Sari Pöyhönen (Jyväskylä, Finland)

Finnish exchange students in Russia: Experiences from StPetersburg

В статье рассматривается опыт стажировки финских учащихся в российской средней школе с точки зрения межкультурной коммуникации.

The article views problems of intercultural commuinication based on a survey of Finnish exchange students' experience in a Russian language environment

1. Introduction. Every year over a thousand Finnish adolescents leave their mother country to study abroad for a year or a shorter time as an exchange student in a local secondary school. Most of these young people are heading for the United States, but an increasing number of exchange students have chosen to study in some European country instead – France, Germany, or nowadays even in Russia. This paper is based on a study on the notions of Finnish exchange students studying in a secondary school in St. Petersburg. The study is a part of the Finnish-Russian research programme called “Language and Education in Intercultural Context”, which was launched in 1996. In short, the aim of the programme is to increase the knowledge of language, education and culture in the two countries – Finland and Russia.

The purpose of my study is to explore the Finnish exchange students’ language learning processes, their social relationships in the Russian school, and problems created by cultural differences. In addition, the purpose of the study is to develop a student exchange system in St. Petersburg, that is, to prepare exchange students and their Russian teachers and host parents to identify and cope with the most common problems, and to find useful solutions for them.

The Russian secondary school in St. Petersburg, in which the Finnish students are studying, is specialized in the Finnish language. This means, that all the pupils in the school have Finnish as their first foreign language.

Student exchange in the school started in 1994. The activity gained a firmer foothold the following year, when the Russian-Finnish lyceum was founded in the school. During the years 1994-1999 nearly 20 Finnish exchange students were studying in the lyceum from a few weeks to one school year.

Seven Finnish exchange students (4 girls and 3 boys) participated in my research in 1996-1999. The data were gathered mostly with the help of group discussions, individual interviews, and diaries.

In the group discussions and individual interviews we discussed learning and teaching of Russian in Finland and Russia, students’ motives and expectations of studying in Russia, and social relationships in the host family and the school. The exchange students wrote in the diaries about their language learning processes and the so-called critical incidents (that is, situations which were created by cultural differences) in the host family and the school.

Three students, who were studying in the Russian secondary school for a whole year, were interviewed twice: at the beginning and in the end of their stay in St. Petersburg. The purpose of the latter interview was to describe the process of students’ thoughts from expectations to actual experiences. In the latter interview we also discussed the critical incidents that the students wrote about in their diaries. We tried to identify the sources of misunderstanding in the situations, different interpretations, and also possible solutions for them.

In addition, I interviewed two Russian teachers: a teacher of Finnish, who was responsible for the students, and a teacher of Russian as a foreign language. I wanted to find out their observations and views on the Finnish students’ process of socialization in the school, their communication with the local teachers and students and problems related to language learning and cultural differences. While staying in the school I also wrote field notes about my observations and about the discussions with the students and the local teachers.

In the following, my main focus is on three topics:

• Finnish exchange students’ problems in learning Russian,
• the process of socialization in the Russian school,
• and observations about the differences and similarities of Russian and Finnish pedagogical cultures.

2. Problems in Learning Russian. Almost all the Finnish exchange students were studying Russian from the third grade (eight years). Most of them complained that Russian is a difficult language to learn. They pondered on the difficulties to learn Russian by describing different areas of language ability, for example speaking, writing, and reading. In addition, Russian was also seen as a complicated system of grammatical rules. In the beginning of the stay almost nothing was seen as easy to learn as one student said in the first interview (1):

(1) Well I think that all these genitives are difficult and all these cases I don’t know those cases at all. But then again I think that it’s really easy mm... Well I don’t know, maybe it’s that.... Well I don’t know what’s easy, I think that at least it’s nice to speak it (laughs). I don’t know if anything’s easy about it, there’s nothing easy for me about it at the moment (laughs).

Thus, the main reason for the students to study in the Russian school was to learn the language. This is what the local teacher also mentioned (2):

(2) We should understand what is the background, why these students come to us, they don’t come here because St. Petersburg is beautiful. They don’t come here because they like Russian literature. They are at that age when these things are not close to their hearts so to speak. The language, they need the language, and we offer them an opportunity to learn it.

