Assuring the mastery of English by academic staff at the University of Groningen by SOG Secretaris

Assuring the mastery of English by academic staff at the University of Groningen By means of integrating English evaluation in the cycle of quality assurance and HR-policy

SOG faction 2013-2014 January 2014

Studentenorganisatie Groningen Sint Walburgstraat 22b 9712 HX Groningen www.studentenorganisatie.nl fractie@studentenorganisatie.nl Â

Table of Contents Introduction 1. Identifying the current situation 1.1 Identifying the problem 1.2 Importance of the problem 1.3 Existing policy up till now 1.4 Current situation at several faculties 1.5 NVAO demands for the DQFI label 2. A comparative study: language policy at the Erasmus University Rotterdam (EUR) 3. What should change? Our recommendations 3.1 Deeper integration of English in HR Policy 3.2 The Three-years Test 3.3 English in the cycle of Quality Assurance Conclusion Appendix A: Policy Document RUG concerning English levels dated 2004-2005 Appendix B: Taalmatrix Erasmus University Rotterdam

2 Â Â

Introduction The University of Groningen (UoG) has always been an international University: when it was founded in 1614 already a large part of its staff and students came from outside the Netherlands. Since then 400 years have passed and in our opinion it can be said that the UoG has an international environment nowadays with its percentage of 12,1% international students on the total student population1 and 18,2% scientific staff from abroad.2 The board of the UoG is of the opinion that this international environment should be institutionalized within the whole university. Its aim is to acquire the Distinctive Quality Feature Internationalization (DQFI) label from the NVAO in 2017. The University has set its aims high, and therefore there is work to be done now. One of the first steps is to write a strategic plan for internationalization which is worked on and to be finished in 2014. In addition, further integration of internationalization is needed in the strategic plan of the UoG of 2015. In order to redefine the UoG vision on internationalization, it has been stated in several policy documents (for example the UR 6.3 138 Faculty plans and meetings about internationalization) that all relevant policies and regulations will be screened. This will include HR policy with UTQ (BKO), language policy and learning / teaching policy. This policy proposal by SOG aims to advise the Board and Bureau of the University to implement changes regarding language policy in a certain way. According to the NVAO (August 2013) the internationalization policy at the RUG is in a phase of transition and moreover should be more clearly related to the quality of education and research. However, the committee is pleased to notice that the focus of internationalization is changing more towards intercultural and didactical competences, in which the Project International Classroom is playing an enhancing role.3 Still the committee is of the opinion that more attention should be paid to the preconditions for internationalization, among which the mastery of English by staff is an important one, and does not get the necessary attention it deserves.4 With this in our minds SOG is of the opinion that changes are needed since the general opinion among international and Dutch students is that at times the English of teachers is unsatisfactory. Fortunately, this is definitely not always the case: the University also has great English speakers among its staff. According to the International Student Barometer and the Nationale Studenten Enquête, the English of teaching staff is generally given a 3,3 out of 5, which is higher than just sufficient but cannot be qualified as ‘good’ either. In addition there are clear discrepancies in policies of the mastery of English by academic staff among several faculties which have serious consequences for students. If the UoG wants to be a real international university, streamlining these policies in such a way to be able to guarantee high levels of English by staff at all times, is of utmost importance. The solutions brought by SOG to solve the existing discrepancies in policies concerning the mastery of English by academic staff of UoG appear at the right moment. If the DGFI label is still a goal for the UoG, a clear UoG policy on English levels is needed before the committee will visit. We propose to pay more attention to English in the process of hiring new staff and integrate the evaluation of English better in the quality assurance cycle. SOG faction of the University Council ’13-‘14 1

Analyse inschrijvingen (0.5 O&O 077) RUG Jaarverslag 2012. 3 NVAO, Instellingstoets Kwaliteitszorg Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, 2013, pag. 20. 4 NVAO, Instellingstoets Kwaliteitszorg Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, 2013, pag. 16. 2

1. Identifying the current situation 1.1 Identifying the problem: unregulated English level evaluations results in huge discrepancies among teachers When teaching and becoming a ‘guide’ for someone through his professional development, the method and the way the information is delivered is essential in the understanding process. In most areas a certain level of knowledge and experience is required of the academic staff with regard to the entry process for a position. For instance, if a certain staff-member is willing to teach in a certain field, he must have already proven that he has a specialization in that domain and even a PhD or some other kind of professional experience. It follows from here that each particular course has its own requirements for the teaching staff. However, some programs have common characteristics, such as a high level of English for all the English Bachelors and Masters within UoG. All these requirements are necessary and of a high importance in order to guarantee the excellent education the UoG is aiming to provide for each and every program it offers. Therefore, since the English level is a common requirement for all English teaching staff, we are of the opinion that the University of Groningen should establish a common regulation or framework for the English level the academic staff needs to obtain in order to be allowed to teach courses and seminars. Currently, the manner in which each faculty is deciding the ‘sufficient’ level of English and the ‘sufficient’ assessment process of the English level of its own staff varies greatly. Some faculties test their staff every 3 years, some every 10 years while others only evaluate their courses. We believe that all students must be guaranteed the same high quality of English teachers. It is unacceptable that for completely English programs students’ level of English is being tested during the admission process, and they are asked to prove their C1 level by an English certification, but there is no such requirement for their professors. We believe that it is strange that a professor is allowed to teach just by proving his language skills via an oral presentation (at most!) or by showing his resume. A C1 level of English should be the common requirement in all the English taught programs. This current situation leads to discrepancies between academic staff and consequently to different qualities of teaching for students.

1.2 Importance of the problem The core of this ongoing problem is that the UoG cannot always guarantee a proper level of English of academic staff, since there exists no proper framework of rules for this. As a consequence, this has repercussions on the courses taught. The fact that staff is not tested or required to prove a certain level of English when hired as teaching staff within UoG, might lead to a situation in which a professor is unable to deliver a clear lecture (both in the way the lecture is orally presented and in the way the power point slides are written) to the students and accordingly they cannot benefit from the course at its absolute capacities. Of course, this is not necessary a problem every year, or in every course, but it is enough to have one situation which could disadvantage hundreds of students. The UoG cannot afford such a situation when aiming to be a real international university. It should be avoided at all times to allow such a situation to occur; therefore a framework should be established. On the other hand, the students might have difficulties in understanding a strong accent or in combination with a too high speed due to the different background of professors. Therefore, all 4

teaching staff needs to be in line with the “international English” requirements. Every teacher needs to make himself clearly understood by the students and the different backgrounds should not minder the quality of the courses. An insufficient level of English creates repulsion for courses and hinders the attendance to the lectures. Moreover, the fact that the English level is not at the required standard, respectively C1, has in some programs more detrimental implications than in others. For example for a law student every small detail with regard to the language is of high importance in order to be able to comprehend the content of the lessons. For the exact sciences maybe a higher level of English might not matter as much. However, students should not be discriminated, and they all should be offered the same possibility to benefit from a high quality course, in regards to the language aspects as well. The high level English issue does not only apply to courses, but also to the way exam questions are being phrased. It is unfair for students to suffer bad exam results due to the fact that they were not able to comprehend every small detail of the questions. The way exams are formulated should not leave any room for questioning the meaning of a sentence as a result of the language mistakes and inconsistencies made by the academic staff. We understand that general didactical skills are of great importance here as well, but we believe that the faculties should be able to make choices relating to this themselves, since these can be more field specific.

1.3 Existing Policies up till now SOG was able to find only one official policy document concerning this topic, which was written in 2004 (see Appendix). Back at the time, there was only one English bachelor and the topic mostly concerned staff that taught in master programmes. The policy document creates a directive for the level of English, which is set at B2/C1 based on the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR). This directive counts for all staff at the whole university that is involved in providing education in English. For other staff members (not providing education) the faculty themselves can set the standard. The Board of the University allows faculties to ask for a higher level of English but it can never be lower than B2/C1. The Board has several tangible advices: -

the level of English of all staff members that are providing education in English should be surveyed; If the staff member does not possess the level of the directive (B2/C1) a personal education plan should be made, to improve the mastery of English. If improvement does not happen within a certain time period, the staff member should be excluded from teaching in English; judging whether staff members have the preferred English level should be done by the Language center.

