The analysis of scholars’ English language needs

The English language has become widespread as the lingua franca of higher education. It is also a key means of university internationalizing, academic and student mobility, and for individual researchers, a tool to establish their scholarly reputation. The study aims to determine faculty English language needs such as: a) reasons for knowing English, b) the level of L2 skills according to CEFR, and c) language competences for the future. The results show that participants need to know English to communicate effectively in professional contexts, to publish but also read journals, and to write reviews. The overall level of the English language skills varies between B1 and B2, and speaking and writing are considered important competences. The study confirms the need to enhance the faculty’s productive skills to meet high demands for publications in foreign journals and enable international scientific collaboration, and academic mobility, all of which require high language proficiency.


INTRODUCTION
Since its establishment in 1992, the European Union (EU) has sought to develop a language-related policy (Macaro, 2018).As early as 2003, the Commission of the European Communities (CEE) introduced the "mother tongue plus two other languages" policy in a document entitled "Promoting Language Learning and Linguistic Diversity: An Action Plan 2004-2006" (CEE, 2003).The policy underlies the benefits of language learning by all citizens, and it recognizes language learning as a core skill and lifelong activity, which in turn enables cultural exchange among the member nations.The plan does not only urge schools to teach mother tongue plus less widely used languages, but it also calls universities upon to 'play a key role in fostering societal and individual multilingualism' (p.8).
Language policy in universities has been defined by three initiatives: Erasmus programs, a European Education Area (2025), and the Bologna Process so far.The Erasmus (the European Region Action Scheme for the Mobility of University Students) program for students that was later replaced by Erasmus + (Teaching Mobility) for students and academic teaching and administrative staff, aims at the plurilingual aspirations of the EU (Macaro, 2018).The purpose of the program  was that students who spend time at a foreign (European) university would be learning the subject in a language of their host country, and according to an Erasmus Impact Study (European Commission, 2014), the primary motivation for students to study abroad was to improve their foreign language proficiency.While initially the most popular countries students headed for were Spain, France, Germany, the UK, and Italy, where more 'global' languages are used (including the anglophone UK), nowadays there has seemed to be a gradual shift from attending courses in the language of the host country to attending courses taught exclusively in English (Macaro, 2018).In 2014 a new Erasmus + program was established for the consecutive six years.As far as the Higher Education sector is concerned, the program Erasmus + (Action 1) has been supporting faculty mobility for a teaching period at an institution abroad.The expected primary outcomes include increased opportunities for professional and career development, improved foreign language competences, increased motivation and satisfaction in their daily work, a better quality of their work and activities in favor of students.Also, Erasmus + (Action 2) has focused on cooperation for innovation and the exchange of good practices between organizations from different participating countries, and the following actions have been supported: strategic partnerships, knowledge alliances, sector skills alliances, and capacity building in higher education.
More recently, a new vision for a European Education Area by 2025 was set out, defining 'a Europe in which learning, studying, and doing research would not be hampered by borders.A continent, where spending time in another Member State -to study, to learn, or to work -has become the standard and where, in addition to one's first language(s), speaking two other languages has become the norm.A continent in which people have a strong sense of their identity as Europeans, of Europe's cultural heritage and its diversity' (Flash Eurobarometer 466, 2018, p. 2).The area will be underpinned by the lifelong learning continuum and concern all education sectors from early childhood education and care, through school and vocational education and training to higher education and adult learning.In December 2017, the European Council identified a number of concrete priority issues such as acceleration of mobility and exchanges, including through a substantially strengthened, inclusive, and extended Erasmus+ program (these may actually slow down due to the Covid-19 outbreak in 2020); strengthening strategic partnerships across the EU higher education institutions to enable students to obtain a degree by combining studies in several EU countries and contribute to the international competitiveness of European universities; enhancing the learning of languages, so that more young people will speak at least two European languages in addition to their mother tongue.All of each highlight the need for and the importance of the foreign language policies at universities.The Bologna Process was established in 1999 as a formal agreement of the EU states to develop a common framework of higher education qualifications.The Bologna Process was complemented by the Lisbon Strategy in 2000, aiming at 'making the EU the primary locus for competition knowledge exchange in the world' (Macaro, 2018, p. 50).The process led to the standardization of degree structure, however, as Earls (2016) posits, also to the first signs of English linguistic dominance -e.g., call for the Diploma Supplement to be issued in a widely spoken European language on the one hand, and all meetings, conferences, or workshops related to the Bologna Process held in English, and documents issued in the English language on the other hand.Nonetheless, Erasmus programs and the Bologna Process have significantly promoted university student and faculty mobility, knowledge exchange, and internalization of institutions, which in turn contributed to English becoming the lingua franca of higher education in the UE (Macaro, 2018).
