《一家之言》之十：对我校全英（双语）教学的深度观察

《一家之言》之十

【写在前面的话】上世纪七十年代初，某种极为特殊的机缘巧合，一个十七、八岁的高中毕业生，经师范学校不到半年短暂的培训，就“赶鸭子上架”，走上了教师岗位。不曾想，这一干就是几十年。除开恢复高考后完成本科和研究生学业占去的时间，这一辈子都在以教书为业，先是教中学，后又教大学，也就算是个资深“教书匠”了吧。

岁月长河的流淌，昔日的“帅小伙儿”已在不经意间熬成了皓首老翁。虽不敢自诩“智叟”，然，浸淫三尺讲台数十载，对何为教育，如何教育等等也确有些许体会和感悟。拜多年养成的“爬格子”习惯之赐，也感谢计算机强大的存储功能，自上世纪九十年代以来，一位普通大学教师的所思、所想、所做、所为，大多都还能够得以回溯，重现。经再三踌躇，终于鼓足勇气，将自己的“一家之言”公之于众，盼能够求教于各位同仁，以搏一洒。如果真的能够给读者诸君一点点启迪、借鉴，实为幸之甚也！

需要特别说明的是，这些文字有些是多年以前曾经公开发表过的文章，有些是各类场合的发言、报告或会议论文。它们的成文，不可避免地要打上特定时空背景的烙印。但，既然是回溯、重现，那就还是要以尊重其初始状态为宜。故，呈现在读者案头的就只能是一些“未经修饰”的原稿了。用现在的语境加以判断，文中的观点极有可能已经“过时”，不合时宜，甚至难掩其谬，那也就只能如此将就则个了。                                                

周文贵

                                    2021年3月于南国商学院

对我校全英（双语）教学的深度观察[1]

学校“转设”在即，未来学校或许要有另一个名号，但“建设高水平民办大学”的初心不会改变。学校要在广东、华南，乃至全国的高等教学发展版图中牢牢地站稳一席之地，谋求长期可持续发展，仍然要一如既往地紧紧咬住外语特色不放松，实施差异化发展战略。从一定意义上看，当下以及未来一个可以预见的较长时期内，“南国之树”是否能够枝繁叶茂，全然要看“外语之根”扎得深不深，牢不牢。扎实推进全英（双语）教学，由此促使学校的外语学科优势向其他非外语学科延伸，实现外语学科同其他非外语学科的深度广泛融合，正是学校进一步擦亮办学品牌，凸显外语特色一个重要的现实抓手，体现着新时期学校外语特色的深化与升华。

《南国教学质量简报》今年第9期（总第26期）曾刊发《我校全英（双语）教学发展报告》。《报告》比较详细地展现了学校全英（双语）教学从无到有，从弱走强的发展历程。总而言之，学校秉持先进的全英（双语）教学理念，采取一系列有效的措施，大力推进全英（双语）教学，取得了突出的成绩，这是客观事实。但也还存在着明显的短板。这些短板将严重制约全英（双语）教学的全面推进与稳健发展，必须引起我们的高度重视。

从表现形式上看，学校当前推进全英（双语）教学遇着的短板一是全英（双语）教学的规模相对停滞、萎缩；二是全英（双语）教学师资队伍建设遭遇瓶颈，以致总体数量不足且对现有全英（双语）教师的使用效率严重偏低；三是基于多方面原因，全英（双语）教学课程本身的教学质量亟待提升。

然而，表现形式上的这些短板，实质上集中体现出对全英（双语）教学在当下学校深化教育教学改革，进一步锻造办学特色，擦亮办学品牌中的重大意义，以及对全英（双语）教学的教学理念、教学目标、教学手段在思想认识上的偏差。相比较而言，调整、校正思想认识上的偏差，才是真正至关重要的。

从战略层面看全英（双语）教学，其重要意义自不待言。但是，如若不能从战术层面，通过实事求是的深度观察，将全英（双语）教学的事情想深、想透、想穿、看明白，一旦到了教学活动的实际操作层面，全英（双语）教学说起来重要，做起来是不是也重要，也就很难说了。