During the year the students realized that they had indeed made progress in learning Russian. One student described her learning process and the progress in the following way (3):

(3) Now I’m beginning to understand the nature of the Russian language and how one can use it so that it makes sense. At least I’ve already understood how sentences are put together much better than in Finland during Russian lessons. The only thing I still don’t understand are imperfective aspect and perfective aspect verbs. I mean I can distinguish their forms but I don’t know which form goes into which place. I’ve tried to think it over in my mind but still haven’t succeeded.

All three students who spent the whole year in the Russian school, considered that the year in Russia was successful from the language learning point of view. One student thought that she had learnt Russian mostly outside the school. This language was ‘everyday Russian’, which was useful in surviving in a Russian environment. On the other hand, she would have liked to spend more time in practising grammar. The expectations had been very high, and she often compared her progress with those who had studied as an exchange student in the United States (4):

(4) I’ve learned all right, mostly just everyday language, but I feel that time is running out and that other exchange students coming for example from the U.S. will know English perfectly.

The students criticized the way Russian was taught in Finland and compared it with the way it was taught in the Russian school. They considered the Finnish methods of teaching inefficient, because the teachers in Finland do not focus as much on grammar and speaking as in Russia.

The Russian teacher also pointed out that in the beginning, the Finnish students did not have tools for managing in everyday life, because they lacked readiness to use language. This might, said the teacher, help them to cope with the culture shock. The problem is, however, how to find suitable learning material for the Finnish students (5):

(5) First of all, they’re shocked by our everyday life. Secondly, they have studied Russian in a Finnish-speaking environment. Here they’re surrounded by the Russian language. In the beginning, they need lots of language practice and grammar exercises. Teaching Russian would be more efficient if we had suitable teaching material. The problem at school is that we lack suitable material to help the students survive in a Russian-speaking environment.

Later on, teaching of Russian in St. Peterburg got more critical comments (6):

(6) I think that there’s a lot to improve in the teaching of Russian here too. In my opinion, the teacher should test the words in every new reading passage. One doesn’t do that voluntarily even now! But building up one’s vocabulary is really important.

3. Socialization in the Russian School. Most of the Finnish exchange students thought that learning Russian helped them in understanding every day life in Russia and made it possible to compare cultural differences between Finns and Russians. The students also believed that learning Russian was a gate into the inner circle, to the group of Russian students. One student wrote (7):

(7) I’m really pleased that they speak Russian to me at school. First for example Lena spoke only English to me and I thought that well let’s speak English then. But once I spoke Russian to her and from that on she’s spoken Russian. And so do the other students. When they saw that I can speak Russian fairly well, they stopped speaking English. [-] I’m always afraid that I won’t learn to speak though I feel that even during these weeks (some month and a half) I’ve learned something. At least old words come to my mind much more quickly. Then also pronunciation is really important I think. It’s good that I’ve already lost my Finnish accent when I speak.

Problems in finding a common language was not the only obstacle for making contacts and socializing in the school. Especially in the beginning, there were also other mountains to climb. One was the age difference. The Finnish students were 17 years old, the oldest students in the Russian school. It was difficult for them and the local students to overcome the age difference. Russian teacher described the situation in the following way (8):

(8) These students have been in our school for over a month now but they still spend time only among themselves. They simply haven’t yet been able to find a common language [with the Russians]. The reason could be that they want to be distinguished, and our [the Russian] students notice that. But it could also be explained by the age difference. They’re already 17, and in our school the students of that age are in the 11. grade. They miss the company of their own age.

The Finnish students, in their turn, tried to solve the problem by making contacts with the Russians of their age outside the school. This was not accepted by the local teachers. One reason for the negative reactions was that the teachers could not secure the safety by controlling their social network. They felt they were responsible for the students also on their spare time. Another reason was that they wanted the students to become members of the school society. This is why it was recommended to make contacts with the local students. Later on, with the help of group discussions in the class and closer contacts with class mates the problems were at least partly solved.