In addition of these demands made by the Board of the University, money was provided to facilitate this process which could be used until 2007. Unfortunately, it is hard to verify whether every faculty used the budget available to test all their staff. We have strong assumptions though that most of the faculties did not use it to the extent that they tested all their staff, since the persons we spoke to at the faculties (see 1.4 Current situation at faculties) confirmed this, except for the Faculty of Economics and Business who tested all their staff. In general, we support the nature of this document. However, we believe it is outdated and not stuck to 5

by the faculties. It is seen as a Directive and not more than that: a lot of faculties have not been actively implementing this policy, and are also not seeing the B2/C1 level as compulsory.

1.4 Current situation at several faculties To get a good image of the present situation at several faculties, we asked five faculties (FWN, FEB, FRG, GMW, FdL), often in the person of the education directors, the same questions: 1. Is the English level of academic staff taken into account in course evaluations (in case of an English course)? How often does evaluation take place? 2. What happens after a professor has scored low on English? Which measures are taken? 3. How often do professors actually go to the Language Centre to improve their language skills? 4. What is the procedure of hiring new staff regarding English? Generally speaking we can say that the existing policies at the faculties differ: some are stricter than others, some evaluate more often than others, some force language courses while others claim they cannot force anyone to take a language course. There is one outstanding similarity though: at no faculty policies regarding English levels of academic staff have priority or are seen as important at the least. It is odd that the policies differ to such a great extent among different faculties, since there is a (although outdated) language policy. It is also remarkable that no faculty has special HR conditions for jobs that include teaching in English. Faculty of Mathematical and Natural Sciences At the Faculty of Mathematical and Natural Sciences (FWN) recent developments concerning internationalization have taken place: 10 bachelors have been translated into English to attract more international students. The SOG has been surprised by the fact that most professors that had to switch to English were not accompanied in any way in this process. It was assumed that their English was good enough (since they publish in English) and no further action was needed. The faculty board planned to look closely at the evaluation of the courses of the newly translated bachelor after they have been given, instead of investigating the level of English before the start of the new programmes. In general, the staff climate at FWN is very international which could have been one of the reasons for the above mentioned argumentation. However, the SOG believes that when in the future bachelors are switched to English, more accompaniment relating to English is needed since talking over lunch in English or writing an article in English is not the same as teaching in English. A good level of academic English is what is actually needed. In general at FWN, language skills are taken into account when evaluating courses. Courses that are evaluated are: first-year courses, new courses and courses that have been evaluated negatively the previous year. When a course is in English, the level of the professor in English is taken into account. The other courses are evaluated every three years. The results of these evaluations are send to the programme committee. When a defined amount of insufficiencies are noted, a letter is written to the Graduate or the Undergraduate School of Sciences. As a consequence, the staff member concerned has to write a so-called improvement-plan and a meeting will take place with the Director of the programme-board. We suppose that if the English level of the staff member is the only insufficiency, not much action will be taken since there needs to be a defined amount of insufficiencies (every programme committee defines the amount themselves). Another problem at FWN is that even though a meeting takes places with the Programme director, the faculty states it cannot force the staff member to take a language course, but only recommend it strongly. The faculty does not possess any figures on how often staff members actually take a language course. If academic staff does take a course, the faculty pays for it (since there is a budget assigned for this). 6 Â Â

