TITLE OF THE PAPER. 16 COMPARISON OF TEACHER’S AND STUDENTS’ RANKING OF ENGLISH FOR ACADEMIC PURPOSES SUB-TOPICS Andreas Ahrens1, Jelena Zascerinska2 1Hochschule Wismar University of Applied Sciences Technology Business and Design, Germany 2Centre for Education and Innovation Research, Latvia Abstract. Ranking implemented in the English for Academic Purposes course helps in selecting appropriate sub- topics to be obtained by students. The aim of the present research is to compare teacher’s and students’ ranking of topics of the English for Academic Purposes course delivered to master of engineering students underpinning the elaboration of implications for the advancement of the English for Academic Purposes course. Research methods applied include the use of theoretical as well as empirical methods. Theoretical methods imply analysis of theoretical sources and theoretical modelling. The empirical study was characterized by its explorative nature. The empirical study was based on a survey carried out with 10 engineering master students of the Master programme “Information and Electrical Engineering” at Hochschule Wismar, Germany. The data were interpreted and summarized. The summarizing content analysis allows proposing that the students positively evaluated the majority of the sub-topics of the delivered English for Academic Purposes course. The hypothesis was formulated. Implications for the advancement of the English for Academic Purposes course were identified. Directions of future work were proposed. The novelty of the research is revealed by the formulated hypothesis as well as implications. Keywords: comparison, course advancement, course evaluation, English for Academic Purposes course, ranking, students’ ranking, sub-topics. To cite this article: Ahrens, A. & Zascerinska, J. Comparison of Teacher’s and Students’ Ranking of English for Academic Purposes Sub-Topics. Education. Innovation. Diversity, 1(1), 16-25. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17770/eid2020.1.5328 Introduction Students’ success in knowledge obtaining within a course is primarily ensured by satisfying the students’ needs in knowledge. However, a new knowledge is construed jointly with other learners (Niemi, 2008, p. 12). As, on the one hand, students’ needs vary from year to year as well as from students’ group to students’ group, etc, and, on the other hand, a new knowledge is co-constructed, a course has to be advanced. Consequently, course advancement implies the integration of • the satisfaction of students’ needs in knowledge as well as • students’ participation in knowledge co-creation. Ranking in higher education is implemented for the analysis of quality and productivity (Gonçalves & Calderón, 2017). Ranking refers to a course evaluation used for the advancement of the evaluated course. Another application of ranking deals with making a choice from a number of options or candidates (Tofallis, 2014, p. 118). By ranking, the act of summing up one's judgment of a performance or person into a single, holistic number or score is meant (Elbow, 1994). Ranking tends to emphasise vertical differences between the options or candidates (Marginson & van der Wende, 2007). At the same time, they obscure horizontal differences, differences of purpose and type (Marginson & van der Wende, 2007). The aim of the present research is to compare teacher’s and students’ ranking of topics of the English for Academic Purposes course delivered to engineering master students http://dx.doi.org/10.17770/eid2020.1.5328 17 underpinning the elaboration of implications for the advancement of the English for Academic Purposes course. The present research was of the qualitative nature. The applied research methods included the use of theoretical as well as empirical methods. The theoretical methods implied analysis of theoretical sources and theoretical modelling (Ahrens, Zascerinska, & Melnikova, 2019). The exploratory type of the comparative study was implemented within the empirical analysis. The empirical study was based on a survey carried out with 10 engineering master students of the Master programme “Information and Electrical Engineering” at Hochschule Wismar, Germany. The data were collected via a survey based on the questionnaire. The gathered data were interpreted and summarised. Conceptual Framework Knowledge is the