The English Teachers. RF Duncan-Goodwillie
Basically, I work at a state university and the state pays us to implement the programme to give the students the state diploma – the official paper that shows the standard set by the government. If you graduate from an unlicensed university, the diploma is considered to be less valuable.
The government knows this very well and they use this to implement their own agenda in their programmes. Right now our university is going though this accreditation process where the people from the Ministry of Education come to the university and check all the documents, check the teachers, check the classes and whether they really do what the government wants them to do. I found that they sometimes want really strange things.
For example, I teach a course of simple English language practice. It’s not translation, it’s not something more academic. It’s something like a general English course you would find in every school and they want us to teach students the etiquette of the country they are studying the language of. They want us to teach them some other things which I think are unrelated to language, like tolerance, cooperation and problem solving. Negotiation.
I could say, “Yes, of course I am teaching them the proper way to talk to English language partners” but I’m supposed to show that these competencies are being checked in the exams. So, I have to include a question or a task in the final exam so they can show they have mastered etiquette.
From my point of view I’m supposed to be testing skills and use of English, but “Etiquette”? “Tolerance?” How do I teach that? And this is really a problem and I don’t find it convincing. So, when I’m considering whether I should make a new move next year this is really the point which concerns me the most. I don’t really enjoy this idea that we have to teach something non-language related in classes.
RFDG: Some people would argue that language is bound in its context and culture. Would you disagree?
ID: I don’t disagree with that. The problem is, how will you test it? How will you develop an exam to test these points reliably? Would I give them a situation and ask how they will react and give them marks in accordance to what they choose? It doesn’t really make that much sense to me. This is what the government wants… at least this year, because the standards keep being reviewed and developed and changed almost every year. So, this year I teach them one thing, next year maybe something different.
RFDG: What do you think has caused this policy?
ID: There is this trend of the government taking more and more control of whatever is being done at schools – the public ones, of course. It’s very evident they really want to make sure they know exactly what’s happening and they don’t allow ANYTHING which is not in the programme into the classrooms. So, they have some rules about not bringing any literature which is not included in the programme. It mustn’t be inside the university.
I was considering starting a book club because I have lots of literature I don’t really need. I thought maybe we could put a bookcase in there with whatever books I like for the students to take on their own initiative. The department said I wasn’t allowed to do that because it is something officially not allowed. As you know, Russia is a multinational country, hence this idea of tolerance; that you have to tolerate different nationalities. It’s about nationalities and religion, it’s not about… let’s just say “sexual orientation”. This is a problem and something I disagree with.
So, yes, they really want us to teach them how to behave “properly” with a person from another country. Etiquette. This it odd because we are supposed to prepare future diplomats and if you’re a diplomat and you don’t know how to shake hands properly, or speak politely with someone, this cancels the whole point of this education. I don’t think it contradicts the policy of the Russian government because we have the policy and we have other actions which don’t correspond.
The problem I have is that the government wants to control EVERYTHING.
RFDG: Would you say this push for having these things in the curriculum is actually less about promoting the values and actually about controlling things?
ID: Exactly.
*
Nadezhda Boguk (NB)
NB: I would say it’s a company that’s passionate about teaching, about motivating and getting the results.
RFDG: So, it’s like a private language school? Is that the best way to describe it?
NB: I would say “language centre”.
RFDG: What’s the difference between a language school and a language centre?
NB: For me, a language centre includes more opportunities. School is when you come and get the language, but in a centre you have different options. You learn the language and you can take exams and develop further. It’s for students and for teachers, that’s why it’s not just a language school. I see it as an organisation that works for different groups of people. School is more for students.
RFDG: Why did you choose this specific language centre?
NB: I was looking for a job and I got an invitation.
RFDG: Why do you continue to work there?
NB: Because there are many options for me. Firstly, because I finally got the opportunity to work with the language properly. My previous experience in teaching was based a lot on subjects that are connected to English, but are not purely language teaching. For example, I taught IT in Linguistics. That was about how we use IT to teach and learn English.
There was also one on British Literature and English, so we discussed different authors and their books but it was not purely language. Or, Country Studies where we discussed different aspects of countries like their system of government. We did it in English but it wasn’t about explaining the vocabulary. Here I finally came to the language itself. That is what my diploma says: that I am a teacher of English.
Secondly, because there is a great variety of contexts, from little kids to adults, and different levels of languages, which is also good for teachers so they aren’t stuck only at the school level. We can also work in companies and discuss absolutely different topics.
RFDG: Are there other good things about where you work?
NB: Basically, it comes from the students who are from different backgrounds with different aims and different motivations. We tailor the classes to fit their interests, to fit their needs and this is also interesting. What I like about English teaching here in general is that we don’t talk about grammar or vocabulary.
If I talk to a person who works in accounting we discuss talking about accounting, but the next day the same person can tell a story about travelling and we start talking about travelling and architecture. This variety is what appeals to me. We speak about absolutely different topics, from business to culture and personal things.
RFDG: What about the bad sides of where you work?
NB: Intensive weeks and late classes.
RFDG: What is an intensive week for you?
NB: For example, I have a day where there are four groups in a row. Three children’s groups and one adult group and there are only 10-minute breaks in between. That is intensive.
RFDG: How do you cope with that?
NB: I start planning in advance and make sure I have the materials ready at the beginning of the week. So, for example, I don’t have to think about copies and the breaks are not spent preparing for the next class but are spent relaxing.
RFDG: