INTERNATIONALISATION OF RUSSIAN HIGHER EDUCATION · Internationalisation of Russian Higher...

Internationalisation of Russian Higher Education: the English language dimension

INTERNATIONALISATION OF RUSSIAN HIGHER EDUCATION: THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE DIMENSION

Elena Frumina Richard West

British Council, Moscow March 2012


Preface

Global trends towards increasing internationalisation in Higher Education have accelerated over the past few years. More and more Higher Education Institutions are embracing or expanding their international work such as dual degree programmes, academic faculty exchange, student recruitment and joint research. These activities support both the wider economy as well as the development of the institutions themselves, for example through increasing the range and quality of degree programmes offered and enhancing research output.

All of these activities involve reaching out into the international arena in some way and partnering with or communicating with institutions, staff, faculty and students in other countries. Despite the growth of and further demand for international links and partnerships, there remain a variety of challenges. One key barrier can be language - English in particular. A university’s approach to English, the capacity of its staff, the policies or assessment frameworks it follows can all impact on the whole spectrum of internationalisation issues. For example, publishing research in English means it can be disseminated more widely; the capacity of faculty and staff enables partnership building and collaboration; and English language skills make international opportunities available to students.

This is why, as part of its work in building collaboration and partnerships between the UK-Russia Higher education sectors, the British Council has produced this baseline survey of English language teaching within the Higher Education sector in Russia. Work in this area can help overcome one of the obstacles to further collaboration between Russia and the UK.

On the basis of the findings, we are developing activities to support this sector, but we also hope that this report acts as a useful source of information for all those involved in this area and also as a stimulus for action.

Christian Duncumb Deputy-Director British Council, Moscow

Acknowledgements The consultants are grateful to the British Council in Moscow for their invitation to carry out this baseline study. We should like to thank all of those in Russia who contributed, through meetings, discussions or online contributions. We should also like to thank present and past members of the British Council who have assisted, in particular, Michael Bird, Liz Dempsey, John McGovern, Alexander Mishin and Simon Winetroube. Finally, we should especially like to thank Olga Barnashova of the Moscow office for all her efforts to organise the series of visits at a very busy time of the year.

Elena Frumina, Moscow Richard West, Manchester

March 2012


TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface 2 Acknowledgements 2 Table of abbreviations 5 Executive summary 6 0 Introduction 8 0.1 Rationale and background 8 0.2 Aim 8 0.3 Outputs 8 0.4 Respondents 8 0.5 Methodology 8 0.6 Timeline 8 0.7 Structure of the report 9 1 The past: Internationalisation in UK and Russian universities 1960-2010 10

1.0 Introduction 10 1.1 Numbers of international students 10 1.2 Other indicators of university internationalisation 14 2 The past: English language teaching/English for specific purposes in Russian

universities 1960-2010

16

2.0 Introduction 16 2.1 English for specific purposes – a global perspective 16 2.2 ESP in Russia – Russian isolation 17 2.2.1 ESP focus 18 2.2.2 ESP methodology 18 2.2.3 ESP materials 19 2.2.4 Professional development 19 2.3 Conclusion: ESP teachers - 2001 20 3 The current situation: Internationalisation in Russian universities 21 3.0 Introduction 21 3.1 Factors in university internationalisation 23 3.1.1 Geographical distance and space 25 3.1.2 Bologna process and degree recognition 28 3.1.2.1 The three-tier system 28 3.1.2.2 Recognition of qualifications 28 3.1.2.3 University quality and rankings 29 3.1.2.4 Research 29 3.1.3 Academic quality assurance 31

3.1.4 Infrastructure 32

3.1.5 Bureaucracy 35

3.1.6 Visas and work permits 33

3.1.7 Limited opportunities for practice in companies & enterprises 33

3.1.8 Educational management and marketing 33

3.1.9 Government policy 34

3.1.10 Language 35

3.2 The BRIDGE Project 35 3.3 Conclusions 37 4 The current situation: teaching English for specific purposes 38


4.0 Introduction 38 4.1 English language teaching 38 4.2 English as medium of instruction 47 4.3 English for academics 48 4.4 Conclusions 50 5 Summary & Conclusions 51 5.0 Introduction 51 5.1 The internationalisation of higher education in Russia 51 5.2 The teaching of ESP in HEIs in Russia 52 5.3 Conclusions 55 6 Recommendations 56 6.0 Introduction 56 6.1 Recommendation 1: Academic language framework 56 6.2 Recommendation 2: English for academics textbook 57 6.3 Conclusions 58 Appendices A World university rankings: UK and Russian universities 59 B Recommendation 1: Academic language framework 63 C Recommendation 2: English for academics textbook 79 D References & documents consulted 81


TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS ALTE Association of Language Testers of Europe BA Bachelor of Arts BALEAP British Association of Lecturers of English for Academic Purposes BC British Council BEC Business English Certificate (Cambridge ESOL) BRIDGE British Degrees in Russia project (British Council) BSc Bachelor of Science CAE Certificate in Advanced English (Cambridge ESOL) CEFR Common European Framework of Reference CoE Council of Europe CPE Certificate of Proficiency in English (Cambridge ESOL) DAAD Deutscher Akademischer Austausch Dienst (German Academic Exchange Service) EAP English for Academic Purposes EBP English for Business Purposes ECDL European Computer Driving Licence EGAP English for General Academic Purposes EGOP English for General Occupational Purposes EGP English for General Purposes ELT English Language Teaching EOP English for Occupational Purposes ESAP English for Specific Academic Purposes ESOL English for Speakers of Other Languages ESOP English for Specific Occupational Purposes ESP English for Specific/Special Purposes FCE First Certificate in English (Cambridge ESOL) HE Higher Education HEI Higher Education Institutions ICDL International Computer Driving Licence IDP International Development Program (Australia) IELTS International English Language Testing System (Cambridge ESOL, IDP & the British

Council) MA Master of Arts MSc Master of Science NTF National Training Foundation, Moscow NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organisation OECD Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development OU Open University, UK PhD Doctor of Philosophy QAA Quality Assurance Agency, UK RESPONSE Russian Education Support Project on Specialist English RF Russian Federation SELMOUS Special English Language Materials for Overseas University Students (now BALEAP) SPEX St Petersburg Examinations Project (British Council) TESP Teaching English for Specific/Special Purposes TNE Transnational Education TOEFL Test of English as a Foreign Language (Educational Testing Service, USA) UK United Kingdom US/USA United States of America


USSR Union of Soviet Socialist Republics


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In 2001 the British Council carried out a Baseline Study of the teaching of English for Specific

Purposes in Russia. This was edited by Ludmilla Kuznetsova and Simon Winetroube, and published

in 2002 under the title Specialist English Teaching and Learning – The State of the Art in Russia.

This present baseline report again surveys the current state of English language teaching in Russia,

and so can be seen as an updating of the 2001 report. However, it was carried out against the

background of the internationalisation of higher education institutes, in order that

recommendations could be made for a new British Council project to enhance ELT in tertiary

institutions in Russia.

Chapter 1 chronicles the internationalisation of HEIs in the Soviet Union and Russia in the period

1960-2010, and notes the decline in the percentage of international students in universities, as well

as the decline in international research and publications. Comparative data are offered from the UK

during the same period.

Chapter 2 looks at the teaching of English for Specific Purposes in the same period and notes the

isolation of Russia from global developments, particularly in the areas of the narrow focus of ESP

programmes, the conservative approach to materials design, and the lack of professional

development for ESP teachers, despite the success of the British Council’s RESPONSE project.

Chapter 3 examines the current position of internationalisation and analyses the factors impeding

internationalisation in Russian HEIs. There are several such factors, but inadequate levels of English

proficiency among academics are identified as an issue underlying a number of factors.

Chapter 4 reports the results of the research carried out for this baseline report and compares these

with the position revealed in the British Council’s 2001 baseline study. While the situation of

teachers and teaching has changed little, the context has changed significantly: Russia’s accession to

the Bologna process has given renewed urgency to internationalisation and English is increasingly

recognized as a crucial factor. A key issue in this process is again the weak English proficiency of

academics at all levels, which undermines students’ motivation and ESP teachers’ efforts, threatens

the quality of university programmes and research, inhibits the introduction of international

programmes both face-to-face and by distance, limits the dissemination of research and contributes

to the low rankings of Russian universities in international league tables.

Chapter 5 presents conclusions and summarises the principal findings of the report, indicating where

things have changed since 2001 and where they are broadly unchanged.

Based on these broad conclusions, Chapter 6 makes two specific recommendations to address this

situation:

♦ The development of an academic language framework based on international documents to assist

HEIs in setting language benchmarks, developing syllabuses and materials, and aligning programmes

with international standards. A draft of this academic language framework is presented in the

report.


♦ The development of a textbook in English for academics to support university teachers in

introducing language courses for academics. This would begin to address one of the major obstacles

to internationalisation identified in this report – low levels of English among academics. The

textbook should be accompanied by an electronic manual documenting the processes involved in

textbook development, which could serve as a guide to the development of other ESP textbooks by

Russian teachers using modern approaches and techniques.

Both of these recommendations have been accepted by the British Council and a start has already

been made on implementing them. It is believed that these initiatives could have a considerable

impact on university ESP teaching and, more widely, the internationalisation of Russian HEIs.


0 INTRODUCTION

0.1 Rationale and background As part of its global commitment to the internationalisation of higher education, the British Council has for many years supported the effectiveness and sustainability of partnerships and the HE sector by improving the quality of English language training. To be able to identify the relevant and most necessary interventions in the area, the British Council, Moscow has commissioned this baseline research study to identify further initiatives in Russia.

0.2 Aim

The principal aim of the report is to describe and analyse the current situation with English language teaching in higher education in Russia and suggest recommendations for possible ways forward to improve the standards of English among students and staff. The report takes a broad approach and surveys the current state of internationalisation in higher education in Russia, and identifies the factors that facilitate or impede internationalisation. One of these factors is English language proficiency, and so the research focuses on three key areas:

♦ English language teaching at non-linguistic faculties (i.e. students not majoring in English): curricula, materials and resources, staffing, number of hours, entrance and exit levels of students, perceived needs, and assessment.

♦ English as a medium of instruction: as above, plus scope and potential for future development.

♦ English for academics: current level and needs, current training models

This report includes recommendations for areas where intervention is most necessary in general, and specific recommendations for where the British Council can add more value1.

0.3 Respondents

The report seeks to gather the views of various stakeholders: policy makers at university level, academics and teachers at English language departments, and other departments teaching other subjects through the medium of English, as well as students.

0.4 Methodology

The methodology included in-depth visits to a number of universities across Russia and a wider pool of universities reached by questionnaires. In addition, it was found necessary to carry out desk research, in particular to gain an understanding of the broader educational context of Russian universities, and comparative studies of UK universities in order to provide an international yardstick to assess the extent of internationalisation in Russian institutions of higher education.

0.5 Structure of the report

This report is divided into three broad sections which could loosely be described as the past, the present and the future:

1 These recommendations are presented in chapter 6, and set out in more detail in Appendices B and C.


Chapters 1 & 2 The past: internationalisation of universities 1960-2010 The past: English language teaching in Russian universities 1960-2010

Chapters 3 & 4 The current situation: internationalisation in Russian universities The current situation: English language teaching in Russian universities

Chapters 5 & 6 The future: conclusions The future: recommendations

Appendices


1 THE PAST: INTERNATIONALISATION IN UK AND RUSSIAN UNIVERSITIES 1960-2010

1.0 Introduction

This Baseline Study of English language teaching in Russian universities was carried out

within the broader context of the internationalisation of higher education in Russia. It is

therefore appropriate to briefly examine this context and how it has evolved in recent

decades – a period in which Russia has gone through dramatic political and economic

changes which inevitably impacted all aspects of academic context. Universities in the

Soviet Union and, later, Russia, have always been international, but the nature and degree

of internationalisation have changed as the political and economic circumstances changed.

Internationalisation in general, and the recruitment of overseas students in particular, is said

to offer several positive impacts2:

♦ Internationalisation of the staff and student body

♦ An increase in the quality and range of degree programmes

♦ The development of internationally focused programmes

♦ Enhancing research output by attracting high-quality international researchers

♦ Improved efficiency and international competitiveness

♦ Attracting revenue through student fees and other expenditure in the wider economy

All of these impacts are relevant in the context of Russian higher education, and in this

chapter various aspects of internationalisation during the period 1960-2010 will be

examined. During this period, the situations in both Russia and the UK have changed

dramatically: while both countries have ceased to provide government funding for large

numbers of overseas students, the UK has been significantly more successful in attracting

privately-funded students, as well as internationalising the staff, teaching and research of its

universities.

1.1 Numbers of international students

The main (but not only) indicator of internationalisation is the number of overseas students

registering for programmes in national universities. Each year over 2 million students seek

an education in a country other than their own, and the annual growth is estimated at

around six per cent 3. The following table attempts to summarise the broad trends in the

internationalisation in UK and Russian universities in terms of the numbers of incoming

international students. During the period 1980-2004, the UK moved from fifth place in the

world to second, while the USSR/Russia moved from third to eighth4.

2 British Council, Vision 2020 (2004: 11); the same report also attempts to quantify the value of various impacts to the UK

economy (2004: 11) 3 British Council, Vision 2020 (2004: 32)

4 King et al 2010: 10


Decade UK Russia

1960s In 1963 there were approximately

20,000 overseas students in UK HE

institutions. Many of these were

supported by UK government

scholarships and technical assistance

programmes aimed at students from

recently-independent countries of

the British Commonwealth. The

British Council had a network of

offices in major university cities but

they had no international

organisation for recruiting

international students.

The total number of foreign students in

the USSR in the period 1949-91 was

500,000 from 150 countries. 75% were

from Africa, Asia and Latin America, and

the rest were mostly from Eastern Europe.

At the beginning of this period (1950),

5900 foreign students came to the USSR.

By 1990 this figure had increased 20-fold

to 126,500 students per year.

The Ministry of Secondary and Higher

Education in Russia and each of the Soviet

republics had special departments to

oversee the work of foreign students.

In 1964 the All-Union Council was

established to represent all organisations

involved with the education of foreign

students5.

This increase in numbers was driven by

the generous Soviet government financial

support for international students, mostly

from Eastern European countries and the

developing nations of Africa, Asia and

South America.

1970s The numbers of international

students rose from 34,000 in 1973 to

88,000 in 1979. There were still

extensive technical assistance

schemes providing UK government

funding for training in UK HE

institutions. Higher fees for

international students were

introduced in 1974. Universities and

colleges began to develop dedicated

advisory and support services, such

as English language units, which

were established in most UK

universities in the 1970s, with their

own association, SELMOUS (now

BALEAP).

1980s In 1980, the UK attracted 56,000

foreign students, number five in the

world6. `Full cost’ fees were

introduced for overseas students

and visa procedures became more

rigorous. Technical assistance

programmes declined, and all major

universities (and, more subtly) the

At the beginning of the decade, in 1980,

the USSR attracted 62,942 foreign

students, third in the world after the USA

and France7. The USSR was the leading

supplier of international education: 10.8%

of all exchange students studied in the

country by the end of the 1990s.8

5 Arefyev 2007: 56-59

6 King et al 2010: 10

7 King et al 2010: 10

8 Lazarev page 1


British Council developed active

marketing operations overseas.

Overseas students’ fees emerged as

a significant strand of university

funding.

By the end of the decade, foreign students

studied at 660 educational and research

institutions in 120 cities. 23,500 studied

in Moscow alone, the biggest supplier

being Moscow People’s Friendship

University with 4500 foreign students9.

1990s International student numbers

increased significantly and

competition between universities,

and between English-speaking

countries, intensified, especially in SE

Asian markets. Tony Blair

introduced the Prime Minister’s

initiative in 1999 and gave UK

government support to a global

marketing campaign for

international students. Organised

government and institutional

support for full-cost overseas

students at UK universities became

increasingly important. By the end

of the decade, in the academic year

1999-2000, the number of overseas

students had risen to 224,660,

mostly studying without UK

government funding.

In 1990 the total number of foreign

students in the USSR was 180,000

(including 18,500 military students, 30,000

students at special communist party,

trade union and komsomol schools)10, but

the recruitment of foreign students

diminished rapidly with the collapse of the

USSR and the numbers fell dramatically.

The state strategy of university

internationalisation and centralised

funding came to an end, and, as Russian

universities ceased to rely on state

funding of their international activities,

they gained a certain economic

independence, including the `right’ to

recruit foreign students in order to make

up for the deficit in state funding11. A

new system of individual contracts started

to emerge and the first students funded in

this way arrived in Russia in 198912.

2000s In this decade international student

numbers in the UK nearly doubled

from 230,000 in 2000-01 to 405,000

in 2009-10 (around 10% of the total

student population), with an

estimated annual value of around

?4b. In the early years of the

decade, the UK began to lose market

share, but `stronger and more

strategic marketing by the British

Council overseas, increased efforts

on the part of individual institutions,

In 1999 the Russian Ministry of Education

issued an order to establish a network of

regional and inter-university centres of

international cooperation and academic

mobility. The register was established in

2000 and the first centres were

established in the South of Russia, in

Tatarstan, North-West Russia and the Far

East16.

It is estimated that only 3.8% of all

international students study in Russia

9 Arefyev 2007: 59

10 Arefyev 2007: 59

11 Lazarev pages 1-2

12 Arefyev 2007: 60


and co-ordination by partners as part

of the Prime Minister’s initiative’,

reversed this trend13. The majority

of overseas students are funded

from outside the UK – mostly

privately14.

Although the British Council’s 2004

report Vision 2020 predicted further

growth in demand for UK university

education, concerns arose both from

increasing international competition,

particularly from `Asian Tiger’ and

European Union countries offering

courses in English, and immigration

issues began to threaten student

numbers. The domination of

recruitment from China and India

caused concern about over-reliance

on too few markets, and there was

some disquiet about the influence of

major overseas donors.

