Nilas et al. BMC Res Notes (2016) 9:420
DOI 10.1186/s13104-016-2229-6
BMC Research Notes
Open Access
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Are Danish doctors comfortable
teaching in English?
L. Nilas1,2*, E. C. Løkkegaard2,3, J. B. Laursen1, J. Kling4 and D. Cortes2,5
Abstract
Background: From 2012–2015, the Departments of Obstetrics and Gynecology and of Pediatrics at the University
of Copenhagen conducted a project, “Internationalization at Home ”, offering clinical teaching in English. The project
allowed international students to work with Danish speaking students in a clinical setting. Using semi-quantitative
questionnaires to 89 clinicians about use of English and need for training, this paper considers if Danish clinical doctors are prepared to teach in English.
Results: The majority self-assessed their English proficiency between seven and eight on a 10 unit visual analogue
scale, with 10 equivalent to working in Danish, while 15 % rated five or less. However, one-fourth found teaching and
writing in English to be twice as difficult than in Danish, and 12 % rated all teaching tasks in English at four or less
compared to Danish. The self-assessed need for additional English skills was perceived low.
Conclusion: Teaching in English was rated as 30 % more difficult than in Danish, and a significant subgroup of doctors had difficulties in all forms of communication in English, resulting in challenges when introducing international
students in non-native English speaking medical departments.
Keywords: International students, Clinical teaching, Teaching in foreign language, Doctors’ English skills,
Self-assessment
Background
Current strategic policy at the University of Copenhagen
(UCPH) aims to internationally promote education, create partnerships and collaborate in high level scientific
study [1]. One specific area of internationalization is the
inclusion of non-Danish students in traditionally Danish degree programs. For example, in 2013 the Faculty
of Health at UCPH enrolled 116 international students,
both full time students and Erasmus exchange students
[2, 3]. To meet the needs of this more diverse student
body, courses traditionally taught in Danish were taught
in English.
At present, the majority of English medium instruction
(EMI) clinical courses at the School of Medical Sciences
(MedSchool) are taught through traditional lectures and
elective clinical training sessions. Since 2006, UCPH has
*Correspondence: Lisbeth.Nilas@regionh.dk
1
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology 537, Hvidovre University
Hospital, 2650 Hvidovre, Denmark
Full list of author information is available at the end of the article
also offered a limited number of clinical courses in hospital departments taught in English. In contrast to classroom based EMI medical courses, these clinical training
courses offer local and international students the opportunity to study and work together in a hospital setting
with local patients and offer the Danish students to interact with the international students.
While enrolment of international students in courses
at UCPH’s MedSchool has resulted in challenges related
to both linguistic and cultural diversity for the students,
it has also affected the teaching staff, and lecturers are
adjusting to this change. Whereas some of the clinical
doctors have been positive to teaching in English, there
has also been some resistance to internationalization of
courses and the use of English as the language of instruction and teaching. To investigate possible causes and
determine whether any of these are related to linguistic
proficiency, we asked Danish doctors in this clinical setting to consider how comfortable they are working and
teaching in English.
© 2016 Nilas et al. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license,
and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/
publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
Nilas et al. BMC Res Notes (2016) 9:420
Page 2 of 5
Methods
Statistical analyses
Setting
Of 91 questionnaires distributed during a morning meeting, two were only partly completed leaving 89 for analyses. Responses on the 10 cm VAS were read by 0.5 cm
accuracy. A response of having performed an examination once was interpreted as having examination experience. For the questions comparing the ease of performing
in English compared to Danish, the values on the VAS
were interpreted in percentage differences i.e., a VAS of
seven for teaching is interpreted as 30 percent more difficult than in Danish. Numeric outcomes are given as geographical means (means calculated on log transformed
values), ranges, and 25–75 percentiles. Statistical differences were tested by Student’s-t test using a level of significance of 5 %.
In 2012, a 3-year educational project entitled Internationalization at Home, was introduced at the departments of
Obstetrics and Gynecology (ObGyn) and Pediatrics (Ped)
at Hvidovre Hospital and Nordsjaellands Hospital in Hilleroed. Each 5-week course concluded with an oral examination. Of the 6–10 students in each course, half were
local UCPH students, who voluntarily registered for this
English medium programme, while the other half came
from various European countries.
The language of instruction of these courses was English, not only during formal lectures and case-based
learning session, but was also intended at departmental
meetings. The morning meetings, where acute referrals,
plans for patient care, and teaching are discussed, were
scheduled to be conducted in English when the international teams consisting of both the Danish and the international students were present. One of the departments
chose to keep the daily morning meetings in Danish,
but instead offer more intensive special English-spoken
morning meetings for the international student team.
Ethics
Informed consent was not formally asked for, but the
respondents were anonymous and they could decline
participation. No formal ethics approval was required for
our study according to Danish law.
