Poster Presentation

Science English/Lab – a Hybrid-Type
Course in Entry-Level Scientific andTechnical English for STEM Majors

Michael Sharpe
Kochi National University
This paper outlines a ‘semi-ESP’ course delivering basic scientific/technical English for
1st year engineering undergraduates at Kochi University of Technology (KUT). Course
content is introduced through a hybrid of paper-based and digital media and reinforced
through practical project work. Primary objectives for the course are to mediate between
what KUT learners can do with English when commencing their university studies, andwhat they eventually need to be able to do with English as engineering graduates.

In Japan, science and engineering undergraduates often matriculate with only alimited proficiency in general English. Finding ways to mediate between theirlevels of competence at entry and departure points on content-focused English
Language programs is therefore an ongoing challenge for curriculum designers
at many engineering colleges. At some colleges the solution is to provide an
entry-level course focused on developing “common-core skills” in scientific andtechnical English (Dudley-Evans, 1997). Such courses are often labeled ‘semiESP’ because they do not fit comfortably within the traditional parameters of
ESP. Neverthless they exemplify an idea that is central to ESP: that there will bedifferent solutions to the problem of matching course design and approach to
students needs.
Several approaches to teaching semi-ESP have been reported in the literature(Nakamura et al, 2004; Al-Busaidi, 2014). This paper describes a semi-ESP
course that is used for 1st year engineering undergraduates at Kochi Universityof Technology. This course combines a project-based methodology with a172

Science English/Lab, OnCUE Journal, 9(2), pages 172-180‘hybrid’ (Garnham and Kaleta, 2002)means of delivery. In the first section of thispaper the principal features of the course are outlined. This is followed by a brief
overview of the main pedagogical theories supporting project-based learningand e-learning, and a summary evaluation of the course in meeting learner needs.
The concluding section begins with a summary of findings, ending with somecomments on future trajectories.

Syllabus Overview

Currently, the KUT course has two components, Science Lab (SE) and Science
English (SL), which are taught over consecutive eight-week quarters in twiceweekly sessions. Six native speaker (NS) instructors teach the course to 11
separate mixed groups of ~35 students.
The course syllabus is a multi-syllabus encompassing functional, task-based
and grammar elements. Content is delivered via textbook (Daniels, P. 2013.
Science English: Communication Skills for Scientists and Engineers), Apple
IPods and a Moodle Course Management System (CMS)-based e-learning
environment. All course materials are produced by the course administrator,
although some programming work for digital content is outsourced.
Throughout, the focus is on 4-skills work that aims to build a foundationof knowledge in the basic descriptive structures used in scientific discourse.
The hope is that learners will then be able to revise and extend this knowledge
in 2nd, 3rd and 4th year elective courses, and in the graduate level ‘Technical
Writing’ courses. The means by which they acquire this knowledge is by firstly
doing textbook/IPod-based language-learning activities in the classroom, thenapplying the language learned to complete a series of lab-based projects. In thisway, scaffolding in grammar and vocabulary provides pre-task preparation for
the assessed project work.
The six main units in SE/SL (Tables 1 & 2) are structured around individual,
pair and group writing, speaking and listening activities (question/answer,
information exchange, gap fill etc). In each unit, text-based language activities
are reinforced through IPod based activities (flashcards, vocabulary quizzes,
listening quizzes). Each unit concludes with a unit mini-project, and a test. In
173

SharpeTable 1
Syllabus Outline, Science English Component*
Science English (Weeks 1 – 8)
Unit

Themes & Content

Lab-based project

1. Describing People
and Places(S) Personal bios: Age,occupation, hobbies, family,interests etc(L) Cloze ex. Bill Gates/Steve
Jobs bios(S) Personal back ground(pairwork)(W) Hometown Data:
Location, Population, area, pop.
density, climate, topography,
industry, local specialities etc.

My Hometown

2. Numbers and Units

3. Describing Shapes
and Dimensions(L) Numbers: Ordinal, decimal,
fractions and percentages.
Cloze ex: Cars in America(W) Units of measurement:
Area, volume, speed, mass anddensity, electricity, length anddistance, energy(W) Symbols: Math and URL(S) Making estimations(pairwork)(W) Machine specifications(W) Shapes: 1D, 2D & 3D
shapes.
(W) Dimensions: Length,
width, height, diameter,
circumference, radius, area
(L) Cloze ex: IPod: Features andFunctions(W) Estimate or Meaure
Mini-project: Describing theappearance of an object

Learners…
a) Create a Powerpoint
presentation describing theirhometown.
b) Present to a small group of
their peers.
c) Record presentation withIPad
Measurement and Estimation
Learners…
a) Listen to audio files via
Moodle to complete
information gap activities.
This information allows them tob) Answer questions about
resource use.
c) Complete measurement tasks(e.g the volume of a box,
or the weight of a coin, thepower consumption of a lightbulb).
d) Solve more complex
problems, such as the savings
one can make by convertingfrom incandescent tofluorescent lighting (numberof points awarded equateswith the complexity of thequestion).