首先遇到的问题一定是究竟要如何认知全英（双语）教学？

全英（双语）教学是指使用英语或主要使用英语作为工作语言讲授非外语学科专业课程的教学活动。由此可见，这里所涉及到的课程依然是属于非外语学科专业课程的范畴，只是授课语言采用英语或主要采用英语，而非汉语。这就决定了推行全英（双语）教学的目标具有双重性，其一是为了传授相关学科的专门知识；其二是培养和提高学生运用英语思考、研究、讨论、分析相关学科专业问题的能力，体现了外语教学向非外语学科领域的延伸以及二者之间的融合。

举两个近乎“极端”的特例。一个是“宁波诺丁汉大学”（浙江宁波），另一个是“北师大——香港浸会大学联合国际学院”（广东珠海）。这两所高校除开思想政治课和体育课以外，全部的专业课程都是用英语讲授。算是“完全彻底”的全英教学了。它们是如何做到的呢？当然有其特定的学校历史、背景和办学宗旨。说白了，它们是在近乎全面地移植英国诺丁汉大学和香港浸会大学的教学模式。用英语讲授专业课程在它们那里可以说是“天经地义”。不能用英语讲授专业课程的人士是不可能在那里谋得教职的。这就难怪它们的教师几乎全部是毕业于海外（主要是英、美等英语国家）高校的博士。在这样的两所大学经过本科阶段的修业，学生纯熟地使用英语讨论专业问题一般说来就自不在话下了。

由此可见，只要明确了全英（双语）教学课程的内涵，也就不存在这门课程是全英（双语）课程，那门课程不是全英（双语）课程的问题了。非外语学科的专业课程，只要教师的讲授全部使用英语或主要使用英语作为工作语言，加上能够满足学校《全英（双语）教学管理办法》规定的其他条件，这门课程就可以认定为全英（双语）课程。由此可以推定，从理论上说，只要各方面条件具备，任何一门非外语学科的专业课程都可以是全英（双语）课程，就像“宁波诺丁汉大学”和“北师大——香港浸会大学联合国际学院”那样。

当然，做任何事情都要遵循实事求是的原则，推进非外语学科专业课程的全英（双语）教学亦不能例外。“宁波诺丁汉大学”和“北师大——香港浸会大学联合国际学院”只是某种近乎“极端”的特例。从学校的实际出发，推进此项工作还必须对专业课程区别对待，分类指导，不可以“一刀切”。一般说来，构成某一学科基本架构基础理论的课程（以经济学科为例，如政治经济学、宏观经济学、微观经济学等）和某一学科的研习工具类课程（仍以经济学科为例，如高等数学、计量经济学、经济统计学、博弈论、时间序列分析等）还是应该用汉语讲深、讲透、讲明白，讲得学生掌握并懂得运用。其他专业课程则可以将授课语言逐步向使用英语过渡，直至达到完全使用英语授课的“理想状态”。

另外一个与之相关的问题是如何认识和处理全英（双语）教学课程同《学术英语》课程的关系。

《学术英语》课程同全英（双语）教学课程的侧重点不同。《学术英语》课程主要是为了让学生学习并掌握专业词汇、专业术语、专业性表述的英语表达方式，帮助学生建立以英语为载体的相关专业话语体系（Professional discourse system）。究其本质，《学术英语》课程是属于专业英语教学的范畴。而如前所述，全英（双语）是用英语讲授非外语学科的专业课程。所以《学术英语》课程和（全英）双语课程最明显的共同之处就是两者都兼具语言和专业性质，区别在于前者侧重于语言，后者侧重于专业。当然，全英（双语）课程和《学术英语》课程对教师的要求更高。授课教师一定要是某一学科领域里的“专业人士”，同时，授课教师的英语语言能力又必须达到相当的熟练程度。“纯英语教师”和“纯专业教师”都是难以胜任全英（双语）课程和《学术英语》课程教学工作的。

联想到“宁波诺丁汉大学”和“北师大——香港浸会大学联合国际学院”的办学实践，可以这样认为，在非外语学科普遍推进专业课程的全英（双语）教学和开出《学术英语》课程如果可以被称为是一个Program（项目）的话，那么，决定这个Program最终能否取得成功最重要因素是师资，是数量足够且符合任职条件的高水平师资。可以毫不夸张地认为，在解决了思想认识问题的前提下，师资队伍建设就是“纲”，“纲举才能目张”。

