KLAIPĖDOS UNIVERSITETO
filologijos krypties
anglų filologijos studijų programos
išorinio išsamiojo
VERTINIMO IŠVADOS
Klaipėda University
study field of philology
external assessment of
English philology study programme
Final Report
Grupės vadovas:Team leader: / prof. Wolfgang Kühlwein
Nariai:
Team members: / prof. Karin Aijmer
prof. Jose Luis Gonzalez Escribano
prof. Jacek Fisiak
prof. Matti Rissanen
prof. Danica Škara
doc. Jolita Butkienė
1. Introduction
The study program under evaluation is described in the self-assessment report (SAR, hereafter) as follows:
Title of study program / English PhilologyState code / 61204H106
Kind of study / U
Mode of study (duration in years) / F (4)
Volume of study program in credits / 160
Degree and (or) professional qualification to be awarded / Bachelor of Philology
Program registration date, order No. / 2002-06-14, order No. 1093
The academic unit directly responsible for the execution of the study program is Klaipeda University’s (henceforth, KU) English Philology Department (EPD, hereafter), established in 1995 to satisfy the need of English language specialists in the Western region of Lithuania.
The KU self-assessment team responsible for the elaboration of the SAR was constituted as follows:
No. / Academic title (research degree), name, surname / Position / Phone (office and mobile) / E-mail1. / Asoc. prof. Liolita Bernotiene / Head, English Philology Department / +370 46 398511
+370 684 39180 /
2. / Asoc. prof. Susan Robbins / Assoc. prof., English Philology Department / +370 46 398511
+370 687 08131 /
3. / Lect. Egle Jasinskaite / Lecturer, English Philology Department / +370 46 398511
+370 699 80858 /
4. / Assist. Jurate Deveniene / Assistant, English Philology Department / +370 46 398511
+370 611 41759 /
5. / Assist. Sandra Bernotaite / Assistant, English Philology Department / +370 46 398511
+370 688 76002 /
6. / Asoc. prof. Rimantas BAlsys / Dean, Humanities Faculty / +370 46 398501
+370 618 44591 /
7. / Asoc. prof. Jurate Lubienė / Assoc. Dean, Humanities Faculty / +370 46 398503
+370 616 14273 /
8. / Student Andromeda Uteraite / Humanities Faculty, English Philology / +370 63152984 /
/
The expert committee appointed by the CQAHE was constituted by:
1. Prof. Wolfgang Kuehlwein (Head) (University of Trier), Germany,
2. Prof. Karin Aijmer (Göteborg University) Sweden,
3. Doc. Jolita Butkiene (ISM University of Management and Economics), Lithuania,
4. Doc. Jolita Sliogeriene (Mykolas Romeris University), Lithuania,
5. Prof. José Luis González Escribano (University of Oviedo), Spain,
6. Prof. Jacek Fisiak (Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznan), Poland,
7. Prof. Matti Rissanen (University of Helsinki), Finland,
8. Prof. Danica Škara (University of Zagreb), Croatia,
The SAR and annexes prepared by KU’s self-assessment group were made available to the experts several weeks in advance of the visit, which gave us time to produce preliminary evaluation reports and lists of issues to be clarified during the institutional visit. The institutional visit of the expert committee to KU’s EPD, the academic unit directly running the program, took place on Tuesday March 4, 2008, as scheduled. Since the expert committee was expected to also evaluate a program at the LCC International University on the same day, the committee split in two sub-teams. The sub-team in charge of the proceedings concerned with this program was constituted by the following committee members (accompanied during the visit by chief CQAHE officer, Dr. Dalia Jelinskiene):
5. Prof. José Luis González Escribano
6. Prof. Jacek Fisiak
7. Prof. Matti Rissanen
According to the methodological guidelines of the CQAHE, institutional visits to HEI’s should minimally consist of the following three groups of activities:
1) Meeting a) chairpersons of the section/department of the HEI, b) staff in charge of preparing the self-assessment report, c) teachers of the section/department of the HEI executing the study program, d) students and their representatives, e) graduates, and f) employers;
2) Examining a) final theses, term papers, examination materials, and b) library funds, methodological supply, material basis; and
3) Giving an oral presentation on the main results of the visit to the section/department of the HEI.
