internationalisation of russian higher education: the english … · ·...

Internationalisation of Russian Higher Education: the English language dimension

INTERNATIONALISATION OF RUSSIAN HIGHER EDUCATION:THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE DIMENSION

Elena FruminaRichard West

British Council, MoscowMarch 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 DuncumbDeputy-DirectorBritish 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, MoscowRichard West, Manchester

March 2012


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface 2Acknowledgements 2Table of abbreviations 5Executive summary 60 Introduction 8

0.1 Rationale and background 80.2 Aim 80.3 Outputs 80.4 Respondents 80.5 Methodology 80.6 Timeline 80.7 Structure of the report 9

1 The past: Internationalisation in UK and Russian universities 1960-2010 101.0 Introduction 101.1 Numbers of international students 101.2 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 162.1 English for specific purposes – a global perspective 162.2 ESP in Russia – Russian isolation 17

2.2.1 ESP focus 182.2.2 ESP methodology 182.2.3 ESP materials 192.2.4 Professional development 19

2.3 Conclusion: ESP teachers - 2001 203 The current situation: Internationalisation in Russian universities 21

3.0 Introduction 213.1 Factors in university internationalisation 23

3.1.1 Geographical distance and space 253.1.2 Bologna process and degree recognition 28

3.1.2.1 The three-tier system 283.1.2.2 Recognition of qualifications 283.1.2.3 University quality and rankings 293.1.2.4 Research 29

3.1.3 Academic quality assurance 313.1.4 Infrastructure 323.1.5 Bureaucracy 353.1.6 Visas and work permits 333.1.7 Limited opportunities for practice in companies & enterprises 333.1.8 Educational management and marketing 333.1.9 Government policy 343.1.10 Language 35

3.2 The BRIDGE Project 353.3 Conclusions 37

4 The current situation: teaching English for specific purposes 38


4.0 Introduction 384.1 English language teaching 384.2 English as medium of instruction 474.3 English for academics 484.4 Conclusions 50

5 Summary & Conclusions 515.0 Introduction 515.1 The internationalisation of higher education in Russia 515.2 The teaching of ESP in HEIs in Russia 525.3 Conclusions 55

6 Recommendations 566.0 Introduction 566.1 Recommendation 1: Academic language framework 566.2 Recommendation 2: English for academics textbook 576.3 Conclusions 58

Appendices A World university rankings: UK and Russian universities 59B Recommendation 1: Academic language framework 63C Recommendation 2: English for academics textbook 79D References & documents consulted 81


TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS

ALTE Association of Language Testers of EuropeBA Bachelor of ArtsBALEAP British Association of Lecturers of English for Academic PurposesBC British CouncilBEC Business English Certificate (Cambridge ESOL)BRIDGE British Degrees in Russia project (British Council)BSc Bachelor of ScienceCAE Certificate in Advanced English (Cambridge ESOL)CEFR Common European Framework of ReferenceCoE Council of EuropeCPE Certificate of Proficiency in English (Cambridge ESOL)DAAD Deutscher Akademischer Austausch Dienst (German Academic Exchange Service)EAP English for Academic PurposesEBP English for Business PurposesECDL European Computer Driving LicenceEGAP English for General Academic PurposesEGOP English for General Occupational PurposesEGP English for General PurposesELT English Language TeachingEOP English for Occupational PurposesESAP English for Specific Academic PurposesESOL English for Speakers of Other LanguagesESOP English for Specific Occupational PurposesESP English for Specific/Special PurposesFCE First Certificate in English (Cambridge ESOL)HE Higher EducationHEI Higher Education InstitutionsICDL International Computer Driving LicenceIDP International Development Program (Australia)IELTS International English Language Testing System (Cambridge ESOL, IDP & the British

Council)MA Master of ArtsMSc Master of ScienceNTF National Training Foundation, MoscowNATO North Atlantic Treaty OrganisationOECD Organisation for Economic Cooperation and DevelopmentOU Open University, UKPhD Doctor of PhilosophyQAA Quality Assurance Agency, UKRESPONSE Russian Education Support Project on Specialist EnglishRF Russian FederationSELMOUS Special English Language Materials for Overseas University Students (now BALEAP)SPEX St Petersburg Examinations Project (British Council)TESP Teaching English for Specific/Special PurposesTNE Transnational EducationTOEFL Test of English as a Foreign Language (Educational Testing Service, USA)UK United KingdomUS/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 within the constraints on the British Council in Russia:

