In-depth interviews were conducted with 31 participants, comprising eight stakeholders, 11 facilitator/supervisors, 9 master’s students and three PhD students, one of whom had previously graduated from the master’s programme. Two facilitators, one stakeholder and one student were approached to participate but were unavailable during the study period: one KSPH facilitator was replaced by another KSPH facilitator; one facilitator was no longer working at a participating HEI and could not be reached; one UiB stakeholder could not be reached; one masters student was unable to attend for interview and was replaced by another student. Participants characteristics are shown in Table 1.
All interviews with Kinshasa-based participants (25) were conducted in person at the University of Kinshasa, DRC, in October 2019. South Africa based interviews (3) were also conducted in person during October 2019. Interviews with Norwegian facilitators and stakeholders were conducted as follows: face-to-face (1); via skype (3); by telephone (1) between October 2019 and December 2019.
Table 1: Demographics characteristics of study participants
Students n= 12
|
|
Age (median)
|
39 (IQR=11.5)
|
Gender
|
Male
|
8
|
Female
|
4
|
Occupation
|
Physician / medical doctor
|
9
|
Academic assistant (KSPH)
|
3
|
Level of academic of study
|
PhD / Doctoral degree
|
3
|
Master’s Degree
|
9
|
Partner university who co-supervised the degree
|
UKZN
|
5
|
University of Bergen
|
6
|
No co-supervisor from a partner university
|
1
|
Attended training at partner universities
|
UKZN
|
9
|
UIB
|
3
|
Supervisors/facilitators/stakeholders n= 19
|
Age (median)
|
54 (IQR 12)
|
Gender
|
Male
|
9
|
Female
|
10
|
Role in the project
|
Stakeholder (includes managers at KSPH/UNIKIN/UIB and at Norad, and community leader from Rural site)
|
9
|
Facilitator/supervisor on the GROWNUT programme
|
10
|
Current position
|
Professor/academic staff
|
14
|
Project manager
|
2
|
Director of nutrition (PRONANUT)
|
1
|
Community leader rural research site
|
1
|
Institution in which based
|
UNIKIN
|
11
|
UKZN
|
3
|
UiB
|
4
|
Overall perceptions of the use of English among participants
Stakeholders, facilitators and students expressed mixed feelings about the use of English as the medium of instruction for the nutritional epidemiology teaching programme. English was described by some facilitators and students as being an ‘international language’ and the ‘language of science’ which was perceived as essential to achieve high quality research. Most participants mentioned that using English provided KSPH staff and students with more opportunities to access and interact with the scientific community. This included the opportunity to present research findings at international forums, scientific conferences and authorship of peer-reviewed publications. In particular, one facilitator mentioned that nutrition is not a large field, and most published books and papers are written in English, so that students learning in English were able to access high quality literature.
So, being obliged to follow classes in English and for some of them (students) to write a thesis in English is kind of a good preparation, especially because we want them to be able to conduct independent research. So, for them you cannot be a researcher, you know, without mastering the English language. (Facilitator 3, KSPH)
Furthermore, many students believed that improved English skills would advance their careers as academics or researchers, and this encouraged them to learn the language. It was also mentioned that increasing numbers of job opportunities included English as a requirement.
It was difficult. Different. A challenge. But good experience because now for all jobs that you are looking for they ask [if] you know English. But it is difficult because we are not an English-speaking country. That’s all our problem (Student 4, master’s student)
Another key benefit expressed by participants was that using English allowed for the participation of senior researchers from the partner institutions (UiB and UKZN), who were English speaking and would otherwise have been unable to participate. As a result, staff and students from KSPH could benefit from teaching and mentoring from international partners who were perceived to have high quality skills and competencies.
…An additional advantage was that the course had an English component to it; the courses were facilitated in English due to the fact that there were professors, especially during the first three years of the project, who came from Norway and South Africa. They played a great role through their experience in providing guidance and support through the process of facilitation and supervision. These external facilitators were paired with the local facilitators and that contributed in sharing experiences and in the process, strengthening the school capacity. That was not only a plus for us but also for our students, because it provided an extra motivation to the students to know that they will enrich their English skills in the programme. (stakeholder 4, KSPH)
However, many participants raised concerns about the use of English, stating that it created a barrier to participation for many stakeholders, facilitators and students, such that only those with pre-existing high-level English skills were able to benefit from the GROWNUT programme. Use of English created communication barriers between many of the role players leading to a lack of inclusivity and ownership of the programme at KSPH. Facilitators and managers from Kinshasa who were not confident English speakers were unable to engage with international partners, thus limiting joint planning and decision making across the school, which sometimes undermined the success of the partnership.
