English as a Language of Instruction at the University of Helsinki – an elaboration

Last week an article was published in the Chronicle of Higher Education in which I was quoted concerning my observations of English as a language of instruction at the University of Helsinki.[1] While the quotes seems to reiterate my point quite well, I realized that at least in some sense they also made my point come across somewhat stronger than I intended. I guess this is one of the problems one often faces when interviewed; something I should have kept better in mind while being interviewed.

I therefore thought I would use this space to elaborate in more detail what my (and many of my co-student’s) concerns are on this topic.

At the present there are no language requirements (such as e.g. a language test) made for teaching staff wishing to teach in English at the University of Helsinki. The ‘official’ assumption by the University is that as internationally widely published scholars the teaching staff is well equipped to convey their knowledge, also through spoken English. Vice Rector Jukka Kola, as quoted in the article, confirms this when saying: “Teaching is based on research, and our professors are very international, which should provide them with quite good English in their areas of specialization”.[2] Written English, that is. If one was prone to nitpicking, one might pay special attention to the use of ‘should’ and ‘quite good’ in the statement by Jukka Kola. ‘Should’ hardly entails much of a promise; and ‘quite good’ is that really good enough at the highest level of academic teaching? At the heart of Jukka Kola’s deduction lies an assumption of a correlation between being able to produce text for a book or an article and conveying that knowledge through the act of speaking. For most classes taught at the University of Helsinki there is a ‘requirement’ of active participation of the students and a belief in dialogue as a better tool for learning than via a Professor’s monologue.[3] While one might assume that quoting verbatim the text one has written in a book, article or lecture notes, as a monologue without interaction from the students, could have some correlation to one’s ability to produce text, it seems very hard to find any such correlation to being able to produce speech, ad hoc, while engaged with an interactive and investigative student body.

In essence, we are presented with a number of ‘English problems’ when engaging with our professors through their classroom teaching. There are those professors who can read their notes out aloud (or who have memorized them) in a clear and understandable English but who have no ability to explain, beyond their notes, what a given problem or concept means. If, as an example, a student does not understand the explanation prepared for the concept of ‘ontology’, these teachers have no other way of explaining it than repeating what they just said. If it is not in their notes they do not have the vocabulary and understanding of English actively available for them to re-phrase or contextualize their speech act. ‘Ontology’ might be one of those concepts where the harm is not so great, as there are plenty of materials available to help the students understand outside of the classroom; but what about all of those concepts and ideas which are developed by our internationally well established ground breaking scholars. The only explanation available ‘out there’ might be theirs. While this kind of English skills might correlate somewhat to the ability to produce text, as exemplified by Jukka Kola as the basis of ‘evaluating’ our teachers’ spoken English skills; it really says nothing about how well they can use their English to teach.

Another type of professors is those who, in addition to the problem described above, also ‘suffer’ from an accent so strong that it is almost beyond recognition. Finnish pronunciation in combination with English is well known for its incomprehensibility. I would doubt that such accent would be visible in their written and widely published works, but it surely impedes their ability to convey their teaching. The problem of having an incomprehensible accent would also impede the learning experience on its own (and would apply to native English speakers as well as ESL speakers) should the professor otherwise possess a completely fluent mastery of English. But still, the written work on which we judge our professors’ language skills would give no indication of such a problem.

In my opinion the only way to ensure that our professors possess the necessary English skills to teach in English at our university would be to submit them to the same language requirements as we do our students; at the very least. The method for measuring their English skills might be a different one than e.g. the TOEFL test (or similar) our international students take. I would prefer the professors to be required to give a test lecture, attended by students participating in the lecture as they would in any normal sense, as well as professionals evaluation both their language skills and their pedagogical skills. I understand Jukka Kola’s concern that we might have problems finding professors who would be willing to submit to such a test, but I do believe that with the right kind of incentive such problems could be overcome. For me it is a question of actually committing to the promise of an international education in English. In contrast; Jukka Kola’s claim, that a language test in addition to the extra work load incurred by translating their material from its original language into English would act as a “deterrent to their teaching in English”, seems to be both contradictory to the statement that their teaching is based on their research as international scholars [wouldn’t that already be in English?] and more importantly a lack of commitment to do what it takes to offer proper teaching in English for the further expansion of the “English-language offerings”.[4] On the one hand, Helsinki University wants to become more international and offer an ever-expanding number of degree programs in English; on the other hand there is a lack of willingness to ensure that the language of instruction is actually mastered by its teaching staff and professors.

I do agree with Jukka Kola that some of the problems we as students experience in the class rooms in terms of understanding what the professors say might also be related to pedagogy (or of course sometimes the complexity of the topics we study). Some professors might not be great teachers even in their mother tongue. However, I do not see how this exempts the university from ensuring that both the pedagogical skills and the linguistic skills are at an appropriate level for teaching advanced subjects. In some cases maybe the problem is solely a pedagogical one; in some a linguistic one; both are bad. But, in those cases where the problem is both, the students are completely left in the dark.

