One of the major cornerstones of this project is language and how that can affect the learning of students within a technical space. Since working as a technician at LCC, I have had to reexamine my own use of language and adapt my teaching to facilitate to the diverse body of students that go to the university. Words that I may hear and use everyday will be completely new to most people, especially international students and those whose native language may not be English.
This got me thinking… I need to reflect on my own positionality and put myself in their shoes to fully understand how to teach them effectively. I thought about how I could do this and something that came to mind was to create a glossary of terms of workshop specific vocabulary and then understand how these terms could be perceived by others. I looked around the workshop, focusing on the laser cutting room where I teach, and started noting down common phrases, key words, technical language and anything I deem specific to the space. In the end I came up with 20 words that I felt were specific for the space and compiled them onto one sheet to see them altogether (see fig 1). Creating the glossary was one thing but looking at the words from a student’s point of view was another. I re-examined the words to find alternative meanings, homophones, synonyms, acronyms and any other artefacts that may affect the learning of a student.
The results were very interesting, each word had at least one alternative meaning with most words having multiple meanings or differing translations. For example, the word ‘Score’, within the context of the workshop and laser cutting it means to lightly mark a material using the laser cutter. After inspecting it further I realised it could mean ‘to score a goal’ in sports, ‘to score high in a test’ or to ‘score a date with someone’. The type of action is also referred to as ‘etching’ in print making practices or ‘marking the surface’. These multi-faceted meanings can be confusing and therefore need to be thought about more within the workshop context. “Technical terms often use language that carries a meaning in everyday language” (M.S. Gleßmer & A. Brose, 2014). Assuming everyone understands technical language isn’t a fair method of teaching and the delivery of language should be adapted to ensure the highest level of learning is able to take place.
From doing this investigation, I have thought about methods for helping avoid miscommunication and misunderstanding surrounding language use. These involve:
- Having accessible examples of processes in the workshop to give a visual reference for the terminology e.g. examples of scoring, cutting, engraving etc.
- Ensuring the instructor checks in with the student at regular intervals to see if they understand the terms being used.
- Creating a glossary of terms that can be displayed within the workshop and online for the students to access in their own time to help understanding.
- The instructor being patient and understanding of differing skillsets and previous knowledge of workshop terms.
Before conducting the experiment, I wasn’t sure how helpful it would be for my teaching but it allowed me to step out of my comfort zone and develop a whole new understanding around the language I use day-to-day with the students, language I took for granted and assumed most people would already know. “Technical terminology, in contrast to high frequency vocab, has to be explicitly and directly taught and is not learned indirectly through everyday contact with language” (L, Alonso & K, Le, 2023). Taking the time to ensure language is understood correctly from the start will save confusion and misunderstanding down the line and is something I want to incorporate in my instructional leaflets.
References
Gleßmer, M.S. & Brose, A. (2014) ‘Misalignment of everyday and technical language’, Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference, IEEE, pp. 1-4. Available at: https://oceanrep.geomar.de/id/eprint/42598/
Alonso, L., & Le, K. (2023). The Language Warriors: Transcending ideologies on bilingualism in education. Action Research, 21(1), 9-29. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476750320931155 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1476750320931155