The existence of the Finnish students was not always easy for the local teachers, at least in the beginning of student exchange. The local teachers had to prepare extra material for the Finns and sometimes cultural differences were a source of misunderstanding. In the following two examples (9 and 10) the situation is described from the teacher’s and student’s point of view:

(9) Everything has changed in our school. The teachers were prejudiced against the first exchange students. One teacher, for instance, said: “how is it possible that someone walks into the classroom wearing boots?... how is it possible that exchange students remain seated when the teacher enters the classroom, our children never do that.” This kind of a teacher does not give the exchange student a chance to become a member of the family [school].(10) The teachers treat us quite well, particularly if you compare it with how they treated exchange students last year and the year before that. Then everything was their fault. They were not given any books and they didn’t have any schedules. We attend lessons here and take courses. I feel that this also affects the way that the other students treat us. Maybe they feel that we’re not so privileged as the ones who were here before. Everyone’s awfully interested in us and even all the little ones always say good morning and so on. Then you feel yourself that they like you.

4. Differences and Similarities in Pedagogical Cultures. The students also made observations about the differences and similarities in Russian and Finnish pedagogical cultures. In the beginning, the students felt that there are more differences than similarities in Finnish and Russian ways of teaching and learning. Especially different roles of teachers and pupils were most often commented upon (11):

(11) At first I was really annoyed at our Russian teacher because she never let me finish what I was saying and always said something when I was still speaking. Much the same as the English teacher. But now I’m sort of used to it already. Still, lessons are different than in Finland and particularly the teacher-pupil relationship. Even a real trouble-maker becomes totally helpless for instance in the English class and of course the teacher really enjoys herself when she can properly “direct” you.

One student made observations about the aims of the teaching in a Russian school education, thought of possible reasons for the aims and drew some conclusions about the Russian society as a whole in the following manner (12):

(12) The aims of Russian school education are very different from Finnish ones. In the math lessons the students have to solve a problem presented by the teacher independently on the blackboard. The teacher then watches by and if the student goes even a little bit wrong with the exercise he’s ordered back to his seat. There are only two marks that the teacher gives student for their blackboard work, 2 and 5, all or nothing.

Maybe they need a system like this in Russia. It’s such a large country, so many people and in this way they can separate the sheep from the goats. During the Communist era, many talented researchers and scientists were needed in the country, especially for developing weapons.

But what about the rest of the people, those guys who are no good as scientists. Their self-esteem is destroyed already at school so badly that many of them won’t ever be able to get a good job.

Also the freedom of speech and thought of pupils, the power of the school to control pupils’ private lives as well as parents’ efforts to help their children to succeed were often observed (13):

(13) The school has too much authority here. It interferes with people’s private lives or at least ours. We still can’t say aloud what we really think and have to shut up about what happens in free time. It’s too important for the parents that their child is a success. They even do their exercises and homework and especially things that have to do with entrance exams or admission to a school. But they do study in earnest. The atmosphere is completely different than in Finland. Of course it’s also because you’re not on a first name basis with your teachers and they are much more respected than in Finland. But I still like the atmosphere of Finnish classrooms more! Students here don’t really say anything. For example we had this panel discussion about “What is independence all about?” (in connection with the Finnish independence day). They really didn’t have any opinions about it or maybe it was a totally new situation for them. Teaching is totally different.

5. Conclusion. In this paper I have briefly described the notions of Finnish exchange students studying in a Russian secondary school and the problems they were facing during their stay. Especially in the beginning, the main problems were related to language learning. The Finnish exchange students’ knowledge of Russian was not good enough to deal with everyday situations. After studying in the Russian school, the students also noticed that differences in the pedagogical cultures were another source of misunderstanding. For example, the different roles of teachers and pupils were often mentioned.

I would like to describe the study as ‘a work in progress’, or ‘a pilot study’, because of the novelty of Finnish student exchange in St. Petersburg. I also would like to emphasise that my findings are only preliminary, and I have mainly concentrated on naming the problems. The next logical step is a more profound analysis of the problems, perceived and observed by both the Finnish students and their local teachers.

So far, the preliminary findings have been used in the school in order to prevent misunderstandings, caused by cultural differences and lack of common language. Some concrete actions have taken place in the school in the past few years. For example, in the beginning of the stay, the school psychologist explains to the students major differences in the Russian and Finnish school systems and most of all, shares their joys and sorrows during their stay. The results have been very promising and we will continue to work together in order to create circumstances, where open-minded, intercultural communication would be the main principle of the school.