Turning back to my quotes in the article in the Chronicle of Higher Education, I will end this piece by elaborating on some of them.

Among my own professors “the quality of English … has been almost uniformly poor”.[5] While I might have said something along those lines, I realized when reading the article that it came across somewhat worse that I actually feel the situation is. Thinking about it more thoroughly, I would say that around half of the professors and other teaching staff I have experienced did not master English at a level appropriate for teaching. Of those, about one third were completely incapable of moving beyond their notes and explaining anything they where teaching in other words than those written down. The other two thirds struggled with a combination of ‘rusty’ English skills and, at times, incomprehensible accents. This is the same picture I get when I talk to other international students both at Helsinki University and elsewhere in higher education in Finland. In terms of whether I would rather have relied on texts than the classroom command of English of my instructors, I am surprised if I actually said this. The reason for this is that I find book exams[6] to be the worst form of instruction available. As a tool for enabling students with different backgrounds and life situations to complete their degrees, I find book exams an ingenious invention. But, as a substitute for classroom teaching I would never prefer the book exam. At least you can try to have a discussion with your teacher if there is something you don’t understand (even if they have poor English skills), whereas reading for and writing a book exam only gives you a number on a piece of paper and no other feedback.[7]

“If professors were required to take the tests of English as a foreign language that students must pass in order to take those same courses … half the teaching staff would not be allowed to teach in English”.[8] This assessment, while I agree – and indeed reiterated it for the interview, was not solely my own, but one I was presented with in a conversation with administrators at the university while discussing the idea of testing the English skills of the professors who ‘wish’ to teach in English. Whoever said it (me or them) is, however, of little relevance. The gist of the problem is that they are not tested, and, that contrary to the ‘wisdom’ of many – if not most – higher education institutions around the world offering teaching in English, Helsinki University does not want to test. The process of internationalization has become focused on quantity rather than quality (the level of internationalization of HEIs in Finland will be a factor when receiving public funding in the future); maybe because quantity can be affirmed with numbers and statistics, and quality can always be depicted as a subjective assessment only (if at all) relevant to the individual making it. It is often easy to dispute a qualitative claim, why there is no real need to improve the quality as long as it is not overall too bad. Why spend money fixing what can be depicted as a ‘relatively small’ problem, in support of which it is almost impossible to find any ‘hard data’ (usually because none is being produced or at least made publicly available). Anyway, the only ‘objective’ way to show that the level of English skills of the teaching staff is high enough would be to test them.

Finally, I was quoted saying that this is a topic which I often encounter when interacting with other international students, and that it is one of those problems which leaves us with a feeling of disappointment.[9] This is indeed my experience. It is however not restricted to students at the University of Helsinki, but something I have heard time and time again when talking to international students from all over Finland. The main reason for the disappointment is that when you study the marketing material and websites of HEIs in Finland (including of course the ones for Helsinki University) you are left with the impression that this would be the last problem you might encounter. In addition, knowing the excellent scores Finland gets in various international tests such as the PISA; one expects the level of English to be high. When we then arrive and realize that not only is a proportion of our instructors barely capable of teaching in English, there is not even a willingness from the university side to test their skills before we are exposed to them; how can we be anything but disappointed?

Some universities in Finland actually do test their professors, and the one good example I know of, combines this with various avenues for them to get help to improve their skills, as well as a willingness to tell them not to teach in English should they not possess the necessary language command. Why does Helsinki University not walk this road too? We all want the same outcome; to make Helsinki University the best international university in Finland (maybe even the world – or at least in Europe). One part of achieving this goal must be to ensure a sufficient level of English among the teaching staff. Why not actually take the necessary steps to make this happen, rather than refusing to face the problems. Why not pause now, and fix the problems we already know exist, rather than continuing to increase the ‘official level of internationalization’ for the sake of … what exactly? I always assume that the internationalization in some sense is meant also to be for the benefit of the students and staff at Helsinki University (at least not to their detriment); why is it then, that I again and again hear both students and staff questioning the positive effects of even the current level of internationalization. It often strikes me that while it all seems to be for a ‘greater cause’, we still lack a visible willingness and commitment to make it happen. The way to visualize this would be through appropriate resource allocations and concrete actions. The current lack of action only strengthens our disbelief in the agenda presented as the official mantra.

I have had great years at Helsinki University. If it had not been for the constant sending of mixed signals I am sure they would have been fantastic. In terms of what Helsinki University has to offer both its Finnish and international students, I think it is a shame that it is tainted by this lack of willingness to fix the things we all know are broken. One first step in this direction would be to make sure that the command of English of the teaching staff is documented and appropriately high. If the language really only is a small problem, as Jukka Kola wants us to believe, then it should take only a small effort to fix it. Is a language test really that much to ask for? After all, we all had to do it.