Universities have a significant role in securing a country's future prosperity via research and innovation (Watt & Richardson, 2020).University faculty members are the largest contributors to scientific progress, which results in university-industry knowledge transfer and economic activity (Stupnisky et al., 2019).Aside from economics, universities help prepare a knowledgeable, creative workforce, and members of society (Watt & Richardson, 2020).Therefore, the faculty's core tasks are teaching and research.While teaching primary refers to imparting existing knowledge to students, research focuses on creating, disseminating, and documenting new knowledge (Daumiller & Dresel, 2020).Research activity (published papers, books, conference reports, etc.) accounts for faculty productivity and impact and is measured by bibliometric data (e.g., Web of Science).The outcome of 'publish or perish' has put researchers are under immense pressure to continuously produce outputs in top-tier international Anglophone journals, with career progress dependent upon them (Hyland, 2015;Grimes et al., 2018).Therefore, scholars who wish to be internationally recognized must develop English fluency at an exceptionally high level (Horn, 2017).
In the study by Ferguson, Perez-Llantada, and Plo (2011), the authors analyzed the attitudes of 300 Spanish academics at the University of Zaragoza to publishing in the English language.The findings showed that the majority of scholars feel disadvantaged in academic publications relative to Anglophone academics.Self-reported language proficiency across the three major skills of reading, writing, and speaking demonstrated that while a high proportion of subjects (85%) estimated their reading as very good, or good, writing and speaking were at a good or satisfactory level (71% and 62% respectively).However, the higher the language proficiency, the more likely academics agreed that the English in their work outweighed the disadvantage.The authors speculated that these academics could better use the language to their advantage and therefore were more tolerant toward English dominance.
The study conducted by Muresan and Perez-Llantada (2014) in Romania, a Central-Eastern European context, examined the research communication practices and attitudes towards the role of English.The results revealed that while English prevailed in the domain of written communication (research publication) both intra-nationally and internationally, the Romanian language functioned as the language for research exchange/dissemination in both the local and the intra-national contexts, whenever the focus was on issues of local/national relevance.Although almost half of the participants acknowledged the dominance of English and unfair advantage of English native-speaking academics, all recognized the need for a shared language of research and personally felt more advantaged in their work using English as a shared research language.However, languages such as French, German, Italian, and Spanish were used for spoken communication and were reported to be used for bilateral cooperation with EU higher education institutions.
In the German context, Horn (2017) examined non-nativeness as a stigma in academic writing.The study addressed a few significant issues.While all participants (27 interviews and 411 surveys) did not question the fact that professional success depends on an outstanding research profile documented through publication in internationally ranked journals, they admitted that top journals today require excellent writing skills in English.Also, the authors confirmed that due to the great prominence of English in academia, Anglophone norms have the potential of prompting fears about non-compliant work being judged based on negative stereotypes (stigma).The preoccupation with their possibly devalued sociolinguistic status (e.g., due to manuscript rejections) represented an important way in which scholars differed in terms of perceived threats to their professional identity.Scholars who were unable to master sociolinguistic expectations were more prone to frustration and negative stereotyping.However, as in Ferguson and colleagues' study (2011), the level of perceived communicative competence mitigated the adverse outcomes.Horn (2017) found that the higher the perceived communicative competence, the less likely it was that demands imposed by peer review processes were experienced as potentially harmful to someone's professional identity.
Language constraints to publishing in international journals were also identified by Kwiek (2015), who examined Polish academics (in two dichotomous age groups: under 40 and above 40).Kwiek (2015) found that while expectations for the younger generations were clear: they should be highly motivated scholars embedded in international research networks, publishing mostly internationally, for older generations, these publication outlets were beyond their reach for several reasons such as poor English abilities, weak international research contacts, and the lack of willingness to participate in the international research competition.Interestingly, although young Polish academics are under pressure to be published in international high-impact journals, their research productivity is far behind their Western European colleagues, who publish more and attend more conferences (Kwiek, 2015).A similar pattern was also identified for older academics -while research productivity grows with age across Europe, Polish academics remain lowresearch producers.
