institutions teaching English, and challenged the existing standards of language
competence. The effectiveness of students' performance, which used to be viewed in
terms of linguistic effectiveness (grammar, vocabulary, phonetics, etc.) acquired new
dimensions of para-linguistic (body language, facial expressions, etc.) and extra-
linguistic competence (cultural awareness). The bottom line of this competence is
the effective usage of English for communication purposes in the future careers of
the students: thus performance objectives replaced purely educational objectives, or
learning the language for its own sake. To provide the students with this competence
in a constantly changing universe, teachers had to familiarize themselves with real-
life situations and new relevant areas of knowledge which might require the
knowledge of English on the part of our students. Innovative teachers had to acquire
computer and business correspondence skills, to learn about negotiations and
reports, and study the subject matter of customer service, business ethics and
international business culture. Without awareness of what goes on in the world of
business, we cannot claim to be effective teachers of communication in that world.
Before perestroika, when teaching the language, we used to go deeper, now we
probably have to go wider. But it was not only the approach which changed in this
way — our audiences changed too. Workers and engineers on the oil rigs of Russian-
American joint ventures, accountants of representative offices of foreign companies,
people who were going to work overseas, young managers who planned to take MBA
courses in Britain or the U.S. could not attend classes for years, laboriously studying
articles and tenses, practicing spelling and transcription. Their careers, and
sometimes their survival, depended on learning the basics really fast. So the time
span available for training became pitfall number one. However, it was not the whole
story: these people were mostly adults and not secondary school children, some of
them occupied high executive or administrative positions, so it was an entirely new
audience. How would you, for example, like to teach English to the President of
Russia? Would you set him home tasks and give bad marks? The teachers of
yesteryear had to make adaptations to an entirely new, demanding and extremely
busy audience for whom English was not a subject, but an instrument for career
advancement. Besides changing our teaching styles, teaching people like that also
meant leaving our familiar environment and school setting; it meant teaching on
location (how would you like going to Siberia?) or probably in a spaciou-
presidential office, run in-house or on-the-job training programs leaving the
familiar security of a classroom in which you are always the boss. While teaching
English one-to-one can be considered a real luxury (if "the other one" is pleasant
and teachable enough), we often had to teach English to a multi-level, multi-age and
multi-background group with different language backgrounds, different job
positions and characters. Sometimes this team, assorted and brought together for
different reasons, presented nothing short of "a Russian salad", which seemed to be
hard to digest at times. Most of the modern teachers, even those who teach at
schools and universities, subscribe to the opinion that now more than ever there ь
no such thing as a homogeneous class in terms of personality and ability. But ever
this challenge was easier to take than the fact that we did not know quite well wha:
kind of English was to be taught. Owing to the variety of teaching situations we founc
126