*(L) Listening activity, (S) Speaking activity, (W) Writing activity, (R) Reading activity

174

Science English/Lab, OnCUE Journal, 9(2), pages 172-180
Table 2
Syllabus Outline , Science Lab Component*
Science English (Weeks 9 – 16)
Unit

Themes & Content

Lab-based project

4. Describing Materials(W) Matching object andmaterial(L) Cloze ex: The generalcategories of materials(R) Materials comprehension(W) Made of or made from?
(W) Describing objects(W) Combing sentences

Product Description

5. Describing
FunctionsLearners…
a) Make a PowerPoint
presentation describing a
product they have researched.
b) Present to a small group of
their peers.

(S) Functions crossword
pairwork(L) Cloze ex: Robots and theirabilities(W) Robots comprehension(L) Cloze ex: Inventions
Mini-project: Our Robot

6. Time, Frequency and (L/W) Jim’s/My daily schedule
Amounts(W) Time prepositions(W) Writing questions aboutschedules
frequency phrases(S) Pairwork: Your typical day(L) Cloze ex: Mobile phone use(W) Survey question structure

SurveyLearners…
a) Draft a 4-item survey on
resource use.
b) Collect data from their peersc) Make an Excel-based survey
using data.

*(L) Listening activity, (S) Speaking activity, (W) Writing activity, (R) Reading activity

lab sessions, students recycle language via individual/group projects, which also
incorporate listening, speaking and writing activities.

Discussion

SE/SL is now in its tenth year of service and to date approximately 4000 students
have completed the course. The following section discusses its successes andshortcomings.
The SE/SL design draws on several aspects of cognitive development theory,
most importantly the social constructivist ideas supporting project-based175

Sharpelearning and e-learning introduced by psychologists Lev Vygotsky (1987), Jean
Piaget (1970), Seymour Papert (1973, 1980) and David Jonassen ( Jonassen,
Carr, & Yueh, 1998;Jonassen & Carr, 2000). To add to this theoretical base, thedesigner brought his knowledge of pedagogical research, practical experiences ofteaching language learners, and personal educational experiences. As the course
continues to evolve, the objective will continue be to provide content that canmediate between EGP and ESP, and which is comprehensible, meaningful andmotivating for low-proficiency learners from different disciplines.
With regard to the project-based approach that has been adopted for SE/
SL, Dudley-Evans (1997) suggests that for content-focused courses such amethodology is “especially appropriate”. One reason, he suggests, is that it
is “motivating for students to be in work or study related groups and to study
material that in some way involves their specialist interest”, as this will produce“more efficient and effective learning.” He reasons also that “ESP is most effective
when it makes use of the methodology that learners are familiar with”; therefore,“if learners are studying or working in engineering the ESP course can make useof the problem solving methodology of engineering” (Dudley-Evans, 1997, p. 5).
In this context, the project-based methodology has proven to be generally
successful in both encouraging students to take a more active role in and in giving
meaning to their language studies. This has been confirmed by the generally
positive feedback provided by mid- and end-of term surveys, and comments by
SE/SL instructors.
On the other hand, for some students a proactive approach to learning canbe somewhat unfamiliar. Because they are accustomed to a highly formalized,
passive (teacher-led) style of learning, the need to adapt to the more independentstyle of learning expected in project-based work can be challenging. Also, assummative evaluation is the norm in most Japanese language learning contexts,
the SE/SL method of formative assessment based on a series of smaller projects
must be clarified from the outset. Finally, experience has shown that group-basedtasks can sometimes marginalise learners with weaker language skills, pressuring
them to take a passive role in the learning process.
E-learning, the other major facet of the SE/SL design, is an area of language
176

Science English/Lab, OnCUE Journal, 9(2), pages 172-180

education which has generated considerable interest over the past two decades.
As discussed in the above, the theoretical foundations for SE/SL lie in the social
constructivist ideas pioneered by Vygotsky and Piaget. Advocates have sinceused these theories to argue that technology can help to create an effective
learning environment for the “computer generation” by encouraging a pro-active
approach to learning, and improving “students’ and educators’ self-regulation
skills, in particular their metacognitive skills.” (Vovides, Sanchez-Alonso,
Mitropoulou, & Nickmans, 2007, p. 64).
However, there is sometimes a danger that ‘clever’ delivery can detractfrom the priority, which is to provide quality content. In SE/SL, learningtechnology has been used to good effect because it has been considered a means
rather than an end in itself. On balance, the online component seems to meetmany of the requisites for an effective e-learning environment. It scaffolds thestudents’ autonomy, and encourages their initiative for managing personallearning processes (Vovides et al., 2007) through learner-centred activities, andby emphasising system interactivity. From an instructional perspective, using a
CMS as a delivery platform permits a dynamic approach to course developmentin which adaptations and changes can be made as necessary, bypassing traditional
publishing channels (Daniels, 2008). It also allows instructors to provide quick
feedback, and to administer large classes more easily.
Inevitably, some issues remain. For one, providing students with ready net
access during classtime can detract from focus. Secondly, learners often use webbased machine translations when preparing texts, unconscious to the fact thatthese are error-prone. Information Technology (IT) aptitude among students isvariable; basic computing skills sometimes need to be taught and this has thepotential to impede progress. IT aptitude among teaching staff is also variable
and basic administration skills often need to be taught; currently, only the course
administrator has necessary IT skills to perform essential administration tasks.
Problems including data loss and hardware damage occur as a matter of course.
Furthermore, developing and maintaining the online component of SE/SL iscostly, in terms of outlays on consumables, programming costs, and maintenance.
All these issues must be accomodated. However, currently the biggest issue is177