An earlier study conducted by Duszak and Lewkowicz (2008) revealed that one of the main reasons scholars' papers were rejected from being published in English-medium journals related to language problems (30% of all rejections).Most respondents indicated they had difficulties with writing academic texts in the English language.Further difficulties identified were accessing current literature and difficulty with understanding reviewers' comments.Similarly to Kwiek's study (2015), older academics (with post-doctoral degrees) experienced more paper rejections than their less qualified counterparts, and as a result, published less in English than in the Polish language.
To address language-related issues in scholar performance, Ferguson, and colleagues (2011) proposed that universities should play their part in alleviating linguistic disadvantages and provide free or reduced-cost academic writing courses.Horn (2017) postulated that workplaces should have policies in place, such as advisory services, staff training, or auditing procedures.Muresan and Perez-Llantada (2014) advised the implementation of English for Academic Purposes (EAP) instructional programs focused on research publication.However, before we regard faculty as learners and view research as a learning activity (Lechuga & Lechuga, 2012), we should determine what specific language needs scholars have in their professional context and what particular competences they must develop (Fitzpatrick & O'Dowd, 2012).Therefore, a survey scrutinizing faculty English language needs and competences, as well as learning methods was developed to achieve this goal.

METHODS
The study aimed to determine the foreign language needs of the faculty members at the Pedagogical University in Krakow.In particular, the scholars indicated the reasons they held for learning a foreign language such as English, the proficiency levels of individual language skills, and language competences they needed to develop in the future.
Prior to the study, the approval from the University Rector was obtained.Next, the Department of Science, Research, and Educational Projects distributed a web-based survey among the participants.The survey consisted of nine items: a) demographic data (Q1-3); b) questions concerning reasons (App. 1) why the faculty needed a foreign language such as English (Q4-5).The list was based on language competences such as understanding, speaking, and writing, as well as those required for academic activities such as the ability to work in an international classroom/ environment and a readiness to work with international students.It was also assumed that academics might want to master the language outside their professional scope, e.g., due to a personal interest in a foreign culture or native speakers' customs.It might also be included under the term -cultural sensitivity competence; c) language proficiency self-evaluation grid (Q6) based on the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages developed by the Council of Europe (CEFR, 2018(CEFR, , 2020)), and European language levels -self-assessment grid (2017)the participants used the scale to indicate the following levels of their English knowledge: A1 and A2 ; B1 and B2 ; C1 and C2 in five language skills: Listening, Reading, Spoken interaction, Spoken production, and Writing, and d) questions concerning future language course and competences faculty wanted to develop (Q7-9).The participants could choose three types of English courses: blended also known as a hybrid online course -learning environments that allow for both inperson and online interaction.Typically, participants of a hybrid course meet in person several times during a semester and run computer-based communication; synchronous online course -requires the instructor and all enrolled students to interact online simultaneously.Similar in some ways to an online seminar, participants interact through text, video, or audio chat.Synchronous learning environments enable students to participate in a course from a distance, and use materials online, and asynchronous online course-it does not take place in "real-time."Students are provided with content and assignments online.Interaction usually takes place through discussion boards, blogs, and wikis.As a result, there is no class meeting time.Asynchronous online learning environments are effective for students with time constraints or busy schedules.

RESULTS
The majority of faculty members (86%) indicated that they would like to learn the English language, which confirms the prevalent position of the English language in academia and, therefore, the necessity for developing language competences by scholars.The highest need to learn English was indicated by the MA (over 91%) and Ph.D. (86%) groups, respectively.
Apart from the general need to learn English, the participants were asked to specify why they needed to know the English language.The respondents (n=93) indicated the reasons from the provided list (12 items).Participants who did not mark any reasons were excluded from the analysis (n=11).The most frequently mentioned reasons are presented in Table 1.The findings have demonstrated that the reasons academics need to know English for are related to the competences of speaking (communicating and oral comprehension), reading and writing.
