The Catch-22 of English in Sri Lanka’s Universities

• The result is a clear Catch-22. Graduates must demonstrate professional communication abilities to succeed in their careers, yet the very systems designed to certify their language competence may not cultivate those abilities.  

Head of the department of Languages, University of Moratuwa
In the previous article published in the Daily Mirror (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 respectable grades in English yet struggle to communicate effectively in professional environments.   
The concern is familiar to employers across sectors. Engineers who can solve complex technical problems hesitate when presenting their ideas. Business graduates who perform well in written examinations often find it difficult to articulate proposals in meetings or communicate persuasively with clients. The issue is rarely a simple lack of vocabulary or grammar. Instead, it reflects a deeper disconnect between the English students learn in classrooms and the communication demands they face in professional life.  
Since that article appeared, several readers have offered thoughtful responses. Some pointed out that responsibility for this gap cannot be placed on university English courses alone. Students arrive from schools with unequal linguistic backgrounds. Many experience language anxiety when using English in academic settings. For others, opportunities to practice English outside formal classrooms remain limited. These observations highlight an important truth. Communication competence is shaped by a wide range of social and institutional influences, not by language teaching alone.  
Yet, this complexity reveals something more troubling. Universities are expected to produce graduates who can function confidently in professional environments where English operates as the language of science, technology, and global commerce.   
At the same time, the structures through which students learn English do not always reflect these communicative realities. Students must succeed in examination systems that reward one set of linguistic skills, while the workplace demands another.   
The result is a clear Catch-22. Graduates must demonstrate professional communication abilities to succeed in their careers, yet the very systems designed to certify their language competence may not cultivate those abilities.  
Understanding why this dilemma persists requires looking beyond English teaching alone. It requires examining how universities design curricula, structure assessments, and integrate communication across disciplines such as engineering, science, and business.  
Why the Gap Persists: Assessment and Curriculum  
What students learn in higher education is shaped less by syllabi and more by assessment. Educational research describes this influence as washback, the process through which examinations shape teaching practices and student learning priorities (Alderson & Wall, 1993). When certain forms of knowledge are rewarded, both teachers and students orient their efforts toward those forms.  
In language education, this has clear consequences. When assessments focus on grammar correction, controlled writing, or general essay formats, classroom teaching follows suit. Students learn how to perform successfully in examinations but receive limited practice in real-world communication. Recent work shows that assessment systems can structure pedagogical behaviour across entire programmes, influencing both instruction and student learning strategies (Rathnayake, 2024).  
Yet, professional communication demands a very different skill set. Workplace studies show that professionals regularly explain decisions, synthesise complex information, negotiate meaning, and present ideas to diverse audiences (Chan, 2019). These tasks require reasoning, audience awareness, and adaptability, not just grammatical accuracy.  
This gap is well recognised in English for Specific Purposes (ESP) research. ESP emerged in response to the inadequacy of general English instruction for professional contexts, emphasising communication within disciplinary communities rather than abstract linguistic competence (Bolton & Jenks, 2022). Evidence from STEM education reinforces this point.   
When language learning remains separated from disciplinary study, students often struggle with specialised terminology and discourse in English-medium programmes (Rafiq et al., 2024). Similar patterns appear in business education, where a gap persists between perceived communication needs and actual competencies developed during university study (Laura & Abrar, 2021).  
The implication is clear. The communication gap observed in Sri Lanka is not an isolated issue. It reflects a broader structural misalignment between language education and professional communication demands.  
Recalibrating Assessment: From Language Knowledge to Communication Thinking  
If assessment contributes to the problem, it must also be part of the solution. This requires a shift in how language assessment itself is understood.  
Traditional language testing emerged from structuralist traditions that treated language as a set of discrete elements to be measured through controlled tasks. While such assessments demonstrate knowledge about language, they do not reveal how learners use language to reason, explain, or solve problems in real contexts.   
Scholars have long criticised this limitation. Shohamy (1996) argued that conventional testing cultures encourage narrow, test-focused learning, while Bachman and Palmer (1996) emphasised the need to assess language use within meaningful contexts.   
In ESP settings, this limitation is even more pronounced, as professional communication requires the integration of disciplinary knowledge, reasoning, and audience awareness. Recent work in ESP assessment argues that such traditional models can constrain learner agency and limit the development of reflective communication skills (Karunarathne & Rathnayake, 2025).  
This has led to growing interest in a metacognitive approach to language assessment. Rather than treating assessment as a measure of correctness, this perspective views it as a tool for developing learners’ ability to plan, monitor, and evaluate their own communication.   
Practices such as reflective writing, peer review, and iterative drafting encourage students to refine how they construct meaning within disciplinary contexts (Karunarathne & Rathnayake, 2025).  
The rationale is simple. In professional life, communication is rarely a one-step task. Engineers revise reports, business professionals refine presentations, and researchers evaluate their arguments before publication. Effective communication involves continuous reflection and adjustment. Assessment that mirrors these processes better prepares students for real-world practice.  
This approach also aligns with broader educational research. Formative assessment strategies such as feedback, peer evaluation, and explicit learning goals have been shown to enhance metacognitive regulation and reflective thinking (Wafubwa & Csíkos, 2022). In such contexts, assessment becomes part of learning itself rather than merely a grading mechanism.  
Communication as a Disciplinary Practice  
A further implication follows. Communication cannot remain the sole responsibility of English courses. In professional life, communication is embedded within disciplinary practice.  
Engineers explain design decisions. Scientists present and interpret evidence. Business professionals construct arguments and negotiate meaning. In each case, communication is not an added skill. It is the medium through which knowledge is constructed and shared.  
Research in academic literacy shows that each discipline operates through distinct discourse practices that students must learn to navigate (Hyland, 2004).    Learning to communicate in these fields involves understanding how knowledge is organised, justified, and presented within specific communities. ESP scholarship has long argued that language learning must therefore be grounded in disciplinary contexts rather than abstract exercises (Hutchinson & Waters, 1987).  
Workplace studies reinforce this view. Graduates often find that the communication tasks they encounter differ sharply from those practised in university classrooms (Chan, 2019). As a result, many develop professional communication skills through trial and error after entering employment.  
For universities, this has a clear implication. Communication must be embedded across the curriculum. Engineering projects, laboratory work, presentations, and collaborative tasks all provide opportunities for students to develop authentic communication skills. Approaches such as writing across the curriculum recognise that communication develops most effectively when integrated with disciplinary learning.  
Beyond Language Courses: A Systemic Responsibility  
What emerges from this discussion is a simple conclusion. The graduate communication gap cannot be solved by English departments alone.  
Communication competence develops through the entire educational experience of a student. When treated as a peripheral skill, it remains disconnected from disciplinary learning. When embedded across the curriculum, it becomes part of how students think, reason, and engage with knowledge.  
For Sri Lankan universities, the challenge is not merely to strengthen English instruction but to rethink how communication is cultivated across programmes. 
Assessment, teaching practices, and disciplinary activities must work together to support professional communication.  
The question is no longer whether graduates know English. The more important question is whether universities create environments in which students can think, reason, and communicate confidently within their disciplines.  
The next article in this series will examine how universities around the world have begun integrating discipline-specific communication into STEM and business education, and what lessons Sri Lanka might draw from these approaches.