VMU Final Report - Studijų kokybės vertinimo centraspluto.skvc.lt/_layouts/ListAttachment.aspx?Attachment... · Web viewJolita Butkiene (ISM University of Management and Economics),

VYTAUTO DIDŽIOJO UNIVERSITETO

filologijos kryptiesanglų filologijos studijų programos

išorinio išsamiojo

VERTINIMO IŠVADOS

Vytautas Magnus University

study field of philologyexternal 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. dr. Jolita Šliogerienė

Vilnius2008

1. Introduction

The study programs of Vytautas Magnus University (VMU, hereafter) assessed in this document and the respective self-assessment groups appointed by the English Philology Department (EPD, hereafter) are identified in the EPD’s self-assessment report (SAR, hereafter) as follows:

B.A. in English Philology profile

Title of study programme English philology

State code 61204H154Kind of study1 UPMode study2 (duration in year) D (4); PX (5)Volume of study programme in credits 160Degree and (or) professional qualification to be awarded

Bachelor of philology

Programme registration date, order No. 1997 05 19, No. 565

Self-assessment group for the B.A. programme

Nº Academic title (research degree), name, surname

Position Phone(Office and mobile)

E-mail

1. Assoc.prof. VioletaKalėdaitė

Docent, Head of English philology department

+370 37 327838+370 610 61225

v.kaledaitė@hmf.vdu.lt

2. Dr. Jolanta Lėgaudaitė

Docent, English philology department

+370 37 327838+370 686 84920

[email protected]

3. Habil.dr. Milda Danytė

Professor, English philology department

+370 37 327838+370 37 743550

[email protected]

4. Dr. Ingrida Žindžiuvienė

Docent, English philology department

+370 37 327838+370 685 55205

[email protected]

5. Assoc.prof. Nemira Mačianskienė

Head of the Centre of Foreign languages

+370 37 327845+370 610 18700

[email protected]

6. Diana Pauraitė Assistant director for general education, „Saulė“ secondary school, Kaunas

+370 612 81009 [email protected]

7. Ieva Lisauskaitė 3rd year bachelor student of English philology

+370 37 327838 [email protected]

1 NU – Non-university studies; U – Undergraduate studies; M – Master studies; SP – Specialised Professional studies; I – Integrated studies; 2 D – Full-time; PE –Part- time (evening); PX – Part-time (extramural).

Studijų kokybės vertinimo centras 2

Profile of English philology M.A. programmes*

Title of study programme Applied English Linguistics English Culture & LiteratureState code 62104H102 62104H105Kind of study M(aster) /G (single field study) M(aster) / P (interdisciplinary)Mode study (duration in years) D [= full time] (2) D [= full time] (2)Volume of study program in credits

80 80

Degree and (or) professional qualification to be awarded

Master of philology Master of philology

Program registration date, order No.

1997 05 19, No. 565 1997 05 19, No. 565

Self-assessment group for the M.A. programmes

No. Academic title (research degree), name, surname

Position Phone(Office and mobile)

E-mail

1. Assoc.prof. Violeta Kalėdaitė Docent, Head of English Philology department

8 37 3278388 610 61225

[email protected]

2. Assoc.prof. Dalia Masaitienė Docent, English Philology department

8 37 3278388 620 32967

[email protected]

3. Assoc.prof. Irena Ragaišienė Docent, English Philology department

8 37 327838, [email protected]

4. Assoc.prof. Rūta Eidukevičienė

Head of German and French Philology Dept

8 37 3278378 600 77069

[email protected]

5. Linas Katilius UAB „Cision Lietuva“ country manager

8 37 3224298 650 15100

[email protected]

6. Jurgita Vaičenonienė Centre for Foreign Languages, assistant, doctoral student

8 37 3278458 613 86931

[email protected]

7. Teresė Aleknavičiūtė 1st year master student in English Philology

8 654 09888 [email protected]

*Important. Following instructions from the Lithuanian Centre for Quality Assessment in Higher Education (CQAHE, hereafter) transmitted to us by its coordinator, the assessment of the M.A. in English Culture and Literature (state code: 62104H105) above was suspended for administrative reasons. This was communicated to the expert team only on the day the institutional visit took place, and the EPD, in fact, seemed not to acknowledge the CQAHE’s right to suspend the assessment procedure, which resulted in a confusing situation, but finally the CQAHE’s criterion seemed founded and prevailed, and proceedings during the rest of the visit did not take into account the MA in English Culture and Literature. However, as the committee had already examined the documentation of that program too, a preliminary report has been included here as an appendix in case it may be of use to the EPD, leaving to the latter and the CQAHE to settle their disagreement as to whether it was right to abort assessment in what concerns that M.A. or not. It follows that the short statement on the suspended M.A. included here as an appendix is the result of a mere inspection of the SAR and its annexes that has not subsequently benefited from proper discussion of the program with teachers, students, graduates, etc. during the visit, and therefore is offered here “for what it may be worth,” but cannot, and does not, lead to any proposal as regards accreditation.


The international expert committee appointed by the CQAHE was constituted by:

1. Prof. Wolfgang Kühlwein (Head) (University of Trier), Germany, [email protected] 2. Prof. Karin Aijmer (Göteborg University) Sweden, [email protected] 3. Doc. Jolita Butkiene (ISM University of Management and Economics), Lithuania, [email protected]. Doc.Dr. Jolita Sliogeriene (Mykolas Romeris University), Lithuania, [email protected]. Prof. José Luis González Escribano (University of Oviedo), Spain, [email protected] 6. Prof. Jacek Fisiak (Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznan), Poland, [email protected]. Prof. Matti Rissanen (University of Helsinki), Finland, [email protected] 8. Prof. Danica Škara (University of Zagreb), Croatia, [email protected]

The SAR and annexes elaborated by the EPD’s self-assessment group were made available to the experts approximately two months in advance of the visit. That gave us time to write preliminary reports and choose issues to clarified during the visit, which took place on Thursday February 21, 2008.

As, according to the schedule elaborated by the CQAHE, the committee was expected to visit two different universities on the same day, it had to split in two. The sub-committee in charge of the visit to VMU and the proceedings concerning the two programs assessed in this report was constituted by the following members (accompanied during the institutional visit by the CQAHE’s chief officer, Dr. Dalia Jelinskiene, [email protected]):

2. Prof. Karin Aijmer5. Prof. José Luis González Escribano8. Prof. Danica Škara

According to the CQAHE’s methodological guidelines, institutional visits should adjust to the following (minimal) schedule:

a) Introductory meeting with chairpersons and teachers of the department of the HEI.b) A talk with those in charge of preparing the self-assessment report.c) A talk with students and their representatives.d) A talk with graduates and employers.e) Examining final theses/projects, term papers, examination materials.f) Examining library funds, methodological supply, material basis.g) Meeting the teachers of the department executing the study program.h) Oral presentation on the main results of the visit to the department of the HEI.

In this case, all such activities were performed, according to the following (approximate) schedule and timetable fixed by the CQAHE with the consent of the EPD of VMU:

09.30 – 10.00 Introductory meeting with administrative staff of the Faculty10.00 – 11.00 Meeting with staff responsible for preparation of self-evaluation report 11.15 – 12.15 Meeting with teaching staff12.15 – 13.15 Meeting with students13.15 – 14.30 Lunch14.30 – 15.15 Inspection of classooms, library, computer services, etc. 15.15 – 15.45 Familiarization with students’ final works15.45 – 16.15 Meeting with graduates16.30 – 17.00 Meeting with employers17.00 – 17.30 Discussions, observation of the visit (peer team only)17.30 – 17.45 Summary of the visit offered to the department.

2. Aims and goals

[See relevant sections in the analysis of each of the programs below]Studijų kokybės vertinimo centras 4

mailto:[email protected]









3. Analysis of the programs

3.1. B.A. in English Philology (61204H154)

3.1.1. Introduction

The English Department is responsible for two undergraduate programs assessed in the present document:

61204h154 ENGLISH PHILOLOGY (full-time)61204H154 ENGLISH PHILOLOGY (part-time, extramural)

This program was not assessed previously; the self-assessment was carried out for the first time.The SAR was a valuable source of information, but in some respects, it was not objective enough. The following comments summarize the team’s impressions of the program on the basis of the self-assessment and their visit to the department of English Philology.