The quality of the student

experience, rather than just good

marketing and promotion, became

increasingly accepted as the key to

competitive success, and the strong

showing of UK universities in

international rankings tables assisted

in recruitment15.

today17. In 2004, Russia attracted 75,000

foreign students, eighth in the world, just

ahead of New Zealand18. By 2005-06

there were 89,900 foreign students in

Russia, 94.7% of them studying at state

universities. At the close of the decade

the number of foreign students had

doubled to around 100,000 in 656

universities (both state and non-state),

but the majority came from former Soviet

republics: in 2003-04, 69.6% were from

Kazakhstan, Ukraine and Belorussia,

24.9% from other former republics and

only 5.6% from other countries19. The

majority of these students now pay tuition

fees, so that foreign students potentially

represent an important source of non-

state funding for many Russian higher

education institutions to survive under

conditions of financial constraint.

However, at present international

students in Russia yield only about

US$150 million annually20.

In an effort to attract more foreign

students, in 2006 the Ministry launched a

project to create internet information

resources in eight languages about

Russian education21.

16

Larionova & Meshkova (eds), pages 266-67 13

British Council, Vision 2020 page 7 14

British Council, Vision 2020, 2004: 8 15

See Appendix A. 17

Lazarev page 1 18

King et al 2010: 10 19

Arefyev 2007: 64) 20

Smolentseva A (2004), `International students in Russia’, Value MD, http://www.valuemd.com/russian-medical-

schools/19261-international-students-russia, accessed 23/02/2011, and Arefyev 2007: 61 21

http://en.russia.edu.ru/about/1063/

http://www.valuemd.com/russian-medical-schools/19261-international-students-russia



1.2 Other indicators of university internationalisation

However, internationalisation should not be seen merely as a matter of recruiting foreign

students:

This view is explicitly supported by the British Council, which believes also that the level and mode

of student recruitment to the UK is “unsustainable in the longer term … institutions must move from

equating international strategy with student recruitment alone to a much wider internalisation (sic =

internationalisation?) agenda where there is a balance in overseas activity between recruitment,

partnerships, research and capacity building”22

.

In Russia, the government has recently begun to invest in increasing the outward mobility of

academic staff: in 2006, 17 Russian HEIs received government funding of 10 billion roubles (plus

3 million through co-financing by the HEIs themselves) and five per cent of this funding (equal to

around 25 million US dollars) was assigned for the development of mobility. In 2007, another 40

Russian HEIs received funding of some 74.5 million dollars for the development of the academic

mobility of the teaching staff23.

Another development that will have a positive effect on academic internationisation is the

Skolkovo Innovation centre, a large-scale project commissioned by the Russian Government with

the participation of leading international universities and business companies. Skolkovo

Institute of Science and Technology (Skolkovo Tech), a start-up research university, is part of the

Skolkovo ecosystem along with project Clusters, Technopark, Open University and Innovation

City. Academic and research programmes at Skolkovo Tech will cut across traditional disciplinary

boundaries and address contemporary scientific and technological challenges in five priority

areas: information science, energy science, biomedical science, aerospace and civilian nuclear

science24.

As well as academic mobility of students and staff, international education in Russia today is

based on international educational programmes (including joint diplomas), and institutional

partnerships fuelled by networks and alliances25. The levels of internationalisation in all of

these areas are closely linked to the Bologna process, and these will be mentioned briefly here.

The current situation will then be examined in more depth in chapter 3.

♦ Bologna process The Bologna Agreement between the members of the Council of Europe was

signed in 1999, but Russia was not a signatory until 2003. Before this date, international

cooperation and mobility was facilitated primarily through inter-governmental agreements and

the external support programmes of international organisations such as the British Council,

22

Bone D (2008), Internationalisation of HE: A Ten-Year View, page 1 [The British Council source seems to be the 2008

report What Does the Future Hold? China Country Report: The Outlook for International Student Mobility] 23

http://www.bologna.ntf.ru/DswMedia/nr2007-2009_engl.pdf 24

Although there is no documented language policy for Skolkovo, it is clear that the language of instruction will be English. 25

Lazarev page 2


DAAD, French Ministry of Foreign Affairs, various US organisations, the Japanese Ministry of

Foreign Affairs, etc (see Larionova & Meshkova 2007).

In addition, some Bologna-related pilot projects were initiated in Russia, for example, a project

addressing the issues of methodology for developing and applying the European credit system.

The results of the pilot conducted by the Peoples’ Friendship University were approved and

recommended for implementation by the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian

Federation in 200226.

♦ International research During the period under review, Russia’s total research output fell,

even in areas such as the physical sciences and engineering in which it had once been a leading

player. Not only did the numbers of research publications fall in absolute terms, but Russian

HEIs were slow to move towards internationalisation of research programmes on the same scale

as universities in the rest of the world. There would seem to be many reasons for this, but

attitudes and practices from the Soviet era are still perceived as impeding internationalisation:

Anna Smolentseva, a senior research fellow at Moscow State University’s Institute for Educational

studies, says that measures have been introduced to help build world-class institutions, including a

scheme to designate some as `national research universities’ meriting extra funding and autonomy.

But, she adds: `In Russia, practices of academic freedom, peer review and transparency in decision-

making and competitions are still insufficient, and such a cultural component might become an

obstacle in a search for excellence’27

.

26

Russian National Report on Bologna Process 20-7-2009 http://bologna.ntf.ru?DswMedia?nr2007-2009_engl.pdf

accessed 30/04/2011; for more on the implementation of the Bologna Process in Russia, see Telegina & Schwengel 2012

27 Baty 2010, quoting an article by Smolentseva in International Higher Education, 2010

http://bologna.ntf.ru/?DswMedia?nr2007-2009_engl.pdf


2 THE PAST: ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING/ENGLISH FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES IN UK AND

RUSSIAN UNIVERSITIES 1960-2010

2.0 Introduction

In 2002, the British Council in Moscow carried out a baseline study of ESP teaching in

Russian universities for what became the RESPONSE project28. We will refer to – and update

– the findings of this baseline study in chapter 4. In this chapter we will offer some broader

contextualisation in order to try to explain some of the special characteristics of English

language teaching in institutions of higher education in Russia.

2.1 English for Specific Purposes – a global perspective

At the start of the British Council’s 2002 baseline study, the editors refer to a survey of

trends in global ESP29 and it may be worth summarising that survey here. The survey

chronicled two strands – the economic-political factors behind the development of ESP and

the linguistic and methodological evolution of ESP:

Decade Political & economic developments Linguistic & methodological developments

1940s `Bloody origins’: Teaching English for

military purposes during World War II,

e.g. to integrate refugee Polish air force

pilots into the British Royal Air Force

following the invasion of Poland in 1939.

Grammar-translation: English in general,

and specialist English in particular (what

later became known as ESP), were largely

taught through the translation and

grammatical analysis of English texts.

1950s `Brave new world’: English replaced

German as the dominant language of

international science and technology

and so there was a need to teach English

as the main international language of

communication for science and

technology (EST).

Textual approach: ESP is taught through the

intensive study of specialist texts from the

target discipline. The approach also

involved `register analysis’: detailed

research into specialist vocabulary or

terminology and dominant grammatical

features.

1960s `Winds of change’: The newly-

independent countries of the British

Commonwealth needed rapid training

for a wide range of personnel to run

their economies, industries and public

services. English for Academic Purposes

(EAP) emerged as the dominant branch

of ESP.

Discourse analysis: ESP teaching was based

on the prominent discourse functions found

in specialist texts: definition, description,

classification, contrast, etc. Increasingly,

this approach was applied to the teaching of

all four skills – reading, writing, listening and

speaking.

1970s `Globalisation’: The development of the

oil economies led to a globalisation of

industry and the investment of oil

Needs analysis: It was recognised that

different students were preparing for

different contexts and therefore had

28

Winetroube S & L Kuznetsova (2002), Specialist English Teaching and Learning – the State of the Art in Russia: A Baseline

Study Report, Moscow: The British Council/Publishing House Petropolis 29

Winetroube & Kuzxnetsova (2002: 16). The survey of trends was by Richard West (1999)


wealth in new industries and

educational institutions, especially in

OPEC countries. Business English and

lower-level EAP were the dominant

fields of ESP.

different needs. So, for example, the

language needs of an airline pilot would be

very different from those of a medical

student.

1980s `The opening door’: The end of the cold

war brought an increase in trade and

commerce, especially with China.

English became the lingua franca for

German companies producing cars in

China or pipelines across Europe, for

example.

Focus on new teaching approaches: ESP

teaching methodology developed as

teachers recognised the need to teach

English for communication, as well as the

roles played by motivation and the teaching

methodologies of the students’ own

disciplines.

1990s `Business as usual’: The trends of the

1980s and 1990s continued, with

business English (EBP) eclipsing all other

areas of ESP.

Genre analysis: Research into the generic

structure of common written and spoken

texts showed students how typical forms of

communication are structured, and gives a

context for grammar teaching.

2000s `Disintegration and integration’:

International peace-keeping missions

and the expansion of the NATO alliance

brought new projects in military English.

The road to accession to the European

Union brought a need for English for

international negotiations and

documentation for civil servants,

administrators and lawmakers.

Appropriate methodology: Concentration

on the development of teaching approaches

which are suitable for local teachers rather

than native speakers or expatriates. [See

Holliday (1994), who does not specifically

mention Russia, but his discussion of Poland

may be relevant.]

2010s `Globalisation’: English has become a

global language, with communication in

English between non-native speakers

exceeding that with native speakers. As

a significant dimension of this

globalisation, English `is used

increasingly as the medium of education

in universities across the world’30

. As a

consequence, EAP regains its position as

a leading branch of ESP.

Technology: Technology comes to

dominate all forms of ELT, with computer-

assisted language learning, e-learning, m-

learning, etc. The internet makes it possible

to devise specialist ESP materials based on

current authentic texts selected and

downloaded to meet the specific needs of

students studying English for a narrow

academic or professional area.

2.2 ESP in Russia – Russian isolation

What is notable about this brief survey is the extent to which Russian ESP remained on the

sidelines of mainstream global trends. The USSR and Russia were often major players in the

economic and political developments, but in most cases these did not impact on language

teaching here. In the same way, ESP teaching was not influenced by the same linguistic and

methodological developments during the period surveyed – ESP teaching began in the

30

Graddol 2006: 74


1950s but was (and, in some cases, still is) stuck in the 1950s. This was noted in the 2002

Baseline Study:

There is a long and proud tradition of teaching English at institutions of higher learning in

Russia, but … the English language needs of the university student in the Soviet Union were

limited and so for a long period Russian ESP developed in a somewhat isolated tradition31

.

This isolation showed itself – and continues to show itself – in several ways: focus,

methodology, materials and professional development. One notable example would be

genre analysis – an academic approach that originated in Russia in the 1920s with the work

of Vladimir Propp in the analysis of folk literature, but, while this approach was applied to

ESP in many western universities in the 1990s, it does not seem to have impacted on Russian

ESP teaching in the past 20 years.

2.2.1 ESP focus

From the beginning, ESP in Russia has had a narrow, often very narrow, focus, i.e.

specific courses were developed for particular academic or professional fields. In many

cases this was possible and desirable because ESP teachers were employed in specialist

institutions or attached to particular faculties or departments. As the 2002 Baseline

Study noted: `In the university English course, the EGP and ESP balance is shifted

towards the latter’32. In the west, there was an opposite movement towards `broad’ or

`wide-angle’ ESP, i.e. language courses designed for a wide spectrum of academic or

professional disciplines, sometimes called English for General Academic Purposes (EGAP)

or English for General Occupational Purposes (EGOP). In a recent article, Huckin (2003)

attributes this to the influence of Hutchinson & Waters (1980)33, but it may have much

to do with the ways in which ESP is organised in universities: in the UK, for example,

most ESP is delivered by a central unit which must service all departments in all faculties,

whereas in Russia there are often separate ESP teams servicing each faculty, often

geographically dispersed across a city or campus. It is easy to see how the Russian

situation encourages a highly-specific focus to ESP teaching.

2.2.2 ESP Methodology

The 2002 Baseline Study concluded that `The collected statistics indicate that the

grammar translation method still clearly dominates in the ESP classroom …The survey

reveals that communicative methods are gradually gaining ground in the ESP classroom,

their popularity, however, being perceptibly lower than that of the older techniques’. A

similar picture is offered by Zabotkina (2002):

31

Wintetroube & Kuznetsova (eds) (2002: 21) 32

Winetroube & Kuznetsova (eds) (2002: 34) 33

Hutchinson & Waters 1985: 178 (1980), “ESP at the Crossroads.” Reprinted in Swales, J. Episodes in ESP, Pergamon,

1985.


The main emphasis has been on reading and translation of specialized texts in the particular

field of studies (chemistry, mathematics, geography, etc), the main focus being a

specialized competence relevant to their disciplines. The system has proved a failure as far

as communication is concerned. Our students have excellent knowledge of grammar and

special vocabulary, but they cannot communicate with their peers from other countries or

with the foreign guest professors34

.

The authors of the 2002 Baseline Study went on to offer an explanation for this in the

widespread practice of devising in-house materials known as `metodichkas’ based on

authentic specialist texts

Our hypothesis is that … when ESP is being taught, teachers find an appropriate text, but,

more often than not, they have neither the time nor the expertise to supplement it with

communicative tasks and/or exercises. They choose the least demanding method –

grammar translation 35.

This methodology means that there is a corresponding neglect of needs-based

approaches: a `lack of practice in developing language skills with a focus on ESP, namely

speaking, writing and presentation skills in typical job-related situations’36.

2.2.3 ESP Materials

The 2002 Baseline Study also showed that, while modern, international textbooks were

increasingly available and were actually the largest single source of materials, they were

still in the minority (37%). The majority of materials were still local coursebooks and in-

house materials consisting of booklets (metodichka) or the teacher’s personal,

photocopied materials. These seem to be popular largely because of their narrow focus:

Asked to evaluate the effectiveness of different types of materials, students gave the

highest rating to teachers’ personal resource packs, course books published abroad

coming second in their list, perhaps, because materials specially selected by their teachers

seem to them to be more relevant to their future professional needs37

.

2.2.4 Professional development

Russian language teachers have traditionally received very good, very thorough initial

training, but very little in-service training, especially in the area of ESP teaching. In part

this was because the centralized system of regular in-service training in universities had

broken down:

34

Zabotkina 2002: 35-36 35 Winetroube & Kuznetsova (eds) (2002: 57-58 + 61); for an alternative `least demanding’ approach, see Scott et al (1984) 36

Ceremissina & Petrashova (2002), Current trends in ESP teaching in Russia 37

Winetroube & Kuznetsova (2002: 60 emphasis added)


Initial teacher training/teacher education very rarely pays anything more than rudimentary

attention to ESP and there is little formal in-service training. Almost the only opportunities

for professional development as an ESP teacher have come through conferences and

symposia organised by teachers’ associations …38

.

The 2002 Baseline Study also noted that there was a general lack of understanding among

fellow teachers and academics of the complex and demanding nature of TESP, especially the

particular demands of `narrow’ ESP. It was for this reason that the 2002 Baseline Study

authors recommended that the principal focus of the RESPONSE project should be ESP

professional development: `University English teachers should be provided with training in

modern methodology and approaches to teaching ESP’39. The RESPONSE project developed

and published a set of training materials, trained a number of training teams, and trained

fairly large numbers of ESP teachers across Russia40. When the project ended in 2005, the

hope was that the project could be sustainable without British Council support, with regional

HEIs paying the RESPONSE teams for training workshops. In practice, this has not happened,

for a variety of reasons: lack of HEI funding, lack of interest from ESP teachers, and `in some

cases the programme did not fit the needs of mass reform training where short courses

reaching big groups of teachers are needed as it is reflection based and it takes time for

teachers to cover it’41.

2.3 Conclusion: ESP teachers – 2001

The key findings of the Baseline Study are worth repeating here, so that we have a basis of

comparison to determine what progress has been made ten years after the original British

Council survey:

• Young, inexperienced teachers tend to be over-represented in the ELT profession, while

those of several years’ experience are correspondingly under-represented.

• Although the provision of regular training for teaching staff is a legal requirement, teachers

get few regular training opportunities.

• Teaching loads seem to be rather heavy and in many cases exceed the Ministerial

standards, particularly in technical universities.

• Teachers and students have to contend with excessive group size, lack of streaming, and

shortage of facilities.

• The grammar-translation method still clearly dominates in the ESP classroom.

• Teachers tend to neglect the teaching of writing in ESP classes.

• Teachers report that course books published abroad are their most frequently used

material.

• The majority of university English staff have to teach more than one variety of ESP.

38

Winetroube & Kuznetsova (2002: 19) 39

Winetroube & Kuznetsova (2002: 105 original emphasis) 40

See Scholey M: Case Study: ESP Trainer Training Materials in Russia 41

Ludmila Kuznetsova, personal communication, April 2011


• Low salaries force university teachers to take on an excessive workload, usually involving

extra jobs. This severely limits their opportunities for professional growth.

• The status of the ELT profession is rather low and there is a clear need to boost the

teachers’ self-esteem and raise the public profile of the profession42

.

Most of these features still seem to apply to the teaching and teachers of ESP in Russia

in 2011. This situation will be examined in more closely in chapter 4 and the results of

the 2011 survey will be compared with those from 2001.

42

Winetroube & Kuznetsova (eds) (2002: 50)


3 THE CURRENT SITUATION – INTERNATIONALISATION IN RUSSIAN UNIVERSITIES

3.0 Introduction

At present there are over 1000 institutions of higher education in Russia:

Sector No. of

HEIs

No. of students (thousands) by mode Total

(thousands) Day Evening Correspondence

(distance)

External

studies

State &

municipal

662 3017.4 253.1 2710.3 154.8 6135.6

Non-state 452 262.6 70.5 928.9 21.2 1283.3

Total 1114 3280.0 323.6 3639.2 175.9 7418.8

HEIs in Russia in 2009/10 academic year43

These figures are very large: in the period between 1990 and 2005, the number of HEIs in

Russia doubled and the number of students tripled44, but there is a new trend away from

quantity and towards quality: there is government pressure to reduce the number of

institutions in various ways, there is the need to move towards the Bologna process with its

focus on quality and recognition, there is pressure to improve research quality and world

rankings, and there is a move towards internationalisation. Superficially, there seems to

have been progress: according to the Russian Federal Accreditation Agency45, the number of

universities that have established close cooperation with foreign universities to implement

international programmes has increased, and this increase is evident in the numbers of HEIs

introducing dual-degree programmes46:

2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08

Number of HEIs with programmes

with international participation

107 201 (38*) 1232 (35*) 215 (40*)

Number of programmes 346 548 422 (65**) 600 (92**)

*Number of HEIs implementing double degree programmes

**Number of double degree programmes

However, beneath these figures lie more detailed statistics which show that the degree of

internationalisation is in fact very limited and that the outward flow from Russia is greater

than the inward flow of foreign staff and students into Russian HEIs:

43

http://www.gks.ru/free_doc/new_site/population/obraz/vp-obr1.htm 44

Arzhanova et al, Bologna Process National Report 2005-07 45

http://www.nica.ru/ cited by Synyatkin, Mishin & Karpukhina (forthcoming) 46

Bologna process: Towards the European Higher Education Area. Russian Federation National Report 2007-09.

http://www.nica.ru/


Students & academics Ttotals

Russian students participating in dual degree

programmes

66821

Foreign students participating in double degree

programmes

565

Russian academics in European partner universities 494

European academics in Russian partner universities 450

Note 1: 0.09% of total number of Russian university students in 2009/10

Numbers of students and academics participating in dual degree programmes 2009-1047

In this section, various factors impacting on the internationalisation of universities will be

discussed. The primary focus will be the internationalisation of universities in Russia, but the

discussion will include comparative data from the UK and other countries where appropriate

in order to provide a measure to assess the current performance of Russian universities.

The overall target for internationalisation in Russian universities does not as yet seem to be

a matter of government policy, but individual institutions state that they have plans to

increase the numbers of foreign students to 10% of the student body48, or even to 20% by

202049. There is certainly a perception that the numbers of international students at Russian

universities could expand:

Presently, about 100,000 international students are enrolled at Russian higher education

institutions. Their expanding numbers are considered one of the most important trends in

Russian tertiary education. Policymakers emphasize that higher education, along with oil, has

the potential to become a key export industry in the Russian economy that will earn billions of

dollars, as is the case in the United States, Australia, and other countries. However, currently

the presence of international students in Russia yields only about US$150 million annually50

.

However, it may be noted that few Russian students currently travel abroad for their

education: in 2003 6238 Russian students travelled to the USA (20th in rank) and Russians

47

Synyatkin, Mishin & Karpukhina (forthcoming) 48

Lazarev page 3, referring to Vladivostok State University of Economics & Service (VSUES). Smolentseva (2004) estimates

that about 10% of Moscow State University’s student body is from overseas, 45% from the CIS and Baltic countries and

49% from Asia. See also Arefyev 2010, where he refers to the Government strategy that 10% of higher education income

should come from international students by 2020. 49

St Petersburg State University (personal communication, March 2011) 50

Smolentseva A (2004), `International students in Russia’, Value MD, http://www.valuemd.com/russian-medical-

schools/19261-international-students-russia, accessed 23/02/2011




did not figure among the top 20 nationalities going to the UK or Australia. Not that British

students were much better: 8326 to the US (13th) and 1540 to Australia (18th).51

3.1 Factors in university internationalisation

Based on desk research, we have identified a number of factors which are felt to limit

internationalisation in Russian universities52. As can be seen from the table below, there is a

broad consensus on the factors that are felt to impede internationalisation in Russian HEIs53:

Factor Lazarev54

Smolentseva55

Arefyev56

geographical space & distance -

Bologna Process: alignment &

recognition of Russian qualifications

quality assurance

infrastructure – classroom & living

conditions

bureaucracy -

visas & work permits

limited opportunities for workplace

practice in Russian companies and

enterprises

educational management & marketing

government policy on international

education

()

language ()

Each of these factors is discussed in the sections below.

3.1.1. Geographical distance and space The Russian Federation is by far the largest country

in the world by area and this has been seen as a potential cause of `the loss of an integrated

educational environment’57, but the very size of the country could also be an advantage,

enabling universities to recruit from and form regional partnerships with various

neighbouring countries, reducing the risk of over-reliance on a few sources of students (a

fear in the UK). Some universities in the east, for example, have formed links with

51

British Council, Vision 2020 (2004: 82) 52

For a contrasting list of factors which promote internationalisation in universities, see the UK HE Intelligence Unit study,

The Practice of Internationalisation: managing international activities in UK universities, 2008. For a list of the five

fundamental strategic issues for international education activities, see British Council, Vision 2020, 2004: 9. For a list of

factors that make a particular country attractive to overseas students, see British Council, Vision 2020 2004:30. 53

See also Telegina & Schwengel 2012, which appeared after this section was written. 54

on Lazarev G I, National Policy and Activity of Russian Universities in the Field of International Education,

http://www.iienetwork.org/page/108370/, accessed 14/02/2011 55

International Education, http://www.iienetwork.org/page/108370/, accessed 14/02/2011, and Smolentseva 56

Arefyev A L (2010), Current State of Perspectives for the Export of Russian Education, 57

Lazarev page 3

http://www.iienetwork.org/page/108370/

http://www.iienetwork.org/page/108370/


institutions in Korea and other institutions in the region, but one of the six universities

visited, SIBFU, mentioned the geographical remoteness of Siberia as a barrier to

international recruitment, while Moscow’s position as a capital and St Petersburg’s as a

historical city close to Europe were felt to offer advantages.

However, despite the vast size of Russia, distance is not a factor unique to Russia: distance

is always a factor in international education – international students everywhere face the

problems of travel, living in an unfamiliar culture and environment, separation from family

and, for many, reduced income. It is for this reason that many universities around the world

have invested in distance or `transnational’ education (TNE) in order to mitigate these

problems. TNE takes various forms, principally distance learning, partnership programmes,

validation and franchising arrangements, and offshore campuses.

The global demand for UK transnational education (TNE) in 2020 is predicted to outstrip UK

onshore international education. It is forecast to grow from an estimated 190,000 in 2003 to

350,000 in 2010 and 800,000 in 202058

.

The UK is a leading provider of quality TNE as well as a major innovator in new technology

delivery and offshore provision. The lead was originally taken by the Open University, which

was founded in 1969 and now has some 180,000 students, including 25,000 studying

overseas. In recent years many other major UK universities have entered the distance

education field, especially at master’s level, and also developed partnership programmes

and offshore campuses. Distance education for both home and overseas students, and

other forms of TNE are fully accepted. Incidentally, Russian students are seen as potentially

a major source of UK TNE outside the `big five’ (China, India, Malaysia, Singapore, Hong

Kong)59.

The situation seems rather different in Russia. Throughout Soviet times, correspondence

learning was a major source of education for Soviet citizens and developed into the largest

system in the world. Initially, it was seen as a `supplementary system’ but in time came to

be recognized as equivalent to full-time traditional education. However, the financial crisis

of the 1990s coincided with the development of new technologies in distance education and

institutions were starved of funding for modernization and computerization 60.

The development of distance educations programmes for overseas students also seems to

have been limited. Although the Moscow State Open University opened in 1951 and has 16

branches and Russia, Ukraine and Azerbaijan, it has fewer than half the students of the

British OU and offers no statistics for students from outside these three countries. Other

Russian universities have also opened distance learning centres and branches, but there is

58

British Council, Vision 2020 (2004: 8; see also pages 44ff but note that Figure 3.10.1 has an incorrect key, and 67) 59

British Council, Vision 2020 (2004: 46-47) 60

Moiseeva 2005: 217-20


little evidence that these are being used to systematically attract overseas students,

especially Russian-speaking students in Eastern Europe, Central Asia and Israel61. As the

table in section 3.0 shows, Russian universities have more distance than full-time day

students – 49% of all students study by distance. Figures for foreign students are hard to

come by, although it has been estimated that in 2005-06, as many as 27,000 foreign

students (30% of the total of 89,900) were studying on evening programmes, by

correspondence or by distance62. However, as the majority of these foreign students are

from former Soviet republics, it has to be assumed that the majority of evening/

correspondence/distance students are also from these republics. It also has to be assumed

that the overwhelming majority of these distance and correspondence courses are delivered

in the Russian language.

In Russia, it seems that distance learning programmes are mostly national rather than

transnational, and that they cater mainly for the domestic market or the wider Russian-

speaking diaspora. However, a number of Russian institutions have established links with

universities in the UK, Europe, Israel or North America to provide distance courses for

Russian students, and these have helped universities identify some of the problems of

internationalisation that need to be overcome:

Distance education contributed to the integration of international education systems and their

mutual adaptation. The first experiments in cooperation between Russian and international

universities within distance-learning programmes and courses demonstrated the necessity of

integration of education at different levels – technological (compatibility of software and

hardware), curricular, methodological (grading, control, methods of teaching used, etc), and

legal (recognition of diplomas)63

.

This approach to distance or transnational education provides an international dimension

which may help address some of the doubts about quality that linger in Russia:

Distance learning courses are common in many Russian universities, say study collaborators Marina Buharkina and Marina Moiseeva, who visited Stanford late in the summer to meet with their fellow researchers.

“Distance learning is being developed very intensely in the last five years (in Russia) but everyone is off trying their own approaches,” said Dr. Moiseeva, who is based in Moscow and coordinated the Russian part of the project. “The level of course development can be quite poor and is carried out just to meet the most basic requirements. That is why delivering the Stanford curriculum was so important in finding out the potential value of quality distance learning”

64.

61

Moiseeva 2005: 224 62

Arefyev 2007: 64 63

Moiseeva 2005: 224 64

scil.stanford.edu/news/russia10.htm


3.1.2 Bologna process & degree recognition Although Russia officially signed up to the

Bologna process in 2003, the transition has in many cases been slow and uncertain.

Bologna has three main priorities, each of which has proved problematic in Russia65:

• Introduction of the three tier system (bachelor/master/doctorate)

• Recognition of qualifications and periods of study

• Quality assurance

3.1.2.1 The three-tier system Although federal law stipulates that all educational

programmes except those specified by government regulations shall transfer to the

two-cycle degree system66 from 1 September 2009, adoption has been sluggish and

Russian employers often do not recognize a bachelor’s degree as `it does not

correlate with the qualification system in the Russian labor market. At the same

time, the Russian term “specialist” does not fit well into the international system’

(Lazarev; see also Sim 2010: 7). This sluggishness in adopting the Bologna system

must inevitably be a barrier to internationalisation, especially when the most of the

rest of the world has already moved towards the Bologna model.

3.1.2.2 Recognition of qualifications A major problem in the past was the

recognition of Russian degrees in other countries, and foreign qualifications in

Russia. There was great hope that Bologna would solve this problem:

The most important challenge involves quality assurance and degree recognition. In

fact, Russian degrees are not recognized in the developed world or in a number of

developing countries such as India – which refused to acknowledge Russian diplomas

in 2002. That is why studying in Russia does not make sense for many potential

students. Nevertheless, joining the Bologna process, which occurred in 2003, should

foster the convertibility of Russian degrees and strengthen the position of Russia in

the international educational market67

.

Concrete measures to address this issue have been taken: the Russian Federation

Government has passed resolution no. 944-r of 1 July 2006, which contains a section

on `Ensuring recognition of education certificates and academic degrees’68, but

overseas students and academics must still go through a lengthy and bureaucratic

`nostrification’ process. Institutions that the consultants visited still reported

difficulties in adapting to the Bologna system and in mutual recognition of degrees,

especially at PhD level. It is also claimed that the Russian government has failed to

65

www.ec.europa.eu 66

Russia at present seems to focus on bachelor and master’s level programmes, i.e. a two-tier system rather than the

three-tier system adopted by other Bologna signatories 67

Smolentseva 2004 op cit 68

http://www.bologna.nft.ru/DswMedia/nr2005-2007_engl.pdf accessed 30/04/2011

http://www.bologna.nft.ru/DswMedia/nr2005-2007_engl.pdf


put appropriate mechanisms in place `for coordination of curricula and programs

between different countries’69 .

3.1.2.3 University quality and rankings70 Quality is generally regarded as the

cornerstone of international education, but quality must be visible. While in Russia

it is believed that the attraction of Russian higher education lies in its high quality,

this quality is not always apparent internationally. In fact, Russian universities

consistently perform badly on all of the international rankings (even Russian ones!)

that have become so crucial in international education in recent years (see Appendix

A). There are several reasons why Russian universities underperform on such

rankings, some of which actually have little to do with academic quality:

3.1.2.4 Research A major criterion in assessing university quality is research, and

one of the main reasons for the underperformance of Russian universities in world

rankings is the decline in academic research output in recent years:

After reaching a peak of just over 29,000 papers in 1994, [Russia’s] output mostly

declined over the next decade to reach a low of 22,000 in 2006. … While other

countries have been increasing their research output, in some cases by dramatic

volumes, Russia has struggled to maintain its output in absolute terms and has

slipped backwards in relative terms. There have been notable reductions in relative

output in areas which were historically its core strengths, such as physical sciences

and engineering71

.

This decline can be seen in the following table, which shows the position in 2010 in the

world’s leading academic countries, as well as the BRIC members72:

Country Percentage of research publications

USA 28.5%

China 8.4%

UK 7.68%

Japan 6.75%

Canada 4.7%

Australia 3.0%

India 2.9%

Russia 2.6%

Netherlands 2.5%

Brazil 2.1%

69

Lazarev op cit 70

See Appendix A for a summary of UK and Russian universities included in the top 250 rankings according to various

British, Russian, Chinese and international systems. 71

Adams J & C King (2010), Global Research Report: Russia, Thomson Reuters 72

Source: Adams J & C King (2010), Global Research Report: Russia, Thomson Reuters, with additional figures from the

same organisation’s Global Research Report: Japan (2010)


The authors of the report cite several reasons for this decline: drastic under-funding,

the ageing population of academic researchers, and the brain drain of the early 1980s,

when upwards of 80,000 scientists left Russia in search of better earnings, funding and

facilities abroad – Western Europe in particular.

The authors might have cited other reasons. First, the Soviet model saw and funded

research and teaching as separate tracks, and, even today, we encountered the view

from an Academician that research should be carried out in research institutes rather

than universities73. Much of this research was carried out in closed or military institutes,

and so publication was never an aim, and may well have been prohibited. Second, the

language of publication of most research journals has become overwhelmingly English in

the past 50 years74, so that now, according to one widely-quoted estimate75, nearly 90%

are now published in English, with Russian accounting for a mere 2%:

Language Number of academic journals

English 2080

Multilingual 164

French 36

German 34

Polish 7

Chinese 5

Russian 5

Spanish 5

Dutch 3

Norwegian 3

Portuguese 3

Swedish 3

Japanese 2

Turkish 2

Hebrew 1

Lithuanian 1

Romanian 1

Serbian 1

Despite these problems, it is notable that there has been a recent increase in

Russian research output:

The last two years would seem to indicate a rebound with 25,500 papers in 2007 and

27,600 in 200876

.

73

Academician J Hitelson (personal communication) 74

See Graddol D (1997), The Future of English?, London: British Council, page 9 75

Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Academic_Journals_by_language, accessed 10/03/2011 76

Adams & King 2010


It is also notable that a high proportion (45% +) of these papers were with

international research partners, although there has been some change in the actual

partners77:

Country 1999-2003

no. of papers (rank)

2004-08

no. of papers (rank)

USA 11,515 (2) 12,989 (1)

Germany 12,005 (1) 12,728 (2)

France 5,630 (3) 6,641 (3)

UK 4,412 (4) 5,420 (4)

Italy 3,459 (5) 4,337 (5)

Japan 3,440 (6) 3,712 (6)

Poland 2,250 (8) 2,695 (7)

Switzerland 2,006 (10) 2,.526 (8)

Netherlands 2,072 (9) 2,469 (9)

Sweden 2,427 (7) 2,351 (10)

Spain 1,656 (13) 2,347 (11)

Canada 1,659 (12) 2,311 (12)

China - 1,880 (13)

South Korea - 1,841 (14)

Ukraine 1,663 (11) -

Finland 1,444 (14) -

Total (top 14 partners) 55,638 64,247

Yearly average 11,128 12,849 (+15%)

3.1.3 Academic quality assurance `The most important challenge involves quality

assurance and degree recognition’78, both major priorities of the Bologna process.

As far as we can determine, Russia has no centralised agency carrying out regular,

systematic and objective evaluations of universities comparable to the UK’s Quality

Assurance Agency for Higher Education79 : èxpanding participation in international

education also requires changes in the system used to evaluate education quality’

(Lazarev). Smolentseva (2010) reinforces this statement: Ìn Russia, practices of

academic freedom, peer review and transparency in decision-making and

competitions are still insufficient, and such a cultural component might become an

obstacle in a search for excellence’80. A university’s status has traditionally been a

subjective matter of reputation, and, because there are no objective criteria for

evaluating academic performance, research and other aspects of university quality,

one of Russia’s leading ranking systems, RIA Novosty / Forbes, has to rank 476

77

Source: Adams & King (2010) 78

Smolentseva 2004; for more on quality assurance on HE in Russia, see Motova & Pykko 2012 79

See @http://www.qaa.ac.uk/ 80

Ònce a science superpower, Russia is now a fading light’, Times Higher Education Supplement, 4 February 2010,

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asdp?storycode=410229, accessed 10/03/2011

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asdp?storycode=410229


higher education institutions using the average score of the Unified State

Examination that is required to enter a university81.

A further and complicating factor is that Russian universities often try to market

themselves internationally as a relatively cheap source of education. There are

indications, however, that `price is frequently viewed as a proxy for quality’82, and

that this has helped increase the perception of academic quality in UK universities.

