From Language to Communication: Rethinking University Learning

The Threshold Illusion: Why ‘More English’ Won’t Solve the Graduate Gap, and the Case for Embedding Communication into the Heart of STEM. 

Highlighting a “threshold illusion,” where students appear linguistically prepared on paper but fail in professional discourse, he argues that the flaw is structural rather than purely linguistic. To bridge this gap, communication must move from the margins of the curriculum to its centre. By embedding purposeful communication tasks directly into disciplinary subjects such as  engineering and IT, universities can transform language from an abstract subject into a powerful tool for professional thinking and global innovation. 

In the first article in this series (The Graduate Gap: Why B-grades in English are failing Sri Lanka’s STEM elite, 9 March 2026), I argued that a troubling paradox exists in Sri Lanka’s higher education system. Many graduates leave university with acceptable grades in English yet struggle to communicate effectively in professional environments. The issue is not a simple lack of vocabulary or grammar. It reflects a deeper misalignment between the English students learn and the communication demanded in professional life.   

The second article (The Catch-22 of English in Sri Lanka’s Universities, 26 March 2026) examined why this gap persists. It showed that the issue is not limited to schooling disparities or language anxiety. Rather, it is shaped by the structure of university learning itself. Assessment systems determine what is taught and how students learn. When language assessment rewards correctness, controlled writing and examination performance, teaching follows that direction. Students learn how to succeed in tests, but not necessarily how to communicate within their disciplines (Alderson & Wall, 1993; Rathnayake, 2024).   

This leads to a critical question. If the problem is structural, what would a meaningful solution look like?   

Why “More English” Will Not Fix the Problem

A common response to this issue is to call for more English teaching. At first glance, this seems logical. If students struggle to communicate, increasing English instruction should improve outcomes. Yet, research suggests otherwise.    Studies of English-medium instruction show that even students who meet entry requirements often struggle with expressing ideas, participating in discussions and producing structured academic writing (Wu et al., 2026). This creates what may be described as a threshold illusion. Students appear linguistically prepared yet face difficulties when required to use language within disciplinary contexts.   

This pattern is widely observed. Research in business communication shows a persistent gap between the skills students believe they need and those they actually develop during university study (Wu et al., 2026). Similarly, studies in STEM education show that general English proficiency is often insufficient to handle specialised disciplinary discourse (Rafiq et al., 2024).    The implication is clear. The issue is not how much English students learn, but how they are required to use it.   

The Real Issue: Curriculum, Not Just Language   

If increasing English instruction alone does not resolve the problem, then the issue lies at the level of curriculum design.    In contemporary educational theory, the curriculum is no longer seen as a fixed body of content. It is understood as a system that shapes how knowledge is constructed, communicated, and applied. Within this framework, communication is not an additional skill. It is central to learning itself.   

This perspective is especially important in higher education. Disciplines do not simply transmit knowledge. They organise knowledge through specific forms of communication. Engineers justify design decisions. Scientists interpret and report data. Business professionals persuade, negotiate and argue. In all these contexts, communication is inseparable from thinking.   

Research in academic literacy confirms this. Each discipline operates through distinct discourse practices that students must learn to navigate (Hyland, 2004). When communication is separated from disciplinary learning, it becomes abstract and disconnected. Students may perform well in language assessments yet struggle to express ideas in real contexts.   

ESP research has long argued that language teaching must therefore be grounded in disciplinary practice rather than abstract exercises (Hutchinson & Waters, 1987; Bolton & Jenks, 2022). When communication is embedded within subject learning, students begin to understand how language functions within their fields.   

This shifts the focus from teaching English as a subject to developing communication as part of learning.   

What Works in Practice   

If communication must be integrated into learning, the next question is whether this can be achieved within real university classrooms. Evidence from both Sri Lankan and international contexts suggests that it can—but only when teaching and assessment are redesigned together.   

A recent intervention within a Sri Lankan STEM programme found that students were not weak in basic English. They were able to read, understand and reproduce information. However, they struggled when required to interpret ideas, construct arguments, and respond in real time (Karunarathne, forthcoming). These are precisely the skills expected in professional environments.    Instead of increasing language instruction, the programme redesigned how students engaged with learning tasks. Students worked on project-based activities that required them to explain ideas, collaborate with peers and respond to questions. Language was no longer treated as a separate subject. It became the medium through which disciplinary thinking was expressed.   

A similar shift is evident in recent work on assessment reform in ESP contexts. When students were given tasks such as preparing professional documents, presenting ideas and engaging in peer review, supported by structured feedback and reflection, their communication began to change (Karunarathne & Rathnayake, under review). Rather than reproducing memorised language, they started to make deliberate choices about how to express meaning.   

What enabled this shift was not exposure alone, but process. Students were guided to plan what they wanted to say, monitor how effectively they were communicating, and evaluate their own performance after completing tasks.

These metacognitive processes allowed learners to move from surface-level language use to purposeful communication (Wafubwa & Csíkos, 2021).    This pattern is consistent with international research. Students in English-medium programmes often improve only when language support is integrated with disciplinary tasks and supported through structured opportunities to practice, reflect, and revise (Wu et al., 2026).    The key lesson is clear. Communication does not develop through repetition or exposure alone. It develops through cycles of action, feedback, and reflection within meaningful tasks.   

Toward Communication Systems in Higher Education   

Taken together, these findings point toward a clear direction for reform. The solution to the graduate communication gap does not lie in adding more English courses. It lies in developing communication systems within university curricula.   

Such systems involve:   

• embedding communication tasks within disciplinary subjects   
• aligning assessment with real-world communication practices   
• integrating feedback and reflection into learning processes   
• supporting students in developing discipline-specific communication   

Importantly, this does not require entirely new programmes. It requires rethinking how existing courses are designed. Engineering projects, laboratory work, business case studies, and research assignments can all function as platforms for communication development when structured intentionally.   

For Sri Lankan universities, this is both a challenge and an opportunity. The country already has strong participation in English-medium higher education and growing aspirations to position itself within global knowledge networks.However, without aligning curriculum design with communication demands, this potential remains underutilised.    The shift, therefore, is conceptual. Communication must move from the margins of the curriculum to its centre.  

The writer is the Head of the Department of Languages, University of Moratuwa, [email protected]