3.1.2. Aims and objectives

According to the SAR (p. 6), the aims of the English Philology study programmes (full-time; part-time) are as follows: to prepare English philology specialists with a strong command of the English language as well as the necessary skills in translation, literary studies, and English language teaching that will enable them to apply their knowledge in a variety of situations; to train these English philology specialists to use their knowledge and skills creatively , as well as to develop professional attitudes which will help them to adapt when working in their selected fields.

The main goal of the programme is to provide the students with philological expertise, translation, English language teaching skills and cultural studies. The BA programme also prepares the graduates for MA studies. However, not all the skills aimed at are fully reflected in the content of the programme. There were 7 general objectives (described as competences that the students have to acquire). However, those aims and objectives were not all clearly represented, and their relationship to each other was not obvious to us from the SAR. In our view, the question is whether such a broad list of aims and competences (skills in translation, literary studies, and English language teaching) can be achieved within a single BA programme. We would, therefore, suggest that the department focus more on one of the designated fields unless it strategically chooses to carry on with a multipurpose, general programme.

The need for qualified specialists in the English language was confirmed by students, employers and graduates. According to the SAR, p.6: The[employment] data show that English philology graduates are eagerly employed by city and district general educational schools, translation bureaus, firms that organise language courses, travel agencies, international business companies and state institutions . The positive reception of the programme was also confirmed by our interviews with the representatives of these groups.

Due to the ‘changing trends in international communication’ and possible competition from other specialized programs (e.g. translation studies, two foreign languages, etc.), some changes could perhaps be considered. Travel agencies, city administrations, schools, and translation bureaus need different competences. One program could hardly cover all these competences and skills except by treating them superficially, so we recommend not ‘to train specialists in a variety of humanities fields so as to satisfy the needs of educational, academic, cultural, economic and other workplaces (SAR, p. 8) but to specialize/concentrate in one or two fields. Significantly, despite the obvious demand for qualified English language specialists in the Lithuanian job market (SAR, p. 6), the number of applicants in the general admission has decreased. We assume that circumstance to be a hint that the job market has changed and that the aims of the programme should be updated, an unsurprising consequence of the


rapidly changing conditions in Lithuania and the European Union, but the teachers of the English Department appear enthusiastic and we have no doubts that they will succeed in updating the programme.

3.1.3. Analysis of the program

3.1.3.1 Structure, content and study methods of the program

According to the SAR (p. 8) ‘the curriculums for the program in English philology has been formed by taking into account its aims and objectives and following the requirements set by the laws and regulations.’ It is quite clear from the previous remarks that the aims and objectives should be less general, and more specific. The aims and objectives should also be in accordance to the real content of the program and its learning outcomes.

According to the SAR (p.8, 9, 10) the program encompasses 160 credits and consists of four groups of courses:

Group A: courses of general university studies required for all VMU students;Group B: courses of general university studies chosen from four required sub-groups (one subject

from each sub-group);Group C: courses from the English philology study program that consist of:

1) English philology program fundamental courses taught during the first and the second year of studies;

2) specialized courses in English philology taught during the third and fourth year of studies

Group D: free-chosen courses offered by all faculties that change every semester and may be chosen by all students at the University.

During the first year of studies students take English grammar, Part 1 and 2, English Lexis, and English Phonetics. These courses are dedicated to forming and improving practical language skills. (SAR, p.9). During the second year of studies students take introductory courses in literature: Survey of British Literature (700 to 1600) and Survey of British Literature (from 1600), as well as introductory courses in linguistics: English Linguistics and Text Analysis, Part 1 and Text Analysis, Part 2. In the third year of studies, three survey courses, Survey of American Literature (1600 to 1900), Survey of American Literature (from 1900) and History of the English Language (nine credits) are taken.

The structure of the program corresponds to the common model valid in the field of philology. The first part of the program was devoted to general subjects. Students acquire a broad knowledge through the introductory courses in English philology. During the remaining two years students take more complex, specialized courses. Students have the possibility to learn one more foreign language free of charge. In their 4th year students write a Bachelor’s thesis (compulsory). The quality of the sample of final theses we looked at was satisfactory. We suggest to be cautious with the usage of the Internet sources. Plagiarism policy should be seriously taken into consideration.

Regarding the whole structure of the program, the logical interrelationship and sequence of courses - we would like to suggest some minor improvements.

The possibility of giving more substance and more credits to some of the following courses should be considered. Survey of British Literature (700 to 1660), Survey of British Literature (from 1660), Survey of American Literature (from 1600 to 1900). However, 2.5 credits is a modest allotment for a survey of several centuries. It means that these courses are reduced to a little more than dictionary entries

Morphology, Syntax and Semantics should be included into the required courses. Morphology and Syntax are core courses for any Bachelor of Philology. They could be a prerequisite for Text Analysis. The content of some courses should be made more substantial, and the level should be more advanced, e.g. English grammar, Part 1, Part 2. Almost the whole semester is spent on the Verb Phrase on a very basic level (tense, voice, mood). In addition, there should be more focus on communicative competence and ‘communicative grammar’ at least in Part 2. The reading list could be revised accordingly. English Lexis seems to be a rather elementary and miscellaneous course. Its learning outcomes could be easily subsumed under the course English Grammar.

During the remaining two years students take more complex, specialized courses like the following: Women’s Literature, Canadian Literature, Contemporary Drama, Shakespeare, etc. British Civilization and American Civilization are introduced in the fourth year as elective, specialised courses. As the level of these two courses is quite basic they could be transferred to the first or the second year. Studijų kokybės vertinimo centras 6

We have received a favourable impression of the program from our discussions with students, teachers and employers.

The English philology program for part –time students is the same as the program for full-time students. According to the SAR (28) ‘The main difference between full-time and part-time students is that students in the VMU English Philology Part-time program have already graduated from the philology or pedagogy programs of general or higher non-university schools’ Majority of the students enrolled in this program are graduates of the colleges (non-university studies). There are fewer classroom hours given to the courses in the part-time studies, while more time is dedicated to the individual work. More e-mail and telephone contacts. Intensive introductory and closing lectures – total of 12 hours. Consultations rather than lectures. Home assignments make up 20 % of the final mark. We would like to point out that the part-time learner needs a similar level of instruction and support to full time students, and part-time study programs should be restructured to provide this.

3.1.3.2. Implementation of the Study Process: Teaching, Learning and Assessment

During the first and the second year of studies most of the time is dedicated to lectures and individual work. No more than 20 students in each group.

All forms of testing are done in writing. It seems that grades are not appropriately explained to students. We suggest teacher’s staff to comment their grades either individually or in the class.

All teachers in the department provide consultations to students during regularly scheduled consultation hours, as well as outside of these. We wonder whether individual work with students is adequate due to the lack of teacher’s offices.

Some teachers use the Intranet structure of the university to post lecture material and information.Team-taught courses are promoted.

3.1.3.3. Variation in the number of students

The number of participants in the general admission (2002-2006) is not stable. The Report shows the decline of interest in the English Philology programme (full time studies, part time studies.), cf. Table 4. Table 4: The number of participants in the general admission (SAR, 17)

Year By the 1st priority By the 1st-6th priority By the 1st-20th priorityM F Total M F Total M F Total

2002 21 85 106 79 455 534 113 768 8812003 19 68 87 90 409 499 162 875 10372004 19 48 67 78 364 442 156 748 9042005 20 50 70 90 341 431 164 686 8502006 27 49 76 101 310 411 153 542 695

VMU teachers (April 10, 2004, p.3) object that “The comment on the variation in the number of students was based on misunderstandings of the evaluations. First, it should be noted that it is the competence of the Ministry of Education and Science that regulates and limits the number for admission.” and the number of students admitted to the programme (entrants) may well be regulated by the Ministry. However, if the number of participants in the general admission decreases (Table 4), that suggests increasing lack of interest.

