Volume 40, No.4 - Winter 1994
Editor of this issue:  
Jonas Kučėnas & Arvydas Tamulis, Lituanus Foundation
ISSN 0024-5089
Copyright © 1994 LITUANUS Foundation, Inc.

A survey of student attitudes towards native and foreign instructors at Lithuanian universities

Raimundas Vytenis Sidrys and Inga Jakštaitė

Five years ago, the world watched with great interest when Lithuania declared its independence from the Soviet Union (March, 1990), setting in motion a history-making series of events which culminated with the disintegration of the USSR. Since then, Lithuania has embarked upon a course, although with some hesitation, to achieve integration — cultural, economic, military and political — with Europe and the West.*

Universities were among the first public institutions in Lithuania to seek active ties with the West. With the assistance of the world-wide Lithuanian emigree community, for example, Vytautas Magnus University (VMU) in Kaunas, having been closed in 1950 by the Soviets, was re-opened in April, 1989 and Dr. Algirdas Avižienis, a Lithuanian-American professor of computer sciences at UCLA, was elected rector (Monaghan 1990; Bollag 1991b). During the inaugural academic year at VMU (1989-90) about a dozen professors from universities in the U.S., Australia, and Italy arrived to teach and help develop a Western style campus (Ratkevičiūtė-Misevičienė 1992). In 1993, Rector Avižienis was succeeded by another Lithuanian-American, Dr. Bronius Vaškelis, professor of Baltic and Slavic Literature, U. of Illinois, Chicago.

Since 1991, when the U.S. recognized Lithuania's full independence, about a dozen instructors and graduate students from the Fulbright Program, the U.S. Government's international educational exchange program, have been placed at Lithuanian academic institutions. They include VMU, Vilnius University (VU), Kaunas Energy Institute, and Vilnius Pedagogical University (VPU). The European Community TEMPUS program for exchange of teachers and students began actively recruiting the participation of Baltic universities in late 1991, with some of the first awards going to VU, VMU, KTU and Klaipėda University. In 1992, the Yale University Civic Education Project, supported by the Soros Foundation, began sending teachers to VMU and KTU. This is far from being a complete list of formal university exchange programs, but it serves to indicate the scope of their presence in Lithuania.

A large number of foreign instructors not associated with formal exchange programs also have taught in Lithuania. Their motives are varied: established professors on sabbatical leave, underemployed young instructors seeking practical job experience, scholars conducting research, Catholics and Mormons conducting missionary work, members of emigree families reestablishing ties with "ancestral homeland":, teachers motivated by humanitarian ideals, as well as those who wish to experience an "exotic" post-Soviet Union setting. Because of the very low wages paid in Lithuania (about $100/month is the average salary in 1994 for a decent or associate professor), it is clear that many foreign instructors are in Lithuania for reasons other than material gain.

Has the inflow of foreign instructors, whose number over the period 1989-94 we estimate at about 200, had a significant impact on Lithuanian universities? Do their teaching methods differ from those of native instructors? Are they perceived positively or negatively? In the best position to answer these questions are perhaps the students who have attended their courses, and are able to directly compare their methods, abilities and attitudes with those of local instructors.

Purpose of study

We designed and undertook a questionnaire survey of students from three major Lithuanian universities— KTU, VMU, and VU — all with a substantial number of visiting foreign instructors, in an attempt to identify how students perceived differences in teaching methods, and other factors, between native and foreign instructors. We were also interested in comparing student perception of local teaching methods among the three universities.


Sampling strategy is of paramount importance in any sociological survey, and we considered carefully several options before arriving at our final decision. The major problem we faced was a differential pattern of access by students to foreign instructors, who are (and have been) differently distributed at the universities in terms of the actual number of instructors as well as their faculty association. VMU, for example, over the past five years has had the highest number of foreign instructors, an average of 20-25 each year, and they have represented at times some 10% to 20% of the entire faculty. Most are English speakers from North America and Scandinavia. Students at VMU, therefore, have had a lot of opportunity to take courses taught by a non-native instructor. On the other hand, KTU and VU have employed fewer visiting foreign instructors. This, together with their larger student enrollments, decreases the probability that a student at these two institutions has taken a course offered by a foreign instructor.