Concerning the HR hiring policies at FWN, the faculty is again somewhat different than others. At FWN almost exclusively (according to the Faculty Board) Tenure Track scientists are hired. In this selection process English plays an important role and at times presentations in English have to be held. Although the Tenure Track system pays close attention to English and a presentation in English is one of the means of testing an applicant’s English, we do also recognize the importance of proving English test results or otherwise taking a test. This is not part of selection or hiring procedures at FWN. Faculty of Economics and Business At the Faculty of Economics and Business, the largest faculty of the UoG, the majority of the programmes is taught in English. The quality assurance system concerning English is set up systematically. In 2004 all staff that taught in English, was not a native-speaker and had not taught at an Anglican university was forced to take a language test. Out of the 118 academic staff-members who took the test (which concerned Language level B2), 80 did not pass and had to take a course at the UoG language center, paid by the faculty. After the success of this policy, the Faculty Board decided that the same would count for all supporting staff (not-academic) as well. Therefore almost all supporting staff took an English language course as well. This has cost quite some money but the results pay off, according to Education Director Dr. Praagman. Although it is admirable that these tests have been executed among all staff, this has been almost ten years ago. We believe it would be good to test every three years, maybe according to the model of the Law faculty, see below. At the FEB every single course is evaluated and English is always a component when the course is taught in English. When an academic staff-member scores low on English, a test has to be taken and if that is insufficient, a language course will be taken. A problem that was mentioned by the education director of the FEB was that the turnout of all course evaluations is desperately low: 25% of students taking part in a course evaluation is even considered high. The SOG has heard this problem more often at other faculties and is of the opinion that it weakens the quality assurance cycle. When hiring staff for positions that concern teaching in English, no special procedures are used, although experience in teaching in English is preferred. Faculty of Law At the Faculty of Law a much smaller amount of programmes is taught in English (compared to the FEB and FWN), which makes the evaluation of the English level and the action taken more manageable. We believe the Faculty of Law has in principle a good working quality assurance system concerning English skills of academic staff and can be seen as an example. All courses at the faculty are evaluated every three years, and when the course is in English it is part of the evaluation. When the evaluation demonstrates an insufficient English level, the staff-member needs to take a test at the language center. When this is insufficient as well, a language-course has to be taken. The faculty of law has also an additional instrument at work, which is recurring. Every three years all English-teaching staff needs to take a test, except when he /she: - has a certificate proving language level C1; - has taught at an English or American university for at least a year; - is a native speaker. If a staff member has scored low at a course evaluation he/she needs to take a test anyway, despite the fact they might meet any of the exceptions-criteria. If the test shows insufficient mastery of the English language (not obtaining C1) the staff member should take a language course, paid by the faculty. Three years ago this process has started for the first time and 10 staff-members had to take an English course. In the beginning of December this procedure will start again. When hiring new staff that is supposed to teach in English, an English presentation on a subject concerning his or her field of expertise should be held. In addition the resume of the applicant is 7

checked: relevant experience with English is important, but not necessary. There is no question for certificates (as is never the case at any faculty). Faculty of Behavioral Sciences The Faculty of Behavioral Sciences offers only one bachelor in English, namely Psychology. In addition there are other programmes that have English courses (although not the whole program is in English), for example sociology. The quality assurance system concerning English programmes is set out by the Faculty. After each block, courses are evaluated and English is supposed to be a component of this evaluation (this is not always the case). In addition the Faculty claims it is hard to determine which specific professor level the results reflect, since most of the courses have 2 or 3 lecturers. In case the course as a whole scored low as a result of the students assessment, the teaching staff is asked how they will deal with this problem. It can be stated that the faculty of Behavioral Sciences has a more soft and teacher-friendly approach: if a lecturer scored low, he will not be immediately send to take test and consequently a course, but they try to solve the problem with some kind of conciliation. The Faculty is considering if the problem was present in the past years as well, and decide if it is indeed an ‘emergency signal’ and then a test followed by a course will be strongly recommended. A general policy for evaluating the English level of the teaching staff was established five years ago and had a follow up last year, regardless of the initial desire to have the evaluation every year. The requirements of the policy were that every teaching staff needed to be tested at the Language Centre unless they had a proficiency English certificate (C1 level), are native speakers or have taught in an Anglican University before. Whether this has been implemented fully remains vague. With regards to the hiring procedure, the Faculty require the new employer to possess one of the above mentioned requirements, and if not, to take an English test at the Language Centre, but also this procedure is somehow neglected. At present 80% of the teaching staff meet those criteria or have been tested. The faculty is also confronted with a sort of reluctance from the side of the teaching staff, especially the elder ones, when asking for an English test. Five years ago when the main evaluation took place, three teachers scored below B1, and were consequently advised to take a test. Two of them did take it and the other one immediately quit his job. Of course the courses are being paid by the Faculty from the educational budget. As a final remark, the Faculty is offering the opportunity of testing their level of English every year, and yearly 4-5 staff members are attending courses, but as mentioned above, this soft policy is working as a strong enforcement mechanism. Regarding the testing methods for hiring new staff, at GMW there exist two: sending a video lecture to the Language Centre for assessment; or a face to face test at the Language Centre. Whether this really takes place with all jobs with English-teaching components remains vague. Faculty of Arts At the faculty of Arts courses are evaluated every three years, although the faculty is now part of a pilot of the new evaluation tool Blue, which will cause evaluation to happen more often. When courses are in English, the English level of the academic staff should be a component of the evaluation, although the Faculty Board is not sure this always happens. The general opinion at the faculty is that there are problems with the English levels and the evaluation system needs to be changed, especially because the amount of students that take part in the evaluations are desperately low.