♦ 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 backgroundAs 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 AimThe 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 RespondentsThe 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 MethodologyThe 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 reportThis 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 1960-2010The 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: conclusionsThe future: recommendations

Appendices


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

1.0 IntroductionThis 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 studentsThe 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% werefrom 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: 56-596 King et al 2010: 107 King et al 2010: 108 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, butthe recruitment of foreign studentsdiminished 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 Russianuniversities 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 allinternational students study in Russia

9 Arefyev 2007: 5910 Arefyev 2007: 5911 Lazarev pages 1-212 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 266-6713 British Council, Vision 2020 page 714 British Council, Vision 2020, 2004: 815 See Appendix A.17 Lazarev page 118 King et al 2010: 1019 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: 6121 http://en.russia.edu.ru/about/1063/


1.2 Other indicators of university internationalisationHowever, 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.pdf24 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


2 THE PAST: ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING/ENGLISH FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES IN UK AND RUSSIAN UNIVERSITIES 1960-2010

2.0 IntroductionIn 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 perspectiveAt 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 forcepilots into the British Royal Air Forcefollowing 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 Petropolis29 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 isolationWhat 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 focusFrom 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 manycases 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 MethodologyThe 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 MaterialsThe 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 developmentRussian 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: 35-3635 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 Russia37 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 – 2001The 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 Russia41 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 IntroductionAt 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.htm44 Arzhanova et al, Bologna Process National Report 2005-0745 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.


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 internationalisationBased 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 14/02/201155 International Education, http://www.iienetwork.org/page/108370/, accessed 14/02/2011, and Smolentseva56 Arefyev A L (2010), Current State of Perspectives for the Export of Russian Education, 57 Lazarev page 3


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 technologydelivery 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: 22462 Arefyev 2007: 6463 Moiseeva 2005: 22464 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.eu66 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 signatories67 Smolentseva 2004 op cit68 http://www.bologna.nft.ru/DswMedia/nr2005-2007_engl.pdf accessed 30/04/2011


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 cit70 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 Reuters72 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 2080Multilingual 164French 36German 34Polish 7Chinese 5Russian 5Spanish 5Dutch 3Norwegian 3Portuguese 3Swedish 3Japanese 2Turkish 2Hebrew 1Lithuanian 1Romanian 1Serbian 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 975 Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Academic_Journals_by_language, accessed 10/03/201176 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 1999-2003no. of papers (rank)

2004-08no. 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 64,247Yearly 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 201279 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


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 isa 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, theRussian-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/201082 British Council, Vision 2020, page 683 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


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 cit87 Smolentseva 2004 op cit88 Arefyev 2010:9089 See also Smolentseva 2004, op cit90 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 policyThis 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 201093 Lazarev op cit94 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


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. Amajor 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 ProgrammeAs 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: 6896 Bone (2008), Internationalisation of HE: A Ten-Year View, page 297 Zabotkina 2002: 3698 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 oninternational 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 ConclusionsThis 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 IntroductionIn 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 teachingAs 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 RESPONSEproject105, 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: 61103 Zabotkina 2002: 36104 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 areESP?

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 2012:56109 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


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%/2To meet employers’ demands for good English 82.0%/2 80.8%/1To pass international English language exams 77.9%/4 64.3%/5To 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%/3To take part in university tutorials/discussions 56.9%/8 65.3%/4To use the internet/computers 55.4%/9 62.7%/7=To write university papers/essays 53.1%/10 63.6%/6To 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 findings112 West 2006 and West 2007113 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 instructionWhile 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 universitiesRussian 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 105116 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 academicsThe 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, 07/09/2010118 Zabotkina 2002: 36119 SQW 2010: 44120 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 2002122 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 ConclusionsIn 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 wemake 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 IntroductionThis 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 RussiaInternationalisation 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: xi127 Telegina & Schwengel 2012: 45128 Telegina & Schwengel 2012: 43129 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 & 45131 Telegina & Schwengel 2012: 45132 Telegina & Schwengel 2012: 46133 Telegina & Schwengel 2012: 46134 Telegina & Schwengel 2012: 46135 Telegina & Schwengel 2012: 46