In this case, such activities were all satisfactorily carried out according to the following schedule and (approximate) timetable:
10.00 – 10.30 Introductory meeting with administrative staff of the Faculty
10.30 – 11.30 Meeting with staff responsible for preparation of self-evaluation report
11.30 – 11.45 Break
11.45 – 12.30 Meeting with teaching staff
12.30 – 13.15 Meeting with students
13.15 – 14.30 Lunch
14.30 – 15.00 Observation of various support services (training rooms, library, computer services, etc.), indicated by the experts.
15.00 – 15.30 Familiarization with students’ final works, course papers
15.30 – 16.00 Meeting with graduates
16.00 – 16.15 Break
16.15 – 16.45 Meeting with employers
16.45 – 17.15 Discussions, observation of the visit (peer team only).
17.15 – 17.30 Introduction of general remarks of the visit
2. Aims and goals of the program
In general, the specific aims and goals of the study program are entirely consistent with the spirit that seems to inspire all other language programs currently in execution in KU, i.e., that of attending the growing language needs of the society and the economy (industry, seaport activities, business, tourism, etc.) of the Western Lithuanian region around Klaipeda and the educational and, particularly, linguistic needs of its citizens in the broader international context of the EU and the changing modern world, by satisfying “the increased demand of foreign language specialists (in this case the English language) for both education, culture and for other spheres of the national economy.” As point 8 of the SAR describes the economic and social circumstances that have determined the implementation of the B.A. in English Philology at KU so well and so convincingly, we cannot but confirm that the aims and goals are clearly stated, coherent, and justified.
However, in at least one respect, the program does not seem to be quite playing the role the broader political picture entails: if, on the one hand, as the SAR states in its point 8, “Considering the development plan of Lithuanian higher education system of 2003-2005, it is essential to ensure the accessibility of higher level education for all who are capable and willing to study,...”(emphasis ours), especially since KU plays a key social role in this region of Lithuania relatively remote from Vilnius, and, on the other hand, as the SAR also states, the Klaipeda area, like Lithuania, more generally, strongly demands English language specialists, then the numerus clausus in force in this program, and the discrepancy between the high number of applicants and the extremely low number of admissions and students in the program are clearly dysfunctional: there seems to be a lot of social/economic and individual/subjective demand that is not being satisfied, even though the ratio of number of teachers/number of students is extremely satisfactory, ergo, the program must be made accessible to more applicants; if this involves negotiation with the ministry as to the number of state-financed student places, well, such a negotiation should be immediately started.
As to the specific study program goals described in point 9 of the SAR, in general, we cannot but applaud their comprehensiveness, although the risk of overambitiousness is real enough. The program aims at an integrated philological training that may enable graduates to further train as teachers, as academics (via further M.A. and Ph.D. level education), or as translators, and to that effect encompasses a bit of everything, basic theoretical knowledge (Linguistics, Literary Science), strong language skills, sufficient research training, basic translation ability, and general attitudinal/practical/professional skills needed and appreciated in the job market. All that is clearly stated, seems entirely coherent and, to the extent we can determine, well adapted to the needs of the environment as well as the legitimate individual aspirations of students and their families, graduates, employers, and local authorities. Graduates, and employers, in particular, underline the need to strengthen the teaching of ESP, German and applied skills, even at the expense of theoretical content.
Our only caveat in this respect is that, although, as point 12 of the SAR states, at the moment graduates usually stand a good chance of finding employment locally or in the nearby region, depending on how advanced a local economy is it may or may not make sense to adapt study programs to its demands, but, in general, it is unwise to tie a study program’s academic design too tightly to the (by def., temporary) immediate needs of a local economy, and the program does seem a bit too closely tailored to local needs. Yet, a local economy can easily change, the needs of the job market often do, and much too quickly for universities to be able to react in time, and, even if such a contingency does never arise, above all, graduates must still be given a fair chance of being functional (and competitive) not only with respect to a specific region (say, Klaipeda), but on a much broader geographical and cultural basis, i.e., the EU in this case. In other words, it is all right to pay attention to some extent to the ESP needs of the seaport, the shipbuilding yards, the local companies,... but it is worthwhile remembering that the jobs and future lives of KU’s graduates may well be elsewhere, as well as the fact that many of the graduates end up in teaching jobs (or, some of them, even in academic careers). This consideration should affect the program’s design in both content and theoretical orientation: insofar as graduates may have to work and live elsewhere, or aim at an M.A. (or even a Ph.D. and a university career) elsewhere, a less parochial outlook and a stronger theoretical-philological foundation would both seem to be recommendable (cf. remarks on syllabus design infra).