Conversely, it may undermine perceptions of Russia’s educational offering.

3.1.4 Infrastructure Inadequate classroom and dormitory infrastructure for students is

a major obstacle in attracting international students. A senior member of one of

the Moscow universities visited by the consultants identified this as the major

problem, and this reinforces the point made by Lazarev:

Underdevelopment of infrastructure and non-conformity of educational conditions

in Russia with western norms are serious obstacles for the expansion of Russia’s

presence in the international educational services market. This is why academic

mobility with developed countries is still a “one-way street”: Russian students

actively go to the USA, Korea and Japan for education, but the unsatisfactory living

conditions of Russian regions discourage students of these countries who wish to

pursue education in Russia. … Infrastructure development is a question of state

support. However, there is still no nationwide strategy in this domain83

.

Infrastructure requires large-scale and continuous investment: the OECD average is

9.5% of the sector’s income84. In Russia, as this quotation suggests, infrastructure is

seen as a matter for the state, whereas in the UK and other countries, universities

have been enterprising in seeking alternative sources of funding for university

accommodation and equipment.

3.1.5 Bureaucracy Infrastructure was linked with bureaucracy by Geim and Nosolov, the

Russian-born Nobel physicists now working in the UK, in a widely-quoted interview

with the Moscow Times:

Russia has “neither the facilities nor the conditions,” Geim said, adding that there

was an unacceptable “level of bureaucracy, corruption and idiocracy.” … Asked

whether he could envisage a scenario in which he would go back to Russia, Geim

spared no words. “Reincarnation,” he said85

.

81

http://www.forbes.ru/rating/luchshie-universitety-rossii-novyi-reiting-forbes/2010 82

British Council, Vision 2020, page 6 83

Lazarev op cit; see also Smolenseva 2004 op cit, who also mentions personal safety and racism. 84

Cited by Bone, (2008: 3) op cit. Bone notes that the UK’s investment is roughly half of the OECD average. We can find

no comparable figures for Russia. 85

http://www.newsru.nl/readarticle.php?article_id=201 accessed 15/03/2011

http://www.forbes.ru/rating/luchshie-universitety-rossii-novyi-reiting-forbes/2010

http://www.newsru.nl/readarticle.php?article_id=201


3.1.6 Visas and work permits Bureaucracy takes many forms, but visa restrictions that

prohibit foreign students from working and which limit mobility from one region or

university to another are often mentioned86. The lack of opportunities to work in

Russia not only cause financial hardship for students but may, it is suggested, lead

foreign students to become involved in `illegal business activities or narcotics

distribution’87.

3.1.7 Limited opportunities for practice in companies and enterprises While the visa and

work permit situation make it difficult for foreign students to find financial support

through working, the situation is far from satisfactory even when work experience is

included as part of the educational programme. To identify the main problems in

educating Chinese students in HEIs in Russia, sociological surveys were conducted in

34 HEIs in 15 Russian cities in 2006/2007 and 2007/2008 academic years, and,

among many factors, Chinese students were unhappy about the organization and

conditions of placements in companies and enterprises. Only 25.7% of respondents

were completely satisfied with these. Regarding the participation in research, only

21.1% of respondents were satisfied 88.

3.1.8 Educational management & marketing Attracting international students and staff

requires investment in all aspects of international marketing, and Russian

universities currently seem to lack a range of skills, training and services89:

Universities have a dire need to coordinate their activities in the international

market, to create a lasting network of partners abroad, to increase the information

available to them through market research, and to train managers for international

services90

.

The value of training in international educational marketing was brought home by a

small project initiated by the British Council in St Petersburg in 1997:

“Developing their overseas market is critical for many universities in Russia today,

for whom failure to access this market could be fatal,” said Nikolai Rozhkov, head of

the international office of St Petersburg State University of Technology and Design,

and a leading member of the city’s vice rectors’ association. …

Dr Rozhkov, who last November spent three weeks on a Know-How Fund

86

Lazarev op cit 87

Smolentseva 2004 op cit 88

Arefyev 2010:90 89

See also Smolentseva 2004, op cit 90

Lazarev op cit; For more on the importance of an international perspective at the highest levels of university

management, see Bone 2008: 6: `internationalisation needs the wholehearted support and involvement of management

at the highest level, and resource needs to be spent on that growing number of top-tier posts with internationalisation in

the title.’


secondment to Leeds University’s European Office, said the British management

techniques and approach to attracting students and tapping sources of funding, for

example through alumni outreach, were the key areas from which Russian

universities could benefit. …

Michael Bird, director of the British Council in St Petersburg, said: “The tradition of

foreign students coming to study in Russia, who are mostly subsidised students

from socialist countries, has been broken down since the collapse of the Soviet

Union. The British have a dynamic in working in international markets for the last

20 years, and have a huge amount of practical experience to share”91

.

At present, it seems, foreign students come to Russia on the recommendation of

family, friends or returning students, or are sent by their own governments. Few

come as a result of the universities’ marketing initiatives92, as is apparent from the

lack of information on university websites.

3.1.9 Government policy

This lack of a coherent international marketing strategy is not apparent merely at

institutional level – while there is a federal policy of financial support for foreign

students, there is a lack of any concerted political initiative in the area of marketing:

The main obstacle against the efficient integration of Russia into the world

educational environment and the expansion of educational services export is the

lack of a clearly determined national policy on the promotion of the Russian system

of higher education93

.

This lack of any political direction is apparent on the Ministry of Education and

Science website, which presents potential foreign students with a daunting

mountain of bureaucracy. The policy is in stark contrast to that of the last UK

government, which, in the face of declining number of international students,

launched a very successful Prime Minister’s initiative to enhance and coordinate

international marketing. However, in the summer of 2010, an Export Unit was

established within the Department for International Cooperation at the Ministry of

Education and Science in Moscow. At the request of the Ministry, a project entitled

`Concept of the Export of Russian Education 2011-2020’ was run by the National

Training Foundation, although, according to the NTF Director, the Ministry has yet to

make any decisions regarding the concept94.

91

Holdsworth N (1997); the impact of this initiative is still apparent in St Petersburg (Michael Bird, personal

communication, March 2011) 92

Smolentseva 2004 op cit; see also Arefyev 2010 93

Lazarev op cit 94

Bulgakova N, `Tired of lagging behind? Ministry of Education and Science is planning to increase the export of

education’, 26 November 2010, http://poisknews.ru/theme/international/275, retrieved 11/04/2011

http://poisknews.ru/theme/international/275


3.1.10 Language

Language is identified as an issue inhibiting internationalisation at several levels. For

international students, courses offered in Russian present a far greater challenge

than courses in English-speaking countries:

Another barrier to increasing the number of foreign students in Russia is language.

The Russian language lost the status won for it by the Soviet Union, making

education in Russia inaccessible to foreigners. But even after learning Russian in

their home countries or in preliminary language courses in Russia, many foreign

students enrolled in Russian higher education institutions lack the necessary

proficiency in the language to take full advantage of their studies. To resolve the

language problem, some universities are starting pilot programs that offer courses

in certain foreign languages – English, French, and German95

.

This solution is being pursued in other non-English-speaking countries: German

universities now provide well over 300 courses in English, mostly at postgraduate

level, France 150 and the Netherlands 85096. Consolidated figures for Russian

universities seem not to be available, but a trawl through the websites of likely

institutions suggests that the total for Russia may be close to that for France. A

major limitation on the development of English-medium courses attracting overseas

students is the language proficiency of Russian academics97. This weakness was

frequently mentioned during the consultants’ visits to universities, and evidence was

also found that some universities are beginning to address the problem.

3.2 The BRIDGE Programme

As an example of ways in which these barriers to internationalisation have been addressed

in a practical and large-scale project, we will briefly review the British Council’s BRIDGE

project. The BRIDGE Programme was an experiment in university internationalisation

between British and Russian universities, initiated by the Russian President in 2003, funded

by the UK government and administered by the British Council with advice from a UK-Russia

Expert Group. The programme was evaluated both internally98 and externally99. Between

2004 and 2008, the programme succeeded in creating 58 partnerships that resulted in 44

dual-degree programmes and 14 research projects which led to the publication of at least

53 scholarly articles. Judged on this basis, the programme could be considered a success.

What is of relevance here is the extent to which the factors limiting internationalisation

identified in this chapter were overcome in these partnerships. The summary below is

based on the findings of the two BRIDGE evaluation reports.

95

Smolentseva 2004 op cit & British Council, Vision 2020, 2004: 68 96

Bone (2008), Internationalisation of HE: A Ten-Year View, page 2 97

Zabotkina 2002: 36 98

British Council (2008), An Interim Review of the Bridge Project (mimeo) 99

SQW Consulting (2010), Evaluation of the UK-Russia BRIDGE Programme: Final Report


Factor BRIDGE evaluation

geographical space &

distance

`Travel between the UK and Moscow/St Petersburg is relatively cheap

and quick. Clearly, the same cannot be said for travel between the UK

and Vladivostok. The decision to make sure that BRIDGE attracted

institutions from across the whole of Russia was, we believe, a wise one –

but it did create inevitable challenges for particular projects.’ (SQW 2010:

17)

alignment & recognition of

Russian qualifications

`Nearly half of the Russian dual award projects … have been validated in

the UK and accredited in Russia. A further seven awards are reported to

have been validated in the UK only, and a further three courses have

been accredited in Russia only.’ (SQW 2010: ii)

`BRIDGE has helped Russian HEIs align themselves more closely with the

Bologna Process. … through BRIDGE Britain has had more influence than

any other country on the Bologna process in Russia.’ (SQW 2010: ii & 60)

quality assurance `The Russian partners encountered for the first time, the quality

assurance practices of their UK partners. The UK systems often seemed

over-elaborate, inflexible and too cumbersome … Russian attitudes seem

to have varied from bemusement on whether the bureaucracy was

necessary through to feeling insulted that it should be felt necessary that

a long-established university with an international reputation needed to

be subject to validation.’ (British Council 2008: 4; See also SQW 2010:

27-28)

- research Research: Òther institutional benefits have taken the form of spin-off

activities including European funded projects and new research

collaboration.’ (SQW 2010: ii)

- teaching styles Teaching styles: `… a very high level of satisfaction with the UK approach

to teaching and assessment … particularly ..… the interactive style and

practical orientation of the teaching, the equality and dialogue between

tutors and students, the transparency of the assessment system, and the

greater independence that they students’ experience.’ (SQW 2010: ii)100

infrastructure – classroom

& living conditions

no mention

-

bureaucracy `Despite the various barriers that partnerships faced (the time and

bureaucracy involved in travel between the UK and Russia …..), a high

proportion were successful.’ (SQW 2010: i)

visas & work permits Òn a practical level, visa problems have made staff mobility more

difficult’ (British Council 2008: 6). À further problem was the difficulties

experienced by Russian staff in securing visas to travel to the UK. This

could be the subject of a report in its own right.’ (SQW 2010: 17)

educational marketing `lack of experience in market research on the part of many Russian

institutions, both in terms of gauging employer demand prior to course

100

See also Magun (2010) on the `dismantling of the “German” system of specialized education that mainly consisted of

professors offering monologue courses’.


development, and in marketing courses to students once courses were

ready for delivery.’ (SQW 2010: iii; see also pages 28-30)

government policy on

international policy

`The lack of engagement … by the Russian Government was a

disappointment to stakeholders and to institutions in Russia. However,

this did not act as a barrier to the successful implementation of the

programme: Russian HEIs (as in the UK) have a high degree of

autonomy.’ (SQW 2010: iii)

`As institutions within a signatory country to the Bologna process, Russian

HEIs have had to meet the demands of integration through their own

development of quality assurance guidelines. There has been no single

initiative in Russia that is assisting Russian institutions to meet this

agenda.’ (SQW 2010: 7)

language `As a broad generalisation, in Moscow and St Petersburg there is a high

proportion of English-speaking students and teaching staff. This is not the

case in other regions of Russia, where many BRIDGE projects struggled

due to their inability to deliver courses in English.’ (SQW 2010: 31)

3.3 Conclusions

This chapter has identified a number of obstacles to the internationalisation of Russian

universities. From this survey, three conclusions seem worth making:

♦ The obstacles to internationalisation have been identified and there is agreement among

academics and professionals as to what these obstacles are.

♦ A number of these obstacles are language-related, either directly or indirectly, and so may be

worth considering in any new project aimed at improving English in Russian universities.

♦ Most of these obstacles were largely overcome in the partnerships formed through the

BRIDGE project. This indicates that these are obstacles that may impede rather than barriers

that make internationalisation impossible. The experience of BRIDGE participants may be worth

sharing and disseminating, for example through a conference with published proceedings.


4 THE CURRENT SITUATION: TEACHING ENGLISH FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES IN RUSSIA

4.0 Introduction

In this section we focus on three areas when investigating the current situation of TESP in

Russian universities:

1 English language teaching at non-linguistic faculties (i.e. students not majoring in English):

curricula, materials and resources, staffing, number of hours, entrance and exit levels of students,

assessment and perceived needs.

2 English as a medium of instruction: as above plus scope and potential for the future

development.

3 English for academics: current level and needs, current training models.

Each of these areas will be explored separately in this section. The information is based on

visits to the six universities, previous baseline studies carried out in three of these

universities in 2006-10, and a questionnaire survey sent to a number of universities across

Russia in March 2011. Based on these data, a comparison can be made with the 2001 British

Council baseline study to determine how things have changed in the past 10 years.

4.1 English language teaching

As was pointed out in section 2, the USSR and Russia were for a long time isolated from

mainstream developments in ESP, and this isolation is still apparent. However, it is also

apparent that there has been considerable progress in some institutions, although the

degree of change is variable from university to university. It is also extremely difficult to get

a feel for the sector overall, given the large number of institutions and the vast size of

Russia.

♦ Curriculum & methodology The curriculum in universities is generally governed by federal

standards, although some types of universities have more autonomy than others. Teachers

were therefore asked which standards the teaching of English was based on in their

university. Their responses were as follows:

English language teaching in my university is based on (N=96)

Russian standards 71.5%

European standards 51.0%

International standards 47.9%

Institutional standards 61.0%

(Question not asked in 2001)

It is possible, of course, that teachers may have equated Russian with institutional

standards, and European with international standards, and to that extent the results seem

largely consistent. However, a measure of how `European’ the teaching may be is whether

teachers give their students a copy of the European Language Portfolio, and here there is a

discrepancy between the answers given by students and teachers:


Teachers: Do you give your students a

copy of the European Language

Portfolio? (N=96)

Students: Have you been given a copy of the

European Language Portfolio? (N=119)

yes 52% 31%

no 48% 69%


Teachers and students were then asked to assess the usefulness of their classes, both EGP

and ESP. The results were as follows:

How useful are these classes? Teachers (N=98) Students (N=123)

speaking/conversation classes 95.6%/1 94.0%/1

vocabulary/lexis 93.8%/2 88.6%/2

ESP/specialist English classes 86.7%/4 87.8%/3

listening classes 85.1%/4 85.1%/4

reading classes 80.8%/5= 80.8%/5=

translation classes 80.8%/5= 80.8%/5=

general English classes 86.4%/5 78.6%/7=

grammar 79.9%/7 78.6%/7=

writing classes 79.6%/8 76.7%/9

private classes - 62.8%/10

pronunciation/phonetics classes 63.9%/10 -


There seems to be good agreement between teachers and students that all classes are

useful, with speaking, vocabulary, ESP and most skills scoring near the top. Writing remains

near the bottom, as it did in 2001. Students were asked to rate private classes and two

interesting points emerged: over 98% of students seem to attend private classes, and they

are generally perceived to be much less useful than university classes.

♦ Materials & resources The 2001 Baseline Study questions were repeated in the 2011

survey, so that comparisons could be drawn.

How frequently do you use the following materials? 2001101

2011 (N=96)

International textbooks 1 1

Textbooks produced in Russia 2 4

Photocopied materials (additional to the textbook) 3 2

Home-made booklets (metodichkas) 4 3

101

Winetroube & Kuznetsova (eds) (2002: 60)


It is evident that textbooks produced in Russia have declined in use, while teacher-produced

materials remain in fairly widespread use. In 2001, the authors of the Baseline Study offered

the following explanation:

Our background knowledge of the Russian ELT situation at university level, supplemented with

classroom observation findings, lead us to believe that foreign course books (or rather

photocopied pages thereof) are mainly used for teaching EGP, while for ESP teaching, teachers

are mostly left to their own resources102

.

In 2011 the situation has changed somewhat : foreign textbooks continue to be used for

EGP, but with actual books purchased legally rather than photocopies, and international

textbooks seem to be widely used for `soft’ or `broad’ ESP, sometimes with Russian

supplements produced with support from publishers such as Cambridge University Press.

However, `narrow’ ESP continues to be a problem. In 2002, the situation was summed up in

the following way:

One of the main problems of Russian universities is the lack of adequate textbooks. The

situation seems far better as far as humanities are concerned but when it comes to science

and technology the textbooks drastically need updating. For example, students of geography,

chemistry, biology, mathematics, technology use textbooks which are 30 years old. Because

of this drastic situation, the Council of Foreign Languages under the auspices of the Ministry of

Higher Education has announced this year a competition for the best textbooks for non-

specialists (10 nominations)103

.

The situation has evolved somewhat since 2001 and there is now a steady stream of

textbooks published in Russia by Russian authors with a fairly narrow ESP focus104. However,

a recent survey reveals that seven of the 11 books reviewed adopt a grammar-translation

method, with little attention to modern approaches, especially speaking and the use of the

internet. Some `narrow’ materials in English for Social Sciences, English in Sciences and

English for Civil Engineering are due to be published in 2011 as a spin-off from the RESPONSE

project105, but teachers continue to raise the supply of `narrow’ ESP textbooks as an issue.