1.5 NVAO demands for the DQFI label In addition to the above mentioned current state of affairs we’d like to point out that one of the five standards to obtain the DGFI label is called ‘staff’ which consists of three criteria: -‐ -‐ -‐

Staff composition: The composition of the staff (in quality and quantity) facilitates the achievement of the intended international and intercultural learning outcomes. International experience and competence: Staff members have sufficient international experience, intercultural competences and language skills. Services provided to staff: The services provided to the staff (e.g. training, facilities, staff exchanges) are in line with the staff composition and facilitate international experiences, intercultural competences and language skills. 5

In all of these three criteria we can notify the importance of academic staff with good language skills and the benefits of a well-working quality assurance cycle that also focuses on English levels of academic staff. Our report will present a good possibility of how to streamline this.

2. A comparative study: language policy at Erasmus University Rotterdam The Erasmus University Rotterdam has set a goal to become a complete bilingual university in 2018: all of its staff should speak some English and some Dutch. Academic staff should all obtain the C1 level in English, supporting staff or personnel with policy-related jobs should all at least speak some English. The University has created a ‘language- matrix’ that can be used to figure out what level of English is needed for non-academic staff (see Appendix B). To become completely bilingual, foreign staff also needs to be able to comprehend and speak some Dutch. Also for this a ‘language-matrix’ has been made. For academic staff the level of English is connected to the University Teaching Qualification (UTQ or BKO). One part of it is the specific teaching competences that need to be obtained, another part of it is the mastery of English at C1 level. Every new academic teacher or professor needs to obtain its UTQ and so will consequently need to obtain a C1 level of English. When the C1 level is not obtained, a language course is offered. Again, this counts for all academic staff. Language policy at the EUR is ambitious but clear goals have been set and an implementing policy has been made. We urge the UoG to do the same, albeit somewhat different.

3. What should change? Our three recommendations 3.1 Deeper integration of English in HR Policy First, SOG considers it highly important to have a common framework, instead of a directive, for English levels at the UoG. Especially since often students need to prove their English (C1 level), we believe that academic staff which is hired to teach at the UoG, should at least have C1 level and should also prove this. We propose that every new staff member that is supposed to teach in English needs to either: - be a native English speaker; - have a certificate proving C1 is obtained; - have experience at teaching at an Anglican University for at least a year. 5

NVAO, Framework for the Assessment of Internationalisation, 14 November 2011, pag. 9.

If a new staff member does not meet one of these criteria, a test should be made to prove the level of English. Since these tests do not take a lot of time it should not be seen as a burden or a lack of trust in the applicant, it should be seen as a custom that is part of the application procedure. If he/she scores insufficient, an English course needs to be taken prior to the start of the job in case. .We do not believe in the ‘oral presentation test’ since we, as students, know how one can prepare in advance in order to shine when is needed. This oral presentation is an insufficient method of assessing the English level of a professor. Therefore we encourage the Board to make an initial English test mandatory in the hiring process if the professor does not meet the three criteria set above and is supposed to teach in English. As our comparative study shows this already happens at the Erasmus University Rotterdam and still people apply for jobs there. We don’t think this will deter applicants at all. When the UoG would commence this process we believe that this would be a great start to be able to guarantee high levels of English by academic staff.