3. Analysis of the program
3.1.Structure, contents and study methods of the program
In general, the program is sensibly structured and well regulated in what concerns teaching and evaluation practice and procedures in general, and the committee has not really detected mal-practice at any level, on the contrary, everything seems to be running smoothly and rather efficiently (relative to the situation). However, one unfortunate general circumstance that affects this program negatively is the fact that at KU it has no direct continuation in one or more M.A. programs that could give it a clearer short-term purpose and impose on it possibly more demanding output constraints. Of course, provided adequate teaching staff could be trained or hired for the purpose, M.A.’s in e.g., Lithuanian-English-German Translation Studies or Applied (English) Linguistics would be very welcome additions in order to, first, indirectly steer and strengthen the B.A., and, second, give even more opportunities of academic and professional advancement to local students.
As matters stand, the program caters reasonably well for the short term needs of graduates and employers alike (i.e., the needs of students aiming at teaching careers or aspiring to jobs as English language specialists and occasional translators in local companies, offices, or local administration), although students, graduates, and employers alike generally observe that stronger knowledge of German, a wider choice of languages (Spanish, French), and a more practice-oriented teaching would be welcome. However, as preparation for a future teacher, and especially as a first step towards more ambitious academic study of English at the M.A. or Ph.D. level, this program is weak in philological and theoretical linguistic (and literary) content, which shows in the design of courses and eventually also in the comparatively weak students’ B.A. theses.
In part, in our view, the weakness of the key areas of “philological” content, as opposed to mere use of English skills, which seem adequate on the whole, is a consequence of two related features, i.e., an excessive number of subjects coupled with a low number of credits allotted to each, which leads to unnecessary fragmentation, content overlaps, and ultimately trivialization, apart from having certain pedagogical disadvantages (e.g., that students may have to be working, and taking exams, papers, etc., on as many as seven different subjects per semester). In general, there should be fewer subjects, and, in most cases, they should be much more substantial as to credit load.
Among the more obvious content inadequacies we have been able to detect in this program, one is the exceedingly high proportion of compulsory subjects/credits (146 credits, 91,25% in the 2005 version of the program) and, correspondingly, an insignificant proportion of electivity (14 credits, 8,75%) (cf. table 3 in SAR) which is hardly justifiable in view of the hybrid, multipurpose orientation of this B.A.
Secondly, the net contribution of the general education subjects to the academic objectives of the program (e.g., “informational technology”, meaning acquisition of practical skill in the use of MS. Office) is questionable, and it is by no means obvious that they be “the necessary pre-requisite for successful on-going education in the chosen speciality.” Although the weight of such subjects has apparently already been reduced by 50% (according to table 6 in the SAR), those credits should perhaps be better invested in increasing the number of elective courses with more specialized content. After all, by the time they are in KU, students probably have already learned, or, anyway, will soon learn, to use MS. Office etc. on their own.
Thirdly, the split between “basic study” and “special education” subjects is not theoretically well grounded. It seems to correspond to “what is not” vs. “what is” directly concerned with the acquisition of language skills and their application (i.e., basically “Contemporary English Language”), but declares “basic” subjects that in any English Philology B.A. elsewhere belong clearly in the group of more “specialized” and certainly “philological” knowledge (e.g., “Introduction to Germanic Linguistics”, “English Language History”, even “British and American History and Culture”) and, as a matter of fact, thereby degrades them to a quasi-instrumental status and practically trivializes them.
Fourthly, many of the “theoretical” linguistics courses (e.g., “Introduction to Linguistics”, “Trends in Contemporary Linguistics”, or “Text Linguistics”, with just 2 credits each), and also “English Lexicology”, “English Stylistics”, “Translation Theory”, etc., are given too few credits/lectures/hours to allow for any depth in the treatment of aspects of language structure subsequently left undeveloped in “Contemporary English Language” (8 courses), whose organization is not systematic, and whose level of theoretical sophistication is itself low, in general. As stated, placing such courses in the “basic” study module (e.g., English Lexicology) entails degrading them, and on the other hand, their very choice (and the choice of content in them) is somewhat questionable. For instance, the inclusion of a theoretical course in the foundations of Semantics, or (advanced) Syntax, or (advanced) Phonology, or Morphology could be considered instead, particularly as these subjects are not taught at an advanced level in the “Contemporary English Language” block, or anywhere else in the program.