Sharpethat even ‘semi-ESP’ depends on a basic proficiency, without which “no further
construction can ever be erected” (Viel, 2002, para. 4); in recent years there has
been an apparent decline in English among the undergraduate population, andeven this ‘entry-level ESP’ can be a challenge for some learners.

Conclusion

Currently, there is ‘a broad consensus that ( Japanese) engineers should have a goodcommand of English’ (Okamoto, Yamamoto, Dan, & Fuyuki, 2007). However,while engineering colleges should provide students with opportunities to build
language skills, practicalities often dictate that this must be a linear process,beginning with a ‘semi-ESP’ course. To date course developers have taken several
approaches to the challenge of designing such courses. The innovative approachthat was described in this paper, in which basic scientific language is introduced
through a combination of paper-based and digital media within a project-basedlearning framework, seems to be largely successful in addressing that challenge.

Notes

1. See also Science Challenge – a hybrid-type semi-ESP course at Kochi University ofTechnology. Paper presented at 3rd Annual JALT CUE ESP Symposium – Kanto
2014. (www.kochi-tech.academia.edu/MikeSharpe)

References

Al-Busaidi, S. (2014). Bridging Gaps: The SQU story. Paper presented at
Shinas College of Technology National ELT Workshop: ESP in ELT:
Bridging Gaps, At Shinas College of Technology, Shinas, Sultanate of
Oman. January 9, 2014. Retrieved from http://www.researchgate.net/
publication264424847_Bridging_Gaps_the_SQU_Story.
Daniels, P. (2008). Designing CMS modules to support language learning. The
Journal of the JALT CALL SIG, 4(1), 93-104.
Daniels, P. (2013). Science English: Communication skills for scientists andengineers. Tokyo, Japan: Thomson Learning.
Dudley-Evans, T. (1997). An overview of ESP in the 1990s. In T. Orr
178

Science English/Lab, OnCUE Journal, 9(2), pages 172-180(Ed.),Proceedings of the Japan Conference on English for Specific Purposes (pp.
5-11). Fukushima, Japan: University of Aizu.
Garnham, C., & Kaleta, R. (2002). Introduction to hybrid courses. Teachingwith Technology Today, 8(6). Retrieved from https://hccelearning.files.
wordpress.com/2010/09/introduction-to-hybrid-course1.pdf
Jonassen, D. H., & Carr, C. S. (2000). Mindtools: Affording multiple
knowledge representations for learning. In S. P. Lajoie (Ed.), Computers as
cognitive tools, Vol. 2: No more walls (pp. 165-196). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates. Retrieved from http://web.missouri.edu/jonassend/
Mindtoolschapter.pdf.
Jonassen, D.H., Carr, C., & Yueh, H-P. (1998). Computers as mindtools forengaging learners in critical thinking. TechTrends, 43(2), 24-32.
Nakamura, J., Inoue, N., & Tabata, T. (Eds.). (2004). English corpora underJapanese eyes. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Rodopi
Okamoto, K., Dan, H., Yamamoto, E., & Fuyuki, M. (2007, October).
Consolidative ESP. 2007 IEEE International Professional Communication
Conference,1-6. doi 10.1109/IPCC.2007.4464050.
Papert, S. (1973). Uses of technology to enhance education. AI Lab Memo (No.
298). Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Piaget, J. (1970). Structuralism. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Viel, J.C. (2002). The vocabulary of English for scientific and technologicaloccupational purposes. English for Specific Purposes World, 1(1). Retrieved
from http://esp-world.7p.com/Articles_1/vocabulary.html
Vovides, Y., Sanchez-Alonso, S., Mitropoulou, V., & Nickmans, G. (2007). The
use of e-learning course management systems to support learning strategies
and to improve self-regulated learning. Educational Research Review, 2,
64-74.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1987). The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky: Vol.1, Problems ofgeneral psychology. [Including the volume Thinking and speech]. New York,
NY: Plenum.
179

Sharpe

Author bio

Michael Sharpe is Deputy Director of the International Education Programat Kochi National University. He also teaches English to high school engineering
students at Kochi National College of Technology. Research interests include projectbased learning and the use of text visualisation techniques in the second language
reading classroom. He has a masters degree in TEFL from the University Reading,
U.K. michaelsharpe@kochi-u.ac.jp
Received: November 14, 2014
Accepted: November 13, 2015180