我校经多年努力，现已初步建立起了一支全英（双语）教学团队。这批教师均按照学校相关管理规定，完成了全英（双语）教师上岗前的专门培训，并通过了考核，取得了全英（双语）教师任职资格。这支队伍的水平是不是就一定很高了自不敢妄言，眼下最突出的问题在于两个方面。一是这支队伍的人数严重不足，力量还很单薄；二是对现有的已经获得资质的全英（双语）教师的使用效率严重偏低。

数据表明，截止到2021年10月，我校有已经取得任职资格的全英（双语）教师40人。其中，经济学院21人，管理学院10人，教育学院2人，旅游学院1人，信息学院1人，大英部1人，其他行政部门4人。

2021-2022年第1学期实际在教学一线上课的全英（双语）教师31人。已获资质的全英（双语）教师中，在教学第一线上课的只占77.5%，利用率也就四分之三多一点点。（详见下表）。

2021-2022第一学期全英（双语）教师任课情况

更应引起足够关注的是在教学第一线上课的这些全英（双语）教师，本学期共承担了68门课程的教学任务，其中可以归于全英（双语）教学的课程（含《学术英语》课程）29门。这就意味着，在教学第一线上课的全英（双语）教师的利用率只有42.6%。

这样算起来，本学期全校全英（双语）教师的总体利用率就低得没谱了，堪堪地刚到三分之一（77.5%×42.6% = 33%）！说是“触目惊心”应该不为过了。

基于以上情况，学校现有全英（双语）教学总体覆盖率指标也不太理想，或者说很低，而且呈现明显的下降趋势，同普遍认知学校办学的外语特色存在较大反差（详见下表）。

注：此表所载课程专指相关教学单位开出的专业课程，不含公共课。2019-2021年数据由教务处提供。

怎么办？

要扭转这样一种极不理想的状况，需要有针对性地从以下几个方面着力。

一是扫除在全英（双语）教学上思想认识方面的障碍。

首先，非外语教学单位，具体说来就是这些单位的主要领导，要进一步加深对推进全英（双语）教学在打造学校办学特色，增强学校的核心竞争力方面重大意义的认识，进而将推进全英（双语）教学纳入本单位深化教学改革的议事日程，确定工作指标，明确工作职责和工作任务。“脑子里要安上并拧紧这根弦”。

其次，在具体的教学工作安排上要对本单位全英（双语）教师进行“集约式使用”，鼓励他们充分发挥自身的优势（主要是专业水平与英语语言能力相结合的优势）开展全英（双语）教学，扩大本单位全英（双语）教学课程的覆盖面，坚决杜绝全英（双语）教师使用上的“浪费现象”，争取将全英（双语）教师的总体利用率从目前的33%大幅度地提高到70%。

再次，非外语教学单位要将教师发展同重点培养本单位全英（双语）教师有机结合起来，在本单位中青年教师中，从专业水平和英语语言能力两个方面，注意及时发现具备发展潜质的“好苗子”，组织鼓励这部分教师积极踊跃报名参加全英（双语）教师岗前培训，争取学校具有资质的全英（双语）教师人数能够“翻番”。

二是加强外引内培，争取不太长的时间内全英（双语）教师数量有比较明显的扩张。

在教师招聘上，应侧重引进具有“英语+专业”交叉学科背景或有海外学习工作背景的人才。基于我校培养应用型的人才而非学术型人才的定位，考虑到全英（双语）教学对教师素质能力的实际需求，在引进人才上除了考察应聘者各方面条件（包括学历、职称、学科方向、专业能力）以外，还要考察应聘者的外语能力（主要是英语语言能力）。当下尤其需要本着“不拘一格降人才”的思路，将引进、招聘的目光盯住从英、美等英语国家归国的一批年轻的硕士。这批年轻人的英语语言能力普遍较强，又具备相关学科专业性学习经历，只要经过相对较短时间培训，马上就能担任全英（双语）教学工作，基本上可以收到“即插即用”的效果。经过这样的人才引进和师资队伍建设，要让校园内有更多教师特别是专业课教师能够用英语进行交流。

