they relate to the learning outcomes of the overall course?

Technology Sector Finnish 3 is the first course for the students in the Technology Sector Finnish project. After the introductory language courses Finnish 1 and 2, this course focuses on topics specific to the technology sector. The introductory courses cover fairly general basic vocabulary, so the leap to discussing one’s own field can be quite big. Of course, the students also share some more general vocabulary that relates to studies and the field, but when they talk about their own studies, they quickly realize the need for a specialized vocabulary.

Since every student has a different focus in their studies, it is more practical for each student to collect relevant vocabulary on their own. At the same time, this forces students to pay more attention to their own language use. Collecting vocabulary becomes a routine, and students' own agency in learning is emphasized. Conducting this work on one’s own is also motivating and rewarding. 

The goal of the vocabulary challenge is directly linked to the learning outcomes of the course, as the course aims to teach students how to talk about their field and their studies. Without the collected vocabulary, the content of the discussions would remain at a much more general level when students are describing their studies. The vocabulary challenge also encouraged students to engage with new vocabulary from the course content and to reflect on the meaning and structure of these terms, as well as their equivalents in other languages. 

4. What were the students required to do in the task (step by step)? Were the students given any alternative ways to complete the task?

Students were required to collect at least 10 new Finnish words each week throughout the course. They also had to translate each word into another language to make it easier to remember them in the future. Many students also wrote example sentences in Finnish. Students were free to choose their own methods and sources. For example, they read field-related news or study materials, listened to lectures and podcasts, watched videos, participated in course chat discussions or their guild’s Finnish-language events, or asked their classmates to teach them new vocabulary. 

Vocabulary lists were submitted to the shared course platform every two weeks. This way, classmates could also see what vocabulary others had collected and learn more new vocabulary. Students could collect vocabulary and submit their final work in any way they chose. The idea was that students could choose the method that best supported their own learning. Some compiled their vocabulary by writing in a notebook, some used various apps, and some made flashcards. The finished vocabulary lists included, for example, drawings, photos, or mnemonic devices to aid memorization. The assignment could therefore be submitted in any format, as long as it contained the vocabulary. 

5. What technical tools were used in the task, and how did these tools enable active learning?

The completed vocabulary lists were submitted to the shared discussion forum on MyCourses, where all course participants could view each other’s word challenges. 

At the beginning of the course, we brainstormed ideas together about possible approaches and tools. Students were then free to decide for themselves what tools they wanted to use for the assignment. Many compiled their vocabulary into various apps that allow them to play memory games with the words they collected. With these different apps, it’s easy to review vocabulary while commuting on the bus, for example.

However, using technology was not mandatory, as some students found that drawing or writing by hand left a stronger mark on their memory. The freedom to choose the tools was based on the idea that students are most likely to complete the task when the tools are ones the student prefers and that best support their learning. Through this task, students can test which learning methods work best for them. Not everyone necessarily wants to use technology to collect vocabulary, as various apps already add to the daily workload. In such cases, writing and drawing in a notebook can be more motivating. 

6. How was the task assessed? How did the assessment of this task relate to the overall assessment in the course?

The assignment was graded on a pass/fail basis. Students received feedback on the assignment every couple of weeks, each time the assignment was due. Students needed to pass the word challenge in order to complete the course. 

7. How did the students perform in the task? What kind of discussions did you have around it? What feedback did you get from the students?

The students put a lot of effort into compiling their vocabulary lists. Some collected more vocabulary than required. Since the assignment was labeled a “challenge,” there was a game-like element, even though it wasn’t a competition against others. However, the students wanted to challenge themselves. 

The vocabulary challenge received a lot of praise in the course feedback. The students liked the assignment because it forced them to pay more attention to the language around them and to establish routines. They were satisfied with the vocabulary they had collected, as it was exactly what they needed. Students commented, for example, that even though the vocabulary they collected had been meaningful to them before, they didn’t necessarily know it in Finnish. The vocabulary challenge forced them to look for exactly these kinds of words. Many wanted to continue the vocabulary challenge on their own after the course ended. 

References

Goals for the curriculum design work: /en/programme-directors-handbook/goals-for-the-curriculum-design-work

Laiho, S. & Ylistalo, E. (2024). Toiminnallisesti kaksikielisen korkeakoulutuksen pedagogisia ratkaisuja. Teoksessa Repo Jamal, H. & Laiho, S. (eds.) Toiminnallisesti kaksikielinen korkeakoulutus - uusia osaajia Suomen työmarkkinoille. Metropolia Ammattikorkeakoulu, pp. 43–47.

Satokangas, H., Tiermas, A. (2021). Mitä muuta tiedonalan kieli on kuin sanastoa? : kuinka lähestyä tiedonalojen kielioppia. Kieli, koulutus ja yhteiskunta. 12(6).