In the 2011 survey, an additional and more detailed question was asked about the

usefulness of materials. The question related to a broader range of materials and resources

than those examined in 2001:

102

Winetroube & Kuznetsova 2002: 61 103


See Kuznetsova & Shchemeleva (2011) for a review. The authors review Russian ESP books for engineers, students of

economics, the stock market, law and lawyers, public relations, ecology and biotechnology, tourism, medicine, land and

cadastres, and accounting. 105

Personal communication, Ludmilla Kuznetsova & Andrei Tun, St Petersburg State University


How useful are these materials? Teachers (N=96) Students (N=120)

international textbooks 75.7%/5 73.1%/1

tape/CD materials 83.3%/1 69.4%/2

bilingual dictionary 69.1%/6 66.9%/3

authentic materials (newspapers, TV, etc) 78.1%/2= 65.0%/4

computer/internet-based materials 78.1%/2= 64.7%/5

monolingual (English) dictionary 74.7%/6 62.5%/6

grammar book 67.0%/8= 62.2%/7

teacher’s personal resource pack 77.8%/7 59.7%/8

video/DVD materials 67.0%/8= 56.4%/9

home-made materials (metodichka) 67.0%/8= 49.4%/10

textbooks published in Russia 42.0%/11 38.6%/11


These answers suggest that there is fairly strong agreement between teachers and students

that international tapes and tape/CD materials are felt to be the most useful, while Russian

textbooks and metodichkas are the least useful. This reinforces the problem of narrow ESP:

the materials that are available are felt to be the least useful.

♦ Staffing The 2001 Baseline Study made a detailed study of ESP teachers and most aspects

were repeated in the present study, beginning with gender:

Teachers’ gender 2001 2011

male 7% 2.9%

female 93% 97.1%

University ESP teaching continues to be `mostly a female profession’. In fact, it seems to

have become even more female than it was ten years ago.

There are similar parallels when the issue of age is investigated:

Teachers’ age groups 2001 2011 (N=102)

30 and under 33% 24.5%

31-40 18% 33.4%

41-50 27% 11.8%

51 and over 22% 20.6%

In general, ESP teachers would seem to be rather older and, presumably, more experienced

than they were in 2001, but this would logically be because many teachers have remained in

teaching. It is also clear that quite a large number of teachers have entered the profession

in the past ten years, as nearly a quarter of all teachers are under 30. In 2001 there was felt

to be an `under-representation’ of the 31-40 age group, and this is reflected in a consequent

under-representation of the 41-50 age group in 2011.


Experience would seem to be closely related to age, and this is confirmed by the figures,

with teachers in 2011 having more experience than was the case in 2001:

Teaching experience at university level 2001 2011 (N=102)

1-5 years 45% 35.3%

6-10 years 17% 15.7%

11-20 years 14% 37.3%

over 20 years 24% 11.8%

Somewhat surprisingly, a question about mother tongue was not asked in 2001, so it is

impossible to discover the balance between native and non-native speakers. The question

was asked this time and it showed that 100% are Russian mother-tongue. Teachers’

perceptions of their language proficiency was also not investigated in 2001, and the picture

in 2011 shows that the majority feel adequate but not totally confident:

Is your English good enough for teaching at university? 2011

completely adequate 46.1%

adequate most of the time 52.9%

inadequate 2.0%

completely inadequate 0.0%

Qualifications were also investigated in both studies:

Teachers’ education: your highest degree 2001 2011

no degree 0.0% 1.0%

university degree/specialist diploma 89.6% 80.4%

candidate of science 10.1% 20.0%

doctor of science 0.3% 1.0%

The situation has, therefore, improved – it seems that a good number of the ESP teachers of

2001 have now attained candidate’s degrees, although it is not clear whether their higher

qualifications relate to ESP (one fears not, as ESP does not seem to be a recognised branch

of applied linguistics or pedagogy in Russian universities).

More narrowly, the question of ESP training was investigated. In 2001 this was not

specifically addressed – respondents were merely asked if they had received any in-service

training in the past five years – 50-65% responded that they had. In 2011, the question was

more specific and more encouraging – 67.6% stated that they had (N=102).

♦ Number of hours The Russian education authorities generally define the curriculum in

the number of hours taught per week, and the survey indicated that most classes receive

four hours/week. It also indicated, predictably, that teachers think that this is insufficient:


Hours How many hours of English does each

student get each week? (N=101)

How many hours of English should each

student get each week? (N= 101)

2 14.9% 0%

4 57.4% 11.9%

6 16.8% 45.5%

7+ 15.8% 45.5%


Teachers were then asked what proportion of their English language classes are ESP, and

what proportion should be ESP. In general, it seems that 40-60% of their classes are ESP and

that they think that this is about right:

% What proportion of your classes are

ESP?

What proportion of your classes should

be ESP?

teachers (N=101) students teachers (N=101) students

0% 1.0% 7.0% 0% 0%

1-20% 17.8% 24.2% 4.0% 2.3%

21-40% 18.8% 16.4% 13.9% 8.6%

41-60% 32.7% 23.4% 33.7% 32.0%

61-80% 14.9% 13.3% 30.7% 25.8%

81-99% 8.9% 6.3% 13.9% 21.9%

100% 8.9% 10.9% 5.9% 10.2%

In 2001, this issue was studied in depth, and `the general tendency seems to be towards a

noticeable dominance of ESP over EGP in the English teaching classroom, particularly in

classical universities’106. In 2011, the balance seems to have shifted towards EGP, but

teachers and (even more) students feel that this balance is wrong and they would like more

ESP classes.

♦ Entrance levels of students It is difficult to get an accurate assessment of the entrance

levels of university students in Russia as most entrance tests are internally set and marked,

and are not related to any international scale. Previous studies by the present consultants

suggest that levels are low, with many students (perhaps most) only at A1 or A2 level:

106

Winetroube & Kuznenetsova 2002:43


CEFR level St Petersburg State

University (2008)107

MISiS

(2009 - N= 893)108

below A1 26.2%

A1/below A2 10% 36.7%

A2 31% 19.7%

B1 44% 17.4%

B2 15% -

above B2 0% -

These surveys were carried out at leading universities in St Petersburg and Moscow,

suggesting that the situation in much of the country may be even worse. Surprisingly, when

students were asked whether their English is good enough for university study, the majority

answered positively:

Is your English good enough for studying at university? 2011 (N=141)

completely adequate 19.9%

adequate most of the time 46.1%

inadequate 31.9%

completely inadequate 4.3%

These responses may be explained by the finding that students in Russian institutions of

higher education are rarely required to use English in their studies – for listening to lectures,

by accessing books, articles or websites, or by writing papers or assignments. This situation

is changing in some universities, where English is required more in the third and fourth

years, but it is not apparent how widespread this practice is109.

♦ Exit levels of students It is even more difficult to get data about the exit levels of students

as few universities use independent or external examinations aligned to the Common

European Framework or any other validated scale. Some universities have introduced

external examinations, but only recently, so that exit-level data are not yet available.

However, a recent survey by Kelly Services110 of 6500 graduate job applicants from across Russia, mostly young white-collar workers from big cities (population of one million and more), revealed that the majority of candidates at all levels were rated as having poor or no proficiency in English (see next page). This finding confirms the impression that exit levels are currently low for a number of reasons, one of which may be that there is no valid, reliable exit test calibrated to an international scale.

107

Elena Prokhorova, St Petersburg State University, Foreign Language Testing Center (personal communication, 2011) 108

West & Frumina 2012:56 109

see also Kuznetsova & Shchemeleva (2011: 9) on students’ use of English for accessing the internet for university

studies. 110

http://www.kewllyservices.ru/web/ru/services/ru/page/21032011:html accessed 31 March 2011

http://www.kewllyservices.ru/web/ru/services/ru/page/21032011:html


A question raised several times was what the exit level for non-linguistic students ought to be. At present there is no academic framework defining exit levels for university students (but see Appendix B for a proposal). A consensus seems to be emerging that B2 would be adequate, and it is B2 that is specified for English -medium graduate degree programmes at some universities. Some rectors are said to pushing for C1, but this is the level specified for linguistic graduates in many universities in central and western Europe, and seems an unreasonably high expectation for both non-English major students and ESP teachers.

Excellent Good Poor No language From top-down: top-managers, line-managers, specialists, no work experience

♦ Assessment As has already been stated, few universities have valid, reliable assessment

systems aligned to any international scale of performance. However, there are some

indications that this situation may be changing, although it is difficult to judge how

widespread these changes are. One or two universities are setting up testing units to

provide independent (or `external’) assessment of students at all levels. Other universities

are adopting international examinations for both entrance and exit exams, using

commercially-available online placement tests such as those available from Oxford

University Press and Cambridge ESOL, and exit exams such as IELTS or BEC from the UK or

TOEFL from the US.

♦ Perceived needs of university students The 2001 Baseline Study paid surprisingly little

attention to students’ needs, beyond noting that the majority of students felt that English


was important or very important for their careers111. The 2011 survey confirmed this finding

– 89.4% (N=141) stated that it was `crucial’ or `important’ – and included more detailed

questions addressed to both students and teachers because two previous studies at Russian

universities112 both showed that there was a mismatch between students’ stated needs and

teachers’ perceptions of their students’ needs. The 2011 results confirmed these findings:

What are students’ reasons for learning English? teachers

(N =101)

students

(N=133)

long-term EAP/EOP To study in other countries 90.0%/1 75.9%/2

To meet employers’ demands for good English 82.0%/2 80.8%/1

To pass international English language exams 77.9%/4 64.3%/5

To pass professional exams 69.4%/5 56.5%/10

social purposes To travel to other countries 81.0%/3 62.7%/7=

To watch films/TV etc in English 70.6%/6 58.7%/9

short/medium-

term EAP

To read academic/professional books/journals 65.9%/7 74.9%/3

To take part in university tutorials/discussions 56.9%/8 65.3%/4

To use the internet/computers 55.4%/9 62.7%/7=

To write university papers/essays 53.1%/10 63.6%/6

To follow university classes 44.1%/11 54.1%/11

These results are revealing and even surprising for several reasons:

- The mismatch between students’ and teachers’ perceptions: While there is broad

agreement that students’ main needs are long-term EAP and EOP, the students place

short-/medium term EAP needs at the bottom of their list, while teachers generally give

them higher ratings. Students give higher ratings to social English.

- The students give international study as their main reason for learning English, when the

statistics show that Russian students do not actually study abroad very much compared

with students from other countries113.

- Both students and teachers give low rankings to using English for the internet and

computers, when other, smaller-scale research suggests that students make wide use of

websites in English114.

From these results it is possible again to conclude that students have little need for short-

medium-term EAP in their undergraduate courses, and they see their needs as longer-term,

both for international study and employment.

111

Winetroube & Kuznetsova 2001: 69. There was in fact a question about motivation on the students’ questionnaire

(Appendix 4, question 8) but mysteriously the report does not seem to discuss the findings 112

West 2006 and West 2007 113

See section 3.0 above and British Council, Vision 2020 (2004: 82) 114

Kuznetsova & Shchemeleva 2011, page 9


♦ Perceived professional development needs of ESP teachers In order to try to establish

teachers’ needs, the survey gave a list of nine options for professional development. The

ranked results are shown in this table:

Which of the following areas of training would you like? N=93

ESP teaching methodology 65.2%/1

improving English language proficiency 63.4%/2

ESP needs analysis and course design 62.4%/3

ESP materials development 62.3%/4

ESP materials evaluation 55.9%/5

general ELT methodology 53.0%/6

language testing/examinations 49.8%/7

IT/computer skills for language teaching 41.2%/8=

ELT management 41.2%/8=

In many ways, these replicate the priorities identified by the RESPONSE baseline study in

2001 – modern methodology and approaches to teaching ESP, ESP materials development

and students’ needs analysis115. There is clearly still a perceived need for training in ESP

methodology, and, in particular, needs analysis and course design, and materials evaluation

and development. However, it is clear that any new British Council project cannot match

RESPONSE in terms of scope, duration or funding, and therefore proposals will have to be

more focused. More widely, however, there would seem to be a market for an MA in ESP,

perhaps in partnership with a UK university offering courses by distance.

4.2 English as a medium of instruction

While Russian is mandated as the medium of instruction for all degrees in Russia, there is

leeway in the regulations which permits courses delivered partly or wholly in a foreign

language. This is seen by the Ministry as a way forward in attracting foreign students and

improving the ranking of Russian universities:

English-language education necessary for Russian universities

Russian higher education institutions boost their reputations by teaching in English as well as

Russian, Education Minister Andrei Fursenko said.

He said the move would help to counter the low rating of the country’s universities. Moscow

State University, the highest rated Russian educational establishment, is ranked 74th

in the

Academic Ranking of World Universities116

.

“English … is most commonly understood by students from around the world, and scientific

literature is published in this language,” Fursenko said.

115

Winetroube & Kuznetsova 2002, page 105 116

See Appendix A


He also said the move would not present many problems as “Many of our professors read

lectures abroad and our leading institutions often invite foreign specialists to read lectures. I

think courses in English will appear in the next two to three years,” he added117

.

However, the following academic opinion offers a more sober evaluation of the situation:

We cannot successfully join the Bologna Process unless we provide a number of courses in

English, which is a great problem for Russian professors, who were educated during the

Soviet era and have no adequate language competence118

.

This point was also mentioned in the BRIDGE evaluation, where students listed `improve the

level of English amongst lecturers and tutors in Russia’ as the number one way of improving

the quality of teaching and learning119.

The result of this weakness in English is that Russia has developed relatively few English-

medium courses to attract foreign students. As was stated in section 3.1.9, German

universities now provide well over 300 courses in English, mostly at postgraduate level,

France 150 and the Netherlands 850120. The consultants could find no single site listing the

English-medium universities courses available across Russia – and this itself is indicative of

the problem. Some universities have websites which are easy to navigate and take anyone

searching for such courses to a listing and course outline with relative ease, but most

provide little or no assistance to the international student. Some universities have clearly

developed policies to offer master’s programmes in foreign languages – the People’s

Friendship University advertises 18 programmes in English and one in Spanish, and Tomsk

Polytechnic University offers five English-medium master’s programmes. Many others have

nothing on their websites and this may, of course, be because the university has nothing to

offer. Our estimate is that there may be around 100 English-medium master’s level courses

on offer from Russian universities, in addition to dual degrees.

4.3 English for academics

The English language proficiency of academics has already been highlighted as one of the

obstacles in the way of introducing courses using English as a partial or total medium of

instruction, both in face-to-face and distance programmes. It acts as a barrier at many

levels:

- It restricts any input or even reference to English-language sources on undergraduate

courses and means that students have no reason to learn any English. It explains why

students enter university with a low level of English but feel that this low level is quite

117

RIA Novosti, 07/09/2010 118


SQW 2010: 44 120

Bone (2008), Internationalisation of HE: A Ten-Year View, page 2


adequate. It also demotivates students in EAP classes, explaining why students place all

EAP needs at the bottom of their perceived needs.

- At graduate level, it impedes the introduction of English-medium master’s courses for

international students, both in face-to-face and distance modes. This in turn makes it

difficult for Russia to increase the numbers of overseas students from outside the

former Soviet Union and the income they generate.

- Research programmes : it impedes international cooperation as projects often use

English as their working language.

- Research dissemination: it makes it difficult for Russian academics to publish in

international journals or present papers at international conferences.

- Joint/dual-degree programmes: it limits the ability of Russian universities to form

partnerships with overseas universities leading to dual degree awards.

- World university rankings: the restrictions on international research programmes and

publications are reflected in poor showings in international university rankings (see

Appendix A).

There is growing awareness of the need for a course in English for academics, but meeting

this need has been hampered by the lack of any published materials. Tomsk Polytechnic

University has developed

a refresher course for the university academics which embraces a course in General English,

English for Academic Purposes, English for Engineering, and a Presentation Skills Course121

.

The authors do not give many details, but mention that the course includes the needs of

those `participating in organization and management of international educational programs’

as well as those teaching or carrying out research on them122.

A more detailed account of a similar course at St Petersburg State University is given by

Rokhlina123, who has developed an EAP programme for academics from a broad range of

disciplines. This account goes into some detail about both the content and methodology of

the course. Also at St Petersburg State University, a course is run for teachers of economics,

who deliver 20-30% of their courses in English124. Other universities that the consultants

visited – MISiS and SIBFU – are planning to launch language courses for academics in the

near future.

As far as we can tell these are still isolated instances of EAP courses for academics, but `the

syllabi developed may be transferred and piloted in network universities in a medium with

English as a second/foreign language’125.

121

Cheremissina & Petrashova 2002 122

The need for English for researchers was also stressed in the BRIDGE evaluation (Sim 2010: 53) 123

See Rokhlina (undated) 124

Personal communication, Ludmila Kuznetsova, April 2011: `Most of the teachers are young and were selected based on

their experience of working in international programmes…. Besides mastering their English, they get support for

developing understanding and skills for using problem-based approach in their teaching.’ 125

Cheremissina & Petrashova 2002


4.4 Conclusions

In this chapter we have examined three principal areas of ELT in Russian universities:

♦ The teaching and teachers of ESP in Russian universities:

♦ English as a medium of instruction

♦ English for academics

It has become apparent that the fundamental issue in all three areas is the poor English

language proficiency of academics in Russian universities. This is an issue in itself – it

restricts the internationalisation of university teaching programmes and the recruitment of

overseas students, and the expansion, dissemination and publication of international

research. However, it also has serious implications both internally and externally. Internally

it undermines the aims and motivation of English language programmes for university

students: because the academic staff make few English-language demands on their

students, the students have little motivation to study English seriously or attain high levels

of proficiency, and the ESP teachers often feel their efforts are frustrated. Externally, the

limited dissemination of research is a factor contributing to the low rankings of Russian

universities in international league tables.

In the next chapter we will draw conclusions about the current state of English language

teaching in Russia and its role in the internationalisation of Russian HEIs. In chapter 6 we

make specific recommendations which try to address these concerns, although we are

realistic about the size of the problem and the limited impact that any British Council

projects might have.