body of facts, principles, theories, practices (Commission of the European Communities, 2006, p. 16) and concepts (Žogla, 2001a, p. 4). Knowledge is conventionally created through the content transmission from educator to student (Niemi, 2008, p. 12). Consequently, the terms “knowledge” and “content” are used synonymously in this work. The dimensions of content in education comprise • content of education (Beļickis, Blūma, Koķe, Markus, Skujiņa, & Šalme, 2000, p. 74), • content of teaching/learning (Žogla, 2001b, p. 96; Andersone, 2007, p. 127) and • subject/discipline content (Beļickis et al., 2000, p. 96). Content is dynamic (Zaščerinska, 2011a, p. 222). The nature of content changes from static transmitted content to knowledge that is ever renewable and often construed jointly with other learners (Niemi, 2008, p. 12). Knowledge creation is socially shared, and emerges from participation in socio-cultural activities (Niemi, 2008, p. 12). As the contents and processes are intermediating (Niemi, 2008, p. 12), content development is of the cyclic nature (Zaščerinska, 2011b). The content development gradually proceeds from teaching in Phase 1 through peer-learning in Phase 2 to learning in Phase 3 as shown in Figure 1 (Zaščerinska, 2011b). Each phase of the process of teaching and learning content is separated from the previous one, and the following phase is based on the previous one (Zaščerinska, 2011b). Figure 1 Phases of the process of content development (Zaščerinska, 2011b) 18 In turn, English for Academic Purposes is defined as content and research integrated studying (Zaščerinska, 2008; Zaščerinska, Aļeksejeva, Zaščerinskis, & Andreeva, 2013). It should be pointed that a course design implies course structuring and planning. A course is structured through the identification of topics. Topics also refer to sequencing the course content. Topics can be divided into sub-topics. The definition of English for Academic Purposes as content and research integrated studying provides us with two main topics to be covered within an English for Academic Purposes course (Zaščerinska, 2008, 2010; Zaščerinska, Zaščerinskis, Andreeva, & Aļeksejeva, 2013): • a subject content (engineering, medicine, nature, etc) and • language research skills. Analysis of other English for Academic Purposes courses reveals the use of the combination of language skills and academic study skills (English Language Institute, 2020). Language skills include listening comprehension, fluency development, oral intelligibility, reading, grammar, writing, and vocabulary development, while academic study skills include test taking and note taking skills, academic vocabulary usage, critical reading and writing, comprehending academic lectures, research and library skills, formal composition forms and development, including research papers (English Language Institute, 2020). Consequently, the proposed definition of English for Academic Purposes as content and research integrated studying (Zaščerinska, 2008) is in full compliance with other researchers’ scientific results on the English for Academic Purposes elements. Further on, the proposed definition of English for Academic Purposes is novel as it includes an innovative element, namely a subject content (engineering, medicine, nature, etc) (Zaščerinska, 2008). This novel definition of English for Academic Purposes allows widening students’ learning opportunities for the students’ use of English for Academic Purposes in both professional and academic environments. Two main topics, namely a subject content (engineering, medicine, nature, etc) and language research skills, include sub-topics as demonstrated in Figure 2. Figure 2 The relationship between English for Academic Purposes, its two main topics and sub-topics The sub-topics for the English for Academic Purposes course were selected based on the authors’ research results reflected in the publications indicated in the list of references and logically introduced by the authors of the present contribution: • Introduction into presentation preparation (Zaščerinska, 2009, p.160), • Academic communication (Gruenwald, Ahrens, Zaščerinska, Melnikova, & Andreeva, 2018; Melnikova, Kuprienė, Jurgaitytė, Zascerinska, & Blažulionienė, 2020), • Passive Voice (Zascerinska, Aleksejeva, Zascerinskis, Gukovica, & Aleksejeva, 2020), • Presentation skills via making three presentations about  Students’ native place. It should be pointed that the topic of students’ native place is selected for the English for Academic Purposes course due to a couple of reasons: students’ presentations skills are conventionally developed, on the 19 one hand, gradually, and, on the other hand, from simple to complex. Presentation of students’ native place is, on the one hand, the first presentation of the proposed three, and, on the hand, it is simple as the place is well known to the presenter. At the same time, both presenting and audience students’ language research skills are still trained.  