The internationalisation of Ukrainian universities: the English … · 2017. 10. 6. · EPP English...

The internationalisation of Ukrainian universities: the English language dimensionRod Bolitho and Richard West

British Council, Ukraine English for Universities Project

The internationalisation of Ukrainian universities: the English language dimensionRod Bolitho and Richard West

УДК 378.091:811.111’26

Б79

Род Болайто та Річард Вест

Б79 Інтернаціоналізаціяукраїнськихуніверситетівурозрізіанглійськоїмови:Проект«Англійськамовадляуніверситетів»/РодБолайтотаРічардВест.–К.:«Видавництво«Сталь»,2017.—134с.

ISBN-978-617-676-123-5

Вцьомузвітіпредставленорезультатиоб’ємноготаінтенсивногодопроектногодослідження,проведеноговідіменіБританськоїРадитаМіністерстваосвітиінаукиУкраїнив2014-16роках,щодоролітастатусуанглійськоїмовивп’ятнадцятьохвищихнавчальнихзакладахУкраїни.Звітвключаєвсебеописвикористаноїдлязборуданихметодології,презентаціюосновнихрезультатівдослідженнятанизкурекомендаційдляподальшихдій.

УДК 378.091:811.111’26

ISBN-978-617-676-123-5

© Британська Рада 2017

БританськаРадавУкраїні вул.ГригоріяСковороди,4/12 Київ04070

www.britishcouncil.org

CONTENTS | 1

CONTENTSLIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES............................................................................................3

ABBREVIATIONS AND GLOSSARY.......................................................................................4

FOREWORD ..........................................................................................................................11

1INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................. 151.1 Contextandbackground........................................................................ 151.2 Overallaimsoftheproject................................................................... 171.3 BaselineStudyconsultancyobjectivesandresearch

questions...................................................................................................... 181.4 ConsultancyTermsofReference........................................................ 181.5 Researchmethodsandfociofinvestigation.................................. 181.6 Timeframe.................................................................................................... 191.7 Representativeness..................................................................................201.8 Limitationsofthestudy.......................................................................... 21

2BACKGROUND....................................................................................................................252.1 BriefsurveyofuniversitiesinUkrainewithspecialreference

totheprovisionforEMIandtheteachingofEnglish...................252.2 Currentissues...........................................................................................262.3 Earlier,relatedprojectsinUkraine.....................................................27

3SURVEYRESULTS............................................................................................................. 313.1 Englishlanguageproficiency................................................................ 313.2 Teachingof/throughEnglish.................................................................48

4UNIVERSITIES’STRATEGIESFORIMPROVINGENGLISH.......................................674.1 GlobalbackgroundtoEnglishasamedium ofinstruction(EMI)...................................................................................674.2 EMIinUkraine.............................................................................................684.3 ApolicyforimprovingEMI..................................................................... 70

5FINDINGSANDRECOMMENDATIONS.........................................................................795.1 Systemic–strategic.................................................................................795.2 Systemic–Englishlanguageteaching..............................................805.3 Systemic–EMI...........................................................................................835.4 Institutional—policiesandplanning.................................................855.5 Institutional–Englishteachers............................................................865.6 Institutional–EMIteachers...................................................................88

2 | CONTENTS

5.7 Institutional–students............................................................................89

6CONCLUSIONS....................................................................................................................936.1 Researchquestions..................................................................................936.2 EnglishproficiencylevelofEnglishteachers andacademics...........................................................................................936.3 Currentcapability,capacityandcurriculumtoimprove standardsofteachingEnglish(ESP) andthroughEnglish(EMI)......................................................................946.4 InitiativesneededtoreformtheHEIsectortoexpand theroleofEnglishandraisestandardstoapoint atwhichitcanfullyparticipateontheinternationalstage.......986.5 Conclusion...................................................................................................98

REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................103

APPENDIX A:TargetproficiencylevelsforEnglish language teachers................................107B:CEFRscalesanddescriptorsforacademicEnglish.........................................108C:Institutionalprofiles...................................................................................................... 112

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES | 3

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURESFigure1:BranchesofEnglishlanguageteaching.........................................7Table1:SectorbenchmarkinginWiderEuropeRegion.......................... 17Table2:WorldrankingsofUkrainianuniversities.......................................26Table3:NationalrankingsofUkrainianuniversities (http://osvita.ua/v/rating/25712/)....................................................................27Table4:EnglishproficiencylevelsofEuropeancountries (2016EPIreport).....................................................................................................32Table5:NumbersofstudentsandELT/ESPteachers...............................32Table6:Aptisoverallresults–ESPteachers................................................34Table7:AptisresultsforELT/ESPteachersbyskill..................................35Table8:AptisSpeakingresultsforESPteachers(N=153)......................36Table9:Students’perceptionsoftheusefulnessofskillsclasses.......38Table10:ELT/ESPteachers’beliefsabout languageproficiencylevels(N=333)...............................................................39Table11:Aptisresults–EMIteachers............................................................. 41Table12:StandardofEMITeachers’English(N=354)............................... 41Table13:EMIacademics’reasonsforwanting toimprovetheirEnglish.......................................................................................42Table14:Students’Englishlanguagescores intheSchool-LeavingExam(N=1389)..........................................................46Table15:Students’confidenceinusingEnglishatuniversity...............46Table16:Students’reasonsforlearningEnglish........................................47Table17:QualificationsandexperienceofESPteachers(N=332)...49Table18:ESPteachers’prioritiesforfurthertraining(N=332)............ 51Table19:ESPteachers’perceptionsoftheusefulnessofmaterials...56Table20:Students’perceptionsoftheusefulness ofELT/ESPlessons.................................................................................................59Table21:Teachers’viewsonteachingstandards......................................62Table22:NumbersofEMImaster’sprogrammes.......................................67Table23:Countriesallowing(Y)ornotallowing(N) EMIacrossdifferenteducationalsectors......................................................68Figure2:Modelofpoliciesforuniversityinternationalisation andthepromotionofEMI.................................................................................... 71Table24:UniversitysupportforEMIandinternationalisation...............74Table25:HoursrequiredtoprogressfromoneCEFRlevel to another..................................................................................................................88Table26:CurrentEMIcapacity (Note:Someuniversitieswereunabletoprovidestatistics)...................97

4 | ABBREVIATIONSANDGLOSSARY

ABBREVIATIONS AND GLOSSARYALTE Association of Language Testers of Europe:Anorganizationof

publiclanguagetestproviderswhoseexaminationsarealignedtotheCommonEuropeanFrameworkofReference.Ukraineisnotrepresentedatpresent.

Aptis Aptis:ABritishCouncilcomputer-basedtestofEnglish.Aptishasfivecomponents:Reading,Writing,Listening,SpeakingandGrammarandVocabulary.TheresultsarealignedtothoseoftheCEFRandcandidatesreceiveaCEFRgradeforeachcomponentaswellasanoverallgrade.

BALEAP British Association of Lecturers in English for Academic Purposes:AnorganisationofuniversitylecturersteachingacademicEnglishtointernationalstudents.BALEAPhasproducedschemesforqualityassuranceandteacherdevelopment.

BEC Business English Certificate:AUK-basedexaminationinBusinessEnglish.

BS Baseline Study:Asurveyofaneducationalsectororinstitutionwhichidentifiesareasofstrengthandweakness,andmakespracticalrecommendationsforreform.ThisreportisabaselinestudyanditalsomakesfrequentreferencetoapreviousbaselinestudyofEnglishlanguageteachinginhighereducationinUkrainecarriedoutbytheBritishCouncilincooperationwiththeMinistryin2004.

CAE Certificate in Advanced English:AUK-basedEnglishexaminationsetatCEFRC1level.

CEFR Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: A Council ofEuropedocumentpublishedin2001that sets out standards for foreign-languageteachingatsixlevels1(A1,A2,B1,B2,C1,C2).UkraineisamemberoftheCouncilofEuropeandthelevelsoftheCEFRshouldthereforebeadoptedfor all foreign-language courses in Ukrainianuniversities.Mostnon-linguisticstudentsinUkraine

C2 Advanced

C1

éB2B1A2

A1 Elementary

Pre-A1

1 Adraftdocumentcirculatedattheendof2016proposesaseventhlevel–pre-A1.

ABBREVIATIONS AND GLOSSARY | 5

currentlyenteruniversityintheA1-B1rangeandareexpectedtoreachB2bythetimetheygraduate.

CLIL Content and Language Integrated Learning:Anapproachtoacademicteaching(e.g.theteachingofEconomics,Science,Medicine)inwhichtheacademicfacultymemberorteachertakessomeresponsibilityforthelanguageusedtodeliverthecontentandtriestoaccommodatethelanguageproblemsofhis/herstudents(сompareEMI).

CoE Council of Europe:Apolitical,cultural,educationalandlegalassociationofEuropeannations.Ukraineisamember.

CPD Continuing Professional Development:Theprocessofprofessionaldevelopmentthatenablesacademicsandteacherstoimprovetheirlinguisticandprofessionalskills.Inthisreportitincludesbothformaltrainingbeyondthegraduatelevel(e.g.atmaster’slevel),informaltraining(e.g.institutionalcoursesandworkshops)andpersonaldevelopment(e.g.‘reflectivepractice’).

CUP Cambridge University Press:AUK-basedpublisher.

DNU Vasyl Stus Donetsk National University,Vinnytsia(displaced).

DS Diploma Supplement:Adocumentofferedtointernationalstudentsdescribingthecoursesand/orqualificationstheyhavetakenwhilestudyingoverseas.TheDSisaBolognarequirementandisofferedbymanyUkrainianuniversities.

EAP English for Academic Purposes: The kind of English required foruniversitystudy,e.g.readingacademicbooksorjournals,writingacademicassignmentsorpapers,listeningtoacademiclectures,andtakingpartinacademicdiscussion.EAPisusuallydividedintogeneral(EGAP)andspecific(ESAP)(seeFigure1).

EAQALS Evaluation and Accreditation of Quality in Language Services:AEuropeanqualityassuranceschemeforadultlanguageprogrammes.

ECTS European Credit Transfer System:Asystemthatdescribestheobjectives,learningoutcomesandstudybudgetofanyuniversitycourseorprogramme.ECTSisaBolognarequirement.

EF Education First:ASwiss-basededucationalorganization(formerlyknownasEnglishFirst)thatprovideslanguagecoursesandalsoproducestheannualEnglishProficiencyIndex(seealsoEPI).


EfA English for Academics:AtypeofEAPintendedforacademics,universitylecturersandresearchers.

EFL English as a Foreign Language:Thesituationincountries(e.g.Ukraine)whereEnglishisnotthemothertongueofthemajorityofthepopulationandhasnoformaladministrativerole.

EGAP English for General Academic Purposes:AbranchofEnglishlanguageteaching(ELT).ThetypeofAcademicEnglish(EAP)thatistaughttoallstudents,regardlessoftheiracademicdisciplineorjob.UsuallycontrastedwithEnglishforSpecificAcademicPurposes(ESAP)(seeFigure1).

EGOP English for General Occupational Purposes:AbranchofEnglishlanguageteaching(ELT)concernedwiththetypeofoccupationalEnglish(EOP)thatistaughttoalltrainees,regardlessoftheirprofessionorjob.UsuallycontrastedwithESOP(seeFigure1).

EGP English for General Purposes:AbranchofEnglishlanguageteaching(ELT).ThetypeofEnglishthatisusuallytaughtinschoolsandwhichisnotrelatedtoaparticularstudyoroccupationalpurpose.UsuallycontrastedwithESP(seeFigure1).

EGPP English for General Professional Purposes:AbranchofEnglishlanguageteaching(ELT)concernedwiththetypeofprofessionalEnglish(EPP)thatistaughttoalltrainees,regardlessoftheirprofessionorjob.UsuallycontrastedwithESPP(seeFigure1).

ELT English Language Teaching:TheprofessionofteachingEnglishtospeakersofotherlanguages.ELTincludesseveralmainbranches(seeFigure1).