除了做好人才“外引”工作，同时也要着力于内部培养，积极盘活校内人才存量。基于全英（双语）教师必须是相关学科的专业教师，同时又要求这些教师具备相当的英语语言能力，这些教师进行全英（双语）教学最大的障碍还是英语口头表达能力相对不足。因此，要有针对性地对专业课教师进行英语语言能力培训。这类培训可与大英部和英文学院合作，充分利用学校语言学科的优势资源，争取实现全校非外语学科专业课教师英语语言能力的普遍提升，为从中筛选培养扩大全英（双语）教师的数量奠定基础。

在加强内培方面，一项重要的工作就是要面向全校在编教师，主要是非外语教学单位英语语言能力相对较强的中青年教师，持续开展全英（双语）教师培训，进一步加强全英（双语）教学教师团队建设。按照既有工作安排，每学年开设一期全英（双语）教师培训班，每期培训教师10人以上，按照80%的合格率，每学年经培训考核新增全英（双语）教师8人左右。如此外引与内培相结合，再刨去教师正常流动的因素，2021-2025年期间，争取学校全英（双语）教师总量稳步增加到80人。

三是多管齐下，提高全英（双语）教师的教学水平与业务能力。

合格的全英（双语）教师不仅专业基础要厚实，英语语言能力也要达到能够熟练使用英语开展教学活动的程度，包括备课、编写教案讲义、课堂讲授和同学生的广泛交流。我校全英（双语）教师中，有一部分是在海外高校获得的专业学位。他们的英语语言能力较强。还有另一部分全英（双语）教师虽未曾出国留学工作，但他们同样具有扎实的专业背景，英语语言能力也很强。这样的两批教师构成我校现有全英（双语）教师的主体。这些教师的专业水平和英语语言能力基本能够满足全英（双语）课程的教学要求，他们所讲授课程的教学质量一般都能保障，学生的评价都能达到良好以上。

从具体情况分析，对多数全英（双语）教师来说，影响全英（双语）课程教学质量的主要因素一般不在专业知识，最大的困难还是英语口头表达能力，其次是授课技巧和课堂组织能力。所以需要加强针对全英（双语）教师的专门培训。

这些专门性、针对性培训主要包括学校层面开展的岗前培训、公开课、教学竞赛、全英（双语）教学工作坊等，也有学院内部开展的教研活动。一方面，可以邀请校内外的全英（双语）教学名师，重点就全英（双语）教师的教学技巧和课堂组织进行培训。另外，还要积极创造条件让全英（双语）教师有更多外出教研、培训、交流、学习的机会。

此外，还应落实学校现行管理规定中包括课程系数、教师评职晋升、相应课题申报等方面在内的关于全英（双语）教学的激励机制，稳定师资队伍。

最后，落到实锤，还是要努力提高全英（双语）课程本身的教学质量。全英（双语）课程上得好不好，请拿教学质量说话！

在教学安排上，极有必要调整《学术英语》课程的开出时间。鉴于全英（双语）课程同《学术英语》课程在课程性质和教学目标上的差异性和互通性，《学术英语》课程应该果断前移。这样可以为后期开出的（全英）双语专业课程教学做好铺垫和准备。通过修读《学术英语》课程，学生已经掌握了关键的专业词汇和专业术语的英语表达方式，初步构建起了以英语为载体的相关学科话语体系，全英（双语）课上教师便无需耗费时间再回过头去讨论基础概念等等，从而可以提高（全英）双语专业课教学的效率。在教学内容上，《学术英语》课程应侧重于语言教学，比如讲授并教会学生专业词汇、专门术语、专业问题论述的英语表达方式，训练学生初步用英语就一些简单的专业问题展开讨论的能力，就能促使《学术英语》更好地和（全英）双语教学相互对接，为（全英）双语教学扫清一些硬性障碍。

还要进一步落实全英（双语）教学的制度化、规范化运行。要坚持自2014年以来，每年举办一期全英（双语）教师培训班，每年召开一次全英（双语）教学研讨会，每学期举办两次全英（双语）教学公开课，不定期组织全英（双语）教学工作坊和全英（双语）教学竞赛的制度，在全英（双语）教师中形成比、学、赶、超，合作共进的工作氛围，促进全英（双语）教师努力钻研，潜心教学，改进教学方法，提升教学能力，提高教学质量。