Biography of an outstanding person (Zaščerinska, Andreeva, & Aleksejeva, 2015). It should be pointed that the sub-topic “biography” is paid attention within the English for Academic Purposes course as, on the one hand, master studies engage students with the initial research activities, and, on the other hand, analysis of researchers’ biographies and students’ own biography building facilitate the development of students’ scientific identity (Zaščerinska, Andreeva, Zaščerinskis, & Aļeksejeva, 2016).  Students’ term/course papers (Zaščerinska, 2010) • Problem Solving (Zaščerinska & Zaščerinskis, 2012) • Information and Ideas • Reading sub-skills • Writing own biography (Zaščerinska, Andreeva, Zaščerinskis, & Aļeksejeva, 2016; Ahrens & Zaščerinska, 2019; Ahrens, Zaščerinska, & Melnikova, 2019; Zascerinska, Aleksejeva, Zascerinskis, Gukovica, & Aleksejeva, 2020). • Academic writing with the focus on master thesis and scientific publication. The sub-topics for the English for Academic Purposes course are evaluated through students’ ranking aimed at making a choice (or ranking) from a number of options (Tofallis, 2014, p. 118). It should be pointed that ranking differs from rating as rating means that the used categories are often given numerical labels, such as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 (Coe, 2010, p. 45). Methodology The methodology of the present empirical study was led by the enabling research question: Which sub-topics of the English for Academic Purposes course are positively evaluated by students? The purpose of the present empirical study was to compare the teacher’s and students’ selection of the sub-topics for the English for Academic Purposes course underpinning the elaboration of the implications for the advancement of the English for Academic Purposes course. The empirical study was carried out in August 2020. The sample was composed on the principles of sample appropriateness, sufficiency and confidence (Ahrens & Zaščerinska, 2015a). Further on, Table 1 demonstrates the factors that influenced sample size in educational research within the present study (Ahrens & Zaščerinska, 2014). 20 Table 1 Factors that influence sample size in educational research Factors that influence sample size in educational research External Perspective Internal Perspective Surroundings’ and resources’ factors: - access to the sample - resources: - time, - personnel and its competences and experiences, - technical support, etc Researcher factors: - aims of research, - research methodologies, - educational research paradigm, - motivation, - interest, - skills, and - experience Source: Ahrens, & Zaščerinska, 2014. The sample was composed of 10 engineering students of the Master programme “Information and Electrical Engineering” at Hochschule Wismar, Germany, for international students. The Master programme “Information and Electrical Engineering” for international students is popular at Hochschule Wismar, Germany, as it ensures such economic resources, that influence the regional economics, as labour and entrepreneurship (Ahrens, Grünwald, Bassus, Andreeva, Zaščerinska, & Melnikova, 2018). It should be noted that the Master programme “Information and Electrical Engineering” at Hochschule Wismar involves the students from India only. However, the Master programme “Information and Electrical Engineering” is open for all the interested international students. All the students who participated in the empirical study have obtained a Bachelor Degree in electrical engineering in different universities of different regions of India. The interpretive research paradigm was used in the study. The interpretive paradigm is characterized by the researcher’s practical