5 SUMMARY & CONCLUSIONS

5.0 Introduction

This Baseline Study will draw conclusions by summarising the findings under two main

headings – the internationalisation of higher education in Russia, and the teaching of English

for specific purposes in Russian institutions of higher education. While these two strands

are presented separately, it will become apparent that there is a degree of overlap: several

of the obstacles that currently impede the expansion of internationalisation in Russia are

language-related, and any solutions must, therefore, start to address these underlying

language problems.

5.1 The internationalisation of higher education in Russia

Internationalisation is often defined as `a process, integrating an international, intercultural

and global dimension into the purpose, functions (teaching, research and service), and

delivery of HE at the institutional and national levels’126. Internationalisation has been a

major development of the 1990s and 2000s, but Russia has fallen behind her international

competitors, and dropped from being near the top of the table in the latter days of the

Soviet Union to being a second-division player, attracting only 2% of the international

educational market in 2007127.

The benefits of internationalisation in higher education have been widely explored and a

recent paper128 lists the incentives for Russian universities as:

♦ improving access to information resources

♦ increasing research cooperation

♦ using the cultural and academic benefits of student and staff exchanges

♦ the economic benefits of attracting international fee-paying students

The factors impeding the internationalisation of HE in Russia have also been well explored:

these were explored in chapter 3 and are summarised here, with comments from Telegina &

Schwengel (2012) to indicate the current position:

♦ geographical space & distance Telegina & Schwengel offer a new, psychological

perspective on this factor: `for almost a century,

most of the population had been confined to the

republics of the former Soviet Union, or, at best

to the Soviet bloc’, so that there is weak

motivation for `going international’129.

126

Knight 2008: xi 127

Telegina & Schwengel 2012: 45 128


Telegina & Schwengel 2012: 45


♦ Bologna Process: alignment &

recognition of Russian qualifications

`the number of [Bologna-compliant] bachelor

and master courses in the academic year 2008-

2009 represented only 19% of the national

qualification structure; and the increase in the

number of students doing such degrees was only

9% …results have been limited because of

cultural barriers and the low level of

international integration of the Russian

economy’130.

♦ quality assurance `Changes in quality assurance procedures … in

many cases took place at surface level by

creating bureaucratic structures and complex

time and paper-consuming procedures which

jeopardised the time of academic staff’131.

♦ infrastructure – classroom & living

conditions

`poor infra-structural support creates serious

barriers for international initiatives … poor

resources for international activities… ’132.

♦ bureaucracy `At the institutional level, a high level of

bureaucratisation … excessive regulation,

insufficient flexibility and lack of adaptability of

educational programmes’133.

♦ visas and work permits `The development of in-coming mobility has also

been hampered by a whole range of factors,

including immigration regulations’134.

♦ educational managing & marketing `the inter-cultural experience and the level of

understanding of the Bologna principles and

practices in many universities are rather

limited’135.

♦ government policy on international

education

The lack of a clear government policy is seen as

the result of conflicts at all levels: `Conservative

ideologues were worried about the defence of

Russian spirituality and cultural identity against

Western materialism; politicians and university

leaders sought to keep control over the system,

educationalists were afraid to destroy the “high

standards and cultural traditions” of Russian

national education, and students and their

130

Telegina & Schwengel 2012: 47 & 45 131







parents saw … a threat to “free-of-charge”

education’136.

♦ language `Russian higher education in the 1990s inherited

… lack of intercultural knowledge, poor foreign

language competence … (these) are still rather

limited…’137 .

This is a long and depressing catalogue of factors standing in the way of internationalisation,

but it is remarkably consistent with those surveyed in chapter 3. The result has been that,

for example, in 2000-07, the number of Russians implementing courses and educational

programmes in a foreign language did not exceed 15% (including the languages of the

Commonwealth of Independent States), and only around 20% were involved in joint

educational programmes with international partners’138.

Underlying this catalogue of factors is the issue of language – while it may not be the single

most important factor, it is the sine qua non: unless foreign language proficiency is

improved across the whole HE sector, participation in the whole range of international

activities and the benefits that are derived from them must remain limited. It is against this

background that we now summarise the findings in the field of language teaching.

5.2 The teaching of ESP in HEIs in Russia

The current state of ESP teaching in Russia was surveyed in chapter 3, and comparisons were

drawn with the findings of the 2001 Baseline Study. These are summarised below by

comparing the situation in 2011 with that in 2001 and commenting on the apparent

changes:

2001 2011

♦ Young, inexperienced teachers tend to be

over-represented in the ELT profession, while

those of several years experience are

correspondingly under-represented.

The situation has improved somewhat, largely

because the `young, inexperienced’ teachers of

2001 are now 10 years older and have 10 years’

ESP experience.

♦ Although the provision of regular training for

teaching staff is a legal requirement, teachers

get few regular training opportunities.

The situation has improved somewhat and

university teachers report that they are

receiving some in-service training, including

training in ESP. Further ESP training remains a

high priority, however.

♦ Teaching loads seem to be rather heavy and

in many cases exceed the Ministerial

standards, particularly in technical

universities.

This situation also continues, although some

universities are exploring ways in which learning

hours can be increased without a corresponding

increase in teaching hours, e.g. through online

lessons and self-access. In some cases, ESP

136


Telegina & Schwengel 2012: 45 & 46 138



contact hours are being reduced and, while this

may reduce staff workloads, it makes their jobs

more difficult as they have to teach the same

amount of English (or more) in fewer hours.

♦ Teachers and students have to contend with

excessive group size, lack of streaming, and

shortage of facilities.

Again, this situation continues and teachers

complain that language teaching receives low

priority when resources are allocated.

♦ The grammar-translation method still clearly

dominates in the ESP classroom.

Although there is an increased awareness of

more recent approaches, evidence from surveys

and published materials suggests that grammar-

translation is still widely used.

♦ Teachers tend to neglect the teaching of

writing in ESP classes.

This situation is changing, although teachers

report problems in teaching writing.

♦ Teachers report that course books published

abroad are their most frequently used

material.

This remains true, but in-house materials

remain a major source, especially for narrow

ESP. More locally-produced textbooks are

becoming available, although the quality is often

questionable.

♦ The majority of university English staff have

to teach more than one variety of ESP.

This remains true.

♦ Low salaries force university teachers to take

on an excessive workload, usually involving

extra jobs. This severely limits their

opportunities for professional growth.

Again, this often remains true but some

universities have recognised the importance of

English and are actively seeking ways of

increasing teachers’ salaries.

♦ The status of the ELT profession is rather low

and there is a clear need to boost the

teachers’ self-esteem and raise the public

profile of the profession139

.

This remains true: teachers often feel under-

valued in their institutions and isolated from

their professional colleagues elsewhere in

Russia and in the wider world.

From this summary it is clear that ESP teaching in Russia has made some progress but the

situation remains largely as it was in 2001. The survey of teachers’ needs in section 4.1

confirms that teachers are aware of their shortcomings and therefore their top priority is

professional development in the area of ESP methodology, with related priorities in needs

analysis and course design, materials development and materials evaluation. These are

major areas and their scope suggests the need for an MA in ESP for Russian teachers rather

than a smaller-scale British Council project.

It is also clear materials have a major role to play. The international ESP materials that have

become widely available in the past ten years have had a major impact on teaching, and

provide a useful model for Russia. However, it is also clear that both students and teachers

see the need for materials produced in Russia, but the materials that have been produced in

recent years are felt to be inadequate. Materials development is, therefore, seen as a key

139

Winetroube & Kutnetzova (2002: 50)


area which, combined with the poor proficiency of academics, we have included in our

recommendations.

5.3 Conclusions

While there have been some indications that certain aspects of internationalisation have

begun to take root in Russia, it has to be admitted that Russia has a long way to go if it is to

reverse its decline in the international education sector and begin to restore the position it

enjoyed at the end of the 1990s. Clearly the government has a key role to play, particularly

in implementing a clear policy of internationalisation, setting targets, establishing quality

assurance mechanisms, increasing funding and reducing bureaucracy. However, the English

language proficiency of university staff and students, and the teaching of ESP (especially

EAP) have a vital role to play, and it is here that the British Council can make a key

contribution. Recommendations for the particular initiatives that the Council might take are

given in the next chapter.


6 RECOMMENDATIONS

6.0 Introduction

In this section we offer a number of recommendations based on the evidence we have

gathered in this Baseline Study. In doing so we have been mindful of both the current

context – the importance of internationalisation of the Russian HE sector – and the

limitations on the Council and its operations.

Within these two main principles – impact on internationalisation and the limitations on the

Council in Russia – the consultants make two main recommendations. These are outlined

briefly here and set out in more detail in appendices B, C and D.

6.1 Recommendation 1: Academic Language Framework

There is a widespread awareness of the existence of the standards of the Council of Europe’s

Common European Framework of Reference, and the documents and initiatives that support

it. However, while the CEFR and the European Language Portfolio have been translated into

Russian, they have not been adopted by the Russian government and academic staff at all

levels (not just language teachers) often cannot see how these standards apply to Russian

universities at a practical level. For that reason, it was suggested by a number of people

from universities and the British Council that an `academic language framework’ should be

drawn up to facilitate decision making at all levels, from broad policy decisions such as what

CEFR levels should be adopted for entrance and exit levels, and appropriate numbers of

contact hours, to detailed decisions on the English language curriculum and assessment.

Strictly speaking, this recommendation falls outside the terms of reference as it would be a

framework required at the start rather than a project to be funded over a longer period.

The consultants have, therefore, attempted to draft such a framework based on existing

European, Russian and British documents. The framework consists of a number of scales

showing various levels of academic language proficiency, with annexes giving recommended

hours of tuition required, related international exams, academic/professional genres and an

academic English diagnostic test. The full framework is presented in Appendix B and is

summarized here:


Scale 8: Diagnostic Test

Scale 7: Academic Speaking Proficiency

Scale 6: Academic Listening Proficiency

Scale 5: Academic Writing Proficiency

Scale 4: Academic Reading Proficiency

Scale 3: Academic Language proficiency

Scale 2: Overall Language proficiency

SCALE 1: OVERALL GUIDANCE & ACADEMIC REQUIREMENTS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION

CEFR level Acceptability for academic study

C2 Proficient user (`Mastery’)

Acceptable for English-medium degree courses in the UK and other English speaking countries.

C1 Proficient user (`Effective operational proficiency’)

Probably acceptable for English-medium courses in the UK and other English-speaking countries.

B2 Independent user (`Vantage’)

Probably acceptable for most English-medium vocational/training courses in the UK and other English-speaking countries. Accepted by some Russian universities for English-medium degree courses. Accepted by some European universities for non-English medium degree courses where English is required for occasional listening, reading or reference, e.g. some lectures, some articles, etc

B1 Independent user (`Threshold’)

Unacceptable for an English-medium academic course, but may be acceptable for a course delivered largely in the mother-tongue with occasional reference to English sources.

A2 Basic user (`Waystage’) Unacceptable

A1 Basic user (`Breakthrough’)

Unacceptable

Sources CEFR 2001: 23 (English edition)

IELTS Handbook (adapted), information from websites of universities in Russia and Switzerland

annexes Scale 9 Comparability: Common European framework & international examinations Scale 10 Study hour requirements for the levels of the Common European

Framework sources and acknowledgements Scale 11 Academic & professional genres Scale 12 Diagnostic test of academic English

6.2 Recommendation 2: English for Academics Textbook

It would be possible to simply develop an English for Academics textbook, working with a team of

Russian language teachers and a UK consultant. Such a textbook would be marketable across the

sector, would have international sales potential, and would have considerable impact in Russian

universities. It would have to be flexible in design and delivery, so that it would need to include


mechanisms to cater for the narrow ESP demands of academics from very different disciplines140, to

have a range of content which could be selected for teachers, researchers and administrators, and

also to be deliverable to different groups of students at unconventional teaching times.

However, it is recommended that the project should not merely develop a marketable product, but

should also make the ESP textbook writing process explicit through an accompanying text (perhaps

electronic), chronicling the sequence of stages in textbook design, illustrating the tool required for,

say, needs analysis, explaining the options available and the choices made. In this way, the textbook

would also serve as an exemplar of good practice and a model for future textbook projects.

Resources The consultants have encountered in-house English for Academics courses at both

Tomsk Polytechnic and St Petersburg State Universities. It would be possible to select one of these

institutions, to call for bids, or to form a team of writers (as has been done with previous textbook

projects in Russia).

6.3 Conclusions

Russia is a huge country with a huge university problem, and the problems of teaching English in

these universities are also huge. The problems relate not only to the ESP teachers, students,

materials and assessment systems, but more broadly to matters of policy, rationale and motivation.

It is also apparent that these problems have taken on a whole new dimension in the past 10 years

with the growing awareness of the need for English in the internationalisation of Russian

universities. Clearly, it is not the job of the British Council to solve these problems, but it is also clear

that the British Council has had a history of high-impact initiatives in Russia in the past 20 years and

many ESP teachers continue to look to the Council for support.

For these reasons, the recommendations made in this report seek to provide support for ESP

teachers and teaching in Russian universities, not just at the classroom level but at the deeper levels

of national and international standards and quality.

140

See Scott et al (1984), for example


Appendix A: WORLD UNIVERSITY RANKINGS – UK & RUSSIAN UNIVERSITIES141

UK university Russian university QS 2010

#600142

THES 2011 #200143 ARWU 2010 #500144 GRater 2009

#430145

Cambridge 1 6= 3 8

University College 4 22 20 13

Oxford 6 6= 10 14

Imperial 7 9 26 -

King’s College 21 77 63 36

Edinburgh 22 40 54 17

Bristol 27 68 66 -

Manchester 30 87 44 52

Warwick 53 - 151-200 137

Moscow State

Technical (Bauman)

- - - 55

Birmingham 59 145 99 85

Sheffield 69 137 88 40

Nottingham 73 174= 84 60

Glasgow 77 128 151-200 99

LSE 80 86 -

Southampton 81 90 151-200 124

Leeds 85 168 101-50 136

York 88 81 201-300 43

Durham 92 85 151-200 70

Moscow State 93 - 74 5

St Andrew’s 95 103 201-300 184

Aberdeen 117 149 201-300 167

Liverpool 121 165 101-50 110

Cardiff 122 - 151-200 -

Moscow Engineering

Physics Institute

- - - 133

Newcastle 140 152= 201-300 -

Bath 144 - - 225

Queen Mary, London 147 120 - -

Birkbeck - 152= - -

Sussex 156 79 101-50 216

Leicester 169 - - 165

Lancaster 181 124 201-300 193

Queen’s, Belfast 197 - 201-300 196

Dundee 201 140 - -

St Petersburg State 210 - - 84

Surrey 243 - 401-500 241

SOAS 258 - - -

Exeter 259 184 - 252

Patrice Lumumba

People’s Friendship

- - - 262

Strathclyde 265 - - -

141

All universities included in the top 250 in any of the rankings are included here in approximate order. 142

http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2010 accessed 09/03/2011 143 www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings accessed 08/03/2011 144

www.arwu.org accessed 08/03/2011. 145

http://www.globaluniversitiesranking.org accessed 08/03/2011

http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2010

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings

http://www.arwu.org/

http://www.globaluniversitiesranking.org/


Loughborough 270 - -

Moscow Power

Engineering Institute

- - - 272

Moscow State

Institute of

International Relations

- - - 291

Royal Holloway 291 88 - -

Aston 296 - - -

East Anglia 299 174= 201-300 -

UK total: 39 Russian total: 7 UK 38/Russia 2 UK 29/Russia 0 UK 28/Russia 0 UK 25/Russia 7


Appendix B: RECOMMENDATION 1: PROPOSAL FOR ACADEMIC LANGUAGE FRAMEWORK

The `scales’ on the following pages are intended to offer an academic framework for the use of English in institutions of higher education. The scales all refer to international levels of language proficiency and are arranged at four levels: 1 Scale 1 Overall guidance and academic requirements for higher education 2 Scale 2 Overall general language proficiency 3 Scale 3 Overall academic language proficiency 4 Scale 4 Academic reading proficiency Scale 5 Academic writing proficiency Scale 6 Academic listening proficiency Scale 7 Academic speaking proficiency Scale 8 Study skills annexes Scale 9 Comparability: Common European Framework & international

examinations Scale 10 Study hour requirements for the levels of the Common European

Framework Scale 11 Academic & professional genres Scale 12 Diagnostic test of academic English The scales are all based on public documents from the Council of Europe, the Association of Language Testers of Europe (ALTE), the British Council/Cambridge ESOL and the British Association of Lecturers in English for Academic Purposes (BALEAP)146, with minor adaptations. The framework can be used for a variety of purposes: ♦ To situate the language requirements for any particular academic programme. ♦ To identify the entrance/placement level of a particular student or group of students. ♦ To identify the exit/graduating level of a particular student or group of students. ♦ To align a particular test or examination with international standards. ♦ To identify the particular language requirements when devising a new course, or when recruiting students. ♦ To compare the language requirements or achievements of different academic programmes. ♦ To identify targets for language courses offered by the institution. ♦ To carry out a training needs analysis for a particular group of students. ♦ To determine the level and acceptability of a language qualification from another institution or country. ♦ To make international comparisons of language requirements and levels. ♦ To determine the time required to move from one language level to another.

146

BALEAP’s EAP `can-do’ project is due for publication in May 2011. This framework will then be updated.


Scale 2: Overall Language Proficiency

SCALE 1: OVERALL GUIDANCE & ACADEMIC REQUIREMENTS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION

CEFR level Acceptability for academic study

C2 Proficient user (`Mastery’) Acceptable for English-medium degree courses in the UK and other English speaking countries.

C1 Proficient user (`Effective operational proficiency’)

Probably acceptable for English-medium courses in the UK and other English-speaking countries.