According to the SAR (p.18) the reasons for interrupting studies vary from family situations, poor results, health problems, studies abroad to lack of motivation. The reasons for which students in part-time English studies drop out their studies are different from those influencing full-time students: failing too many courses, women with small children to raise, financial reasons, etc. In 2006 only 10 students were admitted. However, we would like to suggest a revision of the aims/competences of the programme in order to clarify whether it still corresponds to the needs of the market.

3.1.3.4. Academic Staff


Full-time and part-time studies are carried out according to the same undergraduate study programme, with the same academic staff. Courses in the English Philology Programme are taught by 11 qualified English specialists who are employed full-time at the department: one is a professor, four are Assistant Professors, four are PhDs, one is a lecturer and one is an assistant. The teaching staff gives the impression of being dedicated and active. All the courses taught by the academic staff are mainly in line with their research area. The teaching load of the lower-ranking teachers, low salary, and inadequate library facilities might influence the amount of research carried out in the Department.. Some teachers teach more than 5 different courses. Being equally good in many fields of research is quite a demanding task.

3.2. M.A. in Applied English Linguistics (62104H102)

3.2.1. Introduction

The MA in Applied English Linguistics (MAAEL, hereafter) of the EPD of VMU is a full time master program of two years of duration concentrated on a single study field, was inaugurated in 1993, registered on May 19 1997 (by order No. 565) and revised in December 2003, and is now submitted to international assessment for the first time.

3.2.2. Aims and goals

The MAAEL is described in the SAR (2.3.1) as an applied MA program based on comparative study of Lithuanian and English language and culture as a basis for translation studies and the training of qualified translators and interpreters. According to that source, the major factor that has determined its establishment is the need for competent translators, which Lithuania’s labour market is said to demand. In consequence, the areas of study the program declares to concentrate on (SAR, 2.3.2) are “comparative” linguistics as applied to translation, the analysis of intercultural differences, and translation theory and practice. An obvious first question that arises, then, is whether, if the objective of the MAAEL is as specific as declared, the name chosen, “Applied English Linguistics”, is appropriate. Prima facie, something like “MA in English - Lithuanian Translation” or the like would seem preferable, although, as explained below, the name adopted may, as a matter of fact, not be a misnomer.

On just very slight knowledge of the Lithuanian socio-economic situation, both the strategic objective of producing translators/interpreters and the above-mentioned areas of concentration of the program seem to us entirely justifiable. Nevertheless, as a matter of fact, nowadays this MA is openly acknowledged to be a hybrid one (SAR, 2.3.1, point 9), since its lower-level objectives include the training of, not only translators-interpreters, but also future doctoral students of English Philology and university lecturers, language teachers, and, more generally, English-language specialists for both the public and private sectors, and to that extent the title “Applied English Linguistics” is perhaps a bit less inaccurate, after all, than one specifically mentioning translation. On the negative side, the risk of overlap in content with other multipurpose MA programs (and even ambitious B.A.’s) in Lithuanian HEI’s is high, and a de facto hybrid MA program like this is more difficult to justify, as a secondary stage course after an English Philology BA, than one clearly oriented towards the training of qualified translators/interpreters. Perhaps for that reason, according to the SAR (2.3.1, point 12), the modifications approved in December 2003 “emphasized the applied nature of the programme, based on comparative studies of the Lithuanian and English languages and cultures as a basis for translation studies,” i.e., apparently it was necessary to emphasize the applied nature of the MA (as against its de facto multipurpose bias) as of December 2003, and to reinstate its foundational translator-training nature, so the EPD staff declare.

Yet, if the needs of the Lithuanian labour market are what the graduate employment figures suggest, a multipurpose MA like this, name aside, is arguably fitting them better than a strict translator-training one would, for, according to the data available, of the 35 MA graduates about which employment details are known to the EPD, only 13 (i.e., 36%) are actually employed as translators; as to the rest, they teach at secondary schools, are college or university lecturers, were/are doing PhDs, and work for either the public sector or private companies, but not strictly as translators, and the composition of the group of graduates this committee interviewed certainly supports those figures; in other words, English-language specialists


seem to be easily employable, but relatively few translation jobs seem on offer in Lithuania, or those that are on offer do not attract graduates as much as could be expected.

Thus, strictly speaking, the program’s foundational/nominal/intended? priorities (= translation studies) do not seem to quite coincide with the real demands of the Lithuanian labour market, and yet the actual academic profile of its graduates seems to fit reasonably well, so graduate employment figures indicate, which does not entail that a more specialised profile (e.g., a strictly oriented translator-training MA, or an ELT profile) would not be even more appropriate in view of the Lithuanian labour market and its people’s real needs (cf. critical remarks on course content below). Of course, the opinion of graduates and employers constitutes key information on the issue of the level of adequacy of the MA’s aims, and the opinions we have heard are very positive, but that hardly entails that another profile would not fit even better, and, anyway, does not remove the deep ambiguity that seems to have reigned from the beginning as to the real nature of this MA and the obvious mismatch between what it officially declares to be and what it really is (cf. final diagnostic on strengths and weaknesses below).

In what concerns strict viability, cost-effectiveness, and graduate employment results, however, figures indicate that, quantitatively at least, this MA can be considered successful: Admission to the program has always been competitive, the number of applications has kept significantly higher than that of admissions, student numbers have been on the rise, the drop-out rate is steadily low, the cost per student/year (currently estimated at about 1500 euro) is moderate, and the absorption of the MA graduates by the Lithuanian labour market has been satisfactory, as stated. However, what the Lithuanian situation really seems to demand is teachers, or, otherwise, a versatile fluent-speaking English language/culture-specialist, if possible with translating/interpreting skills and ESP competence in areas like business and finance, technology, health sciences, (inter)national law, EC organization, tourism, etc.), and, in this respect, the MA is certainly not ideal, since its attention to ELT is low, and as to translation/interpreting, much of its working load is spent on generalities (cf. critical remarks on course content infra) whereas the real training in translation (and interpreting) it provides falls rather short of what professional expertise demands according to recent recommendations for an European Master in Translation.

On the other hand, the hybrid nature of the program’s de facto goals and academic design inevitably make it overlap and compete with other MA’s (or even ambitious BA) courses in Lithuanian universities, as well as creating tension with the EPD’s other MA in English Literature and Culture, now suspended. In fact, the visit allowed us to understand how complex the history of the two MA programs of the EPD has been, and how dramatic the EPD’s attempts have been to find the MA a suitable identity and avoid the final fall of the “rival” literature-oriented MA, but, nevertheless, in our view, MAAEL, in fact both MA’s, remain hybrid, and the MAAEL, in particular, has not really found itself as a translator-training program. Thus, since adopting a more decidedly translation-centred design is difficult, in view of the qualifications of the staff and the tradition historically prevailing in the EPD, the EPD should perhaps consider merging its two current MA programs into a stronger multipurpose one, perhaps an MA in Advanced English Studies?, thereby allowing students to benefit from a wider choice of subjects than either MA provides now. The focus on intercultural study of Lithuanian/English language/culture is clearly relevant to both, the interests of modern literature and literary translation can also be made to overlap in a fruitful way, and, as stated, the offer of courses could be greatly improved at no cost (cf. details infra).

3.2.3. Analysis of the program

3.2.3.1. Structure, content and study methods of the programThe MAAEL primarily builds, as does the EPD’s other MA in English Culture and Literature, on VMU’s B.A. in English Philology, although students may, in principle, not have majored in English (cf. SAR, 2.3.2, point 14), a fact that should be taken into account on estimating the English language-related workload convenient for that kind of prospective student. It is an 80-credit 4-semester full-time course and, in what concerns number of credits, teaching load, students’ workload and graduation requirements, it adjusts to Lithuanian Government and VMU guidelines and is a sensibly regulated typical MA in a philological field; no special comments or suggestions seem in order. On the contrary, critical comments, and suggestions, immediately come to mind in what concerns actual course content and the way the MA students’ effort is invested, and such criticisms apply whether MAAEL is interpreted as what it foundationally declares to be, i.e., primarily a translation-oriented course, or, more realistically, as a multipurpose program of specialization in certain sub-areas of applied English linguistics, although, in


what follows, the former, and “official” interpretation will be taken to prevail, by express declaration of the EPD staff during the visit.