We considered a sampling design of going directly to classrooms in which foreign instructors were teaching, and distributing questionnaires to their students. This was rejected because of the possibility of biasing the survey through preference for current foreign instructors (rather than those from all five years), as well as including student responses that might reflect a "collective mentality" influenced by their current enrollment in the class.

Another design we considered was the obtaining of list from university registrars of all students currently or previously enrolled in courses of foreign instructors, then randomly selecting students from the lists and contacting these individuals. This was rejected for practical reasons of expediency, given the bureaucratic problems associates with developing such lists and the amount of time necessary to personally locate each individual.

Instead, we choose the sampling strategy of standing near the doorways of buildings used for the classes of foreign instructors, as well as by libraries and other general meeting areas, and randomly selecting students out of the traffic flow. If the student indicated he or she had taken a course with a foreign teacher, they were asked to fill out the Lithuanian language questionnaire. The sampling took place on different days of the week, over the period of May 5 to June 15, 1994 to allow for maximal student participation. The senior author did not take part in the actual distribution of questionnaires in order to avoid the possibility of student respondents being overly "courteous" to a visiting foreign instructor. One native professor asserted that this element of student ingratiation would inevitably represent a minor source of bias in our study, regardless of whether or not the senior author was present during questionnaire distribution. We did not find this to be true.

It was our intention, therefore, to obtain a random and representative sample of the student population that has taken courses with foreign instructors, and not necessarily a representative sample of the entire student body at the university. We believe this objective was met. At VMU, for example, the majority of foreign instructors are with the faculties of social sciences and humanities, and in fact students from these faculties represented 46% of our VMU sample. At KTU, most visiting foreign instructors belong to the administration faculty, due to the strong recruiting efforts of Dean Viktoria Baršauskienė; and 95% of our KTU sample derives from this faculty. Finally, the greatest number of visiting foreign teachers at VU are invited by the philology faculty, and this was also the highest represented faculty (24%) in our VU sample.

Profile of student respondents

Our sample (n=300) consists of 100 students from each of the three universities. It is dominated by female students (64.7%), with males representing only 35.3%. (In general, there is a much greater enrollment of females at Lithuanian universities). Student distribution by faculty in our sample was diversified: administration (31.3%), economics (11.0%), humanities (8.7%), philology (8.0%), social sciences (8.0%), law (6.0%), art (5.3%), history (5.0%) while remaining fields made up 16.7%. As discussed, the relatively high number from the administration faculty reflects the weight of the KTU sample.

The foreign language best understood by students in our sample was English (73.6%), followed by German (17.9%), French (5.1%), with other languages representing only 3.4% of the total. English was the language best understood by the vast majority of students at VMU (91.9%) and at KTU (84.9%), while at VU a balance existed between English (46.8%) and German (31.9%).

There appears to have been little or no "language barrier" between student and foreign teacher, as students self-evaluated their fluency in English as being "very good" (21.2%), "good" (48.4%), "average" (27.1%). For German, the self-evaluations were similar: "very good" (22.9%), "good" (39.6%), "average" (29.2%).

Our sample of students spent a substantial amount of class time with foreign instructors, which enhances the credibility of their responses. For example, 78.9% of the students stated they had taken two or more classes with a foreign teacher, and, surprisingly, some 24.2% had taken five or more courses.

Personal meetings or discussions with instructors outside of the classroom, however, did not appear to be commonly practiced by the students in our survey. Half of the students had never had a meeting with a foreign teacher outside the classroom, and neither had 56.2% met with a local instructor. It is likely that traditional Lithuanian social norms discourage fraternization between students and faculty.


Below, we discuss the responses to each of eight paired survey questions, as well as two non-paired questions. We attempt to identify major tendencies (e.g. 60% of the respondents indicated "very well" and "well"), rather than describe the full range of responses. (Complete frequency responses to the survey questions on instructors can be found in Appendix 1). We also compare the responses dealing with native instructors from the different universities, because these instructors represent a stable and identifiable group, and they may wish to use the survey results as a feedback mechanism.

