11. How fluent in English, or any other languages used in class, were the student participants (use informal criteria)?
ACMT students’ English skills range from nearly fluent to intermediate. English language is always a challenge/barrier for a few ACMT students in every course, particularly in formal writing, and academic reading. However, they are fully accustomed to conducting their academic work in English.
All of students were fluent in English
All of the ESC and UVIC students were fluent in English. Many of the UVIC students also speak French; however their fluency varies from fully bi-lingual to elementary proficiency.
All of the students were very fluent in English.
All students were fluent in English from each institution.
All students were fluent in English. At TTU one of the students was Japanese. His English comprehension was excellent, but his spoken accent was thick, and this led to some difficulties in his being comprehended by others in both seminars. And the Germans, as non-native speakers, would make the occasional mistake. / Not all of the German students actually studied English - there was a PhD student from physics and a PhD student from anthropology who joined because they were interested in the topic and the international form, but their English was also quite acceptable.
All students were very fluent in English. Linguistic differences never seemed to become problematic. If anything, differences in communication styles and/or nonverbal communication were more impactful.
At UB, the students in my class were for the most part multilingual, with varying degrees of fluency in each language. / At CCC, the primary language is English and I don’t believe they had much familiarity with other languages in general
Different depending on the students, but between ADVANCED HIGH and INTERMEDIATE LOW in ACTFL(Japanese).
Fluent enough to fully participate in scaffolded activities, but perhaps not enough to confidently participate in spontaneous activities.
From our oral/aural assignments, we could gather that speaking/listening fluency of Ashesi students was adequate but varied from proficient to struggling. Reading was a different matter - our impression was that students had not been exposed to lengthy texts with a heavy emphasis on critical studies and theory (whether in English or another language). Even though Ashesi had more stringent objectives and requirements for writing, only ⅓ of Ashesi’s class contributed regularly and in depth to our weekly online writing activities.
Good / ULPGC : students were fluent in English (level B2 within the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages).
KGU; many students were false beginners (ESL terminology) though about 45% were comfortable with English as second language. All SJSU students were fluent in English
Most students were very fluent, again at UTEP may 2-4 students per class lacked some proficiency in the English language. At VU (Liberal Arts), most students had a good command of English. However the students articulating into Liberal Arts from the ESL courses lacked confidence in speaking and writing English. For me this was a interesting situation as the collaboration required students to independently upload posts and comments to the site. I instituted a private email editing service for these students, whereby students emailed me with their draft posts and ideas. This turned out to be a confidence building exercise and soon enough, these same students began independently posting.
Primary language of all participants
Russian students were proficient in English, but this is their second language, although Russian students were working to perfect their English literacy skills. We provided Brockport students with some basic Russian greetings to use in communication, but Brockport students were 100 percent reliant on English.
Students at Mason are English speakers; those at HSE had moderate English language skills.
Texas Tech students had little, if any, familiarity with the Korean language. One student had a Korean high school exchange student in her home, which provided some assistance, but for the most part, Texas Tech students could not speak or read Korean. /MyongJi students are not good to communicate perfectly with others in English. All of the university students in Korea, had been learned English from middle school. English had been taught by grammar oriented to pass the examinations not actual or practical. But many of them are some experiences to study abroad in a short time to learn English.
The student participants were fluent in English.
UC: fluent in English, although first languages for two were Arabic and Farsi and some had second languages (French, German, Japanese) / UDLAP: most fluent in English (Spanish was first language for most, English the first language for a couple)
Varied but in general it was good.
Very fluent as students were international students from all over the world at the Galapagos Institute program.