EMI English as a/the Medium of Instruction:TeachingwhichisdeliveredthroughthemediumoftheEnglishlanguage.

EOP English for Occupational Purposes:AbranchofEnglishlanguageteaching(ELT)thatisconcernedwithteachingthekindofEnglishthatrelatestoaperson’soccupationorjob,e.g.writingbusinessletters,makingbusinessphonecalls,readingprofessionalreports,givingabusinesspresentation,etc.(seeFigure1).

EPI English Proficiency Index:Anannualindexorrankingofcountries’Englishproficiency,basedonanonlineEnglishtest


administeredbyEducationFirst(EF).Ukrainetookpartofthelatest2016EPIof72countriesandachieved41strank.

EPP English for Professional Purposes:AbranchofEnglishlanguageteaching(ELT)thatisconcernedwithteachingthekindofEnglishthatrelatestoaperson’soccupationorprofession,e.g.writingbusinessletters,makingbusinessphonecalls,readingprofessionalreports,givingabusinesspresentation,etc.(seeFigure1).

ESAP English for Specific Academic Purposes:AbranchofEnglishlanguageteaching(ELT)concernedwithteachingtheacademiclanguageofaparticulardiscipline(e.g.Economics,Psychology,etc).Thisincludesspecialistterminologyandtheconventionsforwritingparticulardocuments.UsuallycontrastedwithEGAP(seeFigure1).

ESOP English for Specific Occupational Purposes:AbranchofEnglishlanguageteaching(ELT)concernedwithteachingtheoccupationallanguageofaparticularprofession(e.g.accountants,airlinepilots,doctors,etc).Thisincludesspecialistterminologyandtheconventionsforwritingparticulardocuments.UsuallycontrastedwithEGOP(seeFigure1).

ESP English for Specific Purposes:AbranchofEnglishlanguageteaching(ELT)concernedwithteachingthelanguageneededforaparticularpurpose.UsuallydividedintoEnglishforAcademicPurposes(EAP)andEnglishforOccupationalPurposes(EOP)(seeFigure1).

ELT

ESP

EAP

EGAP ESAP EGOP/EGPP ESOP/ESPP

EOP/EPP

EGP

English Language Teaching

English for Specific Purposes

English for AcademicPurposes

GeneralEAP

Specific EAP

GeneralEOP/EPP

Specific EOP/EPP

English forOccupational/Professional Purposes

English for General Purposes

Figure1:BranchesofEnglishlanguageteaching


ESPP English for Specific Professional Purposes:AbranchofEnglishlanguageteaching(ELT)concernedwithteachingtheoccupationallanguageofaparticularprofession(e.g.accountants,airlinepilots,doctors,etc).Thisincludesspecialistterminologyandtheconventionsforwritingparticulardocuments.UsuallycontrastedwithEGPP(seeFigure1).

EU European Union:TheeconomicandpoliticalassociationofEuropeancountries.UkrainehasbeengrantedtherighttoapplyforEUmembership.

FCE First Certificate in English:AUK-basedEnglishexaminationsetatCEFRB2level.

HE Higher education: The sector of education, including universities,whichdeliversdegree-levelprogrammesandconductsresearch.

HEI Higher education institution:Auniversityoraninstitutionthatdeliversdegree-levelprogrammesandconductsresearch.

IELTS International English Language Testing System:AUK-basedEnglishexaminationusedtoassesslanguageproficiencyaccordingtoasystemofnine‘bands’.Widelyusedforuniversityentranceandoccupationalpurposes.

L1 First language:Aperson’snativelanguageormothertongue(MT).

L2 Second language: A language that is acquired or learned after childhood.Usuallycontrastedwiththeirfirstlanguage(L1).

MI Medium of Instruction:Thelanguageusedforteaching.InthisstudytherearethreemainMIs–Ukrainian,RussianandEnglish.

MoE Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine,Kyiv.

MT Mother Tongue:Aperson’snativeorfirstlanguage(L1).

N Number:Thetotalnumberofparticipantsorcasesinanexperimentorsurvey.

NMU National Mining University,Dnipro(formerlyDnipropetrovsk).

NNS Non-native speaker:Someonewhodoesspeakalanguageastheirmothertongue(MT).

NS Native speaker:Someonewhospeaksalanguageastheirmothertongue(MT).


PhD Doctor of Philosophy:ThethirdortoptierofhighereducationundertheBolognasystem.

QA Quality assurance:Asystemthatprovidesafullandregularcheckonthequalityofaneducationalinstitution.ArequirementoftheBolognaprocess.

QS Quacquarelli Symonds:AUK-basedorganizationthatcompilesannualrankingsoftheworld’stopuniversities.

RAE Research assessment exercise:Aregularsystemforassessingthequalityofuniversityresearch.

THES Times Higher Educational Supplement:AUK-basedweeklynewspaperspecialisinginuniversityeducation.Oneofitspublicationsisanannualrankingoftheworld’stopuniversities.

TL Target Language:Thelanguagethatapersonistryingtolearnonalanguagecourse.

TOEFL Test of English as a Foreign Language:AUS-basedexaminationofgeneralEnglishasaForeignLanguagewhichiswidelyusedforuniversityentrancepurposes.

UK United Kingdom.

URAP University Ranking by Academic Performance: An annual universityrankingsystemcompiledbyMiddleEastTechnicalUniversity,Ankara.

USA United States of America.

USSR Union of Soviet Socialist Republics:TheformerSovietUnion.

U1 TarasShevchenkoNationalUniversityofKyiv.

U2 LvivPolytechnicNationalUniversity.

U3 NationalTechnicalUniversity“KharkivPolytechnicInstitute”.

U4 PoltavaNationalTechnicalUniversity.

U5 YuriyFedkovychChernivtsiNationalUniversity.

U6 OdessaI.I.MechnikovNationalUniversity.

U7 VasylStusDonetskNationalUniversity,Vinnytsia(displaced).

U8 NationalMiningUniversity,Dnipro(formerlyDnipropetrovsk).

U9 CherkasyStateTechnologicalUniversity.

10 | ABBREVIATIONS AND GLOSSARY

U10 TernopilIvanPulujNationalTechnicalUniversity.

U11 NationalTechnicalUniversityofUkraine“IgorSikorskiyKyivPolytechnicInstitute”.

U12 UzhhorodNationalUniversity.

U13 LuhanskTarasShevchenkoNationalUniversity(displaced).

U14 ZaporizhiaNationalTechnicalUniversity.

U15 ChernihivNationalUniversityofTechnology.

FOREWORD | 11

FOREWORDSincetheRevolutionofDignityin2014,UkrainehaswitnessedasignificantincreaseinthedemandforimprovedEnglishlanguageskills,asameansofengagingwith,sharingexperienceswith,andlearningfrom,thewiderworld.Thishasinvolvedpolicymakers,academicsandsocietyasawhole,andculminatedin2016beingdesignatedastheYearofEnglishbyPresidentPoroshenko.

TheBritishCouncil,thisyearcelebrating25yearsinUkraine,hasplayedalargepartindevelopingandsupportinginitiativesandprogrammes,notonlytoimprovecurrentEnglishlanguageskillsinUkraine,butalsotohavealasting,positiveandsustainableimpactontheteachingofEnglishwithintheeducationsystem.

OurEnglishforUniversitiesProjectisoneofourflagshipprogrammes,achievingpositive,transformationalandsustainablechangeinthequalityof teaching and learning of English in higher education institutions, and in thelevelsofEnglish,sothatuniversityteachingstaffcanfullyparticipateininternationalexchangeandcollaboration,andstudentscangraduatewithmoreemployableskillsandgreaterabilitytoreadtheworldaroundthem.

Startingin2014,andinpartnershipwiththeMinistryofEducationandScienceofUkraine,theBritishCouncilhasconductedin-depthbaselinestudiesofuniversitiesacrossthecountrytoevaluatethecurrentEnglishprovisionaswellastheroleandstatusofEnglish.Thishasfocussedonthreekeyaudiences:teachersofEnglishforSpecificPurposes(ESP)andEnglishforGeneralAcademicPurposes(EGAP),teachersofothersubjectswhowishtouseEnglishasaMediumofInstruction(EMI)orforresearchandinternationalpurposes,andfinallygeneralstudentswhoneedtounderstandEnglisheitherforcourserequirementsorasaspecifictargetfortheiruniversities.

By2017theBritishCouncilhadcompleteddetailedbaselinestudiesof15classicalandtechnicaluniversities.TheirfindingsandrecommendationshavebeensharedwithrepresentativesoftheMinistryofEducationandScience,andwiththerectors,seniormanagementandteachersofeachoftheparticipatinguniversities.Theresponsetothefindingshasbeenoneofenthusiasmandaction,withproactiveworkinggroupsagreeingkeyactionpointstobetakenforward.Thecollateddetailsofallofthefindingsandrecommendationsfromall15universitiesarenowpresentedinthisreport,forwiderdiscussionandusebeyondjusttheuniversitiessurveyed.

WewouldliketothanktheofficialsoftheMinistryofEducationandSciencefortheircontinuedsupportfortheproject;ourexpertUKconsultants,

12 | FOREWORD

RodBolithoandRichardWest,fortheiruntiringhardworkandenthusiasm;andofcoursetherectors,teachersandstudentsatalloftheparticipatinguniversities,fortheirdeterminationandproductivity.Finally,athankyoutoZhannaSevastianovaandtherestoftheEnglishProgrammesteamattheBritishCouncilinUkraineformakingitallhappen.

Englishisnowrecognisedasabasiclifeskillforthe21stcentury,likeusingacomputer,ratherthanasaspecialistaccomplishment.Itprovidespeoplewiththeabilitytoexploreandnavigatewiderrangesofinformationandviewpointsthaniftheyjusthavetheirhomelanguages.TheBritishCouncil’sEnglishforUniversitiesProjecthasalreadystartedtomake,andwebelievewillcontinuetomake,asignificant,sustainableandpositivechangetothewayinwhichEnglishistaughtandlearnedinuniversitiesinUkraine.This,inturn,willimprovegenerallevelsofEnglishamongsttheadultpopulationandwillenhanceUkraine’sprosperity,resilienceandinterconnectednesswiththewiderworld.

SimonWilliams Director Ukraine British Council

1 INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION | 15

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Context and background

Recentpoliticaleventshavere-emphasisedUkraine’sEuropeanaspirationsacrossabroadsectorofsociety,notleastintheeducationalsphere.Thecountryneedsprofoundtransformationalchangetomoveawayfromresidualpost-SovietpracticestobecomeasocietyabletoreplicatetheleapsforwardmadebyEUmemberssuchasPolandandSlovakia.

TheMinisterofEducationandSciencehassetanumberofreformprioritiesforUkraine’seducationsystem:theseincludesignificantlyreducingthenumberofuniversities;consideringalteringthenumberofschoolyearsto12;andimprovinglevelsofEnglishintheHEsectorasapriority.

StandardsofEnglishofschoolleaversenteringUkrainianuniversitiesrarelyreachCEFRB1level.Thereisastrongappetiteamongthecountry’sleadinguniversitiestoraisestandardsofEnglishtobemoreattractivetopotentialstudents,andtofacilitatemoreinternationalinteractionandpartnerships.

TheBritishCouncilisapartnerwiththeMinistryofEducationandScienceinimprovingthelevelofEnglishlanguageinschoolsthroughcontinuousprofessionaldevelopment.However,improvementwillbegradual,andthereforedirectworkwithleadinguniversitiesisessentialforthissectortodevelop.AnumberofareasofpriorityintheHigherEducationsectorhavebeenidentified,allofwhichinvolveaparticularemphasisonELT:

i)assistingthegovernmentinmodernisingitsapproachesinhighereducationforaEuropeanfuturethroughUKexpertiseandthroughcapacity-buildingforthese sectors

ii)helpingdevelopthe‘nextgeneration’ofleaderswhowillsucceedtopositionsofinfluencein10-15yearsinhighereducation

iii)helpingmeettheaspirationsofyoungpeopleintheireducationalandcareerneedsthroughstrongereducationallinkswiththeUKandthroughtheEnglish language

iv)higherEducationreform,helpingshapeauniversitysectorwhichcanbuildeffectivepartnershipsinternationally,withqualityassurance,autonomyandleadershipatitsheart

v)achievingtransformationalchangeinlevelsofEnglishinUkraine’sleadinguniversitiesamongstbothteachingstaffandstudents,focusingon20universitieswithinthefirstthreeyears.

