That English Gag

How Sri Lankan Universities can bridge the graduate communication gap

• The aim is not to make every lecturer an English teacher. The aim is to make every course aware of how knowledge in that field is communicated
• Research on English-Medium Instruction (EMI) and English for Specific Purposes (ESP)has repeatedly shown that exposure to English alone does not ensure communicative competence
• If business students are assessed only on theoretical knowledge, they may not learn how to negotiate, persuade or present decisions to stakeholders
• Communication outcomes cannot be achieved by declaring them. They must be built into tasks, feedback, rubrics, and classroom interaction
• For Sri Lanka, this shift is both urgent and achievable. It does not require abandoning existing curricula. It requires redesigning how existing learning tasks are used

While Sri Lankan universities have integrated the language of global higher education reform into strategic handbooks, a critical gap persists between institutional policy and actual classroom capability. Merely exposing students to English-Medium Instruction (EMI) does not guarantee professional communicative competence 

The question now is not whether professional communication matters.   

Most universities, employers and students already recognise that it does. The more difficult question is how Sri Lankan universities can build communication into the actual learning experience of students, rather than leaving it to the secluded English courses or short-term workshops.   

This shift is important because higher education reform often remains trapped at the level of policy language. Graduate attributes, employability goals, outcome-based education and internationalisation frequently appear in institutional documents and strategic plans. Yet, students experience reform through classrooms, assignments, feedback, examinations, presentations, laboratory reports, internships and final-year research projects. If these learning spaces do not change, policy remains distant from practice.   

Research on English-Medium Instruction (EMI) and English for Specific Purposes (ESP)has repeatedly shown that exposure to English alone does not ensure communicative competence.   

Students may study through English, pass English examinations and complete degree programmes, yet, still struggle to explain ideas, participate in discussions, write discipline-specific texts and respond confidently in professional settings (Wu et al., 2026). Similar concerns have been observed in business and STEM contexts, where learners often encounter difficulty transferring general English proficiency into specialised disciplinary communication (Chan, 2019; Rafiq et al., 2024).   

This challenge is particularly important in Sri Lanka, where universities increasingly operate within English-medium and globally oriented academic environments while simultaneously serving students from diverse linguistic and educational backgrounds.   

As studies on EMI implementation have shown, institutional policy alone cannot bridge this gap unless communication development becomes embedded within classroom practice itself (Sahan, 2021).   

The challenge, therefore, is not to add another language requirement. It is to redesign existing learning environments so that communication becomes part of how students learn, think and demonstrate knowledge.   

Why Policy Alone Does Not Change Classrooms

Sri Lankan higher education already has the language of reform. Universities speak of graduate attributes, employability, outcome-based education, internationalisation, and industry relevance. These terms are important, but they do not automatically alter the student experience.   

A curriculum document may state that graduates should communicate effectively, but if assessments still reward reproduction, short answers,and surface accuracy, students will continue to learn in narrow ways.   

This is where implementation becomes critical. Research on washback shows that assessment shapes classroom behaviour more strongly than policy intention (Alderson & Wall, 1993). In the Sri Lankan context, this insight is especially relevant because examination-driven learning has long influenced how English is taught and studied. Rathnayake (2024) argues that assessment can either narrow pedagogy through negative washback or expand learning when designed to promote reflection, engagement, and meaningful communication.   

The same principle applies across the wider curriculum. If engineering students are assessed only on technical accuracy, they may not learn how to explain design choices to non-specialists.   

If business students are assessed only on theoretical knowledge, they may not learn how to negotiate, persuade,or present decisions to stakeholders. Communication outcomes cannot be achieved by declaring them. They must be built into tasks, feedback, rubrics and classroom interaction.   

International EMI research supports this point. Sahan (2021) shows that policy aspirations in English-medium higher education often lose force when they meet classroom realities such as teacher preparedness, student language needs and institutional constraints. Wu et al. (2026) similarly show that even where EMI programmes are established, students still need targeted support at policy, programme, and classroom levels.   

For Sri Lankan universities, the lesson is clear. Professional communication reform cannot remain a statement in a handbook. It must become visible in how students read, write, speak, collaborate and receive feedback throughout their degree programmes.

Building Communication at Three Levels

If policy alone does not change classrooms, reform must be planned at three connected levels: institutional, programme and classroom.   

At the institutional level, universities must recognise professional communication as a core graduate capability, not as a remedial language issue. This means placing communication within quality assurance, curriculum review, and graduate attribute frameworks. It means giving major discipline departments (Engineering, Business, Medicine etc.) a clear mandate to develop communication through disciplinary learning, not only through English courses.   