尤其需要强调的是要加强全英（双语）全过程的教学规范。包括编制以课程教学大纲为核心的完备的教学文件，严格按照教学大纲组织教学活动，改革课程考核评分制度，贯彻以学生为本的教学理念，构建和谐的新型师生关系，打造全英（双语）教学“金课”等等。还要发动和组织“全英（双语）教学专家组”的专家和相关教学督导，持续开展对全英（双语）课程和《学术英语》课程的巡课督查，据此全面、准确地掌握全英（双语）课程和《学术英语》课程的教学状态，对教学过程中暴露出来的问题及时校正，保证全英（双语）课程和《学术英语》课程的教学质量稳步提升。

“思想认识不滑坡，办法总比困难多”。我校推进全英（双语）教学已经具备了相当的工作基础，现在需要做的就是进一步排除思想认识上的障碍，明确工作目标，捋清工作思路，夯实工作举措。这样就能真正打开推进全英（双语）教学工作新局面，将全英（双语）教学工作推上一个新台阶。

An Inside Look at English/bilingual-Teaching Professional Courses

Professor ZHOU Wengui

（November 11, 2021）

SCBC is facing Zhuanshe and it will probably have a new college name. However, its original intention of “building a high level privately-funded university” will never be changed. The college, in order to firmly secure a seat at the table in the overall development of higher-learning education in Guangdong, even in the South China area and the whole country and to win a long-run sustainable development, should closely peg on its foreign language characteristic and implement a differentiated development strategy. To some extent, at present and in a foreseeable long time to come, a tall and leafy Tree of Nanguo completely depends upon its root of foreign language striking deeply and firmly. Currently, implementing program of English/bilingual teaching professional courses is helpful to fully play its advantage in foreign language subject and promoting such advantages extending into the other non-foreign language academy. In this way SCBC can reach the deep and extensive integration between foreign language subject and the other non-foreign language academy. Therefore, this program functions just as a real important measure to highlight its foreign language characteristic and embodies intensification and distillation of such characteristic.

SCBC Teaching Quality Bulletin (No. 9, Vol. 2021, Serial No. 26) publishes Report of English/bilingual Teaching Professional Courses in SCBC. The report comprehensively displays development history of the program in SCBC that underwent a process from a zero basis and grew from weak to strong. In general, SCBC has actually made outstanding achievements in promoting the program by holding advanced English/bilingual teaching philosophy and by implementing some effective measurements. However, it is also true there are some obvious weaknesses which will seriously restrict a comprehensive promotion and a steady development of the program. We should put our attention on those weaknesses.

From perspective of expression and manifestation we see the three obvious weaknesses. Firstly, a relative stagnation and contraction in development of the program; secondly, a bottleneck in teaching staff construction which leads to an insufficient quantity and a low employment efficiency of qualified teaching staff; and thirdly, a relatively low teaching quality of those English/bilingual teaching courses because of a lot of reasons.

We should be clearly aware of that those weaknesses reflect the real existence of deviation in thought and understanding toward the important significance of the program in deepening teaching and education reform, in further forging teaching characteristic, and in shining teaching brand of SCBC, as well as deviation in thought and understanding toward teaching philosophy, teaching objectives and teaching methods of English/bilingual teaching professional courses. Comparatively speaking, it is real important to readjust and rectify such deviation in thought and understanding.

From strategic perspective it goes without saying that the program is of great importance. However, it is also important to have a deep and thorough analysis on how to actually promote the program from tactical perspective. Otherwise the importance of the program would be probably erased in practice of real teaching operation activities. That should be the situation of that it is important to say but not to do. No one likes to see that situation, I believe.

At the very beginning, people must have some sort of confusion about how to define the program, English/bilingual teaching professional courses.

That program refers to teaching operation of professional courses in non-foreign language majors in which English is taken as working language or the courses are delivered mostly in using English. For those courses there must dual teaching objectives. On one hand, the courses impart professional knowledge of specific discipline. On the other hand, by taking the courses, ability of students to think, to research, to discuss and to analyze professional issues and problems could be cultivated and improved. That embodies extension of foreign language into the other non-foreign language disciplines and represents their close integration.

Here are two extreme examples, University of Nottingham Ningbo, China (UNNC) and Beijing Normal University-Hong Kong Baptist University United International College (UIC). In those two universities all professional courses, not including political education courses and physical education course, are delivered in English. In other words, teaching professional courses completely in English is a conventional practice in those two universities.