Results
Survey
Use of English by the respondents
Using a paper-based questionnaire, distributed at morning meetings at three of the departments, we asked the
doctors to reflect on their English proficiency, including
frequency of language use and level of difficulty communicating in English in the workplace, as compared to
Danish usage.
Information about the frequency with which the doctors listen to, read, write, speak and lecture in English
was collected using a semi-quantitative questionnaire
with five response options: never, rarely, sometimes,
often, and very often. To further investigate whether attitudes about English proficiency were related to age and
teaching experience, the questionnaire included questions about age, experience and gender, but not charge.
On a continuous 10 cm visual analogue scale (VAS) with
questions related to specific tasks, we asked the doctors
to state the ease by which they read, understand, write,
guide, teach, and possibly conduct examinations in English compared to in Danish, where 0 represents very difficult and 10 unproblematic and as easy as in Danish. For
comparison, information was also collected on how the
doctor’s perceived these tasks in Danish. Furthermore,
doctors were asked to self-assess their overall proficiency
in English from very poor to expert level. Finally, the doctors were requested to assess their need for additional
English language skills for the future on a scale ranging
from currently satisfied to in great need for improved
proficiency.
More than 60 % of the respondents indicate they often or
very often read English medical texts; the corresponding
figures for reading fiction and newspapers were 20 and
5 % respectively (Fig. 1). Written English was mostly used
in an academic context, and less than one-third of the
respondents often speak English. About 40 % rarely or
never participate in discussions in English. The majority
of the respondents had been involved in clinical bedside
teaching of medical students, mostly in Danish (82 %,
74/89), whereas half (49 %, 44/89) have experienced bedside teaching of English speaking students (Fig. 2). Only a
minority of the respondents had experience in performing lectures or examinations in English.
Self‑assessment of English skills
The majority of respondents reported a self-assessment
of between seven and eight on a VAS scale for general
English performance, but 17 % rated their competencies
at five or less (Fig. 3). The general skills in English showed
a declining trend with age with average values of 7.3, 7.2,
6.7 and 6.0 for the age groups 29–39, 40–49, 50–59 and
60+ years, respectively. Those who examined occasionally or frequently (n = 17) were older than the 72 without experience in examinations (50.2 versus 42.8 years,
p < 0.05), but there was no difference between the two
groups self-assessment of their general, professional
or daily English language skills. There was no difference between the overall English skills in obstetricians/
Nilas et al. BMC Res Notes (2016) 9:420
never
rarly
Page 3 of 5
some
N
es
very
35
30
Write scien fically
25
20
Write common English
15
Read scien fically
10
5
Read novels
0
2-
Read newspapers
3-
4-
5-
6-
7-
8-
9-
10
VAS
Fig. 3 Self-assessed English skills: How do assess your overall proficiency in English? VAS ranging from very poor (0) to expert-level (10)
Speak common English
Speak scien fically
Discuss
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Fig. 1 How often do you read, write, speak, and participate in discussions in English?
never
rarly
some
es
very
Guide clinically in Danish
Guide clinically in English
T each in class-rooms in English
T each in class-rooms in English
Examine in Danish
Examine in English
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Fig. 2 How often do you guide clinically, teach in classrooms, and
conduct examinations in Danish and English?
gynecologists and pediatricians, nor between men and
women.
Regarding the more specific tasks, the respondents
generally rated their skills for reading English high, but
about 30 % more difficult than in Danish (Table 1). The
respondents reported that they were comfortable with
writing professionally, lecturing, classroom teaching
and guiding clinically in Danish, with mean values of
8.6, 8.6, 8.9 and 9.2, respectively, and 25–75 percentiles
between eight and ten. The mean values for performing
these tasks in English compared to in Danish were 6.4,
6.4, 6.6 and 6.5, respectively, with 25 percentiles around
five (Table 1), indicating that one in four respondents
found teaching and writing in English to be twice as difficult as in Danish. Eleven (12 %) of the respondents rated
all teaching tasks in English at four or less compared to
Danish, indicating great difficulties in all forms of communication in English.
The self-assessed need for further skills in English varied from a no need (0) to a great need (10), but the majority had little interest in improving their linguistic skills
(Fig. 4). The need of additional language skills was not
different between those with teaching and examination
duties and those without.
Discussion
The study shows that teaching and communication in
English compared to Danish is assessed to be about 30 %
more difficult, and that approximately 10 % of doctors
find it very difficult to teach and communicate orally in
English.
English is the primary foreign language in Denmark
and is taught for at least 7 years during primary school.