In a nutshell, if the former interpretation prevails, then the MAAEL wastes too much students’ time and effort in short courses (inexplicably all the same length, apparently due to VMU regulations) teaching generalities or peripheral, even ornamental, topics (cf. more specific remarks below), as well as too much effort (no less than 32, out of 80, credits) on “research” questionably functional in this kind of MA (since translators/interpreters must quickly grasp technical terminology and understand the basic facts of the subjects translated, but need not be trained in conceptual-theoretical philological or literary research), while the actual training offered in ESP and translation/interpreting skills is fairly low (certainly far below the minimum of 50% of total workload that the recent EMT guidelines recommend). If, on the contrary, the MAAEL is interpreted as a multipurpose specialization course suitable for the further training of future English language teachers, doctoral students and university lectures, or generalist English-language professionals for the government or the private sector, then the distribution of time/effort and the selection of courses and course content is also inadequate, since the bias towards translation-studies or translation-preliminary/parallel skills is clearly out of place, in that case, and the teaching of generalities/ornamental topics detracts precious time for concentration on e.g., those skills needed by students who aim at becoming language teachers, or those who may aim at Ph.D’s in “applied linguistics” (e.g., machine translation, computational linguistics, language-teaching technology, course-design, error analysis, clinical/forensic linguistics, or whatever). Thus, in an important respect, the program is neither here nor there; one cannot have it both ways, or at least it tends to be very difficult to have it both (or many) ways at once.

Of course, full discussion of individual courses and their content is out of the question in a report like this, but some general remarks on the design of the MA program and a few specific comments on the most salient characteristics (defects, as well) of individual courses may be in order, if only to the extent they suggest what the general problems are and might perhaps stimulate fruitful discussion by the EPD.

Among the general critical remarks are the following: First, it is hard to understand why all twenty subjects on offer, be they considered core theoretical

matters, and therefore obligatory, or peripheral and elective, are granted the same importance in terms of teaching load. Of course, to the extent course content and name correspond (by the way, not too closely in certain cases, cf. infra) it is hard to understand why essential components of a translators’s training like e.g., translation theory, interpreting, lexicology-terminology, contrastive English-Lithuanian stylistics, or, say, computer-aided translation, among the required ones, or the ESP subjects dubbed “Translation 1,2,3”, or literary translation, surprisingly listed here among the elective ones, do not merit much more attention than (as here understood) heterogeneous and arguably peripheral/ornamental courses on matters like “principles of editing” or “text linguistics”, among the required ones, or on generalities/rudiments of “situation-oriented communication”, new trends in sociolinguistics, “audiovisual translation”, “informational text technology” or “news media”, to name but a few, among the elective courses offered.

Secondly, the choice of required/elective courses itself is debatable, especially for what is left out in the first case. As stated, miscellaneous courses like Principles of Editing or plainly introductory ones like Text Linguistics are far from obvious choices as required courses for this kind of MA, in fact (as here understood) they would rather fit much better in the B.A. programme, whereas the Translation 1, 2 and 3 (and, of course, possibly other similar ESP courses that could be added) or Literary Translation would seem rather more central to a translator-training oriented MA program. Also, if the core must consist of theoretical-philological courses (cf. SAR, section 2.3.2., point 16), then it is not obvious why (if properly adapted to the needs of a translator-training programme) highly relevant courses like Contemporary Semantic Theories (AKL 512), Cognitive Linguistics (AKL 611), Functional Grammar (AKL 527), or Cross-Cultural Pragmatics (AKL 522), which are on offer in the parallel MA in English Literature and Culture (incidentally, why?), are not offered among the required courses in this MA, too.

Thirdly, much of the so-called “theoretical” content seems to be being presented at an elementary level (if only on account of the ratio between number of teaching hours available and number and import of the issues introduced, plus generalistic/elementary nature of the bibliographical sources suggested) when not in a decidedly historical, panoramic, non-compromising, vaguely informative, way (alternative terminologies, history of theories, overview of theoretical options in the field for students to apply alternatively or play interpretive games with, etc.). Now, assuming that the EPD’s B.A. in English Philology is functioning properly, elementary concepts should not need reintroducing here, and should be avoided, given the pressing need for concentration that an MA in translation entails, and, as to panoramic presentations, they either presuppose too much background reading (and therefore may be appropriate in Studijų kokybės vertinimo centras 10

a PhD subject, perhaps) or reduce to generalities and name-dropping and, again, do not fit except in very elementary B.A. subjects. At this level, students need to be taught “substance”, and especially substance they can safely apply in a socially constrained professional milieu like translation-interpreting.

Especial mention may be made of an elementary distinction that some teachers here seem to forget on designing their course content: science is one thing, and the history of science is another. State of the art science (say, on lexical semantics, lexicology, terminology, contrastive linguistics, translation issues, etc., in this case) is, of course, potentially highly relevant as a core component of an MA course like this, but reviewing the genesis of that knowledge is something that, in general, neither sensible B.A.s nor, even less, necessarily selective applied M.A. programs can usually afford or indulge in. Even as regards state- of-the-art knowledge, it is necessary to make choices: A teacher may not be sure what to teach (who of us has not been in that plight?), and must then first read widely and critically, but finally wisdom and courage are needed to make decisions, for the vagaries of a teacher’s own education should never show in the course design (s)he finally opts for. When that happens, on the whole, it merely introduces confusion and a feeling of insecurity, relativism, or worse, in the students. In particular, the flippant yuxtaposition of “complementary” analytical methods or approaches to interpretation available on the market to be chosen as the user feels best to let him/her extract from the texts whatever may suit his/her purposes is bad enough in current literary/ideological analysis, but professional translation is a rather more serious business, translations must be accurate, reliable, and therefore the utmost restraint should be observed in such matters when the aim is to train reliable translators rather than trendy, opportunistic, academics.

Finally, a flagrant design deficiency in this MA is proper (i.e., massive!) attention to the training of prospective translators in the intricacies and expressive subtleties of their own mother tongue, Lithuanian. Popular myths like that of the intrinsic competence of native speakers make it easy to forget that a native speaker may be dramatically incompetent at all levels (lexically, referentially, intensionally-inferentially, pragmatically, stylistically) beyond a very small core of everyday language. A quality translator must start by being highly competent in the subtleties of his own language, in all its varieties and registers (literary, colloquial, academic, scientific, legalese, officialese, etc.), and, unless Lithuanians are completely different from native speakers of English and other languages, that requires rather more than marginal attention in a short course of Lithuanian-English stylistics, especially because at the B.A. in English Philology level, it is given NO attention at all. It follows that students are competent in such matters only to the extent they are worked upon at primary or secondary school level, hardly the level of proficiency expected of a translator handling serious and subtle matters in often highly sensitive environments.

As to discussion of individual courses, obviously, only highly selective remarks are possible here, mainly on the core ones, and, for simplicity’s sake, in the order in which the courses are listed.

Thus, Principles of Editing (AKV 511) seems to be rather elementary and miscellaneous, apart from misnamed. The objective of training students to write formal English competently is reasonable enough, but should not be called “editing”, and the star topic of the course, summary writing (lecture topics 1-3, and then, for no obvious reason, lecture topics 9-14) is a basic skill presumably taught, like formal English, it is to be expected, in English language writing courses at the BA level. In-between those two arbitrarily separated blocks of related content, lecture topics 4-5-6 on selected aspects of contrastive English-Lithuanian grammar seem rather perfunctory, apart from misplaced here and obviously overlapping with contents of e.g. AKV522, the survey of stylistic features of professional English of various types (lecture topic 7) or that of officialese (Lecture topic 8) cannot but be symbolic, and the rest is somewhat miscellaneous (e.g., rules for running formal meetings, lecture topic 9, might belong in an etiquette course, perhaps). Thus, on the whole, if this course were, say, “Formal English Writing”, and much longer, it might be appropriate as a build-up on writing skills that should have been acquired at B.A. level; as it stands, it seems too miscellaneous and elementary to make any difference.