How can they do it? It could be blamed on their specific historic tradition, background and teaching objectives. Putting it simply, they intend to completely copy and transplant teaching modes of their parents, University of Nottingham and Hong Kong Baptist University. In UNNC and UIC it is a natural arrangement to deliver courses by using English as working language. One cannot obtain status as an instructor there if he is not capable of doing that. It’s no wonder that their faculty members are almost got doctorial degree from universities in English-speaking countries. Students who finish undergraduate study and get bachelor degree in those two universities must have a strong ability to discuss professional issues in specific academy by using English as working language.

It follows that nobody can determine whether or not a professional course is English/bilingual teaching course. It is assumed that a professional course can meet specific stipulation stated in relevant regulation that course in non-foreign language major can be actually defined as English/bilingual teaching course as long as in course delivery the instructor uses or mostly uses English. That is just the case in UNNC and UIC.

Of course, principle of seeking truth from fact must be adhered in doing everything. To promote English/bilingual teaching professional courses cannot be an exception. UNNC and UIC are just the two extremes. Based on reality of SCBC in promotion of the program we should separately deal with different professional courses in non-foreign language majors. One-size-fit-all approach must be abandoned. In general, those core courses to construct basic theoretical structure of a specific discipline, such as political economy, microeconomics and macroeconomics and etc. in discipline of economics as well as those courses to help students of grasping approaches of study and research, such as mathematics, econometrics, statistics and etc., are inadaptable to deliver in English. Instead of that, instructors must deliver those courses by using our mother tongue, Chinese, deeply, clearly and precisely. Students should closely understand and grasp those principles and approaches and clearly know how to put them in practical utilization. In delivery of the other professional courses instructors are encouraged to use English or largely to use English.

Another related problem will be how to deal with relation between course of Academic English and English/bilingual teaching professional courses.

These two types of courses have different emphasis. Course of Academic English focuses on helping students preliminarily constructing Professional Discourse System of specific academy in English in terms of professional concepts and terminology as well as specific professional descriptions and expressions. In the essence, Academic English belongs to category of professional English teaching. Differently, English/bilingual teaching professional courses, just as the name implies, are professional courses in specific non-foreign language disciplines taking English or mostly taking English in course delivery. Therefore, the most obvious common feature of these two types of courses is that they are characterized both linguistic and professional. They differentiate from each other in different teaching emphasis. Course of Academic English focuses on language while English/bilingual teaching courses focus on profession. Of course, there are more rigid requirements to those instructors to deliver the two types of courses. They must be some sort of professional experts in specific discipline to have a strong ability of English language utilization. The so-called “Pure English or pure professional course teaching staff” is generally hard to be a qualified instructor of course of Academic English and English/bilingual teaching professional courses.

The practice of UNNC and UIC shows that enough qualified high-level instructors must be the decisive factor finally determining success or failure in promotion of the program of English/bilingual teaching professional courses in non-foreign language majors if such implementation could be termed as a program. It is no exaggeration to state that on the premise of sticking to an advanced ideological understanding teaching staff construction is the key link. Only when this key link is laid out is it possible to deal with the related matters easily and effectively.

After Years of hard work SCBC has preliminarilyconstructed a team of delivering English/bilingual teaching professional courses. Those instructors have taken part in the pre-job training program, passed the examination, and have got qualification to deliver English/bilingual teaching professional courses according to some management regulation. It goes without saying that for those instructors it must be a tough job in a relatively long time to steadily increase teaching quality and to improve teaching technique. However, we should be clearly aware of that the most remarkable two problems must be deeply understood and well dealt with. One is that this team is obviously too small. That means we have met a problem of insufficient quantity of English/bilingual teaching staff. Another problem is efficiency of utilization of those qualified instructors is terribly low.

Till October 2021 we have 40 qualified instructors, among them, 21 are in School of Economics, 10 in School of Management, 2 in School of Education, 1 in School of Tourism, 1 in School of Information Technology, and 5 in other teaching and administration departments.

Statistics show that 31 instructors really deliver courses. That means unification efficiency of qualified instructors is just 77.5%. Nearly 1/3 of them do not actually deliver courses. In addition in 68 courses delivered by those 31 qualified instructors only 29 could be categorized as English/bilingual teaching professional courses or course of Academic English. The unification efficiency of the qualified instructors in terms of course delivery is terribly at a very low level, 42.6%. Putting these two figures together we have the actual unification efficiency of the qualified instructors. It is unbelievably low. As low as 33%!