Some of the medical text books at the MedSchool are
in English, but English has not previously been used as
the language of instruction. Specialist doctors are to
some degree trained to acquire medical knowledge in
English, but an academic career demands ability also
to communicate in English, as 90 % of the medical scientific literature is disseminated in English. The participating departments are common clinical departments
where approximately half of doctors are specialists and
half are younger doctors at different stages of specialized
training. Some doctors have been on the wards for many
years and others have just joined the team. Two of the
departments have had a few English speaking students
for several years, while teaching in English had only just
been introduced at the third department at the time of
the study. With 30–52 new students per semester at each
department, it is necessary to draw on the skills of all
doctors at the departments, as confirmed by the fact that
over 80 % of the respondents, regardless of level of medical responsibility, stated that they work with students
in the clinical setting. The daily classroom lessons are
shared between lecturers/professors, but may also be led
Nilas et al. BMC Res Notes (2016) 9:420
Page 4 of 5
Table 1 Self-assessed language proficiency
English compared to Danish
Danish
Mean
Median (range), 25–75 percentiles
Mean
Read medical literature
7.7
7.5 (0.2–10), 6.8–8.5
Read novels
7.2
8 (3–10), 7–10
Read English newspapers
6.7
7 (1.5–10), 6–9
Understand spoken daily language
7.9
8 (3.0–10), 7–10
Understand news programs
7.7
8 (2.0–10), 7–9
Median (range),
25–75 percentiles
Write professionally
7.5
8 (3–10), 8–9
8.6
9 (2–9), 8–10
Lecture students/colleagues
6.4
7 (0.5–10), 5.5–8.5
8.6
9 (2–10), 8–10
Guide clinically
6.4
7 (0.5–10), 5–9
9.2
9 (7–10), 9–10
Teach in classrooms
6.6
7 (1.0–10), 6–8
8.9
9 (6–10), 8–10
Conduct examinations (n = 17)
6.5
7 (0–10), 5–8
How easy is it for you to read, write and teach in English compared to in Danish? VAS ranging from 0, very difficult, to 10, which is just as easy as in Danish
n = 89. Data are given as geometric means, range and 25–75 percentiles
25
20
N
15
10
5
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
VAS
Fig. 4 Self-assessed need for further linguistic English competencies.
VAS ranging from no need (0) to large need (10)
by senior trainees/residents, as training in teaching is an
essential part of the specialist medical training program,
a common trend at university hospitals [4–6]. The introduction of EMI courses was a pragmatic decision. The
doctors received no formal supervision or offer of English language training. Those who had difficulties communicating in English could to some extent avoid formal
teaching, but they were still faced with meetings held in
English and interaction with students on the ward.
The questionnaire used in this study was not validated
and relies on the physicians’ self-assessment, and generally self-assessment has been found to correlate poorly
with performance in some contexts [5]. Doctors generally
rate themselves highly as teachers [4], and often assume
they have teaching qualifications without courses in medical pedagogy [6, 7]. It is also recognized that teachers
often overestimate their linguistic abilities, their teaching
and their communicative skills [8]. However, as we asked
about the clinician’s assessment of the ease of teaching
and instructing in English compared to in Danish, we
assume that any overestimation may be equivalent in the
two situations. The survey was performed during morning meetings and the respondents were expected to be
representative for the staff. We have no comparable data
from other departments, but find no reason to believe
that the doctors in our departments differ substantially
from other clinicians in a hospital setting.
This study reports the doctors’ self-assessed perceptions of strong receptive English language skills, i.e.,
listening and reading comprehension. Several of the doctors stated that they have fair competences in writing
medical English, but while many found it difficult, they
often also found writing medical Danish challenging.
However, overall, the respondents in this study found
oral production in teaching in English to be the most
challenging, indicating that receptive language skills
not were sufficient to ensure productive competences.
This supports previous research, which suggests that the
teachers find themselves less confident when teaching in
English compared to their own Scandinavian language [9,
10]. In addition, previous studies have reported that doctors’ EMI teaching was more formal and contained less
small-talk compared to teaching in Danish [9–11].
The self-assessed need for further English skills varied. Those who found their linguistic abilities sufficient
ranged from one mother-tongue English speaker, to others who had lived in English speaking counties either as
children or had studied abroad. In addition, there were
some who may have felt their English knowledge was
Nilas et al. BMC Res Notes (2016) 9:420
sufficient, because they were on their way toward careers
as general practitioners.
Introducing education in a foreign language is associated with many challenges [10, 11], and in a clinical setting the challenges are not only linguistic, but also involve
attitudes and opinions, and demand structural changes in
the organization, and are time consuming. Danish Universities demand internationalization and acknowledge
that linguistic competences for both medical students
and teachers need to improve. UCPH has established
a center for support, the Centre for Internationalisation and Parallel Language Use (CIP), which develops
courses for improving the English skills for university
staff [12–14]. A study from CIP [14] reported, that the
attitudes of the academic staff towards increased use of
English as the educational language at the University of
Copenhagen, depended on the teaching load in English.