As far as speaking skills are concerned, the analysis using the Chi-square test for a degree, and Item 5 indicated a statistically significant difference (C² [4] =10,336; p=0,035).Professors pointed to the need to speak English fluently less frequently than MAs and PhDs, but not so little as post-PhDs.The second most frequently indicated reason within the speaking domain was 'to better communicate in a foreign language at conferences and with colleagues from abroad' (Item 6).MAs scored the highest at this reason (78,3%), followed by PhDs (66,1%), post-PhDs (62,5%) and Professors (57%).The third frequent reason was 'because I want to be able to speak clearly about a wide range of subjects related to my field of interest.'The analysis showed that most MAs (61%), Professors, and PhDs (58% respectively) pointed to this need, in contrast to only 19% of post-PhDs.
The most frequently indicated item, within the reading domain, was understanding scientific texts (item 1).Indeed, state-of-the-art research is published in the English language; therefore, reading is a crucial skill for scholars to remain updated and keep their students informed with cutting-edge knowledge.
As far as writing skills are concerned, the participants indicated that English was important for publishing specialized texts internationally (Item 9) and writing reviews (Item 10).The analysis using cross-tabulation for the degree and Item 10, showed significant differences (C² [4] = 10, 312; p=0, 035).More PhDs and Professors within this sample think English is essential to be able to write reviews than MAs and post-PhDs.

English Language Skill Levels
The participants were also asked to self-report their levels of English (A1 to C2) in five different areas: Listening, Reading, Spoken interaction, Spoken production, and writing.The results are shown in Table 2.The statistical analysis showed that the majority of participants indicated levels B1 and B2 as an average level of their language skills.The Median value showed the level B1 (Me=24) and B2 (Me=25) (Table 3).Table 4 shows the result of the cross-tabulation for the degree and the number of participants that indicated the level for each of the skills.

English Language Learning Methods
The relatively low level of the English language in this group of academics informs the need to develop their skills further.In the next step, the participants were asked about their preferences concerning the method of learning (at blended online, synchronous, or asynchronous courses), the language competences (understandinglistening, reading, speaking, writing, grammar, or others) they would like to develop and the time they were able to invest into learning.
The majority of participants opted for online courses: a blended type (55%), followed by synchronous (32%), and asynchronous courses (31%), respectively.Interestingly, a statistically significant difference was found for participants aged below 40 and blended courses (C² [2] =12,156; p=0,02).It means that these scholars prefer to learn online (using Skype or WebEx) while interacting with a teacher and other participants.Other cross-tabulations for age and preferred learning methods showed no significant differences (p>0.05).Regarding the time participants could devote to learning English weekly, it ranged between 2 and 3 hours per week.
A relatively high proportion of subjects would like to develop speaking and writing skills (80% and 59% respectively).This result is congruent with the reasons why participants need to know English -i.e., speak English fluently and spontaneously for professional purposes.The skill of speaking interaction and production was at an average level in this sample.Cross-tabulation for the degree and skills the participants would like to develop showed no significant differences (p>0.05)however, the majority of Professors, PhDs, and MAs highlighted speaking as an essential skill to develop.The second most frequently pointed skill was writing.Although cross-tabulation for the degree and writing did not show significant differences (p>0 .05),over half of the sample wanted to progress in this area.PhDs (61%) and post-PhDs' (59%) focus was on publishing papers in foreign journals, and writing at a high level is a key to achieve it.

DISCUSSION
The majority of faculty members (86%) indicated that they would like to learn the English language and feel necessity for developing English language competences further.The highest need to learn English was indicated by the scholars holding MA and Ph.D. titles which is in line with the previous study of Kwiek (2015), who indicated that younger academics are under pressure to publish internationally in English.They are aware that academic success will soon come only through research and publications in high-impact journals (Kwiek, 2015).The study has also demonstrated that the reasons academics need to know English for are related to the competences of speaking (communicating and oral comprehension), reading and writing.
Fluent and spontaneous communication for professional purposes (e.g., during scientific meetings, seminars, conferences) in a wide range of subjects is in line with the progressing internationalization of higher education, but also increasing participation of scholars in international research projects and teams.Active and effective participation in international conferences and the exchange of experiences between scholars have been listed as core academic competences by Sierecka and Pindor (2012).Spoken production and interaction (as defined in CEFR, 2018) are the key competences needed for English medium instruction (EMI), i.e., teaching courses in English.More and more universities across non-anglophone Europe offer courses in foreign languages to attract international students or better prepare students for the future (Jensen & Thorgersen, 2011).In the comparative study of university teachers in Austria, Italy, and Poland (Dearden & Macaro, 2016), the respondents pointed to the benefits that stem from English medium instruction such as an opened gateway for their students, the key to success, and a passport to a global world.Macaro (2018) highlighted that by attracting foreign staff and lucrative international students, a university envisages increased prestige for its faculty and institution in the international context.Effective communication by means of English has also been considered crucial for university teachers outside the EU.In Bangladesh, university teachers perceived English as the language of modernity, the global and international language, and the best means to communicate with people from other parts of the world (Hamid et al., 2013).In China, Hu and Lei (2014) found that the English language contributed to faculty mobility and employment prospects abroad.