Based on the above-mentioned low utilization efficiency of qualified instructors we see dissatisfactory coverage of English/bilingual teaching professional courses in SCBC at present. That situation shows a big contrast between the current reality and the commonly recognized school-running characteristic of SCBC. In the past two years, covering 4 semesters from 2^nd term 2019-2020 to 1^st term 2021-2022, total rate of coverage of English/bilingual teaching professional courses was 25.2%, 15.3%, 18.0% and 11.6%, respectively. The average rate of courage was only 17.5%. Those figures show a decreasing tendency that must be closely focused.

What is the way out?

To reverse the above-mentioned dissatisfactory situation it is necessary to take the following targeted measures.

From perspective of non-foreign language schools and departments, above all, the most important thing is to remove impediment in ideological or cognitive understanding.

Non-foreign language schools and departments, especially Deans and Chairs, must further deepen their understanding and enhance their awareness of the program including its function and significance in forging SCBC’s education characteristic and in raising the core competence of the college. So that promotion of the program could be brought into working agenda of deepening teaching and education reform. Relevant performance indicators should be determined. Working responsibilities should be cleared. Working tasks should be defined. In one word, “a string of promoting the program should be placed and tightened in mind”.

In concrete teaching arrangement it is required to have an intensive utilization of the qualified instructors in order to encourage them to exercise English/bilingual teaching by fully playing their own advantage, especially advantage of integration of professional background and relatively higher English language communication ability, so that the course coverage in relevant schools and departments could be enlarged. It is also required to completely eradicate “waste phenomenon” in utilization of the qualified instructors aiming at increasing total rate of utilization obviously to 70% from the current 33%.

Non-foreign language schools and departments should integrate conventional teaching staff development with cultivating their own qualified instructors. To pay a close attention and to discover in time those young teaching fellows with comprehensive potential development, especial from the two dimensions, academic background and English Language ability, and to encourage those young staff actively participate pre-job training program, total number of qualified instructors can be doubled.

Focusing on increasing number of qualified instructors in a comparably short period, there are two tasks for us, introduction from outside sources and inside cultivation.

In teaching faculty introduction a priority should be put on those who have academic background of “English + professional discipline” or have personal experience studying and working in the overseas countries. Based on talent cultivation orientation of SCBC, to cultivate application-oriented but not academy-oriented talents, and considering real requirement of teaching ability of English/bilingual teaching instructors, in teaching faculty introduction it is necessary to examine English language ability of the applicants in addition to examine their academic background. At present it is especially necessary, by following a principle of discovering and accepting talents without retrain of predetermined style, to put our eyes on those young applicants who have got master degree from the US, the UK and other English speaking countries. Those young applicants usually have no problem in exercise English communication and have finished professional study in specific discipline. They can quickly be employed as English/bilingual teaching instructors after taking a short-time training program. To implement such kind of teaching staff introduction and construction it could be expected that more instructors, particularly professional course instructors can speak English on campus.

In addition to introduction from outside sources, the inside cultivation is also important via which the inside teaching staff stock, that means the existing teaching staff resource, can be fully and more effectively utilized.

Because of that the qualified instructors must be professional experts in specific discipline with considerable high ability to speak English the biggest obstacle to exercise English/bilingual teaching professional courses is surely English language ability. Therefore, it is necessary to have particular arrangement to implement English language training for professional teaching staff. Such sort of training program hosted by HR department will be of great helpful to generally raise English language ability of professional teaching staff since SCBC has an obvious advantage in English academy. School of English Language and Literature and Department of College English can provide sufficient support in such sort of English language training. More professional teaching staff can speak English makes it possible to choose and to cultivate more qualified instructors of English/bilingual teaching professional courses.

Another important task in terms of inside cultivation is to consistently organize special English/bilingual teaching training program particularly facing young and mid-aged teaching staff in order to further reinforce construction of team of qualified instructors. In accordance with existing working arrangement one pre-job training program is hosted each year, usually in the 2^nd semester. If we have 10 applicants in each training program and rate of qualification is 80%, we will have 8 newly trained qualified instructors every year. By combining outside introduction and inside cultivation in this mode, taking consideration of conventional movement of teaching staff, total amount of qualified instructors of English/bilingual teaching professional courses in SCBC, would be expected to increase to at least 80 in the coming 5 years.