Some (facilitators and stakeholders) of them were like just not, like at ease with speaking or interacting in English. You know when you interact, for emails at least you can copy, paste and you have Google translators etc. but talking like this as we do is still an issue here in the School of [public health], Kinshasa for some of the supervisors. (Facilitator 1, KSPH)
Entry requirements for students
Applicants for the new Master in Nutritional Epidemiology programme were informed that English would be the medium for teaching and learning. Applicants undertook an entry examination which programme including an English assessment, however, applicants who performed well overall could be accepted despite performing poorly in the English assessment. Students reported that they were surprised at the use of English because French is the medium of instruction in most educational institutions in DRC. However, they reported that this did not affect their enthusiasm to enrol in the programme, and some students prepared themselves by taking an additional English course ahead of the language examination.
I had to take English classes before attending the programme because I was informed that the course would be taught in English, so I had to prepare myself in advance (student 10, master’s student).
Before beginning their studies, students undertook a two-week (60-hour) course in scientific English and a further 30-hour English course for nutritionists, provided by KSPH to improve their English skills. Most students reported that the duration of the English course was too short for students whose English was poor, and did not adequately equip them with required skills to understand and participate during classroom teaching.
We have two courses here in English, I think this is a joke, you cannot learn English in two weeks and become fluent, no. What is the aim of this, sometime we are talking … you know your English course, just spelling banana or potato, we are joking [about it] but that is the message, we have to keep English but we have to change the strategies. (Student 12, PhD student)
Teaching and learning in English
In the teaching and learning environment, the requirement to use English as the medium language was very challenging for both students and facilitators. Students reported that they struggled to understand what was being taught in class, including both the language and the concepts. This was particularly challenging when being taught by international facilitators, who often spoke very fast, used technical terms, sometimes with a particular accent, and did not fully consider that students were not used to the language.
The negatives of the method are that sometimes English becomes a challenge to understand and if one does not know how to ask for an explanation, the professor will assume that everything is clear and will continue. Sometimes you are present but miss some points (Student 6, master’s student).
In addition, the language barrier limited the interaction between students and facilitators and reduced student participation during classroom teaching. Many students lost confidence expressing themselves in English early in the programme, with some reporting that they spent the whole day in class without understanding anything of what was taught.
Sometimes you are asked a question in English but you do not respond because you did not understand what the question is about and sometimes you have answers but you do not know how to speak (student 10, master’s student).
Some facilitators expressed concern that the language barrier prevented students from gaining the required knowledge. The requirement to understand academic content at master’s level while also learning in a new language placed a double burden on students.
With poor language knowledge and it has contributed to low performance of the students because they are trained in a language that they are not mastering. (Facilitator 9, KSPH)
Concerns around students’ performance were raised by facilitators, who stated that poor English language skills may have caused students to underperform academically. Facilitators felt that some students did not fully understand the language, as a result some failed the subject or produced poor quality work. One facilitator stated that it was difficult to determine the reason for the poor results
In Kinshasa they faced a lot of challenges, those students, in particular they were asked to write in English and to learn in English, which was like their fourth language. Many students struggled with that, making it quite difficult to tell whether the poor quality of some of the students’ work was related to poor understanding, maybe poor teaching, or whether it was simply that the language barrier was too great and people were not able to get over that. I think we did a very good job at identifying challenges, making plans to try and overcome those challenges (Facilitator7, UKZN)
In order to address concerns about students’ understanding of English, those facilitators who were able to speak both languages used both English and French when teaching, which made it easier for students and facilitators to engage about the subject. One facilitator stated that when he was teaching a difficult module, English added more pressure on students as they had to master both the language and the subject, so the facilitator used both English and French when teaching, and allowed students to speak in French.
I am teaching [name of subject]. As you know, to start with, this is a subject most people do not like because it is difficult. So it is, per se, even if it is taught in the language that you master, it is difficult. So, adding to that a different language, you know, it just makes more difficult. So, what I was doing was ok, I would start speaking in English, ask if they have understood. If they do not, ok, I would not hesitate to translate into French, make sure that they really grasp the concept of what we are about to do. (Facilitator 3, KSPH)
English was a challenge for KSPH-based facilitators who were responsible for teaching some modules, but were unable to speak English and therefore conducted their lecturers in French.
Personally, I was not teaching in English, as I said I am not fluent in English. However, one could have PowerPoint slides in English, as some concepts cannot be easily translated into French. So, the only option then is to use the slides in English but speak in French (Facilitator 4, KSPH).
Teaching in French was considered a backwards step by some facilitators who taught in English. As one facilitator stated, facilitators teaching in French adversely affected the progress of students learning English. For the first two years of the programme international facilitators travelled to the DRC for collaborative teaching with local facilitators to assist with conducting classes in English. However, this stopped when political unrest prevented travel, thus reducing the modules that could be taught in English
The challenge is to keep the use of English all the way through the program, because as I was saying some colleagues were reluctant to use English, although in the selection of the teachers we were selecting the teachers because of their practise of English. (Facilitator 8, KSPH)
Supervision and thesis writing
Most students had two supervisors, a main supervisor from KSPH and a co-supervisor from an international partner institution. Use of English during the research component and for thesis writing was viewed both positively and negatively by students and supervisors. Students felt that having both an English and French speaking supervisor was beneficial for them and allowed them to practice both spoken and written English. Local supervisors provided a bridge and supported students with the challenges of communicating with international supervisors.
It helped me, it helped me too much. One supervisor was a French speaker, the other one an English one, we had to write our thesis in English, you see. So, I was like in the middle and having two information’s, English and French, so it was helpful. (Student 11, master’s student)
Communicating by email with international supervisors was a challenge and most students would have preferred face-to-face supervision. However, email communication did provide a further opportunity to practice reading and responding to supervisors’ comments in English.
There were some students who experienced face-to-face interaction with the international supervisor and gained more exposure to the language. This was particularly mentioned by PhD students who had the opportunity to spend time in English-speaking countries and were able to improve their English skills through their interaction with the co-supervisor and spending time in an environment where English was a dominant language.
Secondly, the English language, before I could not speak English fluently. I gained more experience. I have been in South Africa twice … During this time, I improved my English skills. To me English language is important and if today I can speak, it is because I went to South Africa. (Student 9, PhD)
Although writing their thesis in English was difficult, being able to publish manuscripts from the thesis opened learning and career opportunities for PhD students.
Before this program I used to do everything in French as you can imagine, from my elementary school to university, in the DRC we use French as the official language. When I enrolled in this course, we had to do it in English now, publishing, everything is in English. I had to publish first four papers in English for the peer review, I was obliged myself to increase my English skills, my writing, speaking … I am using this skill to do other things with some others at university. (Student 12, PhD).
A concern expressed by students and supervisors was that writing in English increased the time taken for students to complete their thesis, delaying graduation for some students. Further, the language compromised the quality of students’ work as they failed to express their ideas clearly and coherently. At times supervisors reported being unable to determine whether the poor quality was related to poor language skills or poor quality of the work. Poor writing skills also added pressure to supervisors’ work.
I was spending hours and hours on the language itself, you know, the things that they write, you have to fix them … So, it blocks me so I cannot read, and I have to make sure that that is corrected. So, for those who are using English for the first time to write a dissertation, you know, that level of work, so that is a big challenge. Even when we have gone through all that, it is always necessary to have like editing resources. (Facilitator 3, KSPH)
Writing a thesis in English proved difficult for some students. Of the total 40 students who completed the programme, six were unable to write their dissertation in English and wrote in French.
I can’t say that I have got all words in English or all information in grammatic ways to write a sentence in English, it was not that easy for me to get all those sentences in English. Yes, this was a negative point because we are not English speakers, we have to write it, a thesis is a book, we have to write it in a language that we are not really comfortable in. (Student 11, master’s student)
A common view among facilitators and supervisors was that the aim of encouraging students to learn and understand English was so that they could develop skills to enable them to publish their work. Although students were able to improve their writing skills with the support of their supervisors and write their dissertations in English, the quality of English writing was inadequate to write for publication. Further support for writing skills would be needed for research to be publishable.
We want them to be able to publish an article, at least from the dissertation itself. So, getting to that level, you know, for them is really difficult but, you know, they have to do it. They have to do it because they are being trained not only to be nutritionists or [inaudible] but also to be researchers, to write, to communicate in writing (Facilitator 3, KSPH)
Participants’ recommendations
Students and facilitators requested extending the English course from two weeks to include language teaching throughout programme, and to increase exposure of students to an English-speaking environment. It was suggested that more visits from international facilitators as well as regular visits to English-speaking countries would increase exposure to the language and improve their English language skills. In addition, participants suggested more workshops for students and academic staff together with international institutions for skills development in scientific writing.
A common view among participants was that the programme could have made greater use of bilingualism, using both English and French to minimize challenges of the language barrier. This was frequently emphasized by students, facilitators and supervisors who reported that the bilingual system worked for them and it would be of benefit for GROWNUT programme to implement it.
” The issue of language, maybe I am, this is my opinion, I am of the opinion that they can use both languages, that a professor can teach English and French. So, it is good rather than saying only English or only French.” (Facilitator 3, KSPH)