Lexicology and Terminology (AKV512), as applied to translation, should, of course, constitute a great deal of a translator’s basic training. However, 4 credits is a ridiculous allotment, especially if no less than 15 huge! topics (e.g., equivalence,…, idiom translation,… definitions,…term formation,…) are discussed in class lectures and seminars, which, along with the nature of the reading suggested, indicates that the actual treatment of lexicology and terminology reduces to little more than definitions and how-to information. Of course a much more substantial treatment of the matter is recommended, along with more substantial ESP courses on business language, legal language, medical language, etc.

As to Text Linguistics (AKV513), the objective seems to be both to explain basic aspects of text structure (e.g., FSP, cohesion, sequence of tenses, connectors…) and features leading to an elementary text typology, but both are rather elementary to merit inclusion at this level. Of course, an in-depth Studijų kokybės vertinimo centras 11

analysis would make sense provided unwanted overlap with e.g., Contrastive Stylistics were avoided, but in this case that is plainly out of the question; the 4 credits allotted to the subject discard it, and yet the (12) lecture topics listed in the programme are huge and controversial (e.g., historical background of text linguistics, FSP, building a text-world model, inferencing, the pragmatic dimension of context…!). In sum, all indicates that students are once more exposed to very basic theoretical concepts and illustrations that probably result redundant at this stage, having been introduced at B.A. level; besides, the course is a mixture of Hallidayan analysis of text structure and Text Linguistic rudiments, plus the translation-specific issues, and partly overlaps with the Functional Linguistics course (incidentally not offered in the MAAEL menu, but, unexpectedly, listed in the English Literature and Culture MA menu). Of course a substantial contrastive “text stylistics” would make a lot of sense, although not necessarily as a separate module; on the contrary, a smattering of elementary concepts and quick illustrations is not likely to add much to the training of professional translators.

Prima facie, Theory of Translation (AKV521), on the contrary, is surely quite in place as a core subject in an MA course in translation studies, but, again, whereas major issues (e.g., criteria of equivalence) should be properly discussed, a philosophical survey of alternative theories, or even less a historical account of translation studies cannot be priorities if the course has only four credits, as is the case. The eleven lecture topics chosen are huge, hence bound to be too perfunctorily presented to be much use (think of discussing e.g., philosophical theories of translation like Steiner’s, Benjamin’s or Derrida’s, the teacher’s own choice, in one or two teaching sessions!). The students should be offered a practicable, integrated approach, which entails that teachers must first digest developments in the field and risk a synthesis. The orientation taken in this course (although not necessarily the theories chosen) would make sense if students could read widely on the extremely complex matters involved, and if subsequent in-depth class discussion were feasible, but, as things are, with 45 hours to handle 11 huge and somewhat miscellaneous topics, plus 10 seminars, little but presentation of elementary concepts and some name-dropping seems attainable, and that does not seem particularly functional.

Much the same applies, mutata mutanda to Contrastive English Lithuanian Stylistics (AKV522), which, if taught at an advanced level, and on the basis of a high level of proficiency in both languages, is an essential component of a translator’s training. But, again, the aim should not be to make students “aware” of the obvious, but systematic presentation and analysis of the contrasts, and, in this sense, the list of lecture topics proposed reads as a set of dictionary entries, e.g., (the concept of) text stylistics, the concept of functional style, the concept of genre, …genre types, genre in various guises, or, on the opposite extreme, large substantial topics (e.g., legal language), plus an heterogeneous assortment of case studies? (research article introductions, research article abstracts, sales promotion letters, legal texts) which, by the way, largely overlap with the content of Principles of Editing above and the elective courses dubbed “Language for business”, “Language for Law” on the other. In sum, no objection whatsoever can be raised to the kind of content the title of the course refers to, but the actual selection and organization is very questionable, as is the overall structure of the program, and the reason is simple: there are only a few things a translator must learn well and intensively, one of them, surely, being comparative “stylistics” (grammar, lexicology, pragmatics,…), but fragmentation into too many short courses only leads to repetition of generalities presumably learnt at B.A. level, name-dropping, massive overlaps in theoretical content and practice activities, interfering of peripheral issues, and no substantial systematic training in any of the basic abilities.

As to Introduction to Interpreting (AKV 611), the name already suggests where it is amiss: it should be, not an “introduction”, but a substantial course/set of courses in interpreting technique. Unsurprisingly, of the ten lecture topics proposed, only topic 5 (Methods for training the memory for interpreting), topic 6 (Summarizing meaning in interpreting) and perhaps topic 1, comparison between consecutive and simultaneous interpreting, seem broadly functional; the historical surveys, neuro-physiological aspects, job prospects for interpreters, etc., are mere space-filling dummies, and space-filling is hardly justifiable in a master like this.

Computer-aided Translation (AKV 616), on the contrary, seems rather relevant and sensibly organized, although whether TRADOS is the best choice or alternatives should also be presented and compared we honestly do not know (many systems are available online and several have trial versions that can be downloaded and analysed before deciding which one to adopt).

As to the elective courses on offer, an even more summary appraisal is de rigueur here, so order of presentation will be altered somewhat to facilitate condensed discussion.

First, obviously, Translation 1, 2, 3 (Language for Business, Law, Science and Technology) (AKV 523, 524, 525) seem quite in place in this programme (actually, they should be part of the core, i.e., Studijų kokybės vertinimo centras 12

obligatory), and, on the whole, the lecture and seminar topics chosen and the content seem broadly adequate, although, under a different overall organization, they might be made even more effective if they could be allotted more credits and intensive concentration.

Much the same applies to the unquestionable choice of Literary Translation (AKV 613), although, in this case, some of the initial lecture topics proposed (e.g., 1, 4, 5) may not be essential, and the more ideology-laden theoretical issues should perhaps be treated in a more operative fashion, i.e., concentrating on the real problems a literary translator faces rather than on the theoretical pronouncements themselves. Also, the selection of translations proposed as seminar topics is not obviously representative.

The remaining elective courses, on the contrary, seem much less clearly justified. Situation-oriented Communication (AKV 514) is a potpourri of generalities that do not obviously add much to what students are likely to know or have learnt from general education or other courses; perhaps if it were directly entitled “Protocol and etiquette” and less heterogeneous it would be easier to justify as a complement in a professional translator/interpreter’s training, but protocol/etiquette amounts to about one fifth of the course content as currently described, and certainly should not take up 4 credits. The rest (roughly lecture topics 1-10) surely overlaps with previous B.A. and other MA courses and is clearly redundant here. Even if students do not object to being re-taught essentially the same generalities once and again (but, as a matter of fact, they denounced excessive overlaps), courses like this add little of substance and should be cut down to a size appropriate to their functional contribution.

The title “Translation as a specific text type”(AKV 526) is highly ambiguous, at best, not to say barely understandable, and, indeed, its content does not correspond at all to what is announced in it. Lecture topics 1-9 read like a (strange) introductory grammar/linguistics? course, whereas the last five lecture topics suddenly re-introduce generalities about translation and its application to miscellaneous texts, with substantial, and unjustifiable overlap with Translation 1,2,3, and various other courses. Clearly, this course adds nothing at all and should simply be removed from the list.

“Audiovisual Translation” (AKV 615) seems a relevant topic at present, but certainly its content does not justify the 4 credits allotted to it, especially when compared with the really substantial subjects that also get just four credits as a consequence. In practice, its net contribution reduces to basic introduction to subtitling and dubbing, with many of the 10 lecture topics proposed (e.g., 1-4, 9) largely ornamental slot-fillers, so, if the course is preserved at all, it should be cut down to half its current size or less.

“Cross-cultural Communication” (AKL 515), if not trivial, should be much bigger, a core subject, and obligatory, but, with 4 credits, the list of huge lecture topics proposed in it (e.g., language and culture(!), space and time in different cultures (!), culture, world view and models of perception (!), etc.) suggests that, once again, students are being summarily exposed to generalities and “soft” introductory concepts such as surely have been introduced in e.g., one or more undergraduate linguistics (or even perhaps anthropology, history,…) courses at B.A. level. Thus, again, either the course is turned into a substantial translation-oriented comparative study of Lithuanian and English culture/world-view, analysing e.g., something like Wierzbicka’s 1997 book, perhaps, or, better, whatever is available for the pair Lithuanian-English, or simply it should be dropped to leave space for something really functional in a professional translator’s training.