The results of the paired questions are presented in order of the magnitude of the paired-sample t-value indicating the difference between sample means.

1. Difference in Teaching Methods

Our strongest finding, or the response which indicated the greatest perceived difference between local and foreign instructors, was simply this: a majority of the student respondents (70%) believed that there did exist a major difference in the teaching methods of local and foreign instructors. Some 15.3% did not agree there was a difference, and 14.7% stated they did not know. It should be noted that this is not an evaluative question, i.e. a difference in teaching methods does not necessarily mean that the methods of one group are better than those of the other.

On this issue, there was marked variation in the responses from the three universities. More students from VMU (75%) and KTU (74%) noted a difference in teaching methods, than did those from VU (60%).

2. Preference for Foreign Instructors

Another strong response, at first glance rather surprising, was that if given a choice for the same course, 58.7% of the students would choose the foreign instructor and only 20% the local instructor. (No preference was indicated by 21.3%).

In an open-ended follow-up question, students were asked to explain their choice. While there were a variety of responses, most of them fell into natural categories, which are listed below in order of the number of responses (n).



Reason for preferring a foreign teacher

different or more interesting teaching methods or style
more interesting lectures and material
opportunity to improve language skills
provides more recent scientific information and literature
more friendly and sincere personality, and more open class atmosphere
more useful and practical course material 
use of more objective and "democratic" exams 
more professional and responsible in their general approach  
has a different outlook or mentality in dealing with problems

Several comments did not fit in the above categories, and some perhaps represent a student's desire to be cynical or humorous. They include: "does not require us to know more than he does", "forces us to learn", "as men they are interesting". One student mentioned that "there are no Lithuanian specialists in my area of interest".



Reason for preferring a native instructor

easier to study and understand the course material in Lithuanian
better understands the students and local conditions 
more competent, more demanding, more responsible, more systematic

Other comments, again, some perhaps intentionally cynical: "easier to cheat during exams", "we are not used to the western teaching system", and "I have more trust in local instructors".

Given that Lithuanian universities have been isolated from the West for more than 50 years, it is understandable that students would be extremely interested in foreign instructors and their lectures, and place value on their ability to provide recent scientific information and literature, as well as the opportunity to improve their language skills. It is clear that the students are riding a tidal wave of interest in the West. But it is also clear that on the basis of the response to this question the conclusion does not follow that local instructors are in reality less interesting or less professional than their Western counterparts. It would be of great interest to repeat this question 5-10 years from now, when the wave of interest in the "newness" of foreign instructors has somewhat subsided. Finally, student perception of the friendliness and openness of foreign instructors is probably best explained in terms of deep cultural traditions, rather than pedagogical technique.

Students at VMU indicated the highest preference for foreign instructors (60%), with only 8% choosing the local instructor. At KTU and VU, the preference for foreign instructors was somewhat lower (50% and 54%, respectively), with the local instructor selected by 31% and 21%, respectively. Possibly this relates to VMU having the highest number of foreign instructors.

3. Course Literature

Given the long period in which Lithuanian universities were kept away from mainstream Western scientific literature, we expected our survey to indicate that the courses of foreign instructors provided more recently published course literature, but we were interested in the magnitude of the difference. Our finding that 69.8% of the respondents felt that the reading material of foreign instructors was up-to-date, while only 11.7% indicated the same of local instructors, indicates a tremendous discrepancy. It highlights the great need for material assistance to university and public libraries in Lithuania. They are now in a deep crisis as their acquisition budgets are completely inadequate for the purchase of even moderately priced books from Western publishers, and their traditional sources of complimentary copies from Russian publishers have been cut off because of various political and economic factors.

According to our survey, little difference exists between the three universities in terms of the use of up-to-date literature in the courses of local instructors (KTU — 13%, VU — 12.1%, VMU — 10.2%). A more noticeable difference is in the use of out-of-date course literature. In our survey, 33.3% of the VU respondents felt that local instructors used out-of-date literature, 20.4% of the VMU students thought the same, with the lowest such percentage at KTU — 15%.