3.2 English in the cycle of Quality Assurance As described above every course and the professor teaching are evaluated by students, although it differs per faculty how often this happens. We have learned that a new UCO subcommittee will look into this, and is contemplating a system of RUG broad evaluation. We strongly recommend this. In addition, we are of the opinion that if a course is taught in English, the level of English should always be part of the evaluation, since too often this part is omitted. In this way we make English part of the quality assurance cycle. The level of English could also be added to ‘onderwijskwaliteitsverslagen’ and a topic of discussion at Bestuurlijke Overleggen when it is insufficient at a faculty. Right now, the English of academic staff is barely monitored, and not in a structural way. If the university aims to become a real international player in the field, it should be able to guarantee high levels of English, and we believe this solution is an important one to achieve these goals. In addition, when an academic-staff member scored low on his or her English during an evaluation, action should be taken. SOG suggests that a low score on English should always be followed by an English test. If the staff member scores insufficient, a language course should be taken. We are aware of the fact that at times the main problem does not need to be the language, but more general didactical shortcomings can be the problem. It is important that this is notified. When that has been the case the faculty should find appropriate solutions. Concerning the language test as a result of bad evaluations; we believe our teachers are enough capable and determined to work towards their professional improvement, in a way to avoid undesired consequences on students.

3.3 The Three-years Test In addition to the course evaluations, we feel an additional instrument is necessary since course evaluations are not taking place very often (although that differs per faculty) and the turnout percentages of students taking part in these evaluations are low. We have seen that the law faculty uses the “three-years-test” instrument. Every three years all English-teaching staff needs to take a test, except when he /she: - has a certificate proving language level C1; - has taught at an English or American university for a couple of years; - is a native speaker. 10

If a staff member has scored low at a course evaluation he/she needs to take a test anyways, despite the fact they might meet any of the exceptions-criteria. If the test shows insufficient mastery of the English language (not obtaining C1) the staff member should take a language course, paid by the faculty. We propose to implement this method of evaluation at the whole university. In this way the English evaluation is a recurring theme in addition to the course evaluations.

4. Conclusion To conclude, we believe that the University is on the right track regarding internationalization, and it is remarkable how much progress the UoG has made in the past years. However, attaining the DQFI label implies some more improvement in certain areas, and the English level of our teaching staff is definitely one of the important aspects. We recognize the fact that an inclusion of English levels in BKO 2.0 would be a big leap forward and could definitely be seen as a solution as well. If the UTQ/BKOI 2.0 would include an English requirement of C1 we would strongly encourage this. However, we also acknowledge the “prestatie afspraken” (performance agreements) and are afraid that this change of BKO/UTQ will not happen soon (probably after the deadline of performance agreements) and when it does happen the pressure of obtaining a BKO 2.0 will be lower since the performance agreement pressure is gone. Therefore we conclude that a BKO 2.0 with an English C1 requirement is recommended, but due to the present situation we still believe in the efficiency of our own suggestions which include structural changes. After a wide research in this domain we were able to observe the best practices and the less effective practices UoG’s faculties utilize, and to take bits of each best practice in order to create a draft framework with regards to English requirements. At our university the students are our clients and our promoters. We have to provide them with the best quality of teaching in order to satisfy them with their choice made, namely to develop themselves under the guidance of the UoG. On the other hand, the University wants to make them good ambassadors, in order to attract other bright minds, and good promotion is based on good quality offer. Therefore, SOG urges the Board to take this issue into consideration, and to draw an efficient and sustainable framework for the English level of teachers.