“New Trends in Sociolinguistics” (AKV 526) reads as anything but “new” in its contents, but, anyway, it rather looks like an undergraduate introductory course such as are probably being offered at B.A. level (e.g., AKL 413?), so, without denying that awareness of knowledge of sociolects and gender/sex differences is of interest to a translator, this course, as designed, does not seem worth having.

As to “Theory and Practice of Corpus Linguistics” (LKK 512), it could be made more relevant if it were renamed “Corpora as a Translation Tool” (or the like) and really concentrated on the use of electronic corpora as a supplement to standard dictionaries in solving translation problems. Thus, instead of a historical survey of CL (Lecture 1), and a rehearsal of the (fairly obvious) character of Corpus Linguistics or the typology of corpora (Lectures 2, 3, 4, 5), or the principles of CL (Lecture 10), students should be trained to use the corpora to an advantage (software, query-building, concordances, etc.). The seminar topics seem appropriate, except that what the “semantic prosody of abstract nouns” may be, or what such a topic may be doing in this course entirely escapes our understanding.

“Informational Text Technologies” (LKK 522) is an inflated term for a course offering basic training in the use of MS Office applications which presumably no student with a B.A. needs to do nowadays; if kept at all, it should perhaps be offered as a remedial module for students with special deficits in the use of PCs, but can hardly take up 4 credits of the MAAEL menu. As to “News Media: Technological Development and Change” (KOM 611), it seems to be a rather disorganized potpourri of woolly (if trendy) topics which have nothing to do with anything an MA like this should sensibly offer. Both, but Studijų kokybės vertinimo centras 13

especially the second, could be safely dropped to leave space for what really matters to a translator’s training.

Finally, as stated above, courses like “Contemporary Semantic Theories” (AKL 512), “Cross-Cultural Pragmatics” (AKL 522), “Cognitive Linguistics” (AKL 611) and “Functional Grammar” (AKL 527), which are somewhat surprisingly offered in VMU’s parallel MA course on English Culture and Literature are inexplicably omitted from the list of choices available to students of the MAAEL, where they, in principle, make rather more sense, although, obviously, only provided they were first carefully tailored to the specific needs of translators. As presently configured in the parallel MA’s menu, of course, they are hardly feasible. To cite just one example, can anyone seriously consider covering e.g. the program of lectures in Contemporary Semantic Theories, AKL 512, in 45 lecture hours? Can some of the lecture topics in such a course be “Cognitive Semantics: Image Schemas and Mental Spaces”, or even worse “Model Theoretic Semantics (Montague Grammar)”? How much intentional logic, or even first-order logic, can students be expected to know before they are exposed to a lecture like that, and what can they possibly understand? Of course, overambitiousness, and consequent risk of trivialization is one of the basic problems detected once and again in the design of the M.A. program, and the risk is evident in the case of AKL 512, 611, etc., but the point here is that, to the extent such courses are reasonably realistic, they would seem to fit better in the MAAEL menu than in the parallel English Culture and Literature one, so maybe the EPD should reconsider the matter.

3.2.3.2. Execution of studies and support to students

Whereas serious objections can be raised to the overall distribution and choice of content, as well as the specific courses themselves, as just argued, the organization, distribution, regulation, and execution of teaching seems sensible enough, as well as considerate of the students’ needs in all important respects. The program has a reasonable total workload of 80 credits (EMT guidelines recommend between 60 and 100), which entail some 3200 hours of estimated overall dedication on the part of the students, but effort, including research papers uniformly assigned at the rate of one per semester, is evenly distributed along three consecutive semesters (the fourth largely invested in work on the MA thesis), and the number of teaching hours (lectures, seminars) per week is a bit high, but still reasonable for a full-time programme, leaving the student enough time for personal study and research. The number of subjects to be taken, 7 obligatory ones plus 5 elective ones, is moderate, although, in this respect, the organization of content into many small courses is dysfunctional, as it increases the number of subjects, produces unwanted overlaps, and unnecessarily detracts from the concentration of effort that could be achieved under a better overall distribution of content. Fewer and more substantial subjects would be better, if MAAEL is what it declares to be.

Also worth reconsidering, for reasons stated in 3.2.3.1, is the decision to invest as many as 32 credits, 40% of the MAAEL’s total workload, in boosting the students’ research skills. Although, in general, that is definitely desirable, and is so stated in the Lithuanian government’s general guidelines on second stage study programmes (so, maybe VMU’s EPD cannot do anything about it), it takes but a little reflection to become aware that such a criterion must apply to various kinds of M.A. programs to different extents, which decrease in the case of strongly “applied” ones like the MAAEL. Thus, whereas special attention to research makes perfect sense in a basic science program, or even in a multipurpose “applied English linguistics” MA, it may well be counterproductive in a translation-oriented M.A. like this, where the priorities are clearly other, and the fact is that both current students and former graduates have manifested to us that the program should concentrate more decidedly on practical skills on demand in the job market. Yet, it must be said that the MA theses shown to us were of rather good academic quality on the whole.

In all lower-level execution respects, everything seems to be being done very carefully and efficiently: the proportion of lectures and seminars is excellent, the evaluation of the students’ performance is invariably subject to very clear conditions, comprehensive, and gradual, hence presumably fair, the planning and supervision of research papers and their regulation, as well as that of the MA thesis, are also very explicit and carefully executed at the MA level (less so at the B.A. level, so students manifest), tutorial attention seems sufficient, effective, and well evaluated by MA students, in spite of the communal nature of the staff room where it must take place, department-internal information, as well as info on matters of interest to the students’ future careers (job opportunities, etc.) seems to be flowing well, teacher-student relations seem good and constructive, the students’ individual needs seem to be carefully attended to when needed, participation of students at all levels is encouraged, and often willingly


obtained, it seems, and, finally, the social help facilitated to students as regards their basic survival needs, housing, etc., and the subsidies they receive for the subscription of study-related services (access to the Internet, cheap dormitory access to Internet services) are apparently appropriate, or at least according to the usual standards in Lithuania. In sum, the commission has not detected any malfunctioning in any of these implementation respects.

3.2.3.3. Variation in the number of students On the succinct evidence offered in the SAR (2.3.4), the procedures of application, selection and admission of students seem according to established VMU regulations and the figures concerning number of applications, number of students accepted, rate of graduation success, drop-out ratio etc., seem very satisfactory, except for the striking gender imbalance, which seems due to other, broader, cultural factors at play. No details are offered on how long students take to complete their MA, so it is presumed here that all do on schedule, i.e., within the stipulated four-semester span, and that due attention is paid by the department’s teaching body when a student is forced to temporarily leave the program. To that extent, the MA seems to be running smoothly and to be viable, according to the usual criteria and standards applicable to the case (e.g., steady demand on the part of students, moderate cost per student/year).

3.2.3.4. Teaching staffThe teaching staff in charge of the MAAEL is quantitatively sufficient, and highly qualified, and teachers do not complain as to the conditions (contracts, distribution of labour, autonomy, etc.) under which they work, although their teaching load (approximately 12 hours/week) is a bit high, but, even so, the staff cannot be considered optimal for the task they nominally undertake, as directly explained. The problem is that if this program is interpreted as what it literally claims to be, an MA concentrating on translation studies and the training of quality translators, then the adequacy of the teaching staff in charge (to judge from the CVs shown to us) is questionable, since, as a matter of fact, none of the teachers is actually specialized in, or has made significant research contributions to, translation, especially on the theoretical level, so it is dubious whether the EPD itself can be said to be significantly “involved” in research in that area, as current Lithuanian legislation dictates. We have found out, however, during the visit and via the EPD’s comments to our preliminary report, that rather more work relevant to translation has actually been done, part of it still in press, which accidentally is not cited in the CVs made available to us, and, to that extent, our adverse judgement above may need some qualification, but, even so, we still perceive a clear mismatch between the avowed orientation of the programme and the teachers’ research CVs, and believe that this is one of the programme’s major and immediately apparent weaknesses. As defined, the MAAEL badly needs real specialists in translation and the theoretical linguistic areas that support it (contrastive grammar, contrastive lexicology, lexical semantics, ESP, terminology), as well as native English speakers as (advanced) English language teachers hired on a (semi)permanent basis.