Withing the reading domain scholars indicated the need to understand scientific texts.The state-of-the-art research is published in the English language; therefore, reading is a crucial skill for scholars to remain updated and keep their students informed with cutting-edge knowledge.In some sciences, more academic materials are available in English than in native languages (Bașibek et al., 2014).In the study by Dearden & Macaro (2016), academics pointed to the fact that as many textbooks and scientific papers are written in English, particularly in the field of science and engineering, "it seems natural and easier to use English than Polish" (p.467).
Scholars need English writing skills to publish specialized texts internationally and prepare reviews.Interestingly, more PhDs and Professors think English is essential to be able to write reviews than MAs and post-PhDs.There is an intense pressure on academics to publish through the medium of English -which relates to 'publish or perish culture' (Hyland, 2015).For many scholars, professional success depends on the ability to produce outstanding research and document it though publication in internationally ranked journals, and these require excellent English (Horn, 2017).In order to develop academic writing skills, scholars need to adapt to the English language conventions such as correct grammar, standards expected in terms of marshaling arguments, advancing claims, or semantics required by a target journal (journal guidelines).Thus, on the one hand, academics acknowledge the dominance of the English language as an international language of research communication and visibility.Still, on the other hand, they feel the supremacy of English gives an unfair advantage to English native-speaking academics (Duszak & Lewkowicz, 2008;Ferguson et al., 2011;Horn, 2017;Hyland, 2015;Muresan & Perez-Llantada, 2014).In the study conducted by Horn (2017), the respondents reported non-standard practices to overcome linguistic disadvantages such as employing translators and editing services, collaborating with native-speakers, or removing referenced to their country of origin from their manuscripts.Nevertheless, scholars shift to English for getting noticed and read outside their national boundaries, while they keep their local languages for national publications (Duszak & Lewkowicz, 2008).
The results of self-reported levels of English revealed that, on average, the scholars evaluate their English as B1 and B2 levels.These levels indicate that participants feel as independent users of the language.In particular, they understand extended speech and lectures and follow even intricate lines of argument provided the topic is reasonably familiar.They are able to read articles and reports concerned with contemporary problems in which the writers adopt particular attitudes or viewpoints and understand texts that consist mainly of high frequency every day or job-related language.The 'independence level' of English suggests that the sample has not acquired language competence at the desired level.CEFR (2018) suggests that a teacher with a C1 level of English would be able to provide appropriate models of language form and usage for almost all occasions.The implication is that this level would enable teachers to teach and research internationally.Interestingly, in the study of Austrian, Italian, and Polish faculty by Dearden & Macaro (2016), the participants were unaware of any particular qualification required to teach in English at the university, besides a degree obtained abroad, and believed that teacher's foreign language proficiency should be higher than the students.In the Danish study by Jensen and Thogersen (2011), the university teachers were asked whether they had the necessary skills to teach in English.The majority (73%) of respondents confirmed, which suggests they have high levels of confidence in their ability to deliver content in English.Similar findings reported Ferguson et al. (2011), as a high proportion of participants estimated their language proficiency as good.The authors asked subjects to self-report across three skills of reading, writing, and speaking on a four-point scale.The participants indicated that their reading proficiency was either very good or good (85%), whereas for writing and speaking at a very good level (9% each) and good (38% and 34 % respectively).
In the present study, a more detailed evaluation was conducted (Table 4).The participants self-rated six language skills in line with the EU framework (CEFR, 2018) and were analyzed according to the degree.As far as listening skills are concerned, the general level for all was B2, which is a satisfactory level to understand lectures, speeches, films, and tv and radio programs.As far as reading is concerned, both Ph.Ds.and post-Ph.Ds.assessed it at C1 level.Not surprisingly, these two groups may be actively engaged in reading foreign journals, papers, and books on a daily basis to progress with their academic careers.In the writing category, Mas, PhDs, and Professors indicated their level as B1, which might be too low to able to successfully publish internationally.Only post-PhDs evaluated their level as C1; perhaps they have already published a significant amount to papers and feel proficient at writing texts.