4. Use of "objective" type exam format

We were also curious about the extent to which "typically Western" teaching techniques or aids (e.g. multiple-choice exams, visual material such as slides or videotapes, supplementary handouts) were being adapted by local instructors. After 1989-90, most local instructors were probably aware that visiting foreign instructors were introducing new techniques. In our survey, 60% of the students noted that foreign instructors used a multiple-choice format for exams "often" or "very often". The corresponding percentage for local instructors was much lower, at 19.8%, and 60.8% of the students indicated that local teachers used this format "rarely" or "very rarely".

This is a non-evaluative question, as there is no evidence that the so-called "objective" format (i.e. exams featuring multiple-choice, true-false, matching) is superior to the use of "subjective" essay exams. It simply indicates that local faculty in Lithuanian universities did not have, and are not readily accepting, the tradition of using the "objective" exam format.

The highest acceptance of objective format exams appears to be at KTU, where 30% of our survey indicated that local instructors use it "often" or "very often". The corresponding percentage for VMU was 21%, and for VU was 10.2%.

5. Cheating during exams

Our survey findings in regard to student cheating during exams are disturbing (see Figure 1). Two-thirds of the students admitted that students cheat "often" or "very often" during exams given by local instructors. For foreign teachers the corresponding percentage was much lower, at 29.4%. This signals the existence of a real problem. Cheating during exams is widespread, blatant and, worst of all, it appears to be socially acceptable. It is an ongoing phenomenon that continues to surprise (perhaps "shock" is a better word) visiting foreign teachers in 1994, just as it did in 1991 (see Bollag 1991a: A41).

Widespread cheating is an unfortunate holdover from the soviet educational system. According to our informants, student cheating at that time was due in part to required attendance at numerous politicized courses dealing with atheism, marxism, history of the Communist Party, military skills, and other subjects. Students at Lithuanian universities perceived these courses to be valueless and made little effort to prepare for their examinations. Unfortunately, this syndrome "spread" to include most courses. Another factor was lax monitoring by the instructor. For example, it was unusual for some instructors to demonstratively read the newspaper during an examination — either ignoring the ongoing cheating or making only halfhearted efforts to stop it. Yet another factor was that at some universities certain exams could be repeated within a few days if the student failed to pass the first time.

The senior author has discussed this issue with local faculty, students and their parents. To a western observer, many of the viewpoints they express on the issue are unexpected, to say the least. Comments by instructors from all three universities range from resignation ("I can't stop them from cheating") to cynicism

Figure 1. Student response (n=300) to survey question: "How often do students cheat during the instructor's exam?"

Figure 2. Student response (n=299) to survey question: "How well does the instructor prepare his classroom lecture?"

("I don't care if they cheat or not"). Parents have said: "Don't be so hard on the students. Let them cheat". Students have explained (carefully, as though talking to a very slow individual) that it is clearly necessary to cheat on exams because it increases the probability of getting a higher grade, which translates directly into a higher monthly student stipend given by the university. All of this suggests the existence of a major and serious problem, which needs to be addressed by university rectors.

Students at KTU indicated the highest rate of cheating, as 74% of them stated that students cheated "often" or "very often" during exams given by local instructors, and 32% said the same was true with foreign teachers. At VU and VMU, the corresponding percentage for local instructors was somewhat lower (64% and 61%, respectively), as it was for non-native instructors — 27% and 29%, respectively.

6. Course outline

Another somewhat disturbing finding was that only 28.1% of the survey felt that local instructors "always" or "almost always" gave to their students a course outline handout at the start of the class. This contrasts sharply with foreign instructors, corresponding percentage was 61%. A course outline represents an important detailed agreement between the instructor and the student as to the scheduled lecture topics and course reading list, generated by the instructor, as well as the course requirements, to be understood and followed by the students. It is difficult to justify its absence, despite arguments by some instructors that "it's too expensive to provide photocopies for my large class" or, as one dean of a humanities department told the senior author: "Course outlines represent the sort of rigid thinking that we associate with the soviet era. We have no use for them."