While the MedSchool is increasingly offering courses
held in English, it is doubtful if such initiatives can ameliorate the linguistic shortcomings in a clinical department, as a clinical course also involves communication
with patients and other groups of employees, who may
find English communication even more difficult. We find
that teaching English-speaking students is a challenge to
a clinical department, and our results question whether
internationalization through teaching in English in clinical departments is the best possible model.
Abbreviations
EMI: english-medium instruction; IaH: Internationalisation at Home; MedSchool: School of Medical Sciences (MedSchool); UCPH: University of Copenhagen; VAS: visual analogue scale.
Authors’ contributions
LN wrote the first draft of the manuscript, LN and JB made the calculations
and all authors contributed to and accepted the final manuscript. All authors
read and approved the final manuscript.
Author details
1
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology 537, Hvidovre University Hospital,
2650 Hvidovre, Denmark. 2 Faculty of Health Science, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. 3 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology,
Nord Zeeland University Hospital, Hilleroed, Denmark. 4 Centre for Internationalization and Parallel Language Use, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen,
Denmark. 5 Department of Pediatrics, Hvidovre University Hospital, Hvidovre,
Denmark.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interest.
Funding
“Internationalization at Home” was funded by Undervisningskvalitetspuljen,
The Capital Region of Denmark and University of Copenhagen.
Received: 20 April 2015 Accepted: 17 August 2016
Page 5 of 5
References
1. University of Copenhagen, Strategy 2016. http://research.ku.dk/strategy/.
Retrieved 25 April 2016.
2. University of Copenhagen, Studieophold i udlandet. http://udrejse.ku.dk/
Udveksling_Feltarbejde_og_Praktik/Europa/english/. Retrieved 22 Feb
2015.
3. University of Copenhagen, Statistikberedskab. http://tal.ku.dk/boks1/
Statistikberedskab_2013__Studienoegletal.pdf. Retrieved 25 April 2016.
4. Busari J, Scherpbier AJJA, van der Vleuten CPM, Essed GGM. The perceptions of attending doctors of the role of residents as teachers of undergraduate students. Med Educ. 2003;237:241–7.
5. Eva KW, Regehr G. Exploring the divergence between self-assessment
and self-monitoring. Adv Health Sci. Educ. 2011;16:311–29.
6. Erie JA, Starkman SJ, Pawlina W, Lachman N. Developing medical students as teachers: an anatomy-based student-as-teacher program with
emphasis on core teaching competencies. Anat Sci Educ. 2013;6:385–92.
7. Butani L, Paterniti DA, Tancredi DJ, Li S-T. Attributes of residents as teachers and role models—a mixed methods study of stakeholders. Med
Teach. 2013;35:e1052–9.
8. Hellekjaer GO, Westergaard MR. An exploratory survey of content learning through English at Scandinavian universities. In: Simensen AM editor.
Teaching and learning foreign languages. Issues and ideas. Oslo: Unipub;
2002. p. 47–61.
9. Tange H. Caught in the tower of Babel: University lecturer’s experiences
with internationalisation. Lang Intercult Commun. 2010;10:137–49.
10. Hellekjær GO. The implementation of undergraduate level English
medium programs in Norway: An explorative case study. In: Wilkin R,
Zegars V, editors. Researching content and language integration in higher
education. Maastricht: Universitaire Pers Maastricht; 2007. p. 68–81.
11. Borgan M, Kase BF, Bjerkeset S, Handal G. Engelskspråklig undervisning i
medisinutdanningen. En evaluering af prøveordning med engelsk som
undervisningsspråk i 9. semester. Oppdragsgruppen ved Pedagogisk
Forskningsinstututt. Universitetet i Oslo, det Utdannensvitenskapelige
Fakultet. 2005.
12. Internationalisation and language competencies at the University of
Copenhagen. Centre for Internationalisation and Parallel Language Use.
http://cip.ku.dk/satsningsomraader/pulje2016internationalisering/.
Retrieved 25 April 2016.
13. Gregersen F (Ed). 2014. Hvor parallelt. Om parallellspåkighet på Nordens universitet. http://rafhladan.is/bitstream/handle/10802/6165/
TN2014535%20web.pdf?sequence=1. Retrieved 25 April 2016.
14. Attitudes towards English as the language of instruction among Danish
university lecturers at the University of Copenhagen. Centre for Internationalisation and Parallel Language Use. University of Copenhagen. 2009.
http://cip.ku.dk/pdf/publ/Underviseres_holdninger_til_engelsk_som_
undervisningssprog.pdf. Retrieved 23 April 2016.
Submit your next manuscript to BioMed Central
and we will help you at every step:
• We accept pre-submission inquiries
• Our selector tool helps you to find the most relevant journal
• We provide round the clock customer support
• Convenient online submission
• Thorough peer review
• Inclusion in PubMed and all major indexing services
• Maximum visibility for your research
Submit your manuscript at
www.biomedcentral.com/submit