16 | INTRODUCTION

TheseprioritieshavebeenbuiltintotheEnglishforUniversitiesproject,whichwasinitiatedbytheBritishCouncilUkraineinOctober2014aftertheUkrainianMinistryofEducationandSciencehadidentifiedtheimprovementinlevelsofEnglishinUkraine’suniversitiesasapriority.Thelonger-termobjectiveistohelpUkrainecreateitsownsustainableELTcapacity,andtointroducestandardsinuniversitieswhichproducestudentsatB2orC1CEFRlevels.ThiswillbecarriedoutbasedontherecommendationsofaBaselineStudyassessingwhatisstructurallywrongandwhatisneededtoreachgoalsoffluencyinEnglishamongstmorestaffandstudents.

TheUkrainianBaselineStudyisoneofseveralresearchstudiescarriedoutbytheBritishCouncilincountriesinthe‘WiderEurope’region—Russia2, Ukraine3, Turkey4,Uzbekistan5,andMacedonia6.Allofthesestudieshave,toagreaterorlesserextent,beenaresponsetoadramaticmovetowardsinternationalisationinuniversityeducationacrosstheworldintheyearssincetheturnofthecentury.Thisdevelopmenthasbeenwell-documentedbyGraddol(2006),whoidentifiesvariousfactorswhichhavecontributedtothismove:

theinternationalisationofindustryandcommerce,withacorrespondinginternationalisationandmobilityoftheworkforce,whichnowrequiresinternationally-recognisedqualifications

thecorrespondinginternationalisationofuniversityeducation,withstudentsandacademicsincreasinglymovingtouniversitiesinothercountries

thedevelopmentoftransnationaleducation,withuniversitiesofferingtheirqualificationsinothercountriesthrough,forexample,distanceprogrammesorin-countrycampuses

theintroductionoftheBolognaagreementof1999,whichsoughttoharmonisethestructureofdegreeprogrammesanddocumentation,andtodevelopsupportingsystemsofqualityassurance

theconsequentneedfordemonstrablequalityinuniversityeducation,whichhasledtothepublicationofannualtablesrankingthetopuniversitiesoftheworld

AllofthesedevelopmentshaveledtoanincreaseddemandforEnglishlanguageskills across all educational sectors as graduates need enhanced English proficiencytoworkorstudyoverseas,academicsneedenhancedproficiency

2 WinetroubeandKuznetsova2002andFruminaandWest20123 MinistryofEducationandScienceofUkraine/BritishCouncil20044 Westetal20155 WestandSheykhametova20166 West2016b

INTRODUCTION | 17

tocarryoutandpublishtheirresearchandtoaccessacademicliterature,andteachers at all levels need enhanced English to teach learners at all stages of education.ManygovernmentshaverespondedtothisincreaseddemandforenhancedlevelsofEnglishbypublishingguidelinesor‘benchmarks’fortheEnglishlanguagetargetlevelsforstudents,teachersandacademics,definedonthesix-levelscaleoftheCommon European Framework of Reference(2001).ArecentsurveycarriedoutintheBritishCouncil’sWiderEuroperegionshowedthelevelsthathavebeenmandatedorrecommendedacrossthecountriesoftheregion:

countrySchool-Leavers

University graduates

(non-linguistic)

University graduates (linguistic)

Primary teachers

Secondary teachers of English

University teachers of English

EMI acade-mics

Albania A2 C1 C2 B1 B2 C1 C2

Armenia A2 B2 C1 ? ? (B2) ?

Israel B1 B2 B2 B1 B2 C1 ?

Kazakhstan ? ? (C1) ? (A2) (B1) (B2)

Macedonia B2 ? C1 A2 C1 C1 C1

Montenegro B2 (C1) ? ? ? ? ?

Russia Notyetbenchmarked

Serbia ? B2 C2 ? B2 ? ?

Turkey Notyetbenchmarked

Ukraine B1 B2 Notyetbenchmarked C1 B27 B2

Uzbekistan A2 B2 C1 B2 B2 C1 C1

Table1:SectorbenchmarkinginWiderEuropeRegion8

ThesedevelopmentshaverevealedtheneedtoreformtheprovisionfortheteachingandlearningofEnglishintheuniversitysysteminmanyofthesecountries.

1.2 Overall aims of the project

TheUkrainianBaselineStudyistheresultoftwoyearsofresearchcarriedoutbytwoUKconsultantsin15universitiesacrossthecountry.ThisresearchisintendedasthefirstphaseofalargerinitiativeknownastheEnglishforUniversitiesproject.Thelonger-termaimsofthisprojectare:

toachievetransformationalchangeinlevelsofEnglishinUkraine’sleading universities

7 InUkraine,B2isbenchmarkedforalluniversityteachers.Thereisnoseparate

government-mandatedbenchmarkforuniversitylanguageteachers,asfaraswe

candetermine.Seesection3.1.1below.8 BracketsindicateexpectedratherthanmandatedCEFRlevels.Source:West2016a.

18 | INTRODUCTION

toraisestandardsintheUkrainianuniversitysectortoapointatwhichitcanfullyparticipateontheinternationalstage.

1.3 Baseline Study consultancy objectives and research questions

TheBaselineStudyhadthreenarrowerobjectivesfromwhichresearchquestionswerederived:

tobenchmarkteachers’levelsofEnglish(usingtheAptistestasabaseline)

What is the current English proficiencylevelofEnglishteachersandacademics?

toidentifythestrengthsandweaknessesofeachuniversity’sstrategyforimprovingEnglish,includingitscurrentcapacity,possiblecapabilityandcurriculum

DoestheHEIsectorcurrentlyhavethecapacity,capabilityandcurriculumtoimprovestandardsofteachingEnglish(ESP)andteachingthroughEnglish(EMI)?

tosetoutproposalsforsustainableimprovement,takingintoaccounteachuniversity’soverallstrategyandambitions,followingdiscussionwithitsseniormanagement.

WhatinitiativesneedtobetakentoreformtheHEIsectortoexpandtherole of English and raise standards to apointatwhichitcanfullyparticipateon the international stage?

1.4 Consultancy Terms of Reference

(i) ToconductabaselinestudyatanumberofuniversitiesdesignatedbytheMinistryofEducationinordertogainaholisticunderstandingofwhatneedstobedonetoachievetheoverallaimsmentionedabove.

(ii) Toconductinterviews,focusgroupsandwrittenquestionnaire-basedsurveyswithlearners,teachers/lecturers,headsofdepartmentandfaculty,plusrectors.

(iii) ToassesswhetherthecurrentstructureandcapabilityoftheuniversitiessurveyedarelikelytohelpthemmeettheirgoalsinraisingstandardsofEnglishamongteachingstaffandstudents;andtomakerecommendationsforfurtherimprovementanddevelopment.

1.5 Research methods and foci of investigation

Arangeofresearchmethodswasusedinordertotrytoensurethatthedatagatheredwerevalidandreliable:

INTRODUCTION | 19

Focus Methods

i TobenchmarkstandardsofEnglish

amonguniversityteachersofEnglish

TheprincipalmethodwasAptisTest

results.Furtherevidenceofstandards

wasgatheredthroughclassroom

observationbytheconsultants,focus-

groupdiscussionswithESPteachers,

andESPteachers’self-assessmentin

questionnaires.

ii TobenchmarkstandardsofEnglish

amongteachersusingEnglishasa

mediumofinstruction

TheprincipalmethodwasAptisTest

results.Furtherevidenceofstandards

wasgatheredthroughclassroom

observationbytheconsultants,focus-

groupdiscussionswithacademics,

andacademics’self-assessmentin

questionnaires.

iii Toinvestigateallaspectsofthe

existingprovisionforEnglish

languagecoursesinthe15

designated universities

Classroomobservationbytheconsultants

ofESPlessons;focus-groupdiscussionswith

ESPteachersandstudents;questionnaires

to English teachers and students

iv Toinvestigateallaspectsofthe

existingprovisionforacademic

courses delivered through the

mediumofEnglishinthe15

designated universities

Classroomobservationbytheconsultants

of content lessons delivered through

themediumofEnglish;focusgroup

discussionswithacademicsandstudents;

questionnairestoacademicsandstudents.

v Toinvestigatethecommitment

amongmanagersanddecision-

makerstoimprovingstandardsof

English in their institutions

Meetingswithrectors,deansandsenior

managers;individualinterviewswith

academicsgivinglessonsthrough

themediumofEnglish;focus-group

discussionswithacademicsandstudents.

vi Toascertainwhethertheexisting

structure,capabilityandstrategies

of the universities are geared to the

improvementofEnglishlanguage

tuition.

Meetingswithrectors,deansandsenior

managers,individualinterviewswithESP

teachersandacademics;focus-group

discussionswithESPteachers,academics

andstudents;reviewofinstitutional

websitesandprospectusmaterial.

1.6 Timeframe

Dataforthisreportwasgatheredinfourphases:

(i) November2014throughinstitutionalvisitsbytheconsultants(KyivandLviv),andatdistancewithKharkiv.AnexperiencedmemberoftheBCKyivteachingteamcarriedoutaseriesofclassroomobservationsinKharkivonbehalfoftheconsultants.AptistestswereadministeredbytheBritishCouncilateachuniversity.

20 | INTRODUCTION

(ii) May2015throughinstitutionalvisitstoPoltava,ChernivtsiandOdessa.AptistestswereadministeredbytheBritishCouncilateachuniversity.

(iii) October-November2015throughinstitutionalvisitstoVinnytsia(VasylStusDonetskNationalUniversity),DniproandCherkasy.AptistestswereadministeredbytheBritishCouncilateachuniversity.

(iv) May-November2016throughinstitutionalvisitstoTernopil,Kyiv(PolytechnicInstitute),Uzhhorod.ZaporizhiaandChernihiv.DatawasgatheredfromLuhanskTarasShevchenkoNationalUniversitydisplacedbyvideoconferenceandthroughquestionnairereturns.AptistestswereadministeredbytheBritishCouncilateachuniversity.

ThephasingoftheBaselineStudyovertwoyearshadcertainadvantages:

itenabledtheconsultantstofinetunetheresearchmethodologyandinstruments9aftereachphase,eliminatingtheneedforapilotphase

aspointsofinterestorconcernemergedinonephase,theconsultantswereabletogiveparticularfocustotheseareasinsubsequentphases

itenabledpreliminaryfindingstobedisseminatedtostakeholdersatanearlystage,withoutwaitingforthefinalreport

itenabledpreliminaryworktobeginonimplementingsomeofthepracticalphasesoftheproject,inparticular,trainingforheadsofdepartmentandESPteachers.

1.7 Representativeness

Whileeachofthe15universitiesincludedinthesurveyisuniqueincharacter,historyandsubjectrange,webelieve,thoughwecannotbeabsolutelycertain,thattheydoprovidearepresentativesampleofthestateofEnglishandEMIteachingacrossthecountry.Theuniversitiessurveyedwereselectedaccordingtogeographicallocation,sizeandinsomecasesspecialisms,aswellastheirdesiretoparticipateintheproject.Theyincludebothelite,highly-rankedinstitutionsandsomewithalowerprofile.Somehadalreadyembarkedontheprocessofinternationalisationwhileotherswereonlybeginningtoseethepossibilitiesitmightoffer.Wewereabletovisitonedisplaceduniversity(VasylStusDonetskNationalUniversity)andtoincludeoneotherbymeansofvideo-conferencing(LuhanskTarasShevchenkoNationalUniversity).ThesurveyofKharkivNationalTechnicalUniversitywasundertakenbya

9 Forexample,theInstitutionalProfiletemplate(seeappendixC)wasexpandedafter

phase1.