In our opinion, the infrequent use of course outlines by local instructors (60.8% of the survey indicated they "rarely" or "very rarely" provided them) is another issue that needs to be addressed by university administration in Lithuania.

According to our survey, there is little difference between the three universities in terms of how frequently course outlines are provided by local instructors. At KTU, 30% of the respondents indicated they were handed out "always" or "almost always", followed by VMU and VU (27.2% and 27%, respectively).

7. Grading of exams

Another survey finding which is cause for concern: local instructors were perceived by only 34.6% of the students to have evaluated their exams "fairly" or "very fairly", while 67.2 felt that foreign instructors did so. Students informed us that irrelevant factors often play a role in the grading of an exam, such as quantity of the answer rather than its quality, class attendance, agreement with the instructor's point of view, and personality issues. They also stated that there is a widespread practice of parents bribing instructors to alter exam grades, particularly those for university admission to competitive faculties.

One local docent who teaches a large introductory history course allows his students in lieu of the examination to translate from English to Lithuanian various scholarly articles, whose subject matter, unfortunately, is often entirely unrelated to that of the course. When the senior author asked how he could justify this action, and for whose benefit the articles were being translated, he answered that "it was for the good of the university". At another university, a docent of computer science had the following comment on exam abuse by instructors: "The situation is actually much improved from even a few years ago. Then, in order to pass their course requirements, some doctoral students of computer science were more or less required to help build their professor's summer cottage."

Our survey shows variation between the three universities with respect to student perception of the objectivity of their local instructor's efforts in grading examinations. Students at VMU gave their instructors the highest rating, with 43% indicating that local teachers graded exams "fairly" or "very fairly". At VU, the corresponding percentage was 37.3%, while at KTU it was only 27.3%. It is possible that the negative perception of instructor exam evaluation at KTU is related to the finding previously discussed of a relatively high rate of student cheating on exams at the same institution.

8. Satisfaction with level of teaching

In the survey, 67% of the students indicated they were "satisfied" or "very satisfied" with the level of teaching by foreign instructors, while only 35.3% said the same of local instructors.

Indeed, 62% of the students indicated that their satisfaction with the local instructor's teaching level was "average" or that they were "dissatisfied".

Highest satisfaction with the teaching level of local instructors appears to be at KTU, where 42% of the students indicated they were "satisfied" or "very satisfied". At VU, the corresponding percentage was 34%, and at VMU — 30%.

9. Lecture preparation

Figure 2 shows that 73.3% of the students surveyed believed that foreign instructors prepared their classroom lectures "well" or "very well", but only 44.4% stated this held true for native teachers. Nearly half of the respondents felt that the lectures of native instructors reflected only "average" preparation. This finding is subject to different interpretations. It may again simply reflect student interest and enthusiasm in hearing a lecture delivered in a foreign language. On the other hand, it is more likely that it reflects teacher apathy and represents yet another soviet holdover. An example comes to mind: one elderly instructor of sociology is well known for reading out loud columns of statistical data to his class for up to 20 consecutive minutes.

Students at VMU gave their local instructors the highest rating, with 48% indicating that the teachers prepared their lectures "well" or "very well". At KTU, the corresponding percentage was 46%, and at VU it was 38%.

10. Learning of course material

Response to the important question as to how much students felt they had learned from their instructors reflected the smallest perceived difference between local and foreign teachers. The survey showed that 53% of the students believed they learned "much" or "very much' from the courses of foreign instructors, and 35.6% said the same of local teachers.

Students at KTU showed the highest satisfaction with how much they had learned from the courses of local instructors, with 44% indicating that they had learned "much" or "very much". At VU and VMU, the corresponding percentages were somewhat lower, at 32% and 31%, respectively.