The most significant discrepancies appeared in spoken skills, in particular among faculty with a post-Ph.D. degree.As shown in Table 4, these participants related their spoken interaction at either A2 or B2 levels and spoken production at A2 and C1 levels.The discrepancy might be a result of the subjective evaluation of one's speaking skills.Some scholars feel that they can express themselves fluently and effectively for professional purposes, formulate opinions, and contribute their ideas to other speakers.In contrast, others think they can hardly interact effectively, especially if they compare themselves to native speakers.Similar findings were reported by Fortanet-Gomez (2012), who asked university teachers in Spain about their competences in English.The majority (88, 9%) felt equipped to read literature in their field (reading skills) and had sufficient English to follow a lecture at a conference (85,2%, listening).Fewer academics selfdeclared they knew English well enough to present a paper at the conference (76, 9%), and only half of them (51, 9%) to teach (spoken production).Some concerns related to language proficiency were reported in the studies as well (Campagna, 2015;Guarda & Helm, 2016), The participants expressed their concerns that the students would find it challenging to understand their poor English, which in turn would lead to inadequacies in their learning.Other issues related to problems in social and informal interactions in English as well as inability to improvise effectively through the L2.In another study of Danish university teachers, Werther et al. (2014, p. 455) referred to not being able to speak 'off the cuff …or playing with the language' as one of the negative aspects of language proficiency.Outside the EU, Vu and Burns (2014) found that Vietnamese teachers in the undergraduate programs were concerned that their oral proficiency was so low as to negatively affect students' English and unsatisfactory for those who expected native-like pronunciation.
Scholars in this sample also indicated the need for developing their English skills further.Not surprisingly, writing and speaking skills were indicated more often, which is in line with the findings.Additionally, scholars opted for a blended type of learning, followed by synchronous, and asynchronous courses, respectively.These findings show that modern technologies have changed the way foreign languages can be learned.Nowadays, many papers and books are obtained from online resources, which facilitate not only the dissemination of knowledge but also its acquisition.With the rapid development and spread of modern technologies, scholars now have more opportunities than ever to engage with any language they wish.Modern technologies have provided opportunities to learn anytime, anywhere, and at any pace, both formally and informally (Lehman & Conceicao, 2014).There has been a shift from brick-and-mortar learners to a click-link-andconnect learners.The former refers to in-class learners, and the latter consists of online learners (Dabbagh, 2007).Scholars in this study chose to use self-accessed, self-paced online resources combined with in-class interactions to develop their language skills.They seem to have clear expectations as to how their institutions can support the development of their language skills.These might involve the organization of language courses in line with scholars' needs and fields of science and workshops of paper writing in the target language and speaking effectively in academic settings.

CONCLUSIONS
The study has examined faculty foreign language needs, self-reported proficiency, and language competences the university members would like to develop in the future.The findings have demonstrated that scholars feel the need to learn English for effective communication -spoken and written in their professional contexts.The level of English proficiency varied between B1 and B2, according to the CEFR (2018), indicating that the sample consists of independent but not proficient users of the English language.Interestingly, while scholars with post-Ph.Ds.rated their reading and writing skills as proficient, they indicated their speaking skills as only level B2.This self-perception of oral comprehension and oral production might result from participation of demanding interactive contexts, and these faculty members are under most pressure even if their English language skills are high.The scholars highlighted the need to enhance their language competences, in particular, in speaking and writing domains.They also opted for hybrid online courses.Therefore, universities and institutions responsible for language policies should consider the foreign language needs of this particular group; after all, scholars are the main contributors to scientific progress.
The main limitations of the study concern a small size of the sample and its homogeneity -all participants were the scholars of one university.The results cannot be, therefore, reliably generalized to a larger population.The future study should extend the range across more universities (there are five state-run universities and 18 higher education institutions in Krakow alone) and abroad.The faculty motivation for participation in language courses and their effectiveness could also be scrutinized.

Table 3 . The average level of English Table 4. Language skills by degrees
Q5Why do you need to know English?You can indicate more than one answer.
Note: * the term 'a foreign language' can be substituted by any other language under scrutiny