B2 Independent user (`Vantage’)

Probably acceptable for most English-medium vocational/training courses in the UK and other English-speaking countries. Accepted by some Russian universities for English-medium degree courses. Accepted by some European universities for non-English medium degree courses where English is required for occasional listening, reading or reference, e.g. some lectures, some articles, etc

B1 Independent user (`Threshold’)

Unacceptable for an English-medium academic course, but may be acceptable for a course delivered largely in the mother-tongue with occasional reference to English sources.

A2 Basic user (`Waystage’) Unacceptable

A1 Basic user (`Breakthrough’) Unacceptable

Sources CEFR 2001: 23 (English edition)

IELTS Handbook (adapted), information from websites of universities in Russia and Switzerland


Scale 3: Academic Language Proficiency

CEFR level SCALE 2: OVERALL LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY

C2 Can understand with ease virtually everything heard or read. Can summarise information from different

spoken and written sources, reconstructing arguments and accounts in a coherent presentation. Can

express him/herself spontaneously, very fluently and precisely, differentiating finer shades of meaning

even in more complex situations.

C1 Can understand a wide range of demanding, longer texts, and recognise implicit meaning. Can express

him/herself fluently and spontaneously without much obvious searching for expressions. Can use

language flexibly and effectively for social, academic and professional purposes. Can produce clear, well-

structured, detailed text on complex subjects, showing controlled use of organisational patterns,

connectors and cohesive devices.

B2 Can understand the main ideas of complex text on both concrete and abstract topics, including technical

discussions in his/her field of specialisation. Can interact with a degree of fluency and spontaneity that

makes regular interaction with native speakers quite possible without strain for either party. Can

produce clear, detailed text on a wide range of subjects and explain a viewpoint on a topical issue, giving

the advantages and disadvantages of various options.

B1 Can understand the main points of clear standard input on familiar matters regularly encountered in

work, study, leisure, etc. Can deal with most situations likely to arise whilst travelling in an area where

the target language is spoken. Can produce simple connected text on topics which are familiar or of

personal interest. Can describe experiences and events, dreams, hopes and ambitions, and briefly give

reasons and explanations for opinions and plans.

A2 Can understand sentences and frequently used expressions related to areas of most immediate

relevance (e.g. very basic personal and family information, shopping, local geography, employment). Can

communicate in simple and routine tasks requiring a simple and direct exchange of information on

familiar and routine matters. Can describe in simple terms aspects of his/her background, immediate

environment and matters in areas of immediate need.

A1 Can understand and use familiar everyday expressions and very basic phrases aimed at the satisfaction of

needs of a concrete type. Can introduce him/herself and others, and can ask and answer questions

about personal details such as where he/she lives, people he/she knows and things he/she has. Can

interact in a simple way provided the other person talks slowly and clearly and is prepared to help.

Source Council of Europe (2001), Common European Framework of Reference for Languages, page 24 [English

edition]


Scale 7: Academic Speaking Proficiency

Scale 6: Academic Listening Proficiency

Scale 5: Academic Writing Proficiency

Scale 4: Academic Reading Proficiency

CEFR

level

SCALE 3: ACADEMIC LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY

Reading Writing Listening & Speaking

C2 Can access all

sources of

information quickly

and reliably.

Can make accurate and

complex notes during the

course of a lecture,

seminar or tutorial.

Can understand jokes,

colloquial asides and cultural

allusions.

C1 Can read quickly

enough to cope with

the demands of an

academic course.

Can write an essay which

shows ability to

communicate, giving few

difficulties for the reader.

Can follow abstract

argumentation, for example

the balancing of alternatives

and the drawing of a

conclusion.

B2 Can scan texts for

relevant information

and grasp main point

of text.

Can make simpler notes

that will be of reasonable

use for essay or revision

purposes.

Can give a clear presentation

on a familiar topic, and

answer predictable or factual

questions.

B1 Can understand basic

instructions and

messages, for

example, computer

library catalogues,

with some help.

Can write down some

information at a lecture, if

this is more or less

dictated.

Can understand instructions

on classes and assignments

given by a teacher or lecturer.

A2 Can understand the

general meaning of a

simplified textbook

or articles, reading

very slowly.

Can write a very simple

narrative or description,

such as `My last holiday’.

Can express simple opinions

using expressions such as `I

don’t agree’.

A1 Can read basic

notices and

instructions.

Can copy times, dates and

prices from notices on

classroom board or notice

board.

Can understand basic

instructions on class times,

dates and room numbers, and

on assignments to be carried

out.

Source `ALTE study statements’, in Common European Framework of Reference: Teaching,

Learning, Assessment, 2001: 256 [English edition]


CEFR level SCALE 4A: ACADEMIC READING PROFICIENCY

C2 ♦ I can understand and interpret critically virtually all forms of the written language, including abstract, or

structurally complex, non-literary and (where appropriate) literary writings

♦ I can understand a wide range of long and complex academic and professional texts, appreciating subtle

distinctions of style.

♦ I can understand various complex texts, appreciating implicit and well as explicit meaning (such as hidden

points, hints).

♦ I can understand the text of reference books, technical manuals and legal contracts. I can explain difficult

sections.

♦ I can use my own knowledge and experience to interpret texts of different genres.

C1 ♦ I can extract information, ideas and opinions from highly-specialised texts in my own field, for example

research reports.

♦ I can understand in detail lengthy, complex texts both within and outside my academic field, provided I can re-

read difficult sections.

♦ I can understand a wide range of texts on academic, professional and other topics, locating factual

information, and differentiating between the real information and hypotheses.

♦ I can find the most relevant information in specialized texts related to my studies and professional interests

(e.g. report, review), and identify the main ideas and viewpoints.

♦ I can quickly read a text, identify its subject and line of argument, differentiating between the relevant and

irrelevant.

♦ I can understand specialized texts outside my field or professional interests, provided I can re-read fragments

using a dictionary to check comprehension.

♦ I can understand complex instruction for new equipment or procedures, even if they don’t relate to my own

academic/professional field, provided I can re-read difficult sections.

B2 ♦ I can understand the main ideas of texts and articles related to my academic and professional interests. I can

understand different viewpoints, facts and conclusions. I can briefly sum up the main points.

♦ I can quickly scan through texts within my field and identify the most relevant fragments to read them more

thoroughly with a dictionary.

♦ I can understand clear, not too complex operating instructions.

♦ I can understand different types of correspondence, given the use of a dictionary.

B1 ♦ I can understand uncomplicated texts related to my academic and professional interests.

♦ I can scan fairly long texts related to my academic or professional interests, and identify important sections to

read later with the dictionary.

♦ I can scan academic and professional texts and identify the relevant information, thus getting the idea of the

content.

A2 ♦ I can identify the most important and basic information from short texts related to me academic and

professional interests.

♦ I can find the necessary information in directories, announcements, advertisements, signs, notices,

instructions, etc related to my academic and professional interests.

♦ I can understand relevant forms and documents, and can fill them in, sometimes with the help of a dictionary.

A1 ♦ I can understand basic information on simple notices, posters, maps, advertisements, etc related top my

academic, professional or personal needs.

Sources European Language Portfolio, UK adult and Russian high school editions.


SCALE 4B: ACADEMIC READING – SPECIFIC COMPETENCIES

Academic discourse

relates to language

knowledge and a

student’s ability to

mobilise appropriate

language in response

to the demands of a

specific academic

context.

♦ Read sufficiently quickly for course demands.

♦ Access non-literal interpretation of texts.

♦ Apply critical/sceptical approach

♦ Apply analytical approach

♦ Understands relevance and status of journal articles

♦ Scan texts and books in particular in order to make decisions on selection of materials and

exploitation of contents

♦ Scan texts and identify key points/sections

♦ Analyse and discuss written texts as group activity

♦ Go beyond superficial understanding of texts and demonstrate deep comprehension

♦ Synthesise information

♦ Understand subtleties/nuances of language.

♦ Have sufficient language knowledge and control (IELTS 6.5 obligatory).

Academic context relates to:

♦ the academic practices, values and conventions

♦ the cognitive capacity and metacognitive strategies required to cope with courses in this

environment

Discipline-related skills relate to recognising and exploring students’ disciplines and how they influence the way knowledge is

expanded and communicated

Practical skills relate to the skills specifically appropriate to postgraduate study

Source BALEAP Can-do Framework for EAP Syllabus Design and Assessment (draft 2011)


CEFR level SCALE 5A: ACADEMIC WRITING PROFICIENCY

C2 ♦ I can write clear and logical academic reports and articles on complex subjects, underlining the relevant issues.

♦ I can produce an academic article or report of my research, sum up others’ opinions, provide detailed information

and facts along with their critical appreciation.

♦ I can write a long report on the results of an assignment, project or academic course.

♦ I can write a review of a document or project, pointing out its strong and weak points, and supporting my position

with relevant argument.

♦ I can take minutes at a discussion, meeting, etc

♦ I can write summaries of academic/professional texts and books.

♦ I can write official letters. C1 ♦ I can write clear, detailed and well-structured academic texts appropriate to the reader in mind.

♦ I can express myself on a complex topic, highlighting the most relevant points and stating my point clearly, e.g. in an

essay, report.

♦ I can write a commentary on an event or topic, underlining the main idea and supporting it with relevant arguments

and examples.

♦ I can write notes of a report, a discussion or summarize a lengthy academic text.

♦ I can write official letters expressing a complaint, my agreement/disagreement, making/declining an offer with the

necessary degree of politeness.

♦ I can write an application for a job, project, etc with relevant supporting documents (e.g. a CV).

B2 ♦ I can write clear and detailed texts (essays, reports, etc) on various topics related to my academic field of interest.

♦ I can write summaries or articles on topics of general interest.

♦ I can summarize information from different sources and media.

♦ I can discuss or debate a topic in an essay, giving reasons for or against a specific point of view.

♦ I can systematically discuss a topic in an essay or report, emphasising decisive points and supporting details.

♦ I can express a viewpoint in a working paper or a dossier and can briefly list positive and negative points.

♦ I can write a short review of a book.

♦ I can write on topics within my academic field of interest in an easily comprehensible and generally correct way.

♦ I have a relatively large vocabulary which enables me to write on topics within my academic field of interest.

♦ I can discuss specialized questions by email.

♦ I can briefly summarize academic articles in writing.

♦ I can write talks in my field

B1 ♦ I can write on topics which are familiar to me in a simple and clearly structured way.

♦ I can write straightforward connected texts on a range of topics within my academic field of interest and can express

personal views and opinions.

♦ I can reply to advertisements and ask for more complete or specific information (e.g. an academic course, job).

♦ I can convey or ask for short simple factual information to colleagues in an email or circular memo.

♦ I can write my CV in summary form.

♦ I have a sufficiently large range of vocabulary to write on most topics concerned with my everyday life and work in a

relatively fluent and easily comprehensible way.

♦ I can write texts on topics which are familiar to me, highlighting the points which I consider important.

A2 ♦ I can write about aspects of my everyday life and work in simple phrases and sentences.

♦ I can write a very simple personal letter or email inviting or thanking somebody.

♦ I can explain where and I live and work and how to get there.

♦ I can fill in a questionnaire giving an account of my educational background, job, academic interests and skills.

♦ I can briefly introduce myself in a letter or email with simple phrases and sentences.

♦ I have a sufficiently large vocabulary to give general information about myself, my work and my everyday life.

♦ I can use the most important connecting words to indicate the chronological order of events (first, then, after).

A1 ♦ I can fill in a questionnaire with my personal details (job, age, employer, address, etc).

♦ I can write a simple note to tell somebody where I am or where we are to meet.

♦ I can write sentences and simple phrases about myself, for example where I live and what I do.

Source Adapted from the European Language Portfolio, UK Adult, Swiss Adult & Russian Upper Secondary School versions.


SCALE 5B: ACADEMIC WRITING – SPECIFIC COMPETENCIES

Academic discourse

relates to language

knowledge and a




to the demands of a

specific academic

context.

♦ Analyse assignment tasks and respond appropriately

♦ Identify where a critical or analytical response is required rather than a descriptive response.

♦ Organise written texts

♦ Produce a critical or analytical response

♦ Build and depart from model/sample structure (e.g. essay templates)

♦ Connect content fluently

♦ Understand complexity and express this is writing

♦ Communicate subject content

♦ Communicate relevant information concisely

♦ Incorporate relevant literature to create and support argument

♦ Comment on sources

♦ Apply appropriate style and language register

♦ Avoid plagiarism

♦ Develop own voice/establish individual voice

♦ Write a bibliography

♦ Cite correctly




environment






CEFR level SCALE 6A: ACADEMIC LISTENING PROFICIENCY

C2 ♦ I have no difficulty in understanding any kind of spoken language, whether live or broadcast, even when

delivered at fast native speed, provided I have some time to get familiar with the accent.

♦ In lively and controversial academic discussions, I can grasp the positions, arguments, and argumentation

strategies of the participants.

♦ I can understand the oral texts necessary for an academic career, even when they include a high percentage of

idiomatic or metaphorical expressions.

♦ I am completely familiar with the specific vocabulary and idiomatic expressions in my field.

C1 ♦ I can follow extended speech even when it is not clearly structured and even when relationships are only implied

and not signalled explicitly.

♦ I can understand complex technical information, such as operating instructions, specifications for familiar

products and services.

♦ I can understand lectures, talks and reports in my field of professional or academic interest, even when they are

propositionally and linguistically complex.

♦ I can use the language fluently, accurately and effectively on a wide range of general, professional or academic

topics.

♦ I can express my ideas and opinions clearly and precisely, and can present and respond to complex lines of

reasoning convincingly.

♦ I can participate in a specialized discussion on a complex topic.

B2 ♦ I can understand in detail what is said to me in standard spoken language, even in a noisy environment.

♦ I can follow a lecture or talk within my own field, provided the subject matter is familiar and the presentation

straightforward and clearly structured.

♦ I can understand the main ideas of propositionally and linguistically complex speech on both concrete and

abstract topics delivered in a standard dialect, including technical discussions in my own field of specialisation.

♦ I can use a variety of strategies to achieve comprehension, including listening for main points, checking

comprehension by using contextual clues.

B1 ♦ I can follow the main points of extended discussion around me, provided speech is clearly articulated in standard

dialect.

♦ I can follow academic discussions in my own field.

♦ I can understand lectures and take notes in keywords.

♦ I can understand the main points of a lecture when clear standard language is spoken and when it concerns

academic matters familiar to me.

A2 ♦ I can understand what is said clearly, slowly and directly to me in simple everyday conversation; it is possible to

make me understand, if the speaker can take the trouble.

♦ I can recognise phrases, words and expressions related to areas of most immediate priority (e.g. very basic

personal and family information, shopping, local geography, employment).

♦ I can catch the main point in short, clear, simple messages and announcements.

A1 ♦ I can understand when someone speaks very slowly to me and articulates carefully, with long pauses for me to

assimilate meaning.

♦ I can understand simple directions how to get from X to Y, on foot or public transport.

♦ I can understand questions and instructions addressed carefully and slowly to me and follow short, simple

questions.

♦ I can understand numbers, prices and times.

Source Adapted from the European Language Portfolio, UK Adult, Swiss Adult & Russian Upper Secondary School versions.


SCALE 6B: ACADEMIC LISTENING – SPECIFIC COMPETENCIES

Academic discourse

relates to language

knowledge and a




to the demands of a

specific academic

context.

♦ Understand rapid, colloquial `lecture’ speech

♦ Cope with different lecturing styles

♦ Understand unfamiliar/non-native accents

♦ Understand lengthy preambles

♦ Understand sufficient content to allow for engagement with topic (speed of comprehension and

assimilation of information)

♦ Understand sufficient content to detect lapses in understanding

♦ Use headings on PowerPoint to understand lecture organisation and meaning

♦ Cope with information presented orally and visually

♦ Cope with concurrent listening and note-taking

♦ Assimilate information and take full and effective notes

♦ Identify `big’ ideas’; dismiss less relevant detail

♦ Take notes sufficiently quickly to record detail appropriately

♦ Take notes without being impeded by poor spelling

♦ Respond to questions directed at him/her




environment






CEFR level SCALE 7A: ACADEMIC SPEAKING PROFICIENCY

C2 ♦ I can take part effortlessly in an academic or professional discussion with native speakers in both formal

and informal situations.

♦ I can orally sum up the information from different sources, rearranging the arguments and clearly

formulating the conclusions in a way appropriate to the target set.

♦ I can express myself using a wide range of language means to give emphasis and eliminate ambiguity.

♦ I can use a wide range of language means to convey finer shades of meaning precisely. I can evaluate any

utterance, emphasizing its importance and appropriateness.

♦ I have a good command of idiomatic expressions and colloquialisms. I am aware of their meaning and the

associations they call for.

♦ Using complex structures and wide-ranging specialized vocabulary, I can fluently and effectively express

myself on topics relevant to academic life and study trips abroad.

C1 ♦ I can take part in an informal academic/professional conversation with native speakers.

♦ I can speak fluently and accurately on a wide range of subjects related to my social and academic activities.

♦ I can use language flexibly and effectively for social purposes, including emotional, allusive and joking

usage.

♦ I can make an oral summary of long complex texts and oral presentations/discussions.

♦ I can give detailed academic descriptions and presentations on various subjects, developing particular

points and rounding off with an appropriate conclusion.

♦ I can give an extended presentation on academic subjects related to my field, departing spontaneously

from a prepared text to answer a series of follow-up questions.

B2 ♦ I can successfully start, maintain and close a conversation, communicating with the necessary degree of

fluency.

♦ I can exchange information within my academic field reliably.

♦ I can account for and sustain my viewpoint by providing relevant explanations, arguments and comments

♦ I can keep the discussion going along familiar ground, confirming comprehension, inviting others in, etc.

♦ I can carry out an interview, checking and confirming information, and developing the most interesting

points.

♦ I can give clear, detailed presentations on a wide range of topics related to my academic field.

B1 ♦ I can participate in a discussion on familiar topics, though I may sometimes have to ask for repetition of

particular words or phrases.

♦ I can enter unprepared into discussions on familiar academic topics and explain the main point.

♦ I can give a simple presentation on familiar academic topics.