If, on the contrary, the MAAEL is interpreted as a hybrid multipurpose program, the research qualification of the teaching staff becomes formally adequate, since all 14 teachers involved have Ph.D degrees and nearly all are in English Philology or, at worst, in neighbouring “linguistic” areas (e.g., Lithuanian language, communication studies). For this reason, the EPD should perhaps simply acknowledge the hybrid origin and current nature of the MAAEL and revise its content accordingly, probably a reasonable strategy in view of the fact that the Lithuanian job market seems to absorb rather more teachers and “English language specialists” than translators in the strict sense, but in that case, the existence of the MAAEL as currently oriented should be reconsidered, for, under that new guise, merging the EPD’s two MA’s into a stronger and more efficiently organized program seems clearly indicated.

3.2.3.5. Advantages and disadvantages of the programThe strengths claimed by the self-assessment team (SAR, section 2.3.7) are not too convincing, in our view. Of course, if the MAAEL is a translator-training program, it can hardly be one of its strengths that it concentrates on translation and quality of translation issues, or that attention is paid to characteristic differences between Lithuanian and English language/culture (how could it be otherwise?), the library funds at the disposal of the EPD are not worth mentioning, the internal content-structure of the MAAEL is seriously deficient, as argued at length above, and the program’s good graduate employment figures do Studijų kokybės vertinimo centras 15

not neutralize these objections, since the Lithuanian labour market seems at present quite favorable and in fact probably ready to absorb almost any English-language specialist that universities may turn out.

What are definite strengths, in our view, are: 1) the favorable ratio of students/per teacher; 2) the good balance of theoretical teaching and practical application throughout (although both students and graduates demand less “theory” and more “practical” teaching!); 3) a sensible and conscientious implementation of teaching; 4) the level of English language competence and, on the whole, the quality of the MA theses students write; 5) the ambitious academic attitude and obvious dedication of the EPD teachers; 6) the supply, selection procedure, and resulting quality, of students; and 7) the fact that graduates are generally satisfied with the way they have been trained, and local employers (although mostly in the teaching sector, not in translation bureaus) seem also very satisfied with the services of former graduates.

On the other hand, the weaknesses identified by the self-assessment team seem real enough, although not imputable to the staff, who seem to be doing their best to overcome them, e.g., the fact that students have no significant access yet to external training in real life circumstances (SAR, paragraph 40), or the fact that the students’ knowledge of a second foreign language is completely wasted (a second foreign language, of course, is one of the key features the European Master in Translation guidelines document strongly recommends) (SAR, paragraph 41), or, even more damagingly, its lack of any significant training in interpreting (even consecutive), a major and long-standing deficiency that can at this stage hardly be imputed to insufficient financial aid to install half a dozen interpreting booths.

However, the real weakness of the MAAEL is much deeper, in its hybrid and questionable content, as argued in 3.2.3.1 above, and the reason seems understandable in retrospect: It started (long ago, in 1993) as a hybrid Applied Linguistics + Literature MA with the ambition of developing into a translator-training program under a misleading broader denomination, but did so from a broadly “philological” background and with staff who had always worked, and have since mostly continued to work, on various philological areas, but not really translation, or even contrastive lexicology and stylistics, to any significant extent (although, according to the staff, they are increasingly trying to); then, at various stages, the EPD’s MA was an MA in literature, split in two MA’s (Applied Linguistics, Literature and Culture), and eventually the Literature & Culture MA has not been able to attract as many students as the MAAEL and has been suspended, but, crucially, the MAAEL has never concentrated enough on translation studies and remains hybrid. Furthermore, as argued above, the EPD has unwisely fragmented the translator-training task into too many small, introductory, and easily overlapping (hence: partly redundant) courses, and granted all of them equal academic weight, instead of carefully identifying the gist of a translator’s competence and designing just a few, but much more substantial subjects, e.g., translation theory, lexical semantics, comparative stylistics and lexicology, key ESP courses, massive practical translation subjects,… without forgetting proper attention to the Lithuanian language and intensive advanced language courses to achieve high-level proficiency in the translator’s second foreign language. As a result, the net added academic and professional value of most courses in the program with respect to their approximate B.A. level predecessors is small, it seems, students detect considerable overlaps, theoretical topics presented in summary, rather introductory, and therefore non-functional ways (at this stage) take up a lot of the teaching possible in 4-credit modules, and students do not really get the “real thing” they probably are looking for, i.e., proper training as reliable, professional-level, translators and interpreters. Of course, the (relatively) extensive, rather than intensive, training achieved is still suitable enough for the Lithuanian job market, so it seems, and the misplaced emphasis on “research” does no real harm when MAAEL graduates eventually start Ph.D. work or become language teachers or even university lecturers in philological departments, but that simply indicates that the external demands on a “hybrid” multipurpose MA degree are less pressing than those on a translator-training one.

4. Material conditions

The material conditions under which the teaching/research proceeds are described in the SAR as sufficient in all respects (buildings, seminar room, classrooms, number of seats, audio-visual technology, computer facilities, library resources, internet access, computer technicians, etc.), and the teaching staff declare themselves comfortably equipped for their work. Nevertheless, in our view, the library is not particularly well endowed as to modern textbooks and reference works and is definitely weak for research purposes (e.g., as to journals), and the conditions in what concerns staff offices and computer equipment


are clearly inferior to what is usual elsewhere in the EU (e.g., teachers here do not have personal offices, the number of PCs and printers available to the EPD is very small in comparison with that in other universities, etc.). Of course, any experienced academic cannot but agree that a surplus of hi-tech need not lead to a proportional increase in the quality of teaching or research, it does not, so such numbers mean little in themselves. On the other hand, assuming MAAEL is what it claims to be, in one respect, at least, there is an obvious equipment deficiency that the SAR acknowledges, i.e., the unavailability of fully equipped interpreting booths, which should play an indispensable role in the teaching of a translator-training program like this, is perhaps responsible for one of the program’s obvious shortcomings, its lack of attention to interpreting skills.

5. External relations

In general, the MAAEL, as inserted in VMU’s EPD’s general teaching and research strategy, seems to be cooperating smoothly with the various BA and MA programs in Vilnius and Siauliai in what concerns facilitating migration of students and opportunities to let them complete their study plans and adjust them to their special needs, although no details have been made available to us as regards how this MA specifically relates to Vilnius University’s highly relevant parallel MA level Translation Program except that occasionally VMU students apply for admittance to it. As to the level of participation of the department and in particular the MA’s teaching staff in European mobility programs (Erasmus, Leonardo da Vinci, visiting scholar schemes) academic societies, exchanges with European universities (especially Bergen), it is quite satisfactory by any standards. The program/EPD also maintains regular relations with various other international organizations, including particularly relevant contacts with the EU translation-oriented institutions (DGT, the EMT project), as well as institutional contacts with the British Council, the USA Embassy and the Embassy of Canada, etc., so, in this respect, everything seems to be being very well done. However, at the BA level, external exchanges might improve, as the EPD has not yet succeeded, apparently, at sending students to HEIs in the UK or the USA.

6. Feedback

According to the data facilitated in the SAR (section 5), the EPD is doing all they reasonably can to maintain sustained contacts and exchanges with employers, public organizations, teachers, schools, companies, and other institutions and former graduates, as well as current students, in order to tune-up the MA program to the needs of the country and the expectations of employers and students. In what concerns the students’ opinion, questionnaires passed during the period 2004-2007 have apparently constituted the main source of evidence, although those questionnaires have not been facilitated to us in an English translation, and we have not really had access to the statistics of the survey carried out upon the MA students, either, but just to the brief summary and interpretation offered in the SAR (section 5, points 88-89), which does not properly separate the results for the BA and the MA programs. It follows that we must take what the SAR says largely on faith. What the SAR declares is that students’ opinion is very positive on the whole, but it still acknowledges that a significant number denounced a certain lack of specialization, a poor balance of practical vs. theoretical work, and inadequate attention to the second language and further development of language skills, a diagnosis that seems to support our impressions above as to where and why the MAAEL fails and what the consequences must be on the students’ training, and the interviews held with students and graduates certainly support it, too, although the level of satisfaction is high, on the whole. So it is, indeed as regards the BA students, who did not report any problems at finding jobs or continuing their studies at the MA level.