interest in the research question (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2003). The interpretive paradigm is featured by the researcher’s interest in a phenomenon. The interpretive paradigm is aimed at analysing the social construction of the meaningful reality. Meanings emerge from the interpretation. The researcher is the interpreter (Ahrens, Purvinis, Zaščerinska, Miceviciene, & Tautkus, 2018). The comparative study as a qualitative research design was employed (Flick, 2004). Comparative studies are well accepted in the research community for analysis of quality (Hariharan, Zaščerinska, Andreeva, Zaščerinskis, & Aļeksejeva, 2015). The comparative approach or, in other words, comparative method sharpens the powers of description and plays a central role in concept-formation by bringing into focus suggestive similarities and contrasts among cases (Colliers, 1993, p. 105). Routinely used in testing hypotheses, it can also contribute to the inductive discovery of new hypotheses and to theory- building (Colliers, 1993, p. 105). The exploratory type of the comparative study was applied (Phillips, 2006). The exploratory type of the comparative study aims to generate new hypotheses and questions (Phillips, 2006) which can be tested for generality in following empirical studies (Mayring, 2007). The exploratory methodology proceeds from exploration in Phase 1 through analysis in Phase 2 to hypothesis development in Phase 3 as illustrated in Figure 3 (Zaščerinska et al, 2016). 21 Figure 3 Phases of the methodolody of the exploratory research (Zaščerinska, Andreeva, Zaščerinskis, & Aļeksejeva, 2016) Phase 1 Exploration is aimed at data collection, Phase 2 Analysis focuses on data processing, analysis and data interpretation, and Phase 3 Hypothesis Development is oriented to the analysis of results of the empirical study and elaboration of conclusions and hypotheses for further research (Hariharan, Zaščerinska, & Swamydhas, 2013; Ahrens & Zaščerinska, 2015b). The data were collected through a survey. The survey was based on the questionnaire that included one question: Could you mark three sub-topics which are the most important for you from the following list? The list included such sub-topics: • Introduction into presentation preparation • Academic communication • Passive Voice • Making three presentations about • Problem • Information and Ideas • Reading sub-skills • Writing own biography • Academic writing? The data were collected by asking respondents to rank only three alternatives (Coe, 2010, p. 45). The options available were placed in order without any attempt to describe how much one differs from another or whether any of the alternatives are, for example, good or acceptable (Coe, 2010, p. 45). The collected data were processed via the summarizing content analysis. The summarizing content analysis seeks to reduce the material in such a way that the essential contents are preserved, but a manageable short text is produced (Mayring, 2004, p. 269). Research Results Table 2 presents the results of the empirical study. The results of the comparative analysis of the teacher’s and students’ ranking demonstrate that mostly the choice of sub-topics by both the teacher and students is similar. The summarising content analysis reveals that the students positively evaluated the majority of the sub-topics of the English for Academic Purposes course selected by the teacher. This finding indicates that the English for Academic Purposes course is qualitative 22 Table 2 Results of the students’ ranking of the sub-topics in the English for Academic Purposes course Sub-topic Students’ ranking Introduction into presentation preparation XXXXXX Academic communication X Passive Voice - Making three presentations XXXXXX Problem solving XX Information and Ideas XXXX Reading sub-skills X Writing own biography XXX Academic writing XXXXXXX Source: by the authors However, the sub-topic “Passive Voice” has not received the students’ positive evaluation. This could be explained that the students had only three choices for pointing the most important sub-topics. Another explanation could be that despite the students had some mistakes in writing their own sentences with the use of Passive Voice, the students showed the attitude to the use of Passive Voice as not something for learning as well as already natively