Languages & Enterprise Project

1. Languages & Enterprise Project Patrick Sim and Pauline Kneale University of Leeds

2. Project Context A research project sponsored by the HEFCE/LLAS ‘Routes into Languages’ initiative. Project Objectives • An indicative assessment of enterprise learning provision in HEI language departments • Identify and describe instances of enterprise learning practice • Consider the barriers and obstacles to enterprise learning provision • Look at the synergies between language curricula and enterprise learning

3. Enterprise Learning What do we mean by ‘enterprise learning’? • Emphasis: not on producing entrepreneurs but providing graduates with life & career skills • Link with Employability • Adopt a holistic view of enterprise learning • Seek to ways of leveraging the particular strengths of language degree curricula (e.g. year abroad)

4. Three dimensions of enterprise related learning Deep Learning (Reflection, Self knowledge, Independent learning) Transferable Skills (General and Business specific skills) (Work based learning, Enterprise exercises & exposure, Business processes) Business / Enterprise Knowledge

5. A Scheme for Enterprise Learning Assessment The Association of Graduate Recruiters scheme for graduate Employability identifies four key attributes of graduate employability. Using this scheme has the following advantages; it is holistic, relevant to graduates and provides a link with employability.

6. Enterprise Assessment Scheme The assessment of enterprise learning is based on a modified AGR employability template which includes business and enterprise related elements.

7. Assessment Cohort Initial research has identified a selection of HEI which involve a range of enterprise learning strategies and methods. • Birmingham University • University of Central Lancashire • Glasgow University • Lancaster University • Leeds University • Leeds Metropolitan University • University College London • Oxford Brookes University • Portsmouth University • Salford University • Sheffield University • Swansea University Translation Cohort: • Bath University • Leeds University • Manchester University

8. Lancaster University German Studies BA

9. University of Glasgow Russian BA

10. Pre 92 Institutions

11. Pre 92 SWOT

12. Newer Institutions

13. Post ’92 SWOT

14. Analysis – (highlights) Specialist language skills • Business and professional skills in the target language exist in most of the core language programmes though in some cases these are only addressed through options. Transferable skills • The languages curriculum teaches a number of skills which can be classed as “for enterprise” rather than content “about enterprise”. Aspects which were represented on all courses include group work, IT use, presentation and all round communication skills. • The majority of courses do not involve interviewing training or experience (either as interviewer or interviewee) • The major problem solving skill developed on language degrees are related to translation • CV production, job application and formal / business letters are valuable skills in target languages though not present in the core language teaching of most the courses.

15. Business skills • A few courses specifically include business related communication (e.g. telephone skills, business register, business letter writing, working relations) in the core teaching. • Some commercial awareness is included in the current affairs and cultural education, though mainly this has to be accessed through optional modules. • Marketing and advertising in the target culture mostly exist in business related options. • Negotiation skills in the target culture were absent from most courses, and not even being available in optional modules. • Learning about enterprise in the target culture is not touched on by any of the courses.

16. Barriers & issues • The Year abroad. This valuable aspect of languages study was often not sufficiently integrated into the overall curriculum. • Modularity.Highly modular programmes did not always give sufficient attention to student progression. • Staffexpertise. Especially in small units, the availability of requisite staff expertise was not secure, resulting in significant failures in ability to deliver an adequate range of teaching, or discontinuities in what could be delivered from one year to the next. • Dispersal of staff. Teaching staff were often located in units dominated by a cognate discipline, with risks of marginalisation, or in a number of units contributing to a particular programme, with risks of fragmentation.

17. Barriers & issues (cont) • Specialisation. Staff tending to specialise in narrow areas of their discipline, with potential lack of overview and obstacles to communication between staff from different parts of the disciplinary area. • Assessment.In some cases, the relation between the programme and means of assessment was underdeveloped, and procedures for feedback to students required more attention. • Mixed teaching.Teaching to student groups of different attainment levels, different disciplinary backgrounds, or different personal backgrounds (non-UK, mature, part-time students etc) is widespread, and work was needed to address the difficulties to which this gave rise. • Key skills. These were often advertised, but not always adequately embedded into programmes. In particular, there was sometimes inadequate provision for higher level skills, for example in final year research- or project-type work.

18. Thank you • Expert Meeting Next week • End of Project December 2007