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 RussiaThe 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: 44137 Telegina & Schwengel 2012: 45 & 46138 Telegina & Schwengel 2012: 45


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 ConclusionsWhile 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 IntroductionIn 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 FrameworkThere 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 TestScale 7: Academic Speaking Proficiency

Scale 6: Academic Listening ProficiencyScale 5: Academic Writing Proficiency

Scale 4: Academic Reading ProficiencyScale 3: Academic Language proficiency

Scale 2: Overall Language proficiency

SCALE 1: OVERALL GUIDANCE & ACADEMIC REQUIREMENTS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION

CEFR level Acceptability for academic studyC2 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’) UnacceptableA1 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 examinationsScale 10 Study hour requirements for the levels of the Common European

Frameworksources and acknowledgements

Scale 11 Academic & professional genresScale 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 8University College 4 22 20 13Oxford 6 6= 10 14Imperial 7 9 26 -King’s College 21 77 63 36Edinburgh 22 40 54 17Bristol 27 68 66 -Manchester 30 87 44 52Warwick 53 - 151-200 137

Moscow State Technical (Bauman)

- - - 55

Birmingham 59 145 99 85Sheffield 69 137 88 40Nottingham 73 174= 84 60Glasgow 77 128 151-200 99LSE 80 86 -Southampton 81 90 151-200 124Leeds 85 168 101-50 136York 88 81 201-300 43Durham 92 85 151-200 70

Moscow State 93 - 74 5St Andrew’s 95 103 201-300 184Aberdeen 117 149 201-300 167Liverpool 121 165 101-50 110Cardiff 122 - 151-200 -

Moscow Engineering Physics Institute

- - - 133

Newcastle 140 152= 201-300 -Bath 144 - - 225Queen Mary, London 147 120 - -Birkbeck - 152= - -Sussex 156 79 101-50 216Leicester 169 - - 165Lancaster 181 124 201-300 193Queen’s, Belfast 197 - 201-300 196Dundee 201 140 - -

St Petersburg State 210 - - 84Surrey 243 - 401-500 241SOAS 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 09/03/2011143 www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings accessed 08/03/2011144

www.arwu.org accessed 08/03/2011. 145

http://www.globaluniversitiesranking.org accessed 08/03/2011


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 education2 Scale 2 Overall general language proficiency3 Scale 3 Overall academic language proficiency4 Scale 4 Academic reading proficiency

Scale 5 Academic writing proficiencyScale 6 Academic listening proficiencyScale 7 Academic speaking proficiencyScale 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 genresScale 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 studyC2 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’) UnacceptableA1 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 PROFICIENCYC2 ♦ 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 discourserelates 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 studySource BALEAP Can-do Framework for EAP Syllabus Design and Assessment (draft 2011)


CEFR level SCALE 5A: ACADEMIC WRITING PROFICIENCYC2 ♦ 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


♦ 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





CEFR level SCALE 6A: ACADEMIC LISTENING PROFICIENCYC2 ♦ 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


♦ 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





CEFR level SCALE 7A: ACADEMIC SPEAKING PROFICIENCYC2 ♦ 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


♦ 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





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 informationusing contextual & graphic cluesnote 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 skillsvocabulary & 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 129European 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 CambridgeESOL 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 GENRESLISTENING & 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/resumés

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 abstractsAcademic/professional textbooksAcademic/professional booksReviews of academic/professional booksReference 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 enclosuresAcademic/professional e-mails and attachmentsReports and professional memorandaAdvertisements (e.g. job advertisements) and job profilesWarning labels/safety instructionsNotices, memoranda, internal messagesOperating manuals & instructionsPrice lists and cataloguesProduct/service descriptions, design specificationssource: 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 ReutersAfonasova 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 theoryand 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

Böhm 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%20Teaching]

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 CouncilHoldsworth 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 3-17Kelly 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


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 Pykkö 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 Journal38/2 114-20

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: the english … · ·...

Documents