existing in their spoken and written language. The researchers’ interpretation of this finding reveals that, • on the one hand, this attitude to the use of Passive Voice differs depending on a student experience, and, • on the other hand, more teaching efforts should be put into explaining the importance of Passive Voice in academic communication and writing. Conclusions The theoretical findings allow concluding about the inter-connections between a course quality and similarities in the teacher and students’ selection of sub-topics of the English for Academic Purposes course. The empirical results show the students positively evaluated the majority of the sub- topics of the English for Academic Purposes course proposed by the teacher. The top three sub-topics ranked by the students refer to • Introduction into presentation preparation, • Presentation skills via making three presentations, and • Academic writing. The empirical results validate the research results that an English for Academic Purposes course should include • students’ making presentations as well as their public presentation, and • students’ writing own biography. As the results of the comparative analysis of the teacher’s and students’ ranking demonstrate that mostly the choice of sub-topics by both the teacher and students is similar, the conclusion is drawn that the English for Academic Purposes course is qualitative. The following hypothesis has been formulated: an English for Academic Purposes course is qualitative if 23  ranking of the sub-topics by both the teacher and students is similar,  students positively evaluate the sub-topics of the English for Academic Purposes course  if a sub-topic is  clearly explained,  obviously illustrated by the teacher to the students, and  permanently revised. Implications for the advancement of the English for Academic Purposes course imply  Reconsidering the inclusion of the sub-topics that have not received the positive evaluation from the majority of the students such as “Passive Voice” and “Reading sub-skills” in the English for Academic Purposes course,  Segmentation of the sub-topic “Academic Writing” as well as  Allocating more time to the sub-topic “Academic Writing”. The present research has some limitations. A limitation is the use of ranking aimed at making choices. Another limitation is that only one student group at one higher education institution took part in the study. Also, the students were limited by choosing three most important sub-topics. The future work tends to increase the number of respondents. A comparative analysis of results of different groups of students could be beneficial, too. References Ahrens, A., Grünwald, N., Bassus, O., Andreeva, N., Zaščerinska, J., & Melnikova J. (2018). Impact of Master Programme “Information and Electrical Engineering” for International Students at Hochschule Wismar on Regional Economics: Theoretical Modelling. In В.М. Муров, д.т.н., профессор (отв. редактор), Scientific Printed Works of the 8th International Scientific Conference Perspectives of Economics of Kaliningrad Region and EU Development, June 22-24, 2017, pp. 6-9. Kaliningrad State Technical University, Kaliningrad, Russian Federation. Ahrens, A., & Zaščerinska, J. (2014). A Framework for Selecting Sample Size in Educational Research on e-Business Application. Mohammad S. Obaidat, Andreas Holzinger, Marten van Sinderen and Peter Dolog (Eds), In Proceedings of ICE-B 2014 11th International Conference on E-Business Vienna, Austria, 28-30 August, 2014, pp. 31- 38. Ahrens, A., & Zaščerinska, J. (2015a). Principles of Sampling in Educational Research in Higher Education. Proceedings of the International Scientifical Conference Society, Integration, Education, Volume 1, 25-35. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17770/sie2015vol1.310 Ahrens, A., & Zaščerinska, J. (2015b). A Comparative Analysis of Educator’s and Peers’ Influence on Students’ Attitude to Mobile Social Media in Distance Learning. Literacy Information and Computer Education Journal (LICEJ), Volume 6, Issue 1, 1311-1320. Ahrens, A., & Zaščerinska, J. (2019). Teacher’s Evaluation of Students’ Writing Their Own Biography: Theoretical Modelling. In: В.М. Муров, д.т.