1. Native and non-native instructors

The findings from the survey which compare native and non-native instructors can be divided into two groups, each with different interpretations and implications. One group of questions was non-evaluative, i.e. the responses reflect differences which are not inherently "good" or "bad", but are simply different. For example, the majority of students indicated that, in general, major differences did exist in the teaching methods of local and foreign teachers. Among these differences, non-native instructors were perceived to use "objective" type exam formats, and to provide more up-to-date course reading material, much more often than native teachers. The majority of students indicated that if given a choice for the same course, they would choose the foreign teacher over the local one.

We believe the above findings are easily interpreted within the context of Lithuania's forced isolation from the West for some 50 years. Students are clearly attracted to foreign instructors, and place great value on their new teaching methods, their open "western" personality styles, their ability to provide recent scientific information and literature, as well as a chance to improve English and German language skills. But there is nothing in this context to imply that the methods of local teachers are in any way unequal or substandard.

Responses to another set of survey questions, however, suggested the existence of an ethical problem in the methods or conduct of a substantial percentage of native teachers. A majority of the students clearly indicated their perception that local teachers, compared to foreign instructors, graded exams less fairly, allowed more cheating during exams, did not prepare their lectures as well, and rarely provided course outlines. The sample of students stated that they were more satisfied with the teaching level of non-native instructors, and that they learned more in their courses.

This negative perception of local teachers also needs to be viewed within the context of Lithuania's past — but from the standpoint of long exposure, and accommodation, to a soviet educational system which stressed collective effort over individual responsibility, and political party loyalty over classroom ethics and teacher integrity. In this context, the survey findings suggest the existence of a major problem in the Lithuanian university system. In 1993, all of the 15,000 instructors with advanced degrees in Lithuania were asked to submit credentials to verify their academic validity (Bollag 1993). This was an important first step towards university reform. The findings of our survey indicate the need for further reform, conducted at the national level, to develop and implement professional standards of classroom ethics among university instructors.

2. Native instructors — KTU, VMU, VU

A final part of our analysis compared student perception of local instructors among the three universities. Here, the sample from KTU (largely restricted to the administration faculty) indicated:

— the highest percentage of students who were satisfied with the teaching level of local instructors
— the highest percentage of students who felt they had learned much or very much from local instructors
— the highest percentage of students who thought that "objective" exam formats were used often or very often by local instructors
— the lowest percentage of students who felt that out-of-date course literature was used by local instructors
— the lowest percentage of students who felt that local instructors graded exams fairly or very fairly
— the highest percentage of students who felt that cheating during exams given by local teachers took place often or very often

The sample from VMU (representing most faculties) indicated:

— the highest percentage of students who thought there was a difference between local and foreign instructors
— the highest percentage of students who, given a choice for the same course, preferred foreign instructors to local teachers
— the highest percentage of students who thought local instructors prepared their lectures well or very well
— the highest percentage of students who thought local instructors graded exams fairly or very fairly
— the lowest percentage of students who felt that cheating during exams given by local teachers took place often or very often
— the lowest percentage of students who felt they had learned much or very much from local instructors
— the lowest percentage of students who were satisfied or very satisfied with the teaching level of local instructors

The sample from VU (primarily the philology, law, economics, and philosophy faculties) indicated:

— the lowest percentage of students who thought there was a difference between local and foreign instructors
— the lowest percentage of students who, given a choice for the same course, preferred foreign instructors to local teachers
— the lowest percentage of students who thought local instructors prepared their lectures well or very well
— the lowest percentage of students who thought that "objective" exam formats were used often or very often by local instructors
— the highest percentage of students who felt out-of-date course literature was used by local instructors

Based on our sample, greatest student satisfaction with local instructors appears to be at KTU. A problem area, however, appears to be in student cheating during exams and instructor objectivity in grading exams. The VMU sample is marked by a preference for foreign instructors and a relative lack of satisfaction with local teachers. But the latter attitude is somewhat contradicted by the relatively high evaluation of local instructors in terms of their lecture preparation and fairness of exams. It is therefore unclear to what extent local instructors at VMU are accepting the "western model" offered by emigree professors who helped to re-open the university. The VU sample is for the most part neutral, with relatively low enthusiasm for both foreign an local instructors. This is surprising, considering that entry examinations held at VU this July (with 3182 applicants for 1021 seats) were the most competitive among all Lithuanian universities (Gudavičiūtė 1994).

