Challenges of Interdisciplinary University Programs of Studies: The Case of English in Public Communication

Chapter
Part of the Second Language Learning and Teaching book series (SLLT)

Abstract

The aim of this study is to track students’ self-assessed successes and failures after taking courses in English in Public Communication (EPC) at the University of Opole. This interdisciplinary BA program combines philological, sociological and public communication courses. Using the data from 204 surveys, the study compares the calculated mean scores for the achievement of “new knowledge,” “new skills” and “new social competences” within two groups of subjects: core curriculum courses and practical English courses as declared by the first- and second-year students of EPC. Results show that there are clearer self-recognized knowledge gains, but consistently lower degrees of confidence when it comes to new skills or new social competences. In addition, students have higher sense of success with respect to their English proficiency, while they do not seem to profit too much from some of the core curriculum subjects. The findings of the study are discussed in the context of the current constructivist and critical paradigms in tertiary education in Poland and indicate that, to face the challenges inherent in interdisciplinary programs, the dominant metaphor of “learning as acquisition” must give way to competence-based instruction that follows from the model of “learning as participation in a community of practice” or “learning as knowledge-building.”

Keywords

Interdisciplinary study programs Self-assessment Social competences Metaphors for learning 

References

  1. Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  2. Bereiter, C. (2002). Education and mind in the knowledge age. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  3. Council of Europe. (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching and assessment. Retrieved from http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/cadre1_en.asp
  4. Fairclough, N. (Ed.). (1992). Critical language awareness. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  5. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
  6. Freire, P. (1974). Education for critical consciousness (D. Goulet, Trans.). London: Sheed and Ward.Google Scholar
  7. Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  8. Giroux, H. A. (1988). Teachers as intellectuals: Toward a critical pedagogy of learning. Westport, CN: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
  9. Giroux, H. A., & Freire, P. (1987). Series introduction to critical pedagogy and cultural power. Basingstoke: Macmillan Education.Google Scholar
  10. Kanpol, B. (1994). Critical pedagogy: An introduction. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.Google Scholar
  11. Kurtes, S., & Kopytowska, M. (2014). The role of education in identity (construction): Implications and application. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics, 10(1), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Marlowe, B., & Page, M. (2005). Creating and sustaining the constructivist classroom. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press Inc.Google Scholar
  13. Molek-Kozakowska, K. (2010). A knowledge society or a knowledgeable society? The role of the humanities in the fostering of knowledge through critical literacy. Polish Journal of Philosophy (Conference Proceedings Series), 1, 33–46.Google Scholar
  14. Molek-Kozakowska, K. (2013). How to foster critical literacy in academic contexts: Some insights from action research on writing research papers. In E. Piechurska-Kuciel & E. Szymańska-Czaplak (Eds.), Language in cognition and affect: Second language learning and teaching (pp. 95–110). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Molek-Kozakowska, K. (2015). Dyspozycja krytyczna jako komponent refleksyjności językowej na poziomie akademickim [Criticality as an element of linguistic reflectivity in tertiary education]. In M. Baran-Łucarz (Ed.), Refleksja w uczeniu się i nauczaniu języków obcych [Reflection in foreign language learning and teaching] (pp. 97–111). Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego.Google Scholar
  16. Moore, K. A., Lippman, L. H., & Ryberg, R. (2015). Improving outcome measures other than achievement. American Educational Research Association’s Open Journal, 1(2), 1–25. doi: 10.1177/2332858415579676.Google Scholar
  17. Moskowitz, G. (1978). Caring and sharing in the foreign language classroom. Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.Google Scholar
  18. Paavola, S., Lipponen, L., & Hakkarainen, K. (2004). Models of innovative knowledge communities and three metaphors of learning. Review of Educational Research, 74(4), 557–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, 27(2), 4–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Stanley, W. (1992). Curriculum for utopia: Social reconstructionism and critical pedagogy in the post-modern era. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  21. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of OpoleOpolePoland

Personalised recommendations