INTRODUCTION | 21

combinationofvideo-conferencingandadirectvisit.Itisalsoclearthattheresultsofoursurveyacrossthesedifferentinstitutionshaveproduceddataandfindingswhichareremarkablyconsistentfromoneuniversitytoanother.AllthisisimportantbecausetheBaselineStudyisintendedtosupplygeneralisabledatawithaviewtoextendingthereachoftheEnglishforUniversitiesprojecttootherHEIsacrossthecountry.

1.8 Limitations of the study

Thereareseverallimitingfactorsonastudyofthisnature:

withineachuniversity,wewereunabletoobtainreliabledataontheextentofteachingthroughthemediumofEnglishacrossallfacultiesanddepartments.AtLvivNationalPolytechnicUniversity,forexample,theconsultantonlysawclassesinEconomicsandManagement

findingsfromclassroomobservationareinevitablycharacterisedbyadegreeofsubjectivity,aswellasbytherealisationthatsomeofthelessonswesawwererehearsed‘setpieces’,andanyconclusionsdrawnmustbeseenincloseconnectionwithdataobtainedbyothermeans

thesheersize(staffandstudentnumbers,rangeofdepartmentsandfaculties)ofeachofthefifteenuniversitiesinthisstudymeansthatfindingsfromourvisitsandinvestigationsarebynaturesnapshotsandsamplesratherthancomprehensiveoverviews

thecompletionofstudentquestionnaireswasnotsupervisedorsupportedinmanyinstances,andthereissomeevidenceinthereturnsofbothmisunderstandingandquestionnairefatigue.However,whilewestillfeelthatthephase1datawasbroadlyreliable,wedecidedtosimplifythequestionnairesforsubsequentphases.

2 BACKGROUND

BACKGROUND | 25

2 BACKGROUND

2.1 Brief survey of universities in Ukraine with special reference to the provision for EMI and the teaching of English

Atthestartoftheprojectin2014therewere803HigherEducationInstitutionsinUkraine,198ofthemuniversities.Itisclear,however,thattherehasbeenacommitmentsince2011toreducingtheoverallnumbers,mainlythroughmergingexistinginstitutions.This,fromtheBaselineStudytenderdocumentissuedbytheBritishCouncil,Ukraine,isprobablytheclosestwecangettothestatusquoandtocurrentaspirations:

The Minister of Education has set a number of reform priorities for Ukraine’s education system: these include significantly reducing the number of universities; considering altering the number of school years to 12; and improving levels of English in the HE sector.

ThissituationhasbeenfurthercomplicatedbyeventsinCrimeaandtheeastofthecountry,whichinseveralcaseshaveledtotheclosureortransferofHEinstitutions10.Forthesamereasons,wehavenotbeenabletofindanyreliabledataontheextentofESPteachingorEMIpracticesinHEIsinthosepartsofthecountry.

Weunderstand,however,thatthepracticesweencounteredinthefifteenuniversitiessurveyedforthisstudyarefairlytypicalinHEIsacrossthecountry.Theseinclude:

Englishteachingtonon-EnglishmajorsvariesacrossaspectrumfromEnglishforGeneralPurposes(EGP),throughEnglishforGeneralAcademicPurposes(EGAP),toEnglishforSpecificAcademicPurposes(ESAP).Therearenouniversallyagreedexitstandards.

ThenumberofcontacthoursdevotedtotheteachingofEnglishvarieswidelyfrominstitutiontoinstitution,andevenacrossfacultieswithininstitutions.ThereissomeevidencethatmoreEnglishisavailabletostudentsenrolledinhighlyverbalmajorsubjectssuchasTourism,Business,ManagementandEconomicsthaninPureandAppliedSciencedisciplines.

EMIisprovidedinapiecemealfashionattheinitiativeofdepartments,facultiesandevenindividuallecturers.However,wheresignificantnumbersofforeign(non-AnglophoneaswellasAnglophone)studentsarerecruited,English-mediumcoursesarenormallymandatory.

10 Twooftheuniversitiesvisited,VasylStusDonetskNationalUniversityandLuhansk

NationalUniversity,are‘displaced’.

26 | BACKGROUND

2.2 Current issues

TheHigherEducationLawinUkraine,passedbytheRadainJuly2014,mayusefullybesummarisedasfollows:

Provisions for many reforms that will bring Ukrainian universities into compliance with the Bologna Agreement, will recognize foreign degrees, decentralize administration and simplify the bureaucracy, allow more control to universities and expand student self-governance, and will promote transparency11.

ItisnoteworthythatUkrainejoinedtheBolognaprocessaslongagoas2005(UNESCO2006)butthatfullcomplianceacrossthesectorhasstillnotbeenachieved.Inthecontextofthisstudy,itshouldalsobenotedthatthemovetowardsincreasedautonomyforinstitutionsislikelytomaketheintroductionofreformsinESP/EMIonanationallevelmoredifficult.AddedtothisisthefactthattheinternalorganisationalstructureofmanyuniversitiesisstillbasedontheSovietmodel,whichamongotherthingsforefrontsPhilologyasthefoundationdisciplineforfutureteachersofEnglish,andfailstorecognisemethodologyandforeignlanguagepedagogyas‘respectable’fieldsoflearningorresearch.HereitshouldbementionedthattheBritishCouncil,togetherwiththeMinistryofEducationandScience,hasembarkedonaprojectaimedatradicallyreformingandexpandingthemethodologycurriculumforfutureteachersofEnglish,areformwhichissuretohavealong-termimpactontheteachingofEnglishatalllevels.

Atthetimeofwriting,theQSrankingsplacesixUkrainianUniversitieswithinthetop1000worldwideandtheTimesHigherEducationSupplementlistsfour.Theserankingsincludeseveraloftheinstitutionssurveyed(initalics):

University QS ranking 2016 THES 2016

VNKarazinKharkivNationalUniversity 382 801+

TarasShevchenkoNationalUniversity,Kyiv 431-440 801+

KyivPolytechnicUniversity 551-600 801+

SumyStateUniversity 701+ -

KharkivPolytechnicInstitute 701+ -

VasylStusDonetskNationalUniversity 701+ -

LvivPolytechnicNationalUniversity - 801+

Table2:WorldrankingsofUkrainianuniversities

TheRectorinKharkivexpressedanambitiontobringhisinstitutionintotheworld’stopten,butnoneoftheotheruniversitiesvisitedexplicitlyexpressedsuchambitions.However,theRectorsofKyivPolytechnicInstituteand

11 Source:http://www.usubc.org/site/member-news/new-law-on-higher-education

WebsiteoftheUS–UkraineBusinessCouncil,accessed5December2014

BACKGROUND | 27

PoltavaNationalTechnicalUniversityareverymindfuloftheneedtoincreasetheiruniversities’rankingasameansofattractingbothstudentsandhighlyqualifiedacademicstafftotheinstitutions.

WithinUkraine,theconsolidateduniversityrankingsgiveabroadpictureofthestandingofeachofthefifteenuniversitiestargetedinthisstudy:

UniversityOverall ranking

TOP-200 Ukraine12

Webo-metrics13

Scopus14 Final score

TarasShevchenkoNationalUniversityof

Kyiv1 1 1 1 3

NationalTechnicalUniversityKharkiv

PolytechnicInstitute4 4 2 9 15

LvivPolytechnicNationalUniversity 6 6 8 10 24

OdessaI.I.MechnikovNationalUniversity 7 18 10 4 32

YuriyFedkovychChernivtsiNational

University12 26 20 5 51

VasylStusDonetskNationalUniversity 15 25 32 14 71

NationalMiningUniversity 21 7 12 84 103

PoltavaNationalTechnicalUniversity 61 111 16 111 238

CherkasyStateTechnologicalUniversity 162 134 215 98 447

TernopilNationalTechnicalUniversity 26-27 34 32 40 106

IgorSikorskyKyivPolytechnicInstitute 3 1 2 6 9

UzhhorodNationalUniversity 17-18 35 27 13 75

Luhansk Taras Shevchenko National

University42 49 46 69 164

ZaporizhiaNationalTechnicalUniversity 69 72 104 58 234

ChernihivNationalUniversityof

Technology64-65 121 60 49 230

Table3:NationalrankingsofUkrainianuniversities(http://osvita.ua/vnz/rating/25712/)

2.3 Earlier, related projects in Ukraine

ItmaybeimportanttosupplementthereadingofthisBaselineStudyandtheplanningoftheemergingprojectbyreferringtoearlierworkcarriedoutbytheBritishCouncilincooperationwiththeMinistryofEducationandScience

12 Seeireg-observatory.org/en/index.php/86-top-200-ukraine-ranking(awebsite

listingthetop200universitiesinUkraine)13 Seewww.webometrics.info/en(awebsitelistingtheworld’stop500universities)14 Seehttps://www.scopus.com(theworld’slargestacademicabstractandcitation

database)

28 | BACKGROUND

andanumberofleadingUkrainianuniversitiesaswellastheUniversityofLancasterandtheUniversityCollegeofStMark&StJohnintheUK.Thesepublicationsare:

CurriculumforEnglishLanguageDevelopmentinUniversitiesandInstitutes(MinistryofEducationandScience/BritishCouncilKyiv,2001)

EnglishforSpecificPurposesinUkraine:aBaselineStudy(MinistryofEducationandScience/BritishCouncilKyiv,2004)

ESPCurriculumforUkrainianUniversities(MinistryofEducationandScience/BritishCouncilKyiv,2005).

Theimplementationoftheactionsandrecommendationscontainedinthesedocumentshasbeenpiecemealinnature,possiblybecauseoftheabsenceofafullyworkedoutstrategyfordissemination.OnthevisitswemadetoPoltavaandChernivtsi,seniorELTstaffproducedcopiesofthe2006publicationandclaimedtobeworkingwithitasabasisforEAPcoursedesign.However,newerstaffmemberswerenotfamiliarwithit,andELTstaffatmostotherinstitutionsseemedunawareofit.AnotableexceptionwastheNationalMiningUniversity,Dnipro,whichhadbeeninvolvedintheoriginalESPcurriculumprojectandhasimplementeditacrossallprogrammes.

3 SURVEY RESULTS

SURVEY RESULTS | 31

3 SURVEY RESULTS Inthissectiontheresultsofthevariousbaselinesurveysarecollatedandanalysed.Thishasbeencarriedoutaccordingtotheconsultancyaims(assetoutintheoriginalProjectBackgrounddocument)15,whichwehavetakenasourtermsofreference.Thissectionisdividedintothreemainsub-sectionscorrespondingtotheconsultancyaims:

tobenchmarkteachers’levelsofEnglish

toassessteachers’practicalclassroomskillsandcapability

toidentifythestrengthsandweaknessesoftheuniversities’strategiesforimprovingEnglish,includingitscapability,capacityandcurriculum.

Theseaims,andthesuggestedmethods,havebeeninterpretedbroadly.

3.1 English language proficiency

3.1.1 Introduction: English language proficiency in Ukraine

UkrainegenerallyhasalowlevelofEnglishproficiency.Inthe2016EnglishProficiencyIndex(EPI)16,Ukrainewasranked41stofthe72countriesincluded.Thiswasadeclinefromthe2015results,whenitcame34th,andUkraineremainsclosetotheverybottomoftherankingsfor26Europeancountries:

world ranking (CEFR level)

countryworld ranking (CEFR level)

country

1

B2

Netherlands 17

B1+

Serbia

2 Denmark 18 Hungary

3 Sweden 20 Romania

4 Norway 21

B1

Slovakia

5 Finland 24 Bulgaria

7 Luxembourg 25 Spain

8

B1+

Austria 26 Bosnia&Herzegovina

9 Germany 28 Italy

10 Poland 29 France

11 Belgium 34B1-

Russia

14 Switzerland 41 Ukraine

15 BritishCouncil,Kyiv,June201416 Seewww.ef.co.uk/epi(awebsiterankingtheEFLproficiencyof72countries)

32 | SURVEY RESULTS

world ranking (CEFR level)

countryworld ranking (CEFR level)

country

15B1+

Portugal 51A2

Turkey

16 CzechRepublic 57 Azerbaijan

Table4:EnglishproficiencylevelsofEuropeancountries(2016EPIreport)17

ItisagainstthisbackgroundthatweassesstheEnglishproficiencylevelsofESPteachers,EMIteachersanduniversitystudentsatthefifteenuniversitiesinthischapter.