In sum, the findings of the survey indicate that most university students believe there are major differences in the teaching methods of native and non-native instructors. In our view, much of the overwhelmingly positive response to foreign teachers merely reflects the natural enthusiasm of students during their first exposure to a new, and different, Western approach towards teaching. Other differences noted by the students, however, do raise some serious questions about the integrity and professionalism of many native instructors in Lithuanian universities. Additional research is undoubtedly necessary to corroborate or refute our findings. We therefore urge that the issue be explored further, and we will gladly share our database with any researchers seriously interested in the problem.


Bollag, B. (1991a) "For Educators in the Baltics, Overcoming Soviet Legacy is Harder Than Expected." The Chronicle of Higher Education 38 (No. 10): A40-42.
 (1991b) "Freedom for the Baltics Prompts a Flurry of Academic Contacts." The Chronicle of Higher Education 38 (No. 12): A43-44 
(1993) "Lithuanian Academics Expect to Continue Campus Reforms." The Chronicle of Higher Education 39 (No. 19): A39. 
Monaghan, P. (1990) "American Academics of Lithuanian Descent Help to Revive Vytautas Magnus University, Shut Down by Soviets in 1950". The Chronicle of Higher Education 37 (No. 9): A3. 
Gudavičiūtė, D. (1994) "Ateitį šalies jaunimui garantuos politika ir užsienio kalbos?" Lietuvos rytas 137 (liepos 15, nr. 1081): 1-3.
 Ratkevičiūtė-Misevičienė; J. (1992) "Humanitarinės kultūros link." Mokslas ir Gyvenimas 1(411): 8-9.

 APPENDIX I. Survey results: student comparison of local and foreign instructors.

1. Do you agree that a significant difference exists between teaching methods used by local and foreign instructors?


No opinion


2. Given a choice for the same course, which instructor would you choose?

No preference


3. How would you evaluate the reading material assigned by the instructor?

(n=297)  Local
(n=298)  Foreign






Transformed mean1


Note 1. The transformed mean was obtained by converting the ordinal response scale (either 3 point or 5 point) into an interval scale. For example, in Question No. 3: up-to-date =1, average=2, out-of-date=3.
Note 2. All t-values had a 2-tail level of significance of .000, indicating that in each case the null hypothesis can be rejected.


4. How often does the instructor use a multiple-choice exam format?

(n=298)  Local
(n=298)  Foreign

Very often





Very rarely



5. How often do students cheat during the instructor's exam?

(n=300)  Local
(n=299)  Foreign

Very often





Very rarely



6. At the beginning of the course, does the instructor give you a course outline?

(n=299)   Local
(n=300)  Foreign


Almost always



Very rarely



7. In general, are your exams graded fairly by the instructor?

(n=298)   Local
(n=299)  Foreign

Very fairly




Not fairly

Very unfairly



8. Are you generaly satisfied with the instructor's level of teaching?

(n=300)   Local
(n=300)  Foreign

Very satisfied





Very disatisfied



9. How well does the instructor prepare his classroom lecture?

(n=300)   Local
(n=298)  Foreign

Very well





Very poorly



10. How much did you learn from the instructor's course?

(n=300)   Local
(n=299)  Foreign

Very much





Very little




* Since 1991, the senior author has served as a visiting associate professor of anthropology and art history at Vytautas Magnus University. He is grateful for having received Fulbright support during 1992-94. The junior author is studying towards an M.A. in sociology at the same university. The authors thank Dr. Marie-Louise Sanden and Dr. Elfar Loftsson, both from Linchoping University and Mr. Dale Gardner of Northwestern University (all visiting instructors at the Faculty of Social Sciences, VMU) for their constructive suggestions on the pilot study of this project, conducted by the junior author. We are also grateful to Dr. Vitolis Sekliuckis of KTU for reading and commenting upon a draft of this paper. The views expressed in this study are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of our reviewers or of the Fulbright Foundation.