It is decisive to improve teaching standard and professional proficiency of qualified instructors by taking multi-pronged approaches.

As we have repeatedly mentioned qualified instructors must be endowed with both a thick and solid academic background and enviable English language ability to finish course delivery and the whole teaching operation, including having class preparation, making PPT documents, preparing teaching reference materials, communicating with students, and etc.. Some of existing qualified instructors had got academic degree in universities of overseas countries. They can speak very good English. Some other instructors without experience to work and study in overseas countries can also speak good English. Those two groups make the main body of existing qualified instructors. Their academic background and English language ability are both good enough to make them possible to carry out English/bilingual teaching professional courses. Usually no one argue with teaching quality of their course delivery. Student evaluation is generally higher than the average.  

Based on a concrete analysis the most important obstacle for instructors to deliver English/bilingual professional courses does not come from their professional knowledge but from their ability of oral English communication and class organization. So some special targeted training for those instructors are needed, including pre-job training, open classes, teaching contest, English/bilingual teaching workshops, and etc. organized at the college level as well as the relevant teaching and research activities implemented in corresponding schools and departments. On one hand, some senior professors will be invited to display their teaching techniques and class management. On the other hand, more opportunities should be created for English/bilingual instructors to participate teaching research activities, particular training, professional exchanges, operation study, and etc. organized and hosted by some academic institutes. In addition specific incentive mechanisms and arrangements should be put into implementation, including course coefficient, faculty promotion, application of research program, and etc..

Finally and most importantly, teaching quality of the courses must be really raised! In one word, teaching quality of the courses is the final determinant criterion.

In class arrangement it is absolutely necessary to readjust curriculum. Because of diversity and interoperability of course of Academic English and English/bilingual teaching courses in terms of course characteristics and teaching objectives semester in which course of Academic English is presented should be forward placed. To have such adjustment necessary groundwork and preparation could be made for the following English/bilingual teaching professional courses. After taking course of Academic English students have mastered some key professional terminology and descriptions and thus have basically constructed an academic discourse system in English. That should be of great helpful for instructors to deliver English/bilingual teaching courses since they will not spend more class hours to have discussions of the basic concepts. That will greatly raise their teaching efficiency.

In terms of teaching content course of Academic English would put emphasis on language teaching, for instance to teach professional concepts, terminologies and specific descriptions in English. Students could receive preliminary training of how to have discussions toward some simple professional issues. So that course of Academic English will be reinforced to better joined with English/bilingual teaching courses and to clear and remove language obstacles for students to have the latter.

One important measure at present is that corresponding institutional arrangement and standard operation of English/bilingual teaching program must be put into practice, such as to have an English/bilingual instructor training program each year, an English/bilingual teaching methodology session each year, two English/bilingual open classes each semester, to irregularly organize English/bilingual workshops and teaching contests, and etc.. By taking such sorts of operations an atmosphere of benign competition among English/bilingual instructors will be created and thus they will be reinforced to work hard, to teach elaborately, to improve teaching methodology, to raise teaching ability, and to increase teaching quality.

It is especially decisive to put emphasis on reinforcement of the whole-process teaching standardization of course delivery. Every course must have a complete set of teaching materials taking syllabus as the core and course delivery must be actually implemented according to that syllabus. Procedural evaluation system must be promoted, teaching ideology of taking student first must be carried out, a new type instructor-student relationship must be established, and some golden English/bilingual teaching courses will be finally forged. In addition, teaching superintendents and experts in specific academy will have regular class inspection so that actual teaching condition of those courses could be comprehensively and accurately mastered, problems in teaching could be quickly caught and solved, and teaching quality of the courses could be steadily increased.

“There are always more ways than difficulties as long as one keeps his thinking and understanding on a right track”. We have laid a considerable foundation for further promotion of the program. What should be done now is to clearly eliminate cognitive and ideological barriers, to elaborately define target of the program, to distinctly figure out working route, and to fully implement working measures. In this way, a new situation of the program will be opened and it will be sustainably promoted.