1. Introduction.Every year over a thousand Finnish adolescents leave their mothercountry to study abroad for a year or a shorter time as an exchangestudent in a local secondary school. Most of these young people areheading for the United States, but an increasing number of exchangestudents have chosen to study in some European country instead –France, Germany, or nowadays even in Russia. This paper is based on astudy on the notions of Finnish exchange students studying in asecondary school in St. Petersburg. The study is a part of theFinnish-Russian research programme called “Language and Educationin Intercultural Context”, which was launched in 1996. In short,the aim of the programme is to increase the knowledge of language,education and culture in the two countries – Finland and Russia.

The purpose of my studyis to explore the Finnish exchange students’ language learningprocesses, their social relationships in the Russian school, andproblems created by cultural differences. In addition, the purpose ofthe study is to develop a student exchange system in St. Petersburg,that is, to prepare exchange students and their Russian teachers andhost parents to identify and cope with the most common problems, andto find useful solutions for them.

The Russian secondaryschool in St. Petersburg, in which the Finnish students are studying,is specialized in the Finnish language. This means, that all thepupils in the school have Finnish as their first foreign language.

Student exchange in theschool started in 1994. The activity gained a firmer foothold thefollowing year, when the Russian-Finnish lyceum was founded in theschool. During the years 1994-1999 nearly 20 Finnish exchangestudents were studying in the lyceum from a few weeks to one schoolyear.

Seven Finnish exchangestudents (4 girls and 3 boys) participated in my research in1996-1999. The data were gathered mostly with the help of groupdiscussions, individual interviews, and diaries.

In the groupdiscussions and individual interviews we discussed learning andteaching of Russian in Finland and Russia, students’ motives andexpectations of studying in Russia, and social relationships in thehost family and the school. The exchange students wrote in thediaries about their language learning processes and the so-calledcritical incidents (that is, situations which were created bycultural differences) in the host family and the school.

Three students,who were studying in the Russian secondary school for a whole year,were interviewed twice: at the beginning and in the end oftheir stay in St. Petersburg. The purpose of the latter interview wasto describe the process of students’ thoughts from expectations toactual experiences. In the latter interview we also discussed thecritical incidents that the students wrote about in theirdiaries. We tried to identify the sources of misunderstanding in thesituations, different interpretations, and also possible solutionsfor them.

In addition, Iinterviewed two Russian teachers: a teacher of Finnish, whowas responsible for the students, and a teacher of Russian as aforeign language. I wanted to find out their observations and viewson the Finnish students’ process of socialization in the school,their communication with the local teachers and students and problemsrelated to language learning and cultural differences. While stayingin the school I also wrote field notes about my observations andabout the discussions with the students and the local teachers.

In the following, mymain focus is on three topics:

• Finnish exchange students’ problems in learning Russian,
• the process of socialization in the Russian school,
• and observations about the differences and similarities of Russian and Finnish pedagogical cultures.

2. Problems inLearning Russian. Almost all the Finnish exchange students werestudying Russian from the third grade (eight years). Most of themcomplained that Russian is a difficult language to learn. Theypondered on the difficulties to learn Russian by describing differentareas of language ability, for example speaking, writing, andreading. In addition, Russian was also seen as a complicated systemof grammatical rules. In the beginning of the stay almost nothing wasseen as easy to learn as one student said in the first interview (1):

•  
  (1) Well I think that all these genitives are difficult and all these cases I don’t know those cases at all. But then again I think that it’s really easy mm... Well I don’t know, maybe it’s that.... Well I don’t know what’s easy, I think that at least it’s nice to speak it (laughs). I don’t know if anything’s easy about it, there’s nothing easy for me about it at the moment (laughs).

Thus, the main reasonfor the students to study in the Russian school was to learn thelanguage. This is what the local teacher also mentioned (2):

•  
  (2) We should understand what is the background, why these students come to us, they don’t come here because St. Petersburg is beautiful. They don’t come here because they like Russian literature. They are at that age when these things are not close to their hearts so to speak. The language, they need the language, and we offer them an opportunity to learn it.

During the year thestudents realized that they had indeed made progress in learningRussian. One student described her learning process and the progressin the following way (3):

•  
  (3) Now I’m beginning to understand the nature of the Russian language and how one can use it so that it makes sense. At least I’ve already understood how sentences are put together much better than in Finland during Russian lessons. The only thing I still don’t understand are imperfective aspect and perfective aspect verbs. I mean I can distinguish their forms but I don’t know which form goes into which place. I’ve tried to think it over in my mind but still haven’t succeeded.