3.1.2 ESP teachers

TheProjectDocumentaimmerelyreferstobenchmarkingteachers’levelsofEnglish‘usingtheAptistestasabaseline’.Whilethishasbeendone,wehavealsolookedatotherevidenceoftheEnglishlanguageproficiencyofteachers(EnglishteachersandteachersusingEnglishasamediumofinstruction),aswellasstudents.

Thefifteenuniversitiessurveyedfromverylargetorelativelysmall,withcorrespondingvariationsinthenumbersofEnglishlanguageteachers:

UniversityNo. of

studentsEnglish

teachers18 ratio

TarasShevchenkoNationalUniversityofKyiv 26,000 100 260:1

LvivPolytechnicNationalUniversity 35,000 80 437:1

NationalTechnicalUniversityKharkivPolytechnicInstitute 16,000 240 66:1

PoltavaNationalTechnicalUniversity 6,800 25 272:1

YuriyFedkovychChernivtsiNationalUniversity 14,400 41 351:1

OdessaI.I.MechnikovNationalUniversity 10,800 44 245:1

VasylStusDonetskNationalUniversity,Vinnytsia 7,000 11 636:1

NationalMiningUniversity,Dnipro 9,569 21 456:1

CherkasyStateTechnologicalUniversity 5,670 12 472:1

TernopilNationalTechnicalUniversity 3,620 12 302:1

IgorSikorskyKyivPolytechnicInstitute 23,201 132 176:1

UzhhorodNationalUniversity 13,968 59 237:1

LuhanskTarasShevchenkoNationalUniversity 5,357 23 233:1

ZaporizhiaNationalTechnicalUniversity 10,262 40 257:1

ChernihivNationalUniversityofTechnology 7,096 18 394:1

Table5:NumbersofstudentsandELT/ESPteachers

17 Ukraine’s‘low’scoreonEPIequatestoCEFRlevelB1-,adeclinefrom‘moderate’/B1

in2015.18 ThistotalreferstocoreEnglishteachers.Insomeuniversitytherearedepartments

withtheirowndedicatedEnglishteachers,orteachersofTranslation,Linguistics,

etc.whoalsodosometeachingofEnglish.

SURVEY RESULTS | 33

Thesefiguressuggestthat(withtheexceptionoftheNationalTechnicalUniversityKharkivPolytechnicInstitute)staff-studentratiosareveryhighbyinternationalstandards,andtheseratioswillclearlyimpactonworkloadsandtimeavailableforpreparationandprofessionaldevelopment.Theserawfiguresmaypresentamisleadingpicture:inmostoftheuniversitiessurveyedtheclasssizewasaround15,whichcompareswellwithmostuniversitiesinWesternEurope.However,studentsconsistentlyexpressedtheirfeelingthatsmallerclasseswouldimprovestandardsofEnglish.

Asfarascanbeascertained,theseteachersaremostlywell-qualifiedgraduates,employedasfull-timeuniversityfacultymembers.Itcouldbeassumed,therefore,thattheywouldhavehighlevelsoflanguageproficiency.

WhiletheMinistryofEducationandSciencehassettheEnglishlanguagebenchmarkforalluniversityteachersatCEFRB2,ithasnot(soaswecanascertain)specifiedalanguageproficiencylevelforuniversityteachersofEnglish.However,ithasstatedthatthetargetlevelforgraduatingEnglishlanguageteachers‘iscorrelatedwiththeCommonEuropeanFrameworkofReference’(CEFR)19.Thisalignmentisnotexact(seeAppendixA)butteachersenteringtheprofessionareexpectedtohavereachedTargetLevel5,whichbroadlycorrespondstoCEFRlevelC2.WhilethistargetdoesnotapplydirectlytouniversityteachersofEnglish,itdoesnotseemunreasonabletoexpectthatuniversityteacherswouldhaveaproficiencylevelatleastequaltothatofsecondaryteachersofEnglish.

Withthisinmind,smallsamplesofteachersofEnglishfromeachofthefifteenparticipatinguniversitiesweretested,usingtheBritishCouncil’sAptistest,whichprovidesresultsalignedtotheCEFR.Theresultsofthisexercisedemonstratedthat,whileamajority(61percent)ofthosetesteddidreachlevelC,asignificantproportion(39percent)didnotandafew(4percent)wereassessedatonlyB1orA2levels:

UniversityCEFR level

N A2 B1 B2 C average

TarasShevchenkoNationalUniversityofKyiv 2020 - - (9) (11) (C)

LvivPolytechnicNationalUniversity 10 - 1 5 4 B2


PolytechnicInstitute10 - 1 2 7 B2

PoltavaNationalTechnicalUniversity 8 - 1 3 4 B2

19 Curriculum for English Language Development in Universities and Institutes,Ministry

ofEducationandScienceofUkraine/BritishCouncil,2001:2020 ESPteachersfromKNUdidnottakethewritingcomponentofAPTISandsotheir

overallgradeshavebeenaggregated

34 | SURVEY RESULTS




University8 - - 4 4 B2

OdessaI.I.MechnikovNationalUniversity 9 - 1 3 5 B2

VasylStusDonetskNationalUniversity,

Vinnytsia10 - - 4 6 B2/C

NationalMiningUniversity,Dnipro 8 - - 3 5 B2/C

CherkasyStateTechnologicalUniversity 5 - 1 2 2 B2

TernopilNationalTechnicalUniversity 5 - - 2 3 B2/C

KyivPolytechnicInstitute: 11 - - 4 7 B2/C

UzhhorodNationalUniversity 19 - - 5 14 B2/C

LuhanskTarasShevchenkoNationalUniversity 16 - - 3 13 B2/C

ZaporizhiaNationalTechnicalUniversity 11 1 - 4 6 B2/C

ChernihivNationalUniversityofTechnology 7 - - 2 5 B2/C

TOTALS 1571

(1%)5

(3%)55

(35%)96

(61%)B2/C

Table6:Aptisoverallresults–ESPteachers

Whiletheoverallfigureof61percentatlevelCinitiallylooksquitepositive,itstillmeansthatalargeproportion(39percent)oftheteacherstesteddidnotreachthethresholdofCEFRlevelCrequiredevenforsecondaryteachersofEnglish.ThisapparentweaknessislikelytoaffectthequalityoftheEnglishteaching in universities21.

TheseoverallfiguresconcealsignificantweaknessesinsomeskillsandveryfewteachersreachedanoverallC.Thereareindividualweaknessesinallskills,withaveragescoresfallingbelowtheCthresholdin13ofthe15institutionssurveyed:


Reading Writing Listening Speaking Overall

TarasShevchenkoNationalUniversityof

KyivC - C B2 C

LvivPolytechnicNationalUniversity B2 B2 B2 B1+ B2


PolytechnicInstituteB2 B2 B2 B2 B2

PoltavaNationalTechnicalUniversity B2 B2 B2 B2 B2


UniversityB2 B2 - B2 B2

21 ManyteachersareapparentlyawareofthisweaknessandimprovingtheirEnglish

languageproficiencycamesecondintheareasthatteacherslistedforprofessional

development(seetable18).

SURVEY RESULTS | 35


Reading Writing Listening Speaking Overall

OdessaI.I.MechnikovNationalUniversity B2 B2 B2 B2 B2


VinnytsiaB2/C B2/C C B2 B2/C

NationalMiningUniversity,Dnipro B2 B2/C C B2/C B2/C

CherkasyStateTechnologicalUniversity B2/C C B2/C C22 B2

TernopilNationalTechnicalUniversity B2/C B2/C B2/C B2 B2/C

KyivPolytechnicInstitute B2/C B2 C B2 B2/C

UzhhorodNationalUniversity B2/C B2/C C B2/C B2/C


University(displaced)B2/C B2/C C B2/C C

ZaporizhiaNationalTechnicalUniversity B2/C B2/C B2/C B2 B2/C


TechnologyB2/C B2/C C B2/C B2/C

Table7:AptisresultsforELT/ESPteachersbyskill

Theskillthatwasweakestacrossthefifteenuniversitieswasspeaking,withonly61(40percent)ofthe153teachersassessedreachingCEFRClevelandaveragesforfourteenofthefifteeninstitutionsfailingtoreachlevelC:



TarasShevchenkoNationalUniversityofKyiv 20 - 6 12 2 B2

LvivPolytechnicNationalUniversity 10 - 4 6 - B1+


PolytechnicInstitute10 - 3 7 - B1

PoltavaNationalTechnicalUniversity 8 - 1 4 3 B2


University8 - 2 3 3 B2

OdessaI.I.MechnikovNationalUniversity 8 - - 3 5 B2


Vinnytsia10 - 2 4 4 B2

NationalMiningUniversity,Dnipro 7 - 1 2 4 B2/C

CherkasyStateTechnologicalUniversity 3 - - - 3 C

TernopilNationalTechnicalUniversity 5 - - 5 - B2

KyivPolytechnicInstitute 11 - 2 4 5 B2

UzhhorodNationalUniversity 19 - 1 5 13 B2/C


University16 - 2 5 9 B2/C

22 Only3ofthe5ESPteacherstestedatCherkasytooktheSpeakingcomponentof

APTIS

36 | SURVEY RESULTS



ZaporizhiaNationalTechnicalUniversity 11 1 1 4 5 B2/C

ChernihivNationalUniversityofTechnology 7 - - 2 5 B2/C

TOTALS percentages

153 100%

1 1%

25 16%

66 43%

61 40%

B2

Table8:AptisSpeakingresultsforESPteachers(N=153)

Thesefiguresrevealthatthereareseriousweaknessesinthespeakingskill,andthetestresultswerefrequentlyconfirmedduringlessonobservations,withobserverscommentingonthestrongaccentsofmanyteachers.Ithastobeacknowledged,however,thatthisapparentweaknessinspeakingskillsdoesnotcorrelatewiththeperceivedvalueofspeakinglessons.Thestudentquestionnaire,inwhichstudentswereaskedtorateninedifferenttypesofEnglishclasses,showsthatspeakingclassesconsistentlycomeatornearthetop,andareconsistentlyfelttobeofmorevaluethantheotherskills:

Please assess all classes you take at university. How useful are these classes for your university studies and your future career?