н., профессор (отв. редактор), 9-th International Scientific Conference «Perspectives of Economic of Kaliningrad Region and EU Development», 26-28 May 2019, 6-9. Ahrens, A., Purvinis, O., Zaščerinska, J., Miceviciene, D., & Tautkus, A. (2018). Burstiness Management for Smart, Sustainable and Inclusive Growth: Emerging Research and Opportunities. IGI Global. Pages: 226. DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-5442-4. Ahrens, A., Zaščerinska, J., & Melnikova, J. (2019). Method for the Construction of Students’ Scientific Identity within English for Academic Purposes: The Case of International http://dx.doi.org/10.17770/sie2015vol1.310 24 Students of Master Programme “Information and Electrical Engineering” at Hochschule Wismar. Society. Integration. Education. Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference. Volume I, 43-53. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17770/sie2019vol1.3731 . Andersone, R. (2007). Izglītības un mācību priekšmetu programmas. Rīga: RAKA. Beļickis, I., Blūma, D., Koķe, T., Markus, D., Skujiņa, V., & Šalme, A. (2000). Pedagoģijas terminu skaidrojošā vārdnīca. Rīga: Zvaigzne ABC. Coe, R. (2010). Analysing ranking and rating data from participatory on-farm trials. African Statistics Journal, 10, 14- 53. Collier, D. (1993). The Comparative Method. In Ada W. Finifter (Ed), Political Science: The State of the Discipline II, Chapter: 5, (pp. 105-119). Publisher: Washington D.C.: American Political Science Association. Commission of the European Communities. (2006). Proposal for a Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Establishment of the European Qualifications Framework for Lifelong Learning. Brussels 05/09/2006. 21p. Elbow, Peter, (1994). "Ranking, Evaluating, Liking: Sorting Out Three Forms of Judgment." (1994). College English. 12. Retrieved from https://scholarworks.umass.edu/eng_faculty_pubs/12. English Language Institute. (2020). English for Academic Purposes. University of Delaware. Retrieved from https://sites.udel.edu/eli/programs/iep/tracks/eap/ Flick, U. (2004). Design and Process in Qualitative Research. In U. Flick, E. Von Kardoff and I. Steine (Eds), A Companion to Qualitative Research (pp. 146-152). SAGE, UK, Glasgow. Gonçalves, A., & Calderón, A.I. (2017). Academic rankings in higher education: trends of international scientific literature. Rev. Diálogo Educ., Curitiba, v. 17, n. 54, 1125-1145. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7213/1981-416X.17.054.DS03 Gruenwald, N., Ahrens. A., Zaščerinska, J., Melnikova, J., & Andreeva, N. (2018). Socio- Cultural Adaptation of International Students of Master Programme “Information and Electrical Engineering” at Hochschule Wismar. Proceedings of the 5th International Scientific Conference on “Modern Economics”, 33-39. Hariharan, R., Zaščerinska, J., & Swamydhas, P. (2013). A Comparative Study of Methodologies of Teaching Web Technologies to Prospective Teachers in India and Latvia. International Journal of Modern Education Forum (IJMEF) Volume 2, Issue 4, 84-91. Retrieved from http://www.ijmef.org/AllIssues.aspx Hariharan, R., Zaščerinska, J., Andreeva, N., Zaščerinskis, M., & Aļeksejeva, L. (2015). Comparative Analysis of Quality of Student Teachers’ Performance in India and Latvia. International Journal of Modern Education Forum (IJMEF), Volume 4, Issue 1. 8-17. Mayring, P. (2004). Qualitative Content Analysis. In: U. Flick, E. Von Kardoff and I. Steinke (Eds). A Companion to Qualitative Research (pp. 266-269). SAGE, UK, Glasgow. Mayring, P. (2007). On generalization in qualitatively oriented research. Forum: Qualitative Sozialforschung. Qualitative Social Research, 8(3). Retrieved from http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/291/641 Marginson, S., & van der Wende, M. (2007). To Rank or To Be Ranked: The Impact of Global Rankings in Higher Education. Journal of Studies in International Education, Vol. 11, No. 3/4, 306-329. DOI:10.1177/1028315307303544. Melnikova, J., Kuprienė, L., Jurgaitytė, V., Zascerinska, J., & Blažulionienė, S. (2020). Culturally Responsive Education of Migrants in Klaipeda Region. The 16th international conference „Social Innovations for Sustainable Regional Development”: Klaipėda, Lithuania, April 29, 2020. Niemi, N. (2008). Why from teaching to learning? In: Programme of the European Conference on Educational Research in Gothenburg, Sweden, 8-12 September, 2008, 12-13. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.17770/sie2019vol1.3731 http://dx.doi.org/10.7213/1981-416X.17.054.DS03 http://www.ijmef.org/AllIssues.aspx http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/291/641 25 http://www.ipd.gu.se/digitalAssets/1150/1150554_Niemi250408.pdf Phillips, D. (2006). Comparative Education: method. Research in Comparative and International Education, Volume 1, Number 4, 304-319. Tofallis, Chris (2014). Add or Multiply? A Tutorial on Ranking and Choosing with Multiple Criteria. INFORMS Transactions on Education 14(3), 109-119. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1287/ited.2013.0124 Zascerinska, J., Aleksejeva, L., Zascerinskis, M., Gukovica, O., & Aleksejeva, A. (2020). Language Guidelines on Students‘ Biography Writing as a Means of Self-Presentation for Recruitment and Employment. International Applied Research Conference Proceedings Challenges and Social Responsibility in Business, 12-21. Zaščerinska J. (2011b). How to Teach Content: Existing Concepts and Prospects for Development. In: Stasys Vaitekūnas (Ed), Association for Teacher Education in Europe ATEE Spring University 2011 Changing Education in a Changing Society, Volume 1, 134-149. Zaščerinska, J. (2008). Research within English for Academic Purposes Studies. In: the database of the European Conference on Educational Research From Teaching to Learning the 10th-12th September 2008 Gothenborg, Sweden. The EERA databank: www.eera-ecer.eu/fileadmin/user.../ECER2008_182_Zascerinska.doc. Zaščerinska, J. (2009). The Use of the Internet and Powerpoint in Promoting Student Teachers' Communication Competence within the English for Specific Purposes Course. Citizenship, Social and Economics Education, 8(2&3), 152-163. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2304/csee.2010.8.2.152 . Zaščerinska, J. (2010). English for Academic Purposes Activity in Language Education. In: Sanita Madalāne (Ed.), Proceedings of the 5th International Conference of Young Scientists of Riga Teacher Training and Educational Management Academy, the 10th December 2009 (pp. 209-217). Riga: Riga Teacher Training and Educational Management Academy. Zaščerinska, J. (2011a). Teaching Content: Development the System of External and Internal Perspectives. The Proceedings of Riga Teacher Training and Educational Management Academy’s 6th Young Scientist Conference, 221-229. Riga: Riga Teacher Training and Educational Management Academy. Zaščerinska, J., & Zaščerinskis, M. (2012). Problem Solving in Student Police Officers’ Professional Development. Proceedings of the I International scientific conference „Legal, Sociological and Psychological Aspects of Human Safety” of State Police College. 251-262. Riga: State Police College. Zaščerinska, J., Aļeksejeva, L., Zaščerinskis, M., & Andreeva, N. (2013). Term Ontogenesis in Educational Research Discource: Focus on Term „Language”. The scientific journal Kalbu Studijos/ Studies about Languages, Nr. 22, 104-112. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5755/j01.sal.0.22.3459. Zaščerinska, J., Andreeva, N., & Aleksejeva, L. (2015). Use of Role Models within English for Academic Studies. The proceedings of Riga Teacher Training and Educational Management Academy’s 10th International Young Scientist Conference, 129-137. Riga: Riga Teacher Training and Educational Management Academy. Zaščerinska, J., Andreeva, N., Zaščerinskis, M., & Aļeksejeva, L. (2016). English For Academic Purposes For The Construction of Students’ Scientific Identity. International Journal for 21st Century Education. Special Issue: Language Learning and Teaching, 121-129. Zaščerinska, J., Zaščerinskis, M., Andreeva, N., & Aļeksejeva, L. (2013). Integration of Components of Languaging into Tertiary Language Education. Journal Frontiers in Language Teaching and Research (FLTR), Volume 1, Issue 1, 1-10. Retrieved from http://www.seipub.org/fltr/AllIssues.aspx . http://www.ipd.gu.se/digitalAssets/1150/1150554_Niemi250408.pdf https://doi.org/10.1287/ited.2013.0124 http://www.eera-ecer.eu/fileadmin/user.../ECER2008_182_Zascerinska.doc http://dx.doi.org/10.2304/csee.2010.8.2.152 http://dx.doi.org/10.5755/j01.sal.0.22.3459 http://www.seipub.org/fltr/AllIssues.aspx 26 Žogla, I. (2001a). Skolas pedagoģija. Mācību līdzeklis studentiem. Rīga: Latvijas Universitāte, Pedagoģijas un psiholoģijas institūts. Žogla, I. (2001b). Didaktikas teorētiskie pamati. Rīga: RaKa.