All three students whospent the whole year in the Russian school, considered that the yearin Russia was successful from the language learning point of view.One student thought that she had learnt Russian mostly outside theschool. This language was ‘everyday Russian’, which was useful insurviving in a Russian environment. On the other hand, she would haveliked to spend more time in practising grammar. The expectations hadbeen very high, and she often compared her progress with those whohad studied as an exchange student in the United States (4):

•  
  (4) I’ve learned all right, mostly just everyday language, but I feel that time is running out and that other exchange students coming for example from the U.S. will know English perfectly.

The students criticizedthe way Russian was taught in Finland and compared it with the way itwas taught in the Russian school. They considered the Finnish methodsof teaching inefficient, because the teachers in Finland do not focusas much on grammar and speaking as in Russia.

The Russian teacheralso pointed out that in the beginning, the Finnish students did nothave tools for managing in everyday life, because they lackedreadiness to use language. This might, said the teacher, help them tocope with the culture shock. The problem is, however, how to findsuitable learning material for the Finnish students (5):

•  
  (5) First of all, they’re shocked by our everyday life. Secondly, they have studied Russian in a Finnish-speaking environment. Here they’re surrounded by the Russian language. In the beginning, they need lots of language practice and grammar exercises. Teaching Russian would be more efficient if we had suitable teaching material. The problem at school is that we lack suitable material to help the students survive in a Russian-speaking environment.

Later on, teaching ofRussian in St. Peterburg got more critical comments (6):

•  
  (6) I think that there’s a lot to improve in the teaching of Russian here too. In my opinion, the teacher should test the words in every new reading passage. One doesn’t do that voluntarily even now! But building up one’s vocabulary is really important.

3. Socialization inthe Russian School. Most of the Finnish exchange students thoughtthat learning Russian helped them in understanding every day life inRussia and made it possible to compare cultural differences betweenFinns and Russians. The students also believed that learning Russianwas a gate into the inner circle, to the group of Russianstudents. One student wrote (7):

•  
  (7) I’m really pleased that they speak Russian to me at school. First for example Lena spoke only English to me and I thought that well let’s speak English then. But once I spoke Russian to her and from that on she’s spoken Russian. And so do the other students. When they saw that I can speak Russian fairly well, they stopped speaking English. [-] I’m always afraid that I won’t learn to speak though I feel that even during these weeks (some month and a half) I’ve learned something. At least old words come to my mind much more quickly. Then also pronunciation is really important I think. It’s good that I’ve already lost my Finnish accent when I speak.

Problems in finding acommon language was not the only obstacle for making contacts andsocializing in the school. Especially in the beginning, there werealso other mountains to climb. One was the age difference. TheFinnish students were 17 years old, the oldest students in theRussian school. It was difficult for them and the local students toovercome the age difference. Russian teacher described the situationin the following way (8):

•  
  (8) These students have been in our school for over a month now but they still spend time only among themselves. They simply haven’t yet been able to find a common language [with the Russians]. The reason could be that they want to be distinguished, and our [the Russian] students notice that. But it could also be explained by the age difference. They’re already 17, and in our school the students of that age are in the 11. grade. They miss the company of their own age.

The Finnish students,in their turn, tried to solve the problem by making contacts with theRussians of their age outside the school. This was not accepted bythe local teachers. One reason for the negative reactions was thatthe teachers could not secure the safety by controlling their socialnetwork. They felt they were responsible for the students also ontheir spare time. Another reason was that they wanted the students tobecome members of the school society. This is why it was recommendedto make contacts with the local students. Later on, with the help ofgroup discussions in the class and closer contacts with class matesthe problems were at least partly solved.

The existence of theFinnish students was not always easy for the local teachers, at leastin the beginning of student exchange. The local teachers had toprepare extra material for the Finns and sometimes culturaldifferences were a source of misunderstanding. In the following twoexamples (9 and 10) the situation is described from the teacher’sand student’s point of view:

•  
  (9) Everything has changed in our school. The teachers were prejudiced against the first exchange students. One teacher, for instance, said: “how is it possible that someone walks into the classroom wearing boots?... how is it possible that exchange students remain seated when the teacher enters the classroom, our children never do that.” This kind of a teacher does not give the exchange student a chance to become a member of the family [school]. (10) The teachers treat us quite well, particularly if you compare it with how they treated exchange students last year and the year before that. Then everything was their fault. They were not given any books and they didn’t have any schedules. We attend lessons here and take courses. I feel that this also affects the way that the other students treat us. Maybe they feel that we’re not so privileged as the ones who were here before. Everyone’s awfully interested in us and even all the little ones always say good morning and so on. Then you feel yourself that they like you.