ENGLISH LANGUAGE CLASSES

very useful (3)

useful (2)

some use (1)

no use (0)

Average and ranking

reading

classes

(N=1341)

U1 27 31 26 7 1.9/2=

U2 16 31 20 8 1.9/2=

U3 27 32 30 2 1.8/3=

U4 23 24 6 1 2.3/2=

U5 59 37 3 1 2.5/2=

U6 43 42 12 0 2.3/1=

U7 56 38 9 0 2.5/2=

U8 36 56 9 0 2.3/3=

U9 56 45 3 0 2.8/1

U10 24 34 9 0 2.2/2=

U11 43 52 13 1 2.3/3

U12 46 48 5 0 2.4/3=

U13 13 33 7 4 2.0/4

U14 53 40 6 1 2.45/2

U15 35 43 15 0 2.2/3=

overall U1-U15 557 586 173 25 2.25/3

SURVEY RESULTS | 37


very useful (3)

useful (2)

some use (1)

no use (0)

Average and ranking

writing

classes

(N=1357)

U1 30 29 24 6 1.9/2=

U2 14 30 24 8 1.9/2=

U3 38 34 22 3 2.2/2

U4 20 42 13 0 2.1/4

U5 52 45 3 0 2.5/2=

U6 37 38 17 1 2.1/3=

U7 56 38 8 0 2.5/2=

U8 39 47 13 0 2.3/3=

U9 59 41 4 0 2.5/3

U10 24 32 12 0 2.2/2=

U11 37 51 19 2 2.1/4

U12 43 53 3 0 2.4/3=

U13 23 22 13 0 2.2/2=

U14 35 52 7 1 2.3/3

U15 33 47 11 2 2.2/3=

overall U1-U15 540 601 193 23 2.22/4


very useful (3)

useful (2)

some use (1)

no use (0)

Average and ranking

listening

classes

(N=1375)

U1 34 24 20 8 1.6/4

U2 19 23 22 12 1.9/2=

U3 34 26 22 8 1.8/3=

U4 23 24 6 0 2.3/2=

U5 59 33 7 1 2.5/2=

U6 48 87 16 2 2.3/3=

U7 59 34 10 0 2.5/2=

U8 58 36 6 0 2.5/2

U9 53 44 5 1 2.4/4

U10 26 27 13 0 2.2/2=

U11 56 39 11 1 2.4/2

U12 60 31 8 0 2.5/2

U13 26 20 7 4 2.2/2=

U14 42 44 11 3 2.25/4

U15 51 35 8 0 2.5/2

overall U1-U15 648 527 160 40 2.3/2

38 | SURVEY RESULTS


very useful (3)

useful (2)

some use (1)

no use (0)

Average and ranking

speaking/

conversation

classes

(N=1412)

U1 57 23 6 8 2.4/1

U2 48 12 11 5 2.5.1

U3 57 15 19 5 2.3/1

U4 34 26 4 2 2.4/1

U5 81 36 2 0 2.8/1

U6 72 45 7 3 2.6/1=

U7 81 14 8 1 2.7/1

U8 84 12 3 0 2.8/1

U9 78 22 3 1 2.7/2

U10 50 16 2 0 2/7/1

U11 80 18 10 1 2.6/1

U12 82 16 1 0 2.8/1

U13 44 9 4 0 2.7/1

U14 71 24 4 1 2.65/1

U15 75 16 3 0 2.8/1

overall U1-U15 994 304 87 27 2.6/1

Table9:Students’perceptionsoftheusefulnessofskillsclasses

Theapparentsuccessofthespeakinglessonsmaycontributetoteachers’feelingsofconfidencewhenteachingESP–allfeelconfidentall(47percent)ormost(53percent)ofthetime:

How confident do you feel when teaching

ESP?

completely confident

confident most of the time

confident little/ none of the time

U1 27(48%) 29(52%) -

U2 8(44%) 10(56%) -

U3 32(74%) 11(26%) -

U4 5(25%) 15(75%) -

U5 10(50%) 10(50%) -

U6 11(50%) 11(50%) -

U7 11(55%) 9(45%) -

U8 12(55%) 1045%) -

U9 5(50%) 5(50%) -

U10 4(33%) 8(67%) -

U11 6(46%) 7(54%) -

U12 4(20%) 16(80%) -

U13 11(61%) 7(39%) -

U14 4(16%) 20(80%) -

SURVEY RESULTS | 39

How confident do you feel when teaching

ESP?

completely confident

confident most of the time

confident little/ none of the time

U15 5(33%) 10(66%)

TOTALS 155 (47%) 178 (53%) 0 (0%)

Table10:ELT/ESPteachers’beliefsaboutlanguageproficiencylevels(N=333)

ConclusionAtpresent,thereseemstobenoestablishedstandardforuniversityteachersofEnglish,andausefulfirststepinraisingqualitywouldbetoidentifyaminimumCEFRlevelofC1foralluniversityteachersofEnglish.ThebenchmarkingofELT/ESPteachers’languageproficiencylevelsrevealedthatveryfewteachersreachtheCEFRClevelrequiredforsecondaryteachers,andthattherearesignificantweaknessesinsomeskills,especiallyspeaking.However,thereisnoapparentcorrelationbetweenlanguagelevelsinparticularskillsandteachers’effectivenessinteachingeachskill–whilespeakingistheteachers’weakestskill,speakinglessonscurrentlyreceivethehighestratingsfromstudents.Butthissituationmaynotcontinue–asEMIisadoptedformoreandmorecoursesandthereisaconsequentdemandforhigherlevelsofEnglishforbothstudentsandacademics,thelanguageproficiencylimitationsofELT/ESPteachersarelikelytobemoreexposedthantheyareatpresent.

3.1.3 EMI teachers

In2004,theUkrainianESPBaselineStudynoted:

The advance of English as a language of world communication and science has encouraged Ukrainian higher educational institutions to use it as a medium of instruction23.

Since2004thisprocesshasacceleratedinallpartsoftheworld24 including Ukraine.Thethreeuniversitiessurveyedinphase1currentlyclaimthatapproximatelytenpercentoftheirstaffteachatleastsomeoftheircoursesinEnglish,andtheRectorofKharkivPolytechnicInstitutestatedthathistargetis50percentby2020.Theuniversitiessurveyedinphases2,3and4hadmorevariablepercentagesofstaffteachinginEnglish,butallofthemstatedaspirationstoincreasethesenumbers.Universitieswithhighlevelsofrecruitmentfromoverseas(e.g.intheMedicalFacultyatUzhhorodNationalUniversityandintheOilandGasDepartmentatPoltavaNationalTechnicalUniversity)normallyteachthesestudents,manyofthemfromAnglophonecountriesinAfricaandAsia,throughEnglishmediuminsegregatedgroups.

23 MinistryofEducationandScienceofUkraine&BritishCouncil2004:1724 SeeGraddol2006:68-80forabriefaccountofthereasonsbehindthis

development

40 | SURVEY RESULTS

EnglishasaMediumofInstruction(EMI)hasrecentlybeenthefocusofabroad-basedBritishCouncilresearchproject25 and one of the issues is the levelofEnglishrequiredforeffectiveEMI.However,thereportconcludesthat‘itisasyetunclearwhattherequirementsarewithregardtoEnglishlanguagecompetence’,althoughitalsonotedthat‘TeacherswouldwelcomeastandardlevelofproficiencyinEnglishforEMI’(2004:27).Oneoftherespondentsintheresearchsuggested‘B1 for students, higher for teachers’,andthisfitswellwiththedescriptionsintheCEFR26.Inthefollowinganalysis,CEFRlevelB2istakenasthesuggestedminimumlevelforeffectivedeliveryofEMIbyanacademicteacher,althoughwehavelearnedthattheMinistryhasrecommendedC1.AnumberofacademicteachersusingoraspiringtouseEMIfromthefifteeninstitutionstooktheAptistestandthemajority(68percent)didindeedreachorexceedthethresholdofB2butfewerthanaquarter(22percent)mettheC1benchmarksuggestedbytheMinistry:


N A1 A2 B1 B2 C average

Taras Shevchenko National

University,Kyiv8 - - 2 6 - B1/B2

LvivPolytechnicNationalUniversity 16 - 1 2 11 2 B2

NationalTechnicalUniversity

KharkivPolytechnic37 - 2 12 15 8 B1/B2

PoltavaNationalTechnicalUniversity 38 - 9 11 15 3 B1


Univ.21 1 1 5 7 7 B1/B2

OdessaI.I.MechnikovNational

University11 - - 1 5 5 B2

VasylStusDonetskNational

University,Vinnytsia16 - 2 6 8 - B1/B2

NationalMiningUniversity,Dnipro 24 - - 6 11 7 B2

CherkasyStateTechnological


TernopilNationalTechnical


KyivPolytechnicInstitute 21 - 1 1 6 13 B2/C

UzhhorodNationalUniversity 16 - 1 7 8 - B1/B2


University(displaced)6 - 1 - 3 2 B2

25 SeeDeardenJ(2014),English as a Medium of Instruction – a growing global

phenomenon,BritishCouncil(www.teachingenglish.org.uk)26 SeeAppendixDforCEFRdescriptorsselectedtodescribeacademiclanguageuse

andtable25forMinistryguidelines.

SURVEY RESULTS | 41


N A1 A2 B1 B2 C average

ZaporizhiaNationalTechnical

University22 - 2 9 9 2 B1/B2


Technology16 - - 1 9 6 B2

TOTALS 296 1 20 74 135 66 B2

(percentage) (100%) (0%) (7%) (25%) (46%) (22%)

Table11:Aptisresults–EMIteachers

However,theprofilesofsomeEMIteacherswerevery‘spiky’andAptisscoresforsomeskillsoccasionallywentaslowasA1.AsisclearfromtheCEFRdescriptors(seeAppendixB),A1andA2wouldbecompletelyinadequateforeffectiveEMIteachingorresearch;indeed,itisdifficulttoseehowanyacademicresearchercouldfunctionwithareadinglevelofA1orA2,assumingthatmuchoftheresearchliteratureinhis/herfieldwouldbeinEnglish.

EMIteacherswereaskedhowadequatetheyfelttheirEnglishwasineachofthefourmainacademiclanguageskills,andtheresponsessuggestthattheyhavehighlevelsofconfidenceinallskills,althoughwithweaknessesinwriting.Thefullresultsaresummarisedbelow:

Do you feel that your English is good enough for:

U 1

U 2

U 3

U 4

U 5

U 6

U 7

U 8

U 9

U 10

U 11

U 12

U 13

U 14

U 15

TOTAL %

Giving lectures/presentations

Completely 36 12 77 19 10 19 10 12 9 1 5 7 1 3 0 62%

Most of the time 5 1 11 8 11 2 4 2 0 20 14 11 5 16 10 34%

Listening to lectures/ presentations

Completely 41 13 80 23 19 19 10 13 11 1 10 13 3 6 1 74%

Most of the time 0 0 7 4 2 2 5 0 0 22 11 5 7 16 7 25%

Reading academic books/journals

Completely 41 13 85 25 19 21 10 14 12 4 16 13 2 10 1 80%

Most of the time 0 0 3 2 2 0 5 0 0 18 5 5 10 14 9 20%

Writing academic papers/articles

Completely 34 12 70 17 12 20 9 13 11 0 9 9 2 3 0 64%

Most of the time 7 1 18 10 9 2 6 1 1 19 9 9 3 17 9 34%

Table12:StandardofEMITeachers’English(N=354)

Despitethesehighlevelsofconfidence,themajority(85percent27)ofEMIteachersstatedthattheywouldliketotakefurtherEnglishclasses.ManyEMIteachersgave‘teachmoreclassesinEnglish’asahighpriority,andoverallit

27 Basedonphase1results;thequestionwasomittedinthephase2questionnaire

42 | SURVEY RESULTS

wasrankedasthenumberthreereason(94percent)forwantingtoimprovetheirEnglish.Thefullrankedlistofreasonsshowsthatpublishingacademicresearchhasthehighestpriority:

Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6

Reason Publish papers/ articles

Go to international conferences

Teach more classes in

English

Travel overseas

Go to work in an overseas university

Study overseas

U1 96% 89% 79% 64% 69% 63%

U2 85% 92% 92% 92% 77% 92%

U3 83% 82% 73% 73% 49% 43%

U4 100% 96% 100% 92% 72% 65%

U5 100% 100% 100% 100% 94% 79%

U6 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 85%

U7 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 93%

U8 100% 100% 100% 64% 100% 36%

U9 100% 100% 100% 91% 90% 56%

U10 96% 95% 96% 82% 71% 65%

U11 100% 100% 100% 58% 85% 43%

U12 100% 93% 94% 82% 83% 85%

U13 95% 100% 86% 94% 54% 54%

U14 100% 88% 92% 58% 50% 32%

U15 100% 90% 100% 80% 90% 80%

average 97% 95% 94% 82% 79% 65%

Table13:EMIacademics’reasonsforwantingtoimprovetheirEnglish

ItisknownthatdeliveringclassesinEnglishpresentsproblemsforbothteachersandstudents–forexample,EMIlessonscertainlytakelongertoprepareanditmaytakelongertocoverthefullcurriculum28.However,theadvantagesmayoutweighthedisadvantages:studentsatalltheuniversitiesthatofferEMIclassesfeltthattheseoffereda‘two-for-the-price-of-one’package,i.e.theywerelearningEnglishaswellastheiracademicsubject.