♦ I can briefly relate short fragments from an academic text I have read, using certain words and structures

from the text as a kind of support.

A2 ♦ I can communicate in simple tasks in everyday situations in social, travel or academic contexts.

♦ I can make an appointment, fix the time and time, and discuss our plans.

♦ I can ask and answer questions about my work and academic interests and plans.

♦ I can answer simple questions and react to simple messages in work/academic situations.

♦ I can describe my studies or future work.

A1 ♦ I can introduce myself and use basic greeting and leave-taking expressions appropriate to the situation.

♦ I can ask and answer questions about myself and other people (their names, their job titles, academic

fields, etc), provided the questions are asked at a slow rate of speech.

♦ I can initiate and respond to simple statements.

♦ I can briefly describe myself, the place I live and work, and people I know or work with.

Source Adapted from the European Language Portfolio, UK adult and Russian high school editions.


SCALE 7B: ACADEMIC SPEAKING – SPECIFIC COMPETENCIES

Academic discourse

relates to language

knowledge and a




to the demands of a

specific academic

context.

♦ Demonstrate high-level presentation skills

♦ Select appropriate detail and limit content of presentations

♦ Interact effectively with supervisor (acknowledging problems)

♦ Develop and maintain an independent stance while engaging effectively with supervisor

♦ Engage in `Socratic’ dialogue with supervisor

♦ Ask for advice and feedback

♦ Respond to advice and feedback

♦ Challenge a lecturer

♦ Ask for clarification

♦ Ask questions/respond to questions (seminar/lecture situations)

♦ Show disagreement

♦ Tell other people when they are wrong

♦ Communicate effectively, e.g. asking for things, giving orders, selling a product

♦ Co-operate and take part in group work in a lab environment

♦ Take part in group work analysing and solving problems

♦ Co-operate and complete group tasks (on time)

♦ Involve other participants in group work

♦ Report on group tasks

♦ Contribute to discussion in seminars

♦ Engage fully in discussion rather than providing superficial contribution

♦ Take part in group discussion

♦ Challenge other members of the group




environment






SCALE 8: STUDY SKILLS (sample)

STUDY SKILL B1 B2 C1 C2

study planning ♦ I can organize my own studies in my free time

and meet deadlines.

♦ I can keep useful and appropriate records of

my coursework in an accessible file or folder.

accessing & retrieving

information

using contextual & graphic

clues

note making & note taking ♦ I can make useful notes on the main points

from reading and listening sources at the

appropriate level, or from the whiteboard.

♦ I can use my notes to complete tables, short

written texts and short talks.

reference/library/research

skills

vocabulary & dictionary

skills

♦ I can use an English to English dictionary at

the appropriate level and select the appropriate

use of a word or phrase.

♦ I can use a dictionary to find out the

pronunciation, grammar and meaning of a

word.

♦ I can keep useful and appropriate records of

new vocabulary and phrases for reference and

self-study, e.g. wordlists. I can update and use

these regularly.

repair strategies ♦ I can ask for repetition/clarification*

♦ I can ask for more detailed information in a

discussion on familiar topics.*

♦ I can repeat some words or phrases of my

partner to check my understanding of his/her

utterance.*

♦ I can use one word instead of another which

is not known to me. I can ask the partner to

correct my mistake.

monitoring & evaluating ♦ I can realistically assess my own performance

and that of other students at my level.

♦ I can take responsibility for my own progress

and work independently on my weaker areas

and know when I need help from others.

♦ I can edit and correct my own work.

Sources Wall P, `Using the CEF to develop English courses for adults at the University of Gloucestershire’, in Morrow

K (ed)(2004), Insights from the Common European Framework, Oxford: OUP, page 129

European Language Portfolio, Russian high school edition, 2001 (*) + CEFR section 5.1.4.3


SCALE 9: COMPARABILITY – CEFR & INTERNATIONAL EXAMINATIONS

CEFR levels

BEC exams IELTS bands Cambridge ESOL exams

TOEFL

iBT paper

C2 7.5-9 Proficiency (CPE)

- -

C1 BEC Higher 6.5-7.5 Advanced (CAE) 120-110 300-271

B2 BEC Vantage 5.5-6.5 First Certificate (FCE)

109-87 270-226

B1 BEC Preliminary 4.5-5.5 Preliminary (PET)

86-57 225-166

A2 3-4.5 Key English Test (KET)

54-44 165-120

A1 1-2 n/a n/a

Notes Business English Certificate

International English Language Testing System

Cambridge ESOL Test of English as a Foreign Language, Educational Testing Services


SCALE 10: REQUIRED TUITION HOURS

CEFR levels Tuition hours required

C2 1000-1200

C1 700-800

B2 500-600

B1 350-400

A2 180-200

A1 90-100

Source ALTE estimates


SCALE 11: ACADEMIC & PROFESSIONAL GENRES

LISTENING & SPEAKING GENRES READING & WRITING GENRES

Introduction to place of work, office, laboratory,

production unit, machines, etc

Introduction to own job, responsibilities, working

conditions, etc

Description and explanation of equipment, processes, etc

Warnings, e.g. safety precautions

Instructions, e.g. operating instructions

Professional telephone conversations (professional-

professional)

Professional telephone conversations (professional-non-

professional)

Professional telephone conversations (non-professional-

non-professional)

Interviews (professional-professional)

Socialising, personal conversations

Consultations (professional-professional)

Consultations (professional-non-professional)

Negotiations (professional-professional)

Negotiations (professional-non-professional)

Professional meetings/workshop discussions

Professional talks/presentations (to professionals)

Professional talks/presentations (to non-professionals)

Academic lectures/conference presentations

Notes (taken at lectures, meetings, training sessions, etc)

Warning labels/safety instructions

Notices, memoranda, internal messages

Advertisements (e.g. job advertisements)

Operating instructions

Product/service descriptions, design specifications

Manuals (e.g. operating manuals)

Price lists and catalogues

Initiative letters (to professionals/non-professionals)

Responsive letters (to professionals/non-professionals)

Faxes (initiative/responsive)

e-mails (initiative/responsive)

Forms and pro-formas

Applications, bids and tenders

Proposals, recommendations

Minutes of meetings

Reports and professional memoranda

Analytical reports (studies)

Contracts

Patents, certificates, statutes

Job profiles & Curriculum vitae/resum?s

Articles and notices for company bulletins/in-house journals

Articles and abstracts in professional and research journals

Reviews of professional books

Professional/scientific books

Professional/scientific textbooks

Reference materials (encyclopaedia entries/articles)

Poster presentations (at exhibitions/conferences)

Hand-outs (at conferences, meetings, etc)

Notes (taken at lectures, meetings, training sessions, etc)

Source: British Council Service English Project, Hungary: West R & A Tompos (2000), `From generic to specific: a genre-

based approach to ESP testing’, in Beaumont M & T O’Brien (eds), Collaborative Research in Second Language Education,

Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham Books, pages 195-206


ANNEX: DIAGNOSTIC TEST OF ACADEMIC ENGLISH 1 – READING a

Read the following statements and assess your current reading ability. State also whether this is

adequate for your academic requirements.

CEFR

level

descriptor current

level ()

adequate?

(yes/no)

C2 I can read with ease virtually all forms of written language

quickly and reliably.

C1 I can understand long and complex factual and literary texts

quickly enough to cope with my academic requirements.

B2 I can scan academic texts, for example articles and reports, for

relevant information and grasp the main points of the text.

B1 I can understand academic texts that consist mainly of high-

frequency or academic-related language.

A2 I can understand the general meaning of very short,

simple/simplified academic texts, for example textbooks or

articles, reading very slowly. I can find specific, predictable

information in these texts.

A1 I can understand basic texts, for example on notices and

posters, or instructions.

sources Common European Framework of Reference (English edition), pages 26-27, 256


DIAGNOSTIC TEST OF ACADEMIC ENGLISH 1 - Reading b

Apply your assessment in Reading Test a to each of the following academic/professional texts:

(i) Is the text type required in your academic studies/work?

(ii) What is your current level – A1/A2/B1/B2/C1/C2?

(iii) Is this level adequate for your academic studies/work?

text type (i) (ii) (iii)

required? current level adequate?

yes no A1 A2 B1 B2 C1 C2 yes no

Academic articles and abstracts

Academic/professional textbooks

Academic/professional books

Reviews of academic/professional

books

Reference materials (e.g.

encyclopaedia entries/articles)

PowerPoint or poster presentations

(at lectures, exhibitions/conferences)

Hand-outs (at lectures, conferences,

meetings, etc)

Academic/professional letters &

correspondence and enclosures

Academic/professional e-mails and

attachments

Reports and professional memoranda

Advertisements (e.g. job

advertisements) and job profiles

Warning labels/safety instructions

Notices, memoranda, internal

messages

Operating manuals & instructions

Price lists and catalogues

Product/service descriptions, design

specifications

source: British Council Service English Project, Hungary: West R & A Tompos (2000), `From generic to specific: a genre-based

approach to ESP testing’, in Beaumont M & T O’Brien (eds), Collaborative Research in Second Language Education, Stoke-on-

Trent: Trentham Books, pages 195-206


Appendix C: RECOMMENDATION 2: ENGLISH FOR ACADEMICS TEXTBOOK

Background In Russia the English language proficiency of academics – teaching staff, researchers,

administrators – holds back the internationalisation of universities. At undergraduate level, English

is rarely used, even on bibliographies; at graduate level, it is difficult to deliver English-medium

masters programmes; it is difficult to apply for and negotiate international research programmes

and partnerships, and international research teams cannot function in English. This lack of English is

at the heart of the chicken-egg problem of internationalisation. The need for an EAP course for

academics has been apparent for many years, but none has so far been published.

Rationale It would be possible to simply develop an English for Academics textbook, working with a

team of Russian language teachers and a UK consultant. Such a textbook would be marketable

across the sector, would have international sales potential, and would have considerable impact for

the Council. It would have to be flexible in design and delivery, so that it would need to include

mechanisms to cater for the narrow ESP demands of academics from very different disciplines147, to

have a range of content which could be selected for teachers, researchers and administrators, and

also to be deliverable to different groups of students at unconventional teaching times.

However, it is recommended that the project should not merely develop a marketable product, but

should also make the ESP textbook writing process explicit through an accompanying text (perhaps

electronic), chronicling the sequence of stages in textbook design, illustrating the tool required for,

say, needs analysis, explaining the options available and the choices made. In this way, the textbook

would also serve as an exemplar of good practice and a model for future textbook projects.

Resources The consultants have encountered in-house English for Academics courses at both

Tomsk Polytechnic and St Petersburg State Universities. It would be possible to select one of these

institutions, to call for bids, or to form a team of writers (as has been done with previous textbook

projects in Russia).

Update Since the Baseline Study was completed as an internal report, the Council, has moved

forward and advertised for partners in this project. The text of the advertisement is given below:

Within the Internationalising Higher Education project, the British Council has carried out baseline research of English language provision in higher education in Russia which identified the need to raise the level of English of University staff and researchers in order for the Universities to be able to engage in international projects more effectively, to publish in international journals, attend international conferences and offer other subjects in English.

In order to address this need the British Council is launching a project aimed at producing an “English for Academics” course.

147

See Scott et al (1984), for example


The course will be designed by a team of Russian authors under the guidance of the UK expert. The final product will be available in both printed and online versions. To assist with publishing and distribution of the product, the British Council will also announce a tender for a publishing house. The publishing house partner will contribute to the design, editing, production and dissemination of the product. Blended modes of course delivery should be considered when designing the product. The Russian team of authors and the publisher will be selected on the basis of open tender, which will be compiled in consultation with the UK expert.

As a side product, we also aim to capture all stages of course production by means of videos, blog posts and other digital means. This digital product will aim at raising the capacity of teachers to design materials and will aim to illustrate all stages of materials design so that it can then be applied to designing different types of materials.


Appendix D: REFERENCES & DOCUMENTS CONSULTED

Adams J & C King 2010 Global Research Report – Russia, Thomson Reuters

Afonasova B N, M B

Verbitskaya, L B Kuznetsova,

L G Kuzmina, N V Patyaeva

E.N. Solovova, M A Sternina,

S A Suchkova, E V Troskler,

& ЕВ О Schegoleva

2011 `Issues of teaching foreign languages at non-linguistic

departments of higher educational institutions and

ways of solving them,’ in: Important problems of theory

and methodology of language science: proceedings of

international conference , 18 March 2011, St Petersburg

State University

Arefyev A L 2010 Current State and Perspectives for the Export of Russian

Education, Moscow: Publishing House of the Russian

Friendship University

B?hm A et al 2004 Vision 2020: Forecasting International Student Mobility

– a UK perspective, British Council, Universities UK, IDP,

Education UK [http:/britishcouncil_org/eumd_-

_vision_2020.pdf]

British Council Expert Group 2008 The BRIDGE Project: An Interim Review, British Council

(mimeo)

Cheremissina I & T

Petrashova

2002 `Current trends in ESP teaching in Russia’, English for

Specific Purposes World [http:/www.esp-

world.info/Articles_3/Current%Trends%20in%20ESP%2

0Teaching]

Council of Europe 2001 Common European Framework of Reference for

Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment, Cambridge

& Strasbourg: Cambridge University Press & Modern

Languages Division [English edition]

Graddol D 2006 English Next, London: British Council

Holdsworth N 1997 `Britain rallies to the Russian foreign expansion cause’,

Times Higher Educational Supplement, 26 February

2011

[www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode

=101207]

Holliday A 1994 Appropriate Methodology and Social Context,

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Huckin T 2003 `Specificity in ESP’, Iberica 5, pages 3-17

Kelly Services 2011 Quality of Candidates on the Russian Labour Market,

Moscow: Kelly Services [in Russian]

http://www.kellyservices.ru/web/ru/services/ru/pages/

21032011.html

King R, A Findlay & J Ahrens 2010 International Student Mobility Literature Review,

London: Higher Education Funding Council

Knight J 2008 `Higher education in turmoil: the changing world of

http://www.kellyservices.ru/web/ru/services/ru/pages/21032011.html

http://www.kellyservices.ru/web/ru/services/ru/pages/21032011.html


internationalization’, in: Altbach P (ed), Global

Perspectives on Higher Education, Amsterdam: Sense

Publishers

Kuznetsova L & I

Shchemeleva

2011 `Learners, the internet and ESP/EAP course books’

(mimeo)

Lazarev G L u/d `National policy and activity of Russian universities in

the field of international education’

Larionova M & T Meshkova

(eds)

2007 Analytical Report on Higher Education in the Russian

Federation, Moscow: Higher School of Economics

Magun A 2010 `Higher education in Post-Soviet Russia and the global

crisis of the university’, [http://www.isa-

sociology.org/universities-in-crisis/]

Mishin A 2005 RESPONSE to BRIDGE: Project Framework 2005-06

Moscow: British Council

Moscow Times 2011 `Medvedev diatribe is all pro-business’, The Moscow

Times, 31 March 2011, page 5

Moiseeva I 2010 `Study in the best universities is possible through the

internet’, [RT Study in the best universities is possible

through the Internet – RT.hum]

Moiseeva M 2005 `Distance education in Russia – Between the past and

the future,’ Quarterly Review of Distance Education

63/9 217-225

Motova G & R Pykk? 2012 `Russian Higher Education and European Standards of

Quality Assurance’, European Journal of Education 47/1

pages 25-36

RIA Novosti 2010 Ènglish-language education necessary for Russian

universities – minister’, RIA Novosti 07/09/2010

[Russian universities need English.html]

Rokhlina E u/d Some of EAP’s wh- questions, St Petersburg State

University (mimeo)

Scholey M u/d Case Study: ESP Trainer Training Materials in Russia:

Distance Management of the Materials Writing Process

[www.marjon.ac.uk/courses/international/RussiaMike

Scholey]

Scott M, L Carioni, M

Zanatta, E Bayer & T

Quintanilha

1984 Ùsing a “standard exercise” in teaching reading

comprehension’, English Language Teaching Journal

38/2 114-20

Smolentseva A 2004 Ìnternational students in Russia’, International Higher

Education Summer 2004

[http://www.valuemd.com/russian-medical-

schools/19261-international-students-russia]

SQW 2010 Ìnternational students in Russia’, International Higher

Education Summer 2004


[http://www.valuemd.com/russian-medical-

schools/19261-international-students-russia]

Synyatkin I, A Mishin & E

Karpukhina

forthcoming Analysis of double degree programmes between EU

universities and Russian HEIs, Moscow: National

Tempus Office, Russian Federation

Telegina G & H Schwengel 2012 `The Bologna Process: perspectives and implications for

the Russian university’, European Journal of Education,

47/1 pages 36-49

UKCISA 2008 Mobility Matters: Forty years of international students,

UK Council for International Student affairs

West R 1999 ESP – The State of the Art,

http://www.man.ac.uk./CELSE/esp/west/htm/

West R 2006 English-Language Teaching at the State University –

Higher School of Economics, Moscow, HSE/British

Council (mimeo)

West R 2007 Feasibility Study for the Project in ELT Quality

Enhancement in Higher Education at Non-Linguistic

Departments, St Petersburg State University, British

Council, Moscow (mimeo)

West R & E Frumina 2012 `European standards in Russian Higher Education and

the role of English: a case study of the National

University of Science & Technology (MISiS)’, European

Journal of Education, 41/1 pages 50-63

Winetroube S & L

Kuznetsova (eds)

2002 Specialist English Teaching and Learning – The State of

the Art in Russia, Moscow: The British Council/

Publishing House Petropolis

Zabotkina V 2002 `Language policies at Russian Higher Education

institutions’, in Bergan S (ed), Language Policies in

Higher Education: Invitation to a Debate, Strasbourg:

Council of Europe, pages 33-37

INTERNATIONALISATION OF RUSSIAN HIGHER EDUCATION · Internationalisation of Russian Higher...

Documents

Transcript of INTERNATIONALISATION OF RUSSIAN HIGHER EDUCATION · Internationalisation of Russian Higher...