7. Internal assurance of study quality


To judge from the concise account included in this respect in section 6 of the SAR, the EPD has been regularly following up the results of the program in all relevant respects, and updating its content, organization, and teaching practice in accordance with the most recent EC tendencies and the Lithuanian government’s, as well as VMU’s internal, policies and regulations, so, in principle, we have no reason to doubt that due precautions have steadily been taken, and continue to be taken, to monitor the program and adjust it to all relevant social and legislative output constraints applicable to the case. However, the procedures to obtain and process feedback from all parties involved could and should be improved, (significantly, BA students had not been informed as to the content of the SAR, apparently matters are not openly discussed with those students, and as a consequence they do not take self-evaluation too seriously) and the EPD should do well in fostering systematic in depth internal discussion of the MAAEL.

8. General assessment of programs within the study field8.1. Recommendations to the higher education institutionWe understand that the EPD must adjust to VMU and Lithuanian laws and regulations and may not be free to implement some of the changes here suggested, but that does not make the changes any less recommendable, in our view, so let it be understood that we address our recommendations to the EPD, the Faculty, VMU, or even the Lithuanian Ministry of Education, as the case may be, i.e., “to whoever is concerned that has the power to improve what can be improved.” Having said that, our suggestions, in tune with what has already been said above, are the following:

A) As to the B.A. in English Philology

1. A revision of the aims of the program is needed to make more clear the relevance of the program for developing student’s competences and the needs of the labour market.2. Some of the course descriptions, titles, and logical interdependence should be revised.3. There are few possibilities for teachers and students to take courses in English speaking countries.4. More funds are needed to be able to buy books and to subscribe to journals. 5. All course-books should be in the library in enough copies.6. Money should be allotted for purchasing a larger number of scholarly books and journals to the library. 7. This would be a prerequisite for improving the level of some courses.8. Teachers need offices in order to have adequate facilities for individual guidance of students, and the conduct of personal research.9. The possibilities of student exchange programs could be enlarged, and students should be stimulated more to use the possibilities.10. Strengthen contacts with other Lit. universities to better define program profile, facilitate student mobility within Lithuania.11. Reinforce internal quality assurance measures. 12. Workload and resource allocation mechanisms need to take into account the full range of obligations that modern teachers have-for high quality teaching, active research, and effective administration. 13. Information package should be improved (website of the dept/transparent presentation/description of the program on the Internet) in order to attract more students.14. More attention should be paid to the facilities for disabled students.

B) As to the M.A. in Applied English Linguistics

1. Reconsider the name, focus (and, obviously, content) of the program.2. Consider merging the two MA programs the EPD has historically had into a strong hybrid one.3. Let the “linguistic” side predominate; that is what students, graduates and employers prefer.4. Depending on name and focus of revised program, rethink selection of courses and course content.


5. Eliminate the overlaps detected between BA and MA subjects, as well as between MA subjects.6. Minimize the general university subjects as much as legally possible; students complain they do not allow them to concentrate on English as much as they need and want to.7. If the MA program survives under its current name “Applied Linguistics”, revise academic content to attend areas of “applied linguistics” as yet unattended.8. In any case, the ELT component should be strengthened, in view of the kind of jobs graduates get.9. If an applied focus wins, feedback suggests even more concentration on practical skills.10. Further training should be provided in the students’ second foreign language.11. An effort should be made to implement an external practice system.12. Of course, if the surviving profile were translation, adequate booths and equipment must be installed. 13. More native speakers should be permanently hired as English teachers in the EPD.14. Give priority to investment in books and journals. The number of copies of recommended books available to students is insufficient, and the current library funds are inadequate for research purposes.15. Systematize and publicize results of feedback (students’ questionnaires, opinion of graduates, etc.)


8.2. Proposal on accreditation

Vytautas Magnus University :

university undergraduate study programme English philology (state code 61204H154) is given Full Accreditation.

Master’s study programme Applied English linguistics (state code 61204H102) is given Conditional Accreditation.

Head of the group: ……………………...... prof. Wolfgang Kühlwein

Members: …………………………..… prof. Karin Aijmer

prof. Jose Luis Gonzalez Escribano

prof. Jacek Fisiak

prof. Matti Rissanen

prof. Danica Škara

doc. dr. Jolita Šliogerienė


Appendix

Report on the M.A. in English Culture and Literature

1. Introduction

In addition to the MA programme in Applied Linguistics the department of English Philology has the MA programme Culture and Literature. The programme was registered in 1993 and improved and updated in 2003. The study programme in its present form was last carried out between 2002 and 2004. Between 2004 and 2005 the admission of students to this programme was only permitted for non-state funded studies. We understand that the programme was abandoned for administrative reasons rather than because of the lack of interested candidates. However it seems that the MA programme in Applied Linguistics has always attracted more candidates because of its translation component. On our visit to the department on 21 February 2008 we had been told that the programme would not be assessed. The present report is therefore based on the self-assessment document and does not discuss accreditation.

2. Aims and objectives of the study programme

The programme was established in response to a need for qualified specialists with a knowledge of the cultures and literatures of different countries (including English-speaking countries (England, the US, Canada, etc). Another factor was the need to make philological studies more multidisciplinary because of the changing labour market which demands more knowledge of the cultural context of English-speaking countries. It was envisaged that the graduates could work in higher educational institutions or in specialized secondary schools. However the programme does not give qualification as a teacher. Students who want a pedagogical specialization would therefore have to acquire this during a one-year programme at the faculty of social sciences. Other academic careers are for instance business companies, tourism agencies and translation bureaus.

An additional purpose of the programme is to train students for doctoral studies. The committee would encourage a programme with a specialization on literature and culture which could be an important springboard to higher studies on the doctoral level. Moreover such a programme would be an important complement to other MA programmes which are mainly philological.

3. Analysis of the programme

3.1 Structure, content and study methods of the programme

The programme consists of a total of 80 credits and has a duration of two years. In order to complete the course seven compulsory and five elective courses have to be taken. The programme has many positive features. At the end of the fourth semester the final thesis is written. We appreciate for example that it covers the spread of English in a globalization perspective. However the fact that the programme is oriented to both literature and language presents problems. Moreover some of the language courses are compulsory for instance Cognitive linguistics and Modern semantic theories which is questionable. The combination of literature and language courses achieves a broad competence which might be useful for a specialist in English but is problematic because the courses have little to do with each other and the result may be only a superficial coverage of the topics. The language courses are generally well designed and interesting in themselves (eg the courses in functional linguistics and new trends in sociolinguistics) but it is not made clear how they are relevant to the general theme of literature and culture. The course on new theories of English language learning or on news media are other signs that the programme lacks a clear profile and cannot be reinstituted in its present form.

3.2.Execution of studies and support to students

The teaching and learning resources are sufficient according to the self-assessment report.


Students can borrow books from the library or from one of the reading rooms. It would be preferable to have all the books collected in one place. However we found that there is a shortage of books in the library for real research and we saw only a few scientific journals.

3.3 Variation in the number of students

The programme has not been carried out since 2003.

3.4 Teaching staff

The programme is mainly carried out by the staff of the English Philology Department. The qualifications of the staff are satisfactory. The staff members are active researchers who give papers at conferences.

4. Summarising the programme and recommendations for the future

This is in many ways an excellent programme and from what we understood at our visit there is a great demand for courses which have a large literary component. We agree that graduates with a literary specialization are needed in educational institutions. On the other hand, courses such as functional linguistics, cognitive linguistics, new trends in sociolinguistics fit better into the applied linguistics programme. According to the evaluators the combination of literary and linguistic courses in a single programme is not solved in a satisfactory way and should be abandoned. Another question which necessarily comes up is whether there is room for two MA programmes at the same department. We are positive to a programme with a strong literary component but would recommend the institution to cooperate with other institutions in establishing such a programme.


Documents

VMU Final Report - Studijų kokybės vertinimo centraspluto.skvc.lt/_layouts/ListAttachment.aspx?Attachment... · Web viewJolita Butkiene (ISM University of Management and Economics),