At the programme level, each degree should identify the actual communication tasks students must perform. Engineering programmes may require technical reports, design reviews, data commentaries, laboratory explanations, and project presentations. Business programmes may require case analyses, proposals, negotiations, market reports, and client-facing presentations. ESP research has long shown that effective communication teaching begins with such needs analysis and attention to disciplinary genres (Hutchinson & Waters, 1987; Hyland, 2004).   

At the classroom level, communication must become part of ordinary learning. This can include short technical explanations, peer feedback, reflective notes, low-stakes presentations, group problem-solving discussions, and revised written submissions. Wu et al. (2026) show that students in EMI settings benefit when support operates at several levels, including teacher support, programme-level ESAP support, and classroom interaction. Such findings suggest that Sri Lankan universities do not need isolated interventions alone. They need connected systems.   

The aim is not to make every lecturer an English teacher. The aim is to make every course aware of how knowledge in that field is communicated. That shift can turn communication from a peripheral skill into a normal part of disciplinary learning.   

What Universities Can Start Doing Now

A practical reform agenda does not need to begin with large national restructuring. Universities can start by redesigning existing learning activities.   

First, departments can map the communication tasks already present in their degree programmes. Many courses already include reports, presentations, viva voce examinations, group projects, design tasks, case studies, and research assignments. The issue is that these tasks are often assessed mainly for content, while communication quality remains implicit.   

Making communication criteria visible through rubrics can help students understand what clarity, coherence, evidence use, and audience awareness do really mean in their disciplines.   

Second, feedback must move beyond correcting language errors. Students need feedback on how effectively they explain ideas, organise reasoning, respond to evidence, and adapt language for purpose. Research on formative assessment shows that feedback, peer review, and explicit criteria can strengthen learners’ metacognitive regulation, helping them plan, monitor, and evaluate their own learning (Wafubwa & Csíkos, 2021). This is especially relevant to ESP, where students must learn not only language forms but also how to use them strategically.   

Third, low-stakes communication practice should be built into regular teaching. A two-minute explanation of a lab result, a short defence of a design choice, a peer-reviewed project summary, or a reflective note after a presentation can create repeated opportunities for growth. Recent Sri Lankan ESP work also suggests that alternative assessments such as reflective writing, peer review, professional documents, and interviews can generate positive washback when they are linked to authentic disciplinary and professional tasks (Karunarathne & Rathnayake, 2025; Rathnayake, under review).   

Such changes are modest, but their effect can be significant. They help students move from completing assignments to understanding how communication shapes professional thinking.   

A Sri Lankan Proof of Concept

Sri Lanka does not need to imagine these reforms only as imported models. Early examples already exist within local university practice.   

An account of the Communication Skills Development Programme at the University of Moratuwa shows how engineering freshers engaged in project-based and content-integrated language learning.   

The programme found that students were not simply “weak in English”. Many had functional proficiency but needed stronger support in higher-order skills such as synthesis, argumentation, inferential readingand real-time response (Karunarathne, forthcoming).   

This distinction matters. If students are treated only as weak language learners, universities may respond with more grammar and remedial English. But if the issue is recognised as academic and professional literacy, the response changes. Students need tasks that require them to explain technical ideas, defend decisions, collaborate, revise, and reflect.   

This is where project-based learning, CLIL, and ESP-informed assessment become useful. They allow students to use English while solving problems, not after the problem-solving is done. In this model, communication is not a separate layer added to engineering or business education. It becomes part of how students learn the discipline itself.   

From Reform Language to Reform Practice

The central issue, therefore, is not whether Sri Lankan universities value communication. They already do. The real challenge is whether communication is built into the daily architecture of learning: assignments, assessment criteria, feedback, projects, classroom talk, internships, and final-year research. Professional communication cannot be produced through a single English course at the edge of the curriculum. It must be developed through repeated, guided practice across the degree.   

Students need to explain, revise, defend, question, and reflect within their own disciplines. That is how communication becomes part of professional formation rather than a separate academic requirement.   

For Sri Lanka, this shift is both urgent and achievable. It does not require abandoning existing curricula. It requires redesigning how existing learning tasks are used. If universities can move from policy statements to classroom routines, the graduate communication gap can begin to narrow in visible ways.   

The final article in this series will consider the broader national question: how policy bodies, universities, professional councils, employers and quality assurance systems can work together to make professional communication a serious part of Sri Lanka’s higher education reform agenda.   

The writer can be contacted at 

[email protected]