MostoftheEMIlessonsobservedweredeliveredinadequateEnglishbuttherewereseveralcaseswhereobservedlessonsweredeliveredinveryweakEnglish.Forexample,onemathematicslecturewasgivenbyateacherwithanestimatedspeakinglevelofA2:

Speaks in learned phrases, does not always understand when addressed. Very strong accent; a lot of pronunciation errors (“sass” for “thus”); sometimes the word stress and sentence stress are not placed

28 OneelectronicsteacherreportedthathehadworkedwithanESPteacherfortwo

yearstoprepareanEnglishversionofoneofhislecturecourses.

SURVEY RESULTS | 43

correctly. Not all mathematical operations are described idiomatically. (= “equally”, “divide on”). Some international terms are pronounced in L1 “igrek”, “zero” 29.

Itwasinterestingthatinthesecases,whenstudents’EnglishwasoftenbetterthantheEMIteacher’s,thestudentsseemedtocompensatefortheteacher’sweaknessandeventotrytoassisthim/her.However,intworatherextremecases,thestudentsactuallycomplainedtotheobserverabouttheirteacher’spoorspokenEnglish.

IntheobservedEMIlessons,teachersadoptedarangeofstrategiestoensurethatthestudentsunderstood.Inall,sixgroupsofstrategieswereidentifiedduringtheobservations:

Mother tongue (MT) strategiesThesearestrategieswheretheacademicusesUkrainian/Russianinvariouswaystotrytoensurecomprehension.Theseinclude:

providingsummariesorkeypartsofalectureinL1

usingtheMTforclarification

askingquestionsinEnglishbutallowingstudentstoanswerintheMT

usingtheMTfortechnicalterms/explainingtechnicaltermsintheMT

usingMTPowerPointslidesforalecturegiveninEnglish

providingbilingualglossaries.

English language strategiesThesearestrategiesusedbyacademicswhoaregenerallyconfidentusingEnglish,andinfact,theywereusedquitefrequentlyintheobservedlessons:

providinganEnglishcommentarywhenscientificormathematicalformulaewerewrittenontheboard

askingandansweringquestionsinEnglish

providinglecturenotesinEnglish

slowingdowninputtoallowstudentstimeforintakeandnote-taking.

Repair strategiesAsthenamesuggests,thesearestrategiesusedbytheacademicwhens/heperceivesthatthereisaproblem.ExperiencedEMIteacherswilluseanticipatoryrepairstrategies,i.e.knowingthattheremaybeproblems,theteachertriestocheckwhethertheclasshasunderstoodratherthanwaitforstudentstoaskquestionsorlookblank.Repairstrategieswereusedquitefrequentlyintheobservedlessons:

27 Observer’snotes.

44 | SURVEY RESULTS

invitingquestions/comprehensionchecks

permittinginterruptionsforquestions/clarifications

modifyinghis/herEnglishfortheaudience(e.g.byslowingdownthepaceofdelivery,makingpauses)

paraphrasing.

Lesson structuringClearstructuringisanobviouswayofhelpingstudentsfollowthelesson.Thesestrategieswereusedinapproximatelyhalfoftheobservedlessons:

announcingtheaims/structureofthelessonatthestart

usingkeyquestionstostructurethelesson

usingPowerPointslidestostructurethelesson.

Visual-aid supportInclasseswherestudentshaveproblemswithEnglish,especiallyspokenEnglish,ausefulgroupofstrategiesinvolvesusingvisualaids.SeveralofthesestrategiesagaininvolvetheuseofPowerPoint:

givingstudentsPowerPointslidesashandouts

providingPowerPointslidesonline

usingvideoextracts,diagramsandillustrationstosupportinput30

usingtheblack/whiteboardextensively.

Textual supportThefinalgroupofstrategiesinvolvesupplyingstudentswithparallelcontenttothelectureinwrittenform.Again,therewasratherlimiteduseofthesestrategies:

referringstudentstotextbooks,articles,etc

usingequations,examples,tasksthroughoutthelecture

givinghandoutsand/orelectroniccopiesoflessonmaterials.

ConclusionWhiletheMinistryhasapparentlyissuedguidelinesrecommendingCEFRC1foruniversityteachersteachingthroughthemediumof English31,asfaraswecanestablish,nouniversitycurrentlyusesEnglishproficiencyasacriterionforappointmentorpromotion,thoughonerectorstatedthatheisconsideringintroducingitasarequirementfornewlyappointedstaff.ThebenchmarkingofEMIteachers’Englishrevealedawiderangeofproficiency–whilemany(68percent)ofthosetestedachieved

30 Videoextractsweregenerallyusedveryinefficiently,withnofocusquestions,few

follow-upquestionsandnoopportunitytoviewthevideomorethanonce.31 Seetable25below.

SURVEY RESULTS | 45

atleasttheB2levelassumedtobetheminimumlevelforeffectiveEMIdelivery,almostathird(32percent)didnotandonly22percentattainedtheMinistry’sC1benchmark.Whileteachers’self-assessmentseemedtoover-reportlanguagelevels,mostteachersseemawareoftheirlimitationsandexpressedawillingnesstotakeEnglishlessons.Inobservations,EMIteachersadoptvariousstrategiestocompensatefortheirstudents’languageweaknesses,andviceversa,anditseemsthatlanguageisnotthemainprobleminEMIlessons(seesection3.2.6below).

Itmustbestressed,however,thatEMIcurrentlyaccountsforarelativelysmallpercentageofacademiccoursesofferedatUkrainianuniversities,and,ifthenumberandrangeofEMIcoursesistobeexpandedtoanythinglikethe50percentsuggestedbytheRectorofNationalTechnicalUniversityKharkivPolytechnic,therewillhavetobeamassiveprogrammeofEnglishforAcademics(EfA)toupgradesubjectteachers’proficiency.ThisjobwillinevitablyfallontheshouldersofESPteachersbut,atpresent,mostlackthetime,skillsandmaterialstodeveloporteachsuchcourses32.Insomecases,wherecoursesareoffered(e.g.inPoltava,ChernivtsiandLviv),academicsareexpectedtopayfortheirclasses,albeitatasubsidisedrate.BothCherkasyandtheDniproNationalMiningUniversityofferfreeclassesfortheirownacademicsatvariouslevels.

3.1.4 Students

Benchmarkingofstudents’languagelevelswasoutsideourtermsofreference,butwecollectedquitealotofdataabouttheirEnglish.Aninitialindicationisgivenbystudents’resultsintheschool-leavingexamination,asdeclaredonthestudents’questionnaire,withthemajority(52.4percent)statingthattheyreceived‘excellent’scores:

Grade 6-7 Satisfactory 8-9 Good 10-12 Excellent Not taken Totals

U1 6 17 54 23 100

U2 0 13 63 2 78

U3 2 11 77 10 100

U4 12 36 30 0 78

U5 0 29 59 12 100

U6 9 36 51 1 97

U7 10 26 65 6 107

U8 10 30 57 3 100

U9 12 49 42 3 106

U10 5 36 25 1 67

32 TheBritishCouncilbegantrainingforESPteacherstoteachan‘Englishfor

Academics’coursetoEMIteachersin2016.

46 | SURVEY RESULTS

Grade 6-7 Satisfactory 8-9 Good 10-12 Excellent Not taken Totals

U11 5 29 72 3 109

U12 3 31 59 2 95

U13 20 22 16 1 59

U14 15 58 25 2 100

U15 9 42 33 9 93

Totals (%) 118 (8.5%) 465 (33.5%) 728 (52.4%) 78 (5.6%) 1389

Table14:Students’EnglishlanguagescoresintheSchool-LeavingExam(N=1389)

Therearetwoproblemsininterpretingthesescores–onequalitativeandtheotherquantitative.Thequalitativeproblemisthatexaminationsinformer-Sovietcountriesaregenerallynotstandardisedandsoareoftenunreliable,varyinginstandardfromyeartoyearandplacetoplace(seeWest&Crighton1999).Thequantitativeissueisthat,asfaraswecantell,theresultsoftheSchool-LeavingexamhavenotbeenalignedwiththeCEFR,although,astheMinistrystatesthatEnglish-languagemajorsenteringuniversityareexpectedtohaveachievedlevelB1+33,wecanassumethatthetopgradesof10-12shouldcorrespondroughlytoB1.Ascanbeseenfromthetableabove,52.4percentofthestudentssurveyedgainedthisgrade.UniversitiesdonotroutinelyhaveentranceexaminationsinEnglishand,wheretheydo,thesearenotalignedwiththeCEFR,andsoitisimpossibletoverifystudents’proficiencylevelsonentry.However,wecangetsomeinsightintotheadequacyofstudents’Englishlevelsfromthequestionnaires,wheretheywereaskediftheirEnglishisgoodenoughforuniversitystudy.Hereisasummaryoftheirresponses:

ResponseU 1

U 2

U 3

U 4

U 5

U 6

U 7

U 8

U 9

U 10

U 11

U 12

U 13

U 14

U 15

Totals (N = 1384)

Completely adequate

42 34 56 26 31 37 21 45 32 29 36 39 10 27 12477

(34.5%)

Adequate most of the time

36 41 39 42 49 51 63 43 52 25 51 46 32 55 64689

(49.8%)

Inadequate 22 3 4 9 18 8 21 11 16 12 17 7 15 15 14192

(13.9%)

Completely inadequate

0 0 1 0 0 2 2 1 5 1 4 6 1 3 026

(1.9%)

Totals 100 78 100 77 98 98 107 100 105 67 108 98 58 100 90 1384

Table15:Students’confidenceinusingEnglishatuniversity

Itcanbeseenfromthistablethat84percentbelievethattheirEnglish

33 MinistryofEducation&Science/BritishCouncil2001:21

SURVEY RESULTS | 47

isgoodenoughforuniversitystudy(completelyadequate/adequatemostofthetime).Ofcourse,itisdifficulttoknowhowrealistictheseestimatesare34.Foronereason,therearecurrentlyratherlowEnglish-languagedemandsonstudentsasmostoftheircoursesaredeliveredintheL1andfollowinguniversitylectures/classesinEnglish(seventhplace)andwritinguniversitypapersinEnglish(tenthplace)comelowontheirlistofreasonsforlearningEnglish:

Overall rank

reasonU 1

U 2

U 3

U 4

U 5

U 6

U 7

U 8

U 9

U 10

U 11

U 12

U 13

U 14

U 15

1To travel to other

countries3 2 2= 1 5 2= 1= 4 1 1 2 1 1 1= 2

2Tomeetemployers’

demands1 1 1 3= 1 2= 3 1 3= 3 4 3 5 1= 3

3Tostudyinother

countries2 3 4 7 6= 1 5 5= 3= 4= 1 2 4 6 4

4Tousetheinternet/

Computers10 6 10 6 4 8 6= 2 2 2 3 4 7 3 1

5

Topassinternational

English language

exams

4 5 5 3= 2 6= 6= 3 5 4= 5 5 6 8= 9

6Topassprofessional

exams5 4 2= 8= 3 5 4 5= 6 9 7 7= 3 4 6

7Tofollowuniversity

lectures/classes9 7 6 2 6= 6= 1= 9 8 6 10 7= 2 5 5

8

Toreadacademic/

professionalbooks/

journals

7= 11 9 5 8 4 6= 7 9= 10 6 10 10 7 7

9Towatchfilms/TVin

English7= 8 8 8= 9 9 10 10 7 7 8 6 8 11 8

10Towriteuniversity

papers/essays6 9 7 10 10 10 9 11 9= 8 11 11 11 8= 11

11Totakepartin

tutorials/discussions11 10 11 11 11 11 11 8 11 11 9 9 9 10 10

Table16:Students’reasonsforlearningEnglish

Secondly,universitystudentsmayfinditdifficulttoassesstheirlanguageskillsagainstthefuturedemandsofanemployer:

ESP students tend to overestimate their language proficiency as they

34 OnestudentwhodescribedherEnglishas‘completelyadequate’commented:

“Englishinmyinstitution,teachingEnglishlessonsveryweell.(sic)Iamnothavingany

suggestionsnow.”Anotherspelledforeignas“foreing”.