Appendix A Policy Document RUG 2004 ONDERWIJSTIMULERINGSFONDS: Toewijzing Scholing Engels Engelse taalvaardigheid: richtlijn Als uitgangspunt voor toewijzing houdt het College van Bestuur de RUG-richtlijn Engels aan, vastgesteld in overleg met en na instemming van de faculteiten. De richtlijn is als volgt: • een instellingsbreed minimumniveau voor alle RUG-docenten en andere personeelsleden die betrokken zijn bij Engelstalig onderwijs. Voor personeelsleden met een onderwijstaak/WP wordt het niveau gesteld op B2/C1 uit het Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR). Voor OBP stelt een faculteit een minimumniveau vast, afhankelijk van de functie en taken van de betrokkene; • mogelijkheid dat een faculteit en/of opleiding andere, meer eigen eisen stelt. In geen geval mogen die eisen lager zijn dan de RUG-richtlijn; • op den duur uitsluiting van het geven van onderwijs in het Engels voor personeelsleden die het minimumniveau Engels niet beheersen. Engelse taalvaardigheid: advies Het College van Bestuur adviseert faculteiten in dit professionaliseringsproces de volgende stappen te zetten: •

•

• •

van ieder personeelslid met een onderwijstaak of onderwijsondersteunende taak in het kader van een Engelstalige opleiding of opleidingen vaststellen op welk niveau het Engels wordt beheerst; (scholings-)traject vaststellen voor een (nieuw of zittend) personeelslid dat het niveau van de RUG-richtlijn niet beheerst, ten einde binnen een van te voren vastgelegde termijn dit niveau alsnog te halen; beoordelen en vaststellen van het niveau van het Engels overlaten aan professionals: bijvoorbeeld lecturers of andere terzake competente medewerkers van het Talencentrum/FdL; het vervolg en/of de gevolgen van de niveauvaststelling laten vallen onder de verantwoordelijkheid van de leidinggevende; consequenties laten volgen als niveauverbetering ook na scholing en training niet lukt. De betrokken medewerker kan in het uiterste geval op het vlak van zowel taken, beloning en/of aanstelling gevolgen ondervinden, indien de gewenste niveauverbetering als voorwaarde gesteld is.

Het beschikbare budget Voor de jaren 2004-2005 is 1.35 M€ beschikbaar in het Onderwijsstimuleringsfonds. De gelden zullen worden toegewezen op basis van aanvragen vanuit de faculteiten, waarbij het aantal internationale masters dat een faculteit verzorgt, leidend is. Hieronder volgt een indicatie van de gelden die kunnen worden aangevraagd: Faculteit

Aantal internationale opleidingen

k€

Bedrijfskunde/Economie

283

Filosofie

Letteren

377 12

PPSW

62.5

Rechten

126

Ruimtelijke Wetenschappen

62.5

Theologie

W&N

377

Uitgangspunten bij investeringen in Engelstalig Onderwijs Het gaat erom de beheersing van het Engels van het personeel dat betrokken is bij het verzorgen van de internationale opleidingen, aanzienlijk te verbeteren. De kosten die hiermee gemoeid zijn, zijn voor de RUG als geheel als volgt te ramen: • aantal betrokken medewerkers: bij de 42 internationale masteropleidingen en 1 internationale bacheloropleiding zijn globaal genomen 516 fte/personen betrokken; • aantal deficiënte medewerkers: op basis van de ervaring bij de Faculteiten der Economische Wetenschappen en Bedrijfskunde wordt verwacht dat ongeveer 40% / 207 personen deficiënt zullen zijn, waarvan een zesde deel OBP (35 fte); • om het Engels 1 niveau hoger te brengen (de gemiddelde deficiëntie) is een inspanning van 200 uur (is gelijk aan: 0.125 fte) per persoon nodig; • kosten van de verbetering van de taalvaardigheid: docenten/WP 172 personen (0.125 fte X 55 k€/fte) 1.2 M€ ondersteunende staf/OBP 35 personen (0.125 fte X 35 k€/fte) 0.15 M€; • totale kosten: 1.35 M€; • de faculteit committeert zich om al het personeel dat betrokken is bij de internationale/Engelstalige opleidingen in staat te stellen om hun beheersing van het Engels op het door de faculteit aangegeven niveau te brengen; • in het verleden is door faculteiten regelmatig aangegeven dat het medewerkers niet ontbreekt aan wil en/of mogelijkheden tot scholing en dat er eveneens budget voor scholing beschkbaar is, maar dat – in het geval van een substantiële inspanning in (korte) tijd – het medewerkers ontbreekt aan tijd en ruimte binnen hun aanstelling, doordat scholingsbudgetten, bijvoorbeeld een Vorming&Opleidingsbudget niet voorziet of kan voorzien in vervanging; • op grond van het bovenstaande betekent het dat tijdelijke vervanging van personeel deel kan uitmaken van de declaratie van de faculteit. Procedure Vergoeding voor Engelstalig Onderwijs Een faculteit neemt in de declaratie het volgende op: 1 toetsing van het beginniveau: de nulmeting; 2 aantal te scholen medewerkers; verdeling tussen WP en OBP; 3 het te bereiken niveau, vast te stellen door de faculteit, maar compatibel met en niet lager dan het RUG-minimumniveau; 4 het aantoonbaar bereikte niveau, bijvoorbeeld in de vorm van certificaten/diploma’s; 5 opgave van de kosten: opgevoerd kunnen worden: - werkelijke kosten van instaptoetsen, cursussen, workshops en dergelijke; - kosten voor vervanging van personeel; 6 het College van Bestuur wijst toe op basis van een door de faculteit ingediende declaratie achteraf van de gemaakte kosten, tot een maximum van de intentionele toewijzing; 7 de middelen staan de faculteiten tot 1 januari 2007 ter beschikking: dit betekent dat in de jaren 2004, 2005 en 2006 intensief geschoold kan worden; 8 de faculteit rapporteert over de activiteiten en resultaten in het jaarverslag. 13

