No abstract

This article explores students' perceptions of inductive and deductive methods of teaching reading in Finnish and Hungarian in a higher education setting. A guided inductive discovery method of reading involves independent work and minimum vocabulary and grammar explanation before the reading assignment is given. A deductive pre-taught method involves grammar, vocabulary and content explanation before a text is read. Structured focus group interviews revealed that the advantages of the discovery method, i.e. guided inductive reading, are that it helps to maintain curiosity, enhances memorisation, encourages independent and active learning, and prepares for real-life reading situations. The deductive pre-taught method, on the other hand, feels safe and helpful, can keep one's confidence up, saves time and effort for other language-learning tasks, and ensures a correct understanding of the text. The interviewees wanted to be given information about which grammar to expect in advance, some felt the same way about vocabulary. They were not always aware of the difference between the two approaches. By using both methods the teacher can help to maintain motivation and cater for different student preferences. Mixing methods also reflects how we treat information in real life. There appears to be no ideal method in teaching L2 reading: both methods have their advantages and disadvantages from the students' point of view. Explicit instruction is crucial for reading development either before or after a text is read.

Finland, like most European countries, is going through a period soul-searching unprecedented in the 21 st century. Nationalist populism, with its claim to a somehow authentic Finnishness has been a serious political force from the beginning of the second decade, prompting regular and fierce debates about national identity. The original English name of the populist Perussuomalaiset party, 'True Finns', is only a more explicit version of their current name, 'The Finns'. The refugee crisis of 2015 has only exacerbated the situation by hardening the public discourse, with participants from random Facebook commentators to sitting MPs flirting with openly racist language, and making 'debate' a generous term for the cacophony of insult and intellectual entrenchment. While 'identity' as a concept is a new invention, and a reflection of the times of its production (Moran, 2015), it is sensible to argue that for modern Finns and Europeans, the issue of national identity is indeed increasingly an 'inescapable' part of everyday life (Poole, 2003). It is not, however, inescapable because it is somehow transmitted in mother's milk. On the contrary, it is in times of controversy when unquestioned, common sense assumptions about national identity become articulated, negotiated, and challenged. Riffing on Marx, philosophers Alcoff and Mendieta (2003, 3) argue that 'Identity is not in the main an individual affair. Individuals make their own identity, but not under conditions of their own choosing'. We agree, but also emphasise that the conditions in which national identity is constructed are not monolithic, but rather in constant motion. Again, national identity becomes 'inescapable' only in conditions which demand an articulation of it

No abstract

No abstract