48 | SURVEY RESULTS

are deprived of concrete descriptors which they could use for realistic self-assessment and have no self-assessment guidelines, which can be provided by the ESP language portfolio35.

Finally,studentsareassessingtheirEnglishlevelsagainstcurrentstandardsanddemands.ItisclearthatEnglishwillplayamuchlargerroleinuniversitiesasEMIspreads,andthedemandsonstudents’Englishproficiencywillthereforeincrease.

ConclusionItisdifficulttoknowwhatstudents’languagelevelscurrentlyareasthereisnowayofknowinghowreliabletheSchool-LeavingExamis,orwhatitsgradesmeaninCEFRterms.Universityteachersrepeatedlyreportedthatmanystudents,perhapsthemajority,donotcurrentlyreachtheMinistry’sB1benchmark.Furthermore,thereisnorobustassessmentinuniversitieswhichmonitorsstudents’languagelevels36.Eveniflevelsweremonitored,universitiesdonotbuildtheMinistry’sexpectedlevelsofachievement,eitheronentryorgraduation,intotheircurriculumstandards.Thissituationunderlinestheneedforeffectiveassessmentwithinuniversities,whichitselfwouldrequiretraininginmodernESP/ESPassessmentpracticesforatleastacoreteamofteachers.Theremayalsohavebeenachangeinstudents’motivationforlearningEnglishbetween2014and2016–earlyreturnssuggestedthatmotivationwasdrivenby(Ukrainian)employers’demandsbutmorerecentreturnsplacemoreemphasisonoverseasstudyandtravel.

3.2 Teaching of/through English

Inthissectionweseektoassessteachers’practicalclassroomskillsandcapability,lookingatbothteachersofESPandteachersusingEnglishastheirmediumofinstruction(EMI).Thiswillbedonethroughlookingfirstatwidercontextualissues–thetrainingandqualificationsofESPteachers,theorganisationoftheteachingofEnglish,theEnglishcurriculumandsyllabus,andELTandESPmaterialsandresources–beforelookingatclassroompractice.

3.2.1 Training and qualifications

In2004theBritishCouncilbaselinestudyofESPinUkraineconcluded:

In terms of qualification requirements English language teachers in Ukraine, once they have their Specialist or Masters degree in Linguistics or Pedagogy, are expected to be able to teach ESP. No other training or qualification is required. Thus, there is no objective

35 MinistryofEducation&ScienceofUkraine/BritishCouncil2001:3736 SeeShatrova2014:15337 2004:31

SURVEY RESULTS | 49

way of assessing the professional competence of ESP teachers37.

Thissituationdoesnotseemtohavechangedsince2004theESPteachers’questionnaireseemstoshowaprofileofapparentlywell-qualifiedandexperiencedteachers:

Philology-linguistic degree

Philology-pedagogical

degree

Specialist diploma

Master’s degree

Candidate of science

Ph D

Years of experience

in HEIs (average)

U1 29(48%) 30(49%) 16(26%) 20(33%) 22(36%) 3(5%) 17

U2 5(28%) 12(67%) 2(11%) 6(33%) 10(56%) - 8

U3 16(33%) 31(65%) 25(50%) 12(24%) 10(20%) 2(4%) 28

U4 7(35%) 13(65%) 5(25%) 5(25%) 10(50%) 1(5%) 12

U5 16(80%) 6(30%) 6(30%) 11(55%) 4(20%) 2(10%) 10

U6 20(91%) 2(9%) 2(9%) 4(18%) 17(77%) 2(9%) 13

U7 5(45%) 7(55%) 3(25%) 5(42%) 4(33%) - 9

U8 8(50%) 10(63%) 13(81%) 6(38%) 2(13%) - 18

U9 1(9%) 10(91%) 6(55%) 2(18%) 3(27%) - 11

U10 4(33%) 8(67%) 5(45%) 1(9%) 5(42%) - 17

U11 7(54%) 9(69%) 7(54%) 2(15%) 431%) 1(8%) 6

U12 9(45%) 11(55%) 10(50%) 7(35%) 3(15%) - 10

U13 5(28%) 13(72%) 2(11%) 8(44%) 6(33%) 2(11%) 11

U14 13(52%) 12(48%) 11(44%) 6(24%) 7(28%) - 13

U15 2(13%) 13(87%) 7(47%) 3(20%) 5(33%) - 16

TOTAL147

(44%)187

(56%)120

(36%)98

(30%)112

(34%)11

(3%)13 years

Table17:QualificationsandexperienceofESPteachers(N=332)38

Thisprofile,however,concealsthetruepicturethatESPseemstobeneglectedorevenignoredatalllevelsoftraininginUkraine:

Teachers’initialtrainingislargelyfocusedonphilology,withlittleattentiontoissuesofpedagogysuchassecondlanguageacquisition,methodology,learnerautonomy,etc,andnotraininginESP.

Master’sanddoctorallevelstudiesalsofocusonlinguistic,literaryorphilologicaltopics,andareasrelatedtomethodologyarestillmostlyinadmissibleforPhDresearch39.Teachersfromoneuniversitysaidthattheirtopicsincludedbizarreareassuchas‘theEnglishofchess’and‘theEnglishofmusic’–topicstotallyunrelatedtotheirwork.Mostofthe

38 Somerespondentsgavemorethanoneresponse,sototalsexceed100percent39 TarasShevchenkoUniversityKyivallowspedagogical/methodologytopicsfrom

September2014

50 | SURVEY RESULTS

teacherswespoketoseemedcompletelyunawarethatESPisawell-establishedareaofresearchandtraining:notonecouldnameasinglebookabouttheteachingofESPandnoneoftheuniversitiesseemstohaveateachers’resourcecentrecontaininganysuchbooksorjournals.Indeed,agroupofyoungteachersatoneuniversitydidnotevenknowwhatESPstoodfor.

Therehasbeenverylittlein-servicetrainingorprofessionaldevelopmentinESP.AfewsaidthattheyhadreceivedsomeESP/EAPteachertraininginthepastfiveyears,butonlyveryfewactuallygaveanyindicationofwhatthisconsistedof.Aparticularareaofconcernismaterialsproduction.Manyteachersdotakesubject-specifictextsintolessons,butsimplyapplycomprehension-basedmethods,grammarortranslationtothetexts,givingnoattentiontothedevelopmentofdiscourseorvocabularystrategies.Thetrainingdeficithereseemstobeintheareasofpedagogicallanguageawareness,ofgenreanddiscourseanalysisandtheirimplicationsforthedesignofteachingmaterials.

TeachersdidexpresssomeinterestinfurtherprofessionaldevelopmentinareasrelatedtoESPandevenrankedESP/EAPmethodologyastheirnumberonechoice,butfewerthanathirdregardedthisoranyformoffurthertrainingasessential,indicatingalowlevelinterestinprofessionaldevelopmentoverall:

Rank Training area

Number regarding as ‘essential’

U 1

U 2

U 3

U 4

U 5

U 6

U 7

U 8

U 9

U 10

U 11

U 12

U 13

U 14

U 15

TOTAL (%)

1ESP/EAPteaching

methodology12 2 8 5 6 10 3 8 1 3 9 8 9 10 4 30%

2

Improving

English language

proficiency

11 7 8 4 6 3 5 9 1 8 2 5 8 10 1 27%

3ESP/EAPmaterials

development11 1 3 9 5 8 4 5 2 2 5 6 5 3 8 23%

4=

IT/computerskills

for language

teaching

4 1 3 3 3 7 0 11 2 0 2 2 5 7 4 16%

4=

General language

teaching

methodology

3 4 6 3 3 3 2 2 2 4 3 4 5 6 2 16%

6

ESP/EAPneeds

analysisandcourse

design

9 1 2 1 3 2 3 5 0 3 4 6 6 2 3 15%

SURVEY RESULTS | 51

Rank Training area

Number regarding as ‘essential’

U 1

U 2

U 3

U 4

U 5

U 6

U 7

U 8

U 9

U 10

U 11

U 12

U 13

U 14

U 15

TOTAL (%)

7

ESP/EAPmaterials

evaluation and

selection

8 2 2 2 2 3 1 5 0 4 5 5 6 1 1 14%

8Languagetesting/

examinations0 0 3 3 2 2 0 5 2 0 1 2 1 3 4 8%

Table18:ESPteachers’prioritiesforfurthertraining(N=332)

Thesefiguresconfirmlowlevelsofinterestinprofessionaldevelopmentandareacauseforconcern:thepictureofEnglishteachersthatemergesfromthisbaselinestudyissimilartothatinthe2004report:

The BS has revealed that there is no formal ESP teacher training in Ukraine40.

They (ESP teachers) are ‘reluctant settlers in the new territory’41. However, this problem may stem from the absence of training in ESP methodology and a misunderstanding of what ESP teaching entails42.

They have a basic knowledge of principles and practices of teaching, though there is a strong need to clarify the distinction between EGP and ESP and provide practical training in teaching ESP, its methodology, use of materials, course design, assessment, etc.43

Evenmoredisturbing,however,isthefactthatnotonlydomostESPteachersseemtohavelittleunderstandingofESP,butinmostuniversitiestheyalsohavelittleinterestinfindingoutmore.

Conclusion ThereseemstobelittleornoformaltrainingintheteachingofESPatanylevel–pre-serviceorin-service–andonlylimitedinterestamongteachersinundertakingprofessionaldevelopmentintheareaofESP.ThislackoftrainingunderliesallaspectsofESPteachingandmaywellaccountforthepictureofESPteachingthatemergesinthefollowingsections.ThereisclearlyaneedforbasictrainingintheprinciplesofESPteachingbut,inmanycases,thereisrelativelylittleinterestamongteachersinundertakingsuchtraining.

3.2.2 Organisation

TheuniversityteachingofEnglishinUkraineandothercountriesoftheformerSovietUnionwastraditionallyorganisedintoseveraldepartments,each

40 2004:1641 Hutchinson&Waters(1987:162)42 2004:5543 2004:31

52 | SURVEY RESULTS

servingoneormoreacademicdepartment(s),withinthesameuniversity.ThiscontrastswiththesituationintheUKandmostcountriesoftheEU,whereasingle‘service’unitprovidesEnglishtoalldepartments.Themulti-departmentsystempersistsinsomeUkrainianuniversities,butnotall.Therewouldseemtobeseveralreasonsforitscontinuanceinsomeinstitutions:

tradition

geographicalconvenience,whereacademicdepartmentsmaybewidelyseparatedacrossacity(asinChernivtsi,VinnytsiaandKyiv,forexample)

thebeliefthatESPshouldbenarrowinfocus(ESAP–EnglishforaSpecificAcademicPurpose)inordertoprovidelanguagetailoredtoeachspecificdiscipline

thedesirebysomeforward-lookingacademicdepartmentstoimproveESPteachingbyestablishingandfundingtheirowndedicatedESPteams

personalrivalries.

Weshouldliketoarguethatthistraditionshouldbere-examined,inparticular,thebeliefthatEnglishisdeliveredmostefficientlyifitis‘narrow’ESAP–EnglishforArchitecture,Biology,Chemistry,Zoology,etc.Thisapproachhasalongtraditionincountriesintheregion,butitisproblematicinanumberofways:

ItisbasedonalongoutdatedtheoryofESPas‘register’,i.e.thateachacademicorprofessionaldisciplinehasitsownuniqueterminologyandgrammaticalcharacteristics.Thisencouragestheteachingoflistsoftechnicaltermsandlargeamountsofgrammar,ratherthanthecommunicativeskillsneededtooperateinthetargetsituation.

Asmostmodernmaterialsfromthemajorpublishersarebasedonaconceptof‘broad’ESP,therearefewpublishedmaterialsavailabletoUkrainianESPteachers,who,therefore,developtheirownmetodichkas or publishtheirown‘narrow’textbookswhicharelittlemorethan

The internationalisation of Ukrainian universities: the English … · 2017. 10. 6. · EPP English...

Documents

Transcript of The internationalisation of Ukrainian universities: the English … · 2017. 10. 6. · EPP English...