4. Differences andSimilarities in Pedagogical Cultures. The students also madeobservations about the differences and similarities in Russian andFinnish pedagogical cultures. In the beginning, the students feltthat there are more differences than similarities in Finnish andRussian ways of teaching and learning. Especially different rolesof teachers and pupils were most often commented upon (11):

•  
  (11) At first I was really annoyed at our Russian teacher because she never let me finish what I was saying and always said something when I was still speaking. Much the same as the English teacher. But now I’m sort of used to it already. Still, lessons are different than in Finland and particularly the teacher-pupil relationship. Even a real trouble-maker becomes totally helpless for instance in the English class and of course the teacher really enjoys herself when she can properly “direct” you.

One student madeobservations about the aims of the teaching in a Russian schooleducation, thought of possible reasons for the aims and drew someconclusions about the Russian society as a whole in the followingmanner (12):

•  
  (12) The aims of Russian school education are very different from Finnish ones. In the math lessons the students have to solve a problem presented by the teacher independently on the blackboard. The teacher then watches by and if the student goes even a little bit wrong with the exercise he’s ordered back to his seat. There are only two marks that the teacher gives student for their blackboard work, 2 and 5, all or nothing.

Maybe they need asystem like this in Russia. It’s such a large country, so manypeople and in this way they can separate the sheep from the goats.During the Communist era, many talented researchers and scientistswere needed in the country, especially for developing weapons.

But what about the restof the people, those guys who are no good as scientists. Theirself-esteem is destroyed already at school so badly that many of themwon’t ever be able to get a good job.

Also the freedom ofspeech and thought of pupils, the power of the school to controlpupils’ private lives as well as parents’ efforts to help theirchildren to succeed were often observed (13):

•  
  (13) The school has too much authority here. It interferes with people’s private lives or at least ours. We still can’t say aloud what we really think and have to shut up about what happens in free time. It’s too important for the parents that their child is a success. They even do their exercises and homework and especially things that have to do with entrance exams or admission to a school. But they do study in earnest. The atmosphere is completely different than in Finland. Of course it’s also because you’re not on a first name basis with your teachers and they are much more respected than in Finland. But I still like the atmosphere of Finnish classrooms more! Students here don’t really say anything. For example we had this panel discussion about “What is independence all about?” (in connection with the Finnish independence day). They really didn’t have any opinions about it or maybe it was a totally new situation for them. Teaching is totally different.

5. Conclusion. Inthis paper I have briefly described the notions of Finnish exchangestudents studying in a Russian secondary school and the problems theywere facing during their stay. Especially in the beginning, the mainproblems were related to language learning. The Finnish exchangestudents’ knowledge of Russian was not good enough to deal witheveryday situations. After studying in the Russian school, thestudents also noticed that differences in the pedagogical cultureswere another source of misunderstanding. For example, the differentroles of teachers and pupils were often mentioned.

I would like todescribe the study as ‘a work in progress’, or ‘a pilot study’,because of the novelty of Finnish student exchange in St. Petersburg.I also would like to emphasise that my findings are only preliminary,and I have mainly concentrated on naming the problems. The nextlogical step is a more profound analysis of the problems, perceivedand observed by both the Finnish students and their local teachers.

So far, the preliminaryfindings have been used in the school in order to preventmisunderstandings, caused by cultural differences and lack of commonlanguage. Some concrete actions have taken place in the school in thepast few years. For example, in the beginning of the stay, the schoolpsychologist explains to the students major differences in theRussian and Finnish school systems and most of all, shares their joysand sorrows during their stay. The results have been very promisingand we will continue to work together in order to createcircumstances, where open-minded, intercultural communication wouldbe the main principle of the school.

Теоретическая и прикладная лингвистика. Вып.2. Язык и социальная среда. Воронеж: Изд-во ВГТУ, 2000. С.43-50.

© S.Pöyhönen, 2000