Appendix B Erasmus University Rotterdam ‘Taalmatrix”

Tweetaligheid De EUR wil in vijf jaar toegroeien naar volledige tweetaligheid in haar bedrijfsvoering. Daarom gaan de medewerkers bij de ondersteunende diensten hun kennis van de Engelse taal opfrissen. De internationale medewerkers bij de faculteiten worden gestimuleerd om Nederlands te leren. In de komende vijf jaar willen we medewerkers stimuleren om zich het Nederlandse of Engelse taalvaardigheidsniveau, dat passend is bij zijn of haar functie, eigen te maken. In november heeft het gehele niet-wetenschappelijk personeel (OBP) een brief met brochure ontvangen over dit voornemen. In de eerste helft van 2014 wordt voor alle medewerkers het huidige taalniveau vastgesteld, hetzij via eerder behaalde taalcertificaten, hetzij via een taaltest. Is het huidige taalniveau niet voldoende t.o.v. het gewenste taalniveau, dan wordt in overleg met de leidinggevende een scholingstraject vastgesteld. Het taalniveau per functie is af te lezen van de taalmatrix Hierbij wordt de uitdrukkelijke kanttekening gemaakt dat we medewerkers willen stimuleren en hun ontwikkeling willen faciliteren. Het is niet bedoeld als afrekeninstrument bij onvoldoende functioneren. Mocht u merken dat uw medewerkers dit toch op deze manier opvatten, wilt u dit misverstand dan spoedig wegnemen. Dit zou onnodig voor onrust kunnen zorgen. Het is afhankelijk van de functie (kerntaken, met daaraan gekoppeld de taalvaardigheden) welke taaleisen er gesteld worden. Medewerkers wier kerntaken liggen in het mondeling of schriftelijk communiceren (met studenten, collega’s of externe partijen) dienen taalvaardiger te zijn dan medewerkers in de back-offices wier kerntaken meer administratief ondersteunend van aard zijn. Daarnaast speelt de omgeving waarin een medewerker zijn functie uitoefent een belangrijke rol om te bepalen in hoeverre er een beroep wordt gedaan op de tweetalige vaardigheid. Taalvaardigheid Engels Om de functies binnen de EUR te kunnen koppelen aan een gewenst taalniveau zijn bovenstaande aspecten in een model verwerkt, de taalmatrix. Het verschil in onderstaande drie matrices wordt bepaald door de mate van “Engelstaligheid” van de omgeving, hetgeen bepaald wordt door de leidinggevende in samenspraak met de HR-adviseur. Indien er aan de functie zeer specifieke taaleisen worden gesteld, kan de leidinggevende, evt. op advies van de HR-adviseur, afwijken van de richtlijnen in de matrix.